Re: My take
Blackwind said:
demalion said:
Blackwind, several of your comment strike me as inconsistent. Perhaps we could discuss them a bit.
I found your post to be both excellent and informative. I understand that you may find my comments inconsistent I would suggest asking me directly what you are unclear on. I'd be happy to try and clear that up.
I outlined that in detail by specifying what your commentary requires to be ignored to hold together. I then proceeded to outline my view of the relationship between the things you seem to ignore (while listing them) and the article, and point out how your portrayal of the article as something unrelated to them (describing the article as just being a comparison of IQ, without the context of fps/performance comparisons and hardware comparisons that the article was specifically concerning) depends on that relationship not existing.
If you understand my outlining of the relationship of those factors, then you can see why I'm saying your portraying the article as simply a matter of image quality comparison, without further context as people are criticizing, depends on ignoring it.
Evaluating image quality equivalency is "simply be a matter of opinion in regard to appearance" is true to a point depending on what level of review you are attempting to accomplish.
There is a useful "level of review" that selectively emphasizes and outlines a particular facet of what I outlined.
There is not a useful "level of reviewing" that selectively
takes into account just one facet without taking the relevance of the underlying factors into account.
Now, an individual
review might get by without taking the complete picture into account, but that's a case of ignorance (in the author or the review/article) sufficing by chance. In this issue, that chance isn't panning out.
Simply becuase [H]'s review was not done in the fashion or methods you would care for them to use does not on the other hand make them wrong.
You are proposing that I'm talking about a useful "level of review" in the context of what they emphasize and go into detail about in a review, when I'm continually trying to make it clear that I'm talking about a "level of reviewing" concerning what is taken into account. Simplifying the way you look at things just makes you prone to fail to take things into account...a reviewer does not have an excuse for that. Simplifying the way you
present things is something else entirely.
Until you take the time to separate them, your only insisting that outright wrong evaluations aren't possible if someone really believes them. The "opinions are like a..." example I mentioned.
In fact, I'd wager, none of the persons here who complain about it have ever taken the time to sit down, write a note, detail a better way, and sent it to Brent or Kyle. They ARE open. They do not consider themselves beyond improvement. They are very open to suggestions.
This commentary looks completely nonsensical. Banning people for disagreeing you is not "very open". Your simply saying that in contradiction to extensive examples of behavior, attitude, and reactions, and clear contrast to, for example, Wavey here at B3D (Dave Baumann) makes a mockery out of the concept of "very open". If you persist in saying things like this you are making conversation impossible. I mean, come on....banning, thread deletion...you are just making yourself look blind.
Of course, if you really hold this opinion, you have every right to defend and support it by pointing out how the opposing opinion is incorrect. But, you're not doing that at all, you're just repeating your evaluation, and holding everyone else to a standard of conduct you completely fail to apply to Kyle. Accusing Extremetech of writing their article as retaliation for not getting to bench Doom 3, and of B3D of being a mouthpiece for this ET tantrum, as Kyle (and, I think, Steve) did, is a deeper insult than any I've seen levelled at Kyle, and with less justification to boot. But was Kyle banned from these forums?
What kind of sense does your "very open" comment make? You're going to have to do some work to establish that you are making sense, you don't just get out of the burden of proof by believing something, you have to have some sort of objective indication relevant to the issue.
The points you highlighted in the first color section are exactly what I find important and many others do as well. I believe we are in agreement on that.
You keep saying that, but you don't seem able to include Kyle. Since you are being targetted only because you are defending Kyle's stance and the way other members of the site are falling into line behind it, your finding it important does not clarify things, just makes your defense more puzzling.
I understand UT2k3 is not the only tool to use but was the focal point of this article.
Umm...the focal of the article was responding to an allegation that there is a problem in the way UT2k3 was used in a hardware review. You're excluding the relationships I discussed again.
Your mention of the 5200 and a 8500 comparison kind of demonstrated the problems reviewers are facing.
Yes, it does. When they fail to face them...they're...failing. That's what has become tougher...not just the task, but what is required to do a good job in order to succeed at the task. [H] can't seem to accept being bluntly told they are failing, at all.
Another thing, you seem to take [H] as referring to everyone who posts at [H] for some reason. As far as I'm concerned in criticism I've levelled at [H], it means Kyle, foremost, and Steve and Brent and Pelly (I haven't noticed that he has yet, actually) when their viewpoints seem to coincide with what I'm criticizing. It only applies to general forum posters when they do the same, though the forum population seems likely to have such members in greater proportion due to the moderation policies. Outside the specifics I've mentioned for your converstion here, it doesn't mean you, and it is confusing when you comment as if it did at certain points.
I did not find Kyle's knowing or not knowing suspect.
This statement doesn't make sense. Assuming you mean knowing about the UT2k3 targetting while using 3dmark03 targetting as substantion for 3dkmark03 being unsuitable for benchmarking, which is my current understanding of what Kyle has said to be true, your simply stating you don't find that suspect doesn't accomplish anything for exhibiting what reason you have for that opinion.
I do not find Brent or Kyle's reviews agenda ridden.
Well, I didn't argue to establish an agenda in their reviews, I referred to their accusations of agenda's in others. My mention of the Ut2k3/3dmark 03 issue, as just above, might seem to imply an agenda, but I'm just stating my understanding of the situation and why I think there is a problem with it. Again, I don't see what point your saying you don't consider there being an agenda accomplishes in terms of supporting itself.
I agree with you that there may have been BETTER ways of doing it.
And they didn't use them. And that's where we are.
This has been voiced within the forums at [H]. Someone even posted within this thread Kyle's response.
This is supposed to be the bare minimum of webmaster/reader interaction, not something brought up as remarkable. Doesn't address all the comments along those lines that resulted in bans, and thread and post deletions.
They are very open to readers suggestions. After all, readers are why they are in business.
Non sequitor, AFAICS.
Do you have any clear indication and discussion of support for this assertion to bring to the table to counter the observations about moderation and things Kyle has said that have already provided, or do your maintain your opinion is significant merely because you hold it?
