joe@lakesys.UUCP (Joe Pantuso) (03/28/88)
In article <516@cunixc.columbia.edu> suh@cunixc.columbia.edu (Kenneth Suh) writes: >In article <2653@crash.cts.com> haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) >basically said: > {Ask usenetters for donations of time and money. Also, ask} > {manufacturers for donation} > >I replied by asking how the reviews could be impartial with manufacturer >donations. > >In article <3496@cbmvax.UUCP> schein@cbmvax.UUCP (Dan Schein CATS) >supported my criticism and stated that the reviews would have to be an >impartial volunteer effort > >In article <535@lakesys.UUCP> joe@lakesys.UUCP (Joe Pantuso) writes: >>You are over-looking a very plausable way to make it work. Have a standard >>[and more I said about having companies make donations of standard amount] > >How many companies would pay to have their product reviewed? You have >all three Amigas and many other peripherals to try it out with. > I admit that my idea of a "fee" to have a review done was part of it being very late at night when I thought of that :-). I don't agree with you numbers exactly. Hardware we only will need one of: I DO have access to a 2000 a 1000 and a 500. Also a variety of different setups/memory expansions/# of drives, etc. So I will just run around doing the hardware reviews. As for software, we only need one or two of a package. It will very definately NOT be returned (that's a silly idea, what on earth would they do with a used package when we sent it back??). Companies are not above or against donating review copies, they get sent to "physical" magazines all the time, as well as column writers (every read "Chaos Manor" in Byte? :-) ) > >>So I then receive all these packages, and ship them randomly to the "net >>reviewers".... > >Well, I like your review formats, etc., but I strongly disagree with >randomly shipping out packages to "net reviewers". Many people on the >net have their own software companies or work for others. In some >cases, they might be impartial, and in others, they might be reviewing a >competitor's product. This is a ludicrous suggestion. Now hold on a minute here. It has already been discussed that there will be critea for reviewers. Basically reviewers will be college students and profesionals who work for companies that are not financially connected to any software or hardware firm (although it would be acceptable for somone to review software if they worked for XYZ Harddrives, don't you think?). The very thought that I would allow a competetor to review software is ludicrous :-) >Consumer Reports is recognized as being impartial because they purchase >everything they review. In addition, they do not accept advertising or >donations from companies. True, but where would we get the funds to do anything like that? We don't have people paying to read the mag. >Well, you basically have my opinions. I do not think that we should >ever solicit funds from companies. If someone want to purchase a laser >printer, fine. If that person wishes to donate use of it towards >helping out with the reviews great! I still think that this thing can >work. Yes, we won't be soliciting funds from companies. That leaves us with this problem: how do we finance the moving of packages around the country? Would reviewers be willing to pay for their own shipping? If so that would help. I could handle the $100 a month in postage, plus the paper etc. My time was already free. >Personally, I thought that reviews could be coordinated as follows: > > Head coordinator > | > ================================================= > | | | | >coordinator of coordinator of coordinator of coordinator of > CAD stuff MIDI stuff monitors (you get the picture) > | | | | >============= ============= ============= ============= > reviewers reviewers reviewers reviewers Yea, right :-). Think about that a minute. That's alot of people, plus you are assuming things. I think in the end here we will see two things happening: Reviews will come unsolicited and solicited from people already owning existing software/hardware. Then there will be reviews of new products from the net reviwers. Having subcoordinators would be a waste of manpower (it is limited, believe it or not). I may find it neccessary to have several other people helping me out with editing reviews(they have to be checked for content/accuracy/style/etc) if the volume becomes too grat for me to handle easily. >In addition, the head coordinator would maintain the reviews themselves >and coordinate sites that would also store them. Very definately. >I would then imagine these reviews getting posted on BBS', Genie, etc. >This would help us and others from getting ripped off. If things went >really well, we might even get a newsletter going, but that will be >discussed when the time comes. I is already decided that that will happen. Magazine format to the Net and to BBS's, etc. And individual issuses and reviews available from my site. It is also very likely that some reviews will end up in User-group newsletters. A Newsletter is an interesting idea, in this age of e-mail I somhow forgot about that. If is a possibility and might work out, but it would be a little expensive I would think, I'll look into that. >As for now, Joe says that he would like to