Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bigben2k
Yeah, but that involves the reviewer coming here, posting the review and basically state: "I'm not sure, but I think that this part might be off".
Most reviews are caught by other people, picked apart, *then* the reviewer gets wind of it, maybe, and is automatically on the defensive, most of the time. I guess that's just the nature of reviewers (too young?!?). I personally welcome any comments, and view them as constructive criticism, regardless of how it's phrased: it's all there, if one looks closely enough.
|
actually, the 'review process' can play out in several manners:
- an individual buys a product, and writes a review
- an individual requests a product for a review
- a product is offered (by the mfgr
or a distributor) to a reviewer
- and of course, a mfgr might even provide their own performance data
for the first three there are also several possibilities:
- a review is posted w/o any prior or post notification to the mfgr
- a review is posted with simultaneous notice to the mfgr
- a review is made available to the mfgr
prior to posting - for comment (NOT correction)
Swiftech prefers the latter option as a means of addressing technical 'glitches', but such rarely occurs as reviewers are not interested in a wrangle over the inadequacies of their test equipment and procedures.
such is "free" advertising
and of course the above presumes that the mfgr has a better understanding than the reviewer - not always true at all
(JoeC and pH both already know a great deal, and will know yet more as their testing progresses - knowledge is power, I can speak to this)