Should the behaviour of members of the trade be more strictly regulated than regular members?

[Jim Sylva]

This is ridiculous, how can anyone claim to seek the truth through learning yet forbid a portion of the truly experienced people from offering their knowledge? I think we, as a community, have done a very good job of identifying and chasing off the chills. From what I have seen this problem really doesn't exist here at CA.

 

Maybe I've missed something or I'm just naive but I haven't seen any of the industry experts I listen to (read thier comments) try to push any agendas other than offer their opinion regarding the specific question/thread.

+1

[wakibaki]

When you frame these things, it's like a military threat assessment. We're not concerned with what we think our neighbour will do, or what intelligence tells us he will do, or for that matter what he's done in the past. We're concerned with what he could do if absolutely the worst comes to the worst.

[Jim Sylva]

When you frame these things, it's like a military threat assessment. We're not concerned with what we think our neighbour will do, or what intelligence tells us he will do, or for that matter what he's done in the past. We're concerned with what he could do if absolutely the worst comes to the worst.

I agree. That is precisely why I reject it.

[wakibaki]

I agree. That is precisely why I reject it.

 

Well, at last, someone who doesn't blether on.

 

I hear where you're coming from, but I believe your Southern border has been invaded.

[jhwalker]

Nobody would suggest any different. The question is more about subtle influences. Would you want Neil Young in a focus group about the Pono? I just think good manners should keep him out, but if necessary I would shove him out.

 

For goodness' sake, why? Wouldn't you *want* an expert (or someone very close to the product, if you will) in on the discussion? As long as everyone knows his affiliation, I think experts should be welcomed with open arms.

[JR4321]

For goodness' sake, why? Wouldn't you *want* an expert (or someone very close to the product, if you will) in on the discussion? As long as everyone knows his affiliation, I think experts should be welcomed with open arms.

 

I don't think the question is whether you would want an expert to talk to. Everyone would, of course (unless of course they tell you something you don't want to hear...like you just wasted $XXXX on a USB cable). It is whether you would want a salesman posing as an expert to talk to.

[wakibaki]

An expert can be a salesman. A salesman can be an expert.

 

The problem is knowing which hat he's got on at any given moment. This is why we distinguish between the general public, and parties with an interest, because while the general public may or may not be experts, we turn to them for advice in the expectation that at least they should not be interested parties and because disinterested parties have sufficient to do arguing the toss with other disinterested parties without having to deal with interested parties arguing from a position of self-certified authority.

 

I have had many excellent lunches at the expense of sales engineers. Ye need a lang spoon tae sup wi' the devil.

[esldude]

I don't think the question is whether you would want an expert to talk to. Everyone would, of course (unless of course they tell you something you don't want to hear...like you just wasted $XXXX on a USB cable). It is whether you would want a salesman posing as an expert to talk to.

 

Yes, this is the difference to me. Or worse, an expert who is also a salesman.

 

Take an area of prototypical marketing abuse. Cars. Even a salesman can offer useful knowledge about his product. Maybe how some of the complicated accessories work for instance. Or exactly what his company's warranty covers. Even then you know who he is, which side his bread is buttered on. You remain highly skeptical, and on alert. Though he will quickly offer what sounds like pseudo-expert knowledge on whether a conventional transmission or a CVT is better you will listen with a jaundiced ear at the minimum. His is not the opinion you use if you are smart to decide if you want a CVT or conventional transmission.

 

Currently I believe the CA rules on members of the trade on CA is somewhat more limited though only slightly. Declaration of the fact that is who you are. And no direct marketing though the enforcement and lines drawn on that by Chris are quite liberal. For the most part I don't consider them abused. I have seen some I question. I even think they might be intentional with some planning in a tiny number of cases. Hold forth on topics with your opinion which is almost impossible to separate from the activities of your small company. Do so over a number of threads, insert these over the forum over time with a few of your own topics that tie it together and voila no single thread steps over the line, but the end result probably does. This fits with wakibaki's idea of rules based not upon what someone has done, but what is the worst they might do.

