Apogee GTZ

[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?

[SiGfever]

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?

What I meant was it might not be a bad idea for a manufacturer to hire an independent to test their product with all the information going to the paying company. Then it would be up to the company to release that information to the public to validate their product. just my $.015

[Movieman]

The problem that arises is that when the reviewer is paid by the company he is then indebted to them whether he wishes to be or not.
If he is paid by the end users then he can be impartial.
No company in the world is going to continue paying a reviewer that is dumping on their products whether deserved or not.
You have to keep cash from the companies away from the reviewers or you set up a situation where he then becomes their unofficial employee.
Money corrupts the whole process here as it does everywhere else.

[gabe]

The problem that arises is that when the reviewer is paid by the company he is then indebted to them whether he wishes to be or not.
If he is paid by the end users then he can be impartial.
No company in the world is going to continue paying a reviewer that is dumping on their products whether deserved or not.
You have to keep cash from the companies away from the reviewers or you set up a situation where he then becomes their unofficial employee.
Money corrupts the whole process here as it does everywhere else.

Amen.

[gabe]

What I meant was it might not be a bad idea for a manufacturer to hire an independent to test their product with all the information going to the paying company. Then it would be up to the company to release that information to the public to validate their product. just my $.015

Ok, let's see if I get that right. I manufacturer pay for validation data. If it's no good, I don't publish it, if it's good, then I publish it, but since it was paid for, nobody believes in it, right? Not to sound harsh, but that's exactly what would happen.

So isn't it a much cleaner approach to let independants be funded by their direct beneficiary?

[SiGfever]

Ok, let's see if I get that right. I manufacturer pay for validation data. If it's no good, I don't publish it, if it's good, then I publish it, but since it was paid for, nobody believes in it, right? Not to sound harsh, but that's exactly what would happen.

So isn't it a much cleaner approach to let independants be funded by their direct beneficiary?

Yes I see your point. Too many people would believe that the tester was "Paid off" and the testing could not be trusted.