Digital BW, The Print

Sam A. McCandless wrote:

>Keith has gone from telling us to leave Henry Wilhelm out of our 
>posts to trying to use our list to organize his harassment of Wilhelm.
>
>And asks our thoughts!
>
No Sam.  

1)    Asking Henry WHEN/IF data will be published once again is not 
harassment.

2)    Since many on this list and others have complained about a paucity 
of comparable data, suggesting that people express those opinions to 
manufacturers as opposed to simply onlist is a valid thought.

3)    Asking for feedback is EXACTLY that.  I am glad to se someone 
feels so strongly, as do you, that WILHELM is still the "sine qua non" 
in the field and that we should just be willing to wait until he once 
again drips his manna from heaven to us poor urchins.

>For starters, I think Keith ought to be told to quit abusing this list.
>  
>
Care to cite an example of my ABUSE?

It looks quite like you want to ignite a flame-war.  I won't descend to 
that level.  However, I shall note that one of the MOST abusive ways to 
post to a list are to attack someone personally, and try to start a 
flame-war.

>Keith should also quit tormenting Wilhelm, who has done and is doing 
>work for Epson, Lyson, etc. which helps us whether Epson, Lyson, etc. 
>let Wilhelm publish the data or not. 
>
How so? Because they in the long term make better products?  Wouldn't 
the numbers be of much more use if they were made public?

I guess you would still believe in mileage testing for vehicles if the 
EPA sent it to a commercial firm, only released the data to the 
automaker whose product was reviewed, never published the data, and you 
had no idea what the baseline was or the conditions of any individual test?

>We should remember that the 
>published data has sometimes been very disappointing and damaging to 
>his lab's corporate clients. 
>
DUH!  That's obvious..  Hey, here's a suggestion, testing that ONLY 
reports positive data.. How about we ask UL (Underwriter's Laboratories) 
to publish data ONLY when it is positive?  Would anyone want to use an 
electric blanket or blow-dryer then?  What would "UL certification" mean?

Wilhelm's current lack of publication flies directly in the face of 
established basic rules for any kind of scientific research..  Results 
are to be published and repeatable, UNLESS you are developing a 
proprietary product (atomic scientists even published research data 
relevant to building nuclear weapons - I doubt any of Wilhelm's findings 
can be THAT sensitive).  Wilhelm is NOT developing the product, he is 
testing it.  Basically, to put it in a a nutshell, Wilhelm is using a 
reputation he garnered for good testing and good science to lend 
credence to science and testing that flouts the rules of good science. 
 The only potential reason for doing that which I can see is $$..

The public has waited two years based upon promises from Wilhelm, etc... 
When do we as consumers feel enough time has elapsed to come to a 
conclusion that the foundation of objectivity and consumer trust Wilhelm 
built his reputation on has suffered irrevocably from a failure to 
either keep those same promises,?  That's not a rhetorical question... 
The reason I asked for people's thoughts on this was I want to get a 
feel for what the sentiment is.  Contrary to how you seemingly would  
like to paint it Sam, as tough as I am on the manufacturers,  I ALSO am 
in regular and FRIENDLY contact with them.  My comments and reviews, 
although at times ascerbic, are also valuable simply because I don't, as 
the Brits would say, "give anyone a pass."  As a manufacturer, you have 
bundles of people ready to say nice things if you advertise with them, 
or give away free product.  BUT, it is those who review independently 
and objectively, who you know give you  the good AND the bad, without 
sugarcoating it, who make suggestions based upon those facts, that truly 
help you develop a better product. Before you even go there Sam, I am 
not putting my technical expertise nor my reputation on any kind of par 
with Wilhelm.  

When I worked as a political consultant there were two kinds of 
staffers: "yes men" and straight-forward plain talkers.  For a plethora 
of reasons, the latter are much rarer.  I got threatened with firing 
from several campaigns and several staff positions for being that direct 
and honest.. BUT, because I ALWAYS adhered to that road I NEVER did get 
fired.

Wilhelm had much the same reputation for giving clear and unvarnished 
results.  It's what made his numbers worthwhile.  Sad to say, it looks 
to many out here like money and a desire to pay the bills has 
compromised that.  That's certainly his choice to make, but the and the 
manufacturers have every right to know, and I would think would actually 
WANT to know that BEFORE the damage is irreparable. I would MUCH prefer 
Wilhelm to publish numbers like he once did, however, it's clear from 
the comments of many that if he chooses to no longer do so that whatever 
numbers the manufacturers choose to release based upon his research will 
be seen as tainted or somehow questionable... Who does that benefit?

>And we should remember that we are not 
>his lab's clients; only their customers.
>
Economics  101...

Who buys the inks, printers and papers?

Consumers..

Who puts the $$ into the coffers of manufacturers that is used to pay 
Wilhelm?

Consumers..

Therefore, just as when a company is taxed, the cost is actually borne 
by the consumers, we all ARE paying Wilhelm.  Unless you know of some 
phantasmagorical pot of money that someone is using.

We, as consumers, AND those who actually are paying Wilhelm, have every 
right to expect the results and a description of the methodology if the 
manufacturers are going to use said results in marketing/advertising.

> They arguably owe us 
>something, but Wilhelm does not.
>  
>
See the above...  Actually, he also does owe consumers something as a 
matter of basic integrity.  He is trading on a reputation that he 
garnered not just for providing data to the manufacturers, BUT to 
consumers as well.. He consistently said, that once new methodologies 
were developed the public would get new data.  If he has no intention of 
so doing he either:

1)    Lied outright when he made those statements, which I don't think 
is the case.

2)    Change his mind for whatever reason and should notify those who 
trusted his original promises..

In either case, his credibility as an independent and objective reviewer 
is clearly suspect in either case.  When you are beholden to the 
manufacturers' checkbook and avoid posting data (as you imply - by 
saying that it could hurt his clients) that might not be 100%  positive, 
 there is a definite basic conflict of interest between real honest 
objectivity and the almighty dollar.  Wilhelm built a reputation on that 
objectivity, now it would appear, he may have sold out that very 
objectivity, or at the very least damage his reputation for such.

>We should wish testing was also being done under the auspices of a 
>"consumers' union" of printers, a la "Consumer Reports". We could pay 
>for it out of the fees charged to subscribe to the list! 
>
We HAVE already paid that fee.. Neither Wilhelm nor advertising media 
get their $$ out of thin air.  The cost is passed on to the consumer.

The reality, if manufacturers are quoting data from Wilhelm, and his 
reputation is coming into question, then the manufacturers are being 
damaged.  That does NOT help inkjet users.  The ONLY one who benefits in 
that scenario is Wilhelm, not Lyson, EPSON, HP, no-one else. 
 Accordingly, as consumers who actually enjoy using the products and who 
want to see BETTER product, we have some responsibility to tell the 
manufacturer when data they use in advertising etc. actually causes us 
to question the advert.  If they lose OUR sales because they choose to 
cite data that is hidden behind smoke and mirrors, while the source of 
that data's very credibility is starting to come into question, the 
manufacturers have every right to hear that from the consumers.  The 
users on lists like this are a niche, but, they are a crucial niche in 
the steering of product development.  The reviews and recommendations 
that come from listmembers here are looked to other less savvy (or less 
inkjet obsessed) users in deciding on products. The IT world has long 
been that way, key opinion-makers drive the market segment.


Keith
 
 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]