Bye Bye Folks

[Blitzen]

That is a great pity. I have always enjoyed and valued your comments, even if I may not (occasionally) have agreed with them.

I hope the passage of time will lead you to re-consider.

If we all agreed with each other the forum would be pointless and boring.

I have had more than my fair share of 'heated debates' here, and have been chastised for it on more than one occassion. That doesnt make it a bad place to visit, and if there are certain members/sections where you know you will attack/be attacked, just steer clear of them. <<<-------took me 4 years or more to come to this conclusion though

[Saracen]

....

For me, it's about making it clear to the reader what is genuine independent Hexus opinion, and what is commercially interested material. I don't have a problem with either, but what I don't like is commercially interested material masquerading as genuinely independent material.

For what it's worth, I can add a bit of perspective to that, though not in any sense related to either HEXUS or Scan, directly.

I've written for a number of periodicals, including a large proportion of the computer press, for over 20 years, in the UK and abroad. I've also written for non-computer periodicals, for national newspapers, and for others.

Not once in that 20+ years, and in several thousand articles, has any attempt been made either by a publication's editor, let alone a commercial interest like a manufacturer or distributor, to get me to change my opinion, or to help me form it in the first place.

For what it's worth, my point is that while I'm not saying everything is perfect with reviews, at no time in those 20+ years and thousands of articles has my published opinion ever been anything other than MY published opinion.

Oh, and for context and in the interests of transparency and full disclosure, my relationship with HEXUS is that of a volunteer mod on the forums. I regard David and some others as friends, but I've never worked for HEXUS, never had a commercial relationship with HEXUS, and never contributed, paid or unpaid, to the review side of things. In fact, I'm not paid by them at all, review or otherwise .... though I did get taken for a pub lunch a few years back.

[kalniel]

Appreciate it Saracen, though it's not always in the actual opinion that influence is felt, it's sometimes in other areas, such as choice of tests, test settings or versions*, or in additional article text added by editors. I gave the example of the "X is available from Y retailer" text. When that's a banner ad or clearly labelled sponsored text it's distinct from the article text. When it's text in the same style as the rest of the article it's not clear if it's being paid for or not because it looks like it comes from the original author/editor.


*and this is a veritable minefield - every manufacturer wants to show their device in the best light and will aim to influence reviewers to test in a way that shows their products most favourably. But increased transparency won't harm Hexus' reputation and I think we'll have additional reason to read Hexus reviews if they reveal the presence of any recommendations and the strength behind that recommendation. If AMD say "please don't test Crysis 2 with full tessellation because we believe it unfairly penalises our cards" then that's ultimately useful information for the consumer to have. If nVidia have an arrangement that requires you to test a minimum of X games from a priovided list in order to receive priority access to the latest cards then again that should be declared so we have an honest reasoning behind things. (Not saying that either of the above examples are real BTW).

[peterb]

<---snip

though I did get taken for a pub lunch a few years back.

Pah - favouritism! I hope it is entered in the register of interests, or the Press will be hounding you for a public inquiry

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I do think in some cases,Hexus has mentioned certain things companies have told them,ie, Nvidia not wanting DiRT:Showdown or AMD telling them to release review bits early.

[Saracen]

Appreciate it Saracen, though it's not always in the actual opinion that influence is felt, it's sometimes in other areas, such as choice of tests, test settings or versions*, or in additional article text added by editors. I gave the example of the "X is available from Y retailer" text. When that's a banner ad or clearly labelled sponsored text it's distinct from the article text. When it's text in the same style as the rest of the article it's not clear if it's being paid for or not because it looks like it comes from the original author/editor.


*and this is a veritable minefield - every manufacturer wants to show their device in the best light and will aim to influence reviewers to test in a way that shows their products most favourably. But increased transparency won't harm Hexus' reputation and I think we'll have additional reason to read Hexus reviews if they reveal the presence of any recommendations and the strength behind that recommendation. If AMD say "please don't test Crysis 2 with full tessellation because we believe it unfairly penalises our cards" then that's ultimately useful information for the consumer to have. If nVidia have an arrangement that requires you to test a minimum of X games from a priovided list in order to receive priority access to the latest cards then again that should be declared so we have an honest reasoning behind things. (Not saying that either of the above examples are real BTW).

I'm sure magazines often place adverts in "prime" position, and charge accordingly. After all, they are trying to make a profit.

