PC Perspective accused of violating journalistic ethics *Update 2 with PCPer reply*

[Yoinkerman]

26 minutes ago, Derangel said:

And that makes it a good thing or acceptable?

When push comes to shove they're not journalists, and we as consumers are only doing ourselves a disservice by acting like they are

[dalekphalm]

7 minutes ago, Yoinkerman said:

When push comes to shove they're not journalists, and we as consumers are only doing ourselves a disservice by acting like they are

Says who? Ryan Shrout, and the reviewers at PCPer, are most definitely journalists. They report news, do reviews, etc.

 

Now you're saying they don't even need to follow journalism ethics? That's insane. So let's lower the bar?

[Mihle]

On 1/26/2018 at 12:06 PM, LAwLz said:

Just some random thoughts I have, which are entirely based on what I have seen in this thread. I have not looked at the review or video.

 

1) If PCPer reused content from their white paper then they should have disclosed that. If they did not disclose it in a clear way then they deserve some shit for it.

2) I don't believe PCPer's review got swayed by the fact that they made a white paper on it. If I could give two shits about SSD benchmarks I would cross reference PCPer's review with other reviews to see if it showed signs of bias but I can't be bothered and will just assume it held the same high standard as their other works.

3) Adored is one of the worst tech-youtubers I can think of. The guy is extremely biased and has built his entire channel based on causing drama between him and other reviewers, and sucking AMD's dick. This is not the first time he accused/implies that reviewers are biased. I legitimately don't know if I should laugh or cry at the people who think he is a valid source of information. He is the Keemstar of the tech world.

4) Adored is throwing rocks in his glass house. He did not even attempt to talk to PCPer before attacking them and siccing his rabid fanboys on them. Wanna talk about ethics? Maybe you should make sure you aren't an unethical fucktard before accusing others.

 

 

What should Adored have done? He should have contacted PCPer in a calm and nice manner, asking them to put in disclaimers in their review. That way the issue could have been corrected without causing a bunch of drama.

I didn't think you have really seen his videos (maybe except one and one).

 

He have talked a lot of shit about AMD too. (GPUs)

 

As good as AdoredTV is, he have taken the video down as he realized his mistake about not contacting PCPer first. It's going to stay private untill he gets a response.

 

I don't think PCPer would do that. Because they have had wrong before (freesync) and even when told they where wrong, continued to stay behind the factually wrong they wrote.

[FratStar]

39 minutes ago, divito said:

This. It'll be interesting to see how their future posts unfold given this new methodology and aspects of their other company.

They have already began using their custom benchmarking suite for new ssds. The article was published back in October of 2017. Prior to that they did the review of the 600p using the old methodology. 

 

All subsequent ssd reviews including the Samsung 860 EVO/PRO vs 850 EVO/PRO use this new testing methodology.

[LucidMew]

I've read about half this thread and had the chance to sleep on watching the video, and I still don't like Adored/Jim's position.

 

The only two things that PCPer did wrong was not update the Freesync article/video saying "hey a firmware was released to address the ghosting problem". They don't even have to have to re-review it (though it would have been great if they did). And they didn't put another sentence saying "We wrote a whitepaper for Intel at Shrout Research which you can read here". The other "problems" are things that aren't ones (480 power management, gsync doubling low frame numbers, etc), or just somebody else fucking up (AMD putting PCPer's affiliate code in the home page).

 

The "new tools" that Adored references, is just PCPer adding new, important, and relevant information to their reviews, just like they are supposed to do. Like the frame rate percentile graphs and latency graphs for single/multi cards. That's relevant, objective, and repeatable information that wasn't there before which is a good thing. 
 

I can't guess at the business deal that happened with Intel and Shrout Research, but Allyn was saying for a long time that SSDs are really tough to benchmark and the results of tests don't reflect the day to day use of them. He was given the time and incentive (either by money or by having access to a product that won't be shown in the best/accurate light without a major revamp of tools). Allyn produced a testsuite that accurately tested the product and gave insight into the product that was reviewed, is that not what they're supposed to do? (sidenote: the whole "it makes SSD testing boring to do" or whatever the exact quote, is there because Xpoint is just so damn fast and consistent, that nothing you can throw at will change the results, it just runs, and runs fast.) All these tools used to test the SSDs carry over to test new SSDs: just take a look at the 900P review and then the 760p review that just came out this week. The same tests are there, with additional ones added. They're improving their test suite and methodology to benefit the reader. (sidenote 2: Allyn has said on the podcast that he's consistently ironing out bugs in his code that he uses to test. I suppose you could complain that he doesn't release the code (afaik he doesn't) but I suppose that can be considered protected information and tools of the trade.)

