consistency of reviews

[rick_mo37]

I would like to suggest that the consistency of reviews of recommended products looked into. Back when this site was 46-best and later on there almost always seemed to be a notice on a review if a product contained a questionable toolbar, nag screens to upgrade to a paid version or even false/ misleading advertising. Now it seems some of the favored products get a pass no matter what their added toolbar or type of advertising.

I noticed that Avira Antivir is listed as the top recommended antivirus. But there is a "reservation" added in regard to the advertisements that appear with every update. At the same time the top rated Adware-Spyware-Scumware remover is SuperAntiSpyware. But there is no mention of the advertisement that appears with every update. This appears to give a caution in regard to using Antivir yet a pass for SAS. Even more troubling is that the advertising that appears with SAS is actually misleading and deceptive as it claims a one day only special.

Another program mentioned with a reservation is ImgBurn as that program is listed as containing a toolbar which does not have to be installed for ImgBurn to properly function. Yet, a recommended firewall is ZoneAlarm free version which includes the SpySite blocker toolbar. From what I understand that toolbar is simply a way to disguise the Ask.com toolbar install. Considering the marketing tactics of CheckPoint, deception is not a real big surprise. But, there is no mention of the toolbar install in the ZoneAlarm free firewall description.

To round things out, I made a post over in the Best Disk Defragmenter section concerning the top rated Auslogics Disk Defrag. Apparently the Auslogics program may contain a type of scareware advertising. That's yet to be determined but it's being investigated in more detail as I type this post.

I had considered not even making this post because I don't think it will make much difference. There certainly are some products recommended by the mods on this site which are off limits from criticism. SAS is one. I suspect there are others. Despite this though, I believe many people use some products based on a set of criteria, one of which is whether the product has an affiliation with a dubious toolbar. Another is whether the company engages in unethical or misleading advertising. So I suspect many people would take the product recommendations of mods more seriously if all products were graded on whether they include unneeded toolbars, engage in deceptive advertising, have pop up/ nagware advertising, etc.

[kendall.a]

I had considered not even making this post because I don't think it will make much difference. There certainly are some products recommended by the mods on this site which are off limits from criticism. SAS is one. I suspect there are others. Despite this though, I believe many people use some products based on a set of criteria, one of which is whether the product has an affiliation with a dubious toolbar. Another is whether the company engages in unethical or misleading advertising. So I suspect many people would take the product recommendations of mods more seriously if all products were graded on whether they include unneeded toolbars, engage in deceptive advertising, have pop up/ nagware advertising, etc.

You make a good point. However, you have to understand that it is volunteer editors who write our articles on the main site. Many of our moderators are NOT editors; while some are.

Each editor writes his/her own article after testing out various products. They write basically independently of each other. Gizmo and the volunteer leadership have very little to do with individual articles/reviews. Articles/reviews are attributed to editors because they do all the work and write their reviews independently.

Because we have probably over 100 volunteers (I actually don't know exactly how many we have), and 100's of articles, you are bound to see some differences and discrepancies. Many products cross over categories. One editor might think that A is the best in one category, but in a similar category a different editor might like B and not A. That's ok. It's to be expected when you bring various individuals together from all over the world and they are offering their opinions and expertise.

We do have volunteer moderators in addition to volunteer editors. However, our role is not to necessarily edit the work done by editors. Most of what we/they spend doing is "nuking" spam and inappropriate comments and responding occasionally to comments. We do have rules and guidelines for editors, but we try not to limit creativity or even opinions.

[MidnightCowboy]

Originally Posted by rick_mo37

I had considered not even making this post because I don't think it will make much difference.

From whose perspective, yours or everyone else's?

As Kendall points out having "control" over this number of volunteer editors is not what this site is about even if it were possible.

It's the old story isn't it that a review is never good unless your favorite product comes top or agrees with your point of view in other ways? Also, what many people find acceptable in a product would make the hair stand up on others. It never ceases to amaze me for instance the lengths folks go to install security software on their computer and then plaster their life history all over Facebook.

Maybe the real reason why you made this post is because to date no one else from our million and a half visitors a month has yet seen fit to respond to the same topic you posted in the BF Defrag comments?

It's also a bit daft to imply that we are not open to criticism and feedback during the week when this site has provided an essentially interactive environment with the main page changing several times a day, much of which has been generated by user comments.

The review sections are also interactive in that any concerns about a product and/or how it is described can be addressed directly to the editor concerned using the contact process provided by the site. Reviews and articles listed as "site.editor" are currently not allocated but concerns about any of these can be addressed to me.

I would also draw your attention to the site rules, in particular:

"The following types of activity are expressly forbidden:

• Posting continuous criticism of moderators and their moderation activities.
  
• You may criticize a moderator, or how the site is run. However, such comments should be made privately not publicly".

[rick_mo37]

Originally Posted by MidnightCowboy

From whose perspective, yours or everyone else's?

As Kendall points out having "control" over this number of volunteer editors is not what this site is about even if it were possible.

