Payola

P4Man · Apr 7, 2005

I'm surprised no one has linked this article yet:
<A HREF="http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=22332" target="_new">http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=22332</A>
Then again, all of you (used to) read THG, so I guess it won't suprise you.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

Crashman · Apr 7, 2005

The comment:

The industry basically comes down to three things, the stupid, the for sale, and the meek, and combinations thereof.

Doesn't jive with the comment:

Several sites are shining beacons of abjectly not selling out, and not regurgitating spun information in frankly demeaning ways.

Yeh, sure, I had to BUY my P4C800-E Deluxe in order to show the world its flaws, but I've gotten pleanty of hardware free as well, as a Sysopt contributor. The basic thing is, instead of the manufacturers begging US to review their hardware, we have to beg THEM to send it.

Of course a threat usually works: Only 1 drive manufacturer wanted to contribute to our mainstream SATA hard drive comparison, but I sent ALL messages to ALL manufacturers, so that when one offered, the others new that either they put up, or got shut out.

If more sites took that rout, we wouldn't have all these other shinanigans to worry about, the playing field would be far more level, and companies like Sysopt wouldn't be considered also-rans.

Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!
Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!

P4Man · Apr 7, 2005

>Doesn't jive with the comment

I guess he considers them stupid (for leaving the money on the table) or meek, or a combination of both

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

Crashman · Apr 7, 2005

Damn, I almost forgot the POSITIVE SPIN: At least they're calling TOM'S the morons and Anandtech the paid-off site! Hey, there's more integrety in being an honest idiot than in being on the take!

I mean, how often do you see guys come into our community from other communties just to say TOM'S is on the take? It's refreshing for someone to say otherwise!

BTW, I'd love to see a list of the factual errors, as I didn't pay enough attention to the details to find them.

Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!
Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!

Crashman · Apr 7, 2005

So, now I'm an idiot for putting the readers ahead of the manufacturers? I think NOT!

I think the ONLY reason Sysopt has survived this long is due to a DIE-HARD crowd of loyalist who seek out HONEST, COMPLETE reviews: Complete meaning, including full efforts taken to root out the weaknesses as well as the strength of a product.

After all, Sysopt has a lot of support from the readers, not just the advertisers. That support INCLUDES several articles written by readers, and several pieces of hardware bought by readers. They might just be the kind of site that manufacturers sometimes wish would go away, but are greatful to have around when the ball swings against their competition.

And those types of sites tend to gather the attention of people who have given up on mainstream sites for many of the reasons mentioned in that article.

Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!
Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!

Crashman · Apr 7, 2005

BTW, I'm not so atypical of Sysopt's writers, so, do you consider me stupid, or meek?

Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!
Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!

Action_Man · Apr 7, 2005

Maybe because its stupid.

Some people are like slinkies....
Not really good for anything but you cant help smile when you see one tumble down the stairs.

Rugger · Apr 7, 2005

LOL - not by any means! If you're stupid and meek, then a mule isn't stubborn and is faster than a horse...

__________________________________________________
You're a boil on the arse of progress - don't make me squeeze you!

slvr_phoenix · Apr 7, 2005

Well, that just adds to my growing list of reasons why I consider the inq to be crap. :O Besides the great number of factual errors in that rant, I think I particularly didn't appreciate the assumption that people (such as me) are quite incapable of taking reviews with a grain of salt and actually weighing things for ourselves.

Of course, then, it really doesn't matter what stupid things get printed at the inq anyway, since I stopped reading their garbage ages ago.

<pre>

I express to you a hex value 84 with my ten binary 'digits'.

</pre>@ 185K -> 200,000 miles or bust!

P4Man · Apr 8, 2005

>Besides the great number of factual errors in that rant

Care to point them out for me ?

>think I particularly didn't appreciate the assumption that
>people (such as me) are quite incapable of taking reviews
>with a grain of salt and actually weighing things for
>ourselves

I didn't see that assumption anywhere. Furthermore, I fail to see your point. If Fox news would take bribes and in return distorts news badly in favour of the Bush administration.. would that be okay ? "Hey, take those WMD threat claims, or the iraq war casualty figures with a grain of salt, I am quite capable of weighing things myselve.."

