Who is and Who isn't

[Ron Pegram]

Hello All,

I was going to stay far away from this thread until now.

Why? Well, Ron mentioned my name above and suggested that

I had reviewed a Kapex. I have not, do not own one yet, did not get one for free

and only had the opportunity to use it twice.

Per,

You're right of course. I was thinking of your well-reasoned argument for the Kapex and not a review. I should've been clearer. That what happens to me when I try to make a point. I call it collateral damage. 

 

[ericbuggeln]

Who is
Who isn't
Who gives a shit

This thread is just another example of the negativity cloud that has loomed over this forum for awhile and will hopefully blow away.  The next step is to just re post the same argument, which all seems to be part of a bigger argument?

It has gotten to the point where this forum needs a "turn off the whiners vs. accused" option.  It's like a television show that you hate yourself for watching, but can't stop.  I would love to see stats on certain members drop off in viewing/posting due to the negativity.  I used to and still do like to come here to learn more about everything to do Festool, but it's not as enjoyable when you leave annoyed with people you don't really know.  That's just how I'm feelin about it, Eric

 

[Brice Burrell]

Everyone, let's make sure something positive and useful comes out of this discussion. I don't want it to turn into a bicker match that embarrasses everyone involved.

The first thing that I feel needs to be addressed here is some of the unneeded comments. This is a sensitive subject to some of the members here, please respect that. Use good judgment when posting so we don't misunderstand or offend one another.

I'm going to do something I generally don't like to do, point out individual's comments. I'm doing this in an attempt to help this discussion, not to offend the posters. Using comment like "taint" and "trust but verify" will have an effect on the people it is directed at, so understand you may get a strong response from comments like these. I know you may not mean to offend or upset anyone, however, this discussion isn't happening in a vacuum, you are talking about distrust of actual people. These people have a right to be upset by your comments even if you didn't intent to offend them.

Larry's comment serves no purpose here and this type of post is damaging to the discussion and the forum in general. I ask that he clarify his comment if I have misunderstood his intent.

The comment "Settle down, Beavis." could be easily taken as offensive. "Beavis" is a stupid, immature cartoon character, how would do you think that comment is going to be taken? I bring this up because it's an example of bad judgment when posting (sorry b m hart).

So for the sake of a positive outcome to this tread let's post carefully and respect everyone's opinions.

 

[Brice Burrell]

So, in my attempt to find at least some common ground here, I move we enact an official disclosure rule for Festool sponsored reviews on the FOG. How does that sound? I believe everyone can agree on that.

 

[greg mann]

In the spirit of Brice's last post I have removed my last post as it was written in anger.

 

[Steve Jones]

Fascinating study in human behaviour......
I'm trying not to comment, so I'll comment on something else..

A camel is a horse designed by a committee.

We should have some hard and fast rules set down by popular agreement after three or thirteen pages of discussion about what to do should the sky actually really fall.

In the meantime I think I'll go look elswhere on the board to see if someone wants to talk about tools.

(anyone offended by anything here - don't get on my case, I was talking about something else)

Anyone still offended.......

Probably deserves it

 

[sw1211]

Who is
Who isn't
Who gives a shit

The voice of reason.  Who cares, more power to those that get free tools.  I appreciate the time people take to write their reviews, common sense has to kick in at some point when reading reviews and the reader can sort out the details they need.  If you're so paranoid and believe there's some big conspiracy then skip the reviews and go buy the tools without any outside opinioins.  Now you'll be much further ahead won't you?  Everything doesn't need to be overthought and analyzed, take things for face value once in a while.

 

[The Woodentop]

Brice Burrel

Everyone, let's make sure something positive and useful comes out of this discussion. I don't want it to turn into a bicker match that embarrasses everyone involved.

The first thing that I feel needs to be addressed here is some of the unneeded comments. This is a sensitive subject to some of the members here, please respect that. Use good judgment when posting so we don't misunderstand or offend one another.

