Topic: Petition to sticky Dogies manufacturer trustworthiness guide!! - page 3. (Read 6621 times)

You do realize that you are free to ask any one of the active community participants for verification.

For instance I like many collect at least 1 from each manufacturer and also speak up after crunching the number's on what would be the best option for hardware.

I for one still keep an updated speculative network difficulty vs returns spreadsheet that all can see and use for personal verification.

The service provided by the review is more of a fact finding role and to lessen the perliferation of frivolous claims from hardware venders and scams.

Everything stops that. Setup guides are entirely separate from the trustworthiness guide, hence none of the recent new releases are on there. Companies have to ship reasonable quantities to customers, and ratings are based off performance with customers. You can't buy a rating, it doesn't work like that.

There's also the opposite where a companies reputation is hugely affected by sending a faulty testing unit or none at all.

For example btcgarden has zero complaints as far as I can tell yet somehow dogie managed to get the only faulty unit and poor communication.

Point is something so debatable shouldn't be stickied, especially when biases are to be expected.

Yes, that's a concern. But I think this as well as other concerns a few members are expressing can be mitigated if their experience can be factored into the rating - it makes the playing field even. If that were so I'd def support this as a sticky because it would be the opinion of the community as a whole - not selective to one or a few reviews.

Dogie - again, I think you did an awesome job and I'm sure there isn't any malice intent here. But in my opinion, you should consider incorporating the community's voice. Not saying you need to monitor threads, but give members an opportunity to be heard somehow.

That's two suggestions I've given that I'm sure no one would have an issue with this becoming a sticky if implemented.

Dogie, i must admit i hadn't even considered that you didn't actually pay for the miners that you're rating/reviewing?  

Do you not see this is a HUGE conflict for your ratings?   i realize you're free to rate and review them how you want... but you have to concede that this represents a massive conflict of interest.

the companies that didn't give you a free or discounted unit are at a disadvantage and might fear they won't get rated as highly as those companies that did give you a free or discounted unit?   it also rewards the companies that have smaller/cheaper miners because they can afford to dish those out more freely than those that make big expensive 'industrial scale' miners that cost thousands of dollars each, that they can't afford to give away so freely.

Anyway, worst case it makes your ratings completely biassed and open to influencing you with their generosity and best case it pressures them to give you a free unit, if they don't want to risk a poor rating!

along with each rating, you have a duty to disclose accurately what the company gave you in terms of incentive.  a free unit?  more than one free unit?   free hosting?   or a discounted or special deal off a purchase?   any other incentive or item of value?   you have a duty to disclose this stuff if you're to convince us you're unbiassed.

its shocking that this wasn't disclosed and made abundantly clear in your ratings, which manufacturers gave you an incentive and which didn't!?

The only thing I can say here is that nothing stops a company from sending Dogie a unit that works really well and then still not shipping to their customers after they build hype if Dogie likes it.

Ah. Of course you are But that does make a difference. In that case, why not base your rating on company and product facts (e.g., no preorders, operates mining farm) vice customer service (eg, generic unethical behaviour, some orders being ignored). When you take to the level of rating their service, the waters can get muddy real quick... especially when there are customers who completely disagree with your opinion.

+1 for sticky!

Other than the units, no. Its about 20-30 hours to do even the first pass of guides at the moment and unit prices are falling, so I'm not sure what will happen in the future. I'm still free to say whatever I want about the units and the companies, as I have done in the past.

Perhaps you should've started with a poll, then petitioned for the sticky.

Surely you're not implying my question is somehow an attack? It's not; but it is a valid question and it deserves an answer. If there's an incentive involved, how much confident can the community have in the score? I'm not saying Dogie would intentionally misrepresent a product, but it's no different than neglecting to mention a few negative experiences of other members.

How is it you're petitioning to post this as a sticky, yet not allowing anyone to have an opinion? I understand it's a petition so already biased... So naturally my question to you is... if no one's allowed to post their opinion in this thread, should they start another against the sticky?

