![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
nvidia's "Community Outreach" targets Forums
- Thread starter fallguy
- Start date
xX_Jack_Carver_Xx
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 2,542
Well, at least ONE good thing has come of this.... Kyle is now ATI biased, at least for the day, this alone was worth it 
They are 'biased' against using a benchmark tool which is not indicative of real world performance. the 3Dmark 'score" means absolutely nothing except in relation to other 3dmark 'scores', and then, only of similar setups. It is not a valid comparison tool of performance on any level.Scali said:
Thats not biased. Thats throwing away a broken or useless tool.
Da Frechman
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2005
- Messages
- 175
Scali said:
I can sympathize with both camps in this area.
3dmark does not always represent the average real world gaming experience because of physics, AI, audio, etc,.... and why when real world data can be used in place of 3dmark. On top of that, certain benchmarks (not Futuremark) do exercise bias forsale.
---or----
The range of tests 3dmark employ's does give a fairly accurate performance average if you take into consideration overall releases throughout a year instead of depending on a snapshot of what's available at the time.
I guess it's up to Hardocp and perhaps us if they choose. I'd vote it's inclusion mainly because I think what they do is totally amazing.
Edit.
You're right though, this does need to be a separate topic.
eno-on said:
Yes, if that was all they did. But you often see Kyle and other [H]-people lash out at Futuremark/3DMark on the forums or in pretty much unrelated newsposts etc.
I don't have a problem with people just having solid reasons for not using or liking a certain product, but this behaviour just goes too far.
jebo_4jc said:
I have no post count, accept no pay. I get cards free or deeply discounted from time to time, as well as beta software.
I'm asked to use it, and post my thoughts if I like (and have been specifically told to post the negatives as well as positives) as well as report crashes and render errors.
It's not as big of a deal as people make it out to be.
Scali said:
The problem is that users of these types of programs are armed to the teeth on info from one of the IHV and usally very little info from the other. And its just human nature for people to play to the strenghts and downplay the weekness they know about. Usally these people tend to over emphize these steangths/weekness so that a purly techincal debat becomes and IHV pissing match
Scali said:
I think there should be. We have users coming to the forms all the time stuck in a choice between two cards. They are not sure what to get and are trusting that we as forum posters will give them a honest answer.
razor1 said:
Razor,
couple of problems with that. First of all a doctor/paitent thing is something that you have developed over a some time with that doctor. So you have much deeper level of trust there vrs some forum poster that you never really see in Real Life. Second a video card choice is only some small amount of money. Doctors deal in Life or Death. Pretty big difference there. Finally I can not remember any time that I have walked into a Doc office and not seen some well dress guy in a suit from some drug company there to sell the latest wonder drug. Its pretty common knowledge that this happens. So this analogy does not come close to the isssue.
Look the issue is not if this is good or bad. Nor is the issue that the person is getting free stuff from the IHV. Nor is it that the user is now posting their experinces with hardware and usally giving a rather postive experince about on IHV. The problem is that we never knew that these user were getting free hardware and no matter what that will end up effecting that user....
Umm, that's no secret... They've made their opinions on the program as a benchmark very well known on a number of ocasions, there's been more than enough threads documenting this and several e-mail correspondings between [H] and Futuremark too. They're not the only hardware site to have changed their opinion on 3DMark's usefulness over time either.Scali said:
However, most of us come here for hardware related news and reviews, not for benchmark reviews and evluations.
RoffleCopter
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2005
- Messages
- 1,910
Rollo said:
If I were a beta tester and got Rollo's deal, I'd definitely jump on board whichever wagon ofered me it
Jbirney said:The problem is that users of these types of programs are armed to the teeth on info from one of the IHV and usally very little info from the other. And its just human nature for people to play to the strenghts and downplay the weekness they know about. Usally these people tend to over emphize these steangths/weekness so that a purly techincal debat becomes and IHV pissing match
I think there should be. We have users coming to the forms all the time stuck in a choice between two cards. They are not sure what to get and are trusting that we as forum posters will give them a honest answer.
Razor,
couple of problems with that. First of all a doctor/paitent thing is something that you have developed over a some time with that doctor. So you have much deeper level of trust there vrs some forum poster that you never really see in Real Life. Second a video card choice is only some small amount of money. Doctors deal in Life or Death. Pretty big difference there. Finally I can not remember any time that I have walked into a Doc office and not seen some well dress guy in a suit from some drug company there to sell the latest wonder drug. Its pretty common knowledge that this happens. So this analogy does not come close to the isssue.
Look the issue is not if this is good or bad. Nor is the issue that the person is getting free stuff from the IHV. Nor is it that the user is now posting their experinces with hardware and usally giving a rather postive experince about on IHV. The problem is that we never knew that these user were getting free hardware and no matter what that will end up effecting that user....
