Questioning morality.
Derek Cohen (in Perth Australia)
>Do enough forum members want me to continue posting reviews? Some evidently do not, but are they the vocal minority? If they are in the minority, it would be a travesty to let them dominate the proceedings on this forum.
I will point out that one needs to wear armour plate when posting reviews to this forum. Rarely do my postings on other forums elicit such incredibly vicious attacks. In my opinion, there are a just a few louts (for what else better defines their boorish manners) who will attack because they just enjoy the excitement and camaraderie of this activity.
There are a couple of issues that constantly form the focus of the arguments raised. The first is that these reviews are paid for by an advertiser, that they are �infomercials�. The other is about objectivity.
Reviews should be divided into two categories � those that are self-initiated and those that are initiated by others.
I, and others, have initiated and written reports/article/review of tools that are already owned. Does this prevent bias? Of course not. Bias has nothing to do with ownership � it has to do with the manner of reporting.
I have written reports on planes where the manufacturer initiated the process. This goes for some of the Veritas planes and for the Marcou plane. Lastly, I have written reports on planes on the request of a third party, such as a web magazine. Does the standard arrangement (this goes for all manufacturers) of a �free� tool from the manufacturer-driven review encourage bias? Probably not. Why? Because that tainted publicity is not in their own interests. I should point out that I have never requested a plane from anyone for review.
In my opinion, people like Philip Marcou and Rob Lee are incredibly brave. Philip especially. I am particularly distressed by the proceedings of this review on this forum because this brave man has treated so shabbily, and most are not aware of it. What am I talking about? To a small extent the cry of �infomercial� is correct � but it is not as simple as the Detractors would have others accept. Philip�s business is building planes. He believes in his product and is prepared to place it under scrutiny. He is hoping that he will come up smelling of roses, but he knew beforehand that I going to do my best to write objectively and will try my best to avoid bias. A bad review will affect him negatively, and he and I know this going in, and he is prepared to take the risk. The same may be said for Veritas. There have been a number of occasions when I have pointed out a shortcoming in a Lee Valley/Veritas tool, and Rob has taken it in and acted on it. Veritas has built up a great reputation and can ride the storms now, but small organizations like Philip Marcou do not. Witness what recently happened to Shepherd. So to place himself in my hands is a brave act for Philip. At the same time, my name is worth more to me than his future is to me. As much as I care that he does well, I will not lie to achieve that. I may be flowery in the presentation but school is out when it comes to the evaluation.
In developing a research/review strategy I make as sure as I can that the information is presented in a fair way. First of all there is the fairness of the scientific method � that is, looking for evidence that is meaningful. Secondly, there is fairness to Philip, since he is expecting to get something from the review that will aid him commercially. As I said before, why otherwise risk one�s reputation? Of course this is an aspect of �infomercial� but this must not detract from the reliability of the information, per se. I owe it to him and all others to present his plane in a way that respects his efforts in building it. This makes for good reading.
So onto the strategy of maintaining objectivity. Let�s see � I include other planes to determine how well it does work, and I define the minimum standard for an acceptable performance. For Control, I use planes that others know and respect (here the LN and LV), and attempt to make sure that these are working optimally. The LN does not work well, but I believe that this is a rogue situation, so I seek an alternate solution that is satisfactory for scientific needs (just not satisfactory for the emotions of some). I invite two other participants to provide their opinions. I accept their opinions and print what they have written (only editing out excessive wordage). I document everything in a manner that we all can relate to. �. Mmmm I can see that this is the makings of a biased document.
Did I mention the time and effort that goes into each review � that I spend considerable time researching matters beforehand and even interviewing planemakers. For this review I had daily emails back-and-forth with Philip over a period of about 2 months, and I separately spoke with Karl Holtey and Ian Dalziel, amongst others. I accumulated a vaste number of pictures, fussed over which to include� the process was endless. The number of hours that went into the writing was a lot longer than Philip took building it! In all, this was over a month in writing alone.
After all this we have a few on the forum who will pick up on minor issues and make them the focus of everything. I paid them the respect of answering some of their questions, in spite of the derogatory and aggressive tone of their writings (apparently objective criticism only goes in one direction!). Of course, this is foolishness on my part since there is nothing in the known universe that will convince them otherwise.
Now the burning question � do I continue to post my reviews to WC? Why should I? This is the only forum where I get attached like this. It is not pleasant and, while I�m a big boy and can take care of myself, I don�t feel that I should be subjected to such rude, crass behaviour by a few. In addition, the organizations that are involved, be they contributing directly or indirectly, are affected negatively, and this is not right. So what am I to do?
Regards from Perth
Derek
