Pale Moon makes Top-Ten on current Browser list

[Pallid Planetoid]

I thoroughly contend any level of exposure to potential clientele is always better than no exposure at all.... to the extent we disagree on this point; we can all agree to disagree.

[Moonchild]

Right, because all the bashing we've received over the years has done so much good for the project. Hate to break it to you, but you are completely wrong.
But hey, think whatever you want. I'm done here.

[Pallid Planetoid]

I use Pale Moon exclusively as my browser of choice because I obviously prefer it as contrasted to other browsers I've tried (and I've tried dozens -- actually at this time with 8 others currently installed). While I could be wrong of course, I'm inclined to think this likely applies to anyone else who is also using Pale Moon in the same way as I am.

To the extent that I and others alike in this regard that prefer Pale Moon as their browser of choice may happen to be relatively unique and therefore only represent the minority of browser users then perhaps my conclusions are indeed wrong.

With that point in mind however, I'd like to think that I am actually not that far out of the main-stream and as such am inclined to believe in that case greater exposure to Pale Moon (as far as those who would otherwise be unaware of Pale Moon) will necessarily be beneficial to its user-base (which for the most part is of course how and why we have the current user-base that exists today).

Bottom line, as a user with an enduring preference for Pale Moon, I'm inclined to hold the opinion that more exposure to what I highly regard personally would most assuredly not be deleterious to the browser user-base in full knowledge of course that personal opinion (as in all cases) is inherently biased by definition.

[moonbat]

With that point in mind however, I'd like to think that I am actually not that far out of the main-stream and as such am inclined to believe in that case greater exposure to Pale Moon (as far as those who would otherwise be unaware of Pale Moon) will necessarily be beneficial to its user-base (which for the most part is of course how and why we have the current user-base that exists today).

Going by numbers, we are far from the mainstream, who will all unquestioningly use Chrome. A few of them fall for Mozilla's marketing tactics and assume Firefox is the best ever. Our user-base is self selecting and we are all mostly power users who like setting up our browser the way we want without a company arbitrarily changing things or imposing their views.

All attempts earlier to talk about Pale Moon have been met with derision and hatred from Mozilla shills who keep spreading falsehoods about it being obsolete, insecure, and doomed to fail for being too different from what Firefox has become (demonstrating their ignorance of what a fork means).

The fact that it caters to a small subset of users who actually care about being in control of their browsing experience is a feature, not a bug. Let the general public that doesn't care about features remain with their mainstream browsers.

[Pallid Planetoid]

^ Great points -- which speaks to my tendency to over-estimate people in general I guess as it is clear that it is "herd mentality" that propels Google Chrome to the top of browser market share unfortunately. That said, I still cannot see how in any way exposure to an alternate product of any kind can become a negative as far as countering these kinds of attitudes.

[moonbat]

There are a few articles out there that are better described as hit pieces - full of falsehoods about the browser, and the authors clearly weren't interested in the truth. Moonchild has posted rebuttals to a couple of them on the forum but the damage is done anyway where perception goes. Try mentioning Pale Moon on the Firefox subreddit, for example, and see how far that gets you.

[Pallid Planetoid]

For the most part you're most likely correct in what you say -- but that said, I can testify to a number of FF converts that I've been able to persuade to use Pale Moon personally. My experience has been that a certain percentage of people I have introduced to Pale Moon have liked the browser. This is my point -- just for conversations sake let's say in a years time a couple hundred thousand people world wide (I have no idea how accurate that might be but this is a hypothetical example anyway) read this specific article and out of that couple hundred thousand there are ten thousand (5% of those who read the article) who have never heard of Pale Moon and out of that ten thousand we might have 500 (5% of those who were formerly not aware of PM) like it and adopt Pale Moon as their browser of choice. That to me sounds like a positive outcome and certainly not negative as portrayed by some in this discussion. Perhaps my hypothetical is off (maybe too high of numbers and then on the other hand perhaps far too low) -- but even if it's just 2% who like Pale Moon of the ten thousand per year world wide that are introduced to Pale Moon as a result of this article that's 200 new Pale Moon users per year based on my hypothetical. Clearly a good thing I'd say.... We can't say that the article would produce ZERO possible new Pale Moon users CAN WE (even if it's a mere .5%, instead of 2%, of new PM users as a result of the exposure that would still be 50 users)?

Again, I have personally experienced people I know who have switched from major browsers like Chrome and FF to Pale Moon upon my introducing them to Pale Moon. Sure there are die-hard users of the main-stream browsers but there are also those who are willing and many time very interested in fact in looking into alternatives and I still contend that the exposure Pale Moon would inevitably get from an article that lists it in the top-10 of browsers can't be a negative at all.

Bottom line: anyone familiar with business models and marketing would overwhelming agree that exposure to potential clientele who would otherwise be totally unaware of an enterprise that markets a reasonably good product will always be a positive for a growing concern. I simply cannot see how anyone can reasonably argue against this with a straight-face.... ... I'll leave it at that.