Apogee GTZ

[majestik]

Can't wait to see what it can do!

[SiGfever]

I for one see nothing wrong with "Third Party" testers being paid to test a product and report their findings. Independent testing is a great way to show data that the public can believe. People such as nikhsub1, Martinm210, and mcoffey are trusted on this forum and will give factual data on every test.

Their time is as valuable as anyone else's and should be compensated. And to you guys, thanks for all your hard work and your commitment to the science.

<gets off soap box>

[Mekrel]

I for one see nothing wrong with "Third Party" testers being paid to test a product and report their findings. Independent testing is a great way to show data that the public can believe. People such as nikhsub1, Martinm210, and mcoffey are trusted on this forum and will give factual data on every test.

Their time is as valuable as anyone else's and should be compensated. And to you guys, thanks for all your hard work and your commitment to the science.

<gets off soap box>

Alright guys, I think it goes without saying that testing just sucks. You get people trying to influence you from all angles

That quote is from a well known, trusted tester. I believe the tests he did from which the quote refers was done by him for free (note the words, I believe).

If people try to influence someones tests when all they've done is provide blocks, it doesn't take a scientist to wonder what could happen if they're paying someone.

Would you pay someone to test your product, yet sit there and still hand over the cash if that very test would actually produce negative PR?

[ThrustSSC]

That quote is from a well known, trusted tester. I believe the tests he did from which the quote refers was done by him for free (note the words, I believe).

If people try to influence someones tests when all they've done is provide blocks, it doesn't take a scientist to wonder what could happen if they're paying someone.

Would you pay someone to test your product, yet sit there and still hand over the cash if that very test would actually produce negative PR?

There is a diffrence from getting money for review, which in my opinion is wrong, and getting money for testing.

[nikhsub1]

That quote is from a well known, trusted tester. I believe the tests he did from which the quote refers was done by him for free (note the words, I believe).

If people try to influence someones tests when all they've done is provide blocks, it doesn't take a scientist to wonder what could happen if they're paying someone.

Would you pay someone to test your product, yet sit there and still hand over the cash if that very test would actually produce negative PR?

No need to hide, I said that. What you are missing is that my 'tests' were to be made PUBLIC. What I was saying about being paid was obviously misunderstood completely. Maybe if we take the word 'testing' out if it, it will confuse less. If a person was contacted (say me or Martin) to validate results by a manufacturer and give unbiased opinion and ideas what is that worth to said manufacturer? I have done such things and never made my findings public. Again, manufacturers should NEVER pay for a review, and what I was suggesting they do pay for would be kept absolutely 100% private and would not be a review for anyone to see.

[gabe]

I for one see nothing wrong with "Third Party" testers being paid to test a product and report their findings. Independent testing is a great way to show data that the public can believe. People such as nikhsub1, Martinm210, and mcoffey are trusted on this forum and will give factual data on every test.

Their time is as valuable as anyone else's and should be compensated. And to you guys, thanks for all your hard work and your commitment to the science.

<gets off soap box>

The charter of a tester/reviewer is to serve the public; since the public is the beneficiary of this work, the public should compensate the reviewer for his work.

[Nickel020]

The charter of a tester/reviewer is to serve the public; since the public is the beneficiary of this work, the public should compensate the reviewer for his work.

That's not entirely true, if you have a good product, and people can't tell how good it is, it's in your interest to have it reviewed. I mean that's the whole point of sending out review samples.
And as for the public compensating, it's more like the manufacturers compensating, because they're the ones paying for the ads that are needed to keep magazines and websites going.

[gabe]

That's not entirely true, if you have a good product, and people can't tell how good it is, it's in your interest to have it reviewed. I mean that's the whole point of sending out review samples.
And as for the public compensating, it's more like the manufacturers compensating, because they're the ones paying for the ads that are needed to keep magazines and websites going.

It is ENTIRELY true in context. Please read my post again: I am referring to the charter or mission if you will of a reviewer, not that of a manufacturer.

As to advertising it reflects the right of the Media to conduct a business which serves their own interest. Properly managed Media totally separate the adversiting activity from the product testing activity in order to prevent/alleviate/reduce the conflicts of interest. Sadly such conflicts still exist and abuse do take place in my opinion and experience. It then becomes a necessity for the public to exercise scrutiny in patronizing said media.

In an ideal world, and in my opinion, impartial product testing should be entirely sponsored by the Public.

[gabe]

word of mouth like the how the storm WB was invented not advertisement hype of big media. is that what you mean gabe?

this comment is unclear to me.. the Storm WB ownership was not uncovered by word of mouth, it was disclosed in the first paragraph of the product page .. http://www.swiftech.com/products/STORM.asp

[SiGfever]

The charter of a tester/reviewer is to serve the public; since the public is the beneficiary of this work, the public should compensate the reviewer for his work.

I guess you do like Free testing from trusted people, who wouldn't?

[gabe]

I guess you do like Free testing from trusted people, who wouldn't?

Of course I do, when it is thorough, accurate, and unbiaised.

