Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Wayne, the point is not whether we endorse certain products. We all do that.
The problem is when people have a financial stake (e.g. commissions, free gear, etc.) in exchange for opinions and steering purchasers.
When you go to a car dealer, you know they're going to try to sell you something. You expect that.
If the car dealer secretly puts your neighbor on commission to sell you a car, that's something else.
I believe that everyone receiving income or compensation has to be designated as a member of the trade. I think the existing policy is fair, as long as every MOT is labeled as a MOT.
|
Oh, trust me, I got the point. I just don't happen to believe that it's too terribly widespread, especially in the context in which it was presented in the opening post of this thread. In other words, I don't believe that there are many paid shills out there.
As others have said:
1) there is a lot of fanboyism but that is to be expected and is usually pretty easy to spot, so you take it with a grain of salt.
2) there are a lot of people (usually new members) who don't have much listening experience with competing products and thus may unintentionally overstate the "sonic glory" of whatever their most recent purchase was, and again, that's easy to spot. Yet, they're not liars! Just inexperienced listeners and really having fun with something that, to them, represents a new discovery.
You know the threads: "My first EARGASM!!! The Grado SR-60" Or the Sennheiser HD280. Or the Koss Porta Pro. Or maybe even the Grado PS-1 or Sennheiser HD650. But still, easy to spot and your BS filters then go to work.
What I am more concerned about are the "friendly reviews" that occur from time to time by certain people who receive gear from MOTs on an extended trial basis, or are given discounts that others wouldn't be offered, etc. None of this sort of thing is allowable per our Terms of Use, but as a practical matter it can be quite difficult to spot, let alone know the real facts behind the situation, let alone do anything about it from an enforcement perspective.
But what's cool about Head-Fi is that we have a lot of members and a lot of competing MOTs who sell the same sorts of products, and the minute one of our more experienced members starts to look, and act and smell like a shill, someone will call him out on the matter. The person who calls out the supposed shill may not be right about it, and the person being called out may be offended and puff up his chest in protest. He may even put a red herring in his signature saying that he's not affiliated with such and such company.
Yet, whenever there is even an appearance of impropriety, it simply won't go unnoticed, nor will it won't go undiscussed. Thus, the average informed reader will soon become aware of the situation and can then draw his or her own conclusions as to how much weight to give to the supposedly biased person's comments. For the most part, I find that this sort of member to member regulation (keeping each other in check) works quite effectively.
As for identifying and labeling MOTs, that's an ongoing issue that we're always working on, but there is a never ending backlog. It's also a time consuming process, not only the identifying and labeling part, but also the necessary communication that is required as followup with each and every new MOT who is added to the ranks. In most cases, they transition from being a regular member to being an MOT seamlessly, but not always. But the main issue there is just keeping on top of it.
