If you take money to write about a product, I assume you are biased.

[Pup town]

Lots of people have industry ties of one sort or another. You don't get to question their motives or honesty on that basis alone.

Sure, you do. If I take money from Colt and then write about Colt or shoot their 1911 for a year and blog about it, you honestly think the money played no factor in what I wrote? Or even played a factor in what gun I chose to feature in a year-long series? Does anyone think Colt pays people to write negative stories about their guns?

Once you start accepting money to write about a product, your writing is immediately suspect and can't be taken seriously.

If you want to make it even worse, don't disclose from whom you've received compensation. Take Caleb's blog, for example. As best I can tell, he takes money to write about certain companies and products. However, he and his employees may also write about products without any support from the manufacturer. But I wouldn't know because he doesn't appear to be upfront about who has paid him money and who hasn't. (Maybe there's some fine print on his blog where he discloses this, but I haven't seen it.) Therefore I just dismiss whatever he says, since I can't know where his bias lays.

It's pretty simple.

[joshs]

Sure, you do. If I take money from Colt and then write about Colt or shoot their 1911 for a year and blog about it, you honestly think the money played no factor in what I wrote? Or even played a factor in what gun I chose to feature in a year-long series? Does anyone think Colt pays people to write negative stories about their guns?

Once you start accepting money to write about a product, your writing is immediately suspect and can't be taken seriously.

If you want to make it even worse, don't disclose from whom you've received compensation. Take Caleb's blog, for example. As best I can tell, he takes money to write about certain companies and products. However, he and his employees may also write about products without any support from the manufacturer. But I wouldn't know because he doesn't appear to be upfront about who has paid him money and who hasn't. (Maybe there's some fine print on his blog where he discloses this, but I haven't seen it.) Therefore I just dismiss whatever he says, since I can't know where his bias lays.

It's pretty simple.

Bias doesn't equal being dishonest. Pesonaly, I'm skeptical of laws that restrict individual rights. This is a form of bias. Whenever I read such a law, I automatically look for faults before considering the merits. Does this make anything I write about these laws dishonest?

I assume every reviewer has bias that I don't know about whether it be compensation, personal investment, or simple brand loyalty. This doesn't mean I discount everything they say or write.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk 2

[Tamara]

But I wouldn't know because he doesn't appear to be upfront about who has paid him money and who hasn't. (Maybe there's some fine print on his blog where he discloses this, but I haven't seen it.) Therefore I just dismiss whatever he says, since I can't know where his bias lays.

It's pretty simple.

If there's a company out there paying directly for reviews, I want in on that, because it'd sure beat getting the chance to maybe buy a crap gun at factory cost. (Or sometimes even as a freebie!) Woo! Where do I sign for that sweet action?

"I shot this malfunctioning P.O.S. Blastomatic 2000 for two months, enduring the scorn of my friends at the range, and all I got was this lousy tee shirt and 40% off MSRP."

[LittleLebowski]

Sure, you do. If I take money from Colt and then write about Colt or shoot their 1911 for a year and blog about it, you honestly think the money played no factor in what I wrote? Or even played a factor in what gun I chose to feature in a year-long series? Does anyone think Colt pays people to write negative stories about their guns?

Once you start accepting money to write about a product, your writing is immediately suspect and can't be taken seriously.

If you want to make it even worse, don't disclose from whom you've received compensation. Take Caleb's blog, for example. As best I can tell, he takes money to write about certain companies and products. However, he and his employees may also write about products without any support from the manufacturer. But I wouldn't know because he doesn't appear to be upfront about who has paid him money and who hasn't. (Maybe there's some fine print on his blog where he discloses this, but I haven't seen it.) Therefore I just dismiss whatever he says, since I can't know where his bias lays.

It's pretty simple.

So, just a generalized dismissal of literally everything on that blog? Has Caleb never written an article that criticizes anything? What is your tipping point? Ammo? Holsters? Banner ads from a gun dealer? Manufacturer's ads that you do not get to choose (deal with the advertising company, we have it in place on this forum)? Shooting at a manufacturer's range day? Be specific.

