Cathar
you've been making some really good posts lately, this is another
(horrible syntax at the start)

hey pH
why not close this on a high note ? (deleting this post)

What the hell? You verified the fact without testing! That's impossible! I guess that's correct, you never said it explicitly and I did do some reading in there. However, you should understand your system fairly well, better than just some guy for sure. And my brother is a representative of McDonald's. So? My dad is a representative of the government. So? Cathar's a representative of Australia. So?

I believe, to the contrary, that Bill is giving Swiftech a very good name. Before Bill, their products were mediocre. Now they're top of the line.

We're saying you're lying, and you are, although you do not seem to know it. I'd suggest that you get off your high horse, head over to the library, and read a big long book on flow and pressure. You might be able to find the necessary information on the Internet, but the Internet is filled with lies and glaring inaccuracies. This is the problem. ALL reviewers feel that they are helping although the vast majority of them are hurting watercooling and the readers.

Yes, that is the procooling way. This is the fastest way to get people to learn of their own mistakes. We aren't trying to hurt you, just to make you not hurt others (or maybe we are trying? I don't know. I pick apart the review and usually not the reviewer [excepting Liquid3D, of course]) We do the same thing to every single review that comes our way. If I see something wrong (it's an impellor, not a propellor) I will state what I see wrong with it, as will most others.

Truer words are seldom spoken.

agreed, really like the one in the choking the inlet about the lifecycle of a forum

and one on OCers about 3/8" tubing that was stunning
his best was the Simpson routine with his daughter (does anyone know which thread ?)

My name is SoulsEnd and I’m the Site Owner of ModdersHQ. It has come to my attention that MHQ has received some less the favorable feedback on the review of the DD pump. On that note I would like to thank those that offered constructive criticism. It’s your comments that will help MHQ grow into the website that I personally would like it to be. Please take note of the word “grow” I used. MHQ “opened its doors” late last year and we have quickly become more then just a blip on the radar but in the same breath, we are still growing. To grow is to become more educated and in some cases, to become more educated comes at the cost of error. Could we have done more testing on this one review? I couldn’t agree more. At that point in time, did Green do the best to his ability, yes.

My request is this. Please point out our faults but at the same time let us in on the corrections needed. We all started somewhere and at some point there was someone that gave you a hand. I’m asking simply for the same respect. I couldn’t agree more that there are to many reviews that fall short around the Internet and this time the egg is on my face…so to speak. It’s a lot like someone reviewing a case and not installing a single piece of hardware or checking out a Video card without a benchmark.

With all that being said, if anyone here is interested in becoming a reviewer of water-cooling related products and feel you can produce the level of review that is required, I would be happy to talk to them.

Side note…Cathar, I absolutely love the Cascade SS. Great block mate.

soulsend@moddershq.net

soulsend
valid comments, new site, growing, etc.
but
factual inaccuracies are just that, incorrect statements; with which I have 2 issues
- the propagation of scientific untruths (sounds pompous, but true)
- the damage to a mfgr by a false assertion

these are rather easy to resolve
- have a competent editor review the articles
- afford the mfgr PRIOR opportunity to correct FACTUAL errors, only

now the last can be difficult where products are being compared, but is still necessary to avoid economic damage from false statements

in as positive a sense as I may say such, you need a more experienced editor;
then writers such as this one will be their problem

BTW, I doubt "My name is SoulsEnd . . ", I believe that is your nick (the accuracy thing)

Oops guess I should have run the 6002 review by you eh Bill. I got a wild hair late last night and just banged it out though. Any corrections?

Ummmm...ok. Got me there. :shrug:

dunno, somehow I 'feel' I don't have to ck your work
LOL

GreenPsycho
I may owe you an apology for calling you a liar, but you are so imprecise and variable that I am unsure. Giving you a little slack, not a liar. I apologize.
But terribly incompetent for what you attempted to do.

soulsend
its not a gotcha kinda thing, just accuracy

soulsend

No one is attacking MHQ. We are simply addressing the fact that we found a few possible errors in a review you hosted. When the author of the review responded to our collective "comments" he lied about a number of things (his testing methods and if he even DID tests being the major issues.)