I'm going to do something I generally don't like to do, point out individual's comments. I'm doing this in an attempt to help this discussion, not to offend the posters. Using comment like "taint" and "trust but verify" will have an effect on the people it is directed at, so understand you may get a strong response from comments like these. I know you may not mean to offend or upset anyone, however, this discussion isn't happening in a vacuum, you are talking about distrust of actual people. These people have a right to be upset by your comments even if you didn't intent to offend them.

Larry's comment serves no purpose here and this type of post is damaging to the discussion and the forum in general. I ask that he clarify his comment if I have misunderstood his intent.

The comment "Settle down, Beavis." could be easily taken as offensive. "Beavis" is a stupid, immature cartoon character, how would do you think that comment is going to be taken? I bring this up because it's an example of bad judgment when posting (sorry b m hart).

So for the sake of a positive outcome to this tread let's post carefully and respect everyone's opinions.

For clarity my comment was:

"Now that's a laugh!"

In response to:

"To set the record straight, please allow me to repeat what I wrote in an earlier post in this thread:

"But the notion that a disclaimer is required in order to maintain one's integrity is pure bunk, IMHO."

In the interest of full disclosure, I thought it necessary to point out that I was misquoted, assuming of course that daveg was quoting me."

In particular it was the [now] red text that I was referring to. I could barely believe I had read it. And you, Brice, go on to say:

"So, in my attempt to find at least some common ground here, I move we enact an official disclosure rule for Festool sponsored reviews on the FOG. How does that sound? I believe everyone can agree on that."

Which makes me think you agree with me.

It never ceases to amaze me that SOME people can be 'high and mighty' and that's OK. And then someone else (like me) makes an amusing comment and I'm ripped apart by the very person who caused the controversy!

OF COURSE ONE SHOULD DISCLOSE WHEN ONE HAS BEEN GIVEN A TOOL TO REVIEW.

Jeez, how can people be so daft?

Larry

 

[Matthew Schenker]

Everyone,
This discussion has potential, but let's not sidetrack it.  The issue of disclosure is valid, and developing an unofficial disclosure rule for reviewers is fine with me.  As long as we're discussing the merits of those unofficial rules, we'll be all right.  I'll be clear here: I will not initiate any kind of official rule on disclosure, so anything we come up with will be based on the honor system.

My philosophy on this comes from three basic beliefs in the very idea of a forum: (1) I trust that our members, including reviewers, are honest; (2) members of this forum are smart and will detect issues with reviews; (3) the open and public nature of this forum will clear up any questions about (1) or (2).

This discussion can make us stronger.  By being open about the issue, reviewers will better understand their audience, and readers can gain greater confidence in the reviews.  If we can achieve that, we'll really have something unique here.  As I said, I believe the open discussions we have here are something you don't find in a lot of magazines or even other Web sites.

Another thing -- we all like getting an inside look at the tools, and we want to encourage more tool reviews!  We should appreciate the time and effort it takes to put together a detailed tool review.  I know, because I've spent many hours putting some of my own together.  It's a lot of work, and if you're a person of integrity you'll report what you honestly see.

Please, let's stick to our opinions about reviews, and offer something that improves our forum.  But let's not openly or indirectly question the integrity of reviewers.  That will never lead to good policies.

Stay in touch,
Matthew

 

[Daviddubya]

For clarity my comment was:

"Now that's a laugh!"

In response to:

"To set the record straight, please allow me to repeat what I wrote in an earlier post in this thread:

"But the notion that a disclaimer is required in order to maintain one's integrity is pure bunk, IMHO."

In the interest of full disclosure, I thought it necessary to point out that I was misquoted, assuming of course that daveg was quoting me."

In particular it was the [now] red text that I was referring to. I could barely believe I had read it. And you, Brice, go on to say:

"So, in my attempt to find at least some common ground here, I move we enact an official disclosure rule for Festool sponsored reviews on the FOG. How does that sound? I believe everyone can agree on that."

Which makes me think you agree with me.

It never ceases to amaze me that SOME people can be 'high and mighty' and that's OK. And then someone else (like me) makes an amusing comment and I'm ripped apart by the very person who caused the controversy!

OF COURSE ONE SHOULD DISCLOSE WHEN ONE HAS BEEN GIVEN A TOOL TO REVIEW.

