Because I care (and I know you do too…) Suggestions for the HC powers that be...

[MrKnobs]

I think it was the tubgirl pix and porn bombs that didn't help HC's reputation. My goal with HC was always to have balance, so you could go to some forum and be wild and crazy, and discuss particle physics in others.

 

As to Jive, two things stand out. MF really thought they were doing the right thing because the site was indeed falling apart from a technical standpoint, and something had to be done. But IMHO they also got sold a bill of goods on how customizable the site could be and Jive's ability to handle the amount of traffic HC generated.

 

 

I don't have any doubt that MF wanted the forums to work, or that you did. Just like I don't think Ken is making it up that some people left because there were some seedy people here. Nor are my intentions simply to gripe. I still want this thing to work and I think that requires assessing what went wrong accurately so we / you can move forward successfully.

 

The timeline tells the story. As Bieke posted above, everything was fine before the SSS migration, and then it was fine after that for a while too until the wheels came off the train IT wise and the forums became miserably slow and unreliable to use. Then Jive screwed us and between the two issues we lost a huge percentage of traffic and active users.

 

I think bringing up the tubgirl issue is specious as tubgirl posts and the like were never allowed. That happened in the Scott era of the forum, it continued into the MP era of the forum, it was always deleted on sight and the posters banned. What more could be done? Determined idiots will always be able to create new alts or even obtain new or proxy IP addresses and do that until they get bored of it. It's the nature of the internet. The only way to get rid of all the bad people is to get rid of all the people (trolls like an audience), and we've very nearly done just that.

 

My discussion with Ken (and I apologize for the tone) was just my feeling that it's not fair to paint the entirety of the community with that brush. HC did not begin the moment SSS came over, it was a thriving community with tons of useful information (still there!) in forums like Live Sound and Recording in particular. Open Jam was a very useful place (THE most popular btw) because musicians don't always want to talk about music or their amps, sometimes they want to talk about their relationships, funny things that happen on the road, how to fix a broken pipe in their house, how to get a girl to like them, to create (two) collaborative albums or just relax and socialize. Sometimes it got out of hand, but that's what the report button and moderators are for.

 

HC is not and IMO should not be a forum for professional musicians. Why not? Because very few musicians are professionals and MF / GC is primarily selling gear to non-professionals. So you're going to have to accept and accommodate a lot of off topic, unprofessional discourse if you want this to be a large community again. It's not impossible nor even difficult to keep it within the bounds of decency without having to rule it with an iron fist as was the recent case.

 

Look at the AMP forum. It was huge and thriving with plenty of good information because not only were the participants interested and knowledgeable about amps, they were FRIENDS. The ignored the sign overhead that said Amps and they talked about anything and everything when they weren't talking amps. Most of them were just kids, the same kids who account for much of the purchasing at MF / GC.

 

So, again, in my humble opinion, based on being here nearly every day starting in 2001, what we need are two simple things: (1) a solid platform that works so that the platform doesn't inhibit the discussion, and (2) relatively hands off moderation and control so that our community tells US what the forums will be by using them, i.e. organic and user defined. Let's be responsive to the forumites because, after all, they're our customers in more ways than one. Bottom line, there won't be many people looking at the videos and pro reviews and clicking over to GC or MF if there aren't many people drawn here by the forums and the user reviews.

 

Like Ken, I'm sometimes outspoken because I care. I want HC to work.

 

Terry D.

[Goober(s)]

It's not revisionist history. This was the concern of many before SSS moved here. I am not saying that every person was like this, obviously, but that there were quite a few yahoos and a-holes. This isn't just my opinion, but was the concern voiced by many people. I stand by everything I've said 100%, and am sorry if you feel slighted.

 

The disdain for yahoos and a-holes expressed by members of the SSSiat is, to a certain degree, its own xenophobia. As you said, that concern was voiced *before* SSS even moved here.

 

I signed up as a member of SSS, and heard nothing but bad things about Open Jam and all those yahoos and a-holes. Unitl one day I ventured forth, and discovered those characteristics not to be true. Quite the opposite, it's filled with humor, wit and musicians that are in no way 2nd to SSS.

 

Of course, like SSS, due to the horrid technical performance of the site , that forum is a shell of what it once was.

 

[UstadKhanAli]

I suppose. But I just want to add that this viewpoint was not voiced when SSS moved to musicplayer or Lynn Fuston's location beforehand, only HC, so I don't know how much xenophobia you can read into it.