BTW, amazing how things seem to have changed in a couple of years. Not so long ago, this forum (myselve included) was in outrage over a faked Pentium 4 ES picture. Now you seem to think its not that bad if THG or other sites are actually being paid to deliver what the advertisers want to see, instead of independant reviews ? Or only if they are done so badly you can spot the bias from a mile away ?

Don't get me wrong, I'm in position to judge wether or not THG, Anand or other sites indeed make the sort of deals Charlie ranted about, but I think the topic deserves any attention it can get. And I think Charlie is in a far better position to know than either you or me.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

Flinx · Apr 8, 2005

I found it interesting that the major sites I scanned all had articles comming out on the same day. I guess if you want to read something into that then you could say this was some marketing ploy .. and I think you'd be right. Consequently much of the information should be suspect.

I'd still like to see graphs on a performance for $$$ basis. And maybe performance/Watt. At least some. I know its hard to be honest that way but if there significant discrepancies they should show. And maybe performance/Watt.

I'm surprised graphs are not continuously plotted and available online. I'm sure the companies marketing departments do it.. Maybe they'd supply a feed ... LOL

The loving are the daring!

endyen · Apr 8, 2005

Charlie seems to have missed a big point.
Who are the PR guys?
Isn't he the guy who has an expense account to buy you beers, take you out to watch the big game? Doesn't he offer you that neat little bit of inside information?
Remember that great deal he got you on the new multimedia centre?
I believe most media (including the big boys at CBS) is more colored by who they know, than who bought who.

Action_Man · Apr 8, 2005

I found it interesting that the major sites I scanned all had articles comming out on the same day.

They all come out on the same day because thats when the NDA expires.

Some people are like slinkies....
Not really good for anything but you cant help smile when you see one tumble down the stairs.

endyen · Apr 8, 2005

Not to mention that the point of the NDA is to appear to be open and allow equal access to information.

Flinx · Apr 8, 2005

Why is everyone so eager to post a pile of stuff on the NDA date? I guess they'll feel scouped.

But it makes for nice exposure.. 20 sites promoting ur junk/stuff on the same day.. bound to have significant impact. Seems like a nice little gimmick. Line up all the sites with an NDA and bing..bing..bing.. knock down the duckies

BTW.. Wusy has a nice idea.. read it just for the features. Kind of a half ass job till you figure what a total system will cost you. Not just the CPU.

Ah well they got the site owners by the balls most of the time .. hehe .. or is it the wallet.. and I'm not sure which is worse.

Goods without a market price are just hype.. and the review sites seem to fall right into the trap. With a price and availability enthusiasm might be kept realistic. Remember what happened with all those lovely unavailable high end graphics cards?

The loving are the daring!

Cybercraig · Apr 8, 2005

I feel his pain! There is so little new under the sun in the last year it could put a hooker to sleep on a battleship. I'm yawning with expectation here. Any new news seems to be invented news no matter what the source. So, what's new? :lol:

Abit IS7 - 3.0C @ 3.6ghz - Mushkin PC4000 (2 X 512) - Sapphire 9800Pro - TT 420 watt Pure Power
Samsung 120gb ATA-100 - Maxtor 40gb ATA - 100
Sony DRU-510A - Yellowtail Merlot

P4Man · Apr 8, 2005

Charlie seems to have missed a big point.
>Who are the PR guys?
>Isn't he the guy who has an expense account to buy you
>beers, take you out to watch the big game? Doesn't he offer
>you that neat little bit of inside information?
>Remember that great deal he got you on the new multimedia
>centre?

Ahem.. isn't that exactly his point ? Only that it might be a bit more than a couple of beers or a good deal on the home theater system.. the system could have been free as well. Where do you draw the line ?

>I believe most media (including the big boys at CBS) is more
> colored by who they know, than who bought who.

I don't mind if journalist have beers or dinners with PR people. Heck, I don't think I'd mind if they receive goodies for free, as long as that does not influence their articles.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

slvr_phoenix · Apr 8, 2005

>Besides the great number of factual errors in that rant

Care to point them out for me ?

Sure. But don't blame me for the long-arse post that it'll make for.

Things are not handed to us on a silver platter

I've seen a significant number of their 'news' come straight from other websites. If that isn't handed on a silver platter, nothing is.

