As I am sure many dotTechies know, I am reviewed Ocster Backup on dotTech quite a few times. In my reviewes I have stated Ocster Backup is "Straightforward and easy to use" because, frankly, it is. However, in the end I reject Ocster Backup because of multiple other reasons. Apparently the developer of Ocster thinks it is okay to selectively quote me, and not link back to the full review, to try to promote their software.
If you go to http://www.ocster.com/ocster-b…..p-pro-5/en you will note it says
"Straightforward and easy to use."
Sorry to hear about this.
Hopefully they will rectify this immediately. However, if they choose to ignore your requests to make it right, then this sure seems like it is similar to what was written about earlier this year on dotTech:
"Beat deceitful developers at their deceitful games by calling them out on their deceitful 'awards.'"
Posted: April 3rd, 2010 | Author: MikeR
Isn't the advertising world a wonderful place? hmph…
First off, they've changed it so that the "dottech.org" does in fact link back to your article now.
Secondly, developer's advertising departments are going to do whatever they want with anything you or anyone else says. Because even if you post an article or comment like you did, you're putting their name out there for more people to see. At least some of those people will go to their site, like even I did. And maybe some of those people will look around and find a program they like and end up buying it. So in the end, as I see it, by posting your unhappiness with the developer and even providing a link back to their site, they have been provided with more free advertising. I seriously doubt that they care that they're also going to have a relatively small number of people that will never buy from them because of what they did.
They also know that the chances of you getting a lawyer and taking legal action is very low. And even if you do, their name gets put out there even more for people to see. So they win again.
I too think that it's disgusting that a developer can't do something as simple as providing a back-link and that they will twist your words or use them out of context. But that's the world we live in. I hope that at the very least posting about it helped lower your anger level a bit.
It happens all the time … and not just in this area. Back in the day, I used to write book and movie reviews for a sizeable publication. Book publishing houses, movie companies and the like always look for the literary equivalent of sound bites for publicity purposes. That's why you see just selected quotes on promo blurbs and on book covers, etc. It may in no way be an accurate representation of your overall summation of a particular offering. Actually, we'd have a running competition to see who could write a line or two juicy enough to be used, no matter how crappy the book/movie was (it was good for the publication's publicity as well … bit of a parasitic relationship).
Having said all that, the makers of Ocster may not have acted illegally (is such deception illegal?), but it has acted unethically. And for me, that has cost them their credibility and integrity. And that is numero uno in my book. So I won't be in a hurry to install their software. I'm curious, though, as to how the situation has been rectified. I just looked at the link provided, and it still says the same thing – which hence still alludes to a glowing Ashraf review. Just providing a page link to the review doesn't change the fact that it's still being used for what can be seen to be false advertising purposes.
But on the plus side, it doesn't hurt dotTech's reputation. Quite the opposite.
Gotta find a silver lining somewhere …
Most Users Ever Online: 253
Currently Browsing this Page:
Guest Posters: 9
Newest Members: Mr.dee, arvey, drreemy, alilina, izman30, lucasjacbo
Administrators: Ashraf (1741), Locutus (1886), amnesia (270)