I've never questioned Shawn's integrity, and upon reading the
article in question, he gives a favorable review of HourGlass 2000.
It's just that when I'm reading a review of a product, unless there
is something stated to the contrary, I'm expecting an un-biased
viewpoint. I personally believe anyone working on a competing product
could not be un-biased in such a situation.
Shawn DOES do a great service to the whole community with his
product reviews, and I hope he continues to do so. It takes
a great deal of time and effort to do a review then write up
your experiences for an article. It's just that in THIS case,
maybe the reviews should not have been performed by Shawn.
BTW, I have no interests (financial or otherwise) in any of these
products. I'm not a software vendor, but I do rely on reviews such
as these to narrow my search for products down to one or two which
I then review for my customers project at hand.
Regards,
Michael L Gueterman
Easy Does It Technologies
email: [log in to unmask]
http://www.editcorp.com
voice: (888) 858-EDIT -or- (509) 943-5108
fax: (509) 946-1170
--
On Thursday, February 26, 1998 2:13 PM, Jim Gilbert
[SMTP:[log in to unmask]] wrote:
> I think this whole point of questioning Shawn's integrity in the
> first
> place is ridiculous. How many years have we seen him doing reviews
> for
> Interact? Has anyone ever had a problem with his ethics or integrity
> before? If so, I've never heard about it.
>
> In my opinion Shawn is an outstanding reviewer providing us all a
> valuable
> service, and I for one applaud his ability to see a niche and produce
> another product for the 3000. After all, competition will only mean
> higher
> product quality for all of us.
>
> my $.02
>
> Jim
>
> At 02:29 PM 2/26/98 -0700, Pat Sarkar wrote:
> >I disagree with the position the other vendors are taking with
> >respect to
> >Shawn reviewing their products and then coming up with his own
> >competing
> >product - it is up to Interact to decide whether to publish Shawn's
> >reviews
> >or not. Isn't it natural for someone to come up with a better
> >solution
> >after evaluating existing solutions? Shawn is no journalist - would
> >anyone
> >question Pat Buchanan running for president just because he
> >criticized
> >competitors on national TV as a CNN CrossFire journalist? I guess
the
> >real
> >question is who is going to review Shawn's product - I feel that
> >Shawn
> >should provide evaluation copies of TimeWarp to all other vendors
who
> >want
> >to review his product and post their review of TimeWarp on this
list.
> >I
> >think it is great for users when someone in the know creates another
> >competing solution.
> >
> >Pat Sarkar
> >----------
> >> From: Michael L Gueterman <[log in to unmask]>
> >> To: [log in to unmask]
> >> Subject: Re: Plug Alert: Y2K software
> >> Date: Thursday, February 26, 1998 1:31 PM
> >>
> >> I tend to agree, a reviewer has an obligation to be un-biased,
> >> and
> >> I can't see how that can be if they are producing a competing
> >> product.
> >> I know that it can take several months from the time the review is
> >> completed until it is published, but I would think that a product
> >> such as this would have to be in the works longer than that amount
> >> of time.
> >> Shawn, would you care to comment on this?
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Michael L Gueterman
> >> Easy Does It Technologies
> >> email: [log in to unmask]
> >> http://www.editcorp.com
> >> voice: (888) 858-EDIT -or- (509) 943-5108
> >> fax: (509) 946-1170
> >> --
> >>
> >> On Thursday, February 26, 1998 12:01 PM, Gavin Scott
> >> [SMTP:[log in to unmask]] wrote:
> >> > Shawn Gordon writes:
> >> > > S.M.Gordon & Associates is pleased to announce the release of
> >> > > TimeWarp/3000, the newest entry in the world of HP3000 virtual
> >> > > date/time
> >> > > software.
> >> >
> >> > Gee. Is this something I need to start worrying about
generally?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > We're contacted about providing a copy of our HourGlass product
> >> > for
> >> > a product review in Interact Magazine, and so we provide a pre-
> >> > release
> >> > early-access version of the software along with extensive
> >> > technical
> >> > support and information, and repeated extensions of the
> >> > demonstration
> >> > period for the reviewer.
> >> >
> >> > Since the same reviewer also wrote a review of our competitor's
> >> > product,
> >> > I can only assume that they also provided copies of their
> >> > software
> >> > and
> >> > similar information to said reviewer.
> >> >
> >> > Now, a week after the review comes out in Interact, that same
> >> > reviewer
> >> > announces that he has developed a product with directly competes
> >> > with
> >> > both of the products he reviewed?
> >> >
> >> > I mean, what am I to think?
> >> >
> >> > G.
> >
> >
|