It's the old story isn't it that a review is never good unless your favorite product comes top or agrees with your point of view in other ways? Also, what many people find acceptable in a product would make the hair stand up on others. It never ceases to amaze me for instance the lengths folks go to install security software on their computer and then plaster their life history all over Facebook.

Maybe the real reason why you made this post is because to date no one else from our million and a half visitors a month has yet seen fit to respond to the same topic you posted in the BF Defrag comments?

It's also a bit daft to imply that we are not open to criticism and feedback during the week when this site has provided an essentially interactive environment with the main page changing several times a day, much of which has been generated by user comments.

The review sections are also interactive in that any concerns about a product and/or how it is described can be addressed directly to the editor concerned using the contact process provided by the site. Reviews and articles listed as "site.editor" are currently not allocated but concerns about any of these can be addressed to me.

I would also draw your attention to the site rules, in particular:

"The following types of activity are expressly forbidden:

• Posting continuous criticism of moderators and their moderation activities.
  
• You may criticize a moderator, or how the site is run. However, such comments should be made privately not publicly".

Well now that you mentioned it, of the products I mentioned above, Avira Antivir is actually my favorite av. It really has nothing to do with my favorites, even though you may think otherwise. Between ImgBurn, ZA free and SAS, I really could live with or without any of them. I suppose the real question is whether there is any inconsistency or not in the reviews in regard to toolbars, nagware or deceptive advertising. I think there is. I don't recall you claiming otherwise.

As far as the comment I made in the Defrag section, maybe someone responds, maybe not. I see that you know it's there now. And my previous fear that my post may not make any difference is probably coming to fruition. I mean, it's not like you claim to be investigating the issue... and I doubt whether Auslogics uses scareware tactics to sell their BoostSpeed product makes any difference in whether the product is recommended or not. There was a time such activity by Auslogics would be a major concern. But that was another time.

As far as your comment

"It's also a bit daft to imply that we are not open to criticism..."

I find it troublesome that you follow that with a post that says:

"I would also draw your attention to the site rules, in particular:

'The following types of activity are expressly forbidden:

* Posting continuous criticism of moderators and their moderation activities.
* You may criticize a moderator, or how the site is run. However, such comments should be made privately not publicly'. "

So what are you saying? You are open to criticism as long as it's not posted? That's kinda "daft" if you ask me. Seriously, maybe in order to avoid any criticism you should consider renaming the description of this particular forum. I just looked and it says:
"Suggestions & Comments
Want a new site feature? Hate the site or love it? Tell us here."

So what does that mean exactly? If your ego does not handle criticism well then maybe the title or description should be changed. Congratulations on your 1.5 million visitors a month. Really. But don't let it go to your head. I read the comments in different sections on this site and there are many positive posts. There are also a good deal of posts criticizing the elitist type egos some of the mods and editors have. Maybe you don't see it, but it's true. Heck I think most people can see that in the response you made to my post. I doubt you do. And that should probably say something. It says enough to me.

I've been coming to this site for years. I suspect as long or longer than you or most of the mods on this site. I've contributed quite a bit myself. I realize you have contributed much more being a mod and all. But my criticism is real and not a shot below the belt or anything like that.

If you don't like constructive criticism of mine then just ban me. I really don't care anymore. Maybe anyone who offers any criticism of the site should be banned. That way you won't need to change the description of this forum, just its substance. Like I said, I have been coming to this site a long time- hell probably over 10 years. And many of my recommendations and finds are still considered top freeware programs on this site. But I really don't like the personalities running this site anymore. Yours in particular. And some others who I'm sure know who they are. Tell Gizmo I wish him the best.

[Ritho]

Like I said, I have been coming to this site a long time- hell probably over 10 years. And many of my recommendations and finds are still considered top freeware programs on this site.

I've been coming to this site for years. I suspect as long or longer than you or most of the mods on this site. I've contributed quite a bit myself.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "this site" but you have not been coming to "Gizmo's Freeware" for ten years. Please notice my join date, please also notice that I am a foundation editor. I was here from the beginning. MC shortly after. If you are talking about Gizmo's newsletter, well then that is a different thing all together. I used to write a few articles and submit them to Ian and from time to time he would include them in his newsletter, but as for top picks of freeware, there were originally only 46 chosen by him and him alone. Then came his extended list. Still chosen and recommended by him and him alone.

Gizmo came up with the brilliant idea to start a wiki type freeware review site. He put out the call and 10-15 people came forward as volunteers from amongst his readers. Then as things picked up, we got more volunteer editors and moderators. MC joined before we even got all the bugs worked out around here. I don't see how you can say....

.. I really don't like the personalities running this site anymore. Yours in particular. And some others who I'm sure know who they are. Tell Gizmo I wish him the best.

It is the same personalities as has basically always been around here. Some editors and mods have come and gone, but most of us that were here at the beginning are still here.

With over two years of countless volunteer work people like MC and Anupam and Jim (three of our long time moderators) and others have helped bring this site from a hand full of hits per day, to tens of thousands per day. Their individual personalities are what has made this site a smashing success. Not to leave out George, Chris, and rick and many other who have put a lot of work into the daily functioning and look of this site. Nor to leave out the many editors who have given of their time to test and evaluate user suggestions and write about them. Nor to forget our readers who have suggested many if not most of the products we review.

