Inq Rant Hardware Sites "Docile Ass-Kissers"
- Thread starter Geo
- Start date
When about did this happen?Reverend said:
Yeah, but if you get the right team it can be fun at times too. 8)Rys said:I'd also like to say it's BLOODY hard work, 24/7, to run a decently sized website. If you're contemplating it, seek therapy
digitalwanderer said:
Gee, FX era, ya think?
Maybe they'll start to loosen up a touch now that they have a competitive line-up again. When you're circling the wagons 'cause every injun in the world is after your scalp, freelancing is probably frowned on even more than normal.
That would be my guess too, but I figured asking was the easiest way to find out for sure.geo said:
digitalwanderer said:
Sure. I was also sorta sideways pointing out that it might be worthwhile to gently inquire if the portcullis was still locked in place, or if changing circumstances might mean a little fraternizing on the bridge from time to time would be allowed. If not an official change in policy, then maybe a "I'll pretend I didn't see that unless it gets out of hand" one.
Really? Now that just strikes me as odd/wrong. :?Rys said:
I figured that the FX phase was just a temporary thing and once they had a solid product out again they would be more community-friendly following ATi's lead in that department....I do so hate being wrong.
Why? Isn't it just cutting off their nose to spite their face? :|
Part of it is to stave off certain people telling the competition about their hardware, before it's released, part of it seems to be financial (rumours can influence share prices) and the rest is just to do with keeping a tighter ship in general, until they're sure of their footing.
IMO
IMO
Makes sense, although I still prefer to just think of 'em as anally over-controlling evil bastiges.
digitalwanderer said:
Not sure which one you meant so :
1) David Kirk part : 2002, just before GF4 launch.
2) BB part : I remember I did this (emailing NV staff direct even after BB and Kirk said all emails should be sent to PR) a few times although I honestly don't want to go through my Inbox for specific dates. One time I do remember was while I was at VE (after I left B3D for a while) a couple years ago (end-2002, I think).
Boy Wonder responds, without admitting that's what he's doing. Leads off with ode to papa on his work ethic and where he comes from, then to the matter at hand (again, the word "Inq" or "recent article at another site" or nothing like that appear. . but there's no way this is coincidental timing).
http://www.anandtech.com/weblog/default.aspx
http://www.anandtech.com/weblog/default.aspx
It's a good post, and summarizes why I respect him and the site. But, to this day, I don't think he replied *once* to the multi-thread and -week furor over the inaccuracies his 5900U+Doom3 review. Not once. It may have been a difficult or busy time in his life, but his total non-response to something multiple editors were firefighting remains a grain of suspicion everytime I read a video card review (which is my main interest in AT and most sites).
Not to nitpick--though I'm wont to do so--but I thought his dual-core Pentium D article was an exclusive granted by Intel. And wasn't his (OK, Kyle got in on it, too) Doom 3 exclusive paid for by nVidia, run on nV PCs, and timed to coincide with the 5900's launch? Maybe we're thinking in terms of different "exclusives," or I'm glossing over details.
Not to nitpick--though I'm wont to do so--but I thought his dual-core Pentium D article was an exclusive granted by Intel. And wasn't his (OK, Kyle got in on it, too) Doom 3 exclusive paid for by nVidia, run on nV PCs, and timed to coincide with the 5900's launch? Maybe we're thinking in terms of different "exclusives," or I'm glossing over details.
I think it is difficult to judge web sites and web site reviews objectively because
a) the judger normally has some inbuilt bias themselves
b) the popularity of a site sometimes causes people to me more critical just because it is popular.
I remember when some of Anands team have been on these pages and tried to defend their point of view and had a fairly rough ride, I think partly a) and b) might have had some influence here.
On the other hand the web sites cannot afford to bite the hand that feeds it and of course they are excited by scoops so find those hard to turn down. However what is important is that this not affect their judgement when they come to write the review. If it's good then say it's good, if it's bad then say that too. But does that happen I hear you say ?