Jeez, how can people be so daft?

Larry

While we are about explaining how people can be misunderstood in this forum, please allow me to set you straight, Larry, on what I said earlier (almost a month ago).  Here's the whole paragraph:

"I think the integrity of the people involved speaks for itself.  And I think this fuss about the need for disclaimers is blown out of proportion.  Our experience with the people that some now say need to include disclaimers is all good, from what I have seen.  Why not leave well enough alone?  I have nothing against disclaimers, if the author wants to include one.  But the notion that a disclaimer is required in order to maintain one's integrity is pure bunk, IMHO."

Then you said, "OF COURSE ONE SHOULD DISCLOSE WHEN ONE HAS BEEN GIVEN A TOOL TO REVIEW."  It seems we are no so far apart after all.  I have nothing against disclaimers, and you think that one should disclose.  Sounds like pretty much the same perspective to me.

A number of people have become rather adamant in this discussion, implying that a lack of a disclaimer is tantamount to dishonesty.  Several of us have challenged that position.  I think Matthew hit the point when he said, "anything we come up with will be based on the honor system.".  Quite frankly, I think the honor system we already have works very well.  Much to do about nothing, IMHO.

 

[Brice Burrell]

Larry, I think there are a few things you are misunderstanding here. First, there is one word in David's quote that makes all the difference, that word is "required". It is my opinion that a disclosure is a "professional courtesy" that a reviewer includes in his work (or not include). If a reviewer chooses not to include a disclosure, it is my opinion, a reader shouldn't automatically question the reviewer's integrity. These are of course only opinions. So, no, I don't actually agree with you. I am a guest here and in an attempt to find a solution to this issue for the common good of the forum I'm willing to agree to this "disclosure" idea.

Now let's address the issue I have with your posting, since you seem to not understand why I pointed you out in my earlier post. It is your rude and condescending comments. Your reply to David's post can only be viewed as such and you have continued with your "Jeez, how can people be so daft?" comment. Perhaps this type of behavior is appropriate in your everyday life. However, we are trying to affect a positive change in this delicate matter and theses kinds of comments aren't appropriate in this discussion. Note, I didn't say your opinions aren't welcome, you may want to read the forum's guidelines for posting before your next reply.

 

[Brice Burrell]

Okay, no "official rule" about disclosures in sponsored reviews. I respect Matthew's position here to remain neutral in this matter so I support the idea of an "unofficial rule".

This leaves us with the question, does this resolve the issue? Have we done enough with this new "unofficial rule" or is there still more to discuss here? Now is the time to have your opinion heard.

 

[greg mann]

Since the beginning of this thread no one has presented an example from within past reviews where they believe bias has been evident. Not one case. I think that is reasonable evidence that we have been talking about hypotheticals. I am okay with an "unofficial rule." I would guess that after all this, if a reviewer does not specify the situation, someone will ask. If that question never comes up then this will truly have been much ado about nothing.

I also think the actual review thread is the perfect place to hash out the observations. That has worked out well in the past. Nothing was ever broken here but those amongst us who seem to have a higher level of skepticism can exercise their diligence as the reviews play out. As long as they are not disagreeable about the manner in which they do it, no problem. This is a forum, after all.

 

[waynew]

Matthew,

I appreciate  the manner in which you are dealing with this topic, some have indicated that its all a trivial matter, but as a paying Festool customer who frequents this forum primarily for paying Festool user feedback I'm not one of them. These tools are generally very good value for money but they aren't cheap and before outlaying sometimes large amounts of money on a tool I like to log on to this forum and read what users have to say from their own working experience with the tool. For me that's where the value lies with this forum. If there is a (Festool sponsored) review floating about I'll scan through it but it doesn't hold the weight of freely offered user feedback or reviews.
With regard to user experience I'd like to know that a user on this forum is just that, an 'owner user' of the tool and not a user that has been paid by Festool to push their product. The motivation of a user who is remunerated to push a product and a user coming here under their own steam to write about an issue (positive or negative) that they have experienced is quite different. No matter how hard these sponsored reviewers attempt to stay unbiased (and I'm sure they all do) its not going to happen that way, inevitably what you get is a slippery slope to a lot of hype from those that are getting remunerated to push the product. Hype from none sponsored users is fine by the way in fact that is just what I'm looking for but when its mixed with hype from paid reviewers its difficult to know whats going on and who is who and it all begins to take on quite a different quality.
I believe that for this board to maintain its unbiased standing and its usefulness these sponsored reviewers should be identified in the forum just like the dealers are and for the very same reason the dealers are.
I don't believe many (or any) of us are saying the reviewers are out to intentionally deceive, most of them appear like very grounded and knowledgable folk. Its the unintended bias that comes from their financial relationship with Festool which will affect the forum in a way that is not in the interest of paying Festoolians that is of concern.

