coffee-forum.net
Promoting coffee discussion.

Main
Date: 20 Dec 2006 11:47:12
From:
Subject: CG Editors Choice
While looking at Coffeegeek today it seems that the editor has made
some very interesting choices. The most notable is the best new product
for 2006. It seems that vaporware is the winner with the La zocco
GS3, and the Scace device a very close second. Isn't that sorta ironic.
The device that forced the evolution of the GS3 came in second.

The other item of note was the best tamper going to Coffeelab. Maybe
Mr. Prince missed the H-B tamper Roadshow, and the feedback of most of
the pros, but so far, the users say different. There are allot of
choices out there, but I guess they didn't pay for the opportunity to
win best off. Reg came in second?

Just my take, but I'm wondering what is your take on this type of
awarding system, and when the manufacturers are clients of the editor,
should they be eligible for "Best of" type awards?





 
Date: 29 Dec 2006 15:03:51
From: daveb
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice
b
Andy Schecter wrote:
> CoffeeKid wrote:
> > And we have on average two new items up for auction starting every day
> > here:
> >
> > http://www.coffeegeek.com/holiday/auctions
> >
> > with 100% of the proceeds going to Coffee Kids.
>
>
> Do you know where I can download sniping software for these auctions?
>
>
>
> ...just kidding!
>
>
> --
>
>
> -Andy S. :-)
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/andy_s/sets/



 
Date: 23 Dec 2006 20:57:15
From: gscace
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice

>
> When I choose a product - it's about the product. Not about the vendor.
> At all. Why would I even list the Scace device (which btw, contrary to
> Terry's yahoo-posted Chicken and Egg scenario wasn't first - the PIDed
> Silvia followed by an early Linea-based prototype of the GS/3 were
> first) when I won't ever again list a link to TerryZ's company? I think
> the Scace device is fantastic, and huge, massive kudos to Greg for it,
> and it's why I listed it (though I hope one day he moves to someone
> else to sell it besides Terry - then I'll buy one, instead of always
> borrowing one).


Well I've been following this thread without comment, until now. I
feel I should respond specifically to the quoted text above. Terry
gave me encouragement to harden the device to the point that it could
be produced commercially. Terry has helped me to source services in the
USA that could help produce it, and Terry has a very good distribution
network that I don't have. My relationship with Terry has been quite
symbiotic and our dealings have been very straightforward. I like
Terry and I like the guys who are working for him. I'm very happy to
do business with him.

k, I'm quite honored that my thermometer was considered for such an
award.

Now I gotta say that coffee ain't that large a community. Dunno what
you two got going and I don't really care. But just look at where we
are going in terms of coffee quality, what with the stuff that's come
out of this group in the past, disseminating it through the third wave,
improvements in coffee quality at the source, and on and on. Petty
bullshit don't move us forward. Terry's got a point that's pretty
relevant, k. If you're gonna give an award on a website that's as
widely read and respected as yours is, what are the disclaimers and
ground rules for selection up front. This is pretty important because
what you write has potentially significant impact on folks' bottom
lines since you are an acknowledged authority in these matters.
Transparency here is a very good idea and I think that is Terry's
concern. On the other hand, k, I recognize that it's your site and
your work (along with the folks who help you), and that you make policy
on your site.

Anyway, I think you all oughtta realize that our realm of coffee is a
whole lot smaller than Sarah Lee's and that we all oughta make nice,
get on with it and make the bar higher still.

-Greg "I'm honored as hell to be second to the GS-3 anyway but there
oughtta be a Dave Blaine award for this thread for Chrissakes. Merry
Christmas!!!!!" Scace



 
Date: 22 Dec 2006 10:35:05
From: CoffeeKid
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice

Ken Wilson wrote:

> Er - the bit that this brit has trouble with is this effusive twaddle:
>
> > "What a coffee maker. It made my Kona sing. It showed me cherry flavour
> > in a Colombian coffee. It's looks sexy and techie at the same time. And
> > it has its own clothes!
>
>
> the real sherlock would be sitting there sucking his pipe, partaking of
> dubious substances, cogitating the relationship with the doctor and
> pondering the fall in standards that has caused our canadian brethren to
> stray so far from english as she should be writ.

See, there's the problem. We think of English as a he.

k



 
Date: 22 Dec 2006 10:29:28
From: CoffeeKid
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice
"Never seen anything so blatant"?

In case you didn't know, and you probably don't, I bought the Eva Solo
myself to test out - it wasn't supplied by any company. Every review on
the website has a link to where to buy - in most cases, the supplier of
the product gets that link. In this particular case, since I bought it
myself, I linked to the website's amazon affiliate account. AFTER the
review was done. There was no subterfuge to just post this review to
just garner the affiliate sales.

In fact, you may have been reading technical reviews for 40 years, but
you apparently don't read a lot of influencer website reviews for
products. Sites with very unbiased, informed reviews (take
www.dpreview.com for instance) make it standard practice to always link
to affiliate websites for "where to buy". It's how these websites
actually can exist. Because most people don't click the ads or banners
on these websites.

There's nothing nefarious going on with this link.

And btw, I'm not the only one who thinks the Eva Solo is a great
product. Tonx just wrote it up last week:
http://dethroner.com/index.php/2006/12/15/clothed-coffeemaker-the-eva-solo/

And of course, their link goes to that websites' affiliate link. So I
guess they're in on some sort of scam too.

k

holmesresidence221b@gmail.com wrote:
> Here's a copy of the sumy in their review on the coffee maker Eva
> Solo. It speaks for itself and is blatantly unobjective and the last
> statement says buy this from Amazon and you help coffee geek - talk
> about a smoking brewer. I've been reading technical reviews for 40
> years and have never seen anything so blatant in that time. LOOK AT
> THE LAST PARAGRAPH:
>
>
> "What a coffee maker. It made my Kona sing. It showed me cherry flavour
> in a Colombian coffee. It's looks sexy and techie at the same time. And
> it has its own clothes!
>
> The Eva Solo Cafe Solo is a primo coffee making system. Last year when
> it was around $100 US online, some grumbled that was a lot of dead
> presidents for what amounted to glass, metal and rubber (and neoprene).
> The thing is, for high quality design asthetics you often pay a premium
> - look at Allesi products if you doubt me. But with the Cafe Solo,
> there's sts behind the aesthetic design, and some of the sts make
> the design look even better.
>
> At $100, I'd say this product was worth the money. At the current price
> of $80 or so, it's definitely a quality coffee brewer, producing a brew
> so vastly superior to almost any $80 auto drip coffee maker that it
> should almost be criminal. And at the $53 Cdn dollars ($40USD) price I
> paid, it is criminal - a steal!"
>
> We highly recommend this brewer. It's so popular at CoffeeGeek that our
> news editor and one of our writers also got units. We happily give it a
> 10 out of 10 - given its brewing method, there's almost nothing can
> think of to improve it's output and value, except perhaps the inclusion
> of a measuring spoon and maybe another $10 or $15 drop in price.
>
> Want this brewer and want to help out CoffeeGeek? Buy it from Amazon
> and their affiliates.The brewer is available in two sizes: the Eva Solo
> Cafe Solo 1 litre model, and the smaller Cafe Solo 0.6 litre model.
> Current best prices are $80 for the large model and $75 for the smaller
> version.
>
> QuickShot Review rating: 9.2
>
>
>
> Robert Harmon wrote:
> > w1r3d1@yahoo.com wrote in news:1166644032.108990.86270
> > @f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> >
> > SNIPPED
> >
> > > Just my take, but I'm wondering what is your take on this type of
> > > awarding system, and when the manufacturers are clients of the editor,
> > > should they be eligible for "Best of" type awards?
> > >
> > >
> > Do you have any proof that the ratings are 'for sale' on computergeek.com
> > or are you just trolling? I browse, & post to, CG with frequency and I've
> > never had reason to question the motives or ethics of anyone associatted
> > with that site. If there is any SERIOUS cause for concern please post it to
> > this group ASAP.
> >
> > Robert (Reminds me of 'leaks' from the White House.) Harmon
> > --
> > http://tinyurl.com/pou2y
> > http://tinyurl.com/fkd6r
> > Remove "Z" to reply via email.



  
Date: 22 Dec 2006 19:18:25
From: Robert Harmon
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice
"CoffeeKid" <Coffeekid@gmail.com > wrote in
news:1166812168.275770.316160@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com:

> "Never seen anything so blatant"?
>
> In case you didn't know, and you probably don't, I bought the Eva Solo
> myself to test out - it wasn't supplied by any company. Every review
> on the website has a link to where to buy - in most cases, the
> supplier of the product gets that link. In this particular case, since
> I bought it myself, I linked to the website's amazon affiliate
> account. AFTER the review was done. There was no subterfuge to just
> post this review to just garner the affiliate sales.

snip

C'mon, what a 'blinking' waste of 'blinking' bandwidth!

Anyone here ever read PC Magazine & if you have has it never occured to you
that their editor's choice selections are advertisers? Who else would
advertise in those places but potential award selectees? In fact you could
probably make an argument that if PC Mag selected my home-grown widget as
their product of the year it must mean they're on the take. How else could
a non-mainstream product be rated as 'best of class'?

I've always taken it as a matter of faith that magazines & websites that
attract big advertisers do so because of the customers they can attract.
Are all of these potential customers gullible or are they attracted to
these magazines & websites because of word of mouth recommendations from
peers?

Robert (Want total objectivity? Then go buy Consumer Reports.) Harmon
--
http://tinyurl.com/pou2y
http://tinyurl.com/fkd6r
Remove "Z" to reply via email.


 
Date: 22 Dec 2006 09:49:51
From:
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice

jim schulman wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 07:37:48 -0800, Roque Ja wrote:
>
> >How
> >can it be that so many people here are so willing to just overlook the
> >flagrent breach of integrity inherent in giving good reviews and "best
> >of" awards to anyone ready to pony up the cash?
>
> Because there's no sign that this is happening. CG has lots of
> sponsors that sell the Silvia and Mazzer but not the Macap and Solis.
>
> As I said before, any reasonable selection for an editor's choice
> reward would have benefited some sponsor (and hurt some others). Terry
> is a nice guy, but he tends to think the fix is in whenever he's on
> the short side of one of these. The point is that he has no case;
> again **ANY CHOICE** would have benefited some sponsor.



 
Date: 22 Dec 2006 06:03:36
From: shane
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice
In the last 100 years or so technical review were most likely published
in some sort of media that one had to pay for. The Internet is free,
hosting a web site is not. So what if k has to shill a bit for an
advertiser to pay the bills. If it bothers you go someplace else on
the web or don't buy the item.
The Internet is a new media and a new form of communication and a bit
different from what has been done in the past. Again I feel that I
must remind people - no one is ever truly unobjective.

Shane

holmesresidence221b@gmail.com wrote:
> Here's a copy of the sumy in their review on the coffee maker Eva
> Solo. It speaks for itself and is blatantly unobjective and the last
> statement says buy this from Amazon and you help coffee geek - talk
> about a smoking brewer. I've been reading technical reviews for 40
> years and have never seen anything so blatant in that time. LOOK AT
> THE LAST PARAGRAPH:
>
>



 
Date: 22 Dec 2006 05:24:56
From:
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice
Here's a copy of the sumy in their review on the coffee maker Eva
Solo. It speaks for itself and is blatantly unobjective and the last
statement says buy this from Amazon and you help coffee geek - talk
about a smoking brewer. I've been reading technical reviews for 40
years and have never seen anything so blatant in that time. LOOK AT
THE LAST PARAGRAPH:


"What a coffee maker. It made my Kona sing. It showed me cherry flavour
in a Colombian coffee. It's looks sexy and techie at the same time. And
it has its own clothes!

