OnePlus 5 review
In the current edition of PCA "Readers' writes" Kent Bengtsson states that test charts should reflect that the 'best' are only the 'best free samples' and not that they're 'the best there is'.
Ben Camm-Jones, senior staff writer, gives a politicians answer of 'not doing our job if we never set eyes on it' and 'once we've had a good look we have to give everything back'. Olay!!
I think we all know that PCA only test what is provided free, but why not have the honesty to answer the question with a 'yes, you're correct'.
For me prevaricating like that only gives PCA a minus point.
GANDALF <|:-)> my dad always said that eh was what 'orses ate.
ps don't you buy the mag?
Presumably PCA thought the answer was good enough. After all, they didn't need to publish the question.
Bosmere, you brought back fond memories of my late father. Were they lit with the same stick, to coin another phrase of his.
You're point makes no sense to me whatsoever. I thought what was said by PCA made sense.
Fair enough I think as you'd soon complain if they reviewed a PC without even having used it and said it was the greatest thing since sliced bread and you bought it and found it was worse than what you already had.
It was said that they do not review all PCs as some manufacturers will not give them samples, no sample therefore no review logically, therefore it follows that they do not have reviews of all PCs therefore there may be some better ones which don't get reviewed, or worse ones for that matter. Perhaps the manufacturers that won't give PCA a PC to review are worried about how their PC will stack up against the competition. You're accusing the magazine of dodging the question simply because they didn't say yes which is just silly.
As I see it, bosmere has a point about PCA's answer to Kent Bengtsson's letter, p13 of current PCA June issue.
Bengtsson writes PCA cannot discover the "Best there is" after testing only a range limited to machines provided free.
The letter refers to them as free samples, and therein lies a problem. Does it come to a reader's mind they're offered as a bribe prodding for review favour?
Ben Camm-Jones, senior staff writer avoids acknowledgement of innuendo by using a circuitous answer.
Had he said "They're not free at all, they are all sent back" (which is the case), then end of misunderstanding about the word 'free'.
"The best there is..." must be taken as from those tested by PCA, of course.
I have lost the will to live.
not again lol
Wilham, thank you ("The best there is..." must be taken as from those tested by PCA, of course) that was the original point made and not answered.
Totally-braindead, somebody reading the mag could think that the reviews reflected the best machines on the market.
oresome - the East End.
GANDALF <|:-)> carry on :-)
We went through this in another thread. They're not free samples - they're loan items. The manufacturers take 'em back, and it's in the manufacturers' interests to provide review samples. Not all manufacturers do so obviously reviews are never totally comprehensive.
I've borrowed loads of bits of kit over the years to review, and it's all always gone back. There's nothing "free" about any reviewing in IT journalism.
Now, if you're talking fashion, food, travel, beauty journalism, not to mention books ... lots of freebies there. Which is not always a good thing. Literary editors get hundreds of books a week (I kid you not); CDs and DVDs pour into the relevant desks, beauty editors get more lipsticks than you could use in a lifetime. The only place the freebies are substantial and worth having is in fashion journalism.
Even travel journalism is a double-edged sword: sure, you go on nice trips but they're short, usually in the hot/wet/cold/dark season, you're jetlagged out of your skull, you have to be nice to endless dull people, you don't get an afternoon by the pool/shopping and you're only there for a couple of days. I've been to Oz for a week, Hong Kong for three days, Washington DC for an overnight ... knackering!
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.