bit-tech.net

The Path of Progress: Tracking the evolution of AMD’s graphics cards

Comments 101 to 118 of 118

Reply
adidan 8th September 2012, 18:32 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by m0ngy
I've attempted to contribute to the forums before, years ago, however found the impenetrable BT clique so obnoxious and dismissive I very quickly retired.

*snip*

The problem is, Simon, that the very instant you sell out, you are branded for life, you have ZERO credability. You're just another whore at the capitalist gang bang, everything you do is suspect, and everything you say is like a turd falling into my drink.
Seriously, you try and accuse the forums of being 'obnoxious and dismissive' and then you go on to throw obnoxious and dismissive insults.

My point regarding post count was with reference to comments on here regarding how the community and site have gone downhill. However, such low post counts indicate that some users have not even contributed to the community before deciding they want to post about their perceived failings of the site/community.

This site works in a Capitalist Society. Whether you like Capitalism or not that's the way it is and income has to be generated.

Specifically stating that an article is sponsored at least highlights potential bias and readers don't have to read said article.
jimmyjj 8th September 2012, 21:31 Quote
I didn't like the article either (I posted earlier to say it sucked), but by god there are some idiots on this thread (mOngy).

For the love of god, turn your computer off and take your kids to the park, buy your wife some flowers or give your mum a ring just to find out how she is - i.e. focus on something in the real world that is worth your emotional energy.
Shirty 8th September 2012, 22:18 Quote
I'm getting into the swing of this thread now.

"Bit-tech defiled my child with this advert. I'm calling my lawyer."

m0ngy 8th September 2012, 23:25 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by adidan
Seriously, you try and accuse the forums of being 'obnoxious and dismissive' and then you go on to throw obnoxious and dismissive insults.

The whole "capitalist gang bang" bit is actually a quote from Bill Hicks, but you probably wouldn't know who that is.
Quote:
My point regarding post count was with reference to comments on here regarding how the community and site have gone downhill. However, such low post counts indicate that some users have not even contributed to the community before deciding they want to post about their perceived failings of the site/community.

Really, can you blame them? I like reading the wholly impartial and razor sharp reviews, where BT slams the crap out of stuff. Who doesn't? The web needs a lot more of it.

But contributing to the forums? Uh uh, tried that and got burnt already, they're heavily trolled. I reckon a lot of people have tried to contribute to the BT forums and found them quite impenetrable. If you don't already have a long history, it's just a big sh!t fight, you get immediately shouted down and ridiculed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmyjj
I didn't like the article either (I posted earlier to say it sucked), but by god there are some idiots on this thread (mOngy).

See what I mean? Apparently, you're not supposed to put forth any opinions, you're basically just commentating, an occasional "+1".
Quote:
This site works in a Capitalist Society. Whether you like Capitalism or not that's the way it is and income has to be generated.

You just don't 'get' the finer points of journalism (or otherwise...), do you? Like I said, a less discerning readership.
Quote:
Specifically stating that an article is sponsored at least highlights potential bias and readers don't have to read said article.

Initially, it wasn't tagged as an advertorial, and it still shares exactly the same space and format as 'real' editorials. That's very dodgy. I know it, the more intelligent readers know it, and the editors know it. I mean, that was whole idea in the first place, to essentially disguise an ad in amongst the real editorials, and why it's so fundamentally damning.
jimmyjj 9th September 2012, 02:23 Quote
<Yawn>

Sorry you feel unloved, perhaps you would prefer to just move along to a site more to your liking?

I also said that you should spend your emotional energy taking your kids to the park rather than getting too excited and obnoxious over the issue.

The fact that you felt obliged to make (another) long multi-quote post simply reinforces this point. Get out in the sunshine man, it's beautiful out there!
Shirty 9th September 2012, 08:47 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by m0ngy
But contributing to the forums? Uh uh, tried that and got burnt already, they're heavily trolled. I reckon a lot of people have tried to contribute to the BT forums and found them quite impenetrable. If you don't already have a long history, it's just a big sh!t fight, you get immediately shouted down and ridiculed.

I just can't imagine why you didn't fit in. I mean, it's not as if you have a committed air of superiority, or take pleasure in ridiculing or belittling those you consider somehow beneath you (in intelligence or age, apparently). All the while trying to imply that it's somehow the forum's fault, that the collective Bit community are all just drones with a vendetta against you, the elite m0ngy. I'll resist the urge to tell you to sod off elsewhere, but you'll generally find that insulting tens of thousands of members in a few sentences will elicit such a response.