I take your points, as above, though, Kal. A couple more points from my experience.

I've never had a single conversation with anyone on the advert/marketing team in any publication I've worked for. No involvement at all. I couldn't even name any of them if my life depended in it.

It's worth pointing out, though, that I'm freelance. Whether the same can be said by staff writers, I have literally no idea.

As for benchmarks, etc., the publications I've worked for that used them (and, of course, they're far more prevalent in the computer press than they are in many other areas simply because they're either less appropriate, or not appropriate at all, in many areas. A restaurant critic, or film critic, for instance, is giving a highly subject view, and it's hard to see how you could design a metric to measure what they're assessing.

And there is an element of that in computing, too. Some things can be measured, objectively. Some cannot. For instance, it's hard to define a measurement technique for how effective a photo printer is at realistically portraying colour, even if you could measure pixel size or firing rate of ink droplets.

But, in so far as I've used conventional benchmarks, all I will say is that those publications I've used have defined what benchmarks they use, what settings they require and the procedure to set up for testing. In other words, what to turn on or turn off to ensure a meaningful comparison between products.

I've always looked at it as being a bit like APR. It's largely meaningless in telling you what your monthly payments will be on a mortgage, loan or credit card, but is useful in forming an overall comparison between the overall cost of that loan, card or mortgage.

So it is with benchmarks. They are of limited use in telling you what to expect of YOUR machine, in your particular circumstances, but are of some relevance in informing a comparison between products.

It's also been my experience that publications supply the benchmarks they want used, or specify precisely which versions to use if I can access them directly, precisely to assure that consistency. It's also been my experience that they change from one version to another with great reluctance, because it compromises that direct comparison.

But, periodically, you pretty much have to change. That might be because, as you use a benchmark, you learn about shortcomings, and that if you change either what you use or how you use it, you can gain more valuable insight. Or it might be because you have to change to support something that;s changed in the market. For instance, if you use SaracenBench v3.1, and it doesn't support Windows 7, then when you start getting W7 machines, you pretty much have to upgrade to SaracenBench v4.0, which does support it.

I'm aware of some publications putting a LOT of effort into trying to make benchmarks as useful, informative and open a process as possible, not least by explicitly declaring what they use and how they use it so that people can run their own tests. But make no mistake. Getting proper and useful benchmarks is not a simple process. We can all download and run them, but there's a lot more to setting up a rigorous process than that.

Again, I can't speak for all publications, but those I've worked with have been pretty hot on this. It's not that benchmarking is a perfect world, but a lot of time, money and effort has been put into making it as good as they can get it.

Has it been abused? I don't know, but not that I ever came across. Then again, I'm, one bloke. I've got a level of inside perspective most people don't, but I'm by no means universally knowledgeable about what magazines get up to. I can only relate what I know from personal experience.

And personally, I don't really see "x is available from y retailer" as much of an issue.

Two reasons.

First, you've pretty much got to tell people somewhere where they can get it.

Second, with Google, etc, it's not exactly hard to find somewhere else if you don't want to use retailer x for some reason.

Over the years, many mags have asked me to submit both an RRP, and a street price. Some just want the latter. In truth, nobody much cares about RRP these days, and haven't for a long time. And my technique was to rummage around my list of "usual suspects" for a price comparison, then do a search for others. Then I'd list the retailer I found as the cheapest for the price, and that's the retailer that went in the article as "available from ....,". I don't remember an editor ever changing that, though it's certainly possible I guess.

Personally, what does wind me up, and intensely I might add, is those adverts crafted to look like a proper review, with a tiny little "advertorial" somewhere at the top. Either it's a paid ad, or it's an impartial and objective (as much as possible). Making the one look like the other is, in my opinion, a disgusting tactic, and it thoroughly puts me off both the product and the manufacturer that does it. They must think we're all idiots.

[Saracen]

Pah - favouritism! I hope it is entered in the register of interests, or the Press will be hounding you for a public inquiry

Well, it was about a project that was actually nothing directly to do with HEXUS, and it didn't happen anyway. The Press are welcome to ask me all the questions about it that they like .... provided they're paying for lunch. And I pick the restaurant.

[Saracen]

I do think in some cases,Hexus has mentioned certain things companies have told them,ie, Nvidia not wanting DiRT:Showdown or AMD telling them to release review bits early.