 

Regardless, the timeline that bieke outlines emphasizes the technical difficulties all too well. For everyone's forum.

[sventvkg]

With Respect Ken, I started coming here before 2000 and joined in 2001. Everything Terry D. said was spot on. As far as this forum goes, I can't think of a single entity so badly managed and destroyed in recent memory. I hold the people making decisions that destroyed the place, personally responsible and I can only hope to meet up to "discuss" the matter in some airport someday:) This was a GREAT community at large and from JIVE on, pretty much MF's ownership on it went into the ground. Steadily handedly. I have no doubt GC will be doing the same. Yes i'm pissed because I DON'T BELONG TO MANY FORUMS! I happen to have dug this one because there were many here who could relate. There's no replacement for HC on the web. Nice going, GC.

[Anderton]

 

I don't have any doubt that MF wanted the forums to work, or that you did. Just like I don't think Ken is making it up that some people left because there were some seedy people here. Nor are my intentions simply to gripe. I still want this thing to work and I think that requires assessing what went wrong accurately so we / you can move forward successfully.

 

The timeline tells the story. As Bieke posted above, everything was fine before the SSS migration, and then it was fine after that for a while too until the wheels came off the train IT wise and the forums became miserably slow and unreliable to use. Then Jive screwed us and between the two issues we lost a huge percentage of traffic and active users.

 

I think bringing up the tubgirl issue is specious as tubgirl posts and the like were never allowed. That happened in the Scott era of the forum, it continued into the MP era of the forum, it was always deleted on sight and the posters banned. What more could be done? Determined idiots will always be able to create new alts or even obtain new or proxy IP addresses and do that until they get bored of it. It's the nature of the internet. The only way to get rid of all the bad people is to get rid of all the people (trolls like an audience), and we've very nearly done just that.

 

My discussion with Ken (and I apologize for the tone) was just my feeling that it's not fair to paint the entirety of the community with that brush.

 

I do not feel the community was the problem. Yes, it was too wild for some people, and it was fine for others. You're bound to get a variety of opinions when you have a huge amount of traffic. As I said, my goal was balance, and I believe adding the MusicPlayer forums provided a more balanced site given that the previous forums did not disappear.

 

After I came on board in 2005 I paid very close attention to the stats. HC continued a steady rise in every possible metric - number of visits, time spent on site, page views, ad revenues, SEO, everything. The Pro Reviews were hugely successful and ended up contributing hundreds of thousands of dollars to the bottom line. I believe our show coverage was outstanding, and the HC editorial team was a well-oiled and highly productive team who also all happened to develop a close friendship. Gus brought an international flavor with his popular Spanish-language forum.

 

But none of that matters if the platform doesn't work. Bieke is correct in pointing out cause and effect between the Lithium launch and my leaving. I was preparing to leave HC even before getting the offer from Gibson; how the launch was handled, independent of Lithium, was the last straw. Terry, you might find some consolation in that I went ballistic when the powers-that-be just arbitrarily removed all the previous posts from Open Jam despite promises that they would be migrated. That was the lie I was referring to.

 

HC is unique and deserves a better fate. Other people in this industry agree, so let's see what happens.

 

 

[Goober(s)]

 

I do not feel the community was the problem. Yes, it was too wild for some people, and it was fine for others. You're bound to get a variety of opinions when you have a huge amount of traffic. As I said, my goal was balance, and I believe adding the MusicPlayer forums provided a more balanced site given that the previous forums did not disappear.

 

After I came on board in 2005 I paid very close attention to the stats. HC continued a steady rise in every possible metric - number of visits, time spent on site, page views, ad revenues, SEO, everything. The Pro Reviews were hugely successful and ended up contributing hundreds of thousands of dollars to the bottom line. I believe our show coverage was outstanding, and the HC editorial team was a well-oiled and highly productive team who also all happened to develop a close friendship. Gus brought an international flavor with his popular Spanish-language forum.

 

But none of that matters if the platform doesn't work. Bieke is correct in pointing out cause and effect between the Lithium launch and my leaving. I was preparing to leave HC even before getting the offer from Gibson; how the launch was handled, independent of Lithium, was the last straw. Terry, you might find some consolation in that I went ballistic when the powers-that-be just arbitrarily removed all the previous posts from Open Jam despite promises that they would be migrated. That was the lie I was referring to.

 

HC is unique and deserves a better fate. Other people in this industry agree, so let's see what happens.

 

 

SSS is a niche. I could see it taking off again, revamped, reenergized, on a Gibson site.

