[H]ardOCP Trying to be too Hard?

[Joe DeFuria]

You implied it.

No, I implied that given the "stellar" record of BFG and the "questionable" record of radeon chipsets....the facts bore out that the specualtion was wrong. What does this say about basing speculation based on nothing but "opinions" without being based on any facts at hand?

I do not know their personal bias, and I do not really care, if the information is accurate.

And I would hope you do not either.

"Information being accurate" is the key. And it's not in this case. It's using an opinion to justify incorrect assertions is the problem as I see it. Very simply:

1) Opinions used to justify a conclusion.
2) Conclusion turned out to be wrong
3) It logically follows that either the opinions are misguided, or they were improperly applied to the situation at hand.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Well, outside of an email from Kelt after spending a week tweaking on their defective FragBox 2, I have no proof.

You mean, you have as much proof as you had when the chipset was claimed to be the problem.

So all in all, they do all sorts of things to the box, things I am unaware of, and then all of a sudden the video card is the problem? I just simply say there are too many variables involved there to be conclusive.

"too many varibles" didn't stop H from being "conclusive" about the chipset being at fault. Do you not see the blatant double standard here?

Hmm, who do I go with here? My gut, my editor, and the owner of the company that was directly involved, or a group of guys at B3D forums that find fault in almost everything we do?

You mean, you go with youself and only certain select statements of the company involved rather than everything they tell you as a whole. Yes, that shows the open mindedness and objectivity you self-proclaim. Or did I NOT just read that you can't bring yourself to "go with" Falcon's claiming that the BFG card was the problem....

 

[rashly]

Stating that readers will beleive us and then saying we have lost our credibility are a bit contradictory aren't they?

I stated that [H] readers will continue to beleive it. But around here and other forums, and basically in general, people do not trust [H] like they used to.

I have learned one thing in the last few years running an Internet hardware site. People can go to many sites and find objective data, much of it being dry an unanalyzed. What we found is that our readers want us to be subjective and tell them our opinons.

But those opinions should be based on facts that are displayed in the article or linked to elseware. Opinions without anything backing them up can backfire, as they did with this motherboard situation, hence losing credibility.

How are just opinions based on no published fact beneficial to your readers? Wouldn't it be much more beneficial to state your opinions and the facts that back them up. I already described this in my last post how it hurts the reader and the publisher.

 

[digitalwanderer]

Stating that readers will beleive us and then saying we have lost our credibility are a bit contradictory aren't they?

Not really. Credibility among your own members is different than credibility at large.

I think you could call the moon the sun and your members would back you on it Kyle, you do at least seem to inspire a loyal bunch of blind fan boys.

 

[ANova]

Ooops, my bad, fixing now. We did address this on the last page. Skipped that one.

Mmm, yes, fixing it now.

This is a perfect example of your ridiculous nature towards ATI. You constantly bring up lack of availability whenever possible (as if nvidia is a saint in this area) and place ATI under a microscope for every little thing they do. After you've been proven wrong you sometimes change what you wrote, othertimes, not so much.

Well, outside of an email from Kelt after spending a week tweaking on their defective FragBox 2, I have no proof. Had the solution been provided through spending a week with their tech support, the article would have read differently. But here is the fact that you cannot grasp. We certainly respect Kelt's opinion, and that is why the follow-up was posted. Do keep in mind that Kelt and his tech support repeatedly pointed to problems they had in the past with the motherboard. Never was the video card looked at as being the problem.

So all in all, they do all sorts of things to the box, things I am unaware of, and then all of a sudden the video card is the problem? I just simply say there are too many variables involved there to be conclusive.

Despite your apparent past problems with the xpress 200 chipset, it was wrong of you to come to any conclusion based on pure opinion. Assuming makes an ass out of u and me. I don't see what the problem is with re-reviewing the system again since FNW was willing to include the original video card that was causing the problem. If the system doesn't act the same with the old video card then you can say as much about FNW doing something else to the box, if it does then well, problem solved right? Rather you seem unwilling to admit that you were wrong, which would hurt your pride. It's simple psychology.

Had I had definitive proof that the video card was at fault, I would have handled the situation differently. But there were no sure answers and I am comfortable with the way we handled things. I think Falcon is too. Here is what the owner had to say:

Funny, "no sure answers" yet you were easily willing to come to the conclusion that it was the chipset. Nice logic. Naturally you continue to mention it and carefully avoid naming the video card, you're beloved savior of a company. It's the only logical explanation. I encourage truthfulness but using an opinion and then stating yourself as being truthful based on it is an oxymoron.

 

[zg75]

You mean, you have as much proof as you had when the chipset was claimed to be the problem.

You mean, you go with youself and only certain select statements of the company involved rather than everything they tell you as a whole. Yes, that shows the open mindedness and objectivity you self-proclaim. Or did I NOT just read that you can't bring yourself to "go with" Falcon's claiming that the BFG card was the problem....

