Manufacturers reviewing their own products is expressly addressed in the product review policies and notes as not acceptable.

Unfortunately too many do not read or they ignore review policies.   

So - there are instances were a manufacturer submits a review of their own stuff - but those reviews are removed if they are detected.

73 Phil NA4M
eHam Product Reviews Manager

K5JZ's reviews were removed.  He'll probably rewrite it so as not to reply to the other review. 

N4IP's review also was removed.  Unfortunately there's not much we can do from this end to easily identify who is a principle in a company that submits a review without readers such as yourself who may have insight into who's directly involved with a product.

All newly submitted reviews are quickly scanned during screening - but not read word for word.  Too many reviews to do that so some will slip thru the guide lines. 

We appreciate the help review readers provide in identifying reviews that for whatever reason don't follow review  guide lines.


Phil NA4M
eHam Product Reviews Manager

I agree.

Having these as separate categories made sense at one time.  But that time has passed.

i've combined them and will be eliminating the multiple reviews by same reviewers.

Phil NA4M
eHam Product Reviews Manager
 

Posting "the rules" is a noble idea.   

However, in practice it falls short.   Case in point.   There have been "rules" or product review guide lines publicly posted for many years.  These rules/guide lines are our basis for fair and effective screening of reviews.

But given the number of reviews that continue to have to be regularly removed for not following these posted rules only shows that as stated "people are people".  They either don't bother to look around the site to see if there are rules, or they find the rules but don't read them, or they read the rules and then ignore them and post what they want anyway.  Then they ask "why was my review removed"?    The volume of review removals remains way more than allows for an individual personalized explanation of which published rule they didn't follow for each review removed.

So posting "rules" is no panacea given human nature.

Why would posted Forum rules be treated any differently?

73 Phil NA4M
eHam Product Reviews Manager  (but not Forums manager!)

Screening newly submitted Product Reviews is not new.  Been doing that for quite some time. 

As for "Advertiser Protection" being a motivation for review screening - that's a poor and inaccurate accusation for eHam's effort to try and keep the reviews within the published product review guidelines.

 73 Phil NA4M
eHam Product Reviews Manager  (but not Forums Manager!)
 

What's the DXCC status of the impending XZ1K operations? 

Approved, pending, or, ??

Years ago when eHam initially went live on the 'net W4AN gave each volunteer manager pretty much autonomous carte blanche for running their content area of the site. 

Articles, news, reviews, classifieds, etc. each has a different volunteer content manager.  This also goes for managing the financial, advertising, and technical aspects, etc.

So the content policies of any one site area won't necessarily coincide with site advertising and/or any other manager's content policy.

73 Phil NA4M
eHam Product Reviews Manager - but not advertising...  ;-) 

You posted a similar thread in a different forum and I replied there.

http://www.eham.net/ehamforum/smf/index.php/topic,78057.0.html

The Magnum is a CB/freeband radio masquerading as a 10m ham radio and easily unlocked by taking the case off and moving a jumper I believe. 

73 Phil NA4M
eHam Product Reviews Manager

I don't recall receiving any email regarding a recent review for this product.  But I could have missed it as I was traveling for several days recently. My apologies if your email was overlooked.

The Magnum 257 is a CB/freeband radio disguised as a 10m radio and easily converted to coverage outside 10m as are other radios of this type.  

Quote from a CB/Export radio forum review:

"This radio comes from the manufacturer set for 10 meter operation. It can be easily modified - by the purchaser - for frequencies between 25.165 to 29.699mhz."

A quick search with Google reveals the true target market for these radios.

eHam prefers not to support reviews of this type radio.  We'll take a look at the RS product mentioned. It may have slipped thru the cracks.

Phil NA4M
eHam Product Reviews Manager

As I mentioned before I'll bet that what is being referred to as an "eHam Scale" is a misnomer for the ratings of a product in our Product Reviews.  Example. Take a look here at HF Amplifiers category:  http://www.eham.net/reviews/products/10

Note the 3rd column labled "Average Rating".  This is a numerical average of each review rating as submitted by reviewers.

It seems likely that someone (not from eHam) has applied the term "Scale" to the review ratings to describe the implied product quality as shown by the review ratings.  

Our ratings are described on the product review submission page when someone submits a product review:

5 - Great!
4 - Good
3 - OK
2 - Needs help
1 - Poor
0 - Awful!



73 Phil NA4M
eHam Product Reviews Manager

I suspect it's the Product Reviews ratings.

Phil NA4M

Wonder if anyone has tried one of these for RFI sniffing? 

http://www.nationalrf.com/type_hfdf_vector.htm

73 Phil NA4M

Here's another option for a broadband 80/75m dipole based on W4RNL and W6NL designs:

http://www.ctdxcc.org/n3bb/broadband_antenna/v3_document.htm

Good question.   Is there any concrete factual evidence based on wide scale data that HOA's are responsible for maintaining or enhancing property values?   

In the same vein I wonder if there's any concrete factual data that amateur towers & antennas can be responsible for degrading property values?

Not just anecdotal examples but based on factual wide scale data.


   

What is considered a better quality wireless router these days?  I have an old Linksys WRT54G fed from an Arris cable modem.  Someone earlier mentioned a Belkin.