I have no idea how HEXUS write articles, or on what basis.

But from my perspective, that issue is a bit of a double-edged sword.

There is the world of difference between a journalist talking to manufacturers and getting information, and them presenting a company line, uncritically, and verbatim.

For instance, I've had trips to various manufacturing plants to see how things are made. This includes things like tours round clean rooms, discussions with everyone from design engineers to company presidents and CEOs.

I had a tour round Apple's research labs, under an NDA, where I saw a number of products in prototype, way before they hit the market. For instance, the first colour Mac, I'd say a good year before it went on sale. I had the first HP colour laser on my desk at home, several months before it was available to buy. IIRC, there were two in the country at the time. I've had discussions with design engineers at Epson, in Japan, and lunch with Lexmark's president and CEO. I've had numerous briefings, product demonstrations, white papers, and so on.

All of it goes into the mix of background information, but it doesn't mean that I swallow it wholesale, or uncritically. It does mean, however, that I can say from first-hand experience how Epson make a cartridge, or the process by which a hard drive is manufactured, having been there, and seen it. It's clearly not possible for everyone to travel round the world and inspect clean-room facilities, but it should add a degree of perspective to readers if the people writing the articles have as much understanding as possible, and if they maintain that impartiality and perspective.

How can you get that type of background information other than from those with an agenda? But that doesn't mean I swallow the agenda.

As far as I'm concerned, any product review stands or falls on the merits, or otherwise, of that product. That is, after all, what I'm paid for, and if an editor gets anything less than that, it won't be long before I stop getting work from an editor. And then word would get round. And that's goodbye to a career.

And that's one advantage of freelancers. The only axe I have to grind is preserving impartiality, independence, and professional objectivity. Nothing else will do. I would not accept pressure from either manufacturers, or even editors. With manufacturers, they simply don't have any leverage, or inducements worth risking everything for. And with editors, my future is entirely dependent on being reliable, and I'd stop working for a publication that tried to compromise that. Not that any ever have.

Which brings me back to your quote. I've no idea of the specific instances you mention, but I do talk to manufacturer all the time. It might be a PR person, it might be a product manager, and on relatively rare occasion, it'll be the CEO. And yes, I might mention something they told me. Even undercover journalists working on the latest political exposé have to repeat some things they're told.

The point .... if you talk to someone at a manufacturer and they tell you something interesting and newsworthy, well, you pass it on. It's part of the job. Whether it's a formal interview with a company CEO (done that), a quiet informal chat with a CEO (done that, for instance, with IBM) or a 5-minute catch-up with Bill Gates at a conference (and yes, done that, too), you pass on things worth passing on (unless they were off the record, of course). It's the job.

So depending on what it is you're saying, and the manner in which you present it, HEXUS may well have mentioned things companies told them. It's how we find out, a lot of the time. The question is ... is it true, relevant, interesting and worth mentioning. So I don't take what I'm told as gospel. It goes through a bullpoop filter, for a start. But then it gets mentioned if it's relevant to the readers, and is assessed as being reliable.

But inevitably, there's a relationship between press and manufacturers. We just have to ensure it's professional at all times. I wish I could say the same for some of the gutter press in the recent past.

[Zak33]

If we all agreed with each other the forum would be pointless and boring.

I have had more than my fair share of 'heated debates' here, and have been chastised for it on more than one occassion. That doesnt make it a bad place to visit, and if there are certain members/sections where you know you will attack/be attacked, just steer clear of them. <<<-------took me 4 years or more to come to this conclusion though

And that is why I rate you so highly bud

[rox0r]

He's left never to return; thread serves no purpose. Lock and move on, noi?

[g8ina]

He did visit at 1am this morning, so I dare say he'll pop in to read stuff....

Im happy to leave it open a while.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I have no idea how HEXUS write articles, or on what basis.

But from my perspective, that issue is a bit of a double-edged sword.

There is the world of difference between a journalist talking to manufacturers and getting information, and them presenting a company line, uncritically, and verbatim.

For instance, I've had trips to various manufacturing plants to see how things are made. This includes things like tours round clean rooms, discussions with everyone from design engineers to company presidents and CEOs.

