This topic is likely to attract some heat, so perhaps I should start by saying that if you prefer not to get involved in potentially controversial topics, stop reading now. Similarly I'm not sure if this belongs here or in the Junk Drawer, however I do know for a fact that the editors and moderators do a sterling job and will make sure where it belongs.

My comment or rather thought is as follows...

Something that's being bugging me of late is the association or rather ownership by a particular publishing company of a certain modelling website. Virtually everytime a new book is released by the publishing company, a review follows shortly thereafter. Generally speaking, the reviews are satisfactory (in my opinion a bit on the thin side and not really telling me much more than I already now about the publication) and the books are "Recommended".

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking the publishing company (as I have a fair collection of their books), nor am I knocking the modelling site or its contributors. What I'm questioning is (and I'm merely using the above relationship as an example) the objectivity of the modelling site. How objective can a review be when the company paying for the review also payed for the research and production of the product?

This might be a better question to ask at that site. Here we are likely to get speculation and opinions rather than information from the ones providing the review materials and the ones doing the reviews.

Besides, if I was a publishing company and paid for a modeling website, I would provide my books to the website "in crowd" and expect decent reviews.

Rudi, I think you raise some interesting and valid points. However, your first point on the 'neutrality' or otherwise of a certain site, is not something that I feel should be raised here. That, in my opinion, is a matter that should be discussed there, not here. I feel it totally inappropriate to question the 'editorial' policy of another website....

You could also raise the same question here. Most of the review samples are provided by manufacturers/publishers therefore, following the argument to its logical conclusion, those of us who review could be considered 'pressured' by the provider.

This however, on Armorama, is NOT the case. In my experience, a manufacturer welcomes an objective review. Particularly in the case of the 'smaller' producers - for them it is a way of improving their product and (depending on the knowledge base of the reviewer) a good way to see any shortcomings in the product. There is no pressure onany of us to 'Rubber-Stamp' a product. If there are errors or shortcomings, they will be highlighted. Moreover, there is no 100% product, In my opinion at least, the infamous '10' Rating should be used very sparingly indeed...Jim

Rob, Jim:
Fair reposts. Thanks.

Jonathan:
I would prefer not to mention the sites, as I merely used this particular relationship as an example.

I am not getting into the fray. I simply wish to say as a producer of certain products that I have shared with Armorama for reviews and intend to do so in the future. it would be my hope that the reviews and credits given to me by clients, and modelers I DO WANT objective reviews, as I want to provide the very best product I am capable of, as I care about the things I produce. Many co's don't, I do what I do because I enjoy modeling myself. I expect good quality, so objective reviews are important.

The point you raise "the independence of the press to tell the truth" is of all times and all sectors.

Example: I am a motorcycle freak. How honest would a motorcycle magazine be when assessing a motorcycle of a manufacturer who invites regularly the editors to race tracks in exotic places to test one orr another new motorcycle model?

Reviews are by definition subjective. A book explaining at length how to cut a piece of plastic of a sprue might be enlightening to one and absolutely of the planet stupid for somebody else.

As long as we, the readers, are not prepared to pay a lot of money for accessing a site like armorame, armorama will rely on manufacturers for income from publicity and for free models to review.

You are right that this almost automatically leads to potentail conflicts of interest and assumptions that things are not done as honest as they should be.

However, I tend to believe that also writers and editors have some "professional honor" and write whatever should be written, preferably in a diplomatic way. If not, then there are sufficient fora where "normal" people with bad experience with one or another kit ventilate their frustration and spread correct info