Do you have a tipping point or is it just a simplistic "I won't read anything that has an advertisement on the page nor will I read anything from anyone who's ever made money in the in the gun industry?" Or is this is just a chance to sneer and get in a coupla jabs?

[KeeFus]

Train wreck in 3,2,1... http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/userpics/13049/thumb_popcorn.gif

[Kyle Reese]

Sure, you do. If I take money from Colt and then write about Colt or shoot their 1911 for a year and blog about it, you honestly think the money played no factor in what I wrote? Or even played a factor in what gun I chose to feature in a year-long series? Does anyone think Colt pays people to write negative stories about their guns?

Once you start accepting money to write about a product, your writing is immediately suspect and can't be taken seriously.

If you want to make it even worse, don't disclose from whom you've received compensation. Take Caleb's blog, for example. As best I can tell, he takes money to write about certain companies and products. However, he and his employees may also write about products without any support from the manufacturer. But I wouldn't know because he doesn't appear to be upfront about who has paid him money and who hasn't. (Maybe there's some fine print on his blog where he discloses this, but I haven't seen it.) Therefore I just dismiss whatever he says, since I can't know where his bias lays.

It's pretty simple.

You just wasted lots of effort to tell us you're not going to read Caleb's blog anymore. Drama llama much?

We don't care.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

[hufnagel]

I have a bias against recent joiners who take the Scorched Earth approach against people others who have demonstrated at least some level of competency in their chosen field.

[Nephrology]

I have a bias against recent joiners who take the Scorched Earth approach against people others who have demonstrated at least some level of competency in their chosen field.

Makes two of us. Perhaps we shouldn't post or express opinions ever again? I mean, we are BIASED!

[orionz06]

You just wasted lots of effort to tell us you're not going to read Caleb's blog anymore. Drama llama much?

We don't care.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

It's a damned shame there is no way you can ask Caleb a more specific question...

[fixer]

Sure, you do. If I take money from Colt and then write about Colt or shoot their 1911 for a year and blog about it, you honestly think the money played no factor in what I wrote? Or even played a factor in what gun I chose to feature in a year-long series? Does anyone think Colt pays people to write negative stories about their guns?

Once you start accepting money to write about a product, your writing is immediately suspect and can't be taken seriously.

On this standard, if I may extrapolate for a minute, the only possible way you'd trust a gun review is if there was a scientific association (Journal of American Firearms and Testing) that published peer reviewed articles relating to gun performance. These articles would have multiple professional references, engineering data with heavily scrutinized statistical analysis (ANOVA, t-test, regression analysis, full Design of Experiments description and derivation, etc), that allowed one to make sound conclusions about the legitimacy of a certain platform.

However, even in this setting, people would have accepted some type of compensation for this work. So is it still suspect?

Your standard of bias is so ridiculously high that no one could possibly ever meet it.

[LittleLebowski]

On this standard, if I may extrapolate for a minute, the only possible way you'd trust a gun review is if there was a scientific association (Journal of American Firearms and Testing) that published peer reviewed articles relating to gun performance. These articles would have multiple professional references, engineering data with heavily scrutinized statistical analysis (ANOVA, t-test, regression analysis, full Design of Experiments description and derivation, etc), that allowed one to make sound conclusions about the legitimacy of a certain platform.

However, even in this setting, people would have accepted some type of compensation for this work. So is it still suspect?

Your standard of bias is so ridiculously high that no one could possibly ever meet it.

Pretty much where I was headed but better written.

[Tamara]

Gun Tests magazine tries hard to be the Consumer Reports of the gun industry, but some of the testers were so absolutely clueless on the subject matter that I gave up reading it not long after I started. It was like reading a magazine written by five guys randomly selected out of the line in front of you at the gun show. Maybe it's better now; I don't know.

[JM Campbell]

Sure, you do. If I take money from Colt and then write about Colt or shoot their 1911 for a year and blog about it, you honestly think the money played no factor in what I wrote? Or even played a factor in what gun I chose to feature in a year-long series? Does anyone think Colt pays people to write negative stories about their guns?