Additionally, the things we find tend not to be spun so hard they warp space around them.

While this is always a subjective determination, this is one of the reasons I don't read the inq, because they do spin a lot of things with very biased 'reporting'. (And I use that term very loosly.)

Net result, you win, and tend to get the truth, or at least not a slightly reworded press release from us.

Again, see my first point.

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.

I don't think he has a clue what the word 'docile' means. I mean this covers a lot of tech sites like AMDmb to a T ... except for that they're pretty much the exact opposite of docile.

Some are too stupid to do more than reword press releases and swipe slides from PDFs

As opposed to the inq, which just rewords releases and swipes slides from other sites.

One site will have the opposite result, and come up with a bunch of new benches, most of which tend to be very curious. Some are games that you wonder why they are included, some are just odd. End result, product B wins by a lot, and goes against the grain, common sense, and good taste. If you are wondering, someone really did just make a lot of money.

So we're meant to believe that sites that design a comprehensive test that goes away from what the PR folks that just handed you a new product to test so that they can unveil any shortcomings that the PR folks don't want you to notice are in fact the bought out sites? Ha! Yeah, that makes a world of sense.

The bribery takes several forms, the first is pretty basic, you send a check in with a review.

I'm sorry, but I find it pretty hard to believe that PR folks bribing review sites is ever this blatant.

If you want your product in the next roundup, you better have an ad campaign already paid for.

I don't think I've seen more made up gibberish than this. This is going beyond bribery to say that sites are running an extortion ring on the manufacturers. How ludicrous can you get?

The industry basically comes down to three things, the stupid, the for sale, and the meek, and combinations thereof.

Funny how there's not even a small space left for the hardwar review industry to have any honest, bold, and intelligent sites. Not even the inq? I do believe this generalization is rather a gross factual error.

They tend to have the hardest time of it, ending up not getting comments from the companies, having to buy their own hardware to review, and worse yet, not getting ad dollars.

I'm sorry, but sites that are any good at what they do and are willing to sign an NDA, just like everyone else, don't have significant problems. Nor for that matter do that have any problem earning advertising money if their site is any good.

The sites and people in the industry that stand up sadly don't tend to last.

No, the sites that work against the industry don't tend to last. You can work with the industry, still be honest, and not sell out.

Well yes, it is, and I have witnessed most of it personally, and the rest I have heard from to many trusted sources to disbelieve.

Sorry, but I have a hard time believing that it isn't the other way around, that he's heard most of it from many 'trusted' sources and witnessed some of it personally.

If I had anyone who was willing to go on the record, I would dearly love to publish names

Yeah right. Out of all of those 'trusted' sources, not a single person will go on record? And out of all of his supposed personal experiences, we're meant to believe that he couldn't possibly record a conversation or otherwise come up with his own evidence to "go on the record"?

It was stated that it was given as a special preview to the site, which set off warning bells number 1-3 in my head.

How is that not just your typical NDA situation?

the current dual core chips are all going to suck on games regardless of whether they come from Intel or AMD. Both are heat limited and will debut several clock bins below their single core counterparts.

How is being a few hundred MHz lower going to 'suck' on games? So you get 5 to 10 less FPS on single-threaded games? God forbid! However, some games are already multi-threaded. And future games based on these engines are also going to be multi-threaded. So dual core will rock those games. Dual core processors are just like SLI graphics. In some cases it'll really make a huge difference. In other cases it won't. However dual core has one significant advantages over SLI. Dual core can take low usage background processes and throw them onto a different processor. (Just like in a dualie box.) So even single-threaded games still see a small advantage.

They will cost more, take more power, and be a status symbol for the rich and stupid, but their frame rates will blow dead goats.

The literal impossability of blowing dead goats aside... Again, they'll be pretty much just like a dualie box, except that games are already starting to multi-thread now and as more people own dual core systems, more developers will multi-thread. They may be a status symbol for the rich, but they're better than dualie boxes, and they're paving the way for a future that in time will make their earlier adoption worthwhile.

How many times do you encode a movie while typing a document, zipping your C drive, doing some heavy CFD work all while listening to a few MP3s?

