facebook rss twitter

Can BETA-test sites be trusted to provide 100% independent and objective reviews ?

by David Ross on 21 November 2005, 13:53

Tags: ATi Technologies (NYSE:AMD)

Quick Link: HEXUS.net/qad3s

Add to My Vault: x

The purpose of BETA-testers is to specifically help manufacturers make products better.

The principle of BETA testing is a good thing, and manufacturers should do more of it.

However: -

BETA-testers provide manufacturers with recommendations on how to make a product sell better, make more money and also how a manufacturer can save money.

Do you entirely trust BETA-testers to provide you with 100% independent and objective comparative buying advice on the products they BETA-test?

Do you entirely trust BETA-testers to provide you with 100% independent and objective comparative buying advice on the competing alternatives of products they BETA-test?

Would it make a difference if the primary source of income for a publication came from the manufacturer for which it was BETA-testing?

If you found out you’d been hoodwinked into believing that buying advice was independent and objective - when it was not - how would you feel?

How would you feel about the ethics of a manufacturer which encouraged its BETA-testers to publish reviews and buying advice of its products, and its competitor’s products?

This is a very important subject and your opinion is very important.

It could well affect the honesty and quality of buying advice and editorial you read in the future.

please vote in the poll on the HEXUS.community and then let us know your thoughts.


HEXUS Forums :: 18 Comments

Login with Forum Account

Don't have an account? Register today!
Posted by Moby-Dick - Mon 21 Nov 2005 12:30
good question , but what if tester were testing not only the product , but its competitors as well ,would that give a more objective opinion.

should testing only be done by independant testers who have nothign to gain by quality of the test ?
Posted by PD HEXUS - Mon 21 Nov 2005 12:39
Moby-Dick
good question…
indeed :)

Moby-Dick
…but what if tester were testing not only the product , but its competitors as well ,would that give a more objective opinion.
how do you think BETA-testers can be trusted to provide any independent and objective comparative buying advice on products they've specifically tried to help manufacturers make better?

Moby-Dick
should testing only be done by independant testers who have nothign to gain by quality of the test ?
i've thought it through, and can't see how, ethically, it can be done any other way…

but that's one of the points of the poll and this thread Moby - what's your take ?

cheers,

PD
Posted by directhex - Mon 21 Nov 2005 12:59
you should never *review* beta hard/software. things are all too subject to change. but i don't see any harm in offering previews, based upon experience with a beta product

what's important, though, is not to let the previewer also be the reviewer - it's far too easy to get emotive if the beta and final don't match, and slant scores.
Posted by Moby-Dick - Mon 21 Nov 2005 13:01
If you seperate QA testing and public beta testing - then you might have the best of both worlds ?

If the QA phase was carried out in house , you'd know that any informatino published as a result of that testing would potentially be slewed.
Even if a beta tester had nothing to gain , I dont think they'd be able to sit on the fence when it came to attempting to improve 2 competing products. So reviews / advice based on that testing should carry informatino to that effect ?
Posted by PD HEXUS - Mon 21 Nov 2005 13:17
directhex
you should never *review* beta hard/software. things are all too subject to change.
agreed - and over the weekend this was a point well made by HEXUS.lifestyle Editor Bob Crabtree.

directhex
but i don't see any harm in offering previews, based upon experience with a beta product
agreed.

and that's not the same as BETA-testers specifically offering editorial that's dressed up as independent and objective comparative buying advice, on the very products they've BETA-tested to specifically try to help manufacturers make better.


directhex
what's important, though, is not to let the previewer also be the reviewer - it's far too easy to get emotive if the beta and final don't match, and slant scores.
interesting points.

do you think that BETA-testers posing as ‘reviewers’ are even more likely to “slant scores”?

and would it make a difference if the primary source of income for a publication came from the manufacturer for which it was BETA-testing?

SEE NEWER »