# We can't discuss reviews?



## Guest (Dec 18, 2007)

In the Review forum
http://guitarscanada.com/Board/forumdisplay.php?f=49

That seems like a really silly policy. What if you have a question about the product reviewed?


----------



## Michelle (Aug 21, 2006)

If it's the snapjack cable you're wondering about Clinton, then just discuss it here.

BTW; I decided since I can't leave a plug in an active bass, I traded the cable to Washburned for a P90. :smile: So maybe he can chime in if that is what you are wishing to discuss.


----------



## Guest (Dec 18, 2007)

"then just discuss it here"

That misses the whole point....


----------



## Michelle (Aug 21, 2006)

Yeah, I missed the point, just trying to be helpful.


----------



## Guest (Dec 18, 2007)

I saw that you were, but discussion any of the reviews here is missing the point, is what I meant.

It'd turn this place into a mess (Stop it! LOL) of reviews and discussion, scattered all over the place.... Better to have them all in one place isn't it?
,-)


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

All in favour say aye.

AYE!

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## greco (Jul 15, 2007)

Mooh said:


> All in favour say aye.
> 
> AYE!
> 
> Peace, Mooh.


AYE....#2

Dave


----------



## LowWatt (Jun 27, 2007)

Aye aye aye!!!!!!!


----------



## Guest (Dec 18, 2007)

"there's much more knowledge to be gained about something by _discussing_ it then in having someone I don't know simply post a "review" with no opportunity for the input of others"

My thinking exactly


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

How about PM'ing the member who wrote the review with your questions or writing your own review of a product if you disagree with one, Clifton?


----------



## Guest (Dec 18, 2007)

jroberts said:


> Personally, I never look at the "reviews" section. In my opinion, there's much more knowledge to be gained about something by _discussing_ it then in having someone I don't know simply post a "review" with no opportunity for the input of others.


Could it be a liability issue? If it's a discussion on a forum the forum owner is not responsible for the content provided by the contributors. But if it's a written review would the forum owner be liable for any misstatements in the review? It could be viewed, not as discussion content, but as static content endorsed by the forum owner. IANAL so I don't know exactly how it would all play it out but it seems to me "official review sections" are a CYA type move.


----------



## Guest (Dec 18, 2007)

"Could it be a liability issue?"
Only if there's something about a product that the suppliers/etc don't WANT you to discuss.... In other words, a down side to their product that they would 'prefer' to have down-played....

To them I say "NUTS TO YOU!"

If we are to be a 'community' that means we help look out for each other, doesn't it? In that respect, reviews of a cautionary nature are very beneficial, way more so than a "Doods... This thing ROX!" review. (Not that I've seen any of those.)

I just don't see the point of a review without the option of open, public discussion.

It would appear that the admin/mods have a different take on things, and I for one, am curious what that take is and why..... 

"IANAL"??
Isn't that Apples gonzo porn-star?


----------



## fraser (Feb 24, 2007)

wouldnt it be the same if i simply posted in the appropriate section after i purchased a product to tell everyone its a dog- would that be the same type of liability issue? im not a lawyer either, but yeah, it seems like itd be valuable to be able to discuss these things. a pm would accomplish an initial query, but it wouldnt be of any value to the rest of the community. nor would it promote posting or discussion. and if something has a downside, then surely thats something we'd want to share. there must be a reason why its done this way though


----------



## danbo (Nov 27, 2006)

a review IS one person's opinion. 
anymore than one person is forum.

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## Guest (Dec 18, 2007)

I don't think I understand what your point is, Danbo.....

"would that be the same type of liability issue?"
I don't see where there would be any kind of liability.... For instance, my 'review' of, say, Intellitouch Tuners would basically read, "They suck... Go buy a Sabine Stick On Tuner" only in a LOT more words. Where's the liability, to me or to the forum??? As I think Danbo was getting at above (Correct me if I'm wrong) any review is just one knobs opinion right? (Not that all opinions are equally valid) But aren't opinions more valuable if we can at least discuss them?

We're (Apparently) more than welcome to discuss same here (Look at any of the contentious threads of late for examples) but my question has more to do with organization.... Why can't we discuss reviews IN the review forum? Isn't it cluttering up the place unnecessarily if we have to start new threads in the appropriate sub-forums and cross link back and forth????