Once you start accepting money to write about a product, your writing is immediately suspect and can't be taken seriously.

If you want to make it even worse, don't disclose from whom you've received compensation. Take Caleb's blog, for example. As best I can tell, he takes money to write about certain companies and products. However, he and his employees may also write about products without any support from the manufacturer. But I wouldn't know because he doesn't appear to be upfront about who has paid him money and who hasn't. (Maybe there's some fine print on his blog where he discloses this, but I haven't seen it.) Therefore I just dismiss whatever he says, since I can't know where his bias lays.

It's pretty simple.


So how do you feel about Mr. Green, Mr. Vickers, Mr. Langdon, Mr. Howell, Mr. Bolke, Mr. Dobbs, (insert fire arms trainer/gun world insider here).....?

[Tamara]

Never mind.

[GJM]

I assume every reviewer has bias that I don't know about whether it be compensation, personal investment, or simple brand loyalty. This doesn't mean I discount everything they say or write.

I am with Josh -- I think every reviewer has bias, and I read stuff keeping that in mind, always assessing credibility.

I would love to hear from Caleb, but I assume his number one goal is to make Gunnuts profitable. To do that, he needs to maintain relationships with manufacturers, and manufacturers aren't keen on having their products trashed. I don't think this is just Caleb -- can anyone recall the last nasty article on a new gun in G&A or on a new plane in a major aviation magazine?

If anyone thinks otherwise, a fun project would be to stick some college research kids on compiling statistics on what percentage of articles in Gunnuts,and other similar gun blogs, are positive. Anyone remember a single article in Gunnuts, MSW or the like, on a major manufacturer's product, that was negative? I assume you have a far better chance of seeing a record book deer on opening day morning than having a site like Caleb's saying anything negative about a major manufacturer.

A quick read of Gunnuts this morning, shows a range of stuff from verbatim industry press releases to staff reviews like:

Last year at Media Day at the Range, I made a bee line for Springfield’s bay where I fell hard for the XDs 9mm. Truth be told, I was primed to love the 9, since I had been very impressed…

"We also like 9mm 1911s a lot, because they’re amazing to shoot. We think the Springfield Armory Range Officer 1911 9mm is going to be a big hit."

This doesn't stop me from perusing Gunnuts, MSW, and a number of other sites -- all of which are trying to do the dance between staying in the good graces of manufacturers, with stories that focus on the positive. I just tread their stuff keeping what I believe to be their bias in mind.

[Tamara]

This doesn't stop me from perusing Gunnuts, MSW, and a number of other sites -- all of which are trying to do the dance between staying in the good graces of manufacturers, with stories that focus on the positive. I just tread their stuff keeping what I believe to be their bias in mind.

Frank James and Dean Speir have both written sensibly about the realities of the gunwriting business, for anybody that wants to GTS.

[PPGMD]

Gunnuts/Gunup are in the business of advertising not writing. The writing is just a means to get the ads in front of the eye balls of the consumers.

IMO every opinion should be taken with a grain of salt. Everyone has their biases and preferences even people with no industry ties. Want to see that in action, go to a gun specific forum.

I am willing to bet that someone on one of the Hk forums is raving about Hk's version of KeyMod (which has been dubbed KochMod).

[Tamara]

Want to see that in action, go to a gun specific forum.

As a former moderator at GlockTalk who actually had her roommate design a Glock desktop theme for Win95*, this is absolutely true.


*Because, seriously, who doesn't want a long-winded Tommy Lee Jones .wav file playing every time you turn your computer on or off? :rolleyes:

[TCinVA]

Sure, you do.

If you're going to attempt to make this argument, the first step is to make the entire argument. Caleb expressed an opinion on the reliability of the 2011 pistol. Another poster disagreed. After a couple of comments back and forth, the other poster said:



I am sure if STI threw some money your way for reviewing guns your tune would change.


When someone expresses a contrary opinion here, especially someone who has been around a while and is known relatively well by a number of folks, we aren't going to tolerate someone publicly stating that their opinion is bought and paid for without some sort of compelling evidence. If one lacks hard evidence that, say, Caleb is getting paid money to say nice things about Sigs on forums, then they can kindly keep that accusation under their hat.

