At what point is your credibility shot? (KR)

[michaelwj]

Hi all,

So there are a lot of photography related websites, some have ads, some have classifieds, some have affiliates. I've got no issue either way, somethings got to pay the bills in the end. Disclosures are made and we take that into account with reviews and opinions.

Then there's KR. Personally, I take KR with a grain of salt, he's sometimes funny, sometimes not, but often his reviews are a good source of raw information, direct comparisons, etc. He has ads on his website, always has. But, in his latest reviews (XE-2 for example) he starts by saying "This ad-free website's biggest source ...", yet there are blatant ads on that very page. His older review don't say that, its a new move on his part, a new low in my book.

To me, this is pure and simple lying.

So my question is, at what point is the last scrap of credibility lost?

Cheers,
Michael

 

[Ranchu]

When you start lying about DR like dpreview. Or lying about film like Michael Reichmann. Or making Color Perfect software. Or Adobe98 color space. I'll think of some more. KR's 'sins' aren't that great.

 

[Darshan]

When someone sells a "mint" camera with a foggy vf or a slow shutter :bang::bang:

 

[bohdan]

Agreed on KR. His older reviews on Nikon gear is a constant link for me. Regarding lows, you have to admit that he has mastered the use of Weasel Words. So maybe, he's invoking weasels. After all, the Mamiya 6 is the best camera ever...where the X100t is the best...<fill in the blank.>

 

[michaelwj]

When you start lying about DR like dpreview. Or lying about film like Michael Reichmann. Or making Color Perfect software. Or Adobe98 color space. I'll think of some more. KR's 'sins' aren't that great.

There are lots, but I was a bit shocked by how blatant it was!

Cheers,
Michael

 

[Pioneer]

Credibility is something my Mom has...or my uncle...or my wife.

Credibility is not a word that enters my mind at all on the internet.

Sorry.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I almost purchased lens from KEH yesterday. The final PayPal approval on KEH site was frozen. I called them.
I was told no USPS, only FedEx.
Later on on-ebay they have another lens, which is described as good one, but on the photo front element is covered with patina. While shipping is by ... USPS.

 

[2WK]

From his About section:

"This website is my way of giving back to our community. It is a work of fiction, entirely the product of my own imagination."

"I occasionally weave fiction and satire into my stories to keep them interesting. I love a good hoax. Read The Museum of Hoaxes, or see their site. A hoax, like some of the things I do on this website, is done as a goof simply for the heck of it by overactive minds as a practical joke. Even Ansel Adams kidded around when he was just a pup in the 1920s by selling his photos as "Parmelian Prints." I have the energy and sense of humor of a three-year old, so remember, this is a personal website, and never presented as fact."

🙄

 

[michaelwj]

From his About section:

"This website is my way of giving back to our community. It is a work of fiction, entirely the product of my own imagination."

"I occasionally weave fiction and satire into my stories to keep them interesting. I love a good hoax. Read The Museum of Hoaxes, or see their site. A hoax, like some of the things I do on this website, is done as a goof simply for the heck of it by overactive minds as a practical joke. Even Ansel Adams kidded around when he was just a pup in the 1920s by selling his photos as "Parmelian Prints." I have the energy and sense of humor of a three-year old, so remember, this is a personal website, and never presented as fact."

🙄

Ah yes, the catch all disclaimer. I do like that he jokes, uses a lot of satire and fiction. But I do feel a difference between satire, fiction, and lies. Maybe its just me?

Pioneer, surely there is some credibility on the net, else what are we all doing here? I hope there are some credible people here.

Cheers,
Michael

 

[David Hughes]

Titus 1: 15

Titus 1: 15

Hi,

"Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled."

Or "It's all in your mind" Spike Milligan.

Regards, David

 

[Pioneer]

Ah yes, the catch all disclaimer. I do like that he jokes, uses a lot of satire and fiction. But I do feel a difference between satire, fiction, and lies. Maybe its just me?

Pioneer, surely there is some credibility on the net, else what are we all doing here? I hope there are some credible people here.

Cheers,
Michael

It really all depends on your definition of credibility. There are many, many people on the net, including this forum, who sound convincing and believable. If that equates to credible then certainly. Of course that only lifts the web to the level of politics so I'm not sure that is all that wonderful.

However, if you equate credibility with trust, then that is something that I'm not sure I can agree with. I trust that what you say is probably the truth, but I always verify that from other sources if it is important to me. I don't mean to offend, I would hope that others do the same with me.

KRs website is a very good example of this. If you never read his disclaimer then you could easily believe he is a credible source. But once you do you have to wonder, what part of what you just read is coming from the playful 3 year old?

