Another editorial on hardware review sites

[pHaestus]

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=22332

Hardware sites are also known to the companies and PR firms to be either docile ass-kissers, or, well, not. The docile ones are the ones you want to use to get a story out, especially if the story is not all that good if measured against the unvarnished facts. The docile sites are the ones that get the sneak peaks, exclusives and perks that few others tend to get. Some are too stupid to do more than reword press releases and swipe slides from PDFs, others are flat out bought. It does not take a genius to figure out which sites fall into which categories.

You notice I said bought. If you have any doubts, let me tell you, the current hardware review site industry is flat out for sale. The higher up you go, the fewer exceptions to the rule there are. Some sites are directly for sale, I am sure you have seen it, it is a hard thing to miss. It works like this, when an NDA expires, there are 10 or so reviews of a new chip, board or widget. Most use the same benchmark set, or at least most of the sites have a fair number of benches in common, it is really hard to avoid a Doom3 bench. 90% of the sites will have a similar result, part A beats part B in commonly used apps, with A winning 80%, B winning 20%.

[9mmCensor]

The /. discusion - http://hardware.slashdot.org/article...id=149&tid=137

My comments - http://hardware.slashdot.org/comment...7&cid=12157166

[bigben2k]

One thing I've noticed since I moved stateside, is that people aren't very open about what they're doing out here.

Openness really goes a long way. In all the comments linked above, someone posted this link:
http://www.viperlair.com/articles/ar...ts/state.shtml
(We've posted it here before).

My point is that I believe that it's a good idea to let people see what's going on, behind the scenes, on a regular basis. Corporate America took a big hit with the Enron and Worldcom scandals, and consumer confidence is at an all time low.

I say "Be open, be honest". There's nothing wrong with a review site (or a reviewer) posting their financials (among others), similar to requirements of all publicly traded companies. It isn't required of private companies/enterprises, allegedly because of competition, but it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done.

[snowwie]

lol

pH, how about procooling.com be a little more subtle about their loyalties to them Big Players with the Big cash?

[Vector86]

Originally Posted by pHaestus

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=22332

I want names!

[BillA]

Originally Posted by snowwie

lol

pH, how about procooling.com be a little more subtle about their loyalties to them Big Players with the Big cash?

seems reasonable

who is supporting this site ?
looking here for the Little Players with the Little Cash, . . . . .
hmmm

so do Little Players not support this site ?
for sure then they deserve pH's full loyalty, and appreciation for their on-going assistance to his efforts

come on Snowie, tell us who you are referring to
was "loyalty" the word you wanted to use ?

[snowwie]

i was just trying to make a dumb wisecrack at pH's title etc.

but it possibly was a bit too dumb

maybe i should have thought about the wording a bit better...i was never too good at making a joke or sarcasm

[BillA]

no biggie (my humor generally sux also), there was a spot-on answer

indeed the Little Players do support the site, just look at the #s
and pH's activities are directed specifically towards the Little Players, the audience of this site

[9mmCensor]

Originally Posted by unregistered

no biggie (my humor generally sux also), there was a spot-on answer

indeed the Little Players do support the site, just look at the #s
and pH's activities are directed specifically towards the Little Players, the audience of this site

haha. we all know that pH drives a Ferrari and vacations in the Cayman islands from the fat checks he gets for favourable reviews.

[snowwie]

thanks for the lesson bill
(NOT sarcasm)