Talk:Ben Horowitz

Reverse chronology a bad choice - objections to change?
It is disjointing to read sections backwards. When I wish to gain insight into a person I am wanting to lay down a chronology for my use - which is by nature a forward one. As I do this, I am naturally scanning for details from section to section. By having a reverse chronology, the flow is broken from the forward flow within sections.

This article covers all basic journalistic structures, and except for teasers, no use of reverse chronology is mentioned.

http://www.writing-world.com/dawn/dawn06.shtml How to Craft a Great Article, Part I: Structure, Focus, Unity and Flow

However, I do not want to change this myself, before asking for objections.

Xgenei (talk) 04:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

+1 on having this in forward chronology, which confused me when I landed here.

James Aylett (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Ben Horowitz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.crn.com/it-channel/18828518;jsessionid=WEGV5L1FCNSB1QE1GHPCKHWATMY32JVN
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120208230221/http://news.cnet.com/2300-1001_3-10010632.html to http://news.cnet.com/2300-1001_3-10010632.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)