Show your colours

[UberTech]

Mentioned recently people should really state their persuasion and products they actually have in there fleet so others can judge their comments by there bias.

People who don’t own machines need to state who they work for or the experience they have in this area.

I think this should be up held by everyone and a sticky put at the top of the forum stating this. Do you agree?

 

[Craig]

If anyone reads Randoms signature, I think you will get the drift on how I feel about it. He is one of the few I have respect for for putting it there. (even though he was trying to grind on me)
This should apply if you work for a manufacture OR a distributor/dealer, after all WE (the user/owners) need to know what your particular slant is towards a brand.

Machines I OWN or have OWNED in the past.
Canon CLC350
Canon CLC700
Canon CLC900
Canon CLC1120
2 - Canon CLC4000's
Minolta Black and White (can't remember model# 12 years ago)
Canon 6060?? (B/W)
Canon IR5000
Canon IRC3200
Ricoh MP9000
Xerox DocuColor 8000AP

Good luck UberTech, we'll see how this works!

 

[meddington]

As evidenced by Craig's list ...the one above, not the website , one's list can be quite long. Further, there is already a disclosure requirement for venders, manufacturers or distributors to disclose any potential bias. This information should be noted in the user profile already. I can see you viewpoints, but I prefer not to include long lists of equipment, hardware, software, etc, in a signature...particularly when scrolling through the forums on a handheld.

 

[UberTech]

The signature only allows 100 bytes max. As for machines, Craig has an impressive trophy chest but I would expect people to list there current workhorse since it is the conclusion after years of research.

People probably wouldn't pry into profiles unless (in my case) they think the poster has a barrow to push.

 

[UberTech]

For example......

 

[lfelton]

As evidenced by Craig's list ...the one above, not the website , one's list can be quite long. Further, there is already a disclosure requirement for venders, manufacturers or distributors to disclose any potential bias. This information should be noted in the user profile already. I can see you viewpoints, but I prefer not to include long lists of equipment, hardware, software, etc, in a signature...particularly when scrolling through the forums on a handheld.

I think the problem is that people patently aren't following the disclosure requirement. I've found that in (for example) the pre-press forum you can get some really good help and advice. But in the digital forum, there are way too many people with vested interests "trolling" with replies like "don't buy machine x, they have major problems with long term quality" and "buy a machine y, they are the best thing since sliced bread". You then have to filter this to see whether this is just sales BS, whereas if the poster was forced to have in their sig "Ricoh Vendor", "Xerox Vendor", "KM Vendor" -or- "Printer", there might be a lot less BS and a much higher signal to noise ration. At least that's my take on where Ubertech is coming from.

 

[meddington]

Sounds like you have some legitimate concerns regarding disclosure, though I'm not sure a new requirement would be adhered to any better than the existing one. You might consider talking to the list moderator or forum administrator (Cory?) regarding disclosure issues.

 

[Vee]

I too prefer not to see a long list of equipment below every post. Some people would have very long lists.

 

[UberTech]

Once again 100, chars is the max length for a signature.

 

[Craig]

I agree with NOT listing all the equipment, I just did it for that example (to long). I DO agree that ALL members employed by a vendor, manufacture or distributor should be up-front about it. After all, if they are embarrassed by their employer, maybe they need to find a new job!

 

[PeterA]

Is it me or do the dates seem out of sync

PeterA

 

[doubting_thomas]

I agree to not have the info in one's signature. Isn't there room in
the member profile for equipment proficiency to be listed if a member
feels it's necessary? A requirement if one is not a vendor rep of some
kind seems pretty heavy handed to me.

 

[sweatyclimber]

I think that there are too many work arounds to the disclosure. I believe Craig mentioned that some here have made new screen names to post without it being the known person. I think long term, you have to rate the person based on the past posts. For me for this forum, when I'm trying to understand someone, I choose "find all posts by this user". I use that to see how slanted they are one way or another regardless of vendor alignment. For instance from my posts you'll see that if it is the right reputable type, I am biased towards independent dealers (more truely the Global Imaging Network of dealers), but base on my posts not towards any particular units. That comes from my industry experiance working for a Graphic design firm, Direct Manufacture branch and a Global Imaging dealer. It also comes from the fact that prior to this industry, I always owned my own business. I found that Global still operates in the way most small businesses do, responsive, inventive and results oriented. I feel that I would bias that way regardless of where I work, but of course couldnt' know till I didn't work here... However after 12 years in the industry, I can't find anyone better. I'll consider putting in more indepth info in my bio based on this thread