During the recent discussion here about the eHam "0" review of the
Centurion, I was one of many people who gave the eHam editors the benefit of
the doubt as to their motives for moving the review out of the Product
Reviews section.
A post made earlier today to the eHam Product Reviews now leads me to
believe that I was in error to take this position. In fact, I am now
wondering if comments made that implied that eHam did this on behalf of
TenTec on the basis of TT being a major advertiser may have been closer to
the mark than I first thought (and let me add, if they did this for that
reason, did so on their own without any interaction made by Scott or
TenTec).
The post I am referring to, assuming it is still there, refers to a product
sold by a close friend of mine (and incidently someone who ordered an
Argonaut V at Dayton). It assigns a poor review score to this product, but
if you read it, you discover that the issue is an Accounts Receivable issue
with eHam itself and has absolutely nothing to do with the product in
question. Also, a previous post from this same individual was revived, also
adding a poor score to this product.
Now, I don't know what the business problem between these two is. But it
strikes me that the eHam reviews is a most inappropriate place to discuss
this, and has the potential to do a lot of damage to this product's
reputation. (And I have already made my friend aware of the problem). And
it also strikes to the very heart of any credibility for Product Review
posts. If I have to wonder if the real reason behind a negative review is a
billing question, how likely am I to put any credence in that review?
In any event, as I said at the beginning, it appears that my earlier stance
was incorrect, and as such, I wish to etract it and apologize for being
wrong.
73, ron wn3vaw
"And they give you cash,
which is just as good as money!"
Yogi Berra, AFLAC Commercial, 2002
|