coordinate things. If he >wouldn't mind doing it without the money, then I would support his >efforts. (Joe, I do not mean to imply that you are in this for the >money.) I wouldn't mind donating disk space for a review depository. I am going to have to do it without money. But I do need *some* funds to run this thing, suggestions are welcome as to what to do about that. Your diskspace is appriciated, perhaps at a later date it will be needed. My site here has already agreed to support the library. Traffic in and out of here is very dependable and we already handle some 200+ requests for files per week alredy (we could handle 20x this volume I'm sure). The money wouldn't hurt :-), but I have had to consider that that would not be exactly "standard" procedure for companies submitting review items. Thank you for your comments. -Joe
suh@cunixc.columbia.edu (Kenneth Suh) (03/28/88)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: The USENET Seal of Approval-Funding Summary: Expires: References: <2653@crash.cts.com> <498@cunixc.columbia.edu> <3496@cbmvax.UUCP> <535@lakesys.UUCP> <516@cunixc.columbia.edu> <553@lakesys.UUCP> Sender: Reply-To: suh@cunixc.columbia.edu (Kenneth Suh) Followup-To: Distribution: na Organization: Columbia University Keywords: In article <553@lakesys.UUCP> joe@lakesys.UUCP (Joe Pantuso) writes: >I admit that my idea of a "fee" to have a review done was part of it being >very late at night when I thought of that :-). I don't agree with you numbers >exactly. Hardware we only will need one of: I DO have access to a 2000 a 1000 >and a 500. Also a variety of different setups/memory expansions/# of drives, >etc. So I will just run around doing the hardware reviews. Of course your have an expansion bus for the 1000... Oh yeah, you have a NEC Multisync to test out a de-interlacer with. I am sure that you won't admit that you have all sorts of hardware and peripherals. Or will you? >As for software, we only need one or two of a package. It will very >definately NOT be returned (that's a silly idea, what on earth would they do >with a used package when we sent it back??). Companies are not above or >against donating review copies, they get sent to "physical" magazines all the >time, as well as column writers (every read "Chaos Manor" in Byte? :-) ) My point was that a company would not pay a $100.00 and give you two or three copies to review. >>>So I then receive all these packages, and ship them randomly to the "net >>>reviewers".... >> >>Well, I like your review formats, etc., but I strongly disagree with >>randomly shipping out packages to "net reviewers". Many people on the >>net have their own software companies or work for others. In some >>cases, they might be impartial, and in others, they might be reviewing a >>competitor's product. This is a ludicrous suggestion. > >Now hold on a minute here. It has already been discussed that there will be >critea for reviewers. Basically reviewers will be college students and >profesionals who work for companies that are not financially connected to any >software or hardware firm (although it would be acceptable for somone to >review software if they worked for XYZ Harddrives, don't you think?). You were the one that chose the word "randomly". Don't get so offended. It seems as though you are climbing the ladder to fame, and you see me in the way. The last thing I want to do is run "Usenet Reviews". In terms of the discussion about reviewers, I don't seem to recall to much. I must have a terrible memory. I do remember many people repeating that the reviewers must be impartial. I also recall someone saying that the reviewers should not be "hackers" (whatever that means). I don't know where you will find persons that are not financially connected to any software or hardware firm. In addition, I think that your exception is ridiculous(ie: software can be reviewed by someone who worked for a hardware company). If you can find a pool of reviewers who are not connected with any company, then I guess you can randomly select reviewers. But, if you allow your exception, then you cannot randomly select. I think that your criteria for reviewers was also a simple idea made at 3am in the morning. Face the facts, you make simplistic arguments for ideas until you run out of them. > >The very thought that I would allow a competetor to review software is >ludicrous :-) What is funny about this is that I actually believe the smiley face. If you don't know what the smiley faces are for, I can send you an explanation. >>Consumer Reports is recognized as being impartial because they purchase >>everything they review. In addition, they do not accept advertising or >>donations from companies. > >True, but where would we get the funds to do anything like that? We don't >have people paying to read the mag. I thought that it would be possible to get someone who had XYZ software package to say that he was going to coordinate reviews of that type of software in general. People who owned that package or others similar to it could write up reviews. Do you think that XYZ, Inc. would give the same service to Joe Reviewer from BYTE as he would to John Doe? I think that people want to know about the software/hardware and the actual service they can expect from a