I had a tour round Apple's research labs, under an NDA, where I saw a number of products in prototype, way before they hit the market. For instance, the first colour Mac, I'd say a good year before it went on sale. I had the first HP colour laser on my desk at home, several months before it was available to buy. IIRC, there were two in the country at the time. I've had discussions with design engineers at Epson, in Japan, and lunch with Lexmark's president and CEO. I've had numerous briefings, product demonstrations, white papers, and so on.

All of it goes into the mix of background information, but it doesn't mean that I swallow it wholesale, or uncritically. It does mean, however, that I can say from first-hand experience how Epson make a cartridge, or the process by which a hard drive is manufactured, having been there, and seen it. It's clearly not possible for everyone to travel round the world and inspect clean-room facilities, but it should add a degree of perspective to readers if the people writing the articles have as much understanding as possible, and if they maintain that impartiality and perspective.

How can you get that type of background information other than from those with an agenda? But that doesn't mean I swallow the agenda.

As far as I'm concerned, any product review stands or falls on the merits, or otherwise, of that product. That is, after all, what I'm paid for, and if an editor gets anything less than that, it won't be long before I stop getting work from an editor. And then word would get round. And that's goodbye to a career.

And that's one advantage of freelancers. The only axe I have to grind is preserving impartiality, independence, and professional objectivity. Nothing else will do. I would not accept pressure from either manufacturers, or even editors. With manufacturers, they simply don't have any leverage, or inducements worth risking everything for. And with editors, my future is entirely dependent on being reliable, and I'd stop working for a publication that tried to compromise that. Not that any ever have.

Which brings me back to your quote. I've no idea of the specific instances you mention, but I do talk to manufacturer all the time. It might be a PR person, it might be a product manager, and on relatively rare occasion, it'll be the CEO. And yes, I might mention something they told me. Even undercover journalists working on the latest political exposé have to repeat some things they're told.

The point .... if you talk to someone at a manufacturer and they tell you something interesting and newsworthy, well, you pass it on. It's part of the job. Whether it's a formal interview with a company CEO (done that), a quiet informal chat with a CEO (done that, for instance, with IBM) or a 5-minute catch-up with Bill Gates at a conference (and yes, done that, too), you pass on things worth passing on (unless they were off the record, of course). It's the job.

So depending on what it is you're saying, and the manner in which you present it, HEXUS may well have mentioned things companies told them. It's how we find out, a lot of the time. The question is ... is it true, relevant, interesting and worth mentioning. So I don't take what I'm told as gospel. It goes through a bullpoop filter, for a start. But then it gets mentioned if it's relevant to the readers, and is assessed as being reliable.

But inevitably, there's a relationship between press and manufacturers. We just have to ensure it's professional at all times. I wish I could say the same for some of the gutter press in the recent past.

In those cases I mentioned,I think the companies,did not want them to tell the readers what they said!

Although I do suppose,there is a line that has been kept to,as there is always the possibility a company may go on a hissy fit and not give you review samples.

I think Nvidia has done that before - I am not sure if AMD has done it.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Having said that,I also think some sites try to use apparent controversy to get site hits and Hexus does not do that.

I think one site did that,although it was summed reasonably well in this article on another site:

http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news...t-for-amd.aspx

Edit!!

BTW,I believe one of the Hexus reviewer commented on the same thing about the suggested review format and disagreed with it,but it was in one of the forum/review threads.

[MadduckUK]

I think one site did that,although it was summed reasonably well in this article on another site:

http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news...t-for-amd.aspx

http://semiaccurate.com/2009/07/27/p...it-journalism/

He did visit at 1am this morning, so I dare say he'll pop in to read stuff....

Im happy to leave it open a while.

Why would you not leave it open full stop, the only threads that get locked are those that have not run their course, those that have sink naturally.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

http://semiaccurate.com/2009/07/27/p...it-journalism/

You do realise both hate each other,as Charlie rants about him on his forums!!

He calles the site BS News,for B**lS**t News.

They fell out during their time at The Inquirer,where both worked at IIRC.

It does not change the fact The Techreport contradicted themselves regarding what they did. You shouldn't criticise other companies about staged/controlled reviews,if you do one yourself for another company.

[ik9000]

First day back on Hexus after what feels like a small eternity and one of the more rational folk is leaving? Mate, whatever got said I'm sure they didn't mean it... we just waaant you bacck for goo-oo-ood. Aw c'mon it worked for Robbie...