It could be just a single line in their Sig: 'Festool Sponsored Reviewer' or it could be implemented more officially like the dealers.

Thanks,
Wayne

Everyone,
This discussion has potential, but let's not sidetrack it.  The issue of disclosure is valid, and developing an unofficial disclosure rule for reviewers is fine with me.  As long as we're discussing the merits of those unofficial rules, we'll be all right.  I'll be clear here: I will not initiate any kind of official rule on disclosure, so anything we come up with will be based on the honor system.

My philosophy on this comes from three basic beliefs in the very idea of a forum: (1) I trust that our members, including reviewers, are honest; (2) members of this forum are smart and will detect issues with reviews; (3) the open and public nature of this forum will clear up any questions about (1) or (2).

This discussion can make us stronger.  By being open about the issue, reviewers will better understand their audience, and readers can gain greater confidence in the reviews.  If we can achieve that, we'll really have something unique here.  As I said, I believe the open discussions we have here are something you don't find in a lot of magazines or even other Web sites.

Another thing -- we all like getting an inside look at the tools, and we want to encourage more tool reviews!  We should appreciate the time and effort it takes to put together a detailed tool review.  I know, because I've spent many hours putting some of my own together.  It's a lot of work, and if you're a person of integrity you'll report what you honestly see.

Please, let's stick to our opinions about reviews, and offer something that improves our forum.  But let's not openly or indirectly question the integrity of reviewers.  That will never lead to good policies.

Stay in touch,
Matthew

 

[greg mann]

It could be just a single line in their Sig: 'Festool Sponsored Reviewer' or it could be implemented more officially like the dealers.

Thanks,
Wayne

Wayne it is clear to me from the body of your post that the inclusion of this statement will trigger the assumption that the review is biased. Why start with that assumption? Print out the review, tuck it under your arm, and go to your local dealer and judge for yourself if it was fair or not?

 

[Matthew Schenker]

Wayne,
Thank you for taking the time to put your thoughts down in a calm and professional manner!

I understand your concerns about making sure the reviews we have here are valuable.  But remember, the very idea of a forum like this must come down to trust.  Really, what else is there in a forum?  When you build a community like the one we have here, and we get to know each other, it's like meeting in real life.  If I got together with some friends and we talked about tools, and I knew one of them was provided with tools, I would still assume he's telling me the truth.  And if I detected some hype, I would politely say, "I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying here..." and challenge him a bit, then give him a chance to respond.  You could ask any reviewer, "did Festool provide you with this tool?"  That's fair game.

I come back to the nature of a forum.  Everything we post here, and everything we read here, relies on our judgment.  By all means, bring healthy skepticism to forum activities.  If something does not seem right, fire off a question.  That's you're right as a member.  In the end, I truly believe that a healthy community reaches a proper consensus.  If I stopped believing in that, the forum itself would no longer be valuable to me.

To sum up: an intelligent community is more powerful and valuable than any rules.  Anyone who has followed the development of this forum knows this.  Sometimes, it gets me into trouble.  But most of the time, it creates a really unique forum that all of us can be proud of.

I'm not saying the signature line "Festool-Sponsored Reviewer" is a bad idea.  I'm just saying that the community can address the same need through a democratic method of debate and discussion.

Does that make sense?

Stay in touch,
Matthew

 

[greg mann]

Matthew,

I appreciate your attempt at moderation and neutrality but Wayne and several others have expressed the view that sponsored tool reviews will inevitably lead to bias and/or hype.

