Reviews and reviewers - are they necessarily bad?

[jandl100]

The mechanics of influence and bias are far more subtle and NONE OF US , are above it

Yes, of course that is true.

But as decent human beings we can try to be aware of these frailties and to reduce them as much as is possible.

Of course, many of us are not decent human beings .... (not a dig at present company, just a general statement!)

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

The mechanics of influence and bias are far more subtle and NONE OF US , are above it . Individuals are not free atoms colliding in brownian motion ,we are social beings .

For instance in my job I make a deliberate rule not to be friendly with any defendant solicitors , because it tempers your approach . Its hard to call someone's argument idiotic if your know them as a person and like them . I am not even friendly to them on the phone. I dont want to know if there nice , funny or if female attractive , I just want to know why they are talking shit to me . :D

A very good argument for not having professional reviewers. Or at the very least not taking any notice of them. People who are ignored tend to disappear.

[Daniel Quinn]

But as decent human beings we can try to be aware of these frailties and to reduce them as much as is possible.

True , but not always possible to appreciate at the time. For instance in retrospect I have noticed that I given greater credence to legal arguments of persons who I know and like or respected and doubted my own judgement and let their argument influence me . Now if you'd have asked me at the time I would have said it was bollocks . You are not always self aware .

[Alan Sircom]

now I would tell it as it is. See there is another corruption for reviewers.

No you wouldn't. Because the spectre of Walker Wingsail Systems v Yachting World leaves a pervasive stench of fear in publishing. The smaller and more specialised the genre, the greater the fear. As a result of your lawsuit against HFC for example, Dennis closed or sold around 15 titles that were too small or too specialised to be worth protecting in the event of a libel suit. Most of these 100 or so job losses were completely unrelated to hi-fi.

[Daniel Quinn]

Frightening as the Yachting World case may appear, it is not a reason to be scared of criticising
products. Recent developments in the law on the defence of fair comment (see p. 250) mean
that as long as you test fairly (e.g. treating all the products in the same way, and presenting a
balanced picture of the results), make sure that any facts in the piece are accurate and state
your views honestly, you should be covered by that defence, no matter how rude you are
about the products.
Remember that you can be sued for defamation even if you are only repeating what someone else has said. This means that if a company criticises a rival’s products or services, you
should not publish those criticisms unless you are sure you are covered by a defence (usually
justification or fair comment; see pp. 240 and 250).
In Konfidence International Ltd v Splash About International (2007)

an extract from elements of defamation .

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

How much money do you think I got off them :? if I remember correctly it was about £10k, plus they paid my solicitors. It was the QED digit / NVA DACon saga, I don't even remember the name of the the reviewer, I am sure you will as you worked at Choice. All it needed was a retraction once the facts were known, so they brought it on themselves.

Part of the pressure put on me to stop the case was to ban any mention of NVA, a bit like a couple of forums now. A main part of my desire was to get that lifted, which it was so I submitted a product and it got slammed - the only bad review I ever received. Interestingly I deliberately chose a product - the AP30 - that had been reviewed before the ban and had received a rave rating. So now it is fun to compare the two reviews (though the Choice review archive has come down) only about three years apart.

[Alan Sircom]

Frightening as the Yachting World case may appear, it is not a reason to be scared of criticising
products. Recent developments in the law on the defence of fair comment (see p. 250) mean
that as long as you test fairly (e.g. treating all the products in the same way, and presenting a
balanced picture of the results), make sure that any facts in the piece are accurate and state
your views honestly, you should be covered by that defence, no matter how rude you are
about the products.
Remember that you can be sued for defamation even if you are only repeating what someone else has said. This means that if a company criticises a rival’s products or services, you
should not publish those criticisms unless you are sure you are covered by a defence (usually
justification or fair comment; see pp. 240 and 250).
In Konfidence International Ltd v Splash About International (2007)

an extract from elements of defamation .

Yes, I'm aware of the shift from 'fair comment' to 'honest comment'. I'm also acutely aware how little such a shift has influenced the insurance companies that underwrite our public liability and indemnity policies. 'Call a lawyer, double the rate' seems to be the norm.

[Daniel Quinn]

Fair Point

Don't get me started on insurance companies :D

The problem with our libel laws is the costs . There are insufficient lawyers willing to defend on no win -no fee and insufficient ATE insurance to protect defendants against the cost of losing .There is also no way of dealing with them in accordance with the potential value of any successful claim . For instance a 10K injury claim would attract costs if settled early of no more than £5000.

The protocol does offer some protection .

My advise would be to make HI-fi + an LLP with no assets , if your in the wrong apologise , if not fight and win. If you lose . close the company and set up a new one as Hi-Fi ++.

[Alan Sircom]

How much money do you think I got off them :? if I remember correctly it was about £10k, plus they paid my solicitors. It was the QED digit / NVA DACon saga, I don't even remember the name of the the reviewer, I am sure you will as you worked at Choice. All it needed was a retraction once the facts were known, so they brought it on themselves.

Part of the pressure put on me to stop the case was to ban any mention of NVA, a bit like a couple of forums now. A main part of my desire was to get that lifted, which it was so I submitted a product and it got slammed - the only bad review I ever received. Interestingly I deliberately chose a product - the AP30 - that had been reviewed before the ban and had received a rave rating. So now it is fun to compare the two reviews (though the Choice review archive has come down) only two years apart.

After all costs, it came to about £80k I believe. Or at least, that's what I was told at the time.

I recall the DACon test of course, but don't remember the AP30 test or its resubmission (this isn't surprising - we were testing 20 devices per month at the time and unless it was memorable, most of them blur). The electronics group tests would all have been performed by Paul Miller at the time, and put into blind tests. There isn't a lot you can do to alter the results of a blind test, the test writer is effectively a collator of the blind results from the listening panel. The panel are informed which was which at the end of the day, so if the writer tried to change the pecking order, the panel becomes its own checks and balances to prevent such a thing from taking place. So, I can only conclude it did well in the context of one set of amplifiers the first time and less well the next. It does happen. It's part of the 'lottery' concern I have with blind tests in general.

[Alan Sircom]

My advise would be to make HI-fi + an LLP with no assets , if your in the wrong apologise , if not fight and win. If you lose . close the company and set up a new one as Hi-Fi ++.

Good idea. I've worked from the safety of a shell company before.