The Eva Solo Cafe Solo is a primo coffee making system. Last year when
it was around $100 US online, some grumbled that was a lot of dead
presidents for what amounted to glass, metal and rubber (and neoprene).
The thing is, for high quality design asthetics you often pay a premium
- look at Allesi products if you doubt me. But with the Cafe Solo,
there's sts behind the aesthetic design, and some of the sts make
the design look even better.

At $100, I'd say this product was worth the money. At the current price
of $80 or so, it's definitely a quality coffee brewer, producing a brew
so vastly superior to almost any $80 auto drip coffee maker that it
should almost be criminal. And at the $53 Cdn dollars ($40USD) price I
paid, it is criminal - a steal!"

We highly recommend this brewer. It's so popular at CoffeeGeek that our
news editor and one of our writers also got units. We happily give it a
10 out of 10 - given its brewing method, there's almost nothing can
think of to improve it's output and value, except perhaps the inclusion
of a measuring spoon and maybe another $10 or $15 drop in price.

Want this brewer and want to help out CoffeeGeek? Buy it from Amazon
and their affiliates.The brewer is available in two sizes: the Eva Solo
Cafe Solo 1 litre model, and the smaller Cafe Solo 0.6 litre model.
Current best prices are $80 for the large model and $75 for the smaller
version.

QuickShot Review rating: 9.2



Robert Harmon wrote:
> w1r3d1@yahoo.com wrote in news:1166644032.108990.86270
> @f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> SNIPPED
>
> > Just my take, but I'm wondering what is your take on this type of
> > awarding system, and when the manufacturers are clients of the editor,
> > should they be eligible for "Best of" type awards?
> >
> >
> Do you have any proof that the ratings are 'for sale' on computergeek.com
> or are you just trolling? I browse, & post to, CG with frequency and I've
> never had reason to question the motives or ethics of anyone associatted
> with that site. If there is any SERIOUS cause for concern please post it to
> this group ASAP.
>
> Robert (Reminds me of 'leaks' from the White House.) Harmon
> --
> http://tinyurl.com/pou2y
> http://tinyurl.com/fkd6r
> Remove "Z" to reply via email.



  
Date: 23 Dec 2006 18:17:36
From: Natarajan Krishnaswami
Subject: Neoprene jackets (was Re: CG Editors Choice)
On 2006-12-22, holmesresidence221b@gmail.com <holmesresidence221b@gmail.com > wrote:
> Here's a copy of the sumy in their review on the coffee maker Eva
> Solo.

Ignoring the subject of k Prince's objectivity or not, which I find
dull, I was intrigued by the Eva Solo's neoprene jacket.

Bonjour sells a neoprene jacket for press pots called the "Cafe Zip",
but theirs attaches with velcro around the handle. Unlike the Eva's
jacket, this has a reflective coating on the inside, something like
mylar or metal-coated plastic. (It has a zipper, too, of course.)

As was noted in the review for the Eva, it makes a noticeable
difference in the quality of the cup (duh, heat is not bleeding off
during brewing; but also validated blind). Is it as pretty as the
Eva? Not really. But at $10 or less, it can't be beat as a budget
BDSM brewing accessory.

Actually, I just wanted to alliterate; there are still cheaper ways.
When I was a student, and didn't want to spend money on a cover (tea
cozy) to keep my teapot from cooling off, I wrapped a towel around the
teapot a few times. That'd be even easier for a French press, I bet,
since its shape is more regular.

Usual caveats apply -- it keeps things warmer for BREWING; if you
leave the coffee in there, it will overextract. Possibly not as much
as the Eva, since that leaves the grounds floating around, but enough
that I decant.

I've seen these at Amazon, and at my local kitchen store.


N.


  
Date: 22 Dec 2006 14:16:32
From: Ken Wilson
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice
<holmesresidence221b

I've been reading technical reviews for 40
> years and have never seen anything so blatant in that time. LOOK AT
> THE LAST PARAGRAPH:

snip - this one:

>
> > Want this brewer and want to help out CoffeeGeek? Buy it from Amazon
> and their affiliates.The brewer is available in two sizes: the Eva Solo
> Cafe Solo 1 litre model, and the smaller Cafe Solo 0.6 litre model.
> Current best prices are $80 for the large model and $75 for the smaller
> version.
>


hey - techie detective, k has never made any bones about his site being
commercial/sponsored since he separated coffeegeek from coffeekid some 5 yrs
ago..

So whats the problem? You caught him out looking to incrfease his revenue?
Oh, boy...........



Er - the bit that this brit has trouble with is this effusive twaddle:

> "What a coffee maker. It made my Kona sing. It showed me cherry flavour
> in a Colombian coffee. It's looks sexy and techie at the same time. And
> it has its own clothes!


the real sherlock would be sitting there sucking his pipe, partaking of
dubious substances, cogitating the relationship with the doctor and
pondering the fall in standards that has caused our canadian brethren to
stray so far from english as she should be writ.

ken





   
Date: 22 Dec 2006 07:37:48
From:
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 14:16:32 -0000, "Ken Wilson"
<ken@kwilsonDEDUCT.fsnet.co.uk > wrote:

>hey - techie detective, k has never made any bones about his site being
>commercial/sponsored since he separated coffeegeek from coffeekid some 5 yrs
>ago..
>

Commericial is one thing; Integrity is something else entirely. How
can it be that so many people here are so willing to just overlook the
flagrent breach of integrity inherent in giving good reviews and "best
of" awards to anyone ready to pony up the cash?

I don't get it.

I understand the need to bring in some bucks to keep the site going,
but who cares about it if it means its credibilty is for sale to the
highest bidder? Can anyone who knows what's going on have the
slightest shred of confidence in anything this huckster puts out ever
again?

Of course many uninformed web surfers will get sucked in. What I'm
hearing here is: Doesn't matter in any case since they are just a
bunch of rubes who don't know as much as the real coffee people like
us who know what's going on. Rip 'em off with impunity so we can keep
our forum.

Disgraceful. All the more so because it's so flagent and so acceptable
to so many of you.




_______________________________________
Please Note: If you find a posting or message from me
offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it.
If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to
me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate.


    
Date: 22 Dec 2006 09:44:11
From: jim schulman
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 07:37:48 -0800, Roque Ja wrote:

>How
>can it be that so many people here are so willing to just overlook the
>flagrent breach of integrity inherent in giving good reviews and "best
>of" awards to anyone ready to pony up the cash?

Because there's no sign that this is happening. CG has lots of
sponsors that sell the Silvia and Mazzer but not the Macap and Solis.

As I said before, any reasonable selection for an editor's choice
reward would have benefited some sponsor (and hurt some others). Terry
is a nice guy, but he tends to think the fix is in whenever he's on
the short side of one of these. The point is that he has no case;
again **ANY CHOICE** would have benefited some sponsor.


 
Date: 22 Dec 2006 04:59:24
From:
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice

CoffeeKid wrote:
> Robert Harmon wrote:
> > w1r3d1@yahoo.com wrote in news:1166644032.108990.86270
> > @f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> >
> > SNIPPED
> >
> > > Just my take, but I'm wondering what is your take on this type of
> > > awarding system, and when the manufacturers are clients of the editor,
> > > should they be eligible for "Best of" type awards?
> > >
> > >
> > Do you have any proof that the ratings are 'for sale' on computergeek.com
> > or are you just trolling? I browse, & post to, CG with frequency and I've
> > never had reason to question the motives or ethics of anyone associatted
> > with that site. If there is any SERIOUS cause for concern please post it to
> > this group ASAP.
>
> There's no "bought" placings or selections. I would imagine this person
> with the weird yahoo address has more ulterior motives for posting this
> than I did for any of the CG Editor's list or the Holiday Gift List
> this year. And to be honest, I fully expected this to take place,
> especially from a few individuals.
>
> As it says right at the top of the Editor's Choice awards, the list is
> very subjective, and not everyone will agree with it.
>
> Of course, there's always going to be a few disgruntled ex-advertisers,
> conspiracy theorists, trolls and others who will think differently.
>
> k



 
Date: 21 Dec 2006 23:59:49
From:
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice

CoffeeKid wrote:
> bourboncoffee@gmail.com wrote:
> > In the words of Jerry Sienfeld, "Who are these people?!" Geeez. k, I
> > hope this doesn't keep you from doing this again in the future.
> > Regardless of whether I agree with your choices, I greatly appreciate
> > all the hard work you put into this holiday season. It must have taken
> > weeks to get all that info organized, and online auction running
> > smoothly. Cheers!
>SNIPPED
>
> Shameless plug, since I'm talking about it - we're still accepting
> donations for CoffeeKids here:
>
> http://www.coffeegeek.com/holiday/coffeekids
>
> where your dollar will be matched up to six times by some very generous
> sponsors.
>
> And we have on average two new items up for auction starting every day
> here:
>
> http://www.coffeegeek.com/holiday/auctions
>
> with 100% of the proceeds going to Coffee Kids.
>
> k
k...and all..It seems to me, CG is not only a place to be informed,
it's also a place of entertainment, and as such, articles such as
Editor's Choice, etc offers a bit of both.
To answer Terry Z's question....hell yes, all should be included..
...and as my dad would say to all those who produce and manufacture
machines, roast and grind, etc..."if you can't take the heat"...etc...
k stands to GAIN NOTHING by "awarding" praise over another...in
fact, I wouldn't be surprised.. that he perhaps loses a sponsor or
2....
As someone said earlier, many sponsor driven forums and websites such
as ZDNet run on advertising, and yet their popularity is based upon
their REVIEWS...of the same products manufactured by those whose $$$
they so willingly accept.
Any indictment of k is an indictment of ourselves, if we blindly
rush out, based upon the "opinion" of even one(and his staff) as well
informed as k...and even if impressionable noobs do rush out and
purchase the "awarded" tamper, espresso blend, perhaps a machine....
WHAT HARM WAS DONE?...the noob will now probably have a better set-up
than many of us....and maybe skipped or at least delayed that
inevitable upgrade step.
Lest we forget...it's an opinion, and was stated as such...
The funny thing is that, though not having ever met Mr. Prince, I
always feel like he's kind of like a kid in a toy shop...wide eyed,
amazed.....
Seems pretty innocent to me....
Just my take...sorry for being long winded, but after all...
IMAWriter (Rob Jason)
Merry Christmas/Chanukah/New year to all



  
Date: 23 Dec 2006 11:19:38
From: Randy G.
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice
jasongs4ever@hotmail.com wrote:

>As someone said earlier, many sponsor driven forums and websites such
>as ZDNet run on advertising, and yet their popularity is based upon
>their REVIEWS...of the same products manufactured by those whose $$$
>they so willingly accept.
>Any indictment of k is an indictment of ourselves, if we blindly
>rush out, based upon the "opinion" of even one(and his staff) as well
>informed as k...