You can suspect whomever you want of whatever you want for whatever reasons you wish. Think whatever you like.

While on this forum, however, everyone is expected to behave in accordance with the rules they agreed to follow when signing up for the forum. Calling someone a shill without proof does not follow the idea of:



Remain polite and professional in your conversation with others. Demeaning, insulting, and berating other members will not be tolerated. You are free to disagree, but do so respectfully and with humility.


http://pistol-forum.com/misc.php?do=showrules

You don't have to like Caleb or anyone else on this forum. You don't have to agree with them. You don't have to think they are wonderful people. You *do* have to observe at least a basic level of decorum when interacting with them here or the staff is going to deal with the problem.

There are forums where you can toss out wild accusations, impugn someone's character, and even insult their wives...but this isn't one of them, which is maybe why lots of people within the industry participate here rather than at other places.



The mission of pistol-forum.com is to serve as a professional resource for the exchange of information and ideas on the use of the pistol (and other firearms) in self defense, in an armed profession, and in competition. Through the respectful exchange of concepts and information we hope to be a resource that everyone from the accomplished professional to the relative novice can use to refine their ideas and practices to produce the best possible results for their situation.


The offending post was not in keeping with the mission of this forum or the conduct we hope to see from those who participate here.

[Pup town]

So how do you feel about Mr. Green, Mr. Vickers, Mr. Langdon, Mr. Howell, Mr. Bolke, Mr. Dobbs, (insert fire arms trainer/gun world insider here).....?

Not sure what this has to do with 'writers' taking money to 'review' a gun. But one difference between Vickers and Caleb is that Vickers doesn't pretend he isn't getting paid to endorse a product. We all know he's paid by Daniel Defense. Do you know which companies pays Caleb?

[YVK]

On this standard, if I may extrapolate for a minute, the only possible way you'd trust a gun review is if there was a scientific association (Journal of American Firearms and Testing) that published peer reviewed articles relating to gun performance. These articles would have multiple professional references, engineering data with heavily scrutinized statistical analysis (ANOVA, t-test, regression analysis, full Design of Experiments description and derivation, etc), that allowed one to make sound conclusions about the legitimacy of a certain platform.

However, even in this setting, people would have accepted some type of compensation for this work. So is it still suspect?

Your standard of bias is so ridiculously high that no one could possibly ever meet it.

This has been very rigorously studied in medicine. All drugs and technologies in this country require FDA approvals which in turn require strong supporting studies that are almost invariably published in peer reviewed journals. One would think that with such tiered, open, scientifically backed process biases of the kind we're talking about here wouldn't exist.

Not true. Study after study showed that incentives, open or hidden, by pharma and device industry changed doctors' acceptance and use of products. The data supporting drug A or B is open, there isn't anything else that should affect doc's choice, but those gifts, dinners, arrangements for training certainly made the difference. That lead to a significant crackdown on incentives and, in situations where financial involvement is neither avoidable nor unethical, demands for a full disclosure. The latter may go a long way for establishing trustworthiness in any industry.

[orionz06]

Not sure what this has to do with 'writers' taking money to 'review' a gun. But one difference between Vickers and Caleb is that Vickers doesn't pretend he isn't getting paid to endorse a product. We all know he's paid by Daniel Defense. Do you know which companies pays Caleb?

Does it matter? If you really care so much about honesty in this "industry" you would be shocked to find out how much free stuff is handed out. Classes, ammo, gear, clothing, dinners, "friendship", and the list goes on.

All posts on all forums are from now on suspect and cannot be taken seriously. All things on the internet are suspect and cannot be taken seriously.

Do some work and evaluate the info and the writer yourself and go from there.