company. >>Well, you basically have my opinions. I do not think that we should >>ever solicit funds from companies. If someone want to purchase a laser >>printer, fine. If that person wishes to donate use of it towards >>helping out with the reviews great! I still think that this thing can >>work. >Yes, we won't be soliciting funds from companies. That leaves us with this >problem: how do we finance the moving of packages around the country? Would >reviewers be willing to pay for their own shipping? If so that would help. I >could handle the $100 a month in postage, plus the paper etc. My time was >already free. I think that we should start reviewing what people already have. The other funds can come from donations (that is assuming that people really want this to happen). I think that it could be done for less than $100 dollars. 100 letters would cost: $25.00 for postage $ 2.00 for envelopes $ 3.00 for paper ====== $30.00 Yeah, I know, "Phone calls will have to be made.". But, who will send out 100 letters a month. I am sure that everyone wants this to be a professional thing, but I think that most of the people interested in it want good content, not presentation. Amigaworld does have its place(yeah I know what you're thinking) >>Personally, I thought that reviews could be coordinated as follows: >> >> Head coordinator >> | >> ================================================= >> | | | | >>coordinator of coordinator of coordinator of coordinator of >> CAD stuff MIDI stuff monitors (you get the picture) >> | | | | >>============= ============= ============= ============= >> reviewers reviewers reviewers reviewers > >Yea, right :-). Think about that a minute. That's alot of people, plus you >are assuming things. I think in the end here we will see two things >happening: Reviews will come unsolicited and solicited from people already >owning existing software/hardware. Then there will be reviews of new products >from the net reviwers. Having subcoordinators would be a waste of manpower >(it is limited, believe it or not). I may find it neccessary to have several >other people helping me out with editing reviews(they have to be checked for >content/accuracy/style/etc) if the volume becomes too grat for me to handle >easily. Oh, I forgot, you are not only a MIDI expert, but you also do CAD stuff on the side. You are the definitive "Renaissance Man". Sorry if this is starting to end up so negatively, but maybe I am assuming that you either teach, study or work now and then. In addition, I thought that "Usenet Reviews" would produce in-depth reviews. >>I would then imagine these reviews getting posted on BBS', Genie, etc. >>This would help us and others from getting ripped off. If things went >>really well, we might even get a newsletter going, but that will be >>discussed when the time comes. > >I is already decided that that will happen. Magazine format to the Net and to >BBS's, etc. And individual issuses and reviews available from my site. Well, I guess that it has been decided that you will coordinate things. >A Newsletter is an interesting idea, in this age of e-mail I somhow forgot >about that. If is a possibility and might work out, but it would be a little >expensive I would think, I'll look into that. Even though the time hasn't come yet, it could be done by having people send in preformatted floppies with a postage paid return mailer. Then, reviews could be copied over and sent out with a program to print them out if they were put together with a desktop publishing package. >>As for now, Joe says that he would like to coordinate things. If he >>wouldn't mind doing it without the money, then I would support his >>efforts. (Joe, I do not mean to imply that you are in this for the >>money.) I wouldn't mind donating disk space for a review depository. > >I am going to have to do it without money. But I do need *some* funds to run >this thing, suggestions are welcome as to what to do about that. Your >diskspace is appriciated, perhaps at a later date it will be needed. The diskspace was offered so that Arpanet people could ftp reviews. >-Joe /ken Kenneth Suh PATH: suh@CUNIXC.COLUMBIA.EDU 312 McBain Hall, C/O Carman Hall SY.SUH@CU20B.BITNET Columbia University ..!rutgers!columbia!cunixc!suh New York, NY 10027
joe@lakesys.UUCP (Joe Pantuso) (03/30/88)
In article <520@cunixc.columbia.edu> suh@cunixc.columbia.edu (Kenneth Suh) writes: >Of course your have an expansion bus for the 1000... Oh yeah, you have >a NEC Multisync to test out a de-interlacer with. I am sure that you >won't admit that you have all sorts of hardware and peripherals. Or >will you? Don't get silly. No magazine even does, our reviews will be much more thorough than any magazine review to begin with. (Actually I do have a Multi-Frequency monitor I will be happy to use as soon as I get non-interlace chips) >My point was that a company would not pay a $100.00 and give you two or >three copies to review. I thought I said I agreed with that? They won't be paying, and they won't be giving a bunch of copies, I don't ask for more than 1. >>>>So I then receive all these packages, and ship them randomly to the "net >>>>reviewers".... >>> >>>Well, I like your review formats, etc., but I strongly disagree with >>>randomly shipping out packages to "net