Once more I have to talk about an issue that burns in my brain these days.
Interviews, the stuff we love to read. Straight from the horses mouth, as Aldous would say, I guess.
A good interview is defined by a couple of points I'd say, so here we go:
1. It needs to have someone who tries to be objective, but looking for the truth to have the right questions
2. It needs to have someone who gives good answers to these questions. Answers that lead to new questions maybe, but in the end answers that satisfy the reader
3. It needs to be a tool to setup your own mind, without pushing you into a certain direction while reading it
What could I possibly say now?
I had the chance to work with guys who did a great job in interviewing. Websites like Gotfrag, Rushed or Readmore have proven themselves already.
Others should take it up from there and follow them. I mean, is it so hard to play by the rules?
If you out there really want to get your own opinion posted, use a Blog, use comments or even a column, but please spare us the time for ansering questions or reading about the whole story, when all you do is spread your own thoughts.
Two suggestions for you, for the future:
1. When doing an interview, keep the questions the way you asked them. Don't change them, otherwise Q&A might not fit any more and there is no sense in that, I guess.
2. Under no circumstances and by any chance, do not include your own comments on answers below them afterwards. Doing an interview means Q&A. The rest is between the lines.
I guess there are words for stuff like this and guess what, it is not called an interviuew!
Reading this you might realize I am a bit, well, let's say pi**ed :)
Those of you that are interested in what I am talking about will find it, I am sure!
To the rest:
Hey you good guys out there, doing great interviews, you are doing a great job and whenever you will ask for it, we will have the time and pleasure answering your questions!
Cheers