 

These efforts might be concerted, yet are so carefully done I couldn't decide if that is the case or just a happenstance of certain member's of the trades activities and ideas. The end result is the same whether planned or not. It lowers the 'alert' status of a regular consumer. The MOT becomes somewhat trusted, somewhat thought of as one of us guys, and his opinions get through without scrutiny one normally applies to a salesman. Yet with the size of some high end business, these guys really were one of us, and very probably are one of us. The difference one of us guys in business vs just one of us is lost. Both on MOT and on regular members. Given that is the case for the most part in high end companies, being overly draconian with restrictions seems too restrictive. I think you might lose more than you gain.

 

What some forums have done is allow sub-forums for MOT. There to freely discuss with customers or the curious about their products. Unambigously making it clear these are MOT at all times.

[Ajax]

For goodness' sake, why? Wouldn't you *want* an expert (or someone very close to the product, if you will) in on the discussion? As long as everyone knows his affiliation, I think experts should be welcomed with open arms.

 

+1 ... well put John

[wakibaki]

An overwhelming proportion of posts on Head-fi are subjective assessments.

 

Why do you think they have this rule?

 

'A Member of the Trade may not review (or make any subjective assessments of) his or her services and/or products he or she manufacturers (sic), represents, sells.'

 

*my italics

 

Do you think this rule is being observed here?

[mwheelerk]

As long as the person's association is identified with the products involved I think I am perfectly capable in assessing the value of their words to my satisfaction. Good god I hope I'm intelligent enough to discern for myself. If they are not identified as associated with the particular product that is another matter.

[wakibaki]

As long as the person's association is identified with the products involved I think I am perfectly capable in assessing the value of their words to my satisfaction. Good god I hope I'm intelligent enough to discern for myself. If they are not identified as associated with the particular product that is another matter.

 

No, they don't have that rule because they think people are unintelligent. It might be because some people are smart, but that's only half the story.

[mwheelerk]

No, they don't have that rule because they think people are unintelligent. It might be because some people are smart, but that's only half the story.

I made no reference to Head Fi and their rules of which I have no interest. I was commenting solely on CA.

[wakibaki]

I made no reference to Head Fi and their rules of which I have no interest.

 

Oh. Closed mind then?

[mwheelerk]

Oh. Closed mind then?

...or, I may have no interest in headphones and therefore no interest in that site. I don't fish either and I don't visit sites were the primary focus surrounds fishing. If that is close minded then guilty as charged.

[Paul R]

An overwhelming proportion of posts on Head-fi are subjective assessments.

 

Why do you think they have this rule?

 

'A Member of the Trade may not review (or make any subjective assessments of) his or her services and/or products he or she manufacturers (sic), represents, sells.'

 

*my italics

 

Do you think this rule is being observed here?

 

Do you have any specific examples you might label as abuse? I couldn't find any I would consider abuse within the last few months.

 

-Paul

[petaluma]

Folks we need to stop feeding wakibaki. He went off on another thread about Barry Diamante, rather nastily in fact and Chris deleted the post. Wakibaki then created another post to in a more subtle way to continue his attack on CA participants that are in the industry. This forum is composed of adults wakibaki, and we should not impose restrictions on anyone, even a vendor who is attempting to participate in a forum discussion in a reasonable manner. REASONABLE being the operate word. In fact if everyone read into what you were doing we should actually be quite pissed off at you because you assume that we are incapable of looking at all aspects off a discussion and coming to a reasoned decision.

 

So folks lets have a vote, who wants to ban\restrict Barry, Alex (Superdad), John Swenson, Miska, Peter St, and any number of other participants who bring incredible knowledge to the this site, but because they are vendors and must go. And while were at it lets ban\restrict Chris, he has advertisers on the site which obviously makes anything he brings to the table suspect........