And lettuce not forget that on this same website where the awards were
given are lots of user reviews. Posts from folks who use the goods and
report first hand, good or bad, what they think about them. If anyone
thought to use the awards as a purchasing guide, and if they were so
inclined, they could easily balance the "awards" against what various
owners of the items have to say.

Randy "if you can't think for yourself, hire a consultant" G.
http://www.EspressoMyEspresso.com




 
Date: 20 Dec 2006 22:56:47
From: CoffeeKid
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice

bourboncoffee@gmail.com wrote:
> In the words of Jerry Sienfeld, "Who are these people?!" Geeez. k, I
> hope this doesn't keep you from doing this again in the future.
> Regardless of whether I agree with your choices, I greatly appreciate
> all the hard work you put into this holiday season. It must have taken
> weeks to get all that info organized, and online auction running
> smoothly. Cheers!

It was - especially lining up over 85 items for the silent auction, but
every single second is worth it. When I think what that money will do
for Coffee Kids, it makes all other issues melt away.

And the fact is, I couldn't have done it without my fiance Beata
helping out - she's tracking and maintaining all the auctions now,
which takes a huge burden off my hands, and puts it in her pocket.
She's literally working about 3 hours a day on this, seven days a week,
plus all the hours put in before the auctions started.

We passed $21,000 raised as of yesterday, with still two weeks to go.
I'm just so thrilled by that, I really try to not let the shenanigans
one or two people get me down and instead try to focus on this good
stuff - which really is going to help a lot of families in Central and
South America - but I guess today I didn't do such a good job of it.

Shameless plug, since I'm talking about it - we're still accepting
donations for CoffeeKids here:

http://www.coffeegeek.com/holiday/coffeekids

where your dollar will be matched up to six times by some very generous
sponsors.

And we have on average two new items up for auction starting every day
here:

http://www.coffeegeek.com/holiday/auctions

with 100% of the proceeds going to Coffee Kids.

k



  
Date: 21 Dec 2006 07:43:17
From: Andy Schecter
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice
CoffeeKid wrote:
> And we have on average two new items up for auction starting every day
> here:
>
> http://www.coffeegeek.com/holiday/auctions
>
> with 100% of the proceeds going to Coffee Kids.


Do you know where I can download sniping software for these auctions?



...just kidding!


--


-Andy S. :-)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/andy_s/sets/


 
Date: 20 Dec 2006 22:46:29
From: CoffeeKid
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice

Barry Jarrett wrote:

>
> perhaps the photography provides him with an opportunity to become
> more aquainted with the products in such a way as he would tend to
> favor them (unconsciously). maybe he ought to photograph *every*
> product he reviews in the same way, to minimize the potential impact
> of over-familiarity.
>
> --barry "or maybe he just likes that stuff best"

I haven't been posting much in this thread since the afternoon because
Barry has it pretty spot on.

I say right at the top of the "Editor's Choice" that I've resisted
doing this for a long, long time. Why? Because of things like this -
people like Terry with really ulterior motives for whatever they post,
or actually the real main reason is confusion or disagreement... from
"huh, I would have never picked that..." to "hrm, how does he pick
vaporware!".

Last year I did a kind of "best of" on the holiday podcast. It's
downloaded about 3x more than any other podcast (at last view, about
38,000 times). This year, being the fifth year since CG launched, as I
was trying to figure out what would be a good five year anniversary
thing to do.... and as my daily email with the daily "so what's the
best ________________ you can recommend" was as usual piling up, I
figured I'd bite the bullet, put together a list, pass it around to a
few people to get their thoughts and opinions, and post it up as a new
thing on the website.

Of course it's subjective. Of course it's opinion. That's why it's
called "Editor's Choice" and not "Reader's Choice" or "Voted Choice" or
whatever.

And as I said on the website, I priily kept to items I've either
tested, or heard a lot of feedback on, or spoken to a company about at
length to get a good feel for what it is. NO ONE, not any advertiser,
not any product manufacturer, knew about the choices before I launched
the Holiday Gift List this year. The article was written in late
October / Early November. It was passed around to a few people, then
proofed by CG's new Content Editor in Mid November. Then I sat on it
for a month, without changes.

When I choose a product - it's about the product. Not about the vendor.
At all. Why would I even list the Scace device (which btw, contrary to
Terry's yahoo-posted Chicken and Egg scenario wasn't first - the PIDed
Silvia followed by an early Linea-based prototype of the GS/3 were
first) when I won't ever again list a link to TerryZ's company? I think
the Scace device is fantastic, and huge, massive kudos to Greg for it,
and it's why I listed it (though I hope one day he moves to someone
else to sell it besides Terry - then I'll buy one, instead of always
borrowing one).

But in my mind, no way does it beat the GS/3 in terms of being the
Product of the Year. The GS/3 is a milestone machine. It's development
fostered the development in the GB5, the FB80, the Aurelia, Elektra's
new temp stable machine, and even the Synesso Cyncra. And the PID'ed
Silvia fostered development in the GS/3. In five years, the GS/3 is
going to be *the* machine to own, not only for well funded consumers,
but for every roasting and blending lab around. Nothing comes close. In
20 years, people will look back at the machine kind of like how we look
back at the GS or the Speedster or maybe even the E61 from Faema.
That's my predicition.

Since, in mid October when I wrote this, LM told me directly that 40
units would be for sale by mid december, I decided to list it. it's
that simple.

k



 
Date: 20 Dec 2006 20:30:56
From: Paul Pratt
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice

Barry Jarrett wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 16:38:04 +1300, Ren=E9 van Sint Annaland
> <NZHumanBean@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >And the price tag also, I may add. Are you buying one? Who is? Will it
> >be a financial winner for LM you think?
>
>
> i'll have to see what "dealer cost" is first. ;)

You don't want to know, trust me. RRP has been squeezed down but the
manuf. costs are unchanged.

An email from yesterday says production will start in Jan.

Paul



  
Date: 21 Dec 2006 06:40:26
From: Marshall
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice
On 20 Dec 2006 20:30:56 -0800, "Paul Pratt" <paul@just-java.com >
wrote:

>An email from yesterday says production will start in Jan.
>
>Paul

I hope so. It is still not listed on the UL or NSF websites.

shall


 
Date: 20 Dec 2006 18:09:53
From:
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice
In the words of Jerry Sienfeld, "Who are these people?!" Geeez. k, I
hope this doesn't keep you from doing this again in the future.
Regardless of whether I agree with your choices, I greatly appreciate
all the hard work you put into this holiday season. It must have taken
weeks to get all that info organized, and online auction running
smoothly. Cheers!



 
Date: 20 Dec 2006 17:37:07
From:
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice

jim schulman wrote:
> On 20 Dec 2006 15:10:16 -0800, w1r3d1@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >Do you think that paid clients of CG ( k Prince as editor ) should
> >be eligible for "Best of" Awards?
>
> I don't see how they could be disqualified. CG, like all successful
> hobby sites, draws a large percentage of the high end vendors as
> advertisers. If all their products are disqualified, the product of
> the year would have been the Briel Lido.
>
> The main problem with CG and other hobby site reviews and awards is
> that the equipment has to be lent or donated, and that it takes a lot
> of time to create a good review. This means that percentage of all the
> products on the ket covered is fairly small, and that the coverage
> is perforce skewed towards the ones supplied by donating sponsors.
>
> All the sites are very clear that this is how it happens; so I don't
> see it as an ethical problem. I do see it as an area urgently
> requiring a better mousetrap, so that the ket share covered by
> reviews can be more comprehensive. My instinct is that sites like CG
> will be seen, in 50 years time, as the first examples of the "post
> mass ket" economy made feasible by the internet. If this is indeed
> the way things will shape up, and the standard for judging sites like
> CG, the way they work will need to be improved in a lot of different
> ways.


I'm NOT discussing advertisers ( Sponsors if you will ) of CG. My
question is based upon the items located on this flickr feed owned by
the editor of CG.

http://flickr.com/photos/coffeegeek/sets/72057594055318136/

The quoted text from this page states " These are photos that I've been
paid to take ;) My professional still life photos, almost always coffee
related. That's my specialty "

Inclusive of these items are several "Award" winning products.

That's all I'm saying. Really not trying to do anything more than ask
that question. No big deal, no conspiracy, the facts are out there in
the open, just wondering what your thoughts are with regards to this
type of "Award" system.

Terry Z



  
Date: 21 Dec 2006 02:57:03
From: Barry Jarrett
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice
On 20 Dec 2006 17:37:07 -0800, w1r3d1@yahoo.com wrote:

>I'm NOT discussing advertisers ( Sponsors if you will ) of CG. My
>question is based upon the items located on this flickr feed owned by
>the editor of CG.
>
>http://flickr.com/photos/coffeegeek/sets/72057594055318136/
>
>The quoted text from this page states " These are photos that I've been
>paid to take ;) My professional still life photos, almost always coffee
>related. That's my specialty "
>
>Inclusive of these items are several "Award" winning products.
>


perhaps the photography provides him with an opportunity to become
more aquainted with the products in such a way as he would tend to
favor them (unconsciously). maybe he ought to photograph *every*
product he reviews in the same way, to minimize the potential impact
of over-familiarity.


--barry "or maybe he just likes that stuff best"


 
Date: 20 Dec 2006 16:44:03
From: daveb
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice
ah,
predictable flaming,
defensiveness
and attacks.

How usual.

Dave


w1r3d1@yahoo.com wrote:
> Robert Harmon wrote:
> > w1r3d1@yahoo.com wrote in news:1166644032.108990.86270
> > @f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> >
> > SNIPPED
> >
> > > Just my take, but I'm wondering what is your take on this type of
> > > awarding system, and when the manufacturers are clients of the editor,
> > > should they be eligible for "Best of" type awards?
> > >
> > >
> > Do you have any proof that the ratings are 'for sale' on computergeek.com
> > or are you just trolling? I browse, & post to, CG with frequency and I've
> > never had reason to question the motives or ethics of anyone associatted
> > with that site. If there is any SERIOUS cause for concern please post it to
> > this group ASAP.
> >
> > Robert (Reminds me of 'leaks' from the White House.) Harmon
> > --
> > http://tinyurl.com/pou2y
> > http://tinyurl.com/fkd6r
> > Remove "Z" to reply via email.
>
>
> As stated in my OP This is just my take based upon my knowledge of CG
> and the editors customers. I would not say that CG offers an unbiased
> point of view, in fact the bias is on high this year.
>
> A troll? No, but honest yes.



 
Date: 20 Dec 2006 16:31:53
From:
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice

Barry Jarrett wrote:
> On 20 Dec 2006 15:10:16 -0800, w1r3d1@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >My personal take however is that if a firm has hired k to photograph
> >and promote his product, they should be out of the running for any type
> >of awards presented by CG. It seems to be a huge conflict of interest.
> >No Slander, No conspiracy, just a question.
>
> would you ask the same question if those products had come in third or
> fourth? certainly the conflict should be noted in the review &
> recommendation, but sometimes a great product is just a great product,
> and sometimes an editor's opinion is just their opinion. hasn't k
> lost sponsors/clients in the past for posting reviews/comments that
> were less-than-favorable towards their products?

Barry,

Yes, I would.

I would agree with you that sometimes a great product is just a great
product and I think that the choices are great with the exception of
the GS/3. I'm still not sure how a prototype non production item can be
the best of.

I'm NOT questioning the products that were chosen.

