root@zswamp.uucp (Geoffrey Welsh) (04/29/91)
Despite suggestions that PCMagazine and others cater to their advertisers, I've always felt that the lack of quality in their reviews is due more to a lack of familirity with the subject at hand. I don't expect PCMag reviewers - whose main job is to run a set benchmark program on a system and present the numbers it spits out - to know as much about configuring Pro-YAM as caf does... nor do I expect them to know all of the things that most readers here know about configuring high speed datacomm devices. This, however, it typical of the industry. No one - not even big-budget rags like PCMag - can afford to be come very familiar with *all* of the products on the market. Even if technology were not changing at a rapid pace, it would take a lifetime to learn enough to be prepared to deal with a year's feature reviews in PCMag. Let's try not to get too carried away by the accusations, and in stead recognize that published tests are usually done by relative neophytes in the field; their results, while a very poor indicator of the *capabilities* of the items being tested, is probably a good indicator of how easy it will be for first-time buyers to put it to optimal use. -- UUCP: watmath!xenitec!zswamp!root | 602-66 Mooregate Crescent Internet: root@zswamp.uucp | Kitchener, Ontario FidoNet: SYSOP, 1:221/171 | N2M 5E6 CANADA Data: (519) 742-8939 | (519) 741-9553 The mile is traversed not by a single leap, but by a procession of coherent steps; those who insist on making the trip in a single element will be failing long after you and I have discovered new worlds. -- me
pete@Octopus.COM (Pete Holzmann) (04/30/91)
In article <1.281BA894@zswamp.uucp> root@zswamp.uucp (Geoffrey Welsh) writes: > This, however, it typical of the industry. No one - not even big-budget >rags like PCMag - can afford to be come very familiar with *all* of the >products on the market... > > Let's try not to get too carried away by the accusations, and in stead >recognize that published tests are usually done by relative neophytes in the >field; their results, while a very poor indicator of the *capabilities* of >the items being tested, is probably a good indicator of how easy it will be >for first-time buyers to put it to optimal use. As one who has been involved in a few 'glowing' magazine reviews (as reviewee, not reviewer), I'd suggest that you even discount the ease-of- whatever ratings. Why? Because guess who the reviewers depend on to learn about the products: the *vendors*. They don't obtain products through normal channels: they get review copies direct from the vendor. And get their hand held all along the way. It is true that the 'tech support' ratings are based on anonymous calls, but that doesn't mean that the reviewer relied on anonymous calls in order to understand the product. Thus, the vendors that develop a good relationship with the reviewer (i.e. are most helpful in explaining what this amazing new technology is good for, which esoteric features are most important, how the testing should be done, which ones nobody cares about, etc etc) are going to impart their view of reality to the reviewer. And this will come out in the review. The above most likely doesn't apply in any areas where the magazine review staff has significant expertise. Pete -- Peter Holzmann, Octopus Enterprises |(if you're a techie Christian & are 19611 La Mar Ct., Cupertino, CA 95014 |interested in helping w/ the Great UUCP: {hpda,pyramid}!octopus!pete |Commission, email dsa-contact@octopus) Voice: 408/996-7746;FAX=408/985-0859
dsims@uceng.UC.EDU (david l sims) (05/01/91)
pete@Octopus.COM (Pete Holzmann) writes: >As one who has been involved in a few 'glowing' magazine reviews (as >reviewee, not reviewer), I'd suggest that you even discount the ease-of- >whatever ratings. >Why? Because guess who the reviewers depend on to learn about the products: >the *vendors*. They don't obtain products through normal channels: they get >review copies direct from the vendor. This reminds me of Consumers Union and their main publication Consumers Reports. When they test products, they purchase them through normal retail outlets. They don't go directly to the manufacturer for anything. Of course, this practice costs them more money.... Also, Consumer Reports has a "Best Buy" category when a product is not only good, but cheap. That may not translate well to computer hardware and software, however. People seem to want latest and greatest computer equipment, regardless of cost (within reason).