[firedog]

There's a sensible policy here that Chris enforces: you can't flog your own product, but you can answer direct questions about it. You can write in general about anything, as long as you don't use it to push your product. You can't use PM's to make unrequested contact to members about your product.

 

Chris has banned one or two vendors for violating this policy - maybe more I don't know about. In the meantime, we get lots of good info and perspective from Barry, Alex, Jesus, John, Miska, Peter and numerous other professionals. They are careful to be respective of the rules. I think we all benefit. No need to cut off our nose to spite our face, as it were.

[Teresa]

Should the behaviour of members of the trade be more strictly regulated than regular members?

 

No!!

 

I think the only stipulation would be that their industry affiliation be listed in their post or signature if posting on a subject that relates to that affiliation. For example, if the owner of electronics company posts on their favorite orchestra conductor, the industry affiliation would be irrelevant.

 

I agree.

 

…Would you want Neil Young in a focus group about the Pono?…

 

Yes!

 

…Most have made very positive contributions to the forum by sharing their knowledge and informed opinions, while keeping any implied marketing to a low and acceptable level.

 

That has been my experience as well. Audio and music industry insiders bring very important information I might otherwise miss. I welcome them with open arms.

 

And who is to say the claims are false, a committee of elderly E.E.s perhaps ?

 

Agreed, it is slander to call anyone's product claims false without evidence and a court judgement against said claims. If a purchaser believes that a product or service does not live up to its claims and is not happy with it they usually can get a full refund, as most companies offer satisfaction guarantees.

 

I feel it is extremely rude for anyone to comment on a product, service, format or any other consumer good without trying it first.

 

…He went off on another thread about Barry Diamante, rather nastily in fact and Chris deleted the post. Wakibaki then created another post to in a more subtle way to continue his attack on CA participants that are in the industry...

 

I think you discovered his ulterior motive for this poll. Barry Diamante’s posts make a lot of sense and match reality. He understands the reasons why high resolution digital sounds so much better and why it is usually free of listener fatigue.

 

Wakibaki on the other hand prefers the dark age of 16/44.1kHz PCM, which makes no sense to me but he is free to believe what he wants to. However he is not free to push his beliefs on others or to try to have those who disagree with him be banned or strictly regulated.

[4est]

From what I have seen, it is your conduct that ought to be moderated. From nearly your first post you have been abrasive, verging on vitriolic. Seldom are your posts informative, with most seemingly negative in tone with an air of self righteousness. You may not be a "professional", but you play the part of an expert, act like an ass, and then pull out your C card as if it were an excuse for your behavior.

 

If I wanted this site to be like headfi, I would simply hang out there. As it is, I prize this site because of the experts AND the general friendliness of the members.

 

Have at it.

[Audio_ELF]

Yawn - this all comes back to what you mean by "regulated." Should there be rules restricting how commercial interests can use the forum? You bet. Should that mean that a vendor cannot have a personal account on the system and have the same rights/responsibilities of any other user? No way.

Paul has pretty much stated similar thoughts to my own.

 

Personally I welcome contributions from "trade" members though personally I would like a couple of things clarified:

 

On many forums there is an enforced "Trade Member" badge - similar to the "Senior Member" on 4est's account (as an example) above but perhaps in bright red so that everyone is clear.

 

I would also ask that trade members made a list of interests - that would be companies they are involved in and (for an example of a dealer) perhaps a list of brands they trade in. I would also ask that they have (in their .sig) link to their websites - this actually works both ways as is both a way to assess the member but also in return a minimal form of advertising; perhaps Chris could ask that trade members are paid members of the forum.

 

Finally I would call on trade members to NEVER criticise another company's product and design choices. For example a DAC manufacturer should never be criticising the choice of chipset in another product - the exception on this would be the correction of factual information presented about a product.

 

At the end of the day trade members hang out on forums as (at least partially) a potential marketing tool - therefore as well as having the privilege of such membership they also have the responsibility to act respectfully and in a proper manner.

