Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [BackpackGearTest] Ground Rules

Expand Messages
  • David Foote
    Jerry, I know you keep pounding this message: This list is not a drawing for gear give away or a popularity contest. It is a serious list for the testing of
    Message 1 of 3 , Nov 7, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      Jerry,

      I know you keep pounding this message:

      "This list is not
      a drawing for gear give away or a popularity contest. It is a serious
      list for the testing of gear for the benefit of both manufacturers and
      the people on this list."

      But speaking for myself (and probably most people in this group), you
      are giving us more credit for altruism than we deserve.

      Of course, we are interested in some free gear! We all love gear. We
      eat, sleep, breathe gear . . . especially when we are out on the trail
      and it is our means of existence.

      Now if we can apply our years of experience in backpacking towards
      giving valuable input to manufacturers . . . then that's great and in
      that sense it is not a "giveway". We are trading our time and knowledge
      for gear. But I bet if this system required us to pay for the gear to
      be tested, then the level of interest in the group would be much lower.

      Regarding the explanation for the multiple tester situation (i.e. tester
      did excellent job on first test): This means potentially that future
      tests become dominated by a few testers who have repeatedly done a "good
      job" on previous tests and there is no/little room for letting other
      people have a shot at it.

      Instead, I would propose that following guidelines be applied:

      1. If you do a good job, you are still in the "pool" for future tests,
      but only if there are not other qualified candidates (meets the
      manufacturers objectives) who haven't yet had a chance to test.

      2. But if there are sufficient qualified candidates without previously
      being selected, they get to go next and the other testers have to wait
      for their turn to come around again.

      3. If you do a poor job, then you go to the "back of the line" and have
      to wait for a test where not enough qualified candidates exist and you
      are a qualified candidate.




      df







      > Gear Tester wrote:
      >
      > This is a retransmission of an earlier message that has been delayed.
      > It will appear again when ever hotmail gets around to delivering it.
      > Sorry for the double post but this one is important.
      > Jerry
      >
      >
      > --- Original Message -----
      > From: George Cole
      > To: BackpackGearTest@egroups.com
      > Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2000 12:53 PM
      > Subject: RE: [BackpackGearTest] Testers in Mulitple Tests
      >
      > However, I was
      > under the impression that testers were chosen randomly, and the fact
      > that I
      > have not been selected to participate in either the Seychelle or
      > Hennessy
      > test was simply a matter of chance. If this is not so, please advise,
      > as I
      > do not have the time to submit multiple test "applications" when I
      > have less
      > than an equitable chance of being selected.
      >
      > George Cole
      >
      > Your impression is incorrect. The testers are generally chosen with an
      > eye toward satisfying the manufacturers requirements for that specific
      > test. In the case of a completely new product by a new manufacturer,
      > the very lack of experience of a tester may be a plus as this would
      > show the manufacturer possible weaknesses in their instructions for
      > use or in the product itself when used by the inexperienced. Some of
      > the testers applying for the Hennessy test didn't live in areas nor
      > were they going to areas, within the time frame of the test, that
      > would provide the conditions required by the manufacturer for this
      > test. This particular test could require some simple construction or
      > minor engineering abilities. All of that was taken into consideration.
      > In the Seychelle test the requirements weren't very restrictive and
      > the selection was random. I suppose a case could be made that no human
      > action is ever truly random. A truly random selection wouldn't be in
      > the best interests of the people on this list or the manufacturers.
      > Gerry was chosen for the stated reasons. I hope the stated reasons
      > will prove to be unnecessary in the future. If you feel this is
      > unreasonable then please do not apply in the future. This list is not
      > a drawing for gear give away or a popularity contest. It is a serious
      > list for the testing of gear for the benefit of both manufacturers and
      > the people on this list. I hope this clarifies this issue.
      > Thanks for your interest.
      >
      > eGroups Sponsor
      >
      >
      > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > backpackgeartest-unsubscribe@egroups.com
    • Gear Tester
      I m still not explaining it well, I guess. I know why people want to test gear....the same reason I do. I want to have some influence on the gear that hits the
      Message 2 of 3 , Nov 7, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        I'm still not explaining it well, I guess. I know why people want to test gear....the same reason I do. I want to have some influence on the gear that hits the market, if it needs it and I want the gear FREE....just like everyone else. But I have to talk to the manufacturers and explain why they should give people they've never meet a few hundred to a few thousand dollars worth of their gear just because I say it is a good idea. I have to have something to trade. I trade valuable experienced input and exposure. I made a deal with Seychelle for just those things and I feel I let them down because they provided 100% of the requested 10 filters but I (we) only provided 60% of the required tests. I am whining, rewarding, pleading, threatening and anything else I can think of to do to insure that it doesn't happen again. As I said before, I don't plan on having a tester be in two successive tests as the norm. I hoped doing that would cause just what's happening to happen....discussion pounding home the message that the tests are how we are paying for this gear. They are required. Actually, I hope the manufacturers pick their own testers by posting to the list. But I suspect I'll be picking them more than I'd like to be. The easier I make it for the manufacturers to participate the more likely they will. I am not even remotely interested in picking the people to test, but if I do I'm going to do everything I can to insure they provide well thought out timely tests in return for keeping the gear. I just don't know any other way to do it. As far as going to the back of the line if you don't provide the required tests or just slap something together to get by I see no reason why you shouldn't be removed from the list. It's like a Chinese laundry.....no ticky, no washy.
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2000 9:09 PM
        Subject: Re: [BackpackGearTest] Ground Rules

        Regarding the explanation for the multiple tester situation (i.e. tester
        did excellent job on first test):  This means potentially that future
        tests become dominated by a few testers who have repeatedly done a "good
        job" on previous tests and there is no/little room for letting other
        people have a shot at it.
         
        No, this means that if every tester in this test group provides the required 3 reports and does a conscientious job of testing the gear in question then this question will never come up again. It means that each new test will involve new people. It means that 40% of the last test group didn't even do badly....they didn't do at all and that just isn't acceptable.
        Jerry 

         

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.