reviewers"... >You were the one that chose the word "randomly". Don't get so offended. Ah, now I see, you misunderstood my original statement and I misunderstood your reply. I may have used "randomly" a bit loosely. I meant that the reviewer to recieve the package will be chosen randomly from the pool of reviewers, I sure couldn't pull them from a hat... >>The very thought that I would allow a competetor to review software is >>ludicrous :-) > >What is funny about this is that I actually believe the smiley face. If >you don't know what the smiley faces are for, I can send you an >explanation. I'm not in need of any verbal abuse today. It is very strange the way you interpreted my message. You have to remember that the article you replied to in the first place was my first or second about this, the idea had not even jelled yet, nothing is firm! Guidelines for reviewers are yet set, the criteria for the reviews themselves. >I thought that it would be possible to get someone who had XYZ software >package to say that he was going to coordinate reviews of that type of >software in general. People who owned that package or others similar to >it could write up reviews. Do you think that XYZ, Inc. would give the >same service to Joe Reviewer from BYTE as he would to John Doe? I think >that people want to know about the software/hardware and the actual >service they can expect from a company. Ok, now I see your point, it is just that given the # of reviewers and the # of people interested in reviewing products that I can't see that as being worth it. On the one hand you want to know how I could possibly keep the reviewers impartial, but on the other it sounds like you would let anyone submit a review? >I think that we should start reviewing what people already have. The >other funds can come from donations (that is assuming that people really >want this to happen). I think that it could be done for less than $100 >dollars. 100 letters would cost: > > $25.00 for postage > $ 2.00 for envelopes > $ 3.00 for paper > ====== > $30.00 > >Yeah, I know, "Phone calls will have to be made.". But, who will send >out 100 letters a month. I am sure that everyone wants this to be a >professional thing, but I think that most of the people interested in >it want good content, not presentation. Amigaworld does have its >place(yeah I know what you're thinking) The idea of people reviewing what they already have has come up, I am sure I mentioned that as a possibility a couple days ago. It will be a way to get an accelerated start on things. The letters are more than that, 100 letters pounds the heck out of my printer and tongue :-) It is useless to be speaking of concrete numbers yet, since this is all still in limbo, but your point is true. But will people keep sending in enough to cover everything every month? There are expenses like responding to individual inquiries from companies, etc. >Oh, I forgot, you are not only a MIDI expert, but you also do CAD stuff >on the side. You are the definitive "Renaissance Man". Sorry if this >is starting to end up so negatively, but maybe I am assuming that you >either teach, study or work now and then. In addition, I thought that >"Usenet Reviews" would produce in-depth reviews. No no no no, I'm sorry this is getting negative too. What I MEAN and SAID (please excuse my volume but I don't want to repeat myself, again) is that we don't and WON'T have that many people to bother with that! It is more likely that there will be a few people who specialise in CAD, MIDI etc, but we won't have armies of them or anything. I hope I made that clear and was not too offensive, but I don't appriciate the noise. I do work and study now and then... I am taking the summer off (my school uses a quarter system and I don't go in summer personally) so things will be started smoothly, and should be running well enough as not to interfere with my studies later on. >>>I would then imagine these reviews getting posted on BBS', Genie, etc. >>I is already decided that that will happen. Magazine format to the Net and to >Well, I guess that it has been decided that you will coordinate things. As I've said there have been many bbs's given that will recieve it. I guess so too, I expected some dissent but you seem to be the only devil's advocate out there. >>A Newsletter is an interesting idea, in this age of e-mail I somhow forgot >>about that. If is a possibility and might work out, but it would be a little >Even though the time hasn't come yet, it could be done by having people >send in preformatted floppies with a postage paid return mailer. Then, >reviews could be copied over and sent out with a program to print them >out if they were put together with a desktop publishing package. This is also a possibility, and no, it's too soon to talk about it. >The diskspace was offered so that Arpanet people could ftp reviews. Offer accepted, I forgot about potential problems there. >Kenneth Suh PATH: suh@CUNIXC.COLUMBIA.EDU -Joe Snail Mail: Real Mail: /// *-------------------* {ihnp4,uwvax}!uwmcsd1!lakesys!joe /// |Joe Pantuso | joe@lakesys.UUCP /// |1631 n. 69 St. | \\\ ///\ _ _ |Wauwatosa WI 53213| "Rascality has it's limits, \\\///__\ |\/| | / _ |_| *-------------------* Stupidity does not."-Napoleon \XX/ \| | | \_/ | |