Look this is very simple question and again, I promise you that my only
desire is to get answers to that question.

There is allot of weight to an " Award" of this type.

Terry Z



  
Date: 21 Dec 2006 00:45:47
From: Paul Monaghan
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice
On 20 Dec 2006 16:31:53 -0800, w1r3d1@yahoo.com wrote:


>I would agree with you that sometimes a great product is just a great
>product and I think that the choices are great with the exception of
>the GS/3. I'm still not sure how a prototype non production item can be
>the best of.

I'm not sure about the larger question. The conflict is obvious of
course, but if you can't review sponsors' products and they happen to
have the best out there, your rankings will be useless. But many find
rankings useful. Not sure there is a solution to this.

But the nod to the GS/3 did strike me as odd. Seeing k's
explanation of it above I can understand it better. But I'm still
having trouble getting past the fact that either no or at best very
few users have even tried the production model yet and, best case,
only for an extremely brief period of time. I am not doubting k's
motives, or that the GS/3 production models will match the performace
of the prototypes, but it does have the appearance of hype, at least
to me.

Paul


   
Date: 21 Dec 2006 02:50:36
From: Barry Jarrett
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 00:45:47 GMT, Paul Monaghan
<monaghan@shorelinelegal.com > wrote:

>motives, or that the GS/3 production models will match the performace
>of the prototypes, but it does have the appearance of hype, at least
>to me.

except the GS/3 doesn't need hype. that's like saying a ferrari or
lambo needs hype.

perhaps it's as simple as the GS/3 is what really got k excited
this year. iirc, he got to play with one for awhile, and to be
honest, if i'd had the same opportunity, i'd probably be gushing about
it, too.



--barry "the 'this is spiffy' bar has been raised"




    
Date: 21 Dec 2006 16:38:04
From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Ren=E9_van_Sint_Annaland?=
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice
In article <edtjo2538hpbangbtsjfogpcpte001apie@4ax.com >, barry@rileys-
coffee.com says...

> --barry "the 'this is spiffy' bar has been raised"
>=20
And the price tag also, I may add. Are you buying one? Who is? Will it=20
be a financial winner for LM you think?
--=20
Ren=E9 van Sint Annaland
www.justespresso.com


     
Date: 21 Dec 2006 03:58:59
From: Barry Jarrett
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 16:38:04 +1300, René van Sint Annaland
<NZHumanBean@hotmail.com > wrote:

>And the price tag also, I may add. Are you buying one? Who is? Will it
>be a financial winner for LM you think?


i'll have to see what "dealer cost" is first. ;) although, if
it's as high as i think it will be, it'd be cheaper for me to do a
super-hot-rod job on a linea.

--barry "gotta getta lathe"


      
Date: 21 Dec 2006 11:34:59
From: Steve Ackman
Subject: Re: gotta getta lathe
In <0h1ko21pmvnarjgpl6fdpud6nok71o2p75@4ax.com >, on Thu, 21 Dec 2006
03:58:59 GMT, Barry Jarrett wrote:

> --barry "gotta getta lathe"

I just got an old 12"x36" Atlas/Clausing. The lathe
is still on the basement floor until my back is up
to spec and I can remount the lathe to the
cabinet/motor housing. 300+ lbs. for the lathe and
probably 200 lbs. for the base.

Found it on ebay with no picture or description
by a seller with zero feedback, and having zero bids
on day 2 of a 10 day listing... the perfect scenario
to produce NO interest by the hoardes. ;-)
I drove down ASAP, and offered the guy $100 over
his opening bid to take it off ebay and hold it for me
for 10 days (~140 miles from home).

Guy's father bought it in '79, made a couple
miniature steam engines, got sick in '82 and it's just
been sitting in the basement since. The base/cabinet
has some surface rust where there was water in the
basement once, but the lathe itself, except for the
dust and a few oil smudges, looks like right off the
showroom floor. (Gearbox is bit stiff, so a good
cleaning and relube are in order.)

It doesn't have a lot of accessories; 3-jaw chuck,
vise-type milling attachment, faceplate, drill chuck for
the tailstock, and about 125 lbs. of asstd. stock in
the 3/8" to 1" range. Steel, brass, round, hex, square...

Once I get it set up and snap off a photo or two,
I'll have to post more details and a gloat to r.c.m.



      
Date: 20 Dec 2006 23:10:46
From: notbob
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice
On 2006-12-21, Barry Jarrett <barry@rileys-coffee.com > wrote:

>
> --barry "gotta getta lathe"

Build your own:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/multimachine/

there's a pdf for it somewhere, but I forget. If you can't find it,
I'll email it to you.

nb


       
Date: 21 Dec 2006 06:11:44
From: Barry Jarrett
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 23:10:46 -0600, notbob <notbob@nothome.com > wrote:

>On 2006-12-21, Barry Jarrett <barry@rileys-coffee.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> --barry "gotta getta lathe"
>
>Build your own:
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/multimachine/


holy crap!!


hhmmm... i *do* have a spare 4 cyl block in the basement.



    
Date: 21 Dec 2006 02:59:09
From: Paul Monaghan
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 02:50:36 GMT, Barry Jarrett
<barry@rileys-coffee.com > wrote:

>On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 00:45:47 GMT, Paul Monaghan
><monaghan@shorelinelegal.com> wrote:
>
>except the GS/3 doesn't need hype. that's like saying a ferrari or
>lambo needs hype.
>
>perhaps it's as simple as the GS/3 is what really got k excited
>this year. iirc, he got to play with one for awhile, and to be
>honest, if i'd had the same opportunity, i'd probably be gushing about
>it, too.


Hey Barry,

Perhaps it is that simple. And perhaps it is as simple as k feeling
that he wanted to encourage more "coffee community"-driven development
from large companies, and acknowledge the efforts already made to that
end.

Maybe true, maybe not, but regardless I don't find any of that
nefarious

But none of that answers the question how a machine that virtually no
one has ever used (meaning the production model, but throw in the
prototype if you like and the result is the same) gets top honors for
best machine of the year!

Paul
"who hopes you see what I am trying to say, which is really just a
small thing"


     
Date: 21 Dec 2006 03:56:54
From: Barry Jarrett
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 02:59:09 GMT, Paul Monaghan
<monaghan@shorelinelegal.com > wrote:

>But none of that answers the question how a machine that virtually no
>one has ever used (meaning the production model, but throw in the
>prototype if you like and the result is the same) gets top honors for
>best machine of the year!
>

the same way elite autos can be named 'best car', even if they're
one-offs, or only produced in double digit quantities. quality isn't
a user-base thing, which is why i'm always skeptical of the "best
of..." awards given out by local newspapers that base them on readers'
votes on the papers' advertising base. afaik, k's list is k's
list (hence the name "editor's choice" or whatever it is... i haven't
been on geek in months <sorry k... built a new store >) and not a
"best of coffeegeek" list.

i guess it's sort of like the oscars, when a movie is released just
before the cut-off date, and then voted "best picture" of whatever
year, even though most folks don't get to see the film until the
following year.

i *do* think, however, that k should have made mention up-front of
his fiduciary relationship with some of the winners.

--barry "i know k, but he hasn't paid me anything... except for
some pizza money at the altie get-togethers"



      
Date: 21 Dec 2006 04:05:51
From: Paul Monaghan
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 03:56:54 GMT, Barry Jarrett
<barry@rileys-coffee.com > wrote:

>On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 02:59:09 GMT, Paul Monaghan
><monaghan@shorelinelegal.com> wrote:
>

Hey Barry,

I think you've missed my point, and don't want to carry this on.

I mean, compare those reviews to movie reviews, which we all know are
corrupt? And expect me to conclude that ours are not?

All the Best,
Paul
"who still thinks the world of barry."


       
Date: 21 Dec 2006 06:34:14
From: Marshall
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 04:05:51 GMT, Paul Monaghan
<monaghan@shorelinelegal.com > wrote:

>Hey Barry,
>
>I think you've missed my point, and don't want to carry this on.
>
>I mean, compare those reviews to movie reviews, which we all know are
>corrupt?

I must be the one who doesn't know.

shall "handicapped by actually knowing some critics"


       
Date: 21 Dec 2006 05:05:38
From: Barry Jarrett
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 04:05:51 GMT, Paul Monaghan
<monaghan@shorelinelegal.com > wrote:

>I think you've missed my point, and don't want to carry this on.
>

i *thought* it was: "how can a machine with a non-existent user base
(or teeny-weeny, if you count the prototype) get 'best machine'?"

maybe versalab has a comment? ;)



        
Date: 21 Dec 2006 05:44:02
From: Paul Monaghan
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 05:05:38 GMT, Barry Jarrett
<barry@rileys-coffee.com > wrote:

>On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 04:05:51 GMT, Paul Monaghan
><monaghan@shorelinelegal.com> wrote:
>
> >I think you've missed my point, and don't want to carry this on.
> >
>
>i *thought* it was: "how can a machine with a non-existent user base
>(or teeny-weeny, if you count the prototype) get 'best machine'?"
>
>maybe versalab has a comment? ;)

You got it right. Don't know much about Versalab. If one wants to
praise little known machines, great, but to praise them to the point
of naming them the best of the year?

Even if they don't really exist yet?

Yowza!

"Sorry for the disrepect, but you are just totallly wrong here, and
I'm sorry for the disrepect, but it is deserved!.

Paul


 
Date: 20 Dec 2006 16:26:15
From: CoffeeKid
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice

Barry Jarrett wrote:

> would you ask the same question if those products had come in third or
> fourth? certainly the conflict should be noted in the review &
> recommendation, but sometimes a great product is just a great product,
> and sometimes an editor's opinion is just their opinion. hasn't k
> lost sponsors/clients in the past for posting reviews/comments that
> were less-than-favorable towards their products?

Yep, I have. Some even hinted at suing.

k



  
Date: 20 Dec 2006 16:50:45
From: Randy G.
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice
"CoffeeKid" <Coffeekid@gmail.com > wrote:

>
>Barry Jarrett wrote:
>
>> would you ask the same question if those products had come in third or
>> fourth? certainly the conflict should be noted in the review &
>> recommendation, but sometimes a great product is just a great product,
>> and sometimes an editor's opinion is just their opinion. hasn't k
>> lost sponsors/clients in the past for posting reviews/comments that
>> were less-than-favorable towards their products?
>
>Yep, I have. Some even hinted at suing.
>
>k

I hope you got it in writing for the framing on the wall thereof.
I ran a "letter to the Editor" that was quite critical of a candidate
running for school board. The candidate allowed a flyer to circulate
that promoted here and denigrated the opponent. The candidate
threatened to take me to court to reveal my source. I basically told
her, "Good luck."

Most of the time, when someone threatens to sue you, you are right. It
just depends on how right you can afford to be.. ;-)

I have run my local newspaper since 1992. It was in print for over 10
years. it is now online. A friend once told me that if you are an
editor and you are making everyone happy you aren't doing your job.

With that said, I did find it interesting that when I started out here
on alt.coffee, you were a firm supporter of Silvia and I was one of
the factors that led me to that purchase. The SL70 was available at
that time. But now 'you' chose the SL70 as the best buy over the
Silvia.


