Web Hosting Review

[allen]

In an overt-cover operation, dreamhost exposes "hosting review" services for the pay-for-bias goldmines they are.

Link

[mouser]

fantastic read.
wish i could say i was surprised to read about the sleaziness of these fake review sites but i'm not.
nice surprise to see a company expose them though - that's a pretty impressive move on the part of dreamhost i have to say.

[patteo]

Along the same lines, I wonder about the independence of such sites as

Registry Repair Software Review 2006
http://registry-repair-software-review.toptenreviews.com/

Especially when there's a Buy button on each of the 10 contenders.

or

Video Editing Software Review 2006
http://video-editing-software-review.toptenreviews.com/

And the mother of all Top Ten Reviews ?

TopTenREVIEWS Software Reviews
http://www.toptenreviews.com/


But I'm not totally discounting the above as I do see that some fair amount of work has gone into tabulating it. But how independent I'm not quite sure.

For example the Registry Repair review seems OK although I'm aware of the controversy surrounding such software.

And the Video editing software did not include the one I thought was superb at www.womble.com or the one mentioned by Carol "TMPGEnc MPEG Editor"
See mention of both in :
http://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?topic=2494.msg17113#msg17113

Any thoughts ?

Of course, we have a great site to help us sift through all the junk out there ! www.donationcoder.com ;

[Carol Haynes]

Not convinced by the video review page ...

To be fair Womble and TMPGEnc MPEG editor are not at all the same as the products they are reviewing. They simply convert stuff from one format to another and allow you to chop bits out as you do it. All the apps they are reviewing allow you to take clips of material and assemble complete videos including cuts, fading (and other transitions), special effects etc.

However, if they honestly rank Nero's buggy and clumsy effort higher than Vegas then either there is a hidden agenda or else the reviewer hasn't the faintest idea about video editing. Adobe Premier and Vegas Studio are ahead of most of those programs in terms of sheer power (not sure about 1 and 2 in the list as I haven't tried them but they are by reputable companies). OK they are harder to learn - precisely because they actually do something rather more complex than the other programs, and do it better.

Personally I think the review is based on ease of use more than anything else - a daft criteria for video editing which is inherantly complex if you want to do anything more than stick clips one after the other.

The other issue he doesn't address (at least in the bits I read) are about quality of output. Ulead come out at number 3, but my experience is that I have huge audio sync problems with the Ulead stuff when I have tried it.

Add to that there are none of the blockbuster applications there - Adobe Premier CS2, Vegas+DVD 6, Pinnacle, Canopus ... not to mention all the studio quality production apps. OK they are rather more expensive but Vegas+DVD would blow any of those products out of the water by many miles (to name 1).

[nudone]

well said, Carol.

[Hirudin]

I haven't read the article yet, but I was thinking about starting a site like that....

[allen]

A website where you resign any semblence of integrity in exchange for easy money?  That's very American of you.

[jairod]

I think the real issue is whether the software gets tried and reviewed for real.
The problem is when webmasters "review" software that they have never even tried or used.
Take for example this site that talks about regedit cleaner
Do you think these people have actually used the software they are recommending?

[KynloStephen66515]

Aw, very disappointed now, the link takes you to an error page as they must of removed that content.  


Maybe somebody eated it? ------>    <------