How nVidia blacklists review sites: example Hardware Secrets

[Seero]

Of course methodologies will differ and that is why we are offered different options and alternatives. Because one reviewer doesn't use a methodology of another all of a sudden they aren't reputable or "bias?" They just posted a new thread here about an article that uses a different methodology versus AT's - are they now less reputable or bias?

You claimed he assumed his conclusion which was misleading and ignoring the fact it was based on his test. If you don't like his review style that is your opinion and weighs as much as his opinion on the card.

The HS article was good in my opinion because as you said - "the bottom line is those tests should be done on areas that the card was designed to do." He reviewed an OC'ed card with a custom cooler. He checked its OC capabilities and its cooling functions. He rated them and then concluded based on price it wasn't worth.

Again, where is AT's comparison of Eyefinity on those custom/OC'ed cards because it seems this generation Eyefinity is ATI's whip cream as CUDA/PhysX is nVidia's. So, AT's article must also be invalidated.

I have my opinions, and you have yours. They may not be the same, but that is what makes us unique. I am not saying that my opinion is right, but I simply asking on your opinions on "which reviewer will you pick" which you didn't answer. The scope of the debate here really isn't about our opinions, but why HS got blacklisted. Many poster claimed Nvidia was simply putting those reviewers who doesn't say good things about them into the blacklist, which is a biased rumor. What is funny about this is people in this forum are using the HS incident as a supporting fact to Nvidia's bad PR practice, which is another biased rumor.

NoQuarter posted a picture hinting that Nvidia dictates how reviews must be done, which is a prove that I am not making this up. And now HS came up and said that it is all a "mis-understanding".

If you have read my post, you should have picked up that I said the article is just the trigger of the ban. What really got HS banned is its replies to Nvidia.

I replied saying that we weren’t going to talk about these subjects because we thought they were not relevant to the average user, and we usually don’t re-write reviews.

Interestingly, Hardware Secret start out claiming that Nvidia blacklisted them, then added the update declaring that Nvidia don't blacklist media. So either they didn't know what they are talking about before, or after. However, SlowSpyder post the following in another thread
At June 3, 1:22pm

Interesting read. I wonder if they'll be 'blacklisted'.

As you can see Hardware Secret damaged the Publicity of Nvidia and it is irreversible. Is this a good reason for removing them from being in the invite list of the latest and greatest technology that Nvidia can offer in the future?

Lets look at this in another point of view. in HS article Stated that

This time we have NVIDIA blacklisting us... So apparently NVIDIA’s philosophy is “is you don’t say what we want you to say, we won’t support you anymore”.

Yet the update stated that it is they didn't get blacklisted. In fact,

Updated 06/02/2010: Once again, NVIDIA says they don't blacklist media. The above paragraph was written on the assumption that we were being blacklisted.

So did Hardware Secret basically wrote all those based on their false assumption? And yet the article itself is not bias before?

Again, my opinion is unimportant, I guess you will agree. What I tried to say is there lots of valid points on things other believes to be a "foul play."

 

[railven]

I have my opinions, and you have yours. They may not be the same, but that is what makes us unique. I am not saying that my opinion is right, but I simply asking on your opinions on "which reviewer will you pick" which you didn't answer. The scope of the debate here really isn't about our opinions, but why HS got blacklisted. Many poster claimed Nvidia was simply putting those reviewers who doesn't say good things about them into the blacklist, which is a biased rumor. What is funny about this is people in this forum are using the HS incident as a supporting fact to Nvidia's bad PR practice, which is another biased rumor.

NoQuarter posted a picture hinting that Nvidia dictates how reviews must be done, which is a prove that I am not making this up. And now HS came up and said that it is all a "mis-understanding".

If you have read my post, you should have picked up that I said the article is just the trigger of the ban. What really got HS banned is its replies to Nvidia.

The only reason I posted what I did was because I interpreted some posts here stating reviews should be free of self opinions, or else they will be biased. I come to AT because I like the author’s opinions on the products they are reviewing.

To answer your question real quick I'd invite AT because I prefer their methodology over HS's. But, with that in mind I wouldn't down rate HS's article as poor. I've seen poor, bias reviews if you would and his review seemed very objective and precise to what the product he was reviewing was intended to do. I'd have liked that he linked to his vanilla GTX 260 article, but oh well.

With some of the sites I frequent (AT and HardOCP) both mentioning this "rumored ban" and how it may have affected them, I don't think it is much of a rumor but actual PR. As you said, companies cherry pick, and they will cherry pick and it is their right to cherry pick. But the counter argument of "AT didn't give a glowing review, where is their ban?" the issue with the GTS 250 quickly comes to mind. How AT was coincidentally ignored from the launch until Charlie's article, which led to nVidia contacting AT, and AT giving Charlie a shout out.

Sometimes things just aren't coincident.

 

[Seero]

The only reason I posted what I did was because I interpreted some posts here stating reviews should be free of self opinions, or else they will be biased. I come to AT because I like the author’s opinions on the products they are reviewing.

To answer your question real quick I'd invite AT because I prefer their methodology over HS's. But, with that in mind I wouldn't down rate HS's article as poor. I've seen poor, bias reviews if you would and his review seemed very objective and precise to what the product he was reviewing was intended to do. I'd have liked that he linked to his vanilla GTX 260 article, but oh well.

With some of the sites I frequent (AT and HardOCP) both mentioning this "rumored ban" and how it may have affected them, I don't think it is much of a rumor but actual PR. As you said, companies cherry pick, and they will cherry pick and it is their right to cherry pick. But the counter argument of "AT didn't give a glowing review, where is their ban?" the issue with the GTS 250 quickly comes to mind. How AT was coincidentally ignored from the launch until Charlie's article, which led to nVidia contacting AT, and AT giving Charlie a shout out.

Sometimes things just aren't coincident.

First, I didn't say a review should be free of self opinions, I said opinions should come from data instead of wild guesses. For example, a review can concluded that product A is much better than product B because statistic/data showed a 2% difference while, as a reader, my opinion is "blah, they are same." However, without the data present, readers can't do that.

Another thing is Charlie. I won't give any credit about anything he said as he only say bad things about Nvidia. In my words, he is a bias Nvidia hater. For some strange reasons there exist people claim and/or believe that his words has weight on Nvidia. Well, technically speaking, they are rumors on top of biased opinions IMO. Again, that is my opinions.

Of course we can start talking about Charlie for the next 102 pages as if he is either a father, brother or son of us, but that isn't the scope of this topic. What I do want to comment upon is that I don't think his words will be concidered by Nvidia when it comes to cherry picking.

Please forgive my English as you actually have my respect. It just that my words may not show it.