What a deceptive statement. How many processes do you have running in Task Manager? Currently I've got 61. Sure, plenty are only using up very tiny amounts of CPU resources, but combined they still add up to a measurable detraction in the performance of a heavy hitting single-threaded app. So even when not running some uber multi-threaded app, there's still a definite advantage.

Getting back to reality, imagine my surprise when I saw that this new preview studiously avoided games. They are testing two of the most popular gaming chips out there, and the heir to the throne, and they did not put in one single game benchmark. Not one, think about that.

He complains about not enough games being multi-threaded to make dual core worth it, and then complains about someone concentrating on benchmarking primarily multi-threaded apps on a dual core chip? Can he even make up his mind? What the hell does he want? They aren't even 'gaming' chips. They're general purpose CPUs that just happen to be used for games a lot.

And since when would early adopters of dual core CPUs not be primarily interested in the performance of multi-threaded apps instead of single-threaded games?

BTW here is where he is making the the biggest "assumption that people (such as me) are quite incapable of taking reviews with a grain of salt and actually weighing things for ourselves". Smart people are quite capable of looking for the benchmarks that best match their needs and not 'being fooled' by review sites that 'sold out' by offering benchmarks tailored to show the advantages of a specific product. Just as we're smart enough to extrapolate (or look up elsewhere) the performance of said product in other applications.

but here is the truth, if you are going to multitask and do and do anything that tasks both of the CPUs, one of those is going to be a game.

Right. Because I need to run a game when I'm compiling my latest code changes and testing a different program at the same time. (Something which I do regularly, as I am responsible for the partial or whole development and maintanance of several applications.) Nor do I ever record and compress (or decompress and recompress in a different format) an audio and video stream while listening to an MP3 with a cool visualization plugin and running a spelling/grammar check on a 400 page novel while occasionally using an online dictionary and/or thesaurus. And, of course, I own absolutely no multi-threaded software whatsoever. And there are no such things as background processes running in Windows. So any time I'm running tasks on both CPUs of a dualie configuration, dual core or dual CPU, one of those is always a game. Right. No factual errors here.

The human mind does not multitask well, so 19 active windows is 17 or 18 more than you really can use at once.

Since when is the number of 'active windows' that I can use at once related to the number of applications that I can use at once? Programs can be left to run on their own, especially when they have a lot of work to do.

For that matter, hell, I've got F@H running in the background as a service as it is. It has no user interface in this mode. And with a dualie box right there is one CPU always maxed out no matter what I'm doing, and pretty much two maxed out if I'm doing anything.

I believe that's enough factual errors to get my point across.

I didn't see that assumption anywhere. Furthermore, I fail to see your point.

The fact that you fail to see my point pretty much indicates exactly why you didn't see that assumption anywhere.

1) He's assuming that any site which runs a different set of benchmarks is bought instead of simply being concerned with a different topic.

2) He's assuming that readers are incapable of taking pieces of information from several reviews to well utilize the information provided by a site which uses a different set of benchmarks along side of the information of the sites which generally run all the same.

Fox news would take bribes and in return distorts news badly in favour of the Bush administration.. would that be okay ?

1) I never said that it would. I'm saying that his logic behind believing people have been bought is extremely flawed and thus his whole rant is garbage based on garbage.
2) What are you talking about? Fox news, like most of the the American media, is bought and does distort the news badly. Which is why if I want the truth I go to British news sources.

"Hey, take those WMD threat claims, or the iraq war casualty figures with a grain of salt, I am quite capable of weighing things myselve.."

And what WMD were found in Iraq after the media coverage hyped WMD so badly? And when was the last time that the American media gave honest numbers (or any for that matter) on the casualty figures? (That have continued to grow enormously even after Dubya proclaimed "mission accomplished"...) You don't even catch any of that on the news.

So as I said, intelligent people are capable of taking things with a grain of salt and/or uncovering the truth, even if a distortion, improper or otherwise, is involved. The implication that in this Age of Information we are incapable of this is insulting.

BTW, amazing how things seem to have changed in a couple of years. Not so long ago, this forum (myselve included) was in outrage over a faked Pentium 4 ES picture.

