Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Misplaced priorities? Ethics?  (Read 5841 times)
WA8MEA
Member

Posts: 264


WWW

Ignore
« on: December 18, 2010, 06:24:09 AM »

Situation taken care of.

Thanks....

73, Bill
« Last Edit: December 27, 2010, 08:08:31 AM by Bill Lauterbach » Logged
K0BG
Member

Posts: 9885


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #1 on: December 21, 2010, 07:39:58 AM »

Bill, remember the adage, illegitimi non carborundum, and let it pass.

Most of the miscreants hide behind pseudonyms, which speaks volumes. And, we have to remember that the internet has allowed all manner of psychopaths to roam at will.
Logged

AA4HA
Member

Posts: 1583




Ignore
« Reply #2 on: December 21, 2010, 11:42:04 AM »

Unfortunately many folks cannot participate in rational discourse and immediately "go nuclear" with F-Bombs, scurrilous accusations or threats of violence. This internet thing (even way back on the days of BBS groups) gives idiots the anonymity where they can make claims that would have resulted in dueling or at least a punch in the nose.

People make claims of impropriety to tear someone else down to their level. They only feel in control of a situation if you are down in the sewerage with them.

I do not think many of the folks ever took a debate class and a few probably can only make it through the day on a heavy dose of anti-psychotic drugs.

Good luck to you, I have been watching your postings for a long time and never saw anything that got my dander up.

Tisha Hayes
AA4HA
Logged

Ms. Tisha Hayes, AA4HA
Lookout Mountain, Alabama
K9IUQ
Member

Posts: 2053




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: December 21, 2010, 12:52:34 PM »

Good luck to you, I have been watching your postings for a long time and never saw anything that got my dander up.

That is because WA8MEA "hits and runs". He posts garbage and then edits his posts, deleting the garbage. I have been the victim of many of his tirades, however you will not find his posts as he deletes them.

WA8MEA talking about "ethics" is really hilarious. He doesn't know anything about ethics or proper conduct on forums. He doesn't deserve the privilege to post here on eham....

Stan K9IUQ
Logged
K1CJS
Member

Posts: 6055




Ignore
« Reply #4 on: December 21, 2010, 06:35:03 PM »

This is one of the reasons that quite a few of us are very much for the simple safeguard of anyone wanting to post using their callsign.  I do know that physically verifying the call and address of the person is nearly impossible, but the sending of a simple postcard to the licensees stated address with instructions to the applicant to verify and return it with a yearly contribution--even if its only $5--would solve that.  It may also increase income to the site.  Yes, I know that it would be a bear to get that system on-line, but once it was online, upkeep shouldn't be too much of an issue.

I do realize that without that verification option there are other ways that people can post--hyjacking a callsign (I had that done to me a couple of times on other sites) and simply using a callsign that isn't active/not issued by the FCC.

Logged
K9IUQ
Member

Posts: 2053




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: December 22, 2010, 12:59:23 PM »


I really apologize to Stan.  He made some serious accusations against a very fine company (DX Engineering)

I made no serious accusations towards DX Engineering. Unlike your nasty remarks towards me in that that thread, MY remarks are still there in their entirety. Unlike you I am not ashamed of what I post and since I never post untruths I do not have to delete anything.

For the record, the manager of DX Engineering called me on the phone and apologized for his companies mistake. They also gave me a very generous gift card and promised to rectify their false advertising.....
 
Stan K9IUQ
Logged
K9IUQ
Member

Posts: 2053




Ignore
« Reply #6 on: December 23, 2010, 04:52:50 AM »

Bill, let it pass.

Stan K9IUQ
« Last Edit: December 23, 2010, 04:56:07 AM by Stan Shestokes » Logged
WG7X
Member

Posts: 350




Ignore
« Reply #7 on: December 24, 2010, 07:52:52 AM »

So, after the tempest in a teapot, let's get back to the original subject which no one has actually followed up on: That being the subject of heavy editing of e-Ham reviews.

I have submitted reviews where almost the entire review is redacted to the point that the review is essentially worthless. Is it done to prevent advertiser revenue from going away?

