DailyTech sets up sting for crooked techsites.

[sswilson]

I'm guessing that's the bogus company they set up to do the "sting".

[Babrbarossa]

Originally Posted by sswilson

There's a very fine line here.

I believe the article states that "positive content" wasn't promised, only "more content".

Wouldn't it stand to reason that even without an implied agreement to spend more advertising dollars for more reviews, that a manufacturer who spent more money by offering more review units would tend to increase their coverage, and then also be likely to spend more money on advertising for a site that included more content on their products?

Could the question not be formed a little different.....

Company - If we were to send you a sample of every one of our products, would you be inclined to do reviews on them?

That's a good point- They should have presented it in a more cut-and-dry manner like: "how much do we gotta pay ya to get a good review?" I know that's a little too cut and dry, but something more along that line.

[Jmac]

I guarantee PC Magazine is on that list :P

Norton = Best AV

[Babrbarossa]

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

Why Supremetech? They have been a mobo supplier for years to the industrial computing marketplace from what I can tell.

from what you can tell by the website, you mean?

Have a look at the date on any and every other reference to supremetec out there.

[Deathspawner]

DailyTech did a good job of putting everything together... it must've taken a -lot- of damn work. Was it worth it? Who knows. Without a list of guilty sites, it seems like there wasn't much point. I agree with sswilson on this point, "I believe the article states that "positive content" wasn't promised, only "more content"."

This is a direct copy/paste of how that question was presented to me,

If you would be willing to offer us more article coverage, we'd be willing to buy some more ads.

At that point, I asked him what his ad budget was and told them we could work something out. It's a fine line though. Would websites be wrong if they devoted more of their site to content for specific companies if they advertise with them? It would be kind of an incentive, but it wouldn't solidify the fact that the site owner is dishonest.

On Techgage, we have never been more lenient towards a company that advertised with us. If the product sucked, we said so. We also don't provide more content because of the advertising fact. We publish reviews that our readers are interested in, not because a company paid us off.

Regardless, accepting money for content is by far, one of the stupidest things a website could do. A few thousand dollars is not worth the amount of credibility you would lose.

[Delavan]

Kudos to you Deathspawner for your integrity. Honesty is (in my book) the most important moral value.

I liked your review on the Mushkin Em2-PC6400 RAM sticks...timings worked right out of the package!!!

[Das Capitolin]

Well I am proud to admit that Benchmark Reviews is 100% bribe free. Of course, nobody in there right mind would bother me with a bribe anyway, since I slam most products and am yet to see a perfect 10. Come to think of it, most manufacturers stop responding to my product requests after I review their shitware. *cough* Tunic *cough* Mushkin