Slashdot Mirror
On the Integrity of Hardware Review Sites
leathered writes "Charlie Demerjian of The Inquirer has posted an interesting article on the integrity of hardware review sites. Apparently the benefits of running such a site go far beyond advertising revenue with a fair amount of 'sweeteners' from the hardware manufacturers to say the least. All is not lost as Charlie informs us that there are a small number are flying the flag for trustworthy reviews, but the question of which sites we can trust remains." I like Daniel Rutter's (of Dan's Data) policy best.
The [H]ardOCP review made clear that dual core chips were weak for gaming. Any idea which sites he's fingering?
Since the article he wrote was released today, I took a look at both Tom's Hardware and AnandTech. Both had "previews" of the Dual Core Intel chips...both major sites. That's just an educated guess, but seems correct.
root@allevil:~#
The one site I like, though the reviews are few and far between, is Ars.Technica. Only reason, is because they BUY THEIR OWN HARDWARE :)
:)
Anybody have any sites that they feel are bad or good (with respect to this article)? Please list a few reasons too, few examples if you can -- it makes it nice to see if these points are driven home over time by reading the reviews on different sites
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
Tom's Hardware was the primary reason I stopped reading his site... er....
Let me clarify, A long time ago, during the BH6 heydays, I used to read Tom's Hardware almost religiously. I scarfed down every article with near fever, trying to stay on top of the latest hardware reviews. Then I got stupid and started dating, so I ignored Ol' Tom for a few years. When my other half and I broke up, I started digging into the hardware scene again, so I went back to Tom's to get up to speed.
A few articles into it, I realized the, "feel," of the articles changed. There didn't seem to be as much useful, practical, information in them anymore. They didn't have any interesting opinions on the hardware being reviewed. In fact, I don't think I found an article that was harshly negative in any way. Nor did I find any articles with useful grit-in-your-teeth information. Initially, I thought the, "neutralism," being presented in the articles were because of the close tolerances of the hardware being reviewed. I mean overclocking a 333MHz CPU to 450MHz had greater net results than overclocking the more modern CPU's now. But I put my faith in Tom, because it's supposed to be the best. After all, his site does say:
So who was I to argue with that?
I just can't put my finger on what, exactly, Tom is missing. As near as I can figure, Tom's Hardware reviews read too much like brochures. It's just enough to try and get a person interested. But whatever it is, it's enough to prevent me from utilizing his site for anything more than keeping track of the latest hardware. Nowadays, if I want real hard and honest opinions, I just hop on over to my favorite forum/BBS/IRC/whatever and sort through the flamefests to get a feel for a particular piece of hardwares viability.
I used to work for a company that did training in digital video technology. I was a trainer, sent around the country to train people on Final Cut Pro. I was also a producer on several tutorial CD Roms, and did product reviews on the company website.
We also did marketing CDs for several equipment manufacturers, although our name never appeared in any credits. That part of the business was hush hush. We weren't to disclose those relationships.
We got lots of free equipment from these manufacturers, and others that wanted to be reviewed. We were specifically told to push certain products at the seminars and classes, and to give good reviews to "our" manufacturers products. We were also supposed to push product on the web site's forums, when people asked for advice. We never returned anything. In fact, the boss would give product to us employees as bonuses. I just checked the website, and they're still doing the same thing.
I openly questioned the ethics of this, and this and other factors led the boss to conclude that I wasn't a "team player", so I was let go. Honestly, I was glad, because there was a lot of other bullshit at that company as well. For a while, though, I was able to rationalize this because the products we were pushing were good products (for example, Canon DV cameras or Miller tripods). Still, when something is wrong, you know it's wrong, no matter how you try to justify it. If it wasn't wrong, why did we have to hide our business relationship with Canon?
Since this is pretty much par for the course, I think that if a magazine or web site really wanted to present unbiased, ethical reviews, they should state somewhere that they return the equipment, that their editorial is separate from advertising, and also disclose if the product manufacturer is an advertiser.
Of course, there still could be abuses, but when someone puts a policy in writing, it's a little harder to wiggle around basic ethics.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.