And yet if you look closely, you'll see that I wasn't. Why? Because 1) the picture was completely irrelevant to the information in the article and 2) I'm quite capable of comparing data from multiple sources to verify validity on my own. THG photoshops pictures for articles all the time. The only difference was that this one wasn't a cutesie job at the very top of the article. Big whoop. It was nothing to go spastic over. I may not like THGs articles for a plethora of other reasons, but that one I couldn't have given an <explitive never entered> about if I tried.

Now you seem to think its not that bad if THG or other sites are actually being paid to deliver what the advertisers want to see, instead of independant reviews ? Or only if they are done so badly you can spot the bias from a mile away ?

As much as THG has sold out to the marketing world in the form of advertising and pushing rewritten PR fliers as noncomparative 'reviews' these days, the one thing that I don't feel a need to worry about is THG delivering biased information. That's the one thing I've never seen THG do. People have claimed it, but I've yet to meet one who did that wasn't biased themself.

Besides, as I said, the assumption that I am incapable of seeing bias that should be spotted from a mile away and just taking what I need from the raw data and/or avoiding it entirely is insulting.

There are a <explitive never entered> load of sites out there that biased in some way, many more extreme than others. Is it theoretically bad that sites are biased? Sure. Does that mean that the site was bought out? Hardly. I've seen some that would only be less biased if someone tried to bribe them for their already existing fanaticism. What it means is that people are different. We see things differently. We think differently. We are different. That is life. That's just the way things are. It might be theoretically nice if we were all perfectly unbiased, but it just ain't gonna happen. Is it okay to buy someone's bias? Not really. Is being biased cool? Nope. But nothing is going to change reality, so you might as well just learn to adapt to it and be smart enough to take things with a grain of salt. It may be 'bad', but since when has the world ever been fair? There's no use getting your panties in a bunch over something you can't change.

Don't get me wrong, I'm in position to judge wether or not THG, Anand or other sites indeed make the sort of deals Charlie ranted about, but I think the topic deserves any attention it can get.

Whether the deals exist or not (which I highly doubt Chuckles was right about) the fact is that with or without supposed bribes, the actual level of bias would hardly be any different. It's like if I had a webcam and I drank Coke a lot, and Coke offered to pay me to have a can laying around in every scene, would it make a functional difference if Coke paid me to consciously push their product of if I unconsciously pushed it through my own bias towards their drink in the first place? Either way the same amount of pushing is being done.

But that aside, I think that the manner in which Chuckles blew it out of proportion is insulting to both the readers and to the review industry. Does the topic deserve some attention? Sure. Was his method even marginally cose to the right way to get that attention? Not in my books.

And I think Charlie is in a far better position to know than either you or me.

And I think he's incredibly jaded and oversensitive to the point of being paranoid about a situation that isn't really as bad as he thinks it is. And even if it was really that bad, it isn't as impacting as he suggests because there be a squishy grey thing up top to help me weigh things.

<pre>

I express to you a hex value 84 with my ten binary 'digits'.

</pre>@ 185K -> 200,000 miles or bust!

slvr_phoenix · Apr 8, 2005

I don't mind if journalist have beers or dinners with PR people. Heck, I don't think I'd mind if they receive goodies for free, as long as that does not influence their articles.

And what if the simple truth is the reverse of that: that the bias in their articles determines who they choose to have beers or dinners with and accept goodies for free from? How do you correct the theoretical problem of bribery if in fact the bribery makes no difference to the underlying bias?

And more to the point, what does it really matter anyway when there are always other sources to get information from or weigh the biased information against?

<pre>

I express to you a hex value 84 with my ten binary 'digits'.

</pre>@ 185K -> 200,000 miles or bust!

P4Man · Apr 8, 2005

Sheesh, you have too much time man. Im not going to answer each of those paragraphs, in fact, I didn't read all of them because after 4 or 5, I hadn't seen a single *factual* error, only points you either misunderstood (like docile referring to their attitude towards advertisers), that you fail to see in perspective like the "the other app will be a game", which btw, is funny since your main point seems to be the opposite, IE, you *are* able to read between the lines, or statements you simply disagree with. Maybe there are some valid points I missed, too bad, try to be more to the point next time.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

P4Man · Apr 8, 2005

>And what if the simple truth is the reverse of that: that the
> bias in their articles determines who they choose to have
>beers or dinners with and accept goodies for free from?