[Pup town]

If you're going to attempt to make this argument, the first step is to make the entire argument. Caleb expressed an opinion on the reliability of the 2011 pistol. Another poster disagreed. After a couple of comments back and forth, the other poster said:



When someone expresses a contrary opinion here, especially someone who has been around a while and is known relatively well by a number of folks, we aren't going to tolerate someone publicly stating that their opinion is bought and paid for without some sort of compelling evidence. If one lacks hard evidence that, say, Caleb is getting paid money to say nice things about Sigs on forums, then they can kindly keep that accusation under their hat.

You can suspect whomever you want of whatever you want for whatever reasons you wish. Think whatever you like.

While on this forum, however, everyone is expected to behave in accordance with the rules they agreed to follow when signing up for the forum. Calling someone a shill without proof does not follow the idea of:



http://pistol-forum.com/misc.php?do=showrules

You don't have to like Caleb or anyone else on this forum. You don't have to agree with them. You don't have to think they are wonderful people. You *do* have to observe at least a basic level of decorum when interacting with them here or the staff is going to deal with the problem.

There are forums where you can toss out wild accusations, impugn someone's character, and even insult their wives...but this isn't one of them, which is maybe why lots of people within the industry participate here rather than at other places.



The offending post was not in keeping with the mission of this forum or the conduct we hope to see from those who participate here.

I'm not sure if this post was directed at me or if you are still talking to Alaskapopo.

You made a statement that you can't question a person's motives or honesty just because they have ties to the gun industry. I said that you could in fact question the work of a writer that takes money from the gun industry. I started a new thread so as to not derail the Sig thread any further.

Maybe someone else violated the rules of the forum, but I don't think I have.

[jetfire]

I've never disclosed taking payments from manufacturers to review guns because it's never happened. I don't feel particularly motivated to disclose parts of my business model, but the only free stuff I've ever gotten from gun companies were guns themselves.

For the Sig review, I was paid by American Rifleman to write a review, because that's what writers get paid for.

[CCT125US]

In my unbiased, unpaid opinion, somewhere a bridge is missing a troll. Stop feeding it and this too shall pass.

[TCinVA]

I'm not sure if this post was directed at me or if you are still talking to Alaskapopo.

I'm talking directly to you, since you've decided to weigh in on a forum moderation issue publicly.



You made a statement that you can't question a person's motives or honesty just because they have ties to the gun industry. I said that you could in fact question the work of a writer that takes money from the gun industry. I started a new thread so as to not derail the Sig thread any further.

Maybe someone else violated the rules of the forum, but I don't think I have.

My post was a direct response to you. You can have questions about whatever you want to have questions about.

While on this forum, however, you'll be expected to abide by the rules. If you disagree with someone's opinion, you don't get to call them a shill or question their integrity solely on the basis of their industry ties, or what you assume to be their business model.

Period.

Anyone who goes down that path will find their participation here abruptly terminated.

[justintime]

This thread adds very little context to the forum. What was the point of this topic being brought up? It's almost like making a thread stating glocks are plastic - off course people are biased... I'm more interested in why they are biased to help ME analyze their claims so I can make my own decisions. People critiquing others bias is usually pretty strange and feels like trolling as they clearly have an even less transparent -gasp- bias

I don't know why anyone would want to hide being on a companies payroll? If they don't say it... It's probably because they are not. Which btw someone like lav is paid to talk about why he likes glocks from glock, under the circumstances I can still find that useful

[Pup town]

I find the responses strange. I think that if I said Gun and Ammo (or some other gun magazine) was reluctant to write negative reviews, I'd hear a chorus of 'No kidding. We all know that."

And if I said, it would be antithetical for NY Times movie critic A.O. Scott to accept money from a movie studio to review their movie, I'd hear another chorus of 'No kidding. We all know that."

So why do some gun bloggers get a free pass? Please explain.

[GJM]

"If you're going to attempt to make this argument, the first step is to make the entire argument. Caleb expressed an opinion on the reliability of the 2011 pistol. Another poster disagreed. After a couple of comments back and forth, the other poster said:

I am sure if STI threw some money your way for reviewing guns your tune would change."