"No matter how hard these sponsored reviewers attempt to stay unbiased (and I'm sure they all do) its not going to happen that way, inevitably what you get is a slippery slope to a lot of hype from those that are getting remunerated to push the product. Hype from none sponsored users is fine by the way in fact that is just what I'm looking for but when its mixed with hype from paid reviewers its difficult to know whats going on and who is who and it all begins to take on quite a different quality." Wayne

Furthermore, Wayne has indicated that some of us think the issue of disclosure is trivial. I don't think the reviewers in question think this is trivial at all. It is their integrity that is being questioned. Do the doubting Thomas' that have posted this position understand how insulting that is to the very people who are trying to help them in the first place?

 

[b_m_hart]

It could be just a single line in their Sig: 'Festool Sponsored Reviewer' or it could be implemented more officially like the dealers.

Thanks,
Wayne

Wayne it is clear to me from the body of your post that the inclusion of this statement will trigger the assumption that the review is biased. Why start with that assumption? Print out the review, tuck it under your arm, and go to your local dealer and judge for yourself if it was fair or not?

Therein lies the issue.  Festool's products are NOT cheap / inexpensive.  Maybe my read on this is wrong, but it seems to me that one of the drivers behind people looking for what they deem "unbiased" reviews, is that these tools are not a trivial investment.  It's not like you're going to go spend $99 and find out the tool just doesn't match up to the review.  With Festool, you shell out $500.  And for that kind of money, it is enough to give people reason to hesitate and scrutinize more than they otherwise would have.

 

[b_m_hart]

Matthew,

I appreciate your attempt at moderation and neutrality but Wayne and several others have expressed the view that sponsored tool reviews will inevitably lead to bias and/or hype.

"No matter how hard these sponsored reviewers attempt to stay unbiased (and I'm sure they all do) its not going to happen that way, inevitably what you get is a slippery slope to a lot of hype from those that are getting remunerated to push the product. Hype from none sponsored users is fine by the way in fact that is just what I'm looking for but when its mixed with hype from paid reviewers its difficult to know whats going on and who is who and it all begins to take on quite a different quality." Wayne

Furthermore, Wayne has indicated that some of us think the issue of disclosure is trivial. I don't think the reviewers in question think this is trivial at all. It is their integrity that is being questioned. Do the doubting Thomas' that have posted this position understand how insulting that is to the very people who are trying to help them in the first place?

The problem here is that by and large, the perception out there is that "sponsored by Company XYZ" usually translates to "corporate shill".  At least, these days, anyway.  Not universally, mind you, but it's FAR FAR FAR more common than not.  I understand the indignation and all, but c'mon, take a step back and look at where the statement is coming from.  Not the statement itself, but what's behind it.

This board looks and feels fairly different than the environments that I described above with the sponsorship stuff.  It's not just a professional's board, there are of course the professional craftsmen here, as well as hobbyists (and clueless newbies like myself), and the board isn't a straight up "sponsored by Festool" message board, is it?  I think that's probably where part of the confusion may be coming from. 

Also the notion that people aren't influenced by receiving something free to review kinda doesn't work.  Here's one example:http://www.guernicamag.com/features/100/bagging_doctors/

FTA: "Considerable evidence from the social sciences suggests that gifts of negligible value can influence the behavior of the recipient in ways the recipient does not always realize."

Again, this is not an attempt to impugn, in any way whatsoever.  It is simply to reinforce the notion that disclosure is never, ever, a bad thing.  I have to admit, that I am a bit puzzled by the reactions to the request for some form of disclosure...

edit: so this post disappeared, was it modded, or am I doing something to make it disappear?

 

[Michael Kellough]

This board looks and feels fairly different than the environments that I described above with the sponsorship stuff.  It's not just a professional's board, there are of course the professional craftsmen here, as well as hobbyists (and clueless newbies like myself), and the board isn't a straight up "sponsored by Festool" message board, is it? 

And that is why no reviewer here will get away with gratuitous praise of any product, whether or not supplied by the manufacturer, regardless of whether there is an acknowledgment.