That is not the reverse of what I claimed. If you meant to say "what if the conclusion of the article determines who they have beers with or accept goodies from", then I don't have any real problem with that either. However, if their conclusion is determined by their personal bias, then I do have a problem with that, regardless of whom they drink with.

You claim everyone has a "bias". Dictionnary.com defines that as "To influence in a particular, typically unfair direction; prejudice.". So I don't agree. And even if you do have a preference (not bias) for whatever product, it shouldn't stop you from making factual, objective reviews.

However, having a biased review because of personal preference (like Ed Stroglio) isn't nearly as bad as having bias injected by bribes. The first case, overall, you'll still get a fiarly correct representation of things, since I assume unmotivated personal preferences to be pretty random.

In the latter case, you won't as the company that pays the highest incentives will get the best reviews, thereby depriving us of (most) objective information, while making those scumbags "rich" with money we pay for underperfoming products. if you think about it, its pretty sickening.

Oh, and that this doesn't affect *you* because your so incedibly smart you can look through any bias, is hardly a valid point. If for instance AMD would succeed in bribing all major websites and paper publications to the point where no one would consider Intel anymore, we'll be screwed when Intel goes bankrupt. Well.. maybe a slightly different scenario is more likely

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

slvr_phoenix · Apr 8, 2005

You ask me to do something, I take it seriously and give it the effort that it deserves, and then you mock it because your bias prevents you from even admitting that some factual errors are there, and further your laziness prevents you from even bothering to read it all after you yourself challeneged me to produce just such a list. Yeah. You're a real poster child for being unbiased you are. You haven't already picked at side in this at all. Yeah. And I'm Santa Claus.

Nor for that matter did I claim that all the world is biased. I merely said that a lot of people are, and to various levels.

And if you really want to jump in the direction of stupidly technical, as anyone quoting Dictionary.com is, then I might as well point out that fairness itself is a completely subjective concept. Therefore since your definition of bias hinges on a "typically unfair direction", your definition of bias itself is a subjective concept.

So you've only just proved that what I see as bias you may not. What opinion I may have you may disagree with. And meanwhile other people will still be capable of reading biased/opinionated information and making their own decisions. Wow. Big surprise there, since that what I've been saying all along. I'm so glad that you cleared that up for me. You've been most helpful. We're all so impressed. Without you we'd just believe everything people tell us. Someone should buy you a drink. Together you and Chuckles have saved the world.

<pre>

I express to you a hex value 84 with my ten binary 'digits'.

</pre>@ 185K -> 200,000 miles or bust!

slvr_phoenix · Apr 8, 2005

Alright. So you're too lazy to read the full list and you hold the opinion that blatant implications based on false information aren't factually incorrect statements. So here's a nice short list of lies for someone of even your limited attention span to read:

1) Net result, you win, and tend to get the truth, or at least not a slightly reworded press release from us.

2) One site will have the opposite result ... If you are wondering, someone really did just make a lot of money.

3) The bribery takes several forms, the first is pretty basic, you send a check in with a review.

4) If you want your product in the next roundup, you better have an ad campaign already paid for.

5) The industry basically comes down to three things, the stupid, the for sale, and the meek

6) I have witnessed most of it personally

7) If I had anyone who was willing to go on the record, I would dearly love to publish names

8) the current dual core chips are all going to suck on games

9) but their frame rates will blow dead goats

10) but here is the truth, if you are going to multitask and do and do anything that tasks both of the CPUs, one of those is going to be a game

<pre>

I express to you a hex value 84 with my ten binary 'digits'.

</pre>@ 185K -> 200,000 miles or bust!

P4Man · Apr 9, 2005

Since it seems I hurt your feeling by not reading an replying to your encyclopedia britannica length post.. lets see if I can beat it..

Here comes the search for the great number of factual errors..

>> Things are not handed to us on a silver platter

>I've seen a significant number of their 'news' come
>straight from other websites. If that isn't handed on a
>silver platter, nothing is.

Read the context, the line for that said "This also affords us the ability to tell you about things first if we can find out about them.". That sort of news does not come on silver platters.. the INQ does more just than post links or rants, but since you don't read how would you know ? No factual error here (1), to get inside sources like the INQ clearly does, you need groundwork.