 

I normally love Adored, but he's made a few blunders lately, and this latest video is a mistake that he's going to look back on and regret.

 

[Vode]

PCper deserves it because they should have disclosed the information in the review. 

 

This is not causing drama IMO. It simply is calling out some stuff that really shouldn‘t be happening in the first place.

 

[Curufinwe_wins]

Don't really see the difference between this and other things. Honestly

 

As a researcher myself, my work has variously been funded by the Coal, Nuclear, Solar industries as well as government sources. Undisclosed conflicts of interest are an issue. Falsifiable claims are an issue. But the money for all of this stuff comes from somewhere, and the worm that Ryan does is sufficiently good that I'm rather pleased he will be doing more intense analysis and research that goes beyond what can be and is expected to be understood by the layperson visiting a review website. 

 

 

Also it looks like the reviews and articles that are dual sources like this are from now on having the following header:

"The following story was originally posted on ShroutResearch.com"

which is perfectly good enough for me.

 

[Rohith_Kumar_Sp]

the video is gone, saw half of it, came back today to see the rest, it's gone.

[ValhallasAshes]

17 hours ago, Enderman said:

And you're suggesting that because they made real money instead of getting a free product that now their reviews are biased to be positive?

 

LTT has made videos before, sponsored (with real money) from companies such as AMD and others, and shown graphs and data made by AMD and others.

 

I don't understand why you think this is something new and surprising from people who do reviews for a living.

Getting the product free for the purposes of a fair unbiased review is not a conflict of interest.  It's common practice due to the expense of the hardware involved.  The expense for a lot of these parts is so high that being forced to have to buy every part would make it impractical for reviewers to make a living.  The occasional part they buy out right is the exception rather than the rule.  Hence why most reviewers are provided review samples.  In a lot of cases, those review samples have to be returned to the manufacturer after the review is published. 

 

The difference your not seeing is there is a big difference between being provided a review sample for review purposes and making a review that is "sponsored" (aka paid for) by the products company.  You will notice, LTT does do sponsored content, but they NEVER do sponsored reviews.  To do so would be unethical and very much a conflict of interest.  That's the difference.  And that's the point Adored was trying to get across.  Intel paid PCPer to make a white paper for the Optane drive.  These white papers by their very design are meant to "paint" the product in question in the best possible light to be used by Intel for marketing purposes.  On it's own, this is fine and commonplace.  Where it becomes a problem is when PCPer then uses that white paper to write a review of that same product.  That's a conflict of interest.  How can you trust that the information in the review is fair and unbiased if the source material in that review comes from a white paper they were paid by Intel to create in the first place.  That's the conflict of interest.  It's unethical and Jim is very much in the right for calling them out for it.

[dalekphalm]

28 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

Don't really see the difference between this and other things. Honestly

 

As a researcher myself, my work has variously been funded by the Coal, Nuclear, Solar industries as well as government sources. Undisclosed conflicts of interest are an issue. Falsifiable claims are an issue. But the money for all of this stuff comes from somewhere, and the worm that Ryan does is sufficiently good that I'm rather pleased he will be doing more intense analysis and research that goes beyond what can be and is expected to be understood by the layperson visiting a review website. 

 

 

Also it looks like the reviews and articles that are dual sources like this are from now on having the following header:

"The following story was originally posted on ShroutResearch.com"

which is perfectly good enough for me.

 

Can you post a screenshot of exactly where you found that text? It appears to still not be inside the review itself, which, IMO is far more important. LOTS of people are going to be reading the review from a direct link, not from browsing the "Reviews" section of the PCPer website. That's likely how most LTT forum users would access it, since in the Tech News Reviews section, the source link would go directly to the article.

