exactly, so if bill has tested this, lets see ALL the data! Bill accused Joemac of not releasing numbers as an example of being bias.
However I think this must be from Joe Citarella since its a 4 point and Bill gives 6 point for graphs. I think these are from 2 different testers. But only bill can answer that one unless you want to guess again, pH.

pH, I noticed that you were going to test the dden and swiftech blocks in a thread the other day. Why are you not testing the AquaJoe block? If fact I remember me challenging you to test it. You stated you were too busy. I think alot of people are grasping for anything they can in an attempt to prove a point they have previously derived at regardless of data. If pointing out that you guys are brick headed on what bias IS, then my understanding is ... you dont WANT to find out the answers that you find so easy to argue in absence of fact. Seeing you have made your conclusions without your own data shows.... (you guessed it).

You guys are grasping at straws attempting to paint Joemac as something when he says... "a little" or "as far as I know". In order to nail him down you have to be the judge of these abstract statements. Your determination to paint a negative picture of someone is clear as to your goals as you state you are without predudice and bias.. since they basically are one and the same. I notice that DDen said on their front page that the maze4 beat maze 3 by a couple of degrees. Both pH and Bill didn't jump all over that, even though the data we have seen shows that was clearly wrong. Why didn'y you guys bite on that one and attack with the same intensity oh bastions of unbias fervor?

If it walks like a duck...

I hope that Bill DOES post that commercial wb comparison he's been promising on www.swiftnets.com; what would you guys say then?

I will test the block, but I would want to test not only the block from aquajoe directly but also an end user block (not from you or Ben thanks) to verify that the waterblock that I test from mfgr is representative of end user performance. I don't want to have unrepresentative data of mine used to mislead consumers.

Kind of funny you take up Bill's side as you only spit out reviews of swiftech products. Let me guess... you aren't buying these. Let me guess, you keep them after you test them? Yup.. better take Bills side if your ganna get your palm greased. Bill says swiftech doesn't rely on reviews to spout out marketing. However, I see them sending them out to you even when they have the "best?" tester in their employ. Why send out products anywhere else unless Bills data could appear bias or homegrown since he profits and isn't.... un.. bias? Isn't Bill capable of doing these himself?

http://forums.procooling.com/vbb/sho...&threadid=8449

Speak up for him again and you might get the next 3 products as well! Since Bill doesn't need you to produce numbers he already knows, what does sending products to you yield?

edit: spelling

and I understand that EVERY test you have done is from an enduser block? Those swiftech units are used? Hardly! 2 different rules for different people? Why is that?

Hmmm. I just mailed a block off to Phaestus for testing. I asked that once he's done that he either returns it, or sells it and passes the money back to me, or he buys it. He neither asked for a discount nor a free block, and I'm not in a financial position to provide him with any. In the meantime he can keep it indefinitely for his upcoming waterblock roundup.

If you are accusing Phaestus (Derek) of taking "cash for comments", whether cash be actual money or donated blocks which can then be sold for money, then you had better provide some evidence of it, or retract your comments as they are quite libelous.

It is natural for water-block makers to seek independent testing. It is also natural for the water-block makers to seek independent testing based upon the tester showing an acute awareness of the issues that face water-block testing, rather than the pelthora of sloppy reviews we see about the place.

Phaestus is taking a position of independence and throwing his comments in the ring, yet you, Winewood, would seem intent on tarnishing everyone with the bias brush.

Ask yourself, why would any other waterblock maker (like me) pay out of his own pocket to send a block to review to someone who he believed would be biased?

I choose who I send blocks to very carefully. Not based on who will give me a good rap, but based on who will do the job properly.

Correct! why is independence needed? IN HOUSE BIAS!

I will start treating pH as unbias when his actions reflect it. Bias is true of everyone! Even me. To state that I was without it would be the ultimate hypocracy. Bias is a broad brush because its a fact of life.

I wish people would stop answering questions not directed at them. I get more suppostions presented as fact and the original questioned person doesn't answer the question!