 

I could also imagine a more broadly popular OJ-type music forum that is more conversational and irreverent. Having SSS as an option on that larger site (what this could have been if it weren't unusable) seems like another alternative, but nowhere on the horizon.

 

What seems crazy to me is that the community / market is obviously there, but no one has stepped up to serve it. As these sites become more popular, the response is to make them less rather than more functional.

 

I wonder.... how much would it cost to support a truly busy, thriving music forum?

 

[Ernest Buckley]

I don`t have a long response with dates or names… All I know is, once this site went to HC2 or whatever the hell that crap was, we lost a lot of people. The site was majorly screwed up… is that even a word, majorly? And here we are some 3-4 years later and its still not operating as it should.

 

Whoever made the decision to upgrade to HC2 and to "improve" the site, has not a clue what they`re doing. Everyone wants to be politically correct but the truth is someone has final say over the site, who is that person? Thats the person who should be fired. Then hire someone who knows what the hell they`re doing. Simple.

[Vito Corleone]

 

From my perspective there are two parts to HC, the software and the content.

Nucleus and GC "own" the software issues - no doubt there. We are working diligently to iron-out the issues in order to create a great user experience that has ease-and-flow.

The content (for the most part) is up to the community, and determines the ethos of the community. I ask the question "what do you want newcomers to experience?" a slew of complaints about the community and software or a positive and supportive community about gear and music?

 

Nucleus and GC are making great headway in fixing the s/w, but it's all-for-not if the community is not a fun place to be.

 

 

Fix the software and the content and the fun will return.

 

Complaining that everyone is complaining too much about the bad software instead of just posting fun and supportive stuff is like owning a restaurant where the walls are falling down and saying that more people would show up and eat if the few people that were there stopped complaining about the walls falling down on their food.

 

Once its fixed the complaining will stop and more people will come and more people will stay.

 

Are newbies leaving because there's too much complaining going on? Some might be. But I'll guarantee you many, many more are leaving because they can't do simple tasks like edit a freakin' post or find a review for a product.

 

 

 

[Vito Corleone]

Harmony Central got my attention in 1998 or so, while researching gear.

I discovered the review section and used these as a benchmark for acquiring gear.

I started lurking at the forums in 1999, and finally joined in 2002. My first thread was a question about a pedal purchase I was about to make, there was no review to be found, wanted some feedback. I got feedback within an hour. I bought the pedal, it was a Frostwave Resonator.

Trolls were funny, the community was great, perfect balance between garbage threads, spam and informative threads, no mods back then, there were some flameouts and the occasional serious internet fights, people came and went. Thick skin helped, you had to establish a reputation before people would take you seriously.

It was the great era of HC forums. Free speech, great interaction and genuine informative and knowledgeable info to be had......

So, again, in my humble opinion, based on being here nearly every day starting in 2001, what we need are two simple things: (1) a solid platform that works so that the platform doesn't inhibit the discussion, and (2) relatively hands off moderation and control so that our community tells US what the forums will be by using them, i.e. organic and user defined. Let's be responsive to the forumites because, after all, they're our customers in more ways than one. Bottom line, there won't be many people looking at the videos and pro reviews and clicking over to GC or MF if there aren't many people drawn here by the forums and the user reviews.

 

 

Yep. That's pretty much it.

 

I came here in 2001 to get some help on a new keyboard I had purchased. The response was quick and informative. At least as much help as I was able to get from the manufacturer's forum, which was also quite active.

 

I stayed because I found the community fun and enjoyed learning stuff, passing on knowledge and just exchanging music-related thoughts and ideas. In various forums including this one.

 

Can you imagine coming here now with a keyboard related question? That forum can go days without a single post at all. I have ventured into all sorts of different forums over the last 15 years and don't stay at most all of them. Why? For reasons like that. Because there's no one to answer your question and no conversation or community taking place.

 

I personally like the moderated version of the forum better than the free-for-all, but either way---at least there was a community then. Now?

 

 

 

[MrKnobs]

Terry, you might find some consolation in that I went ballistic when the powers-that-be just arbitrarily removed all the previous posts from Open Jam despite promises that they would be migrated. That was the lie I was referring to.

 

HC is unique and deserves a better fate. Other people in this industry agree, so let's see what happens.

 

 

You're a good guy, Craig. I don't say that lightly.

 

And yeah, I remember the thing about OJ content being deleted. I was the one who dug around "backstage" using the powers you gave, finding it in a folder labeled "The Round File," then posting that revelation all over in public, remember? Thank you for raising Hell about that as the easy option for "them" (whoever THEY are) would be to simply IP ban me and delete those posts.