What a doctor does now is Business JB, look at HMO's what do you think they are? Do you know pharmac companies have databases on which doctors prescribe which drugs without the doctor's consent. The entire medical field is a huge corporation based on Insurance and Drug companies and is modulated by the government. If anything this is much worse then focus groups, which doesn't amount to anything other then feedback. Why do you think hospitals now outsource radiographics to other countries like India or Malasyia? Its business.
This analogy is the same exact thing JB, viral marketing, samething we see here.
So your saying handing out free drugs to doctors so they can give to patients then start prescribing those drugs so insurance can pay the pharmac's is not the same as giving free hardware to people so they can talk about thier experiences with it? Don't be a hypocrite, they both end up at the same junction. If anything the doctor pharmac situation is worse they are making direct money without the patients have much say. Thankfully most doctor's do whats in the patients interest but there are some out there that do it in thier own interest.
And most doctor's don't perform under conditions of life and death sorry your arguement is futile.
You are not a big deal. You are just particluarly adamant about one particular company, and happen to also be a beta tester for them.Rollo said:
It's the people that are getting paid to post that should be investigated.
Rollo said:
Given that you've lied in the past, what should anyone believe you right now?
And I highly doubt AEG/nVidia actually said 'post the negatives too'. Unless it was for the reason of making a very positive review overall look more credible, by inserting just 1 or 2 minor quibbles. A 'perfect' review would have attracted more attention.
BullsEyeBob
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2004
- Messages
- 2,661
{NG}Fidel said:
I just wish you guys would stop quoting him. I ignored Rollo (for being an obvious Nvidia troll) like 6 months ago but you guys still quote his ass!! lol
Ominous Gamer
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2005
- Messages
- 234
Mister E said:I just wish you guys would stop quoting him. I ignored Rollo (for being an obvious Nvidia troll) like 6 months ago but you guys still quote his ass!! lol
This has turned into a high school homeroom, drama over nothing.
YOU LIED!! YOU LIED!! = I'M JEALOUS!!! I'M JEALOUS WITH NOTHING BETTER TO DO!!!
Regardless of any other aspects of it, I personally find it unacceptable that AEG/nVidia profit, the forum member profits - they all get their benefits from the viral marketing, but the poor guy who has to fund the forum bandwith certainly doesn't get a slice of the pie.
It's pretty despicable if you ask me. But then, I also find the whole thing, regardless of profit, morally vacant - the concept of taking message boards, what *should* be a place for users to share their own, unpaid for, opinions, sharing knowledge, engaging in sensible discussion, etc., and twisting/degenerating into a place where nobody can trust anyone else's positive opinion for fear of the fact that it's been "bought". There's a time and a place for advertising, and this, IMO, is neither.
It's pretty despicable if you ask me. But then, I also find the whole thing, regardless of profit, morally vacant - the concept of taking message boards, what *should* be a place for users to share their own, unpaid for, opinions, sharing knowledge, engaging in sensible discussion, etc., and twisting/degenerating into a place where nobody can trust anyone else's positive opinion for fear of the fact that it's been "bought". There's a time and a place for advertising, and this, IMO, is neither.
BullsEyeBob
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2004
- Messages
- 2,661
Ominous Gamer said:
Um ^that's^ the 1st immature post I've seen in the whole thread.
Scali said:I don't see why they should be banned just for having some kind of agreement with NVIDIA (judging from what ChrisRay said, they are not even paid, and they are not instructed to post on forums at all).
Heck, there are probably worse !!!!!!s that have no agreement with NVIDIA or ATi at all. Let's concentrate on banning those first
They should be banned because they are advertising. This is considered spamming forums.
It's one thing to pay for advertisement on [H] but to covertly advertise on a forum is against the terms of use and is in fact theft. Now if they paid [H] for the advertisement...that would be a different story.
mrgstiffler
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2000
- Messages
- 13,408
BBA said:
Or, you could just ignore them...
mrgstiffler
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2000
- Messages
- 13,408
ManicOne said:
How are you going to figure out who they are? Instinct? The problem with this is everyone going to be saying "So and so is getting paid by Company X. Ban them!" All this does is turn the forums into a witch hunt.
It shouldn't matter if people are getting paid to post things or not. I never believe anything I read on the forums unless there's an abundance of evidence that proves what they are saying. It's no different whether someone's getting paid or not.
Ominous Gamer
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2005
- Messages
- 234
Maximus825 said:
I don't see why everyone is getting their panties in a bunch. If nVidia was giving me free stuff...hell I'd say good things too. Same goes for ATI, Intel, VIA, Matrox, etc..
These are people as well after all. At least some of them stepped up to the plate. No telling how many others are lurking around. Not that I'm suggesting to chase them out.
The problem is, let's say that in a month's time (or so), I get hold of the G71 and decide to write up some of my initial impressions here. Even if it's a damned good card, if my impressions are very positive, there's the chance of some inevitable finger-pointing, "so and so works for nVidia", etc.