I will be interested to hear what admin/mods have to say.
;-)


----------



## danbo (Nov 27, 2006)

most of the "knobs" that bothered to make out a review where done with heart-felt sincerity. Your mileage may vary... :sport-smiley-002: :banana: :food-smiley-004:


----------



## Guest (Dec 18, 2007)

"where done"

????

Again, I don't understand your point Danbo....


----------



## ne1roc (Mar 4, 2006)

I think Clinton makes a very good point. Why not keep the discussion of a review topic in the review thread? Its keeps the information all in one location and helps prevent someone from asking the same question over again.


----------



## traynor_garnet (Feb 22, 2006)

ne1roc said:


> I think Clinton makes a very good point. Why not keep the discussion of a review topic in the review thread? Its keeps the information all in one location and helps prevent someone from asking the same question over again.



Yep! I posted a review awhile back and didn't like the review section's limitations and structure. So . . . I just posted it in the "pedals'" section. It got me around the limitations of the review section but it can also eventually lead to a messy, unorganized form.

TG


----------



## Guest (Dec 18, 2007)

ClintonHammond said:


> "Could it be a liability issue?"
> Only if there's something about a product that the suppliers/etc don't WANT you to discuss.... In other words, a down side to their product that they would 'prefer' to have down-played....


Well not exactly. What if I reviewed a pedal that was clearly a chorus pedal and in my review I said, "This is the worst distortion pedal I've ever played". That's a false statement. If the site owner promotes that review he's endorsing a false statement and could be held liable. Whereas if it's just part of a discussion thread he's not liable because it's not a statement he has endorsed. He's simply provided the forum for expressing the statement. The person making the statement has sole liability here.

It's a fine line but I think it's there.



> "IANAL"??
> Isn't that Apples gonzo porn-star?


:smile:


----------



## Guest (Dec 18, 2007)

fraser said:


> wouldnt it be the same if i simply posted in the appropriate section after i purchased a product to tell everyone its a dog- would that be the same type of liability issue? im not a lawyer either, but yeah, it seems like itd be valuable to be able to discuss these things. a pm would accomplish an initial query, but it wouldnt be of any value to the rest of the community. nor would it promote posting or discussion. and if something has a downside, then surely thats something we'd want to share. there must be a reason why its done this way though


Except in that case the poster is liable, whereas if it's endorsed as a review by the site owner, the site owner probably shares liability.

In the case of the review section the site owner is openly requesting reviews. Which means he's looking for site content and the onus is on him to make sure the facts are straight. If someone just posts a review, without the prompting of the owner, in the open discussion section that's the difference.


----------



## Guest (Dec 18, 2007)

"What if I reviewed a pedal that was clearly a chorus pedal and in my review I said, "This is the worst distortion pedal I've ever played"

Well, -IF- you did that, who do you think would take your review very seriously? I won't speak for anyone else, but I'd dismiss your whole review as a lump of skite.

That's not "libel"... that's just "idiot"! LOL 

"the onus is on him to make sure the facts are straight"
So that's the reason for guidelines, and original posts having to be approved, but why aught that apply to subsequent posts on the same topic? Do you think it really makes that big a difference if I say "Seagull Guitars Suck" in the *Gear Reviews *forum, or in the *Acoustic Guitar* forum, or in the *The Open Mic *forum???


----------



## Beatles (Feb 7, 2006)

Possibly a disclaimer at the begining of the forum stating something to the effect that the opinions expressed are not those of the mods and are intended for information purposes only. The views and opinions expressed are not those of GC. Or something like that.


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

How the forum function is up to our Admin (GuitarsCanada).

As for liablity, it's a real issue, we have already had a vendor threatening us over comments made by a member. _The_ _Gear Page_ has had even worst issues with manufacturers and vendors. The last thing a non profit forum needs is lawyer fees, doesn't matter if we are actually liable for our members or not.


----------



## Luke98 (Mar 4, 2007)

I think it's fine. If you have a problem with a product, write your own review. Don't just call it a piece of Sh*t, reviews can go either way, and shouldn't be biased because of the vendors. I understand what Jeff says, and I hope that doesn't mean you can't write a review about a product you feel is terrible.