Randy "When in doubt, piss someone off" G.
http://www.EspressoMyEspresso.com




   
Date: 21 Dec 2006 02:44:57
From: Barry Jarrett
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 16:50:45 -0800, Randy G. <frcn@DESPAMMOcncnet.com >
wrote:

>With that said, I did find it interesting that when I started out here
>on alt.coffee, you were a firm supporter of Silvia and I was one of
>the factors that led me to that purchase. The SL70 was available at
>that time. But now 'you' chose the SL70 as the best buy over the
>Silvia.
>

"best buy" or "best value" or whatever isn't the same as saying it's
the "best machine". changes in exchange rate and/or pricing structure
and/or distribution and/or any number of other factors can shift a
product on the "best buy" ladder, while the product itself remains the
same.





   
Date: 20 Dec 2006 19:56:16
From: Craig Andrews
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice

"Randy G." <frcn@DESPAMMOcncnet.com > wrote in message
news:r4mjo29dt8fa43espjr90h8uudv3pen5jt@4ax.com...
> "CoffeeKid" <Coffeekid@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Barry Jarrett wrote:
>>
>>> would you ask the same question if those products had come in third
>>> or
>>> fourth? certainly the conflict should be noted in the review &
>>> recommendation, but sometimes a great product is just a great
>>> product,
>>> and sometimes an editor's opinion is just their opinion. hasn't
>>> k
>>> lost sponsors/clients in the past for posting reviews/comments that
>>> were less-than-favorable towards their products?
>>
>>Yep, I have. Some even hinted at suing.
>>
>>k
>
> I hope you got it in writing for the framing on the wall thereof.
> I ran a "letter to the Editor" that was quite critical of a candidate
> running for school board. The candidate allowed a flyer to circulate
> that promoted here and denigrated the opponent. The candidate
> threatened to take me to court to reveal my source. I basically told
> her, "Good luck."
>
> Most of the time, when someone threatens to sue you, you are right. It
> just depends on how right you can afford to be.. ;-)
>
> I have run my local newspaper since 1992. It was in print for over 10
> years. it is now online. A friend once told me that if you are an
> editor and you are making everyone happy you aren't doing your job.
>
> With that said, I did find it interesting that when I started out here
> on alt.coffee, you were a firm supporter of Silvia and I was one of
> the factors that led me to that purchase. The SL70 was available at
> that time.

But now 'you' chose the SL70 as the best buy over the
> Silvia.


What??, REALLY??????!!?? I'm shittin' myself now! {:-O
Craig.


>
>
> Randy "When in doubt, piss someone off" G.
> http://www.EspressoMyEspresso.com
>
>



  
Date: 20 Dec 2006 19:34:45
From: Craig Andrews
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice

"CoffeeKid" <Coffeekid@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1166660775.003674.136710@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Barry Jarrett wrote:
>
>> would you ask the same question if those products had come in third
>> or
>> fourth? certainly the conflict should be noted in the review &
>> recommendation, but sometimes a great product is just a great
>> product,
>> and sometimes an editor's opinion is just their opinion. hasn't k
>> lost sponsors/clients in the past for posting reviews/comments that
>> were less-than-favorable towards their products?
>
> Yep, I have. Some even hinted at suing.
>
> k
>


What else is new in this BS litigious world eh k?
Craig.



 
Date: 20 Dec 2006 15:10:16
From:
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice

jim schulman wrote:
> On 20 Dec 2006 11:47:12 -0800, w1r3d1@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >Just my take, but I'm wondering what is your take on this type of
> >awarding system, and when the manufacturers are clients of the editor,
> >should they be eligible for "Best of" type awards?
>
> This is a silly accusation. All hobby sites have sponsors; and all
> hobby sites do reviews. In general, the reviews are better than the
> ones done by formally unbiased and mostly uninformed sites like
> consumer reviews. If the hobby site reviews were terribly skewed, it
> would lose its audience, and that would hurt the sponsors more than a
> panned product.


Ok, just to be REAL clear.

Jim and others. The question is:

Do you think that paid clients of CG ( k Prince as editor ) should
be eligible for "Best of" Awards?

Not an accusation, but geez, I'm beggining to wonder if there isn't
something more to it. I think it is a fair question and yet it has been
taken every way but the way intended.

I understand that the site has sponsors and that is not the point. I
was a sponsor since the first day of Coffeegeek, and in fact promoted
it at my own costs for a number of years. The site is beneficial to
anyone that likes coffee.

My personal take however is that if a firm has hired k to photograph
and promote his product, they should be out of the running for any type
of awards presented by CG. It seems to be a huge conflict of interest.
No Slander, No conspiracy, just a question.



  
Date: 21 Dec 2006 11:31:54
From: JC Dill
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice
On 20 Dec 2006 15:10:16 -0800, w1r3d1@yahoo.com wrote:

>Do you think that paid clients of CG ( k Prince as editor ) should
>be eligible for "Best of" Awards?

(We are talking about the Editor's Choice award, right?)

If so, my answer to your question is "Absolutely". Otherwise the
awards have no merit at all because they are not based on A)
evaluation of all the possible candidates, and B) the honest opinion
of the editor in question.

I think the editor should clearly disclose any business relationship
with award winners, to ensure the reader is aware of them. Then it's
up to the reader to decide how much they trust the editor to make an
impartial decision and thus how much credibility the reader wishes to
give to the awards.

jc

--

"The nice thing about a e is you get to ride a lot
of different horses without having to own that many."
~ Eileen Morgan of The e's Nest, PA


  
Date: 20 Dec 2006 18:47:35
From: jim schulman
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice
On 20 Dec 2006 15:10:16 -0800, w1r3d1@yahoo.com wrote:

>Do you think that paid clients of CG ( k Prince as editor ) should
>be eligible for "Best of" Awards?

I don't see how they could be disqualified. CG, like all successful
hobby sites, draws a large percentage of the high end vendors as
advertisers. If all their products are disqualified, the product of
the year would have been the Briel Lido.

The main problem with CG and other hobby site reviews and awards is
that the equipment has to be lent or donated, and that it takes a lot
of time to create a good review. This means that percentage of all the
products on the ket covered is fairly small, and that the coverage
is perforce skewed towards the ones supplied by donating sponsors.

All the sites are very clear that this is how it happens; so I don't
see it as an ethical problem. I do see it as an area urgently
requiring a better mousetrap, so that the ket share covered by
reviews can be more comprehensive. My instinct is that sites like CG
will be seen, in 50 years time, as the first examples of the "post
mass ket" economy made feasible by the internet. If this is indeed
the way things will shape up, and the standard for judging sites like
CG, the way they work will need to be improved in a lot of different
ways.


   
Date: 21 Dec 2006 15:18:13
From: Steve
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 18:47:35 -0600, jim schulman
<jim_schulman@ameritech.net > wrote:

>On 20 Dec 2006 15:10:16 -0800, w1r3d1@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>Do you think that paid clients of CG ( k Prince as editor ) should
>>be eligible for "Best of" Awards?
>
>I don't see how they could be disqualified. CG, like all successful
>hobby sites, draws a large percentage of the high end vendors as
>advertisers. If all their products are disqualified, the product of
>the year would have been the Briel Lido.
>
>The main problem with CG and other hobby site reviews and awards is
>that the equipment has to be lent or donated, and that it takes a lot
>of time to create a good review. This means that percentage of all the
>products on the ket covered is fairly small, and that the coverage
>is perforce skewed towards the ones supplied by donating sponsors.
>
>All the sites are very clear that this is how it happens; so I don't
>see it as an ethical problem. I do see it as an area urgently
>requiring a better mousetrap, so that the ket share covered by
>reviews can be more comprehensive. My instinct is that sites like CG
>will be seen, in 50 years time, as the first examples of the "post
>mass ket" economy made feasible by the internet. If this is indeed
>the way things will shape up, and the standard for judging sites like
>CG, the way they work will need to be improved in a lot of different
>ways.


Good points, Jim.
A review is not intended to be a substitute for one's own research,
it's service is to be a part of that research.


    
Date: 21 Dec 2006 10:44:09
From: jim schulman
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 15:18:13 GMT, Steve <not@use.net > wrote:

>A review is not intended to be a substitute for one's own research,
>it's service is to be a part of that research.

Knowing the specs only takes one so far. If I cannot use the product
myself, I want a report by someone I respect who has.

CG has pioneered this for coffee, and on the whole, succeeded more
than anyone could have expected. However, there's been three sources
of bias, all of which I've had in my own reviews, all far more
interesting and ironic than the far fetched cui bono accusation
floating around this thread:

1. I just paid a huge sum for this thing; it's great.
2. The design is famous or state of the art; it's great.
3. The guys makling and selling it are really nice; it's great.

In effect, most reviews found on CG are only in part an unbiased
judgement, with the rest, an expert advocate's case.


   
Date: 20 Dec 2006 20:00:20
From: Craig Andrews
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice

"jim schulman" <jim_schulman@ameritech.net > wrote in message
news:pjljo2dr6fqb3ge5a6ul83ug6ernud0q68@4ax.com...
> On 20 Dec 2006 15:10:16 -0800, w1r3d1@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>Do you think that paid clients of CG ( k Prince as editor ) should
>>be eligible for "Best of" Awards?
>
> I don't see how they could be disqualified. CG, like all successful
> hobby sites, draws a large percentage of the high end vendors as
> advertisers. If all their products are disqualified, the product of
> the year would have been the Briel Lido.


Yeah, or a Delongi Caffe Venezia hahaa!! {:-D
Craig.


>
> The main problem with CG and other hobby site reviews and awards is
> that the equipment has to be lent or donated, and that it takes a lot
> of time to create a good review. This means that percentage of all the
> products on the ket covered is fairly small, and that the coverage
> is perforce skewed towards the ones supplied by donating sponsors.
>
> All the sites are very clear that this is how it happens; so I don't
> see it as an ethical problem. I do see it as an area urgently
> requiring a better mousetrap, so that the ket share covered by
> reviews can be more comprehensive. My instinct is that sites like CG
> will be seen, in 50 years time, as the first examples of the "post
> mass ket" economy made feasible by the internet. If this is indeed
> the way things will shape up, and the standard for judging sites like
> CG, the way they work will need to be improved in a lot of different
> ways.



  
Date: 20 Dec 2006 16:42:27
From: Randy G.
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice
w1r3d1@yahoo.com wrote:

>My personal take however is that if a firm has hired k to photograph
>and promote his product, they should be out of the running for any type
>of awards presented by CG. It seems to be a huge conflict of interest.
>No Slander, No conspiracy, just a question.
>

So what is the alternative...?

Pick One:

A) Only allow advertising for the best products and pick from the
worst product for "... of the year" placement

B) Only allow advertising of bad products so that the best are left to
choose from for product of the year.

c) Don't allow any advertising and have to beg, borrow, or buy to get
ANYTHING to review.

D) Advertise everything that comes along and don't pick anything.

E) Advertise only those who are worthy of your support, pick the best
products you can, and hope that your readers understand that you did
the best you could for them.

Try running a commercial website and then see how you do.


Randy "when does YOUR first issue post/print?" G.
http://www.EspressoMyEspresso.com




   
Date: 20 Dec 2006 17:04:10
From:
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 16:42:27 -0800, Randy G. <frcn@DESPAMMOcncnet.com >
wrote:

>w1r3d1@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>.... It seems to be a huge conflict of interest.
>>No Slander, No conspiracy, just a question.
>>
>
>...So what is the alternative...?