I doubt that, simply because one of my review in question had to do with "73 Magazine" a publication long gone from the amateur scene. My comments regarding Wayne Green and his loopy editorials were edited down to nothing, while everything that I had said was merely opinion and not libelous.

By the time the reviews editor was done the comments were rendered moot. So why bother?

In addition, I wonder if any of you remember when e-Ham was going to make access to the reviews only available to "premium" or paid subscriptions?

That one went away in a hurry when it was pointed out that if they did that, no one would ever post another review again! It was also pointed out that the reviews themselves could be considered the intellectual property of the various authors of said reviews. This was said partly in jest, but some were seriously put out and suggested the if the reviews were to be made a revenue source that said revenue should be shared with the "Authors"!

73! Gary
Logged
WX7G
Member

Posts: 6204




Ignore
« Reply #8 on: December 24, 2010, 03:13:13 PM »

Equipment reviews can be short and to the point.
Logged
AA4HA
Member

Posts: 1583




Ignore
« Reply #9 on: December 25, 2010, 09:28:17 AM »

In addition, I wonder if any of you remember when e-Ham was going to make access to the reviews only available to "premium" or paid subscriptions?

That one went away in a hurry when it was pointed out that if they did that, no one would ever post another review again! It was also pointed out that the reviews themselves could be considered the intellectual property of the various authors of said reviews. This was said partly in jest, but some were seriously put out and suggested the if the reviews were to be made a revenue source that said revenue should be shared with the "Authors"!

I agree wholeheartedly on that one! The reviews should remain free and open, even if there is other content that is behind a paywall. (and there may be a place for that as well).

Working as a paid communications consultant my work product has a certain value. Once a client has paid to secure my services the work product becomes their property unless there is some sort of copyright arrangement worked out in the contract. I actually get paid to do evaluations on technologies and companies, sometimes under a non-disclosure agreement. Particular client information is restricted so I cannot reveal all of the details (like where I did something to a comms system or photographs) as I do not want the FBI knocking on my door.

As a ham, I elect to give away that particular work product. If someone wants to take something that I have conceived of and to put it behind a paywall (where they are making revenue off of access) they are essentially enforcing their copyright upon my works. You see this and have to contend with it for many folks who write articles that end up on QST or QEX. To do a proper product evaluation there are certain criteria and forms that must be followed. The product reviews section on eHam is 75% opinion ("sounds better", "works better") without any quantitative values assigned. So, we all need to understand that anything in product reviews is going to be seen through the colored glasses of whomever is writing the review. The editors need to moderate those postings and in some cases, edit them for content.

Maybe there should be a disclaimer statement right up front when you write a review to make it clear that this is moderated input and subject to editing.

Tisha Hayes

If those contributions were put behind a paywall I would be disinclined to contribute.
Logged

Ms. Tisha Hayes, AA4HA
Lookout Mountain, Alabama
NA4M
Member

Posts: 61




Ignore
« Reply #10 on: December 25, 2010, 10:35:47 AM »


Maybe there should be a disclaimer statement right up front when you write a review to make it clear that this is moderated input and subject to editing.


There is...

It's in our Product Reviews Policy which is shown on the main reviews page and also on each new review submission page in the right margins.

"NOTE: Newly submitted product reviews will not be displayed on the web site until after they have been
screened and approved."

and

"eHam reserves the right to edit or remove reviews and/or products for any reason at any time without
prior notice."


73 Phil NA4M
eHam Product Reviews Manager
Logged
K0BG
Member

Posts: 9885


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #11 on: December 25, 2010, 02:28:58 PM »

Phil, I wonder if there is some way you and I can communicate outside the forums? I'll be more than happy to give you my phone number and/or call you at your convenience.
Logged

NA4M
Member

Posts: 61




Ignore
« Reply #12 on: December 25, 2010, 02:57:36 PM »

Alan - the best way to communicate with me regarding eHam is via the published email address for the product reviews manager

73 NA4M
Logged
KI4SDY
Member

Posts: 1452




Ignore
« Reply #13 on: December 27, 2010, 07:01:18 AM »

Like I have always said and is proven again on this thread; "The biggest troublemakers are the biggest complainers! Hail, Hail, the gangs all here. Grin
« Last Edit: January 23, 2011, 01:55:21 PM by KI4SDY » Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!