Well, no. Not really.

The issue here really is the perception of bias.

Independent testing is needed because people will naturally perceive a manufacturer as providing biased results for their testing, regardless of how accurate that the data may be.

I do agree that if a manufacturer knows that if their product is not very highly performing that they won't push performance in their marketing spiel, but that is different to lying. That's selective marketing. Yes, it's bias, but it's not lying.

What I see as being confused here is "lying", as opposed to "bias".

There seems to me to be a broad number of categories that can be used to describe what's going on here:

1) Independent (unbiased) & accurate - the "ideal" reviewer
2) Independent & inaccurate (without intent to falsify) - large number of web-site reviews fall into this category
3) Independent & inaccurate (with intent to falsify) - this is a strange one, but we see it all the time in certain "independent" paid-for marketing reports. Really they are category 6) below.
4) Not-independent (biased whether perceived or real) & accurate - a manufacturer with good testing equipment
5) Not-independent & inaccurate (without intent to falsify) - a manufacture with faulty testing equipment
6) Not-independent & inaccurate (with intent to falsify) - certain web-site reviews

Seem to me that a lot of the fighting here is really about arguing where some people fit into each of the 6 (actually 5) categories.

winewood - you cannot expect to make accusations without allowing other people the right to reply. It doesn't matter that the comment was not directed towards me. I didn't see any questions directed at you in this thread before you replied, yet you chipped in anyway. Can't have the cake and eat it too.

[Edit - Fix some spelling mistakes and grammatical errors - really must get more sleep]

whinewood
you speak of everything except the numbers
why is that ?
posit your observations as a hypothetical, but speak to the numbers

but no, you attack, attack, and attack some more
its tiresome, say something technical for a change

the AquaJoe was tested on 11/20, the MCW5002 on 10/8; same setup and conditions

you ask for ALL the data, are you referring to the raw data and spreadsheet ?
such raw data has been posted before, if it predates you - too bad
the spreadsheets, no thank you, create your own (all the calcs have been defined)

or are you referring to data on other wbs ?
and would that be from other mfgrs' products, or from the numerous Swiftech R&D prototypes ?
- in the case of other mfgrs' wbs, did you pay for the costs associated with the development of this data ?
why do you think you have a claim to it ?
- in the case of our R&D work, are you as stupid as you seem ?
(rhetorical question)
-> note that Swiftech makes no claims of superiority, if such a point is to be made the data will be presented and the facts will pretty much speak for themselves; did you catch the graph above ?

you said:
"Bill accused Joemac of not releasing numbers as an example of being bias."
really ? - you are incorrect, and/or a LIAR
-> PROVIDE THE QUOTE

"2 different rules for different people? Why is that?"
will be apparent shortly

go back and read my whore analogy, does it fit you ?
you would do well to reflect on Cathar's last post, might clear your head

Whinewood,

What experience do you have in using or generating engineering data?

Over a one year period, I probably look at an average of two technical datasheets per day. (Electronic components.)

I don't assume that the manufacturer is providing me with data that is biased to reflect positively on their product. I assume that the manufacturer is giving me the most accurate data they can. And, if they aren't certain about some aspect, (because they don't do 100% testing for example) that the data they provide is so conservative that I am extremely unlikely to actually see the worst case value for that spec.

This is generally a safe assumption. The reason why is that if a manufacturer is wrong about their spec and doesn't correct the problem quickly and thoroughly I will most likely not even look at a component from that manufacturer for years. I will also pass on my opinion of such a manufacturer to other engineers. No manufacturer selling to engineers can afford to produce products which do not perform as specified. There is no long term profit to be had in doing so.

My employer does not ship equipment (test instruments) unless it has half or less of the actual error of our published spec. And, what we ship will generally stay within our published spec for five times the specified calibration period. (Or much longer.) This is how manufacturer's earn the trust and respect of their customers.

Whinewood, your comments toward Bill and pHaestus WRT to bias in the technical data they produce, just shows how ignorant and/or stupid you are.