This site has been a community effort from the beginning. It can't be perfect because it is a community and as a community filled with imperfect people, it is going to have a few flaws. But it is still the one of the greatest website's ever built by volunteer effort alone, and it is without argument the best freeware site that has ever existed. We did not get here by ignoring criticism. Websites that ignore their users opinions fail.

[kendall.a]

I suppose the real question is whether there is any inconsistency or not in the reviews in regard to toolbars, nagware or deceptive advertising. I think there is. I don't recall you claiming otherwise.

As I attempted to say in my first post, you are correct. We probably do have some inconsistencies. So what?! Personally, I choose not to use Avira because of it's nag screen (and issues with updates). However, many others are fine with it. That is personal choice. At the same time, I use CCleaner that has a toolbar that will install unless you uncheck the box at installation. Personally, I don't care about the toolbar because it is my choice if I want to install it or not. While other people may refuse to use CCleaner because of this toolbar.

Again, so what if some editors will not support or recommend a product and some will? That's what makes this site so awesome! You get the collective wisdom of lots and lots of people with lots and lots of opinions. It is my job for myself to sort through everyone else's opinion and make a decision for myself. Personally, I find it refreshing to see differences of opinions.

We hear your concerns. But, just because we don't immediately act on them doesn't mean that we don't value your concerns. We hear them and will maybe discuss them. Maybe we won't. Voice your concerns, know that you were heard, and then move on. Don't attack the staff here personally. That, we will not tolerate.

[Doobie]

There are instances where I disagree with the recommendations or with the commentary about the recommendations. But, overall, this website is a good resource. The reviews aren't going to be consistent because they're made by different people. Even the same person can innocently post reviews of various quality.

[rick_mo37]

Originally Posted by Ritho

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "this site" but you have not been coming to "Gizmo's Freeware" for ten years. Please notice my join date, please also notice that I am a foundation editor. I was here from the beginning. MC shortly after. If you are talking about Gizmo's newsletter, well then that is a different thing all together. I used to write a few articles and submit them to Ian and from time to time he would include them in his newsletter, but as for top picks of freeware, there were originally only 46 chosen by him and him alone. Then came his extended list. Still chosen and recommended by him and him alone.

Well whatever the latest incarnation is, I've been coming to gizmo's site since the 46 best days. And I'm aware that Gizmo made his own recommendations, especially with the original 46 best. But as the list grew to the extended version he would test out recommended programs. Who do you think originally recommended pdf-xchange and ie7pro and I'm sure there are some others. Those were a long time before this site even came to be.

I have a world of respect for Gizmo. Heck he mentioned me by name in his farewell news letter. Actually I can't remember many newsletters over the final year or so that I wasn't in with some find or another. But that was another time.

I think my point above was that some consistency in the reviews, especially regarding adware, nagware, toolbars, deceptive marketing, etc would be nice. That's just my 2 cents worth.

As for the mods comments, my point is that some come across as elitist and are very demeaning in their comments or responses. It's not just me either as there are others with similar complaints.

[tushR]

Originally Posted by MidnightCowboy

I would also draw your attention to the site rules, in particular:
[*]You may criticize a moderator, or how the site is run. However, such comments should be made privately not publicly".[/LIST]

This is one of my favorite freeware site (I am very very new here), you do lot of good things (awesome content, no spam etc....) but few things that IMO you can improve on (things that I don't like):

1. You are very intolerant to criticisms.
2. Some of your statements that sound something like "You don't like it, please feel free to leave..."

I am not sure if this is due to the ego you may have being top freeware site or just trying to thwart spam...it just sounds rude at times. I just wish that this awesome site would be more welcoming to users with time and we members can post honest comments (even if not correct) without thinking twice about being banned.

[kendall.a]

tushR--I, for one, appreciate feedback and constructive criticism. As a mod, I certainly try to distinguish between constructive criticisms and personal attacks. We strive to be open to input and suggestions. We fail at times.

I have nothing against what you wrote nor do I take it personally. I am not offended either.

I will admit to be intolerant against personal attacks/criticisms or people saying that editors are full of crap because..... (they didn't review such and such or didn't like such and such software).

Unfortunately, we work really, really hard to thwart spam and people with "agenda's". The average user of this site has NO idea how much spam we get and how much we have to delete or edit out. Most of us moderators check out every single post in the forum multiple times per day and EVERY single comment posted over at the main site (also several times a day). Many mods spend many, many hours on this site. (I personally probably average 2-3 hours per day. People like MC and Anupam probably double or triple that amount.)

Do we/I get testy sometimes? You bet. Do certain people or posts "press our personal buttons" sometimes? Yep.

However, thank you for the reminder that we need to be careful how and what we write/post.

Please continue to post any comments you want. Be honest. We'll do our best to accept constructive criticism. All I ask is don't attack me or the other mods or editors publicly. If you have a beef with someone, please take it up personally via PM. (I also need to heed my own advice at times.)