[TenTec] eHam reviews....

[Duane A Calvin]

C'mon, guys.  I think we all need to slow down and take a deep breath.  I
am a good friend of Phil, NA4M, who is the reviews 'editor' for eham. 
Phil does this gratis, and he has already deleted the duplicate reviews. 
That said, eham is a place for people to place reviews of equipment -
they post no rules for how this is to be done.  People reading it should
read it just as they would any other "bulletin board" where you don't
know the other person who is writing - use a huge grain of salt.  Agreed,
something is going on with the Jupiter, but part of that is a perception
problem that TT has suffered for some time (lots of hams look for their
rigs to look and feel perfect - even if they don't operate in the same
manner.)  We all like TT, which is why we gather here to 'cuss and
discuss' them.  But a user who tries and returns his Jupiter might write
a scalding review because he didn't like it.  That's fair -we all like
different things.  Phil has attempted to deal with the multiple entry
problem, and while he may not be a TT fan, he's a very fair-minded
person, so I know he'll do what is right in eham.  Trying to drum up an
email campaign here on the reflector is exactly the wrong thing to do. 
He can't change people's opinions, nor should he try.  Let's treat eham
reviews for what they are - a collection of opinions, informed or not . .
. 

Submitted for your consideration.

        73,  Duane 


On Fri, 26 Apr 2002 09:53:03 -0700 Robert & Rebecca Coykendall
<becnbob@succeed.net> writes:
> After extended communications with eHam's Reviews editor,  I came to 
> the
> conclusion that eHam accepts 2nd hand submissions as valid... which 
> violates
> any sense of fairness... as there have been several Jupiter reviews 
> that
> have been submitted by 'friends' of Joop owners... and 
> interestingly, all
> have been very negative in their assessments.  Some of the most 
> negative
> reviews clearly demonstrate that their authors were clueless in 
> learning the
> very basics of Jupiter operation, thus their criticisms were 
> essentially
> bogus.  One lid didn't even know how to change the Joop's display 
> contrast.
> 
> If one carefully examines these nefarious reviews, one will quickly 
> come to
> the conclusion that these are nothing more than 'hit pieces' against 
> Ten-Tec
> in general and the Jupiter specifically... and if I were Scott 
> Robbins, I
> would write a news article for submission to eHam to set the record
> straight... and name some names... or should I say call signs, of 
> eHam
> review writers that never even bought Jupiters from Ten-Tec.  He 
> should have
> this information readily at hand, as Ten-Tec only sells Jupiters 
> from its
> factory.
> 
> The eHam editor even admitted that he had reservations(read: bias) 
> about
> Ten-Tec product quality.... thus I think we Jupiter owners need to 
> take eHam
> reviews with a grain of salt or complain to the Reviews editor 
> directly, as
> I've done several times.  I feel I have been successful in having a 
> few of
> these obvious 'hit pieces' expunged and the editor told me that they
> generally outlaw repetitive reviews of particular products by a 
> single
> 'reviewer' - unless it is a follow-up review offering new useful, or
> corrective information.
> 
> Just my 2¢ worth....
> 
> Bob
> ad6vu@arrl.net
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> .contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
> 


Duane A. Calvin, AC5AA
Austin, Texas
ac5aa@juno.com -or- ac5aa@austin.rr.com
Day:  dacalvin@us.ibm.com