At 18:36 6/26/2002 -0700, Duane Grotophorst wrote:
>Hmmm, out of curiosity I went and found the so called
>"review" in question on eHam under the Forums section.
Yep - his "review" that was in the Product Reviews section was more
of a customer service issue review. I replied to his inquiry regarding why
they were disabled that they did not meet the Product Reviews guide lines
as shown in the reviews manager side bar for all to see. I indicated that
customer service issue reviews can be posted in eHam's Forum's area
under "CompanyReviews" which he has obviously done. BTW - I am not
the manager of eHam's Forums so if this causes someone heartburn they should
contact the eHam' Manager.
>Low and behold it is the same individual who couldn't
>just write a reasoned review of the Jupiter, instead
>he has only ever offered endless rants. He even saw
>fit to bash the Jupiter one more time while he was
>"reviewing" the Centurion, and here I thought it was
>supposed to be a Centurion review. Oh and by the way
>it seems as though this particular individual simply
>can't write a review of anything without taking yet
>another shot at the Jupiter along the way, go figure.
>Check his reviews of some Icom gear to see what I
>mean.
>
>I do use eHam reviews as part of my decision making
>process when buying radios. I do however summarily
>ignore all reviews (of any brand) that are like what
>this particular individual makes, those reviews are
>pretty much worthless. I sincerely hope that others
>who look at the eHam reviews are equally critical of
>the reviewers.
Yep - everyone the reviews with their eye's wide open.
>On the other hand however I'm a bit troubled by the
>prospect of eHam "editing" reviews. Let the review
>writers expose themselves for what they are.
Normally no editing of eHam's Product Reviews is done except at the
reviewers request. If the review does not meet the published guide lines
it usually is disabled.
> Perhaps
>eHam should make available all ratings given by all of
>the "reviewers" associated with particular products.
Not sure what you mean here.... perhaps some kind of consolidated product
rating by reviewer??
73 Phil NA4M
eHam Product Reviews Manager
>That would make it easier for readers of these reviews
>to spot individuals who consistently bash one company
>or another repeatedly out some kind of spite. Then the
>review readers can frame the reviewers comments in a
>larger context and perhaps salvage some kind of usable
>information from them.
>
>Also just for the record I do not own a Jupiter or
>Centurion.
>
>Duane
>N9DG
>
>
>
>--- Steve M <wmoorejr@cox.net> wrote:
> > Hello David,
> >
> > I agree 100%. He owned the amp, wrote an honest
> > review, it should stay in
> > the reviews. Notice the amp now has a perfect
> > record?
> >
> > I seriously doubt anyone at eham just read it
> > and said "oh this isn't
> > a valid review, we'll have to move this". Not
> > without some whiners helping!
> >
> > This kind of %^$#& reminds me of recent
> > insider trading scandals--they
> > both stink.
> >
> > 73,
> > Steve wd0ct
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "David Hammond" <dhhdeh@concentric.net>
> > To: "tentec reflector" <tentec@contesting.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 5:36 PM
> > Subject: [TenTec] eham centurion 0 review
> >
> >
> > > Hi Everyone,
> > >
> > > Several of you commented on the Eham review
> > yesterday about the negative
> > > experience that one person encountered with the
> > Centurion amp. I don't own
> > > an amp so I cannot comment first hand. My point on
> > writing is for a much
> > > different reason.
> > >
> > > Eham reviews have become a major contributing
> > influence to major purchases
> > > we all make. This afternoon I noted that something
> > disturbing to me has
> > > happened. The review has been removed by Eham from
> > the product review
> > > category.
> > >
> > > When I inquired as to why, I was informed by Eham
> > that it did not meet the
> > > definitions of a "Product Review" so it was moved
> > into the "Company Forum
> > > Category" elsewhere on the Eham site. Quietly
> > moved to where it does not
> > add
> > > or subtract to the product rating score. Say it
> > ain't so Joe!
> > >
> > > IMO if that review did not reflect one man's
> > opinion about a product's
> > > performance I do not know what does. Ever see a
> > favorable opinion on a
> > > "company's performance" of any manufacturer so
> > relocated by Eham when it
> > > appears in any other "product review"?
> > >
> > > I found the review to be reasonable, honest and
> > forthright. Based on your
> > > experiences you may or may not agree and that's
> > your prerogative to so do.
> > > But manipulating a reasonable opinion as was
> > presented in that ham's
> > review
> > > reveals a flaw in Eham's process. This review as
> > represented was a product
> > > problem that was turned into a customer service
> > problem plain and simple.
> > >
> > > No one is perfect, me, you or Ten Tec and that's
> > not what I mean to imply
> > > but............
> > >
> > > Is it more than coincidental that Ten Tec is an
> > Eham advertiser? I hope
> > > not.
> > >
> > > Buyer and reader beware!
> > >
> > > 73 de N1LQ-Dave
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > TenTec mailing list
> > > TenTec@contesting.com
> > >
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TenTec mailing list
> > TenTec@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
>http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
-. .- ....- -- -. .- ....- -- -. .- ....- -- -. .- ....- -- -. .-
....- --
Phil Duff NA4M na4m@arrl.net Georgetown, Texas
|