Yep, can't think for a minute why you didn't fit in.

Fair enough to come here and post your concerns, however far-fetched they may be. But it's not fair enough to generalise so hatefully about one of the best communities on the web. Especially considering that you've identified exactly the things this forum generally avoids as being the problem.
brumgrunt 9th September 2012, 09:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by m0ngy
Initially, it wasn't tagged as an advertorial, and it still shares exactly the same space and format as 'real' editorials. That's very dodgy. I know it, the more intelligent readers know it, and the editors know it. I mean, that was whole idea in the first place, to essentially disguise an ad in amongst the real editorials, and why it's so fundamentally damning.

No, I don't know it. Again: for the hour or so without a tag, that was wrong, and I've gone over that a few times in this thread. When it had its proper label on, I disagree very much that it was "very dodgy".

I've worked in websites and magazines for a long time, and sponsored features have regularly come up. Have they ever affected a subsequent article, review or feature I've been involved with as a result? Not even a comma.

S
Troglodyte 9th September 2012, 10:32 Quote
Good idea for an article but would have been better minus the AMD input/sponsorship and stay independent.Like others have said there is just not enough honest criticism of the downfalls of certain cards etc . The Nvidia fanbois were queueing up for this one lol. For your next article on Nvidia's progress , be frank and stay independent without sponsorship and mention the minus as well as the plus points. Also a historical GPU context for each range of cards to show how they fared against the opposition's range at the time . Start queueing now AMD fanbois ! .
P.s Running 2x4850 in my Acer Pred , next step 2x670.
boyparka 9th September 2012, 14:25 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by brumgrunt
Of course. We've lost a lot of advertising from lots companies for criticising their products in the past. Our reviews are utterly independent of advertising spend. Always have been, always will be.

S

Well, I hope it'll stay that way, but I do agree with mOngy: there is a difference between running an actual ad, and publishing a 'sponsored article' that mimics your editorial style. I'm not so naive to believe advertisers aren't a constant threat to any journalist's objectivity, but I do assume that journalist is allowed a certain degree of independence to do his job. Blending your ad space with your actual content contradicts that notion, and -- at the risk of sounding overly dramatic -- tells me your opinion is for sale. You add to the sponsor's credibility, but you lose some of our own in the process.

The main argument in your own defence seems to be that you're clearly marking the article as sponsored. Well, sure, that allowed me to skip this particular article, but it does not negate any of its ill effects. Next time I'm reading a review, or checking out one of your recommended PC builds, I'll be wondering... Because now I know BT is willing to enlist their editorial board as copywriters. A red flag for anyone trying to gauge your journalistic integrity, if ever there was one.

As for people remarking that members with low post counts (I'm definitely one of them) are now coming out of the woodwork: shouldn't that be telling you something? People who otherwise don't have the time or inclination to post on forums, are now willing to make an exception because they feel this is important enough?

My two cents, for what they're worth. I'm reverting to 'not having the time to post on forums' now...
brumgrunt 9th September 2012, 14:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by boyparka
Well, I hope it'll stay that way, but I do agree with mOngy: there is a difference between running an actual ad, and publishing a 'sponsored article' that mimics your editorial style. I'm not so naive to believe advertisers aren't a constant threat to any journalist's objectivity, but I do assume that journalist is allowed a certain degree of independence to do his job. Blending your ad space with your actual content contradicts that notion, and -- at the risk of sounding overly dramatic -- tells me your opinion is for sale. You add to the sponsor's credibility, but you lose some of our own in the process.

The main argument in your own defence seems to be that you're clearly marking the article as sponsored. Well, sure, that allowed me to skip this particular article, but it does not negate any of its ill effects. Next time I'm reading a review, or checking out one of your recommended PC builds, I'll be wondering... Because now I know BT is willing to enlist their editorial board as copywriters. A red flag for anyone trying to gauge your journalistic integrity, if ever there was one.

As for people remarking that members with low post counts (I'm definitely one of them) are now coming out of the woodwork: shouldn't that be telling you something? People who otherwise don't have the time or inclination to post on forums, are now willing to make an exception because they feel this is important enough?

My two cents, for what they're worth. I'm reverting to 'not having the time to post on forums' now...

Okay, in reverse order :-)

I never made a remark about members' post counts. Definitely didn't come from me. Furthermore, just because I'm debating the issue, it doesn't mean I'm not listening and absorbing the points.

For me, and I do understand that not everyone shares this view, transparency is key. We marked it as sponsored, and actively discussed the pros and cons since.