Bias is not alway seen in numbers, sometimes its what is left out or marketing in conjunction with numbers can be bias. Testing one manufacturer with their hand in the pot (or yours in theirs) can be seen as bias or yields to it.
Cathar admitts, eloquently as usual, that people percieve bias when dealing with a manufacturer. The question then leads to.. why do they? Apparently Bill leads to the concept of tell people what to think and they will. Not necessarily with his test data but with his own perceptions of "what is". Communicating perceptions or his own judgements in an effort to bring down competition in a manner exhibited much stronger than in a non-commercial block leads to my understanding.

Apparently the golden calf of testing has brought sheep to defend the cause, but ignorance of bias does not dissipate it REGARDLESS. I have the right to my opinion. I have based my reasoning. Apparently someone has hit close to home or this thread would have faded along time ago. I invite EVERYONE to re-listen to the 1st posts radio link.

The answer stems from this post on the nordic review for Aquajoe
You are calling Joemac bias here. Marketer or salesman making his product look good by not posting technical data. If you understand the definition of bias, this is it. Therefore I justify my statement of "Bill accused Joemac of not releasing numbers as an example of being bias." I stand on my statement.
aside: So Bill, why are you using pH to review Swfitech's stuff? Is that an admission of an inferior product? Per your OWN words?

Not that the following happended EXACTLY.. but for arguements sake consider the following.

Bill is giving pH a product to test. He is instructing him on how to test it. What numbers he should get. If he doesn't come to these numbers, he is working with the tester (independent?) to come up with the pre tested (bills) numbers and then pH will submit this review as an unbias, objective review of a product. When you instruct or guide to numbers or or state that your own testing meathods are best (not arguiging that) that regradless of truth of best meathods is bias in itself. The bias is not in the numbers but of how they came about or the way the were presented after the fact.
I am not calling the numbers WRONG I am not saying anyone is lying to their own understanding ON THE NUMBERS. Its the package, presentation or derivation of what is correct, THIS is the bias.

If you guys can't see that bias doesn't have to be intentional or seen by yourself. You don't have to admit it personally but it is there.
You oh engineer.. have twisted Joemac in a light to be an absolute liar of truth, when in practice it wasn't absolute in my understandings. Even a misunderstanding and a statement thereafter is a shading of a meaning. A speaker of absolutes Bill or denier of bias in this case is the decieved.

btw Not acceptable. Even table for all people. You can't explain it away. Perhaps pH can? <- this cathar is the answering of questions by those who were not asked.
Why would the manufacturer feel free to answer for the "independent" reviewer?

WHOA. Please blow me. I take NO instructions from anyone in this world and I take no bs. I get my products by and large from

1) www.cooltechnica.com : Dangerden Maze3, 4. RBX, Swiftech UH, and more to come.
2) FORUM POSTERS: LRWW, LR Cascade, Dtek WW
3) MFGR: MC5000-A (sent as a kit and not as part of a wb for testing), Cascade (sent because there was concern that first run blocks might not be representative of current performance).

Please point me to the Swiftech reviews you feel are biased on this site! Oh there are none? Oh this is more ****ING BULLSHIT you spew? Why would making sure that wbs sent to testers are representative of those consumers get be a problem? I put every number I post in reviews up publicly for modeling (Les) and comment (everyone else) and stand by them 100%. What other reviewer do you see posting RAW DATA? The extreme bias that you possess yourself is made evident by the fact that I demand that only production blocks be tested becomes a stumbling block. Care to explain why that presents a problem to you guys?