I just went back and read the original thread. As I recall it, Pat and Caleb got into it over which Pro shooter carries what. After some escalating back and forth, Caleb accused Pat of lying, Pat told him to stick it where the sun doesn't shine, and made the STI "sponsorship" comment. Now when I read the thread, the "lying" comment by Caleb, that preceded the STI comment is gone, and there is no indication it was edited. Is my memory defective?

As long as a staff member brought it up, I have a question. When PF has so many moderators, why have the one working for Caleb do the moderation, intervening on Caleb's behalf?

[TCinVA]

I find the responses strange. I think that if I said Gun and Ammo (or some other gun magazine) was reluctant to write negative reviews, I'd hear a chorus of 'No kidding. We all know that."


Can you really not grasp the difference between stating something like that about G&A and telling someone in the course of a conversation on this board that their opinion is bought and paid for?

I don't care what you say about Guns & Ammo. I do care about how you interact with members of this forum in the course of a discussion.



Please explain.

I have explained. I've cited our forum's rules and explained their enforcement on this issue.

Comments like the one cited are damaging to the atmosphere of the forum, and we're not going to put up with it.

[TCinVA]

As I recall it,

You recall incorrectly, which is one of the dangers of weighing in on a forum moderation issue publicly.



As long as a staff member brought it up, I have a question. When PF has so many moderators, why have the one working for Caleb do the moderation, intervening on Caleb's behalf?

The staff is here to intervene on behalf of the forum. Nobody intervened on "Caleb's behalf". As long as you've been here you know better than that, or at least you should.

[TCinVA]

This thread was allowed to exist because it dealt with a forum moderation issue, one that has now been adequately explained.

The staffers here donate their time to keep the forum running and when the forum was originally being brought up staff spent considerable time and effort outlining the rules and the sort of culture that would make PF.com a useful resource.

When members of staff act it's not an invitation for a debate on the action.

[ToddG]

Do you know which companies pays Caleb?

If you don't know the answer -- if there is, in fact, any gun company paying Caleb to write reviews -- then stick a sock in it. You don't get to troll around PF throwing stones just because you're jealous.

This conversation may be one of the stupidest things I've ever read on PF. I'm admittedly a bit cranky but...

With the exception of the randomness of "Gun Tests" which one declared 9mm +p+ Corbon JHP the best bear-defense ammo made, where exactly do you go to find detailed professional reviews, especially of new products? How many independently wealthy gun enthusiasts have the wherewithal, knowledge, and willingness to spend the money and do the work?

I never would have been able to put 90k+ ammo through a P30 without HK's support. I never would have put 50k through an HK45 without them paying for that ammo, either. If that makes me a shill or makes you not trust what I reported, candidly, you can kiss my ass. I'll send you the bill for my next pair of guns and all the ammo. I guarantee Caleb would make the same offer. Hell, Gun Nuts did the only detailed, honest, professional test of a freakin' High Point I've ever seen.

You get paid to do your job. Does that mean I shouldn't trust anything you have to say about it? Just because you may be completely lacking in integrity doesn't mean the rest of world is too scared to flex their backbone from time to time.

You feel free to post all the detailed, documented, professionally written, broadly read gun reports your want. You can do them right here at PF. And you can do them all on your own dime and feel extra special about it, too.

But the next time you accuse one of our regular members of being dishonest or lacking integrity just because he liked a gun too much or managed to turn his hobby into a career I'll ban you, every IP address associated with your account, and set your fucking computer on fire if I can find an app for that.

[ToddG]

As long as a staff member brought it up, I have a question. When PF has so many moderators, why have the one working for Caleb do the moderation, intervening on Caleb's behalf?

Because Tim has proven himself to be the single most honorable and dependable Staff member here. When we (Staff) took a vote a while back to give one person super-admin powers in the event of my sudden disappearance, he was the person UNANIMOUSLY chosen.

If you don't like the way the forum is moderated, you can quit. My patience for this idiotic thread, which appears to have first gained legs at another forum which has constantly been hostile toward both PF and Caleb and exists for little reason other than to troll other boards/people, is now over.

The number of times I've said, "My house, my rules" on this forum could be counted on one hand with fingers left to spare.

But my house, my rules. Thread closed.