 

Terry D.

 

[Goober(s)]

 

You're a good guy, Craig. I don't say that lightly.

 

And yeah, I remember the thing about OJ content being deleted. I was the one who dug around "backstage" using the powers you gave, finding it in a folder labeled "The Round File," then posting that revelation all over in public, remember? Thank you for raising Hell about that as the easy option for "them" (whoever THEY are) would be to simply IP ban me and delete those posts.

 

Terry D.

 

not recognizing your value is consistent with their overall failure to recognize the value of what they had, and squandering it.

 

you are the best moderator i have ever encountered on the internet, and by far.

 

that someone might have considered dumping rather than promoting you is just the sort of shortsightedness that killed this place.

 

 

[Anderton]

The other thing that really "frosted my ass" (as Hartley Peavey would say) was when they didn't migrate over reviews. The user reviews were always a crucial part of the site.

 

Whether anyone here cared about the pro reviews, some got hundreds of thousands of views, they were innovative, and they contributed a lot of bucks. But they weren't brought over either and when they eventually were, months and months later, all the attachments were gone.

 

Ableton had signed up to do a pro review of Live 9 with Push. It kept dragging out and dragging out because there was no place to put it, and finally I just said I would do one for free. And then the site was so bad I just kind of gave up. Ableton was very kind about the whole thing, they remembered how effective their previous pro reviews were and didn't blame me. I think they felt kind of sorry for me because they let me keep Push

 

So it's one thing for a company not to value Open Jam, but it's another thing not to value a proven revenue source.

 

All the people responsible for the Jive and Lithium debacles are no longer with the company and haven't been for quite some time. But for the record:

 

It wasn't really Lithium's fault, some people at GC made really bad decisions. And HC wasn't their only bad decision, which is why they aren't at GC anymore (and had a lot to do with MF's tailspin).

 

I really can't blame the current regime for not knowing what to do with HC. It's like if you had this really, really great car and sold it to someone. They didn't change the oil, didn't do the scheduled maintenance, and kept steering over curbs. Then they go to sell it and say "Hey, this was a really great car!" All the buyer sees is a piece of junk.

 

However...on a lighter note,,,is it just me, or did Jeremy fix the "fluttering cursor" problem?!? I'm not experiencing it.

 

 

[Ernest Buckley]

However...on a lighter note,,,is it just me, or did Jeremy fix the "fluttering cursor" problem?!? I'm not experiencing it.

 

Its still misbehaving for me.

 

 

[Ernest Buckley]

I really can't blame the current regime for not knowing what to do with HC. It's like if you had this really, really great car and sold it to someone. They didn't change the oil, didn't do the scheduled maintenance, and kept steering over curbs. Then they go to sell it and say "Hey, this was a really great car!" All the buyer sees is a piece of junk.

 

The site needs a complete makeover… meaning, it needs to be torn down and started from scratch. Thats the only way the quirks will be worked out.

 

And for what its worth, I`m big on user reviews. I think pro reviews should actually be called "Pro demonstrations" because the truth is pro reviewers have to be politically correct even if the gear they`re reviewing sucks. Can`t lose that sponsors $$$…. so they never say what they really want to say. Pro reviews always find something nice to say about some gear.

 

User reviews are to the point and yeah, there are some people who write junk but for the most part, you can tell if something is worth owning if you read through most of the reviews.

 

[Anderton]

[/size]

And for what its worth, I`m big on user reviews. I think pro reviews should actually be called "Pro demonstrations" because the truth is pro reviewers have to be politically correct even if the gear they`re reviewing sucks. Can`t lose that sponsors $$$…. so they never say what they really want to say. Pro reviews always find something nice to say about some gear.

 

That is complete and TOTAL B.S.

 

Pro Reviews were open to the extent that anyone could say anything they wanted. It was a freakin' FORUM FORMAT!!! No post was EVER deleted because someone said something negative about a piece of gear, only if they did something that would have violated the TOS anyway.

 

Pro Reviews overcame the precise limitation you're talking about AND the limitations of print reviews because there was UNLIMITED space for images, audio examples, and interaction among not just users, but the person moderating the forum and the manufacturer. The expansion pack for the Avid Eleven Rack might as well have been called the "Pro Review Suggestions Expansion Pack." Bugs were found in the pro reviews and squashed. Pro reviews made a difference and I not only have no apologies for coming up with the format, I defy anyone to come up with a better, more fair, or more balanced way to review gear. Period.

