Two years: Questionable editorial neutrality and inconsistent diction

[Kilauea]

Originally Posted by chriskwarren

This is my feeling as well. A PM to the editor would have been perfect in this case. Posting a thread like this only serves the following purposes (intended or not):

1. The HWC fanboiz will flame and attack the OP. Makes me wonder if the OP realizes this and does not care, wants the attention, or has some need to constantly correct others. I do realize that I am a part of this now, simply by posting.
2. Reviewers, who volunteer, feel unappreciated. Many spend their own money and put their own precious time into these reviews. If we, as a community, call them out like this, they may be less likely to do a review in the first place. They will interpret the 'offer to help' as condescending. Frankly, I am not sure I would blame them, as a real offer to help would have been done via PM so that they can save face. Quoting articles as the OP did and simply changing the quote titles does nothing to hide who they are criticizing, as many of us know how to do a Google search with quotes. If you really want to improve the quality of the reviews, do so via PM and allow the reviewer to save face. Allowing someone to save face is the best way to get what you want in this world.
3. Drags down the tone of the forum. This creates needless drama, and gets people posting about other people. Again, I am doing this now, but I really have to get this off my chest and I am doing my best to be respectful. There are human beings on here on the other end of the posts, and posts which attack the ability or conduct of each other only ends up in more posts and threads which do the same.

I don't really think this should have been sent in a PM. It's an opinion just like yours or mine and I think it gives us the chance to say what we like or don't like about the reviews here so they can get better.

I personally come to HWC first for the reviews and I don't mind some first impressions in the introduction because I always go look further and see if the first impressions were founded and if the product is as good as it looks. That is something which I get here. Of course the other important part is the more objective(when possible) part of the review which is also quite important.

All in all, I find HWC staff is doing a great job, keep at it guys.

[Pike]

I like the reviews as well. My only gripe with them would be that contrary to what was stated as in fault of the reviews...I would like to see a more personal approach to writing. Someone mentioned in this thread that this is a community (i'm assuming a community of geeks, nerds, IT pros, and wannabee computer techs) and that's who these articles should be written for. Why be melodramatic, too scientific or so anal about a cpu cooler or a new SSD...my god people, this is a computer forum, not a scientific endeavor!!!

I would like to see a bit of humour injected in the reviews. There is enough crap, negativity, and hate in this world. They should be written for everybody and in laymen's terms...not for a research paper.

Anyways...keep up the great work guys...you've always had my attention

[CMetaphor]

Originally Posted by chriskwarren

This is my feeling as well. A PM to the editor would have been perfect in this case. Posting a thread like this only serves the following purposes (intended or not):

1. The HWC fanboiz will flame and attack the OP. Makes me wonder if the OP realizes this and does not care, wants the attention, or has some need to constantly correct others. I do realize that I am a part of this now, simply by posting.
2. Reviewers, who volunteer, feel unappreciated. Many spend their own money and put their own precious time into these reviews. If we, as a community, call them out like this, they may be less likely to do a review in the first place. They will interpret the 'offer to help' as condescending. Frankly, I am not sure I would blame them, as a real offer to help would have been done via PM so that they can save face. Quoting articles as the OP did and simply changing the quote titles does nothing to hide who they are criticizing, as many of us know how to do a Google search with quotes. If you really want to improve the quality of the reviews, do so via PM and allow the reviewer to save face. Allowing someone to save face is the best way to get what you want in this world.
3. Drags down the tone of the forum. This creates needless drama, and gets people posting about other people. Again, I am doing this now, but I really have to get this off my chest and I am doing my best to be respectful. There are human beings on here on the other end of the posts, and posts which attack the ability or conduct of each other only ends up in more posts and threads which do the same.

Hopefully I have made myself clear and have not offended anyone. If you have a problem with somebody or something, PM. If you allow somebody to save face then you will get much further along. You have a real issue with somebody's writing style, PM them. If you don't like somebody's post, PM them about it, and if you like, include a mod in the PM.