[Derangel]

35 minutes ago, ValhallasAshes said:

Getting the product free for the purposes of a fair unbiased review is not a conflict of interest.  It's common practice due to the expense of the hardware involved.  The expense for a lot of these parts is so high that being forced to have to buy every part would make it impractical for reviewers to make a living.  The occasional part they buy out right is the exception rather than the rule.  Hence why most reviewers are provided review samples.  In a lot of cases, those review samples have to be returned to the manufacturer after the review is published. 

 

The difference your not seeing is there is a big difference between being provided a review sample for review purposes and making a review that is "sponsored" (aka paid for) by the products company.  You will notice, LTT does do sponsored content, but they NEVER do sponsored reviews.  To do so would be unethical and very much a conflict of interest.  That's the difference.  And that's the point Adored was trying to get across.  Intel paid PCPer to make a white paper for the Optane drive.  These white papers by their very design are meant to "paint" the product in question in the best possible light to be used by Intel for marketing purposes.  On it's own, this is fine and commonplace.  Where it becomes a problem is when PCPer then uses that white paper to write a review of that same product.  That's a conflict of interest.  How can you trust that the information in the review is fair and unbiased if the source material in that review comes from a white paper they were paid by Intel to create in the first place.  That's the conflict of interest.  It's unethical and Jim is very much in the right for calling them out for it.

Reviving free products in exchange for a review, even if there is no demand of a positive one, is very much a conflict of interest. It would fall under the category of an "unavoidable conflict of interest" as getting those products is practically a recruitment since buying everything is not financially feasible. It should still be disclosed. If a reviewer is told they can keep the product after reviewing it then the product would be considered a gift, a gift that was given in exchange for exposure of the product in the form of a review.

[ValhallasAshes]

13 minutes ago, Derangel said:

Reviving free products in exchange for a review, even if there is no demand of a positive one, is very much a conflict of interest. It would fall under the category of an "unavoidable conflict of interest" as getting those products is practically a recruitment since buying everything is not financially feasible. It should still be disclosed. If a reviewer is told they can keep the product after reviewing it then the product would be considered a gift, a gift that was given in exchange for exposure of the product in the form of a review.

I agree.  It is an unavoidable conflict of interest.  Good catch on that one.  I was looking at that more from a practical point of view rather than a "purely" ethical point of view.  You're right on that one.  To be fair to the reviewers, they do for the most part do a decent enough job of making us "aware" that the samples they are reviewing were provided as opposed to purchased.  Although I have often questioned many reviewers concept/perception of value and bang for buck when they clearly haven't had to put their own hard earned money on the line to acquire said products.  Something I took real issue with when some reviewers were reviewing and comparing the new i9's and Threadripper and then hands down recommending the i9's over the Threadripper.  The reviewers that did that really threw me for a loop because I couldn't understand how they could legitimately recommend the i9's over Threadripper when the value and bang for buck propositions were so widely on opposite ends of the spectrum but their performance differences were very narrow by comparison.  So yeah, I have questioned reviewers recommendations when it comes to "value" many times.  Especially when it's a really expensive item and they're not putting their own money on the line.

[mr moose]

On 1/26/2018 at 6:22 AM, Misanthrope said:

1 and 3: Not arguments as to why this isn't conflict of interest for a journalist.

 

Which was my point to begin with, thanks for spinning the wheels to show, again, how there's actually no argument as to why this is "ok" other than "The end result wasn't bad" and a general failure to comprehend what ethics in the context of journalism mean.

No one said they were arguments against the proposition that it is unethical journalism,  I am merely pointing out they aren't arguments you can use to dismiss other people reasoning.  They are legitimate in their own right. 

On 1/26/2018 at 6:46 AM, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Let's see:

1) Someone creates a thread here, title: "Tornado about to hit New York". Source in OP is a CNN article/video about the tornado.

2) First few replies are "CNN sucks!". Lots of people agree/like said replies.

 

Question: is a tornado about to hit New York or not?

Well,  not that I care about pcper or if this is true, but if no one else is reporting it as happened, there is no observations of said tornado, then sure, it could just be cnn being a sucky news agent that is the problem.

On 1/26/2018 at 7:28 AM, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Exactly. It's not about our feelings with respect to the source; it's about those other questions.

Who said anything about feelings being the driving motivation?  