 

It was the perfect format for conveying the truth and depth of gear. I'm extremely disappointed you are not capable of seeing that, and choose instead to impose your own filters on the reality of what Pro Reviews accomplished.

[UstadKhanAli]

There seems to be this perception that reviewers are beholden to the manufacturers. I have very limited experience with this, but I wrote several reviews for EQ Magazine, which Craig was overseeing. At no time did he or anyone else tell me what I could or could not write.

 

And this would be only more so with a more fluid forum format!

 

 

[Ernest Buckley]

 

That is complete and TOTAL B.S.

 

Pro Reviews were open to the extent that anyone could say anything they wanted. It was a freakin' FORUM FORMAT!!! No post was EVER deleted because someone said something negative about a piece of gear, only if they did something that would have violated the TOS anyway.

 

Pro Reviews overcame the precise limitation you're talking about AND the limitations of print reviews because there was UNLIMITED space for images, audio examples, and interaction among not just users, but the person moderating the forum and the manufacturer. The expansion pack for the Avid Eleven Rack might as well have been called the "Pro Review Suggestions Expansion Pack." Bugs were found in the pro reviews and squashed. Pro reviews made a difference and I not only have no apologies for coming up with the format, I defy anyone to come up with a better, more fair, or more balanced way to review gear. Period.

 

It was the perfect format for conveying the truth and depth of gear. I'm extremely disappointed you are not capable of seeing that, and choose instead to impose your own filters on the reality of what Pro Reviews accomplished.

 

 

I should have been more clear.

 

I was not referring to HC reviews… I never read or watched any of them to be honest.

 

I was referring to "professional" magazine/online reviews.

 

[Goober(s)]

[/size]

 

The site needs a complete makeover… meaning, it needs to be torn down and started from scratch. Thats the only way the quirks will be worked out.

 

And for what its worth, I`m big on user reviews. I think pro reviews should actually be called "Pro demonstrations" because the truth is pro reviewers have to be politically correct even if the gear they`re reviewing sucks. Can`t lose that sponsors $$$…. so they never say what they really want to say. Pro reviews always find something nice to say about some gear.

 

User reviews are to the point and yeah, there are some people who write junk but for the most part, you can tell if something is worth owning if you read through most of the reviews.

 

I know it's not PC to say this in the forum that hosts them, but of course this is what everyone thinks and everyone says outside of this forum.

 

I think the Pro Reviews did themselves a great disservice by hiding the financial relationship between manufacturer and reviewer in a FAQ that no one reads. If they only clearly disclosed this at the start of each Pro Review, it would change a situation that *every* editor I have spoken to outside of here feels is fundamentally, deeply unethical into something acceptable. And I have yet to hear any compelling argument for not being transparent to the overwhelming number of readers. Plus, it would do a lot to moderate the cynicism.

 

Although Craig has disagreed with me about this whenever it's brought up, I have to believe that on some level, he agrees.

 

However, in the grand scheme of things, I don't think it's releveant to this thread. The overwhelming reason why the forum lost people is because of the poor performance of the site itself. No question about that in my mind.

 

 

 

[Goober(s)]

^ that said, I think the Pro Reviews were / are a brilliant format for demonstrating equipment, fielding user questions, and interracting with companies and expert users. I just wish (as many people do) that they were more accurately labelled.

[Anderton]

I think the Pro Reviews did themselves a great disservice by hiding the financial relationship between manufacturer and reviewer in a FAQ that no one reads. If they only clearly disclosed this at the start of each Pro Review, it would change a situation that *every* editor I have spoken to outside of here feels is fundamentally, deeply unethical into something acceptable. And I have yet to hear any compelling argument for not being transparent to the overwhelming number of readers. Plus, it would do a lot to moderate the cynicism.

 

Although Craig has disagreed with me about this whenever it's brought up, I have to believe that on some level, he agrees.

 

I absolutely do not agree at all, on any level, because the process was made clear before the pro reviews started and addressed in a lengthy FAQ posted as a sticky at the very top of the forum. If there is no financial relationship between the manufacturer and the reviewer then there is no financial relationship to hide. And the "reviewer" consisted of a community of people, not just a forum moderator.