This viral advertising breeds distrust, cynicism and being overly wary. Who wants to be part of an online community where, every other post, you have to weigh up whether the individual actually believes what he's posting, or whether a free GTX 512 sweetened the deal.
I also feel for anyone who's not particularly tech-minded and comes here looking for advice. It's easy to look past blatantly one-sided f@nboy posts, but something more coherent/subtle from an AEG/nVidia troll could easily influence someone (just as its designed to). Suppose a father wants to get his son a new graphics card but doesn't understand the benchmark scores on Hard/AT/B3D/etc. He posts a message, what's the best card he can get for $400 or so. Sounds feasible enough, but now, what advice can he actually trust? Especially when you get people like Rollo arguing, only a few days ago, that a $750-900 card is a better choice than a comparatively/better (depending on the benchmark) performing alternative at $500 or so. Something about that just isn't quite right. Call it naive, call it a pointless attempt at defying corporate greed, whatever, but its wrong and the fact that it may or may not be more widespread than we think doesn't mean we should stand by and tolerate it.
Over a prolonged period of time, I firmly believe that viral marketing will erode online communities.
This viral advertising breeds distrust, cynicism and being overly wary. Who wants to be part of an online community where, every other post, you have to weigh up whether the individual actually believes what he's posting, or whether a free GTX 512 sweetened the deal.
I also feel for anyone who's not particularly tech-minded and comes here looking for advice. It's easy to look past blatantly one-sided f@nboy posts, but something more coherent/subtle from an AEG/nVidia troll could easily influence someone (just as its designed to). Suppose a father wants to get his son a new graphics card but doesn't understand the benchmark scores on Hard/AT/B3D/etc. He posts a message, what's the best card he can get for $400 or so. Sounds feasible enough, but now, what advice can he actually trust? Especially when you get people like Rollo arguing, only a few days ago, that a $750-900 card is a better choice than a comparatively/better (depending on the benchmark) performing alternative at $500 or so. Something about that just isn't quite right. Call it naive, call it a pointless attempt at defying corporate greed, whatever, but its wrong and the fact that it may or may not be more widespread than we think doesn't mean we should stand by and tolerate it.
Over a prolonged period of time, I firmly believe that viral marketing will erode online communities.
Ominous Gamer
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2005
- Messages
- 234
I wonder if all this whinning counts for hazard pay.
pibrahim said:
He does though. Every post that the forum member makes, is another hit for the ad-counter. And the posts probably attract more traffic from others aswell.
pibrahim said:
I think you're just behind the times. Internet is commercializing, just like all other forms of mass-communication before it.
What you're saying the internet *should* be, is nothing but an utopia. It has little to do with reality. It's like saying we *should* not fight with eachother, and all live in peace. It's just not going to happen. The world is not perfect. People aren't perfect.
BBA said:
Is it, though? I think it's hard to draw the line between advertising and expressing one's opinions, experiences, preferences.
It's just a complicated web of ethics, integrity and non-disclosure.
If I say "Hey, I like my job", or "Hey, I like this thing I've developed at work", is that considered advertising, because my boss happens to pay me? Should I be banned now?
Maximus825 said:
Exactly. People should think for themselves. It's just like commercials and sponsored events on TV and radio. Do you want everything banned? I think most networks would just go out of business then. You should just think for yourself and make up your own mind on what you believe.
And ofcourse there are rules and regulations for advertising. It is illegal to spread blatant lies. But obviously advertisers have learnt to walk the fine line between lies and inflated facts.
Ominous Gamer said:
I have my integrity. If they give me free stuff, I will say good things about them giving me free stuff. But if the stuff they give me is rubbish, I will say that it is rubbish aswell. On the other hand, if it's actually good, I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to say that, just because I didn't have to pay for it. And I hate people questioning my integrity.
pibrahim said:
It's already like that. I was also accused of being part of the AEG-program, after expressing my preference for the 7800 as a developer, because of some new features that ATi hasn't implemented yet, in another thread on this forum.
While ironically I am not being paid by NVIDIA, nor do I actually own and use an NVIDIA card at this moment. In fact, I was not even recommending NVIDIA to others, I just said it's what I would buy at this moment. I recommend ATi to people with other requirements, such as my brother.
People simply don't listen to you anymore. They don't care about any technical data, it's just a witch-hunt, and brand vs brand. Which is why I have decided not to waste my knowledge and experience on this forum anymore. There's no point in explaining the virtues of hardware features when people can't even look beyond a brand, and blindly start accusing, questioning and insulting you.
fallguy said:
Well, there we have a fine example of what I mean. All this hostility because I like some features from 'the wrong brand'.
It'd be much nicer if you could put your grievances towards me in words. But that requires a certain level of sophistication.