Been here before... too many times. Discuss the emperor's wardrobe
without the appropriate kowtowing respect for the emperor's exalted
status and you will be trashed. The good old boys can do no wrong.

Fact is: w1r3d1's point is well taken. Some outrageous choices were
made. Choices that will, without a doubt, benefit the manufacturers
whose products (or concepts, as the case may be) were chosen. And --
what a coincidence -- those same manufacturers happen to be
advertisers and supporters of the editor who chose them as winners.
Same editor and same website that was, earlier this year, begging
users to click up its advertisers because they needed the cash flow
those clicks brought in. Same website that could probably use some new
advertisers in the coming year who might -- just might -- decide they
could use the business being a "winner" could bring in.

Come on, folks, if it smells like shit, it's probably shit. And even
if it's not, it still stinks.










_______________________________________
Please Note: If you find a posting or message from me
offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it.
If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to
me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate.


  
Date: 21 Dec 2006 00:04:37
From: Barry Jarrett
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice
On 20 Dec 2006 15:10:16 -0800, w1r3d1@yahoo.com wrote:

>My personal take however is that if a firm has hired k to photograph
>and promote his product, they should be out of the running for any type
>of awards presented by CG. It seems to be a huge conflict of interest.
>No Slander, No conspiracy, just a question.

would you ask the same question if those products had come in third or
fourth? certainly the conflict should be noted in the review &
recommendation, but sometimes a great product is just a great product,
and sometimes an editor's opinion is just their opinion. hasn't k
lost sponsors/clients in the past for posting reviews/comments that
were less-than-favorable towards their products?



   
Date: 20 Dec 2006 19:10:59
From: Craig Andrews
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice

"Barry Jarrett" <barry@rileys-coffee.com > wrote in message
news:aijjo29in0aptuhsurff9gj5c82o3gnhse@4ax.com...
> On 20 Dec 2006 15:10:16 -0800, w1r3d1@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >My personal take however is that if a firm has hired k to
> >photograph
> >and promote his product, they should be out of the running for any
> >type
> >of awards presented by CG. It seems to be a huge conflict of
> >interest.
> >No Slander, No conspiracy, just a question.
>
> would you ask the same question if those products had come in third or
> fourth? certainly the conflict should be noted in the review &
> recommendation, but sometimes a great product is just a great product,
> and sometimes an editor's opinion is just their opinion. hasn't k
> lost sponsors/clients in the past for posting reviews/comments that
> were less-than-favorable towards their products?
>

Of course Barry! & yep, sometimes a cigar is just a., cigar... haha!
{;-D
Craig.



  
Date: 20 Dec 2006 18:18:35
From: Craig Andrews
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice

<w1r3d1@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1166656215.956554.183390@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
>
> jim schulman wrote:
>> On 20 Dec 2006 11:47:12 -0800, w1r3d1@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> >Just my take, but I'm wondering what is your take on this type of
>> >awarding system, and when the manufacturers are clients of the
>> >editor,
>> >should they be eligible for "Best of" type awards?
>>
>> This is a silly accusation. All hobby sites have sponsors; and all
>> hobby sites do reviews. In general, the reviews are better than the
>> ones done by formally unbiased and mostly uninformed sites like
>> consumer reviews. If the hobby site reviews were terribly skewed, it
>> would lose its audience, and that would hurt the sponsors more than a
>> panned product.
>
>
> Ok, just to be REAL clear.
>
> Jim and others. The question is:
>
> Do you think that paid clients of CG ( k Prince as editor ) should
> be eligible for "Best of" Awards?
>
> Not an accusation, but geez, I'm beggining to wonder if there isn't
> something more to it. I think it is a fair question and yet it has
> been
> taken every way but the way intended.
>
> I understand that the site has sponsors and that is not the point. I
> was a sponsor since the first day of Coffeegeek, and in fact promoted
> it at my own costs for a number of years. The site is beneficial to
> anyone that likes coffee.
>
> My personal take however is that if a firm has hired k to
> photograph
> and promote his product, they should be out of the running for any
> type
> of awards presented by CG. It seems to be a huge conflict of interest.
> No Slander, No conspiracy, just a question.
>

Right!, any family member., or affiliate member is not eligible for..
"Win the award", or in the draw for the "Grand Prize"., seems like a
blatant conflict of interest to me!.., or am i missing something...
ZZzzzzzz...... {:-


 
Date: 20 Dec 2006 16:32:29
From: jim schulman
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice
On 20 Dec 2006 11:47:12 -0800, w1r3d1@yahoo.com wrote:

>Just my take, but I'm wondering what is your take on this type of
>awarding system, and when the manufacturers are clients of the editor,
>should they be eligible for "Best of" type awards?

This is a silly accusation. All hobby sites have sponsors; and all
hobby sites do reviews. In general, the reviews are better than the
ones done by formally unbiased and mostly uninformed sites like
consumer reviews. If the hobby site reviews were terribly skewed, it
would lose its audience, and that would hurt the sponsors more than a
panned product.


 
Date: 20 Dec 2006 14:23:39
From: CoffeeKid
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice

Craig Andrews wrote:

> Look right up above with your Newsreader of preference just a few
> minutes ago (8 approx) & ks post, it's only gonna get worse it
> seems... {:-/ {:-(

No, that's it for me on the bad stuff. I'd be happy to discuss, debate,
even have my mind changed on the choices I made, with anyone who isn't
driven by ulterior motives ;)

One eg - the tamper choice. The awards are "Editor's Choice" and I have
to say, in years and years of using tampers, I really, really like the
coffeelab tamper - when you use it, it feels like you've got this
hyper-honed tool for completing the job. It's like looking down at your
wrist and seeing an Omega watch ;) There's a lot of awesome tampers out
there, but for some reason for me at least, the coffeelabs sticks out.

k



 
Date: 20 Dec 2006 14:13:54
From:
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice

Craig Andrews wrote:
> "Brian Colwell" <bcolwell@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:g8iih.505079$5R2.30729@pd7urf3no...
> >
> > "Ken Wilson" <ken@kwilsonDEDUCT.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:emca1n$4eq$1@aioe.org...
> >> "Brian
> >>>
> >>> Not another conspiracy theory !!
> >>>
> >>> BMC
> >> Possible - but remember the Great Malabar Gold scandal.
> >>
> >> Turned out a dearly beloved of alt.coffee got, well, certainly left
> >> uncomfortable on his perch and one of the more showy newcomers was a
> >> bit vindicated.
> >>
> >> so, I ain't voting
> >>
> > Be nice, It's Christmas....Ho! Ho! ..:-))
> >
> > BMC
> >
> >
> >
>
> Look right up above with your Newsreader of preference just a few
> minutes ago (8 approx) & ks post, it's only gonna get worse it
> seems... {:-/ {:-(
> Craig.

To be clear on all accounts this is an alternate address I use in house
at work. I had logged on with the user for Google ad words earlier in
the day. Sorry there was no Sig.

This post is simply asking a question. I do not wish to discredit
anyone, but simply ask the question:

Does it make sense that paid clients of CG, become eligable for " Best
of " awards?


Terry Z



  
Date: 20 Dec 2006 17:50:39
From: Craig Andrews
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice

<w1r3d1@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1166652834.085976.302020@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
>
> Craig Andrews wrote:
>> "Brian Colwell" <bcolwell@shaw.ca> wrote in message
>> news:g8iih.505079$5R2.30729@pd7urf3no...
>> >
>> > "Ken Wilson" <ken@kwilsonDEDUCT.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
>> > news:emca1n$4eq$1@aioe.org...
>> >> "Brian
>> >>>
>> >>> Not another conspiracy theory !!
>> >>>
>> >>> BMC
>> >> Possible - but remember the Great Malabar Gold scandal.
>> >>
>> >> Turned out a dearly beloved of alt.coffee got, well, certainly
>> >> left
>> >> uncomfortable on his perch and one of the more showy newcomers was
>> >> a
>> >> bit vindicated.
>> >>
>> >> so, I ain't voting
>> >>
>> > Be nice, It's Christmas....Ho! Ho! ..:-))
>> >
>> > BMC
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Look right up above with your Newsreader of preference just a few
>> minutes ago (8 approx) & ks post, it's only gonna get worse it
>> seems... {:-/ {:-(
>> Craig.
>
> To be clear on all accounts this is an alternate address I use in
> house
> at work. I had logged on with the user for Google ad words earlier in
> the day. Sorry there was no Sig.
>
> This post is simply asking a question. I do not wish to discredit
> anyone, but simply ask the question:
>
> Does it make sense that paid clients of CG, become eligable for " Best
> of " awards?
>
>
> Terry Z
>

IMVHO, no for obvious reasons!
Craig.



  
Date: 20 Dec 2006 22:45:49
From: Brian Colwell
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice

<w1r3d1@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1166652834.085976.302020@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
>
> Craig Andrews wrote:
>> "Brian Colwell" <bcolwell@shaw.ca> wrote in message
>> news:g8iih.505079$5R2.30729@pd7urf3no...
>> >
>> > "Ken Wilson" <ken@kwilsonDEDUCT.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
>> > news:emca1n$4eq$1@aioe.org...
>> >> "Brian
>> >>>
>> >>> Not another conspiracy theory !!
>> >>>
>> >>> BMC
>> >> Possible - but remember the Great Malabar Gold scandal.
>> >>
>> >> Turned out a dearly beloved of alt.coffee got, well, certainly left
>> >> uncomfortable on his perch and one of the more showy newcomers was a
>> >> bit vindicated.
>> >>
>> >> so, I ain't voting
>> >>
>> > Be nice, It's Christmas....Ho! Ho! ..:-))
>> >
>> > BMC
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Look right up above with your Newsreader of preference just a few
>> minutes ago (8 approx) & ks post, it's only gonna get worse it
>> seems... {:-/ {:-(
>> Craig.
>
> To be clear on all accounts this is an alternate address I use in house
> at work. I had logged on with the user for Google ad words earlier in
> the day. Sorry there was no Sig.
>
> This post is simply asking a question. I do not wish to discredit
> anyone, but simply ask the question:
>
> Does it make sense that paid clients of CG, become eligable for " Best
> of " awards?
>
>
> Terry Z
>
You could have fooled me !

