Pogue and the Bogusness of Advanced Gadget Reviews

Jordan Golson writes "New York Times gadget reviewer David Pogue got into an email back-and-forth with Valleywag after he was tricked into writing an article by advance misinformation on a pre-launch product. In theory, it's good for reviewers to test and write up products before release day, so consumers can make informed choices. In practice, Pogue and we wish the industry standard would change." Personally I think this is why blogs are great- if a product sells 100,000 units, it only takes a few dozen bloggers to encounter problems for the truth to come out. Of course, that doesn't help you if you want to pre-order.

Comments

Ouch.

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Isn't the best solution to not write about it until it can at least be tested? Why does Pogue, or for that matter, any reviewer, have to beat the release date so badly on such an obscure product? So nobody knows about a product when it's actually released, that's not such a bad thing for everyone, except maybe for the company in question if they have predatory intent.

I think it's important to wait and not rush. I'm happy to let the early adopters try stuff out first for a few months.

Re:Ouch.

[dgatwood]

No, Pogue and his publication should sue the company for fraud. That would stop crap like this.

Well Done, I say!

[Gazzonyx]

I think it was awfully big of Pogue to openly admit the prices were wrong (despite it not being his fault that the company essentially lied to him), and address the issue, rather than submitting a correction that would get filed on the back page.

He could have also put his hands in his pockets and whistled while rocking back and forth, and hoped no one noticed or said anything. It's rare to see journalists point out when they're wrong (I'm glaring at you, Dvorak!), without being at knife point.

It's about the sales

[Gazzonyx]

It would be ideal for them to wait, but that won't sell any magazines if their competitors are covering tech. before it comes out. Especially tech. heavy magazines expected to be on the bleeding edge.

Read with caution

[MasterVidBoi]

if a product sells 100,000 units, it only takes a few dozen bloggers to encounter problems for the truth to come out

And the corollary: It only takes a few anecdotes to tarnish a generally reliable product.

Re:Read with caution

[DerekLyons]

Precisely. I'm increasingly finding that I cannot rely on internet reviews. Few products are without some problems, and fewer still ship thousands (or tens of thousands) of units without a lemon or two.
 
But on the 'net, it is those few who seem to drive the reputation of a product. (Bloggers are the worst of the lot - they tend to repeat each other and link in a snarled web, thus making the problem(s) appear even more widespread than they actually are.)

not a "gadget" review

[1u3hr]

The "gadget" is an IP-phone. The technical details are not novel. What was was the prices given. That's something that the company can change at any time. It's not like he was given a styrofoam mockup and gushed about its high quality, he cited prices given a week in advance of the launch. As he says, why on earth would they lie about that? It just makes them look sleazy and/or incompetent. So they suckered Pogue, but shot themselves in the foot.

Consumer Reports only reports on buyable stuff

[Animats]

Consumer Reports only reports on products they can buy at retail. They barely even talk to manufacturers. And not only do they make money, they're one of the very few magazines on the web people actually pay for.

Re:Consumer Reports only reports on buyable stuff

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Yes they do. I canceled my subscription long ago when I got sick of their reviews of computers. They actually gave a higher score to a dell machine that had trial software, because it had trial software (crapware). And the buying guide had an incredible amount of grammatical, spelling and just plain strange errors. It repeated the same paragraph several times in a chapter. It only didn't fit in any of the spots. If I know they don't know what they are talkng about in my area of expertise, I can't trust them to tell me about anything I know less about.

Ridiculous

[Procasinator]

He asked a company for it's pricing and he was supplied with the wrong pricing. For what reason would the prices be wrong? A complete non-story, Pogue did nothing wrong. Releasing prices to the general public is a good thing, not something that should be discouraged. People want to know the price of products like PS3, iPhone and charges of using features of it before they are released, even if only a guideline.

Oh really?

[dgun]

David Pogue writes whatever you tell him to

I'll keep that in mind. The next time I piss my wife off, I'll have him write an apology.

You can't top an apology written in the NYT. Unless I can get some putz at the Wall Street Journal...

Re:No no no no no

[Dun Malg]

It's unconventional ("we and pogue" would be more idiomatic), but I don't think it's ungrammatical; note that this is a subject, not an object (hence "we", not "us"). Am I missing something? It's grammatically correct, but it's very awkward. The grouping of the collective "we" on an equal footing with "Pogue" strains the mental picture of "we". This grouping, intimating a close association, is such that Pogue would naturally be assumed to be part of the "we" in question, so puzzlement ensues when he is not. It's just bad writing. Being an active part of the conversation in question, Pogue should have been included in the collective "we". Alternately, Valleywag could have used a collective pronoun for itself in a subordinate clause to show the separation. Any of the following would have been better:

"We all wish..."
"Both Pogue and we at Valleywag wish..."
"Pogue wishes (as do we at Valleywag) that..."

It also doesn't help that the /. blurb says "Jordan Golson writes" followed by nothing but a quote lifted from the article, which Jordan Golson certainly did not write, followed by some opinion from CmdrTaco. This sets up a situation where the identity of the "we" in question is thoroughly obfuscated. The original line was marginally acceptable, in a casual online writing sort of way, but it thoroughly lost its footing when it achieved four degrees of separation from the original conversation with Mr. Pogue.