Right, except he also has hundreds of hours with both BFG cards and the x200 chipset as 'proof'. There was a time when I thought Kyle was anti-nV and now I realize that he just throws his support behind those who bring the performance and support demanded by hardware junkies. Likewise he throws his snark at those who don't walk the walk, which is one of the reasons why so many people enjoy hearing what he has to say.

 

[zg75]

Mmm, yes, fixing it now.

This is a perfect example of your ridiculous nature towards ATI. You constantly bring up lack of availability whenever possible (as if nvidia is a saint in this area) and place ATI under a microscope for every little thing they do.

He actually does the same thing to nV. The fact is that nV delievered on day one with their current gen and ATi promised to do the same in writing and didn't follow through. I really don't see that as being Kyle's fault.

 

[rashly]

Right, except he also has hundreds of hours with both BFG cards and the x200 chipset as 'proof'. There was a time when I thought Kyle was anti-nV and now I realize that he just throws his support behind those who bring the performance and support demanded by hardware junkies. Likewise he throws his snark at those who don't walk the walk, which is one of the reasons why so many people enjoy hearing what he has to say.

Where is [H]'s proof? Where is this published? Obviously [H] was wrong with its assumption so why should [H]'s assumptions and opinions be trusted in the future without proof to back it up?

edit: clarity

 

[zg75]

Where is his proof? Where is this published? Obviously he was wrong with his assumption so why should his assumptions and opinions be trusted in the future without proof to back it up?

Where is the proof that it was the BFG card and not the chipset? The fact is that anyone who doesn't throw up their hands and say 'We can't know what happened without proof.' has demonstrated a bias on this topic (including me, and you by saying he was wrong with no proof that it WASN'T the chipset). Our assumptions are based on our experiences. I have positive and negative opinions on certain brands/companies just as we all do from experience working with them/using them. As for Kyle's experience with the chipset, it seems like ATi themselves can corroborate his hours of use with it.

 

[rashly]

Where is the proof that it was the BFG card and not the chipset? The fact is that anyone who doesn't throw up their hands and say 'We can't know what happened without proof.' has demonstrated a bias on this topic (including me, and you by saying he was wrong with no proof that it WASN'T the chipset). Our assumptions are based on our experiences. I have positive and negative opinions on certain brands/companies just as we all do from experience working with them/using them. As for Kyle's experience with the chipset, it seems like ATi themselves can corroborate his hours of use with it.

The company was going to send the broken card back with the new system so that he could verify. Same problems with the broken card and no problems with the new card would be easy enough, no? Even if he didn't "trust" them to do that, why did he make the assumption that it was the chipset and publish that it was the chipset?

I didn't write an article stating that a chipset was at fault when I had no evidence to back it up. Can you explain how [H] was "in the right" by stating it was the chipset without proof?

 

[swaaye]

Get the video card back, put it in another system, see if it locks that one up too. That would indicate something right there. Though I suppose it's probably that the problem may not show up in another system.

I have a friend with a BFG 6800GT OC that flakes out 2-3 times/week. The whole screen corrupts and he has to reset. I should just tell him to RMA it with that lifetime warranty.

 

[ANova]

He actually does the same thing to nV. The fact is that nV delievered on day one with their current gen and ATi promised to do the same in writing and didn't follow through. I really don't see that as being Kyle's fault.

If you say so. I, however, rarely see that happening.

Where is the proof that it was the BFG card and not the chipset? The fact is that anyone who doesn't throw up their hands and say 'We can't know what happened without proof.' has demonstrated a bias on this topic (including me, and you by saying he was wrong with no proof that it WASN'T the chipset). Our assumptions are based on our experiences. I have positive and negative opinions on certain brands/companies just as we all do from experience working with them/using them. As for Kyle's experience with the chipset, it seems like ATi themselves can corroborate his hours of use with it.

He could have had the proof, but he instead refused. You have to wonder why FNW would put themselves on the line by saying what they did and offering to include the original card if they were somehow lying, which is what Kyle is implying.

 

[zg75]

The company was going to send the broken card back with the new system so that he could verify. Same problems with the broken card and no problems with the new card would be easy enough, no? Even if he didn't "trust" them to do that, why did he make the assumption that it was the chipset and publish that it was the chipset?

I didn't write an article stating that a chipset was at fault when I had no evidence to back it up. Can you explain how [H] was "in the right" by stating it was the chipset without proof?

[H] stated that Falcon (and Kyle's experience with x200 supported this) suggested they had had a lot of problems with this chipset specific to memory timings. Volt and others with experience with it seem to agree. I dunno about you, but if my rep was on the line I'm not entirely sure that I would accept a box back that had been out of my hands and had who knows what done to it to update an article I'd already published. Given that, however, I am curious as to what the results would have been had he accepted the box back along with the 'broken' BFG card and think that not doing so was an example of his infamous stubbornness.

