<<< I was interested to read the eHam review upon which this gentleman says
his
troubles with T-T are based. I have scrolled through all 100+ Jupiter eHam
reviews, and do not find his callsign. Perhaps it was posted under a prior
call. Can you advise what call that was, so I can read the review for
myself?>>>
For the record, there were two eham posts to the Orion reviews column on
Sunday July 24th, that gave accounts in which it was claimed that the
authors were not sold merchandise because of past problems, reviews etc.
There was also one "review" in the Jupiter column by a U.K. ham (from
memory) complaining about a lack of Jupiter software updates with an
implication that Orion I owners would be abandoned.
I know this because I have the text of these screeds in my email inbox
because I sent them to myself because I had a feeling they would be deleted
and I was right. They were gone by the next day.
I think they were probably deleted because they weren't really reviews of
the Orion and Jupiter so much as they were complaints over not being sold
products and therefore were not really appropriate for the product reviews
section. Actually the Jupiter message came closest to being a legitimate
review in that the author claimed that it has been nearly 3 years since a
software update came out, which might be a justifiable message for
prospects, but he killed his review when he predicted that Orion 1 owners
would be about to see their last update or some such words, a comment that
was out of line.
Before someone starts asking me for copies of the so-called (in this case)
reviews, I'd like to say that they are pretty much worthless for anyone's
argument about who was done wrong, or who the heavy is and so on. when you
send yourself a review, using the "mail this to a friend!" option, you get
the text only; not the callsign or identity of the author (unless he
includes it in the text which these did not), rating number, title of the
post, or any of that. Due to that, all I have is text with no idea of the
authors, etc. other than I remember the Jupiter writer had a G something
call sign, so as far as proving anything is concerned they aren't of much
use.
Speaking generally of the eham reviews, (not just Ten Tec) I have noticed a
trend over the past one or two years, of increasingly polarized reviews,
pseudo-reviews, and screeds with the review columns being used by people
with agendas. I'm seeing more and more non-review comments, rebuttals,
responses to bad or good reviews and so on (I plead guilty in the case of
Cablexperts) with the tone and dignity of the reviews really taking a dive.
The noise level has gotten to where the usefulness of the eham reviews is
getting low, with most everything getting a 5 or a 0 or 1.
Now we get: THE BEST RIG I WILL EVER HAVE AS LONG AS I LIVE BAR NONE!!!
or
THE WORST JUNK I HAVE EVER HAD THE PLEASURE OF TRASHING IN MY LIFE!!!
The idea is to own a product for awhile, and post ONE rational review with
your pros and cons, and walk away to review something else someday.
Perhaps these deleted posts in the Orion forum are a sign that the eham
management is trying to impose some standards or limits. before i get told
I'm in favor of censorship, let me say that there are plenty of places to
put out accounts of dealings with vendors or whatever, such as qrz.com,
maybe somewhere else on eham, this reflector or your own website (get some
legal advice). I'm not in favor of censorship; i'm in favor of product
reviews going in the product review spaces.
Okay, pardon the sermon; I'm burnt out on Ten Tec. I'm going on a Reflector
vacation for a few months, so unless I can get a package of 6 and 9 MHz
INRAD 2.8 KHz Omni VI filters and the (never used) INRAD audio mod kit
ready for sale, I'll be back in the fall.
73
Rob/K5UJ
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
|