Ray, I have a suggestion! Why don't you volunteer and write reviews for us that meet your standards (and ours)? I am not being factious. We can always use folks who set a high standard and meet them. Please... help us out and volunteer!

Sorry if I spoke for you without your permission, I apologize. As for the % of words, it is quite easy, read the reviews, go to the web site and you will see where all the cut and paste came from.I really don't have a problem with the review itself. Heck, I'm probably never going to buy anything written for FS9 and ported over to fsx. What I dislike is that we (avsim readers, all) have a published review by a true no-named person that did not identify if he/she was using FS9 or FSX or both, did not date the review, did not make a recommendation other than the name of the developer should be enough, did not identify his/her PC configuration (Pentium2, 1 gb ram, who knows), I have no guess at this persons qualifications, don't know if he/she has ever flown heavies before, ever. Don't know nothing about the reviewer, so how can the review be credible?Stuff like that. The lack of quality control is in the publishing of the document, not necessarily the content, maybe its a Cessna pilot that just got his/her first free heavy package for writing a review. Who knows.I think I have made my position fully known so I don't plan anymore posts on this thread. I started it, and now I am finished.RayM

As for the % of words, it is quite easy, read the reviews, go to the web site and you will see where all the cut and paste came from.

I did and I can't. Perhaps you can prove your original claim as you were asked?

As for recommendations, I don't know that it is the reviewer's job to always give a specific recommendation on whether to buy or not. I believe the purpose of the review is to provide facts and impressions from which the reader may form his own opinions.

Correct. We are not sales assistants. I've never read in the reviewer guidelines anything close of "write recommendations to the public". As Tim said, we are here to put on the eye of the public what we think are the strong points as well as the weak points of a product so that you, the reader, decide whether it fits your needs or don't. Otherwise it wouldn't be called a "review", it would either be advertising or defamation.

I actually don't mind slinging an opinion - recommendation or otherwise - on the end of a review, but I never feel compelled to do so for any reason other than because it would be kind of hard to spend the length of time one does examining a product, to then be bereft of an opinion about it.So long as people take note of the fact that every Avsim review states, right at the bottom of it, that it is ultimately a reviewer's opinion within the basic policy constraints of Avsim for being informative and honest, then sticking a recommendation in there is no problem. It is actually why I did agree with the point in regard to the omission of a name on the said review. What is nice about that, is that since most of the reviewers post on Avsim's forums anyway, people can form an opinion about a recommendation based on how they regard that particular reviewer, so if for example, someone is of the opinion that I write utter garbage most of the time in forum threads, they'll know to take any review recommendations from me with a pinch of salt. I hope they don't think that of course, but there you go.Al

I actually don't mind slinging an opinion - recommendation or otherwise - on the end of a review, but I never feel compelled to do so for any reason other than because it would be kind of hard to spend the length of time one does examining a product, to then be bereft of an opinion about it.

:(

Thanks for the background. I have read both reviews a couple more times and I don't think either one addresses either FS9 or FSX specifically. I'm not sure what sim he was using for either review as he didn't make it known to the reader. Most reviews list the computer specs used for the evaluation and how many hours of flight time in the program being reviewed. All of that is missing in this one. It looks to me like just some very thinly veiled advertising by the developer. After all, the previous review was less than a month old and the redux did not introduce anything new or different. Further, there is no link from the redux or most recent to the one done last month. Nothing stating why there is a "redux. The original review (June 13, 2010) is quite hard to find in the AVSIM filing system. The only way I found it was a link from the develper's "awards" page back to avsim bragging about the gold star.I sure think we deserve better than we got with these two. Probably 98% of the words and 100% of the screenshots came directly form the developers web site.Any idea why neither review is listed in the commercial review section as of today? A post a little earlier shows nothing in 2010 for the Boeing 757, Here it is . ..

Raymar,The title of the review is "Ultimate 757 Collection"....scroll down, you'll find it under the letter "U". I always add the review link to the Commercial Review Page. :(

With all due respect, as a member of the QW dev team, I sort of find it offensive that some of you view the FSX version as simple as a portover. While the model is currently not FSX native YET, there certainty goes a lot more in getting it to function equally in FSX than just copying over FS9 files. I hope some of you understand that, otherwise you are truly selling us short.I thought it was a very fair review from Tim, he simply wrote what he thought about the product from an FSX prespective and is sort of adding on to the original "FS9" review from Marlon. It would be unfair for the reviewer to lie about FPS if they were unsatisfactory in his opinion, most of our FSX users haven't had an FPS issues though.Now that said, our SP2 is around the corner with full FSX native models... you will not have to pay extra to use FSX native models.I invite anyone that would like to chime in our forum if they'd like to say anything or ask any questions.... since this isn't the proper forum to do so, we'd be more than willing to answer you over there.

Raymar,The title of the review is "Ultimate 757 Collection"....scroll down, you'll find it under the letter "U". I always add the review link to the Commercial Review Page. :(

ReviewEditor,Thanks for the post. I sure would never have thought to look in the U section for a review on a Boeing 757. I do fully understand the review title starts with Ultimate, but, maybe a dual entry would benefit us users that don't really know the full title of a review but are interested in a particular airplane.I could envison finding this one listed as . . . 757 Collection, Ultimate or Boeing 757 Collection, Ultimate.As the reviews are not searchable or sortable this type of dual entry sure seems useful to me. After all, it provides the link to the review.Thanks again,RayM

ReviewEditor,Thanks for the post. I sure would never have thought to look in the U section for a review on a Boeing 757. I do fully understand the review title starts with Ultimate, but, maybe a dual entry would benefit us users that don't really know the full title of a review but are interested in a particular airplane.I could envison finding this one listed as . . . 757 Collection, Ultimate or Boeing 757 Collection, Ultimate.As the reviews are not searchable or sortable this type of dual entry sure seems useful to me. After all, it provides the link to the review.Thanks again,RayM

You can also use the "Latest Avsim Reviews" section on the homepage. Scroll down a bit and you will find it on your right. You could also, once in the reviews listing, use the search function on your browser, as not all of the titles are named how you would expect them to (as this one for example)