----------



## Guest (Dec 18, 2007)

"we have already had a vendor threatening us over comments made by a member"
That's an idle threat if I ever heard one. Like cats, they'll puff up and try to SEEM big in hopes of scaring smaller beasties.... but at the end of the day, they're mostly just fur and stink.

"_The_ _Gear Page_ has had even worst issues with manufacturers and vendors."
The Gear Page is probably its own worst enemy.

"The views and opinions expressed are not those of GC."
I see your point, but I also figured that was implied by it's very nature.... it's a public forum where any member can post whatever they wish to so long as they don't violate the Forum Rules.... (*See Below) Then again, we live in a world that needs TV commercials to have disclaimers.... (It's a whole different subject, but I always wanted to make a commercial showing some people doing a truly outlandish, unrealistic thing like I donno.... driving their car down the side of a 40 story building and have the disclaimer read something like "Are you FKN stupid or something???". It's probably a good thing -I- don't run the world eh....)

* A note about the Forum Rules.... take a read... the key word is DEFAMITORY And key there is "False Claim" that may harm a reputation..... FALSE.... So it's all in the wording.... I can say, "My experience has been that I have had to repair way more Yorkville Cables than Planet Wave cables over the course of my music career." if it's the truth (substantiating that 'truth' then becomes the issue) but I guess one cannot say "Yorkville cables suck, especially next to Planet Waves!".... Which really, seems to be the whole TONE of the internet. I find it very difficult to believe that anyone would bother sifting through that signal-to-noise ratio... 


So I wonder if maybe we can get "GuitarsCanada" in here to comment on this situation? Would that be possible? Shine a little light on the subject? (Fully acknowledging that "Because I said so!" is a possible, though disappointing, answer)

2nd note... we already HAVE a disclaimer in the forum rules.... "All messages express the views of the author, and neither the owners of GuitarsCanada.com - The Canadian Guitar Forum, nor Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (developers of vBulletin) will be held responsible for the content of any message". That's as far as any 'vendor' complaint ever need go.


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

ClintonHammond said:


> "we have already had a vendor threatening us over comments made by a member"
> That's an idle threat if I ever heard one. Like cats, they'll puff up and try to SEEM big in hopes of scaring smaller beasties.... but at the end of the day, they're mostly just fur and stink.
> 
> "_The_ _Gear Page_ has had even worst issues with manufacturers and vendors."
> The Gear Page is probably its own worst enemy.


Yes in that case it was idle thread, but that said, it's something that Scott has to worry about. If it ever went further it might very well mean the end of the forum. That said in the time being proceed as normal.

The size of the gear page brings out the worst in vendors/manufacturers. A bad review there could actually make or break the product.


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

jroberts said:


> Was the "review" section set up out of liability concerns, then? If so, I'm not sure I understand the reasoning, unless people are also prohibited from commenting on products outside of formal submitted and vetted "reviews". And if _that_ policy is enacted and enforced, I think traffic would almost completely dry up.


No it wasn't. Scott will have to answer your questions, I had little to do with it.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

I set it that way. The thinking was to allow people to submit a review and not have it challenged or debated, which is almost certain to happen. But I can change that if popular opinion sways it. Your thoughts on my reasoning?


----------



## danbo (Nov 27, 2006)

Your website ..your rules! :food-smiley-004:


----------



## danbo (Nov 27, 2006)

Let Clinton Hammond build his own site so we can go there & whine! sdsre


----------



## Guest (Dec 18, 2007)

"The thinking was to allow people to submit a review and not have it challenged or debated"
Is there a point to a review that can't be challenged or debated? Seems like I'm not the only one here who thinks not.... We have rules about how challenges and debates are to be handled (which some don't seem to be able to follow, even in this thread).... Is there a reason those rules cannot equally apply to Review threads?

Allowing Reviews to grow into discussions, it seems to me, would only serve to validate and support the quality of those reviews. 

In the end the best review in the world is to be successful, while acknowledging that nothing appeals to everyone universally.

"A bad review there could actually make or break the product."
Given that the majority of people in the world don't even have access to the internet, I find that very hard to even consider as fact....

