Pro/Forums - View Single Post

BillA · 07-09-2004, 10:05 AM

Quote (by me):
just lost a lengthy response and am bummed, will take another pass tomorrow
Quote (by you):
Don't bother, you clarified perfectly what I need to know. Thank you.

modenaf1
you may not wish to hear me, but I shall speak nonetheless

Websites exist for many reasons, some proffer tech 'info' to the public and exist on ad revenues, donations, etc. Component mfgrs soon identified these sites seeking readers as a means of promoting awareness/sales of their products by what is referred to as the 'review' process. Some of these 'reviews' are keyboard based, some are into photographs, some do half-assed testing, some do accurate testing. Naturally, they all claim to have experience, the best tools, proven methods, and they walk on water in their spare time.

You seem to be laboring under the delusion that mfgrs dislike criticism of their products, and that all objections must be based on the critical comments made. Get over that issue, a good idea knows no source. If another set of eyes reveal a problem, such should be addressed. For sure, some mfgrs with the NIH syndrome will take umbrage, but others will hop to the fix. But criticism should be based on FACTS.

Your defense of some uninformed comments was to claim that as an article, unfounded unsubstantiated assertions were ok, the license your site grants to its writers. Now I, representing Swiftech, did assert that the comments are factually incorrect; to which you blandly respond that you are not knowledgeable and such issues should be addressed to the author or some of the others on your staff (? on your forums ? - not sure). Are these not the same fools sitting in silence wrt that article ? Cut me some slack, I should debate with such ?

Now I, as a mfgr, will evaluate your site, and look at the 'work' of some of your reviewers. But wait, if there is no editorial oversight then how is accuracy understood ? Your site is like so many others, a crap shoot. As another mfgr stated here, you send them out and wait to see what happens - good or bad.

Such is not Swiftech's approach, we excise technically inept sites from those to whom we will provide review samples. We make products that work, and a new model WILL be superior to a previous one, even if your writer falsely claims the opposite without providing a shred of substantiation.

modenaf1
If you wish review samples: Have an engineer (the proposed author) describe to me the setup and procedures to be used. Rocket Science not required, just honesty.

07-09-2004, 10:05 AM	#29
BillA CoolingWorks Tech Guy Formerly "Unregistered" Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Posts: 2,371.493,106 Posts: 4,440	Quote (by me): just lost a lengthy response and am bummed, will take another pass tomorrow Quote (by you): Don't bother, you clarified perfectly what I need to know. Thank you. modenaf1 you may not wish to hear me, but I shall speak nonetheless Websites exist for many reasons, some proffer tech 'info' to the public and exist on ad revenues, donations, etc. Component mfgrs soon identified these sites seeking readers as a means of promoting awareness/sales of their products by what is referred to as the 'review' process. Some of these 'reviews' are keyboard based, some are into photographs, some do half-assed testing, some do accurate testing. Naturally, they all claim to have experience, the best tools, proven methods, and they walk on water in their spare time. You seem to be laboring under the delusion that mfgrs dislike criticism of their products, and that all objections must be based on the critical comments made. Get over that issue, a good idea knows no source. If another set of eyes reveal a problem, such should be addressed. For sure, some mfgrs with the NIH syndrome will take umbrage, but others will hop to the fix. But criticism should be based on FACTS. Your defense of some uninformed comments was to claim that as an article, unfounded unsubstantiated assertions were ok, the license your site grants to its writers. Now I, representing Swiftech, did assert that the comments are factually incorrect; to which you blandly respond that you are not knowledgeable and such issues should be addressed to the author or some of the others on your staff (? on your forums ? - not sure). Are these not the same fools sitting in silence wrt that article ? Cut me some slack, I should debate with such ? Now I, as a mfgr, will evaluate your site, and look at the 'work' of some of your reviewers. But wait, if there is no editorial oversight then how is accuracy understood ? Your site is like so many others, a crap shoot. As another mfgr stated here, you send them out and wait to see what happens - good or bad. Such is not Swiftech's approach, we excise technically inept sites from those to whom we will provide review samples. We make products that work, and a new model WILL be superior to a previous one, even if your writer falsely claims the opposite without providing a shred of substantiation. modenaf1 If you wish review samples: Have an engineer (the proposed author) describe to me the setup and procedures to be used. Rocket Science not required, just honesty.