Idea for faster, better reviews of apps

[chris.p]

Wildman, Kendall just kicked you into touch baby!

But if you are (now) making the valid point that we should not be directing people to some sites, if we only want to promote squeaky-clean resources -- then that's OK, it is a valid point.

And here is the rebuttal: we have to, as usually there is no alternative. We don't host downloads except for rare cases; we can't link to exe files or zipped exe files; and as a matter of protocol we must link to the developer's site.

Therefore, as a rule, we must link to their site if we are recommending their software. It's a tough call to tell a review editor, "You can't recommend that software because even though it's the best, the developer's site has some poor deals on it".

It would probably be better to put some sort of warning next to the link, such as "Don't get the PC Klener Platinum, just download the app we recommend". But that will be a case-by-case thing, and you'll have to update the review editor on your worries about this site or that site, the editor has enough problems sorting out the software. We are not an Internet censor or link checker - you have got WOT or Link Extend for that.

[Sope]

Originally Posted by 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.

Smoke and mirrors.

I suspect you're perfectly aware of the fact that Gizmo's Freeware makes security and safety it's top priority when making any recommendations. In which case, it's difficult not to conclude that the true reason you are pursuing this line of enquiry is somehow related to a personal agenda you attempted to push elsewhere on this forum e.g. here

[wildman]

I am done trying to explain. If ya get it fine, if ya don't fine also. Don't want to argue. If you insist that I have an agenda, then let it be that I tried to get it through to you that not all sites recommended on this and other forums are necessarily safe ones, and whether the program recommended is a good one or not at that point becomes a mute subject. I still think this and any other site recommending products has an obligation to do the best it can to let people know if the site they suggest has a good or bad reputation. For that I make no apologies and am sorry that some are unable to grasp that concept. Yes sorry to say COMODO has gained a not so good reputation, and be dang if I'll do the research for you, that you can do on your own.

Thanks
Wildman

[MidnightCowboy]

It's also worth pointing out that a whole bunch of people, especially one who has just replied to this thread, have just spent the last two days virtually without sleep to rescue the site. At one point it looked like we might lose everything from mid June onwards but luckily this was restricted to just two days in the end. From commercial experience I can tell you that this level of commitment is hard to find even when you're paying people for it.
Of course there is always room for improvement with whatever we do here and there are many aspects of the site under discussion at any one time in the private forums. The trouble is that once you begin to force an issue you can rapidly end up with no way back. As I've said before, we do what we can with the resources available but are always looking to improve. Complacency does not and cannot exist for any website unless the owners wish to see their rating and visitor numbers disappear through the floor. It would be nice though if we can put this topic to bed now and move on to other things. You've already made a real contribution to the forum wildman, and I'd like to see more of the same

[wildman]

Thank you MidnightCowboy. As you have seen I am very blunt and try to get to the bottom line without having to paint a picture. I will be looking at this forum as well as others, and for what it is worth, this one is not the only one I have been rather harsh on. If you go and look at those sites today (I'll let you try and guess witch ones they are), you will see that they are rated as some of the best in their respective categories. Gizmo's has been a site I have frequented often and have recommended on various sites one of witch I am a moderator, I look forward to continuing to do so.

Thanks
Wildman

[ianjrichards]

Wildman's original question was a fair one though I have trouble with his subsequent line of argument.

The fact is that we don't recommend products that come from sites with a bad WOT rating nor would we recommend anything from a vendor that we know to be disreputable.

Apart from that it is not our policy to systematically check the background of vendors. They may well have smoked pot, been paid up communists or believed George Bush was Christ incarnate but that is not our business.

If someone subsequently points out to us that we are recommending products from a shady dealer then we will respond appropriately. Indeed there are several instances I'm aware of, where we have dropped a product from our recommendations following information supplied by our users.

That's all we can do; we are not nor do we seek to be, private investigators into vendor practices.

One thing is for certain: if we do discover from our users that a vendor is using demonstrably shady practices then we will drop their products immediately.

Gizmo

[wildman]

Can't ask for more than that.

Thanks
Wildman