Did the survey quote the salaries as yearly or monthly? I'm not used to thinking of yearly salaries in RMB!

Naughty Danwei!

Please endeavor to get at least the basic facts correct -- viz, the survey was done over 15 cities in 7 countries.

Those countries were: Australia, China, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand and Singapore.

Which, it should be noted, are such disparate economies that one cannot help wondering how this "survey" is even remotely useful or relevant.

[EDITOR'S NOTE: JG: The survey is of 15 countries, 7 in Asia Pacific. Post corrected above]

The salaries are yearly.

From the page _you_ linked to:

"This year’s salary survey was more comprehensive than ever before with over 5,000 survey responses from employers in 15 cities across seven countries in the Asia Pacific region – Australia, China, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand and Singapore."

[EDITOR'S NOTE (JG): From the print book that we took the salary numbers above from:

"The survey was carried out in ten languages across 15 countries via the web and face to face interviews conducted by Aquent" (page 7, Asia Pacific Edition of Aquent Orange Book 2006-2007)]

So their "book" differs from what's on their website? Anyone else hopelessly confused?

Another reason, as if more were needed, to completely ignore this useless survey.

Again -- how are monthly salaries in Australia and Japan even remotely connected to monthly salaries in China?

Shan, the dedication you show toward improving the quality of the information reported on Danwei is admirable. However, in this instance your enthusiasm may be misdirected. If you have an issue with Acquent's press-release misrepresenting the data contained in its full, printed report, you may wish to contact the company directly at the phone number listed at the bottom of the linked page.

Joel, while the sarcasm you deftly hide in your passive-agressive response may show a mastery of the art, I feel that it may be misdirected.

If you wish to take the lazy route of presenting press releases as "news" on Danwei, it is incumbent on YOU -- not your readers -- to make some kind of justification of its newsworthiness.

Now, if Danwei's story were: "Survey shows designers in China earn TEN TIMES LESS than their managers" then that would be fine.

But simply placing these questionable figures on your website and expecting no pushback is just silly.

Actually, if we're honest, it's just advertising. Now if that's what we're doing here, that's ok, but the "generally accepted standards of courtesy" you bang on about seem to require you to flag ads as such.

What are you suggesting, exactly, that I -- as a person who visits your site and clicks on your links -- do when I find a story isn't (and still isn't) accurate, and furthermore isn't much of a story?

Shrug? Ignore it? Find some other site to read? Let me know when you figure that out. If criticism is posted from your readers, then "taking it personally and publishing sarky comments" seems to be your current policy. Which is odd, really, just odd.