The Second Controversial Thread

[Reverend]

1) Which website(s) is/are being "paid off" by IHVs (and I'm not talking just about NV or ATI -- if they are, of course -- but all IHVs and hardware vendors)? Sure, I can name some sites (mostly because I know... from a number of years (like, 10) back if you really want to know) or make this thread a poll... but I don't want to, er, influence anyone (nor do I want to be potentially sued, regardless of the fact that I'm site-less now! Wait... just name your suspects... no one's gonna sue any of you guys!!!). "Pay Off" meaning money.

2) This one's harder : Which website(s) is/are being "paid off" but not in terms of money but psychologically? By this, I mean sites that are influenced to the extent of favouring an IHV's product (by any board vendor) because that IHV sought to be "really friendly" with that site.

3) Thirdly, in terms of "pay off" and the relevance of this term in this thread, is it okay to not use certain app(s) as "instructed" by an IHV/vendor if that site wanted to receive a certain piece of new hardware? Of course, the "importance" of those app(s) is relevant -- Dave/B3D has done this before, by not using a certain version of 3DMark where I should add that I agree with his reason, which was to provide you guys with a p/review quickly rather than later or probably never. The question is about "sticking to strict ethics". Let's just stop talking about "professional ethics" or simply about "professionalism" -- there is no such thing where "hardware reviewers" are concerned.

Obviously, this is due to that very recent "Inq rant" thread.

As usual, I welcome Joe DeFuria's thoughts more than anyone's (since I really like to know how much he thinks I'm being "paid off"... he's such an important guy).

 

[Geo]

" 'pay off' meaning money" is still too generic and needs finer granulation, IMO.

Is it wrong to take advertising money at all? Does advertising money that is not tied directly to specific reviews affect review results from a fear of offending a major advertiser and possibly losing that cash stream?

Or is money in a brown paper bag with a copy of a pre-written review all we are talking about here? And if so, are we taking the moral high ground in decrying it, or just uncomfortable because they aren't trying a little harder to veil what is going on; like sneezing in public without putting your hand over your mouth/nose.

Payola is one of the oldest games around, but just how blatant is it?

 

[Mariner]

Well, some sites are so obviously biased towards one company over another you can't help but think that some palms are being greased.

I don't consider that NVNews and Rage3D are biased because of illicit payments, however - just sheer rabid fanboyism!

To be fair most of the insanity on those two sites appears on the message boards.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

nor do I want to be potentially sued

Nor does anyone here I'm sure, so if you won't name names, I'd be surprised if anyone else will.

 

[{Sniping}Waste]

Can we say Intel at the top of the pay off list.

 

[Geo]

Can we say Intel at the top of the pay off list.

Gee, I'd think they have enuf money already without having to take pay-offs.

 

[digitalwanderer]

Oh yeah, watch everyone just run to post up in this thread as fast as they can!!!

Whenever people talk about this in public names are almost never mentioned but implied, I wanna see the brave souls that step up to the plate and spill their skinnies.

(You'll note how Rev says "Sure, I can name some sites............but I don't want to, er, influence anyone".... )

 

[Geo]

By the way, what is the purpose of these kinds of threads and articles when people who are willing to say right out that they know from personal experience these things go on then aren't willing to talk about that personal experience to give further credibility to what they are saying? Between this thread, the other, and the original article we now have at least three people who have said variations of "yeah, it sure does --I know from personal experience-- but I won't talk about it."

Is it to blow off steam and frustration at being unable to change the system? If so, I can respect that --ranting can be very therapeutic; I've been known to indulge.

Is it a wary attempt to inform the consumer that they have to be aware these things are going on when reading reviews, while regrettably being unable to provide details for fear of reprisal? I can respect that too.

The big problem tho is that it raises a lot of fears without giving any way to actually address them, fuels paranoia and conspiracy theories, and creates suspicion of all the sites whether it is justified or not in specific instances.

 

[digitalwanderer]

JINXIES!!!!

 

[Rys]

When the threat of legal action these days is very real, I'd expect people to say the thick end of bugger all, even with concrete proof.

Pointless thread (however much I'd like it not to be ).

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Meh. If I thought this would serve any useful purpose other than to start making gross accusations toward web sites with only anecdoctal evidence backed by one's own personal bias...I might comment.

But since I can't see anything useful, and in fact, only potentially harmful, I won't comment.

 

[Geo]

Joe managed to get his in while I was deep in the middle of opining at length. On further consideration, I'm thinking he's got it right again [the bastard].

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Yeah, I don't know what Rev is thinking...I don't think I'm any more important than the next guy...I'm just more right.

 

[Sxotty]

Why are you so afraid anyway?

It seems that anand/THG had a strong bias towards intel, but considering what anads job is well And they both seem to have moderated actually.

Whether anyone gets money is impossible for me or most of us to say, but I can say that the degree to which those sites reviews were biased towards intel last year was extraordinary. Now they seem to not be so biased, which is funny I guess since intel now doesn't have such crappy products for competing with.

 

[bigz]

Pointless thread (however much I'd like it not to be ).

idd

could be an interesting thread

 

[MasterBaiter]

There was that one site called something like "The Pulpit". Doesn't exist anymore, but I think the guy was like a major 3Dfx fanboi

 

[Ragemare]

Toms's Hardware - I don't have any proof except a misty recollection of sitting several reviews side by side and seeing THG as being way out to the point of being completely contradictory.

I seriously doubt anyone that is know in the industry will get sued if they post names here, if it was actually taken to court it would attract far more attention to it -- especially if the freedom of speach slashdot crowd get involved -- and they could very well lose the case.

Maybe if you shouted it at the top of your lungs from the top of the highest mountain repeatedly, they might come for you.

Disclamer: The previous comments have no grounding in reality, all named or described entitys and events are purely fictional. Any similiaritys to real world enititys or events are coincidental and unintended.

 

[ZoinKs!]

Toms's Hardware - I don't have any proof except a misty recollection of sitting several reviews side by side and seeing THG as being way out to the point of being completely contradictory.

Well, iirc they concluded the Geforce FX 5800 ultra review with "Good job, nVidia!" :?

That seemed just a little bit out of step with common sense but I didn't think there was any shady deals involved; I saw it as fanboys run amok.

 

[Hanners]

I wouldn't believe that any big site is being 'paid off' as per Rev's point number 1 at this point in time, at least not in the way I assume he's using the phrase.

As for point number 2, being 'psychologically paid off', one site springs to mind where this is clearly the case. There is also at least one other that I would say has been 'paid off' in this manner at some point by both major IHVs (Lurching from one to the other).

But no, I don't want to name names. And no, Elite Bastards isn't one of them.

 

[dizietsma]

You'd have to expect sites aimed at a single IHV to be under more pressure to provide reviews which are favourable, although Rage3d.com manages to sidestep this by insisting only one graphics company actually exists ( neat move in relation to squashing this type of accusation we have here ).

Looking purely beyond reviews, a prime candidate for IHV pressure would be yearly awards etc, I was reminded of this by the mention of the FX 5800 above. Didn't one web site get a lot of critisism for awarding the FX 5800 the graphics card of the year when the R3XX was also available for choice ?

This looks to be even more of a problem than reviews, reviews will have figures and statistics afterall, awards just have to have an explanation / opinion.