 

[David Hughes]

I guess the trouble is you can write for an audience intelligent enough and with the experience to spot and laugh at a joke; or you can write for idiots. There is a danger that people won't spot the jokes but what can you do about them? Life would be grim if they were banned. Imagine ebay without the joke prices, f'instance.

Worse still, can you imagine a world in which you have to raise a card saying "Joke; please laugh." all the time. It would be worse than a political rally...

Regards, David

 

[michaelwj]

/snip/
However, if you equate credibility with trust, then that is something that I'm not sure I can agree with. I trust that what you say is probably the truth, but I always verify that from other sources if it is important to me. I don't mean to offend, I would hope that others do the same with me.

KRs website is a very good example of this. If you never read his disclaimer then you could easily believe he is a credible source. But once you do you have to wonder, what part of what you just read is coming from the playful 3 year old?

In this instance we can equate credibility with a form of trust. As in I don't trust you with my life, but I would trust that you honestly believe what they say and are not out to intentionally deceive. Not sure if that's exactly how I want to say it, but close enough.

I suppose my issue with KR's new "ad-free" website is that he asks for money on the basis that that's his form of support. But there are ads. I actually find most of his writing hilarious, that point just grates on me a bit.

Cheers,
Michael

 

[michaelwj]

I guess the trouble is you can write for an audience intelligent enough and with the experience to spot and laugh at a joke; or you can write for idiots. There is a danger that people won't spot the jokes but what can you do about them? Life would be grim if they were banned. Imagine ebay without the joke prices, f'instance.

Worse still, can you imagine a world in which you have to raise a card saying "Joke; please laugh." all the time. It would be worse than a political rally...

Regards, David

I'd like to think I'm reasonably intelligent and can spot a joke, but I could be delusional, depends who you ask! I'm still not sure that the "ad-free" claim is a joke though. Maybe he thinks affiliate links are not ads?

Like I said before, I like his satire and jokes, but this one just rubs me the wrong way.

Cheers,
Michael

 

[Paul Jenkin]

Maybe I've worked in insurance too long (35 years) but I was wondering, the other day, whether anyone who sets themselves up to provide professional advice (i.e. advice for which a fee is charged) should be carrying professional indemnity insurance.

KR aside, there are numerous websites which offer views and comments which might lead someone to spend money which, if the advice / views / technical data proves to be wrong, could be an expensive mistake.

Striking a balance between saying "in my opinion, this lens if the best ever made and you'd be stupid not to buy one" as a throwaway opinion is one thing. However, if you are paid to make such comments or make comparisons across ranges of products, produce evidential photos to back up claims and receive money into the bargain, that may be something else altogether. I wouldn't like to try to tell a judge the law on that one.

Then there's the thing about, do your research then get off your derriere and go and try one before you buy one. Personally, I wouldn't buy anything worth more than a few ££ unless I had the chance to check it out and make the call for myself. IMO, too many of us rely too much on what others think and abdicate too much responsibility for making our own decisions.

 

[Turtle]

In KR's case, he has been of little credibility for a long time. He has his fun, generates traffic through controversy (and posts like this) and offers nothing that is not better offered elsewhere.

Credibility is assigned subjectively. We all have a different yardstick.

 

[Daniel Teoli Jr.]

When you start lying about DR like dpreview. Or lying about film like Michael Reichmann. Or making Color Perfect software. Or Adobe98 color space. I'll think of some more. KR's 'sins' aren't that great.

DP didn't like my review of the M240. They deleted it.

I let the info on these mentioned sites start as a seed for me to check into and see if anything sprouts.

 

[JoeV]

My issue with KR is not as much about credibility as it is about intent. On the surface - if you don't dig deep enough to read his disclaimer - it might appear to be a factually objective camera review site, reinforced via adverts linked to online camera sales.

But if his intent is less than objective, it becomes nothing more than an exercise in filling a web page with "content" at the hopes that some fool will click on his bait. As he indicates at the bottom of each page, he intends to support his family with proceeds from the site; I think that best summarizes the informal contract he's made with his readers - you agree to visit his website (for whatever reason, it matters little) and he promises nothing factual in return.

~Joe

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

Having a family to support doesn't make him a liar, does it?

Most people in the photographic trade have families to support and work to do it. I don't think they lie either although sometimes they forget to tell you things...

Just asking.

Regards, David

 

[Huss]

Hey, at least KR showed that the Sony A7 suffers from sensor reflections. He posted it clearly with examples.

Other really popular sites never mention it, especially one really successful blogger...

Here's da deal. Any site that has ads, and gets equipment from mfgs is going to be 'flexible' in their reviews. What I do is wait for real photographers get the product first, then look at their photos and read their opinions.