CONSUMER ALERT - LIES BEING SPREAD ABOUT GUYS OF LIDAR

[TSi+WRX]

I agree with what's been said about the removal of that thread from RR.net, and that its intent was not to either erase my posting there, nor cVr's.

That said, I do feel bad that I haven't had the time to get back to this thread in the last few days, but since I again have a little free time, I thought I should, in all fairness, revisit it again.

I want to say, yet again, that for anyone who was on-market at the time of the 2007 round of the GOL laser jammer "Shootout," yes, the LI was a very, very attractive item.

However, at the same time, I do *NOT* think that, even for one minute, the GOL - either collectively or individually - EVER tried to "push" this product, nor, for that matter, hide or even try to minimize the fact that it was indeed a pre-production unit, and what's more, one that was actively being worked-on by its primary developer, during the testing scenarios.

This was easily clear to me as I read the published GOL tests.

And no, my first language was not English. Similarly, I'm often in the habit of reading faster than is good for me - thus missing important details. ops:

Even so, I could readily see that there were repeated mentions of the LI being a pre-production item, and took those cautions to-heart.

Similarly, I would say that anyone who either followed the discussion threads relating to that GOL event or in the early discussions of the LI product itself should have *easily* come upon the fact that the tested item was a pre-production unit. I honestly can't even begin to count how many times such warnings were issued.

Furthermore, many of these warnings were issued by some of the individually most vocal members of the GOL. Happya$$, if I recall correctly, was among the first to express his own displeasure at the price-increase, one-vs.-two emitter diode, and also the lack of retail support scheme, each at its initial time-of-disclosure.

One can easily do the searches here, and find those very threads and posts, and I would encourage anyone with residual/lingering doubts to do so.

I honestly don't know how ANYONE could possibly blame the GOL for anything to do with the LI, given these hard facts.

[RacerX]

A bit late here, as I have been a bit busy with other threads.. ...anyway, I agree with TQ, that the GOL site should be changed.

The problem is, even though those of us here know and understand the differences, the general public does not. They go there from a link, click the link at the top to "skip" the info and go directly to the results. they then see the LI mixed in with all the other jammers and they think it's retail, since they didn't catch that little line that said it was prototype. I've personally heard this from several people who didn't know better.

There are many websites that link to that and proclaim the LI the "winner" not even mentioning it was a prototype.

Look at it like this.

How many of us have been looking for something, say a video card for the computer. We go to Tom's Hardware, click on the latest video card roundup, skip the intro, and go right to the pretty graphs and start comparing. we look for the games or programs we use, much like someone may even look for the Laser gun they go up against, see who did best, and go from there without reading all the "fine print"

I personally feel it's a Disservice to the public leaving it "as is". It's NOT the same as the retail.

The "prototype" should be removed from the main results page, and instead put a link to another page clearly stating it was a prototype, since the main results were for "Retail units".

[TSi+WRX]

I agree absolutely.

In my first reply - on RR.net - I also said the same as you did, RacerX, that the results should have been published differently (although, admittedly, my reply was nowhere near as well-reasoned nor as eloquently put as yours here).

The GOL's specific aim during that test, if I remember correctly, was to test production-retail units, and yet, for whatever reason, the LI's results, even though they were clearly identified as of prototype stage and that the developer was on-hand, was still included in the main bodytext and graphics.

Hindsight, of course is 20/20, but certainly, the ability to change the layout of that page is/should still be possible, particularly given the current storm of accusations, etc.

[ivva]

I agree absolutely.

In my first reply - on RR.net - I also said the same as you did, RacerX, that the results should have been published differently (although, admittedly, my reply was nowhere near as well-reasoned nor as eloquently put as yours here).

The GOL's specific aim during that test, if I remember correctly, was to test production-retail units, and yet, for whatever reason, the LI's results, even though they were clearly identified as of prototype stage and that the developer was on-hand, was still included in the main bodytext and graphics.

Hindsight, of course is 20/20, but certainly, the ability to change the layout of that page is/should still be possible, particularly given the current storm of accusations, etc.

i agree with you, but changing it now would be like trying to change the past... what is done is done... GOL 2008. is something we shuld be waiting for to clear things up...

[TSi+WRX]

^ That, most certainly.

The tests of production-retail units is definitely something that we are *all* waiting for, I think.

Indeed, it may simply be counterproductive for the GOL to change the old testing page - seeing that the new set of tests, and results, should be just over the horizon.

[RacerX]

here's one more example why it needs to be updated correctly:

http://www.consumersearch.com/www/au...rs/review.html

here's a small quote:
"Speed Measurement Laboratories did not test laser jammers in 2007, and most other tests are older as well. One exception is a test conducted in March 2007 by Guys of Lidar. By far, the most effective jamming system in that test was the Laser Interceptor (*est. $660, two transceivers; $1,110, four transceivers)."

Not to mention we all thought the retail WOULD be the same at that time.
it isn't and people STILL look at that like it is. There are group buys out there quoting the same thing currently.

:?

[ELVATO]

Quote from the site RacerX posted:

RadarDetector.net is the best user-to-user help site we've found. It focuses on everything related to radar detectors and offers unvarnished -- and sometimes un-censored -- discussions that can be useful, but might not be for the faint of heart. The outlaw image of the world of radar detectors is certainly alive and well here.

This thread is not for the faint of heart.

[TSi+WRX]

Good point, RacerX.

But I think it'll take more than just modification of the GOL website - it's going to require that whoever writes such articles will need to read better, too.....

The citation you gave is a perfect example.

Certainly, I do think that changing the presentation of the data would/will help, but it seems that perhaps this writer wasn't reading, in the first place. :wink: :?

[Rottman]

SAID IT BEFORE AND I SAY IT AGAIN....I think you should be top man there Racer-X

[RacerX]

TSi+WRX
Yep, which goes perfectly with the first point about the "average" person skipping right to the results.

Either way, lesson learned I believe.

In the future I don't think that any "prototype" tests should be published at all. Far too often, they don't represent what the "retail" units are. this has shown in the past tests as well.

I would still encourage manufacturers to send units for GOL to test, this way they can get some good feedback, but they don't have to have concerns of results being published, plus they can continue to develop those products out of public view until they decide to announce things.

I think that would be best for all.