Drama *facepalm*

1. Exactly. I think the OP should've kept his thoughts to himself.
2. Exactly.
3. IMO, The OP is creating drama for some pointless reason, and I no longer be a part of it.

This thread should not get any further attention. Its disrespectful and arrogant. The End.

[odis172]

Ironic that the OP seemed like he was in fact demeaning the reviewers. I agree he may be on to something, but he could have said his peace without sounding like he was venting his built up rage towards the reveiwers in the nicest way possible. A simple PM would have sufficied, if he had offered to look over the reviews before they hit the site and correct any biases.
Such an anger inducing thread should be removed.

[SKYMTL]

First of all Amon, I appreciate your posting this. It takes balls the size of baby elephants to post issues you may be having with the reviews on a site's home turf. I liken it to coming into someone's house and yelling "its MESSY in here!". Some people will end up punching you in the face while others will take your criticism to heart and see what they can do it to make things better. I lie firmly on the side of the latter so please stay put while I address your concerns.

These are a handful of examples which have picked out from the beginning of the most recent review. From them, and from some recent articles, I have a suspicion that Hardware Canucks is skirting the wrong side of editorial neutrality.

Many other sites will yell that they aren't biased. However, when it all boils down to it everyone is biased in their own way and the reviewers and I are no different. We are consumers like everyone else so when a company has a history of success along with years of great support we will naturally look at their product quite positively (minus performance) from the getgo. When it comes to performance, the numbers do the talking so we usually just shut up. Our final opinions are based on both the performance and the overall customer satisfaction (support, looks, durability, etc.). Something can perform like greased lightning but if it doesn't last for longer than a fruit fly's life span, what's the use of recommending it?

Anyways, I know you are not claiming that this site has any bias but I thought I should mention that anyways.

Now, my main bother is that the diction spoken through the articles has shifted towards a snappy, first-sight freestyle tone. I can't be arsed remembering who the original boffins were who wrote the old reviews, but, their deliveries were subtler and in a fashion that exuded wisdom. Etc.

To a certain extent, I think you have a point but at the same time it is important to remember that the writing style hasn't changed per say; but what we have done is brought on more reviewers since 2007. Each brings their own "flair" if you will to the reviews they do. Some of them like MAC and myself bring a more straightforward approach to writing reviews. Others like AkG and 3oh6 make the reviews a bit more personal. Personally, I love having both writing styles here because it brings a certain uniqueness to our reviews without leaving them too stoic and overly professional sounding. We are a personable site and always have been and I think the different writing styles really bring that out.

As editor, I won't delete personal opinions unless they impact the final outcome of a product's review. Case and point: enclosure reviews. To some people the design of a certain case may look like total ass while others will love the design. All of the reviewers know that if they abhor the exterior design of anything, there will be others who may love it. In this way, personal opinions can be discussed but won't impact the conclusion.


In the end, it all comes down to personal opinions. I think our reviews and their depth of testing go above and beyond what others sites even think of doing. Granted, some of the writers use off-the-cuff remarks but in all reality, I find it gives character to our reviews. Meanwhile, others may not. The professionalism is still there in spades and in no way do we ever let personal opinions about certain aspects of design get in the way of our writing styles. One way or another, I stand by my reviewers and their unique writing styles 100%.

Hope that answers some of your concerns. Thanks again for posting.

[misterlarry]

Well said SKY.

[bojangles]

I agree with SKY and MAC equally. The reviews at HWC do cater to every reading group. Just one thing, and I know that you guys have a life other than reviewing, but could the intros to the reviews be little more carefully worded? Hints are embedded in them in some. It really needs to make sure that every company is on the same ground as the one being reviewed. Other than that, I read through every single review here thoroughly because I like opinion, which is the reason why I stay here (that and the amazing community here! :)). Go to Tom's Hardware or Anandtech and there's just too much stuff I don't like.

Great job HWC, and I hope that this thread doesn't make you feel like a bag of potatoes...

