Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 12:09:05 11/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 15, 2000 at 05:01:34, Mogens Larsen wrote:
>On November 15, 2000 at 02:03:39, Ed Schröder wrote:
>
>>>I'm concerned that people can believe that the published reviews are
>>>advertisements, because that's not what they are.
>>>
>>>Ed, it's up to you to decide, but I would personally offer Mogens to write a
>>>review of the Rebel 11 CD, and I would promiss to publish it on the Rebel site
>>>and on CCC.
>>>
>>>That would of course imply to send to Mogens the product for free, but I guess
>>>this wouldn't bias Mogens' review.
>>>
>>>I do believe Mogens tries to stay objective. Sometimes he does not manage, but
>>>generally he is rather objective.
>>>
>>>I'm sure that because he is a rather objective guy, he would not write a
>>>negative review of the Rebel 11 product. By letting Mogens write a review we
>>>take a risk, but anyway we are taking this kind of risk everyday.
>>>
>>>By letting the beta testers express themselves during the beta period we have
>>>taken a risk that no other chess software publisher dares to take.
>>>
>>>As soon as we publish our chess programs, we take the risk that they get beaten
>>>by other programs, the risk that people don't like the way they look, the risk
>>>that people criticize it in an unfair way, and so on...
>>>
>>>I don't think Mogens would write an unfair review. So why couldn't we ask him to
>>>write a review and publish it?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Christophe
>>
>>
>>:-)
>>
>>I am in agreement. Mogens, how about it?
>
>It's a very nice suggestion and I'm very tempted to accept. The problem is that
>it would look like I got rewarded for commenting on an issue where I only stated
>my opinion about the definition of the word "review". Someone might pick up on
>this and repeat it in order to be offered this kind of bonus. That would be
>rather unfortunate.
No problem. Let's say that you send us the product back after you have written
the review. Or we can arrange something in order to make sure that you don't get
an unfair bonus just because you write a review.
Just tell us...
>Besides, reviewing a product in detail without any prior experience whatsoever
>would be very timeconsuming. And I don't have the time despite my activities
>here :o).
You post a lot on this forum. You have spent so much time arguing about
objectivity of others. I'm pretty sure it would take you less time to write a
review, and it would be much more fun than arguing, isn't it?
Dealing with the real thing instead of dealing with opinions!
And at least, when you argue with somebody about Rebel-Tiger II, you would be
able to say: I know what I'm talking about, I have tried the product and written
a review!
>Given these circumstances I must decline reviewing your program. I
>suggest asking someone who's not been involved in this thread and in testing for
>Rebel.
We have asked other people as well, don't worry.
But the fact that you have been involved in this thread was the point of this
proposal.
You have argued about the objectivity of the reviewers of Rebel-Tiger. I don't
see a better way to be sure about what you say than to try the product by
yourself.
It is hard to say that people are not objective when they talk about a product
you have not tried yourself.
This was an opportunity to make your mind by yourself and increase your level of
objectivity. Too bad.
Christophe
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.