 

Before the pro reviews were started, I started a thread asking the community what they thought of the idea. No one objected because they understood it was an open forum, and manufacturers were paying for bandwidth and a moderator's time. It was also obvious from some of the extremely negative comments (TC Konnekt, anyone? DigiTech iPB-10?) that there was no manufacturer control over content. I didn't see any evidence of cynicism from anyone who actually participated in a pro review because it was all very obvious and out in the open.

 

The FAQ was posted at the top of the forum. It would have been silly to reprint it at the beginning of every single pro review, especially because it was obvious that there was ZERO editorial control being exercised over the content. I've pasted it at the bottom to remind you just how long it was.

 

I felt it would be equivalent to every magazine review starting with "Please note: These reviews are printed on paper and reviewed by editors. Advertising pays for the majority of the paper and editor salary costs" and then continuing with an explanation about how advertising works, how products are selected for review, etc. With Pro Reviews the manufacturer paid for bandwidth and the moderator's time. There was no financial relationship between the other reviewers (i.e., the community) or the content.

 

To say it was sponsored content would be wrong and inaccurate. To say there was a financial relationship between the manufacturer and the content of the pro review would also be wrong. The situation was far more nuanced than that and had checks and balances built in.

 

The only way to explain these nuances was in a lengthy document. There were no parallels that could be drawn to models that existed at the time for reviews, advertorial, or sponsored content.

 

Also I rejected numerous requests for pro reviews. A manufacturer could not "buy their way" into a pro review. I had to feel that it was a worthwhile product for the pro review format, and I personally had to have a generally favorable opinion of it. The last thing I wanted to do was moderate a forum for months about a product I didn't like or didn't care about.

 

For the record, here's what the FAQ said.

 

FORUM RULES

This is a strictly on-topic forum. Pro Reviews are started ONLY by people affiliated with, or appointed by, Harmony Central. Topics started by users will be deleted, as this forum consists only of Pro Reviews; users are of course invited to post their own reviews in the User Reviews section. If you have general comments or requests about Pro Reviews, feel free to post them in this thread.

 

HARMONY CENTRAL PRO REVIEW FAQ

 

What are Pro Reviews?

 

Harmony Central’s Pro Reviews are posted in an open forum format. The reviewer – an industry professional – starts the review as soon as the product package is opened. As the review unfolds in a forum thread over the course of a week or so (very much like a “blog”), visitors to the site feel like they’re looking over the reviewer’s shoulder, and come to understand the product with a degree of depth that no print review could ever provide.

 

Why do some people call this an “open source” review?

 

Like "open source" code that is made freely available to the public for comment and modifications, Pro Review readers use the forum format to ask questions, chime in with their own viewpoints, disagree or agree with conclusions, offer suggestions, and in general, become a vibrant part of the review process. Furthermore, manufacturers are encouraged to participate so they can discuss their design decisions, do fact-checks while the review is happening, provide tips, or whatever else is appropriate. The Pro Review brings together reviewer, reader, and manufacturer to provide dynamic, accurate, useful coverage on all kinds of products.

 

Who came up with the Pro Review concept, and why?

 

Harmony Central’s Editor-in-Chief, Craig Anderton, was frustrated by the limitation of print reviews, so he decided to re-invent the product review process from the ground up.

 

What other differences are there compared to print reviews?

 

There are no word count or page count limitations, so the review can be extremely thorough. A graphic can accompany each post – it’s not uncommon to have literally dozens of screen shots in a major software review. Audio examples and other supplementary material can also be downloaded. It’s an immersive, interactive experience.

 

Sounds expensive. How are they monetized?

 

The manufacturer sponsors the review for a nominal fee. A Pro Review takes a lot of effort on the part of a reviewer, and professionals require compensation.

 

But how does the manufacturer feel if the review has negative comments?

 

It is definitely a leap of faith to sponsor a review where no one knows what the outcome will be; sponsorship buys space, not content. But we’ve found manufacturers prefer to have any negative comments out in the open, where they can be addressed, rather than just having potshots taken at them all over the web. We’ve also found that manufacturers willing to sponsor a Pro Review have confidence in their product, and that confidence is rarely misplaced.

 

Is the HC community concerned about sponsorship influencing the editorial integrity?

 

No, because this is the only review system with built-in “checks and balances.” It’s not possible to get away with unjustified slams or praise when there are literally thousands, or tens of thousands, of people (as well as the manufacturer) looking over your shoulder.

 

Why would a company want to sponsor a Pro Review?

 

A Pro Review is an ongoing process, where people keep coming back, links are made to it from other sites, and the content is dynamic and changing. It draws a huge amount of attention to a product.

 

What kind of feedback have you been receiving?