Consider the poll. At least it would give the community an opportunity to speak. Then if the yes votes outweigh the no count, that would only help the cause. But right now, it seems there are some members who feel it's not warranted for one reason or another. This is a community after all.

Edit - case in point:


If there's any truth to this - then I would agree that it shouldn't be a sticky. Not taking into consideration the community's experiences (rather good or bad), is biased.

Stickies are intended to be authoritative messages, opinionated posts do not belong at the top of the forum threads.

Its subjective. No sticky needed.

I'll +1 this.

Sorry for all the trouble on this. It was meant to be a petition not an attack against dogie. I would ask to keep this on topic please.

Great job on the info Dogie.

Just a question... do/did you receive any type of incentive from any of these companies?

Can't you see you don't get it? I can't create a botnet to scour the globe to find posts directed at me, and then reply to them in 20 different places. That post is a notification to say that that company has been updated in MY thread. Its not an invitation for people to come to my thread, then leave me thread, then start a conversation with me outside of my thread - that doesn't make sense.

And no, I'm not now going to start a conversation with posts which are literally 2 weeks old. And yes, I have read the content of the posts. Did you read them before you copy pasted then, because I don't think you did. The first post didn't understand that companies are not ranked overall but by criteria, and so were complaining that x company appeared the same level as y company - that's not under my control and its organic. The second post had nothing useful to say other than "whats wrong with KNC" (which is pretty obvious if you actually went to the KNC thread...", or he bothered to look at the individual criteria mentioned. The third post is complaining that the system is binary (or trinary), yet its exactly what is required to prevent people crying that I'm abusing or skewing the system. You can't have it both ways.

So I'll ask you again - did you actually read those posts before you copy pasted?

thats not strictly true.  they were replying to YOUR posts.  and yes, if you post something somewhere, and someone responds to you, i do hope you'd read their replies and take note.   and since you obviously missed them, and ive posted them for you now, i presume youre still going to ignore them.

cant you see youre doing it again?   youre ignoring perfectly valid comments and/or criticisms of your guide saying you got your facts wrong, and that you couldve updated the guide to make it more accurate, but instead, you just say you didnt see the posts, or, that they were already disagreed with.  you cant bring yourself to actually consider that you mightve incorporated some opinions in your guide that werent appropriate and need to be replaced with more accurate information.

thats why i say its Your guide, and Your opinions, and shouldnt be stickied because you ignore other people's information, especially when it conflicts with your opinion.

I don't monitor companies threads, if people have comments on the trustworthiness thread they should be posted in the trustworthiness thread.... you don't honestly expect me to monitor 20+ threads for comments about my thread do you?

Everything you posted in your essay was dealt with on the two pages before and after your post, but you didn't bother reading any of that and assumed you were ignored. That's not my fault, and that's not a reason to try and discredit me.

+1 For sticky!!!

You can argue as much as you can, when you got something to compare with. For now, dogie's guide is the only one and it is trustworthy. And you can point out inaccuracies in the specific threads, if you have complains. This is gold for noobs!

So, STICKY!!! STICKY!!!

here's a few recent examples... for instance..  when you posted your new trustworthiness claims in the cointerra thread.  you had several professional miners disagree with your guide and tell you your ratings were too opinionated and not 'fact checked').  the comments were pretty much in universal agreement, yet you changed nothing.  you didnt update your guide at all based on the input of those that would know the reality - the actual users and customers.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.8050461

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/cointerra-announces-its-first-asic-hash-rate-greater-than-500-ghs-269093

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.8066522

and my own post...  that i wrote to you privately in pm and you said pretty much you'd ignore it unless i posted it publicly, even though i was uncomfortable to do so, and.. after i posted it publicly, you still ignored it and stuck to your opinions rather than the facts.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.8048857

i dont deny you have the right to your opinions, but presenting them as universal fact and ignoring anyone else's input doesnt sit well with me.

i hope thats not true!  if he gets any equipment for free or at a special price in any way, then there's no chance of unbiassed reviews and it would put him in a compromised position.  im sure its not true, and if it was, he would need to disclose which equipment he got for free (or discounted) and state it very clearly alongside the review.