BMC




 
Date: 20 Dec 2006 14:12:09
From: CoffeeKid
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice

Craig Andrews wrote:

> Look right up above with your Newsreader of preference just a few
> minutes ago (8 approx) & ks post, it's only gonna get worse it
> seems... {:-/ {:-(

No, that's it for me on the bad stuff. I'd be happy to discuss, debate,
even have my mind changed on the choices I made, with anyone who isn't
driven by ulterior motives ;)

One eg - the tamper choice. The awards are "Editor's Choice" and I have
to say, in years and years of using tampers, I really, really like the
coffeelab tamper - when you use it, it feels like you've got this
hyper-honed tool for completing the job. It's like looking down at your
wrist and seeing an Omega watch ;) There's a lot of awesome tampers out
there, but for some reason for me at least, the coffeelabs sticks out.

k



  
Date: 21 Dec 2006 02:26:29
From: Marshall
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice
On 20 Dec 2006 14:12:09 -0800, "CoffeeKid" <Coffeekid@gmail.com >
wrote:

>One eg - the tamper choice. The awards are "Editor's Choice" and I have
>to say, in years and years of using tampers, I really, really like the
>coffeelab tamper - when you use it, it feels like you've got this
>hyper-honed tool for completing the job. It's like looking down at your
>wrist and seeing an Omega watch ;) There's a lot of awesome tampers out
>there, but for some reason for me at least, the coffeelabs sticks out.
>
>k

I'm skeptical about ranking tampers for consumers. Pros have to worry
about repetitive stress injuries and speed. But, for those of us who
make 2 to 4 shots a day, I don't think there are any meaningful
differences. As long as it fits the basket and looks good (looks great
is even better), I'm happy.

shall


  
Date: 20 Dec 2006 17:45:08
From: Craig Andrews
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice

"CoffeeKid" <Coffeekid@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1166652729.354709.321250@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
>
> Craig Andrews wrote:
>
>> Look right up above with your Newsreader of preference just a few
>> minutes ago (8 approx) & ks post, it's only gonna get worse it
>> seems... {:-/ {:-(
>
> No, that's it for me on the bad stuff. I'd be happy to discuss,
> debate,
> even have my mind changed on the choices I made, with anyone who isn't
> driven by ulterior motives ;)
>
> One eg - the tamper choice. The awards are "Editor's Choice" and I
> have
> to say, in years and years of using tampers, I really, really like the
> coffeelab tamper - when you use it, it feels like you've got this
> hyper-honed tool for completing the job. It's like looking down at
> your
> wrist and seeing an Omega watch ;) There's a lot of awesome tampers
> out
> there, but for some reason for me at least, the coffeelabs sticks out.
>
> k
>


I did not mean or infer you k "on the bad stuff ", I meant on the
skulking/subterfuge/spite thing..

O.T. On the 5 year anniversary of Coffeegeek, I'm not one to be eloquent
with words., & I'm been thinking about what I wanted to post right after
your announcement on the CG forums. I've been there right since the
"official" date (December 18 2001), & listed on my profile as Dec 20/01.

I was one of I believe 13 original Beta testers for the pre-launch of
Coffeekid & of course the CG forums that we beta tested for 2 - 3 days &
I think I'm the ONLY original member left, left meaning that posts
frequently & not once in a blue moon.

I CANNOT express in words what the CG community means to me & what it
has become &... <snipped for brevity by me {:-) >

Lookin' forward to the Coffeegeek Version 3.0!!

Cheers!
Yours in coffee,
Merry Christmas & a Happy New Year, & all the best in the the new year!!



   
Date: 20 Dec 2006 17:49:09
From: Craig Andrews
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice

"Craig Andrews" <alt.coffee@deletethis.rogers.com > wrote in message
news:4utsnhF19p0iiU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "CoffeeKid" <Coffeekid@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1166652729.354709.321250@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Craig Andrews wrote:
>>
>>> Look right up above with your Newsreader of preference just a few
>>> minutes ago (8 approx) & ks post, it's only gonna get worse it
>>> seems... {:-/ {:-(
>>
>> No, that's it for me on the bad stuff. I'd be happy to discuss,
>> debate,
>> even have my mind changed on the choices I made, with anyone who
>> isn't
>> driven by ulterior motives ;)
>>
>> One eg - the tamper choice. The awards are "Editor's Choice" and I
>> have
>> to say, in years and years of using tampers, I really, really like
>> the
>> coffeelab tamper - when you use it, it feels like you've got this
>> hyper-honed tool for completing the job. It's like looking down at
>> your
>> wrist and seeing an Omega watch ;) There's a lot of awesome tampers
>> out
>> there, but for some reason for me at least, the coffeelabs sticks
>> out.
>>
>> k
>>
>
>
> I did not mean or infer you k "on the bad stuff ", I meant on the
> skulking/subterfuge/spite thing..
>
> O.T. On the 5 year anniversary of Coffeegeek, I'm not one to be
> eloquent with words., & I'm been thinking about what I wanted to post
> right after your announcement on the CG forums. I've been there right
> since the "official" date (December 18 2001), & listed on my profile
> as Dec 20/01.
>
> I was one of I believe 13 original Beta testers for the pre-launch of
> Coffeekid & of course the CG forums that we beta tested for 2 - 3 days
> & I think I'm the ONLY original member left, left meaning that posts
> frequently & not once in a blue moon.
>
> I CANNOT express in words what the CG community means to me & what it
> has become &... <snipped for brevity by me {:-)>
>
> Lookin' forward to the Coffeegeek Version 3.0!!
>
> Cheers!
> Yours in coffee,
> Merry Christmas & a Happy New Year, & all the best in the the new
> year!!

Correction!, earlier quote: "I was one of I believe 13 original Beta
testers for the pre-launch of Coffeekid".
I meant to say "Coffeegeek" ! {;-D
Craig.



    
Date: 21 Dec 2006 06:12:49
From: Coffee for Connoisseurs
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice
>I was one of I believe 13 original Beta testers for the pre-launch of
>Coffeekid & of course the CG forums that we beta tested for 2 - 3 days & I
>think I'm the ONLY original member left, left meaning that posts frequently
>& not once in a blue moon.

Bite your tongue! I get upset enough to argue with someone at least once a
month!


--
Alan

alanfrew@coffeeco.com.au
www.coffeeco.com.au




 
Date: 20 Dec 2006 13:14:46
From: CoffeeKid
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice

Omniryx@gmail.com wrote:
> Guys, could everybody be a little less ad hominem? Maybe whoever it is
> with the weird address would be helped if k said a little about why
> it was chosen and why the others were not.

I'll be covering it more on the next podcast, but sure, ask about any
specific product, and I'll explain further.

Just a note on the GS/3 getting product of the year. The anon-yahoo
person claimed the Scace was first or whatever....

The real story is, the GS/3 is the main developing ground for all this
temperature stability. The GS/3's initial discussion and development
focused on temp stability as a core part of it - long before k B.
left LM to start Synesso... long before the GB/5 or FB/80 or the
Aurelia, or other machines.

Mind you, Greg and Andy's work on PIDs was a huge thing that showed
"the pros" where they could go, and I think if you actually ask Greg or
Andy, they know I'd never in a moment discount their pioneering work.

But in the machine ket itself, the GS/3 was the starting ground, in
a production manner, for temperature stability. It's now finally
shipping in Europe, albeit in tiny numbers, and there are production
units in the US today, but not yet for sale. It was a tough choice, but
the GS/3 definitely deserves some consideration for "product of the
year".

The other consideration is that the GS/3 is possibly *the* most
temperature stable machine out there right now. Whether that's a good
thing or not, is something several are now debating.

k



 
Date: 20 Dec 2006 21:11:34
From: Brian Colwell
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice

<w1r3d1@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1166644032.108990.86270@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> While looking at Coffeegeek today it seems that the editor has made
> some very interesting choices. The most notable is the best new product
> for 2006. It seems that vaporware is the winner with the La zocco
> GS3, and the Scace device a very close second. Isn't that sorta ironic.
> The device that forced the evolution of the GS3 came in second.
>
> The other item of note was the best tamper going to Coffeelab. Maybe
> Mr. Prince missed the H-B tamper Roadshow, and the feedback of most of
> the pros, but so far, the users say different. There are allot of
> choices out there, but I guess they didn't pay for the opportunity to
> win best off. Reg came in second?
>
> Just my take, but I'm wondering what is your take on this type of
> awarding system, and when the manufacturers are clients of the editor,
> should they be eligible for "Best of" type awards?
>
Not another conspiracy theory !!

BMC




  
Date: 20 Dec 2006 21:30:33
From: Ken Wilson
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice
"Brian
>
> Not another conspiracy theory !!
>
> BMC
Possible - but remember the Great Malabar Gold scandal.

Turned out a dearly beloved of alt.coffee got, well, certainly left
uncomfortable on his perch and one of the more showy newcomers was a bit
vindicated.

so, I ain't voting

>




   
Date: 20 Dec 2006 16:18:01
From: notbob
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice
On 2006-12-20, Ken Wilson <ken@kwilsonDEDUCT.fsnet.co.uk > wrote:

> Possible - but remember the Great Malabar Gold scandal.

No. Musta been while I was away for a couple years. Gimme a hint and
I'll do the math.

nb



    
Date: 20 Dec 2006 23:09:59
From: Bradley
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 16:18:01 -0600, notbob <notbob@nothome.com > wrote:

>On 2006-12-20, Ken Wilson <ken@kwilsonDEDUCT.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Possible - but remember the Great Malabar Gold scandal.
>
>No. Musta been while I was away for a couple years. Gimme a hint and
>I'll do the math.
>
>nb

hint: You could ask Randy G. about the G.M.G.S. ;-)

Brad


     
Date: 20 Dec 2006 18:55:09
From: notbob
Subject: PING: RANDY (was Re: CG Editors Choice)
On 2006-12-20, Bradley <nospam@127.0.0.1 > wrote:

> hint: You could ask Randy G. about the G.M.G.S. ;-)

OK.

Yo!! ...Randy!... what's all this about a malabar gold scandal?

nb


      
Date: 20 Dec 2006 17:13:55
From:
Subject: Re: PING: RANDY (was Re: CG Editors Choice)
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 18:55:09 -0600, notbob <notbob@nothome.com > wrote:

>On 2006-12-20, Bradley <nospam@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>> hint: You could ask Randy G. about the G.M.G.S. ;-)
>
>OK.
>
>Yo!! ...Randy!... what's all this about a malabar gold scandal?
>
>nb


The Geeman exposed the great coffee fraud of the century when he told
the world that a certain green coffee supplier was selling its own
malabar-type espresso blend and calling it malabar gold, a registered
tradek of Dr. Malabar (or some equally impressive title). Much
wailing and gnashing of teeth ensued.








_______________________________________
Please Note: If you find a posting or message from me
offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it.
If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to
me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate.


       
Date: 21 Dec 2006 15:45:07
From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Ren=E9_van_Sint_Annaland?=
Subject: Re: PING: RANDY (was Re: CG Editors Choice)
In article <7pnjo2hfqjkmi54up857q7prn0hemrtsd0@4ax.com >, Roque Ja=20
says...
> On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 18:55:09 -0600, notbob <notbob@nothome.com> wrote:
>=20
> >On 2006-12-20, Bradley <nospam@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> >
> >> hint: You could ask Randy G. about the G.M.G.S. ;-)
> >
> >OK. =20
> >
> >Yo!! ...Randy!... what's all this about a malabar gold scandal?
> >
> >nb
>=20
>=20
> The Geeman exposed the great coffee fraud of the century when he told
> the world that a certain green coffee supplier was selling its own
> malabar-type espresso blend and calling it malabar gold, a registered
> tradek of Dr. Malabar (or some equally impressive title). Much
> wailing and gnashing of teeth ensued.
>=20
Lovely sumy, I like it!
--=20
Ren=E9 van Sint Annaland
www.justespresso.com


        
Date: 20 Dec 2006 21:55:42
From: Craig Andrews
Subject: Re: PING: RANDY (was Re: CG Editors Choice)

"René van Sint Annaland" <NZHumanBean@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:MPG.1ff4bc5a9e1214f4989684@news.individual.net...
In article <7pnjo2hfqjkmi54up857q7prn0hemrtsd0@4ax.com >, Roque Ja
says...
> On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 18:55:09 -0600, notbob <notbob@nothome.com> wrote:
>
> >On 2006-12-20, Bradley <nospam@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> >
> >> hint: You could ask Randy G. about the G.M.G.S. ;-)
> >
> >OK.
> >
> >Yo!! ...Randy!... what's all this about a malabar gold scandal?
> >
> >nb
>
>
> The Geeman exposed the great coffee fraud of the century when he told
> the world that a certain green coffee supplier was selling its own
> malabar-type espresso blend and calling it malabar gold, a registered
> tradek of Dr. Malabar (or some equally impressive title). Much
> wailing and gnashing of teeth ensued.
>
Lovely sumy, I like it!
--
René van Sint Annaland
www.justespresso.com


Yes & I REMEMBER it well.., rotflmao!
Craig.



