Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!mit-eddie!bbn!uwmcsd1!lakesys!joe From: joe@lakesys.UUCP (Joe Pantuso) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: The USENET Seal of Approval-Funding Keywords: impartial revues? Message-ID: <553@lakesys.UUCP> Date: 27 Mar 88 19:15:36 GMT References: <2653@crash.cts.com> <498@cunixc.columbia.edu> <3496@cbmvax.UUCP> <535@lakesys.UUCP> <516@cunixc.columbia.edu> Reply-To: joe@lakesys.UUCP (Joe Pantuso) Distribution: na Organization: Lake Systems - Milwaukee, WI Lines: 135 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