 

Overwhelmingly positive, from all involved. As one manufacturer said, "I really think you are on to something with the Pro Review format…It is truly a great way to reach users and potential customers with timely, in-depth product information. Also, along with all the 'how-tos' peppered through out the threads, there is much valuable insight into the user perspective regarding what features resonate and really matter to them. Thanks!" Another wrote to say "I got the impression that the participants were also very excited about the 'live' aspect of the Pro Review. I feel the Pro Review format is a great new way to get instant feedback from our customers as well as a cool learning experience." Comments from readers are within the Pro Reviews.

 

I'm a manufacturer and I'm interested in having one of my products subjected to a Pro Review. What do I do next?

 

Contact Eric Shea, eshea@harmony-central.com.

[UstadKhanAli]

 

 

I should have been more clear.

 

I was not referring to HC reviews… I never read or watched any of them to be honest.

 

I was referring to magazine reviews.

 

 

 

And again, I would respond:

 

There seems to be this perception that reviewers are beholden to the manufacturers. I have very limited experience with this, but I wrote several reviews for EQ Magazine, which Craig was overseeing. At no time did he or anyone else tell me what I could or could not write.

 

[Anderton]

 

 

I should have been more clear.

 

I was not referring to HC reviews… I never read or watched any of them to be honest.

 

So here you had an opportunity to avail yourself of a totally open review format that overcame all the limitations of print reviews and you didn't read or watch any of them...where's the "banging my head against the wall" emoticon?

 

I was referring to magazine reviews.

 

I can speak only for magazines where I exercised editorial control, because I know there are magazines that do "pay to play." But to paint all magazines with the same broad brush is simply prejudice, and does a disservice to those publications that fight to maintain their integrity. With magazines where I determined editorial policy, advertisers often canceled advertising because they didn't like reviews. Where does that register on your meter?

 

I've sometimes been asked why my reviews were generally positive (although if there were shortcomings, they were pointed out). Simple: I chose the gear I wanted to review. Think about it for a second. Which scenario is more likely:

 

A) I see a piece of gear at NAMM that looks really cool. I'd love a chance to play with it, if for no other reason than to find out if I want to buy it. So it would be great to do a review.

 

B) I see a piece of gear at NAMM that I don't particularly care for, has no relevance to what I do, and which I think has some problems.

 

If I'm going to spend several weeks of my life getting intimate with a piece of gear, do you think it's more likely I would pick the gear in (A) or (B)?

 

If I'm going to assign a piece of gear to Ken to review, am I going to assign him something fun so he'll want to do more reviews, or some dog that wastes his time?

 

What really, really pisses me off is I've spent a lot of effort to insure that what I do has integrity. I may be wrong or right on specifics, but the motivation is always to meet the highest standards possible. My record speaks for itself, and has for 45 years of writing articles. If someone wants to believe I'm here to suck up to manufacturers, and that all the negative posts in pro reviews were deleted by elves in the middle of the night, they're welcome to do so and they're welcome to be wrong.

 

What's more, it seems a lot of people don't understand that reputable manufacturers WANT to know the truth about a product. They are competing with other companies and if their product has a problem, they need to correct it. One manufacturer wanted a pro review and I told the company that wouldn't be a good idea because the product was old and wouldn't get much buzz. They didn't care. They wanted it as a "focus group" to find out what people liked and didn't like about the product because they were working on version 2.0. Pro Reviews uncovered a lot of software bugs that ended up being fixed, sometimes within weeks of the bug being mentioned in the review.

 

I'm sick of cynical people who are clueless about how the world works, but I'm much more sick of those in positions of power who've created a world where people have legitimate reasons to assume that base motivations are behind everything...because way too much of the time, they'd be right.

 

 

 

[UstadKhanAli]

Something else to consider when you take this position. This is what you are saying:

 

WE ARE ALL LIARS.

 

By continually asserting that reviewers are bought off, you're saying that we're all covering something up. Craig, Phil, Lee, me, and whoever else has done reviews around here are all liars. We're all covering something up. Further, we've all been lying for years and years, and doing so conspiratorially in collaboration with jillions of manufacturers.

 

Does that seem likely?

[Ernest Buckley]

What really, really pisses me off is I've spent a lot of effort to insure that what I do has integrity. I may be wrong or right on specifics, but the motivation is always to meet the highest standards possible. My record speaks for itself, and has for 45 years of writing articles. If someone wants to believe I'm here to suck up to manufacturers, and that all the negative posts in pro reviews were deleted by elves in the middle of the night, they're welcome to do so and they're welcome to be wrong.

