I'm occasionally amazed how some people diminish their perceived expertise in obvious ways...
Practice What You Preach
The premise for this blog posting came about from some recent Twitter posts. An aspiring provider (http://dnntack.com) advertised its services via Twitter. This was quickly followed by a number of tweets from DotNetNuke pros amusingly observing that the provider's own website consisted of plain HTML pages rather than DotNetNuke. Adding even more insult: dnntack's plain HTML site is made to look like a DNN site, even down to what would appear to be a standard DNN Feedback module on the Contact Us page (but is simply a plain HTML FORM). The site advertises that "we are expert in dnn skin and container designing" and "if you want to convert existing website in dnn then we help you". Judging from the company's own site, I'm left to wonder if this means "we can help you move from your DNN site to HTML" rather than the other way around. Come on, dnntack -- step #1 is to convert your own HTML site into DNN before you advertise that service to the world.
Keeping Up with the Times
In the DNN world "keeping up" most often means upgrading the version of DotNetNuke and/or modules you employ. This is especially true if DNN IS your business. Lagging a few minor releases behind is usually no big deal and can often be beneficial. Lagging behind by too many major versions, however, is almost inescusable if your site is used to promote your expertise in DNN and/or related technologies.
"Very-Old-Version Offenders":
What message are you sending about your "ASP.Net users group" if you are still using DNN 2.x for your group's website? That's like playing an AM radio at a convention of home audio enthusiasts. I'm looking at you, Spokane Users Group (http://sug.dotnetprogramming.com/) ... I think the message people may be getting is "Hey, we love the 1.1 framework!" UPDATE 9/21/2010: The Spokane .NET Users Group has updated their website to a much nicer look and layout. Surprisingly it is also now a PHP site (for a .NET users group???)
Or how about you, Wollongong .Net Users Group (http://www.wdnug.org.au)? You're meeting this month to look at the latest iteration of Windows 7 but your DotNet-based website is still DNN 2.1.2?!? As a .Net Users Group, I think a look at framework 3.5 with DNN 5.1 (or maybe even framework 2.0 with DNN 4.x) may also be of some interest to your members... UPDATE 9/21/2010: WDNUG apparently attempted to upgrade to a newer version of DotNetNuke with, uh, less-than-perfect results judging from the "DotNetNuke Upgrade Error" page that now greets visitors. It's good to see that someone is making an attempt to update things...
Full disclosure: I can't cast too many stones as this blog currently runs under DNN 4.6.2 (the oldest DNN version I still support) and uses the previous release of the BLOG module. The latest BLOG release is leaps and bounds better and I've already upgraded to it (and to newer versions of DNN) on all of my other DNN sites. UPDATE 9/21/2010: Yes, I'm still supporting some clients running on 4.6.2 so I'm still relegating this site to the same version (i.e., their pain is my pain until I can convince them to upgrade). The latest versions of DNN are sooooo very much better...
Exception: Bloggers
I've witnessed some DotNetNuke bloggers using Wordpress or Blogger or some other plaform to blog about DNN instead of using some sort of blog module running on DotNetNuke. If your intent is purely to share knowledge in the easiest possible way then there are certainly better (current) options than DNN. The DNN BLOG module team has really improved the module over the past couple of years. Joe Brinkman and Rip Rowen, among many others, have each posted their thoughts on this subject. Joe does not use the BLOG module, Rip does use it, but both Joe and Rip recognize the improvements made to BLOG as well as the room for growth when compared to the major non-DNN blogging platforms. My opinion? Unless you are using a blog as your online presence to advertise your "DNN solutions" business, there is no shame in using a more-capable blog platform to disseminate DNN-related tips and opinions.
Other Examples?
Do you have an example of someone hurting their own efforts as they relate to the use or promotion of DNN? Please share!