Apogee GTZ

[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?

[IanY]

I know what my stance would be if I were a manufacturer... caveat emptor. That'll probably why I would have no business

[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.

[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.

[gillbot]

I have written plenty a bad review in the past, however, I did give the product supplier every chance to correct issues before the review was made public. If the product was updated and I was sent the updated version, I redid the review and the process was repeated until I was notified that this would be the retail revision. I did put all of the revision progress in my review though.

[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?

[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]

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

[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"

[Martinm210]

FYI

I completely agree with everyone regarding reviewers should not be paid, and I would even add to that and say to be completely unbiased they should not be paid by anyone....it's the way it should be.

My only complaint is the lack of performance related data on some websites, we only have a few now with c/w and pressure drop data and those don't go into detail on what c/w even means(testing specifications details), so testers are unable to even try and repeat that result. It's also very clear to me that c/w from one manufacturer was obtained differently from others. When that happens it means it's entirely left to the public to figure out for themselves, and that shouldn't be the case either.

I'd just like to see more manufacturer published performance results. At least it gives you a place to start and if there was enough detail about how those results were obtained, 3rd party testers might even be able to duplicate that.

[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]

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?

[majestik]

I'll just chime in and say that Martin has a paypal donation button on the flow rate estimator page.

[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.

[Movieman]

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'll just chime in and say that Martin has a paypal donation button on the flow rate estimator page.

Now that is a good idea but I'll bet you dollars to dimes that he doesn't see $100.00 /month..
People just WILL NOT pay for what they feel they should get for free no matter if they are right or wrong.
Look at Bok's Free Dc stats page, used by thousands but how many donate?
VERY few.
I sent him $25.00 twice and thats probably 30% of what he's received this year.

[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.

[gabe]

Yes


Now that is a good idea but I'll bet you dollars to dimes that he doesn't see $100.00 /month..
People just WILL NOT pay for what they feel they should get for free no matter if they are right or wrong.
Look at Bok's Free Dc stats page, used by thousands but how many donate?
VERY few.
I sent him $25.00 twice and thats probably 30% of what he's received this year.

very sound observation..

but I'm practical, so let's push this one step further

Either things go back to the way they are.. a few independants doing this as a hobby, for glory or fun, and/or some free hardware, or {suggestion} we take a tight knit community like XS interested in uncompromised data, and set up a fee based section of the forum to publish that data.. There are many practical issues with that, but it could be a way to get it done..

Someone rightfully suggested that reviewers should be compensated. Everybody agress (I think) that manufacturers cannot/should not/must not be involved. So how does it get done?

[Movieman]

very sound observation..

but I'm practical, so let's push this one step further

Either things go back to the way they are.. a few independants doing this as a hobby, for glory or fun, and/or some free hardware, or {suggestion} we take a tight knit community like XS interested in uncompromised data, and set up a fee based section of the forum to publish that data.. There are many practical issues with that, but it could be a way to get it done..

Someone rightfully suggested that reviewers should be compensated. Everybody agress (I think) that manufacturers cannot/should not/must not be involved. So how does it get done?

Just speaking for myself but I think there are many that feel this way;
People who review are generally "into" the hardware, it is a hobby but lets face it, it can be an expensive one.
We all have different financial abilities. Some guys can go and buy the state of the art twice a year but most of us can not and I surely can't.
What I have is time and investing that time to do a good in depth review of an item with the "payoff" of that item to me is a fair trade.
Now when I reviewed those HS and found them to be horrible as shipped I said to the company "Do you want me to ship them back to you?"
They said no.
I would have said the same to you had I found your kit to be crap but everything I said in that review was the God's truth or I wouldn't have put my name on it. To me it is that black and white and I'll say it here again, whoever wrote that manual in that kit is a resource not to be lost.
Now some here will think that I'm kissing your backside here but that is not me.
When I see a great product the little kid still inside this 56 year old body wants to share that with his friends so they can benefit from what I've learned. Yes, black and white.

[nikhsub1]

Wow, I must be on some massive ignore list. Either everyone is dense or I am placed in 'Tachy goes to coventry'. Reviewers should NEVER BE PAID, period end of story. What Movieman described is what people should be paid for, he should have been PAID for his insight, non public testing, advice etc, etc, etc.

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.

And you should have been paid for this. This is my opinion. You did NOT publicly review this piece, you improved it.

[gabe]

Just speaking for myself but I think there are many that feel this way;
People who review are generally "into" the hardware, it is a hobby but lets face it, it can be an expensive one.
We all have different financial abilities. Some guys can go and buy the state of the art twice a year but most of us can not and I surely can't.
What I have is time and investing that time to do a good in depth review of an item with the "payoff" of that item to me is a fair trade..

right, I was just discussing the same thing with another member, and he made the very same observation.

which is one more reason to find creative ways to compensate reviewers without alienating their independance. We need good reviewers!

suggestions welcome on how to achieve that.

[Movieman]

right, I was just discussing the same thing with another member, and he made the very same observation.

which is one more reason to find creative ways to compensate reviewers without alienating their independance. We need good reviewers!

suggestions welcome on how to achieve that.

The first and biggest hurdle is trust, on both sides.
Also a feeling that we can work together talking straight to one another.
My feeling is that when a company has sent something to me they are taking a gamble that I will be honest with them and maybe I'm old fashioned but that trust means a lot to me. Lets face it, who the hell am I?
To honor that trust I owe them my best and that is why I spent that day reworking those heatsinks.
Niksub said I should have been paid for it but in a way I was.
The guys here who bought those heatsinks benefited from that sunday I spent and that's enough for me.
The company also benefited in that they sold a better product and thats my thanks to them for their trust in me.
It's a two way street or it should be seen that way, not an "us" and "them" mentality.

[71 (Bryan)]

im kinda disappointed, still now internals?

[gabe]

I second the motion to create a fee based area of the forum, I'll be the first member, but you would need at least (3) credible testers for checks and balances...

The manufacturers should pay into this fund and who they are and what they contributed should be kept from the testers. The products should also be provided to XS testers by the manufacturers. If the manufacturer believes in their product, then they shouldn't be afraid to let it be tested by Independents. Believe me, the wheat will be seperated from the chaff rather quickly...

We'd be happy to contribute into a "blind" fund.