 

[5150 Joker]

what the hell is up with all these guys regging just to comment here?
did kyle make a post at teh [H] to defend him

He linked to this thread on the front page of [H]. That's how I found this thread anyway.

 

[zg75]

If you say so. I, however, rarely see that happening.

How often do you read [H]?

He could have had the proof, but he instead refused. You have to wonder why FNW would put themselves on the line by saying what they did and offering to include the original card if they were somehow lying, which is what Kyle is implying.

And as I said above, his stubbornness on this point seems to be largely pride. As I also said, I might be hesitant to take back a box that had been out of my control for so long, as might you, no?

 

[digitalwanderer]

He linked to this thread on the front page of [H]. That's how I found this thread anyway.

That would make the answer to the question "yes" then.

 

[CMAN]

God knows why I am even writing this, but here I go...

Why oh why do people constantly bash HardOCP? There are two types of journalism, fact based and opinion based. Beyond3D is very fact based. Based around numbers and very scientific methods and procedures. HardOCP is a very opinion reivew based website. Their reviews show this. There are numbers, but I personally don't even look at their graphs. I look at their conclusions page. It's about the "experience", like Kyle's Car and Driver example.

The same difference can be seen with other types of news (political) where they have news and fact based research and then thye have opinion articles. Ever look at the OpEd part of a newspaper. People get pissed at OpEd's not because they are bad, because they DON'T AGREE. Then they say OpEds are worthless blah blah blah....wah wah wah....cry cry cry. An OpEd is just that....OPINIONS!

The thing people seem most mad about (and most explainably) is the fact that Kyle attributed the problem to the motherboard (which happens to be ATI). It now seems the motherboard was not to blame. Ok, so Kyle SHOULD say that the motherboard was not the defective part.

HOWEVER, he does not (and should not) need to change his mind that the motherboard shouldn't be in that particular PC in the first place. Nor should he change his mind about whether that board is crappy. He thinks it's a POS for many many different reasons and that's OK. Other people also agree with him. Heck, I have sold PC's with that mb in it, and it's not a motherboard for people who visit HardOCP.

My biggest disappointment with this thread is teh derailment of everyone whinging they don't like HardOCP and the type of review site it is. Well, it is what it is. You guys have said the same thing over and over again in many threads here. Blame him for not putting in the fact that the BFG card went bad. Don't blame him for his opinion that the motherboard is bad (cause he thought that before the Falcon computer didn't work) and don't blame him for thinking the motherboard shouldn't be in the computer anyway (it's not an enthusiast board).

And BTW, you guys say he's being preferential against ATI and that he hates the motherboard just because it's an ATI and thinks it must have been the defective parts. And then a lot of you guys are using the same idea (that he must hate ATI) to think his decision is soly based on bias. It's hypocritical to use your own bias to blame someone else of bias.

The End.

 

[ANova]

How often do you read [H]?

Rarely, specifically because of reviews like said discussion is based on.

As I also said, I might be hesitant to take back a box that had been out of my control for so long, as might you, no?

No, It would be simple enough to determine if the card was indeed at fault or not.

And BTW, you guys say he's being preferential against ATI and that he hates the motherboard just because it's an ATI and thinks it must have been the defective parts. And then a lot of you guys are using the same idea (that he must hate ATI) to think his decision is soly based on bias. It's hypocritical to use your own bias to blame someone else of bias.

You're treading on thin ground with this statement. Just because someone disagrees with some conclusion doesn't automatically make him biased towards whatever it is he/she is arguing for. The basis for our statements re: HardOCP being biased against ATI is pertinent to many past articles, reviews and opinions. It's from a bigger picture.

 

[zg75]

Rarely, specifically because of reviews like said discussion is based on.

Best not to accuse them of patterns of bias then.

No, It would be simple enough to determine if the card was indeed at fault or not.

If you can be 100% of everything that was done to said card when out of your sight. As a reviewer, if you can't be 100% sure then you can't take that box/card/whatever back.

 

[ANova]

Best not to accuse them of patterns of bias then.

You're not understanding, "because of reviews like said discussion is based on". I used to read it more often, but because of the obvious bias a few months after I decided it wasn't the place for me. I still read a review every so often when new hardware comes out along with those from many other sites, but aside from that I stay away.

If you can be 100% of everything that was done to said card when out of your sight. As a reviewer, if you can't be 100% sure then you can't take that box/card/whatever back.

If something were different the system would act differently. All FNW did was replace the video card according to them, so if the old card were returned the system would act exactly the same. If not then I would say as much and include the possibility that FNW may have tweaked or made changes elsewhere in addition.