 

Craig,

 

I have mentioned this in the past about reviews, the only reviews I used to read were in EM where I would actually read from time to time that the reviewer did not care for the gear he was reviewing. I appreciate that honesty.

 

Now, to be more specific, I don`t remember the last time MIX Magazine or Tape Op or any other magazine I`ve read actually wrote a negative review. Mix is perhaps the biggest culprit because they will say owning a week old turd will sound good on certain sources.

 

I no longer read reviews for the reviewers honesty, I just want to get a better idea of what something does but I`m not depending on the reviewer to tell me how thy truly feel about a device. If that offends you, I don`t know what to tell you. This is why I said reviews should actually be called demonstrations… tell me what the gear does but don`t tell me how you feel about it because I`m not putting much weight in it.

 

I also know reviewers will get lucky on occasion and get to keep the gear they reviewed. This is not the norm but it does happen. To me, this is a conflict of interest. If ABC microphones gave you their previous model after a review and they are now asking you to write a review for their new $3000.00 condenser mic, I`m not going to expect a truly honest review. There is a conflict of interest there. It may be an awful mic but the reviewer will not say that. You know that. So lets stop pretending.

 

I've sometimes been asked why my reviews were generally positive (although if there were shortcomings, they were pointed out). Simple: I chose the gear I wanted to review. Think about it for a second. Which scenario is more likely:

 

A) I see a piece of gear at NAMM that looks really cool. I'd love a chance to play with it, if for no other reason than to find out if I want to buy it. So it would be great to do a review.

 

B) I see a piece of gear at NAMM that I don't particularly care for, has no relevance to what I do, and which I think has some problems.

 

If I'm going to spend several weeks of my life getting intimate with a piece of gear, do you think it's more likely I would pick the gear in (A) or (B)?

 

If I'm going to assign a piece of gear to Ken to review, am I going to assign him something fun so he'll want to do more reviews, or some dog that wastes his time?

 

What really, really pisses me off is I've spent a lot of effort to insure that what I do has integrity. I may be wrong or right on specifics, but the motivation is always to meet the highest standards possible. My record speaks for itself, and has for 45 years of writing articles. If someone wants to believe I'm here to suck up to manufacturers, and that all the negative posts in pro reviews were deleted by elves in the middle of the night, they're welcome to do so and they're welcome to be wrong."

 

 

You only want to review gear you like? Wheres the value in that? You already like the gear! Now that I know that I don`t even need to read your reviews, I now know if you`re reviewing something, you like it! Thanks for saving me a few minutes.

 

The fact that you admit that really turns me off. I don`t want to read your reviews ever again. I respect you for sure but I want you to review all types of gear, including the junk. If you consider that a waste of your time then perhaps you should no longer write reviews. Again, where is the value in that?

 

You want to talk "integrity" and say in the same post that you only want to review gear you like? There`s a disconnect in that…

 

 

 

Disappointed,

EB

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ernest Buckley]

Something else to consider when you take this position. This is what you are saying:

 

WE ARE ALL LIARS.

 

By continually asserting that reviewers are bought off, you're saying that we're all covering something up. Craig, Phil, Lee, me, and whoever else has done reviews around here are all liars. We're all covering something up. Further, we've all been lying for years and years, and doing so conspiratorially in collaboration with jillions of manufacturers.

 

Does that seem likely?

 

As I have mentioned time and time again, I do not put much weight in a "professional review".

 

Ken, whats makes your review professional?

 

What makes your review more valuable than mine? We can both review a guitar or keyboard or DAW or mic, etc… Whose to say your review is professional? Is it "professional" because its published in a magazine? Is that the only criteria?

 

I`m a professional musician. People actually pay me to make music! I can review a piano, organ, keyboard, synth, etc.. with the rest of you. If I review something on a forum and you review the same gear in a magazine, is yours professional and mine is not?

 

If you`re writing a review for a magazine, you have to remain politically correct. If I`m writing a review on a forum, I can be completely honest. I don`t have to make the publisher or editor happy. I don`t have to worry about the manufacturer pulling ad $$$. I don`t have to be manipulated in anyway by anyone.

 

I wouldn`t call reviewers "liars", I would simply say, take their words with a grain of salt. Craig reviews gear he already likes so its not a waste of his time… amazing.

 

In the end, it comes down to the user. Magazines and sites should offer the gear specs and leave the reviews to the users.