[SKYMTL]

Originally Posted by bojangles

I agree with SKY and MAC equally. The reviews at HWC do cater to every reading group. Just one thing, and I know that you guys have a life other than reviewing, but could the intros to the reviews be little more carefully worded? Hints are embedded in them in some. It really needs to make sure that every company is on the same ground as the one being reviewed.

Great job HWC, and I hope that this thread doesn't make you feel like a bag of potatoes...

Can you be a bit more specific about what you would like to see in the intro? For us, the intro is all about adding context to the product and the company. If we somehow miss that, let me know how things can change and I may take your suggestions to heart if they are within my power to do so.

And I love taters.

[Babrbarossa]

I think commentary like Amon's post should be welcome - especially since he used examples to illustrate his points. Although based on his rework of that paragraph on heatpipes, I don't think we should snap him up as QA/QC

I also actually liked that original paragraph -I might drop the term "mundane affair", but it's a nice read.

And I can't imagine what's wrong with stating that coolermaster has been at the forefront of the case market for some time .

That's just standard 'intro' fare- and warrants a little color- just skip it and get to the meat of the review. The numbers never lie.

Having done a review or two I have great appreciation for the work they do- it's a pretty thankless job and the amount of work it takes FAR outweighs the value of the odd free component that they get to keep after reviewing. They do it because they love computer hardware, and the gratification that they get from ding it would be gone if they weren't earnest about their reviews. They are in it for the love of the hobby. (oh yeah, and the naked women and fast cars)

[Amon]

I think my point was lost in translation somewhere. The result was that a lot of repliers here have fallen into the same trap that I've tried to swerve Hardware Canucks away from: reading too deeply into single points, and then drawing conclusions from them on a case-by-case basis. The majority of them sound like they are attacking the insignificant tidbits of the big picture I was trying to present. What I was proposing was to truncate the core material of the reviews by trimming off the filler expressions and blog-like remarks, and moving them to the end to provide the technician an opportunity to discuss the results and, moreover, anything else that he or she may want relating to the item or its market, without interfering with the objective analysis.

For those who claimed that I think the reviews and its writers are uncomplicated and simple-minded: that is not true. I was not saying the reviews are too short and needed preposterously pompous vocabulary to sound professional. In reality, I'm somebody who does not like vagueness and length because I have incredibly poor short-term memory (Memento?). Apparently, most readers here don't want to read long articles, anyway. And by integrating weighted personal opinion into the material, the central arguments--the facts, data, and analyses--are lost to obscurity. For example, jumping back and forth between dissecting the mechanical function of a product and admiring/disliking the manufacturer's choice of aesthetics is what I wanted to shine the light on. I know that it is a very casual, conversational method of moving through a review, but, for somebody who is looking for the dissection only, it is difficult to locate without mentally reprocessing the body of text.

Perhaps, at first, I may have been too picky about the introduction flair. Do pardon me because I was frustrated at the helpless instruction manual for assembling my lawn mower. (Traded it with a Toro, now. Excellent mower, albeit too big.) But, I am not trying to incite drama or aggression. In fact, half of my entire criticism was comprised of a viable proposed solution, which leads me to believe that some repliers were instinctively seeking trouble. And, for the record, I was not aware that AkG was the authour of my example, so please lay off of the assumption that it was a personal attack.

I am not, in any manner, recommending a to change the length, content, or complexity of Hardware Canucks reviews. I was suggesting only to comb the blog-likeness, away from the core review, to the end, perhaps under a page that could be titled "Personal Remarks" or "Editor's Thoughts". Absolutely, you may keep all of the quirkiness, humour, and other thoughts in the review; it is encouraged and gives Hardware Canucks its distinct personified presentation that I honestly do adore. It is just that, lately, I am having more difficulty absorbing the same amount of information from the core of reviews... I'm suggesting to make articles easier to read, not harder.

And thanks, SKYMTL, for taking the time to sit down and address the criticism.