Xref: utzoo comp.dcom.modems:9451 comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc:9061 alt.bbs:5204
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!mips!samsung!raybed2!rayssd!anomaly!mpd
From: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems,comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc,alt.bbs
Subject: Re: PC Magasine Testing Irregularities
Keywords: communications software testing zmodem
Message-ID: <1991Apr26.031500.7938@anomaly.sbs.com>
Date: 26 Apr 91 03:15:00 GMT
References: <89@omen.UUCP> <1991Apr24.033643.3628@anomaly.sbs.com> <1991Apr24.184543.27339@looking.on.ca>
Organization: Small Business Systems, Inc., Esmond, RI  02917
Lines: 24

brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes:

>That's unfair.  I've had two very positive reviews in PC Magazine without
>every buying more than a classified at the back, as well as good reviews in
>other Z-D magazines.

I'm sorry, but over the past years I've seen too much evidence to support
the opinion that $big ads$ result in good reviews.

If you've ever noticed, all their big advertisers get the glowing reviews.
Of course, there are some exceptions to this rule, but it seems to be
more of the norm than the exception when dealing with PC-anything.

After all, think the company is going to give a shitty review to the
advertiser who just spent $serious bux$ on several multi-page spreads
for several months? No more than you would call one of your clients
and tell him/her that their product sucks.

MD
-- 
--  Michael P. Deignan                      / Since I *OWN* SBS.COM,
--  Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com            /  These Opinions Generally
--    UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd  /   Represent The Opinions Of
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              /    My Company...