 

On 1/26/2018 at 3:31 PM, ValhallasAshes said:

I agree.  It is an unavoidable conflict of interest.  Good catch on that one.  I was looking at that more from a practical point of view rather than a "purely" ethical point of view.  You're right on that one.  To be fair to the reviewers, they do for the most part do a decent enough job of making us "aware" that the samples they are reviewing were provided as opposed to purchased.  Although I have often questioned many reviewers concept/perception of value and bang for buck when they clearly haven't had to put their own hard earned money on the line to acquire said products.  Something I took real issue with when some reviewers were reviewing and comparing the new i9's and Threadripper and then hands down recommending the i9's over the Threadripper.  The reviewers that did that really threw me for a loop because I couldn't understand how they could legitimately recommend the i9's over Threadripper when the value and bang for buck propositions were so widely on opposite ends of the spectrum but their performance differences were very narrow by comparison.  So yeah, I have questioned reviewers recommendations when it comes to "value" many times.  Especially when it's a really expensive item and they're not putting their own money on the line.

Most reviewers use the msrp or average actual sale price at time of report  to work out bang for buck.  Also it has been common practice for decades for companies to give reviewers free samples.  It does little more than garruntee a review,  people can spot bs after a while in reviews so its not worth it for serious reviewers to dodge the figures. 

 

On 1/26/2018 at 7:24 AM, Notional said:

The problem with opinions is that they are rarely based on empirics or facts. And popular opinion has never been a good guide for what is factual.

Does this include your opinion, or do you think your opinion is the only right one in all this?  

[Notional]

Just now, mr moose said:

Does this include your opinion, or do you think your opinion is the only right one in all this?  

 

If it's an opinion, then yes. If it's factual, then it's not an opinion.

[mr moose]

Just now, Notional said:

If it's an opinion, then yes. If it's factual, then it's not an opinion.

So on what grounds are you deciding all these "likes" are just misguiged opinion and not a reaction to facts conerning the source?   

 

The reality is so far that there is no hard evidence to support either proposition, so it's all opinion right now. 

[Mahoney]

Posted this to his patreon's

 

[Nisco3000]

Ugh, i wish i watched the  video yesterday when it was in my waiting list.
 

[kainhall]

i dont get how people can say "jim is just trying to cause drama....he should have gone to PC per before making video"

while also not saying the same thing about the 480 power draw thing......

why didnt PC per go to AMD first?
before making an article that got re-distributed to EVERYONE......from linus to toms to even addored TV

could it be said that PC per was looking for likes by trash talking the 480?

and....you MUST DISCLOSE YOUR SHIT
it might not have been a thing 20 fucking years ago.....BUT IT IS NOW

and that doesnt make the shit that went down 20 years ago any better......

you really want all the scummy shit to be fixed under the table?
how would we know who to trust?

someone comes out and says "hey, this is fishy its bad for consumers"
and half of you say "oh, thats bad.....if im going to be fucked....i dont want to know im being fucked"

ignorance is bliss, right?

[PopReference]

31 minutes ago, Mahoney said:

Posted this to his patreon's

 

My on taking it down is he shouldn't have and had no need.

The video was mostly an opinion piece based on publicly available information, no revelations, personal info digging, or third party allegations so no real need to contacting for a response.

As far as I've heard some journalists would leave a message on some answering machine then write "we reached out for response but have yet to receive a response" and post it 10 minutes later, so not exactly the pillar of all ethics. 

[kainhall]

^^^^^^
exactly...... why would he even need to contact PC per?

"someone burned my house down and shot my dog.....but i better go talk to that guy before calling the cops"

good way to get shot yourself.....

[Misanthrope]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

No one said they were arguments against the proposition that it is unethical journalism,  I am merely pointing out they aren't arguments you can use to dismiss other people reasoning.  They are legitimate in their own right.

That doesn't makes any sense at all: I gave plenty of reasoning citing journalistic guidelines even.

 

What bothers you is that I refuse to debate nonsense side arguments distracting from the main issue here: Unethical Journalism is the central argument and premise. So if you disagree, you can state why you disagree with the premise of ethical journalism overall and we can continue.

 

Otherwise as I said, I am not interested in comparisons and other distractions from the main point whenever is "others do it" or "the end result wasn't bad" or "the accuser is wrong just because of who he is regardless of his argument" or whatever variant or combination of said arguments. I am more than sure others are very interested in discussing those points.

