Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!columbia!cunixc!suh From: suh@cunixc.columbia.edu (Kenneth Suh) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: The USENET Seal of Approval Message-ID: <516@cunixc.columbia.edu> Date: 25 Mar 88 17:26:36 GMT References: <2653@crash.cts.com> <498@cunixc.columbia.edu> <3496@cbmvax.UUCP> <535@lakesys.UUCP> Reply-To: suh@cunixc.columbia.edu (Kenneth Suh) Distribution: na Organization: Columbia University Lines: 124 Keywords: impartial revues? Summary: pay for a review? 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 >fee for a review. We're talking $100-$200 only. I would be more than willing >to coordinate this effort in my *free time*. (As a matter of fact if this >gets off the ground I sure want to be in on some aspect of it). How many companies would pay to have their product reviewed? You have got to be kidding. I am sure that you would also want sample copies of software and hardware right? In addition, how many small companies can afford this? Let us assume I sell hard disk interfaces to people and the name of my company is STUCK_BETWEEN_TWO_OBJECTS. If it costs $150.00 for me to produce my interface, and you want four or five review copies and a $100 review fee, I would probably go out of business. In addition, let's assume that you only asked for one copy. Would you return it? What if it was damaged while being shipped to four or five people across the country? Don't say that there is one person who has all three Amigas and many other peripherals to try it out with. >So I then receive all these packages, and ship them randomly to the "net >reviewers" with their $40 cut of the fee ($10 for shipping, $10 for hardware, >$20 for stationary and toner, and $20 for the *hours* spent sending out the >letters/sorting stuff/providing you guidlines for the review/being a nice >guy-)accounts the other $60. 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. >Anyway it would be even better than consumer reports because besides >special area studies you could have up to the minute reviews. Company X has a >hot new product out, they send me a copy a week before it hits the shelves and >whammo, you have a review of it two days before the dealers have it on the >shelf. Consumer Reports is recognized as being impartial because they purchase everything they review. In addition, they do not accept advertising or donations from companies. >Disclaimers: I'm dancing as fast as I can. And I plan on doing 90% of the >hardware reviews. Also I beleive I would have to buy a laser printer to >support the operation, but I would be willing to buy that myself since I'd get >to use it too. > >Let's hear some opinions! (good ones only please :-) > >-Joe (USENET REVIEWS?) > > 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/ \| | | \_/ | | 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. 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 The reviewers would review products that they had purchased. The coordinator for a certain product area would coordinate the reviewers in their respective product areas and put together product reviews based on the work of the reviewers. These product reviews would contain not only a review of the product, but a list of the reviewers. The head coordinator would coordinate the efforts of the coordinators for specific product areas. In addition, this head coordinator would make the postings to USENET. These postings would detail: coordinators are needed new product reviews product reviews available In addition, the head coordinator would maintain the reviews themselves and coordinate sites that would also store them. 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. 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. /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