Idea for faster, better reviews of apps

[wdhpr]

You can only split a hair so many times...............Or can you?

Cheers
Wdhpr

[wildman]

[QUOTE=wdhpr;14781]You can only split a hair so many times...............Or can you?Cheers Wdhpr[/QUOTE

And?

Thanks
Wildman

[Sope]

Originally Posted by wildman

I will stop, I think the viewers of this forum have enough info. to now make up their own minds. I refer you to Kemdall's post #5 in this thread, I think it speaks for itself.

Thanks
Wildman

Personally I think Kendall's approach is a perfectly reasonable and sensible one.

Originally Posted by kendall

I will be the first to admit that when I review products/software, I am mainly concerned about it's functionality. I really do not delve into the software company or developer themselves. I see my job as evaluating different types or versions of software for the average or causal user. I do not see my job as evaluating the developer or company. Maybe that's wrong. I don't know.

To me, it would kind of like evaluating mutual funds. I would evaluate their performance and how well they are doing. It is up to the reader or investor at that point to determine if they want to do business with this company or decide if they don't agree with the companies mission. (For example, I know many people who choose not to invest in mutual funds with companies who support abortion, or support defense contractors, or don't support global warming, etc.)

This is just my opinion and how I see my role. My role is evaluating software and functionality, not the company themselves. There are people out there who might not want to support a company doing business in China or India or Korea or wherever for whatever reason. That is their choice and their issue. (For example, personally I will not support the Ford Motor Company by purchasing any of their vehicles. It has nothing to do with their value or even how good they are. However, that is my choice. It is not my job to push my values or beliefs onto others. However, if asked, I might or might not decide to give the reasons for my choice.)

Originally Posted by wildman

Last word ethical or unethical site? The rest should be mute.

Thanks
Wildman

It is niave to believe that a question of ethics is anything other than subjective.

[kendall]

I will stop, I think the viewers of this forum have enough info. to now make up their own minds. I refer you to Kemdall's post #5 in this thread, I think it speaks for itself. I think your replies have also given enough info. Last word ethical or unethical site? The rest should be mute.

Wildman, you obviously have an agenda. I, for one, do not appreciate your agenda. You are twisting words. Of course, we care about sites that promote spam or virus's. You asked about developers, not sites. I referenced developers not websites. Of course we do not promote sites that introduce spam or virus's or malware to a user.

Your accusations an innuendos are flat wrong. If you even take a partial reading of these forums, you will see numerous mentions of WOT and LinkExtend and NoScript and other means to avoid these types of sites. We do not knowingly support websites that have a poor WOT rating. Now, you are differentiating between websites and developers. I responded to the issue you raised about developers, I was not referencing websites. Of course, I don't link to websites that have a poor WOT rating.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. However, if you think we are unethical or support spam websites, then I suggest you quit frequenting here and go elsewhere. Why would you continue to post at a site that you think is unethical?

[bob2345]

Originally Posted by kendall

Why would you continue to post at a site that you think is unethical?

Probably wants someone to admit they're right and you were wrong.

I always thought ethics were a subjective experience rather than an objective reality. Dangerous people are the ones that believe in an objective ethical reality.

[chris.p]

@jpjarosz
Some useful suggestions there. Thank you for making them.

A couple of points: very early on in the process of developing this site, we decided not to use a feature matrix in reviews. The reasons are that:

1. They are very easy to compile, for those with no knowledge or experience at all - though it takes time.
2. They never answer the questions that people really want to know, like how good is the app anyway, and exactly why is it better or worse than others.
3. Many other sites do them, as it is so easy.
4. They are one of the things that is basically wrong with other sites, that we always wanted to avoid, and to do better.

Essentially, matrices provide easily-found info (that's there for the taking on the dev's sites) that doesn't answer most of the questions.

It is much harder, and far superior, to have experienced people write comparative reviews. And it's even harder to accumulate a lot of very high-quality reviews, as we have done. We aim to be the best software review site on the Net and I believe we have succeeded.

However, it can always be improved. Nothing is perfect, and like the software, which is always being improved, so the site needs continual work. If you knew what it was like 18 months ago you'd realise just how far we've come - and there is no reason to suppose that in 18 months' time it won't have improved almost as dramatically.

