Quote:
|
Originally Posted by unregistered
BE
someone may have a copy of it, but if you know Wes just ask him
its problem (for me) was the Luddite/anti tech tone of the intro - and everything that followed
some actually like technology, I think we are called 'geeks' by those with less interest
people who like technology get into it, they do not denigrate the tools or the individuals who use those tools
people who embark into new activities do not 'normally' presume to write articles about such, they learn FIRST
people writing for the public better get their article vetted by someone knowledgeable, or they may be called a fool
Wes led with his chin and got decked, a shame he could not have had you read the article first
I have to wonder what you would have said to him ?
|
Hi Bill,
I first tried to respond not long after your post, but took to long & found the server down. So this is a bit late.
I did e-mail Wes & asked for a copy of the article, which he has sent me, so this response will be better informed.
When I met and talked with Wes some time ago he mentioned he intended to do this article. He also expressed his concern regarding how it could be torn apart here as he lacked the equipment & funding for equipment to match what's done here.
I told him at the time to clearly state his methods and how his readings of performances were done. To in fact disclaim any attempt for fine accuracy. While there is a defensive tone in his opening of the article, he did attempt to do so. I don't believe Wes had any intent to degrade or insult those more "into it" than he is, and Wes is more "into" computers than this article shows. And had he'd not had the problems with omitting the differance in ambient & mounting I doubt his intro would have been much of a issue.
I agree 100% with vetting/editing of a article, BEFORE it's posted, rather than after. Not only should the author desire such, any site posting such articles, should insist on it. This, it's now clear, is not the way things are done at LN.
Having read this thread as well as the article I'll say this much only (as hind sight is 20/20). In future I'll suggest to anyone who hasn't high accuracy testing equipment that temp readings be left out. With the differances possible due to motherboard temp readings it's mission impossible to do so without spewing BS. And no matter how clearly the limitations of the set up are posted in the article they'll be torn to shreds if temp readings are given. I'll tell them further that if they feel they need some way of making a comparison to do so via max stable O/C readings. I've no doubt of them still have'n negative commentary by someone, but that's the only option I see. Aside from limiting the review to things like ease of mounting, bling ....ect.
EDIT: But on the other hand I rather expect they'll feel they have to have temps......they're expected by readers....... And I don't blame them for feeling that way, as I myself expect numbers not just ease of mouting & bling reports.......fluff.
So I guess that along with what I told Wes I'll really push the idea of getting
SOMEBODY to act as editor for them, and make it the most expert person they know in the area they'll be doing the article in.
Perhaps you'd like me to suggest you Bill as you're one of the best in the field of water cooling.......
Hehe......