And please keep in mind that the Swiftech MCWChill water chiller I tested for a solid 6 weeks from Bill was a LOANER and not a freebie. Let's contemplate that for a minute. I put in 30 hours a week for 4 full weeks and bought about $50 worth of stuff just to be able to evaluate a product that I am shipping right back to Swiftech after the review is done. Why would I put that kind of effort into a review? Because of the readers of this site (esp Les and Bill) who kept pushing me for more and better test results that they could model. Do I make a penny off the ad revenues of Procooling? NO. Do I make $45 an hour at work with LESS technical effort than my hobby? Yes. Do that math for a minute: if I were at work I would charge $4500 for the same amount of work I put in for free to the readers of this site to test the MCWchill water chiller. Now do you think that I would honestly go to the trouble of that much time and effort in a review just to get $200 worth of free shit? Wouldn't it be more prudent to spend 5 extra hours at work than 120 hours of testing? Have I done anything ever (other than saying you were personally full of shit) to call my objectivity into question? Not in my opinion. Please post examples of where data I have produced was not 100% factual, or please shut the **** up.

Sincerely

Derek
www.procooling.com

Plz forgive me if I made an ignorant assumption as to where you got your swiftech stuff. That was uncalled for on my part and I appologize. My goal is not to misrepresent the truth at all, but to just point out how bias fits into many things weather intended or not.
You are correct, I am bias. I have already made conclusions based on previous perceptions. They are not always accurate. However, if I were to study engineering would this therefore remove me from bias at all? :D No.
I think the crux of this entire thread can be summed up. We all have bias. Even engineers and the people who spew falsely that they have no bias whatsoever. Thats like someone saying they have never unintentionally lied. Doesn't happen.

It is interesting to see the interest it has generated. I have enjoyed it immensely.

New edit: Just saw that last post...
pH, I am not dinging your review numbers what so ever. I am just pointing out how bias CAN creap in or be injected. I am not saying that you DID profit from it. It was an arguement to consider, and show how steps along the way influence and persuade. All bias can't be seen in replicateable numbers.. no it comes in when people select the product, and then deliver the numbers. I am only having a HOWLINGLY good time laughing at the people who say they are without bias because that is the largest false statement I have ever seen.

No. I generate numbers. Take this for instance:

Bill told me today that he had sent me new springs for the MC5000-A. Instead of waiting until I receive the new springs to test, I set up the original block and test it today so that I can compare the old springs to new ones. If there is a detectable performance difference then I will probably HURT swiftech's bottom line by suggesting that all MC5000 owners get replacements from swiftech. Would it be bias for me to only test the new springs? Sure. Have I done this? Again no. Did you know anything about it either way? Not until I comment here.

Swiftech HAS sent me some review items: A MCX462-V heatsink, a MC5000A/2 BI Micro MCP 600 pump/MC-50 gpu block kit, and a MCWChill water chiller. Some were for keeping and some were on loan. Will I sell any of these parts and profit? No. Will the fact I can keep them affect my review? No. Does Aquajoe typically get review items back from reviewers? I doubt it. Am I insulted by your innuendos? You're goddamned right.

IM NOT STATING YOUR REVIEW WILL BE FALSE.... but can you see how this MAY lead to favorable bias? I mean, even if you keep only $100-$200 dollars worth of that stuff if you SLAM them on your "opinion section" of your perceptions, you may not get anymore freebees. Don't you think that could lead to (even unintentional) bias?
I am POSTIVE you will do your best to keep it out. I only challenged you here to start reviewing blocks because I thought you were the best suited one to do it based on what I read. I hope you manage and I wish you luck on producing the best review you can possibly do. You are brave for doing so, as you know anyone who posts numbers will be criticized.

Whinewood,

You just don't get it. The work involved in doing the testing is so much more than the value of what is being tested, that the "freebies" don't matter. (In the case of thorough testers.)

What is it that you want? An engineer to say he can be biased?

No problem. I'm biased towards banning you from ProCooling for continously slandering some of the most reputable sources of watercooling information, in an effort to make them appear to wallow in the same slime that your buddy JoeMac does.

Is that what you wanted?

Let's be clear here. I run tests and post results. I do little else. You are saying that my numbers are suspect. Let's not mince words. You have outright said that I am not objective in my testing. As a scientist, I cannot imagine a more serious allegation or insult. This is the equivalent of calling my wife a whore to my face, at least in my mind. I am SEETHING right now. So I challenge you to (a) produce a single example of the bias or lack of objectivity or faked results that you are claiming or (b) retract your statements and apologize.