That means changes, and I do admit that in some cases, a feature matrix can clarify some issues. From research I believe that is in less than 5% of cases though. My reasoning for this is that on my own site, I've found that out of 250 pages of server software info, I only needed to include a matrix on about 6 or 7 pages. So it's true that editors should be free to include a matrix if they want to. How to do that is yet another project for the queue

We have between 80 and 100 editors currently, and it's nowhere near enough. Because of the intense workload, all editors are under pressure. To fully develop a good review page probably needs two people so that they could split the workload. We are nowhere near having those resources for our current page content - and we have plans (if there were any way to realise them) for a four-times size increase..... one day.

We are under a lot of pressure and have zero financial resources, it all just runs on goodwill. Gizmo hates any kind of commercial involvement so income will always be minimal, even when the money runs out and we have to get cash in somehow. At present the server is paid for by a reserve fund but that's running out.

Anyway - if improvements can be suggested that would be easy to implement, then we are more than willing to look at them. We need them. The idea for webforms looks a good one. We'll see - somebody has to find the time to work up these kinds of things, and although we have many capable authors on the site, we are short of server tech / coding staff, who are therefore under severe time restrictions. That's just the way it is - this site is a diamond in a world of trash, but part of the reason for that is that it is absolutely, totally, unswervingly 100% amateur. With all the drawbacks that entails.

@wildman
I like conspiracy theories as there is something deeply attractive to them. Unfortunately in this case we're all just doing the best we can and there is no secret agenda or whatever. We give the best advice we can, and if someone thinks they can do better, then by all means weigh in, help out, and change stuff.

But remember we only print provable facts that directly affect the freeware we review. If the developer has personal problems or their site is maybe not in the Mother Theresa class, well, that's life, and if the review editor figures it doesn't affect the software - end of story.

After all you could say the same about Microsoft and Bill G. You might occasionally hear the opinion voiced that they were the biggest software pirates on the planet when they started - that everything they have or own is based on something 'liberated' from others, and therefore their current hard line on software piracy is simply hilarious - that some of their software is abysmally maintained, especially as regards to security - that they have a cynical disregard for their users' best interests - and plenty more. But the fact remains that we use Windows because it's the best option, and will be for a long time to come. So put up and shut up

We do what we can, and it's all for free. No one is paying Gizmo to promote stuff, or ignore stuff - he has absolutely nothing to do with review content any more except for his own pages. If he told me to promote somebody's apps, or ditch some apps, because of some financial reason, I'd leave. I believe you can have an amateur site, or one that is clearly commercial, and people can go to whichever one they choose.

If we ever have any commercial agenda it will be right up front. So please quit with the conspiracy stuff, plots, hidden agendas or whatever and go somewhere else. Either help out and change it, or go away.

[Jojoyee]

Originally Posted by chris.p

We do what we can, and it's all for free... So please quit with the conspiracy stuff, plots, hidden agendas or whatever and go somewhere else. Either help out and change it, or go away.

@Chris

That's a clear and good message... and I can't find any site which is better than Gizmo's Freeware, so far.

[MidnightCowboy]

Yes Chris, well said and thanks for joining in with this one.

All of us here have more than enough to do without having to deal with this stuff as well, but if we just delete it or don't respond then others might think there's some truth in it and/or we're seen as being "unfair".

[wildman]

I guess my point was missed altogether. When one seeks info, on products to install on their machines, I think it is reasonable to expect that they will not be directed to a site that possibly contains items that could damage their equipment. Now if that is an agenda on my part, then I am damn proud to have such an agenda. I would hope Gizmo has such an agenda as well. Now if you wish me to go away, I shall.

Thanks
Wildman

[kendall]

Wildman, you keep changing your story and the topic/subject at hand. You are mixing words and making innuendos. Let me point this out:

How much vesting does Gizmo's do before it recommends a product? Who if anyone checks on the reputation of the companies supplying recommended products?

You started with this question. You asked specifically about the "reputation" of a company. I, and several others, responded to your question about "reputation".

Next, you wrote:

I will stop, I think the viewers of this forum have enough info. to now make up their own minds. I refer you to Kemdall's post #5 in this thread, I think it speaks for itself. I think your replies have also given enough info. Last word ethical or unethical site? The rest should be mute.

Then, you make an innuendo or accusation against our site.

Then, you switch from asking about reputation to spam or malware.

I guess my point was missed altogether. When one seeks info, on products to install on their machines, I think it is reasonable to expect that they will not be directed to a site that possibly contains items that could damage their equipment.

This not and was not your original question. You asked about the reputation of companies who's software we recommend. Now, you've switched to spyware or malware sites. Clearly, we do not recommend sites or software the support spyware or malware.

Of course we missed your point because apparently not even you are clear on the point(s) you are trying to make.