casey@gauss.llnl.gov (Casey Leedom) (05/02/91)
| From: root@zswamp.uucp (Geoffrey Welsh) | | Despite suggestions that PCMagazine and others cater to their | advertisers, I've always felt that the lack of quality in their reviews | is due more to a lack of familiarity with the subject at hand. Yes, it's tempting to believe the conspiracy theory, but as the saying goes: ``Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence.'' (Or some such reading.) | This, however, it typical of the industry. No one - not even | big-budget rags like PCMag - can afford to be come very familiar with | *all* of the products on the market. Even if technology were not | changing at a rapid pace, it would take a lifetime to learn enough to be | prepared to deal with a year's feature reviews in PCMag. | | Let's try not to get too carried away by the accusations, and in stead | recognize that published tests are usually done by relative neophytes in | the field ... Uhmmm, if I *was* buying PC Magazine, or any other magazine that specialized in any area, whether computers, horses or whatever, I would expect to get value for my money. I view shoddy workmanship in writing just as I would in tangible products like toasters. If it's bad, I'm going to complain, return the product, cancel my subscription, tell all my friends about the bad value, etc. Why should PC magazines get any kind of special treatment? I think it's basically like quality in newspapers. Say the National Enquirer vs. the New York Times. Only we don't have a New York Times quality level magazine available and I don't think that PC Magazine is as bad as the National Enquirer. It's just annoyingly mediocre and tries to portray itself as more competent than it really is which hurts both users and vendors when it gets things wrong. It's especially irritating to see a magazine which seems to be incapable of publishing a correction or retraction. Someone said that a publication which catered to its advertizers by only providing good reviews would rapidly lose credibility. Excepting the assumption that readers would be able to perform such a correlation, I agree completely. But I think that it also applies to competence ... Casey
root@zswamp.uucp (Geoffrey Welsh) (05/02/91)
In a letter to All, Casey Leedom (casey@gauss.llnl.gov ) wrote: > Uhmmm, if I *was* buying PC Magazine, or any other >magazine that specialized in any area, whether computers, horses or >whatever, I would expect to get value for my money. We should expect the same of consultants, wouldn't you say? However, having worked for a few and as one myself, I can assure you that anyone making a recommendation based only on things with which they've had extensive personal experience is a rare animal. In fact, the thing which limits my activities more than anything else is the overwhelming feeling that I have barely seen a fraction of what's out there and that the average customer is going to need advice on things I know nothing about... I don't know if this experience is unique to the computer industry; I certainly hope so, since I'd hate to see the people who build high rise buildings basing their construction on what they think *ought* to work... but people in the computer industry *have* to do that to stay in business. So, I look at PCMag as just another firm sloshing through new material as best they can, learning from their mistakes (after the fact) as do most of the 'professionals' in this business... -- UUCP: watmath!xenitec!zswamp!root | 602-66 Mooregate Crescent Internet: root@zswamp.uucp | Kitchener, Ontario FidoNet: SYSOP, 1:221/171 | N2M 5E6 CANADA Data: (519) 742-8939 | (519) 741-9553 The mile is traversed not by a single leap, but by a procession of coherent steps; those who insist on making the trip in a single element will be failing long after you and I have discovered new worlds. -- me
roger@wet.UUCP (Roger Niclas) (05/09/91)
root@zswamp.uucp (Geoffrey Welsh) writes: > In a letter to All, Casey Leedom (casey@gauss.llnl.gov ) wrote: > > > Uhmmm, if I *was* buying PC Magazine, or any other > >magazine that specialized in any area, whether computers, horses or > >whatever, I would expect to get value for my money. > > We should expect the same of consultants, wouldn't you say? However, > having worked for a few and as one myself, I can assure you that anyone > making a recommendation based only on things with which they've had extensive > personal experience is a rare animal. In fact, the thing which limits my > > I don't know if this experience is unique to the computer industry; I > best they can, learning from their mistakes (after the fact) as do most of I think Jeff's got a point. The pace of development of products in the computer industry is such that many of us find it nearly impossible to stay current. Why would a magazine be any different? Certainly, they can't be expected to test every feature, run everything with every driver, on machines operating under every condition; at least, not *reasonably* expected to do so. I think readers have to apply some judgment to whatever they read (whether that's a government press release, a product review, or a research grant proposal) and to understand the limited perspective that gave rise to the piece. My objection to PC's reviews in particular, though, is that they seem to be designed more to produce impressive charts and statistics than to approximate (and I *mean* 'approximate') the users'concerns. Does anyone remember an ad (I think it was Northgate's) that had a little footnote at the bottom that read something like "Technobabble, without which no computer ad can be considered complete: " and then went on to list the machine's specs? It seems to me that, lately, at least, PC tends to focus on the technobabble and, in doing so, often loses sight of the fact that 'the objective was to drain the swamp.' -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * Email: roger@wet.UUCP | * * alt: rogerd@well | witty remark designed to exhibit intellect goes * * CompuServe: 72730,1010 | here *