Well, take B3D for example, the reviews to me are non biased , Dave may get more ATi stuff to review than nvidia, but that seems to be down to logisitics ( thanks for the info above Dave and Rys ( hexus) , most enlightening ) etc etc or timeframes.
Anand seems to review in a non-biased way as well. He and his team are not as much experts as Dave in the video card area so their reviews are likely to contain more errors, and do, but what are the conclusions like ? In this case although Charles at TheInquirer froths and rants about them not using games but Anand explained that. The conclusions in part I say that not only will AMD might likely gain more from dual than Intel but that
"we think that Hyper Threading is the wrong feature to use as a differentiator - all users could benefit from its presence on their dual core platforms. "
So if Intel has slipped him an exclusive in order to get a rose tinted report then they have failed. This is typical of Anand, it's not long since he was bashing nvidia about the nv40 not having full functionality as promised by nvidia.
Hell, Ed at wwwoverclockers.com even had a good word for the review and he seems most hard to please !
a) the judger normally has some inbuilt bias themselves
b) the popularity of a site sometimes causes people to me more critical just because it is popular.
I remember when some of Anands team have been on these pages and tried to defend their point of view and had a fairly rough ride, I think partly a) and b) might have had some influence here.
On the other hand the web sites cannot afford to bite the hand that feeds it and of course they are excited by scoops so find those hard to turn down. However what is important is that this not affect their judgement when they come to write the review. If it's good then say it's good, if it's bad then say that too. But does that happen I hear you say ?
Well, take B3D for example, the reviews to me are non biased , Dave may get more ATi stuff to review than nvidia, but that seems to be down to logisitics ( thanks for the info above Dave and Rys ( hexus) , most enlightening ) etc etc or timeframes.
Anand seems to review in a non-biased way as well. He and his team are not as much experts as Dave in the video card area so their reviews are likely to contain more errors, and do, but what are the conclusions like ? In this case although Charles at TheInquirer froths and rants about them not using games but Anand explained that. The conclusions in part I say that not only will AMD might likely gain more from dual than Intel but that
"we think that Hyper Threading is the wrong feature to use as a differentiator - all users could benefit from its presence on their dual core platforms. "
So if Intel has slipped him an exclusive in order to get a rose tinted report then they have failed. This is typical of Anand, it's not long since he was bashing nvidia about the nv40 not having full functionality as promised by nvidia.
Hell, Ed at wwwoverclockers.com even had a good word for the review and he seems most hard to please !
Pete said:
Its not the first time I've read that some of these review pieces were essentially an 'infomercial'. Pay for me to review your product and if you're happy with it, I'll post it up deal.
So if we ask ourselves this, if someone has paid for that article and OK'd it, can you actually amend it without getting approval first? That would explain the silence and footdragging.
AT and all of these big sites are businesses plain and simple. Why spend money for cards if you don't have to.
Hanners gets his licks in: http://www.elitebastards.com/page.php?pageid=9839&head=1&comments=1
Exec Summary: We aren't crooked, we're stupid! We used to be crooked *and* stupid, so ya gotta like the trend line.
[Offered kiddingly, Hanners, but not entirely an unfair summary either. ]
Exec Summary: We aren't crooked, we're stupid! We used to be crooked *and* stupid, so ya gotta like the trend line.
[Offered kiddingly, Hanners, but not entirely an unfair summary either.
]Reverend said:
That they behave like "paid lackeys" seems a more apt description to me...
When on the clock they do little more than recite canned PR pablum by rote; when off the clock it's obvious they could care less as they just don't comment at all about anything.ATI reminds me of 3dfx, very friendly guys, with the exception of Eric Demers, who hates me... oh don't you guys want to know why! (I admit a huge part of the problem was me though). Wait, maybe this applies to all the ATI staff that posts here, they all hate me!!
Yes, very friendly guys who actually seem to care about their work, enjoy their work, and are capable of candid exposition from time to time. This isn't to say that ATi isn't mindful of PR, just that their corporate culture puts more emphasis on communicating with its markets as opposed to manipulating them. The desire to communicate stems from confidence whereas the desire to manipulate is borne of insecurity and a fear of failure, imo.
Similar threads
