From: barrett@math.uh.edu
Subject: ADMIN: What to do with vendor comments?
Followup-To: comp.sys.amiga.misc
Reply-To: amiga-reviews@math.uh.edu
Organization: The Amiga Online Review Column - ed. Daniel Barrett
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:51:12 GMT


	Sometimes after a review is posted, the product's author or company
(hereafter called the "vendor") writes to me with comments about the
review.  My question is:  what do you think I should do with these
comments?  Remember, even though it is moderated, c.s.a.reviews is here as a
service for YOU.  My goal is to get the most and best information into your
hands so you can make valid judgements about the products that are reviewed.

	In my opinion, there are 3 kinds of comments I might receive from
vendors:

(1)	Factual corrections

	These include corrections in address, telephone number, list price,
	reports of bug fixes completed or in progress, and other matters
	that the vendor would know best.

(2)	Statements about the product's operation

	The review author says the product does something, but the vendor
	says otherwise.  Essentially, these are statements of fact that I,
	as moderator, cannot verify.  

(3)	Opinions and vaporware

	These include advertisements, product "hype", announcements of
	products and services that are not yet on the market, and
	disagreement with the review author's opinions.

	Here is my current policy on these three kinds of vendor comments.
If you disagree with it, or have a better one, please let me know.  I am
open to suggestions.

	If the comments fall into category (1), factual corrections, I post
them in c.s.a.reviews and insert them into the archived copy of the review
on math.uh.edu.

	If the comments fall into category (2), statements about product
operation, AND they are well-organized and non-commercial in nature, I also
post them in c.s.a.reviews and insert them into the archived copy of the
review.  All category (2) comments are CLEARLY MARKED that they were not
part of the original review and came from the vendor.

	If the comments fall into category (3), I do not post them in
c.s.a.reviews, nor insert them into the archived review.  Essentially, I do
nothing with them.  The vendor is free to respond to the review by posting a
followup article in the newsgroup given in the review's "Followup-To" line.

	Here are my top priorities in dealing with vendor comments, and
the reasons that I made my above policy.

o	There should be no false information or errors in reviews.  If a
	vendor makes an indisputable, factual correction to a review, it is
	my duty to see that the correction is made available, and the
	incorrect information deleted or annotated.

o	I will NOT modify the review author's statements about a product in
	response to information from the vendor.  The most I will do is
	insert the vendor's information into the review, as I described
	above, clearly marked as not part of the original review.

o	c.s.a.reviews will not be a battleground between reviewer and vendor.
	I can envision a prolonged discussion between reviewer and vendor,
	repeatedly correcting each other.

I welcome your comments by e-mail or by posting.  Followups are directed
to c.s.a.misc.

---

   Daniel Barrett, Moderator, comp.sys.amiga.reviews
   Send reviews to:	amiga-reviews-submissions@math.uh.edu
   Request information:	amiga-reviews-requests@math.uh.edu
   General discussion:	amiga-reviews@math.uh.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.reviews