I'm sure most people here, and in water cooling in general, prefer factual and accurate reviews. As a community, it is our responsibilitiy to police eachother and ensure that the correct information is shared.

We all know and accept that there is a (huge?) learning curve here. Many of us (myself especially) are on the low end of this curve. However, a REVIEWER, more than a casual user/poster, has an obligation to post truthfully and accurately. He didn't, and it makes him look bad.

This is what we aren't so good at.

I've laid out my problems and most of them are easily correctable if your writer would pick up the basics on flow and pressure (and change that damned graph!) It would only take a couple hours of good, hard research to do and it would improve his reviews immensely. I don't know where all this stuff can be easily learned, but I'd imagine that he can pick something up on google or in a *shudder* library.

Those of us who can do better either write reviews or have a vested (or apparently vested) interest in this (some are lazy). I wish I could say I could write a better review but I honestly don't know.

People around here have been spoiled by people like Bill and Cathar and Les who know what the hell they are talking about and are eager to share test results and ideas. Sorta poisons the well for some kid who just wants to post a fluff review on a modding site and help it get a few hits.

Sorry if I came off like an asshole before. I'm usually pretty tired by the end of the work day and today had to deal with people periodically interrupting my work to ask me questions about their schedules. I will skip sleep tonight though and be caught up tomorrow am when it's time for work.

OH NO WE'VE BEEN SPOILED WITH ACCURACY!

Doesn't accuracy bring hits? I spread tonnes of overclockers.com and procooling.com links around the Internet due to accuracy (continually more worried about overclockers.com accuracy, though :S)

Edit: Hmm... I guess this guy's inaccuracy got lots of hits from us... Hmm...

That'll make you sound like less of an asshole.

Did anyone else read THIS ARTICLE from the ModdersHQ front page?

How can you thoroughly and fairly review a product without the proper equipment? It seems like the guy has good intentions and I was probably too harsh earlier in my comments about his just looking for freebies.

I think its obvious in most of these cases that the intentions are good but the understanding is lacking. There is no one "textbook" on PC water cooling - most people learn either from what they themselves observe casually or from others on forums, and often infer incorrectly from even the best of sources - I know I have at times.

Since the majority of us either lack the time or the knowledge to compile a "textbook" maybe we should consider creating a Water Cooling Wiki so that many knowledgeable people can contribute, and the entire community can use it as an easy resource?

I believe that is what http://www.ocfaq.com/ was meant to achieve.

Its not a particularly original idea - I'm not surprised to see that something with similar (if much wider ranging) goals exists. A quick look shows that the support in the water cooling section is basically nil - without the input of knowledgable people, a wiki is useless. A Procooling backed WC only wiki would probably recieve better support - both from Procooling members and from the community. I can already see the arguements about iffy statements posted in the wiki though..... :rolleyes:

was not a knowledge base the idea behind the "Linkage" section here ?

does it need to be made more useful ?
how ?

Looking to be spoon-fed, Bill? :) Then click here.

spoons work, when you can get them
Thanks

anyone not famaliar with Cathar's humor, read this link

I can rebuild the Linkage section if you guys think it needs help. I even have access to the cgi_bin of the server nowadays I think so I can hack up the format. I quit working with it because no new links were being submitted. Come to think of it I am not certain that it works with the new server; I'll check on that today.

Bill:
I need a Wiki entry for Kepco stuff. Are you around a phone? I'm at home today and watching a couple of ebay auctions come close to their end

I would wonder if the Linkage section is being used ?
can you get the traffic stats ? (pg sequence, time per page, etc.)

the 'problem' may be getting peeps to go there

Well the site gets about 7 visitors a day on a good day so we aren't talking about a huge dissemination of information

???
I get more than that on the TMT site
7 unique URLs ?

seen this ? (not too useful, but interesting)
http://www.touchgraph.com/TGGoogleBrowser.html

give Groth some mouse fits

I never knew that the linkage section existed, to be honest.

T'was a joke Bill; site gets at least DOUBLE 7 unique hits a day :)

I was thinking, pretty cheap banners here !

not cheap on a "per pageview basis" though (if I were telling the truth)

How many people show up when HardOCP links to a review?