I reiterate that I couldn't possibly be more offended or angry right at this minute.

If having an opinion that differs from your own is threatening... If appologizing on the area in which I was wrong is seen as bad to you... If pH (a staffmember) and Bill need you to protect them from a conversation... then by all means do what you need to do.

at least I can get you to admit you have bias. LOL

ohhh pH.. surely you put words in my mouth for some unknown reason. If objective is the exact same thing as bias then I am guilty! It's impossible to be unbias. Its laughable to say you have none. If you can't handle that fact then I can just pity the denial. If you wish to state that I SAID your numbers are wrong, I certainly have NOT done that EVER. I don't think you guys listen to a THING I have been saying. I refuse to appologize for something I DID NOT DO which is say "your review is wrong". I claim that you all have bias of some type. Whether this effects your TESTING I do not know as I have yet to read your latest review. I dont CARE! lol.. and thats the funny thing about it.

Since87 is the primary moderator of these forums. He is coming into this thread unsolicited. I would never think of banning or censoring someone in an argument with me in our forums as it would be an abuse of my powers. He is commenting without any discussion between him and me. Despite what you may think, some humans DO have integrity.

integrity is not questioned. Some of the most respected people are bias. The POPE is bias toward the Dali Lama. Does recoginition of this fact make him EVIL? no.

Do I post opinions? No. I post test results. And when test results are inconclusive then I say so. And so comments that products buy access apply directly to the reliability of my numbers.

This is a serious statement and don't try to change the subject. So you have two options: Either sending me products for review affects the results I post or it does not. You certainly are implying that it does, and I am maintaining that it does not. Let's deal with that right now: what proof or basis or even hearsay do you have to support your comments of my bias? That I am friends with Bill? It won't make my C/W vs Q curves shift one iota. If you are saying that it does then I suggest that numbers are needed. Mine are waiting.

I think I can sum this all up in a word: Wow.

pH has been busting his butt off to provide test results to the watercooling community and what are you all doing, questioning his objectivity BEFORE HE HAS EVEN COMPLETED ONE SINGLE REVIEW BASED ON THESE TESTS???????

At least you could give him the benefit of the doubt and wait until he publishes something before you start bashing him to death. It would at least give you something to stand on, unlike the current situation. :rolleyes:

Im afraid you miss my point. But thats fine. I wish you the best on the posting of your reviews, I'm sure they will be great.

Edit: yo-duh, man.. this is not coming out like anything which I wanted. I'm not trashing reviews here! :rolleyes:

Umm WTF.

A couple of kids who lie and cheat this industry have the balls to call Bill's and pH's credibiltiy into question?! Rich

I remember back a few months ago when winewood deny'd having any attachment to some Blue Cooling company when there was some hot debate going on with that also. (which was a LIE) But wow... it seems Joemac and Winewood are fighting the good fight still only this time on aquajoe scam products.

I dunno, the posts from those two is purely noise by 2 kids who have nothing better to do than try and distract attention from themselves by trying to claim the 2 best testers in the industry are wrong, or evil. its a nice head fake , but you will need to do a little better than that to take the focus of your ass.

No trashing reviewers. With no shred of proof.

I don't give a **** what your opinion is. You're welcome to have any opinion you like.

You are not welcome to continue insinuating that valuable members of this forum lack integrity, in order to try to bring them down to the level of your buddies who have demonstrated such a lack.

You have not pointed to one number or statement which Bill or pHaestus have made with the intent to deceive. Bill and pH have made mistakes and openly stated that their previous data is incorrect.

On the other hand, as of this minute JoeMac's clearly misleading statement still stands at Nordic Hardware.

Bill and pH certainly don't need me to protect them. Their work stands on it's own merits.

However, if you continue to suggest that their integrity is questionable. I will ban you.

cummon since ;) its actually fun watching them dig themselves deeper :)