But if your remark intends to infer that I advocate the concept outlined earlier for self interest, then you are mistaken in fact it is exactly the opposite. I advocate such concept because it is one of the foundations of human society. The beneficiary of a good or service should be paying for such. In this case, an independant agent or representative of the public is conducting tests to help the public decide whether a product is worth using. Isn't it natural that the public should be compensating that person for these services? I thought really long and hard on that topic and to be completely honest, my first reaction when I read these posts was to say that I wouldn't mind paying for product validation, but then I realized that this would be advocating something that is fundamentally flawed. So I changed my comments 180 degrees.

[silverphoenix]

Of course I do, when it is thorough, accurate, and unbiaised.

But if your remark intends to infer that I advocate the concept outlined earlier for self interest, then you are mistaken in fact it is exactly the opposite. I advocate such concept because it is one of the foundations of human society. The beneficiary of a good or service should be paying for such. In this case, an independant agent or representative of the public is conducting tests to help the public decide whether a product is worth using. Isn't it natural that the public should be compensating that person for these services? I thought really long and hard on that topic and to be completely honest, my first reaction when I read these posts was to say that I wouldn't mind paying for product validation, but then I realized that this would be advocating something that is fundamentally flawed. So I changed my comments 180 degrees.

so we can start a "martin, nik, etc" testing fund. If it wasn't taking so much of martin's time I would send every block I get to him and pay postage.

[Movieman]

@ Gabe;
This is an interesting discussion in the theoretical but then there is the reality.
No one wants to write a negative review ever.
I have done three. The first was with your H20-220 kit.
You know how I felt about it. It was a joy to work with.
The second I did with some heatsinks.
The worst nightmare of my life.
Improperly designed and it took me 22 hours to redesign, reshape and make work.
Now do I want to slam a manufacturer? No.
Instead of posting a negative review I sat down and wrote out all the needed "fixes" that were needed and mailed to the manufacturer. As these were pre-release they incorporated the fixes I sent and the final shipped product is an excellent one.
This is where I think a reviewer can be usefull.
The product is out of the lab and into a real world situation.

[gabe]

@ Gabe;
This is an interesting discussion in the theoretical but then there is the reality.
No one wants to write a negative review ever.
I have done three. The first was with your H20-220 kit.
You know how I felt about it. It was a joy to work with.
The second I did with some heatsinks.
The worst nightmare of my life.
Improperly designed and it took me 22 hours to redesign, reshape and make work.
Now do I want to slam a manufacturer? No.
Instead of posting a negative review I sat down and wrote out all the needed "fixes" that were needed and mailed to the manufacturer. As these were pre-release they incorporated the fixes I sent and the final shipped product is an excellent one.
This is where I think a reviewer can be usefull.
The product is out of the lab and into a real world situation.

I fully agree, since you are talking about R&D testing rather than validation testing, which I clearly differentiate. To further clarify what I mean by validation testing " testing of a product that is in production for the purpose of validating it's actual performance for the benefit of potential users"

[SiGfever]

Of course I do, when it is thorough, accurate, and unbiaised.

But if your remark intends to infer that I advocate the concept outlined earlier for self interest, then you are mistaken in fact it is exactly the opposite. I advocate such concept because it is one of the foundations of human society. The beneficiary of a good or service should be paying for such. In this case, an independant agent or representative of the public is conducting tests to help the public decide whether a product is worth using. Isn't it natural that the public should be compensating that person for these services? I thought really long and hard on that topic and to be completely honest, my first reaction when I read these posts was to say that I wouldn't mind paying for product validation, but then I realized that this would be advocating something that is fundamentally flawed. So I changed my comments 180 degrees.

Gabe,

I was not directing my first post at you. I was merely stating that the time and effort for testing should be compensated. Certain people on this forum have EARNED the reputation for accurate, concise testing and their findings carry a lot of weight with the members. Paying an independent should never compromise your standards; have you ever had a piece of jewelery appraised by an independent? And if yes wasn't the reason you went to them was because they were not affiliated with a jewelry store? Same thing.

I like your products and use several of them in my rigs. Plus my next NB will probably be another MCW30 because my other one works so well. So please do not take my post personally as they were not meant to question your honesty or integrity.

[gabe]

Gabe,

I was not directing my first post at you. I was merely stating that the time and effort for testing should be compensated. Certain people on this forum have EARNED the reputation for accurate, concise testing and their findings carry a lot of weight with the members. Paying an independent should never compromise your standards; have you ever had a piece of jewelery appraised by an independent? And if yes wasn't the reason you went to them was because they were not affiliated with a jewelry store? Same thing.

I like your products and use several of them in my rigs. Plus my next NB will probably be another MCW30 because my other one works so well. So please do not take my post personally as they were not meant to question your honesty or integrity.

I stand corrected. The subject was brought up whether manufacturers should/could pay for validation testing, and your post merely said that they should be paid, without ever mentionning who should pay. I am sorry if I misunderstandood your position then. By the way, your example of paying an appraiser confirms precisely what I am advocating. The public (the client) is paying an appraiser (the reviewer) to certify a product that he intends to buy.

so, if we all agree that they should be paid, do you agree that the Public should?