"If people were allowed to comment and discuss, though, I would read it. I find that much more useful information comes out that way."
HEY! Get outa my head!! LOL


----------



## danbo (Nov 27, 2006)

most people can't agree if there's a God or not..
we all have our own opinions & usually only truly learn from experience.
I don't like Fender guitars but I luv Gibson's. 
Who actually cares what you or I prefer?
I made a review about the Fender G-Dec amp I bought & love it even more today. You might not like it yourself..but why rain on my parade?
That's why we are supposed to allow everyone to have their say..without critisism....... :zzz: :rockon:

I LOVE this website & thank the kind owners for it..Merry Christmas to All!! :smilie_flagge17:


----------



## Guest (Dec 18, 2007)

ClintonHammond said:


> "we have already had a vendor threatening us over comments made by a member"
> That's an idle threat if I ever heard one. Like cats, they'll puff up and try to SEEM big in hopes of scaring smaller beasties.... but at the end of the day, they're mostly just fur and stink.


Unfortunately the cost of discovering the threat is really benign or not is the price of a lawyer. For a free forum that's probably not viable.


----------



## ne1roc (Mar 4, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> I set it that way. The thinking was to allow people to submit a review and not have it challenged or debated, which is almost certain to happen. But I can change that if popular opinion sways it. Your thoughts on my reasoning?


 This reasoning makes sense to me. I don't think a review should be challenged or debated but asking questions to bring out more info on the product can be very useful. 

Would it be a lot of work for moderators to edit out any posts that start to challenge the original poster but leave in the valid questions and answers?


----------



## Guest (Dec 18, 2007)

"Who actually cares what you or I prefer?"
If you don't care, then why post or even read this forum?

Others, one can plainly see from even just this one thread, are interested in open, frank discussion, complete with all the possibility of criticism and such.... 

It's a discussion forum. What's the point if there's no discussion.

And since when did criticism become a bad thing?

"I don't think a review should be challenged or debated"
If I may, why not?


----------



## traynor_garnet (Feb 22, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> I set it that way. The thinking was to allow people to submit a review and not have it challenged or debated, which is almost certain to happen. But I can change that if popular opinion sways it. Your thoughts on my reasoning?


One of the greatest characteristics of the web is that it is NOT a static medium; it fosters interaction and debate by its very nature. This is (usually) a good thing though of course it has its downfalls (anybody can get on here and spout on about any topic, regardless of how uninformed they truly are).

When you read a review in a paper (a movie review for example) your assessment of the review is contingent upon your prior knowledge of the writer (past reviews, similarity in tastes etc). Since you and others cannot respond directly, you need this background info to make an informed judgement. You must also have some faith that the publication doesnt' just let any old blow hard write in their paper or magazine.

On the web, however, we have no idea who people are and there is no institution to screen out or legitimate reviewers. As jroberts notes, reading a review by someone you know nothing about is not very informative. You simply don't know if they have similar tastes, play similar music, have been playing for 40 years or 40 minutes, etc etc. Over time you can get a feel for certain reviewers but this understanding is itself fostered by debate and opinions by other reviewers/users. This is why we are called a "community" [insert long sociology lecture here about the social nature of judgement, taste, and knowledge; yep, it's a group/collective construction!].

I have read negative reviews that, knowing something about the reviewer, have actually lead me to buy the product (and vice versa). Kind of like if Roger Ebert likes a movie there is a good chance I won't! :banana:

Anyway, in my long winded way, I say open up the reviews section but retain some mandatory information fields (how long you have been playing, tastes and style, how long you have owned the product, other gear etc). This way, we get the best of both worlds: a grounding for the reviewer him/herself, and group debate and discussion.


TG


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Some very good points made here. I think that opening it up to responses makes sense, provided we don't have to be in there as referee. I will make those changes now, just takes a few minutes.


----------



## ne1roc (Mar 4, 2006)

ClintonHammond said:


> "I don't think a review should be challenged or debated"
> If I may, why not?


The purpose of a review is to educate the reader/potential buyer, about the reviewers *personal* experience with a product. We all have different wants and needs which can lead to disagreements with the reviewers comments. These disagreements lead to unnecessary debates that serves no purpose to the intent of the review. 