      
Date: 20 Dec 2006 17:01:13
From: Randy G.
Subject: Re: PING: RANDY (was Re: CG Editors Choice)
notbob <notbob@nothome.com > wrote:

>On 2006-12-20, Bradley <nospam@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>> hint: You could ask Randy G. about the G.M.G.S. ;-)
>
>OK.
>
>Yo!! ...Randy!... what's all this about a malabar gold scandal?
>
>nb


Google it...

Randy "" G.
http://www.EspressoMyEspresso.com




       
Date: 21 Dec 2006 03:00:17
From: Barry Jarrett
Subject: Re: PING: RANDY (was Re: CG Editors Choice)
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 17:01:13 -0800, Randy G. <frcn@DESPAMMOcncnet.com >
wrote:

>Google it...


really.

we don't need to drag that corpse back out and kick it around again.


--barry "anyone for bushkazi?"


        
Date: 21 Dec 2006 07:45:13
From: Ken Wilson
Subject: Re: PING: RANDY (was Re: CG Editors Choice)
"Barry
> we don't need to drag that corpse back out and kick it around again.


certainly not - but to me it was an object lesson in how Mob posting can get
out of control - and wrong.

Randy was ravaged (guilty m'lud - i have apologised to him since) for going
against the throng - c'mon it was a light hearted reply to Brian's
conspiracy theory.

Anyway - wouldn't be xmas without a good old fashioned beat up k thread.
nothing else to beat him up about these days........



ken







         
Date: 21 Dec 2006 17:04:44
From: Brian Colwell
Subject: Re: PING: RANDY (was Re: CG Editors Choice)

"Ken Wilson" <ken@kwilsonDEDUCT.fsnet.co.uk > wrote in message
news:emdujk$pm2$1@aioe.org...
> "Barry
>> we don't need to drag that corpse back out and kick it around again.
>
>
> certainly not - but to me it was an object lesson in how Mob posting can
> get out of control - and wrong.
>
> Randy was ravaged (guilty m'lud - i have apologised to him since) for
> going against the throng - c'mon it was a light hearted reply to Brian's
> conspiracy theory.
>
> Anyway - wouldn't be xmas without a good old fashioned beat up k
> thread. nothing else to beat him up about these days........
>
>
>
> ken
>
Ken
Mob Posting......I like that !.....Very descriptive of what goes on around
here, of late !!

Brian






       
Date: 21 Dec 2006 01:15:44
From: Paul Monaghan
Subject: Re: PING: RANDY (was Re: CG Editors Choice)
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 17:01:13 -0800, Randy G. <frcn@DESPAMMOcncnet.com >
wrote:

>notbob <notbob@nothome.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2006-12-20, Bradley <nospam@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>>
>>> hint: You could ask Randy G. about the G.M.G.S. ;-)
>>
>>OK.
>>
>>Yo!! ...Randy!... what's all this about a malabar gold scandal?
>>
>>nb
>
>
>Google it...
>
> Randy "" G.
>http://www.EspressoMyEspresso.com
>
>

I did, and let me suggest that you pour a cup before starting to read.
LONG threads!

I must say though that seeing a couple of Madeleine Page's comments
in context made me understand why so many of you miss her. "Classy" is
an understatement.


       
Date: 20 Dec 2006 20:07:45
From: Craig Andrews
Subject: Re: PING: RANDY (was Re: CG Editors Choice)

"Randy G." <frcn@DESPAMMOcncnet.com > wrote in message
news:36njo2l2utd73gistq15fsu9k3ue135lvh@4ax.com...
> notbob <notbob@nothome.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2006-12-20, Bradley <nospam@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>>
>>> hint: You could ask Randy G. about the G.M.G.S. ;-)
>>
>>OK.
>>
>>Yo!! ...Randy!... what's all this about a malabar gold scandal?
>>
>>nb
>
>
> Google it...
>

Secret Search Button: ---- > [Google] WTFE right?
Craig.



     
Date: 20 Dec 2006 18:13:41
From: Craig Andrews
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice

"Bradley" <nospam@127.0.0.1 > wrote in message
news:4kgjo2psjedc80p4unrl1hu412njv97b6s@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 16:18:01 -0600, notbob <notbob@nothome.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2006-12-20, Ken Wilson <ken@kwilsonDEDUCT.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Possible - but remember the Great Malabar Gold scandal.
>>
>>No. Musta been while I was away for a couple years. Gimme a hint and
>>I'll do the math.
>>
>>nb
>
> hint: You could ask Randy G. about the G.M.G.S. ;-)
>
> Brad


Yah, I was gonna mention it., LOL! {:-D
Craig.



   
Date: 20 Dec 2006 21:43:40
From: Brian Colwell
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice

"Ken Wilson" <ken@kwilsonDEDUCT.fsnet.co.uk > wrote in message
news:emca1n$4eq$1@aioe.org...
> "Brian
>>
>> Not another conspiracy theory !!
>>
>> BMC
> Possible - but remember the Great Malabar Gold scandal.
>
> Turned out a dearly beloved of alt.coffee got, well, certainly left
> uncomfortable on his perch and one of the more showy newcomers was a bit
> vindicated.
>
> so, I ain't voting
>
Be nice, It's Christmas....Ho! Ho! ..:-))

BMC





    
Date: 20 Dec 2006 16:48:46
From: Craig Andrews
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice

"Brian Colwell" <bcolwell@shaw.ca > wrote in message
news:g8iih.505079$5R2.30729@pd7urf3no...
>
> "Ken Wilson" <ken@kwilsonDEDUCT.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:emca1n$4eq$1@aioe.org...
>> "Brian
>>>
>>> Not another conspiracy theory !!
>>>
>>> BMC
>> Possible - but remember the Great Malabar Gold scandal.
>>
>> Turned out a dearly beloved of alt.coffee got, well, certainly left
>> uncomfortable on his perch and one of the more showy newcomers was a
>> bit vindicated.
>>
>> so, I ain't voting
>>
> Be nice, It's Christmas....Ho! Ho! ..:-))
>
> BMC
>
>
>

Look right up above with your Newsreader of preference just a few
minutes ago (8 approx) & ks post, it's only gonna get worse it
seems... {:-/ {:-(
Craig.



 
Date: 20 Dec 2006 13:05:59
From: Omniryx@gmail.com
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice
Guys, could everybody be a little less ad hominem? Maybe whoever it is
with the weird address would be helped if k said a little about why
it was chosen and why the others were not.


CoffeeKid wrote:
> Robert Harmon wrote:
> > w1r3d1@yahoo.com wrote in news:1166644032.108990.86270
> > @f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> >
> > SNIPPED
> >
> > > Just my take, but I'm wondering what is your take on this type of
> > > awarding system, and when the manufacturers are clients of the editor,
> > > should they be eligible for "Best of" type awards?
> > >
> > >
> > Do you have any proof that the ratings are 'for sale' on computergeek.com
> > or are you just trolling? I browse, & post to, CG with frequency and I've
> > never had reason to question the motives or ethics of anyone associatted
> > with that site. If there is any SERIOUS cause for concern please post it to
> > this group ASAP.
>
> There's no "bought" placings or selections. I would imagine this person
> with the weird yahoo address has more ulterior motives for posting this
> than I did for any of the CG Editor's list or the Holiday Gift List
> this year. And to be honest, I fully expected this to take place,
> especially from a few individuals.
>
> As it says right at the top of the Editor's Choice awards, the list is
> very subjective, and not everyone will agree with it.
>
> Of course, there's always going to be a few disgruntled ex-advertisers,
> conspiracy theorists, trolls and others who will think differently.
>
> k



 
Date: 20 Dec 2006 12:56:50
From: CoffeeKid
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice

Robert Harmon wrote:
> w1r3d1@yahoo.com wrote in news:1166644032.108990.86270
> @f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> SNIPPED
>
> > Just my take, but I'm wondering what is your take on this type of
> > awarding system, and when the manufacturers are clients of the editor,
> > should they be eligible for "Best of" type awards?
> >
> >
> Do you have any proof that the ratings are 'for sale' on computergeek.com
> or are you just trolling? I browse, & post to, CG with frequency and I've
> never had reason to question the motives or ethics of anyone associatted
> with that site. If there is any SERIOUS cause for concern please post it to
> this group ASAP.

There's no "bought" placings or selections. I would imagine this person
with the weird yahoo address has more ulterior motives for posting this
than I did for any of the CG Editor's list or the Holiday Gift List
this year. And to be honest, I fully expected this to take place,
especially from a few individuals.

As it says right at the top of the Editor's Choice awards, the list is
very subjective, and not everyone will agree with it.

Of course, there's always going to be a few disgruntled ex-advertisers,
conspiracy theorists, trolls and others who will think differently.

k



 
Date: 20 Dec 2006 12:18:58
From:
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice

Robert Harmon wrote:
> w1r3d1@yahoo.com wrote in news:1166644032.108990.86270
> @f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> SNIPPED
>
> > Just my take, but I'm wondering what is your take on this type of
> > awarding system, and when the manufacturers are clients of the editor,
> > should they be eligible for "Best of" type awards?
> >
> >
> Do you have any proof that the ratings are 'for sale' on computergeek.com
> or are you just trolling? I browse, & post to, CG with frequency and I've
> never had reason to question the motives or ethics of anyone associatted
> with that site. If there is any SERIOUS cause for concern please post it to
> this group ASAP.
>
> Robert (Reminds me of 'leaks' from the White House.) Harmon
> --
> http://tinyurl.com/pou2y
> http://tinyurl.com/fkd6r
> Remove "Z" to reply via email.


As stated in my OP This is just my take based upon my knowledge of CG
and the editors customers. I would not say that CG offers an unbiased
point of view, in fact the bias is on high this year.

A troll? No, but honest yes.



 
Date: 20 Dec 2006 20:00:51
From: Robert Harmon
Subject: Re: CG Editors Choice
w1r3d1@yahoo.com wrote in news:1166644032.108990.86270
@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

SNIPPED

> Just my take, but I'm wondering what is your take on this type of
> awarding system, and when the manufacturers are clients of the editor,
> should they be eligible for "Best of" type awards?
>
>
Do you have any proof that the ratings are 'for sale' on computergeek.com
or are you just trolling? I browse, & post to, CG with frequency and I've
never had reason to question the motives or ethics of anyone associatted
with that site. If there is any SERIOUS cause for concern please post it to
this group ASAP.

Robert (Reminds me of 'leaks' from the White House.) Harmon
--
http://tinyurl.com/pou2y
http://tinyurl.com/fkd6r
Remove "Z" to reply via email.