>>Additionally, the things we find tend not to be spun so
>>hard they warp space around them.

> While this is always a subjective determination, this is
>one of the reasons I don't read the inq, because they do
>spin a lot of things with very biased 'reporting'. (And I
>use that term very loosly.)

Again no factual error (2), you simply disagree that the INQ wouldn't spin things around "so hard space warps around it". Can you prove the opposite, and in such manner that it clearly constitues a pattern ?

>> Net result, you win, and tend to get the truth, or at
>>least not a slightly reworded press release from us.

> Again, see my first point.

And see mine. Again no factual error (3). Blame the INQ for all you want, but not for publishing reworded press releases.

>I don't think he has a clue what the word 'docile' means. I
>mean this covers a lot of tech sites like AMDmb to a T ...
>except for that they're pretty much the exact opposite of
>docile.

I don't think you have a clue what he meant, even though it is blatantly obvious. He was referring to sites that are "docile" towards their advertisers, in other words, spin stories for money. Again, no factual error (4), just a serious reading comprehension problem on your side.

>> Some are too stupid to do more than reword press releases
>> and swipe slides from PDFs

>As opposed to the inq, which just rewords releases and
>swipes slides from other sites.

I'm sorry, where is the error again (5) ? Or are you just venting your opinion on the INQ ?

>So we're meant to believe that sites that design a
>comprehensive test that goes away from what the PR folks
>that just handed you a new product to test so that they can
>unveil any shortcomings that the PR folks don't want you to
>notice are in fact the bought out sites? Ha! Yeah, that
>makes a world of sense

This reading comprehension problem of yours is getting serious. I mean *very* serious. how on earth can you not understand what he is saying ? I can't rephrase it any more clear or obvious than he has, so really.. read it again, or get help. Let me quote it again:

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%.

One site will have the opposite result, and come up with a bunch of new benches, most of which tend to be very curious. Some are games that you wonder why they are included, some are just odd. End result, product B wins by a lot, and goes against the grain, common sense, and good taste. If you are wondering, someone really did just make a lot of mone

Which site do you think he means is bribed ? And where do you think the strange benchmark selection comes from ? Hello ? Factual non-error number 6.

>> The bribery takes several forms, the first is pretty
>> basic, you send a check in with a review.

>I'm sorry, but I find it pretty hard to believe that PR
>folks bribing review sites is ever this blatant.

Again, not a factual error (7), but just an assumption of yours. Charlie claims to know, and like I said, is in a far better position to know than any of us. Either you call him a liar, prove him a liar, or just stick to making assumptions.

>> If you want your product in the next roundup, you better
>> have an ad campaign already paid for.

>I don't think I've seen more made up gibberish than this.
>This is going beyond bribery to say that sites are running
>an extortion ring on the manufacturers. How ludicrous can
>you get?

Yet another reading comprehension problem ? He claims that a paid for ad campaign may influence the editorial/review and the timing of an add campaign that appears on the editorial/review is anything but coincidental. Again, no factual error (lost count.. 8?), just your different assumptions and/or misreading.

>> The industry basically comes down to three things, the
>> stupid, the for sale, and the meek, and combinations
>> thereof.

>Funny how there's not even a small space left for the
>hardwar review industry to have any honest, bold, and
>intelligent sites. Not even the inq? I do believe this
>generalization is rather a gross factual error.

He did say "basically", which really implies the small space you are missing, but in his opinion, it indeed is a small place. And frankly, just looking at the number of sites that qualify as "intelligent" pretty much proves his point regardless of any payola. But that is only my opinion, yours may differ, but that still doesn't constitute any factual error. Quite on the contrary, I'm sure you have read this paragraph too:

Several sites are shining beacons of abjectly not selling out, and not regurgitating spun information in frankly demeaning ways.

. Hey guess what, he agrees with you ! Or you just made a factual error yourself (9).

>>They tend to have the hardest time of it, ending up not
>>getting comments from the companies, having to buy their
>>own hardware to review, and worse yet, not getting ad
>>dollars.