For example, if a guy gives a good review on a modeler and claims it to sound better then his Marshall stack, challenging his comments does nothing for the other reader who is interested in the same modeler?

The fact that you asked this question leads me to believe the Guitars Canada is correct in his thinking.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

ne1roc said:


> The purpose of a review is to educate the reader/potential buyer, about the reviewers *personal* experience with a product. We all have different wants and needs which can lead to disagreements with the reviewers comments. These disagreements lead to unnecessary debates that serves no purpose to the intent of the review.
> 
> For example, if a guy gives a good review on a modeler and claims it to sound better then his Marshall stack, challenging his comments does nothing for the other reader who is interested in the same modeler?
> 
> The fact that you asked this question leads me to believe the Guitars Canada is correct in his thinking.


Precisely why I had originally not allowed posts. It's open now so I hope we can all let the reviewers share their thoughts. Questions may be welcome, but challenges should be kept out.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

jroberts said:


> I absolutely do _not_ get this.
> 
> To give you a simplistic example, if I make a post in the "Guitars" section that positively "reviews" (i.e. describes and favourably comments on) a new guitar I bought and someone replies "I tried one and really don't like the baseball-bat necks on them", to which I respond "I actualy love that thick neck", is this a bad thing? Is that "unneccessary debate" that "serves no purpose"? Or has it elicited useful information that was not otherwsie included in the original post? Isn't that simply a discussion? Isn't that what a discussion forum is for?
> 
> If someone responds with "You're an a$$hole. Screw you for liking that thick neck!", that's a different issue. Does anyone do that here, though? If someone does it, isn't the issue with the poster and not the fact that discussion is allowed?


Your first example I think is no issue. Someone could simply reply to a review and say that they also tried it and it was not for them. Discussion is always good, it's why we are here in the first place. To read and learn and help others along the way. I think if we all keep to our original charter (no bashing or attacking) things can work out. I think I have said this a few times before... "everyone here is entitled to an opinion".


----------



## Guest (Dec 18, 2007)

"We all have different wants and needs which can lead to disagreements with the reviewers comments. These disagreements lead to unnecessary debates that serves no purpose to the intent of the review."

See, I don't for a second believe that disagreements are a bad thing, or that it's a negative if after a 'review' a conversation breaks out that perhaps drifts a little away from the OP.... 

"challenges should be kept out"
So what's to stop someone posting a negative review of something that someone else has already posted a positive review of? Let's not degrade to the "If you can't say anything nice" bullflop.... I suggest that really, such can only be made one a post-by-post basis.

Just because I had a great experience with my Yamaha SLG100S doesn't mean that everyone else did. Should one side get to talk about their experiences, but not the other?

Don't we want to encourage openness and diversity?


----------



## Guest (Dec 18, 2007)

Fear not, my young padawan.....

Feel the power.... You know you want to....

,-)


----------



## ne1roc (Mar 4, 2006)

jroberts said:


> I absolutely do _not_ get this.
> 
> To give you a simplistic example, if I make a post in the "Guitars" section that positively "reviews" (i.e. describes and favourably comments on) a new guitar I bought and someone replies "I tried one and really don't like the baseball-bat necks on them", to which I respond "I actualy love that thick neck", is this a bad thing? Is that "unneccessary debate" that "serves no purpose"? Or has it elicited useful information that was not otherwsie included in the original post? Isn't that simply a discussion? Isn't that what a discussion forum is for?


It absolutely is an unneccesary comment! You learned from the review that the guitar has a baseball bat size neck. Now maybe you are interested in this guitar and should consider trying one out. What kind of useful information on the product does your comment provide the readers?


----------



## Guest (Dec 19, 2007)

If I may be so bold... "I love it" and "I don't like it" are exactly the sort of reviews that I'd like to hope the forum is trying to avoid.


In order for a review to be of use, it must contain way more information about WHY the reviewer likes or dislikes something.

The same aughta go for any subsequent posts on the subject.

"Doodz! This Sooo FN Rox!" has got to be something we all try to avoid and discourage.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Oddly enough, I notice nobody has actually posted anything in the review forum since I opened it up yesterday.


----------



## Guest (Dec 19, 2007)

Patience, grasshopper....

,-)


----------