[Musicophile]

Paul has pretty much stated similar thoughts to my own.

 

Personally I welcome contributions from "trade" members though personally I would like a couple of things clarified:

 

On many forums there is an enforced "Trade Member" badge - similar to the "Senior Member" on 4est's account (as an example) above but perhaps in bright red so that everyone is clear.

 

I would also ask that trade members made a list of interests - that would be companies they are involved in and (for an example of a dealer) perhaps a list of brands they trade in. I would also ask that they have (in their .sig) link to their websites - this actually works both ways as is both a way to assess the member but also in return a minimal form of advertising; perhaps Chris could ask that trade members are paid members of the forum.

 

Finally I would call on trade members to NEVER criticise another company's product and design choices. For example a DAC manufacturer should never be criticising the choice of chipset in another product - the exception on this would be the correction of factual information presented about a product.

 

At the end of the day trade members hang out on forums as (at least partially) a potential marketing tool - therefore as well as having the privilege of such membership they also have the responsibility to act respectfully and in a proper manner.

Eloise,

 

As usual, very pragmatic recommendation that I'd endorse 100%.

[realhifi]

This poll reflects the underlying feelings of the "us against them" mentality that seems to pervade so many conversations on the internet vis a vis manufacturers and dealers in the audio business. From now on I personally will restrict my reading and commenting to the music portions of the forum on this site.

[christopher3393]

This poll reflects the underlying feelings of the "us against them" mentality that seems to pervade so many conversations on the internet vis a vis manufacturers and dealers in the audio business. From now on I personally will restrict my reading and commenting to the music portions of the forum on this site.

 

Please reconsider this. You are a great asset here and this poll is not terribly significant, imo. It appears to be mostly wakibaki's concern. While I don't wish to offend him, I do see his position as excessive, particularly for this forum. Much more lost than gained if members like you withdraw from Equipment threads!

[Audio_ELF]

This poll reflects the underlying feelings of the "us against them" mentality that seems to pervade so many conversations on the internet vis a vis manufacturers and dealers in the audio business. From now on I personally will restrict my reading and commenting to the music portions of the forum on this site.

David ... with respect the replies to the poll are very much on the side of the "professionals" with a 4:1 ratio answering No to Yes.

 

With respect to my own comments; I felt that the points I put across would actually benefit both professionals and other members of the forums.

 

For example I know you are a retailer from your comments: however no where on your profile or .sig is this made clear and so others (possibly new members to the site) may no have the correct frame of reference when you make a post. To further the comments I will pick on your recent thread you opened (and while I am picking on you it is more a general observation)...

Finally, Marantz's new entry level streamer is available. On first blush it looks like it will stream pretty much anything you'd like (including DSD) and includes Spotify Connect which is quickly becoming the standard for streaming lower resolution music. Coming in at $649 it looks to be a very good deal.

[...snipped out some pictures and links...]

Now first off I have no idea if you are a dealer for Marantz equipment. The post in of itself is useful; the equipment mentioned has been discussed on the forum previous with people asking when it will actually be available, its specifications, etc. Where I would criticise you is in the second part of final sentence "Coming in at $649 it looks to be a very good deal." I'm sorry but such a subjective comment (the part in italics) is out of place unless you make it clear that as a member of the trade you would benefit either directly (from profits on potential sales) or indirectly (from a company you represent making profits). Now this was a very minor oversight on your part and hardly worth commenting on; but is (IMO) against the the rules Chris sets down for trade members.

 

The trouble is though I would not want to see such a post banned - I see it as useful information weather it comes from a manufacturer, dealer or just an interested member. I would just ask that such information is kept to being factual without subjective comments especially when it comes from a dealer. Perhaps if such posts were headed with the prefix "Product information: " or similar.

 

Please note: While the examples are aimed at you as they are in reply to your post, I would not consider you to be a problem with your posting; I feel more that it is an oversight on Chris' part and perhaps some clearer guidance from Chris would prevent inadvertant transgressions.