Forums
New posts
Search forums
News
Security News
Technology News
Giveaways
Giveaways, Promotions and Contests
Discounts & Deals
Reviews
Users Reviews
Video Reviews
Support
Windows Malware Removal Help & Support
Mac Malware Removal Help & Support
Mobile Malware Removal Help & Support
Blog
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Reply to thread
Menu
Install the app
Install
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Giveaways
Discounts and Deals
Thor Premium Home 70% off
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ChoiceVoice" data-source="post: 871408" data-attributes="member: 28876"><p>interesting and informative. but a word of caution. when i studied statistics at university, they taught me that the small sample size ... and the fact that it doesn't have a reference for comparison (other avs tested with the same sample), makes this a bit more antidotal, and a bit less scientific in analysis (which is to be expected in unfunded testing). i say this only because someone has posted (in this thread) already that they will not buy the product based on your expert opinion and testing. testing that, based on its composition and this sites recommendation, can be perceived as bordering on libel (particularly by angry av companies). i suggest caution when instructing potential customers for a product against purchasing it based on incomplete testing. true, you do state it is your opinion ("not recommended"), but when you represent this site, you draw the site into that uncomfortable legal sphere and make it libel ("staff member"). i recall when bleeping computer was sued for libel for calling someone a fake av (or something). not a good place to put yourself. i do see you have a disclaimer on the test, but am unsure if it is enough to legally protect you (?).</p><p></p><p>i am not saying `don't test' or to change the way people test. the test was good and interesting (just not necessarily legally capable of justifying lost product sales in a defamation lawsuit - given you instructed the readers here not to buy it. your test page does have some cautions on it, but that was undone in this post thread when you instructed people to avoid it by saying it was not recommended). so, i am saying to be careful in what you say based on that test, particularly if your opinion is conflated with the espoused expert opinion of the site. and particularly when it was revealed in this thread that the company has a new owner (the source of this promotion), and we don't know how prone to lawfare that new owner is. lol, okay, old feller here is done being everyone's dad and has given his 2 cents of fatherly instruction to protect them. and kids, wear a condom. carry on. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite115" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ChoiceVoice, post: 871408, member: 28876"] interesting and informative. but a word of caution. when i studied statistics at university, they taught me that the small sample size ... and the fact that it doesn't have a reference for comparison (other avs tested with the same sample), makes this a bit more antidotal, and a bit less scientific in analysis (which is to be expected in unfunded testing). i say this only because someone has posted (in this thread) already that they will not buy the product based on your expert opinion and testing. testing that, based on its composition and this sites recommendation, can be perceived as bordering on libel (particularly by angry av companies). i suggest caution when instructing potential customers for a product against purchasing it based on incomplete testing. true, you do state it is your opinion ("not recommended"), but when you represent this site, you draw the site into that uncomfortable legal sphere and make it libel ("staff member"). i recall when bleeping computer was sued for libel for calling someone a fake av (or something). not a good place to put yourself. i do see you have a disclaimer on the test, but am unsure if it is enough to legally protect you (?). i am not saying `don't test' or to change the way people test. the test was good and interesting (just not necessarily legally capable of justifying lost product sales in a defamation lawsuit - given you instructed the readers here not to buy it. your test page does have some cautions on it, but that was undone in this post thread when you instructed people to avoid it by saying it was not recommended). so, i am saying to be careful in what you say based on that test, particularly if your opinion is conflated with the espoused expert opinion of the site. and particularly when it was revealed in this thread that the company has a new owner (the source of this promotion), and we don't know how prone to lawfare that new owner is. lol, okay, old feller here is done being everyone's dad and has given his 2 cents of fatherly instruction to protect them. and kids, wear a condom. carry on. :p [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top