>I'm sorry, but sites that are any good at what they do and
>are willing to sign an NDA, just like everyone else, don't
>have significant problems. Nor for that matter do that have
>any problem earning advertising money if their site is any
>good.

That is again, your assumption, not a factual error (10). BTW, Can you back it up ? How many sites can you name that flourish financially, in spite of having to buy their equipment because they don't get if from the manufacturers ? Do you think its coincidental that Aces is slowly bleeding to death, the RWT has trouble finding funding and advertising while THG flourishes ?

>> The sites and people in the industry that stand up sadly
>> don't tend to last.

>No, the sites that work against the industry don't tend to
>last. You can work with the industry, still be honest, and
>not sell out

I'm getting tired.. where is the factual error number 11 ? Oh wait, there is none, you just have a different opinion.

>> Well yes, it is, and I have witnessed most of it
>> personally, and the rest I have heard from to many trusted
>> sources to disbelieve.

>Sorry, but I have a hard time believing that it isn't the
>other way around, that he's heard most of it from many
>'trusted' sources and witnessed some of it personally.

OMG.. is that supposed to be factual error number 12 ?? You THINK he got the quantities of his sources mixed up ? ROFL..

>> If I had anyone who was willing to go on the record, I
>> would dearly love to publish names

>Yeah right. Out of all of those 'trusted' sources, not a
>single person will go on record? And out of all of his
>supposed personal experiences, we're meant to believe that
>he couldn't possibly record a conversation or otherwise come
>up with his own evidence to "go on the record"?

Not only is that credible, its quite logical, if not most evident.Just who exactly would you think would be compelled to stand up, and publically produce such evidence ? Who would be willing to face a lawsuit for libel and lose his job just to please you or the INQ ? Even if you personally don't think its likely, it certainly doesn't make this factual non error n°13.

>> It was stated that it was given as a special preview to
>>the site, which set off warning bells number 1-3 in my
>> head.

> How is that not just your typical NDA situation?

Here comes reading comprehension problem number.. what. 4 ?
No of course this is not your typical NDA situation, typical NDA's expire at the same date for all.

>> the current dual core chips are all going to suck on games
>> regardless of whether they come from Intel or AMD. Both
>> are heat limited and will debut several clock bins below
>>their single core counterparts.

>How is being a few hundred MHz lower going to 'suck' on >games?

Hu ? How is being more expensive, hotter and slower, NOT anything else than sucky compared to single cored alternatives ?

>God forbid! However, some games are already multi-threaded.

Not a single current "multithreaded" game will run faster on upcoming DC chips than on existing, higher clocking SC chips. Wanna take bets ?

>And future games based on these engines are also going to be
> multi-threaded. So dual core will rock those games

FFS, try reading the article, and not line per line. Did you miss this:

It does mean however that until software catches up, most likely not this year, that gaming is going to suck on them

Again, no factual error number ~15 or so. in fact, its so evident, I can't believe having to rebut this.

>The literal impossability of blowing dead goats aside.

I think I'm gonna call it day right here. I asked you to backup your claim of "a great number of factual errors in that rant", and so far, 15+ of your statements have not contained anything resembling a factual error. you disagree with his opinion, fine, but factual errors ? Not so far, let alone "a great number" that would be sufficient reason to ignore the editorial. But hey, there are some spelling errors in there, I'm surprised you haven't pointed these out.

BTW, don't bother replying, unless you can keep it concise and to the point as well logical. I have better things to do than argue wether or not you can blow dead goates, and if you can't, if that proves the article is meritless.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

dhlucke · Apr 9, 2005

ZZZZZZzzzzzzzZZZZzzzZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

You are soooooooooooooo verbose. Was all that necessary?

<pre>A64 3200+ Winchester
DFI Lan Party NF4 Ultra-D
1GB Corsair 4400C25PT
WD740GD, WD2000JB, WD1200JB
ATI X800XL
Dell 2405FPW</pre>

Payola

Distinguished

Polypheme

Distinguished

Polypheme

Polypheme

Polypheme

Splendid

Splendid

Splendid

Distinguished

Distinguished

Splendid

Splendid

Splendid

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Splendid

Splendid

Distinguished

Distinguished

Splendid

Splendid

Distinguished

Polypheme

Share this page