[LAwLz]

3 hours ago, Mihle said:

He have talked a lot of shit about AMD too. (GPUs)

Oh sorry, I forgot that he made one or two videos where he said some slightly negative things about AMD GPUs. You know, that video he made between ranting about how Nvidia are ruining the entire industry and how all other reviewers except him don't understand how to benchmark the glorious AMD GPUs. Clearly only he with his extreme cherry picking skills knows how to present "real" evidence of how good AMD are.

 

You can be an extremely biased fanboy and still say some negative things about the company you deep-throat on a regular basis.

 

 

58 minutes ago, Mahoney said:

Posted this to his patreon's

 

Credit where credit is due. Adored made the right thing in taking the video down for now. Sadly, the damage might already be done.

I also think it's weird/scummy that he only posted it to his patrons. He should have put up a video on his channel so that everyone could see it.

[lagittaja]

 

37 minutes ago, Nisco3000 said:

Ugh, i wish i watched the  video yesterday when it was in my waiting list.
 

 

2 hours ago, Rohith_Kumar_Sp said:

the video is gone, saw half of it, came back today to see the rest, it's gone.

 

It's been re uploaded to YT at least a couple of times already. Do a search for "A Flawed PC Perspective" and sort by upload date.

[mr moose]

20 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

That doesn't makes any sense at all: I gave plenty of reasoning citing journalistic guidelines even.

 

That you've interpreted and formed your opinion on.

 

Quote

 

What bothers you is that I refuse to debate nonsense side arguments distracting from the main issue here: Unethical Journalism is the central argument and premise. So if you disagree, you can state why you disagree with the premise of ethical journalism overall and we can continue.

There is nothing to debate but the nonsense side arguments, because so far all we have is one person having a jab at another person. And if they are right or wrong is personal opinion.  Some people think pcper did nothing wrong and others think they did. 

 

Quote

Otherwise as I said, I am not interested in comparisons and other distractions from the main point whenever is "others do it" or "the end result wasn't bad" or "the accuser is wrong just because of who he is regardless of his argument" or whatever variant or combination of said arguments. I am more than sure others are very interested in discussing those points.

I'm only pointing out that everyone's conclusion is based on personal observation and interpretation,  you can no more say someone is wrong to dismiss it because their experience of adroredtv, than they can say your opinion is wrong because you don't understand the basics of journalistic ethics.

 

For me personally my experience of ryan and pcper is that they are far better and more ethical than adored.    But if you like him and or think pcper did something wrong, then that is fine.  You are more than welcome to hold such a view. 

 

 

 

 

[kainhall]

3 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Oh sorry, I forgot that he made one or two videos where he said some slightly negative things about AMD GPUs. You know, that video he made between ranting about how Nvidia are ruining the entire industry and how all other reviewers except him don't understand how to benchmark the glorious AMD GPUs. Clearly only he with his extreme cherry picking skills knows how to present "real" evidence of how good AMD are.

 

You can be an extremely biased fanboy and still say some negative things about the company you deep-throat on a regular basis.

did ya miss that post on the 2nd page?

adored TV's amd critical videos.....
 

Fallout: New Vega:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuchUscHWSw

 

Vega Clarification - How bad is it?:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4BUb6wSSXk

 

Innovation vs Rebranding:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPUTa8_L8L0

 

Volta and Vega - AMD Has a Mountain to Climb:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drbk91rZijI

 

Poor Vega:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iaUjU-2Jmc

 

Something Wrong At Radeon:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AavuWT17X48

 

The GPU war is over:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uN7i1bViOkU

and pointing out that nvidia game works fucks over people who dont buy nvidia gpus
or that adaptive refresh is part of the HDMI spec...
or removing 1gig of ram from titan to make the 1080ti, at a FAR lower price, fucking over people who got a titan (back then, nvidia didnt say you could not use GTX cards as titan/firepro? (i think thats amds....idk what nvidia calls theirs)

ya, i dont think thats biased.....especially because other people have said the same things

i know ive seen more than one channel basically repeat what ADTV says......and im only subbed to ADTV, linus, and jayZ (at least from the top of the head)