With regards ensliting our editorial team, it was a freelance piece of work for the writer concerned, on top of and not replacing anything else they do.

Bottom line, whether people believe it or not, is that our independence here hasn't been compromised at all. I'm sure we'll be judged on that in the months ahead, as we always should be. As has been said earlier, the day any of us are told to alter our opinions or viewpoints on a product for commercial reasons is the day we're out of the door.

S
Faunus 12th September 2012, 00:05 Quote
Oh please, the bandwagonistic (!!!) nature of these responses is significantly more harming to the site than some misplaced markup.

The sort of thing that does the real damage to BitTech, is 5 pages of people complaining about an advert. The same kind of advert that assists in keep the site running to start with.

If everybody is really caring so deeply about their community as they claim, then perhaps they should do well to think about the effect that their responses might have on the perceived quality of the site.
Ergath 12th September 2012, 13:17 Quote
Speaking for myself, I'm not weeping tears of hatred and I don't believe that BG's children will be cursed unto the seventh generation, however I do genuinely loathe this kind of half-baked PR-ridden "article" and am disappointed to see it in the midst of otherwise excellent content. I'm a big fan of BT (and CPC) and always recommend people to the site for objective and rigorous reviews, but I do think that this kind of content lowers the tone and should probably be restricted to a particular part of the site (did someone mention an Industry News feed?).
Ergath 12th September 2012, 13:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by arcticstoat
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ciber
I do feel this type of piece that I have seen in Custom PC and now here deliberately blurs the line between the adverts and the honest reviews.

Again, please can I ask for an example of where this was in Custom PC?

Sorry for the double post, but I wanted to add that the first time I saw an article in another print mag along these lines I wrote to the Editor to register my disappointment. One of the reasons I love (and subscribe to) CPC is that there is none of this stuff. For the record, as I think I have said previously, I'd happily pay a higher sub to keep sponsored articles away.
Baz 13th September 2012, 14:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ergath
Sorry for the double post, but I wanted to add that the first time I saw an article in another print mag along these lines I wrote to the Editor to register my disappointment. One of the reasons I love (and subscribe to) CPC is that there is none of this stuff. For the record, as I think I have said previously, I'd happily pay a higher sub to keep sponsored articles away.

Following the response to this article, I don't think you've got to worry too much about in regards to a repeat performance.
Jhodas 14th September 2012, 10:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baz
Following the response to this article, I don't think you've got to worry too much about in regards to a repeat performance.

This is why we stick around. You listen to us!
vdbswong 14th September 2012, 13:04 Quote
I've been busy the past week or so and have only just caught up to all this after my initial post 0.o

Thank you to the bit-tech staff for clarifying the position of the article, sure it read like a sponsored advert from the start, but there's a difference between acknowledging what it is and pretending it's not.

My initial response wasn't so much "OMG bit-tech have sold out" but more along the lines of "what is this doing here". Whilst i understand the need for money etc. the initial title, presentation of the article, and its place on bit-tech made me expect an indepth retrospective, maybe touching on changes in architecture and highlighting where things went wrong and how AMD tried to correct them.

The way it was presented however, as others have pointed out, seem to be from some corporate PR phrase book filled with superlatives and catchphrases that they seem to think are "cool".

I remember bit-tech doing something similar to this before, although it was much better implemented (imo). I think it was with regards to MSI and their new (at the time) motherboard range. It wasn't published as an article and had its own separate page in the site. That way it didn't feel like a piece of bit-tech's writing, was clearly an advert, but still contained some nice information.

Maybe in future have maybe a banner advertising the retrospective and a news post along the lines of "AMD have kindly supplied a brief retrospective of their products after taking over ATi in 200x" etc. etc. and let us choose to click through to it, as opposed to making it look like a proper article and have us feeling deceived by clicking through to an advert.
brumgrunt 14th September 2012, 13:29 Quote
Thanks for the feedback. It's appreciated. If a sponsored article runs again on Bit-Tech, things will be done a little differently.

S
SAimNE 23rd October 2012, 20:51 Quote
im a confessed amd/ati fanboy. every single review that has shown them shortening the gap, or beating intel/nvidia has been godsend to me..... and even to me this article makes me queasy. they need to get an understanding that the pc market isnt like the console gaming market. just droning on about how good it was doesnt mean crap unless paired with comparisons of framerates/benchmarks, thermals, and a diagram of how the product works.

unless we see that the article looks like one of those hidden picture things.. where if you squint hard enough you can make out the form of a giant corporation sucking itself.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums