ORIGINAL: MikeL
ORIGINAL: Mike Parsons
I have had a few product reviews that have not gone to print because midway I refused to continue for various reasons. As a reviewer, I try and choose products that have a greater chance of yielding a positive review.
Mike, I don't doubt your personal integrity or judgment, but if a person looks at RCU reviews as a whole, there are patterns that jump out. Things such as the above, reviewers dropping subtle (and not so subtle...) hints in the forums that if a person wants the real scoop on a product they should send a PM, and reviews that are so devoid of actual thought that they're merely pretty pictures and kind adjectives. RCU's review system really has no merit, and Marc and Michael should be ashamed of it. I was more involved when they launched the program, and I recall all the denials that it would be like print magazine reviews. How many print articles were never published for the same reasons you listed above?
RCU owes a duty of trust to its members, and that trust is regularly violated in RCU reveiws.
Out of curiosity, why didn't you talk about performance as compared to system specs? That sort of information is truly useful to readers.
Mike,
Just for the record, I don't take any offense to any ones post here as they are valid in my mind and to think it doesn't happen would be naive.
You know I never thought about it until you said something. Including my PC spec's never crossed my mind. I dont know why as in my other reviews, I almost always include "as tested" data. And it would only be logical to do the same. The good thing about web articles and why I enjoy writing for Online mags so much is the ink is never dry. I will work up a revision to the articles and submit it to Larry for update.
My PC specs are:
Homebuilt:
Windows XP Home Sp2
AMD Athlon 3700+
2.21 GHz
2 gb RAM
Nvidia GX 9600 video Card