This video is not monetized. This video covers our serious concerns regarding the data accuracy of Linus Media Group, including Linus Tech Tips, ShortCircuit...
How Linus publicly responds to these very fairly laid out criticisms will really affect their standing in the tech review space going forward.
Linus generally sucks at taking warranted feedback & criticism, so I can see him crashing and burning super hard in whatever post or podcast comment he makes publicly about this.
This looks like a huge issue as far as moving from a “haha wacky video” tech channel to a “hard data driven testing” tech channel, but also it’s not like they haven’t done “serious” reviews prior to the Labs stuff in the past so I’m not about to hand wave away their issues as “growing pains” or anything like that; it’s just indicative of sloppy workflow and low effort internal culture.
We know that we’re not perfect. We wear our imperfection on our sleeves in the interest of ensuring that we stay accountable to you. But it’s sad and unfortunate when this transparency gets warped into a bad thing.
Yeah, well, that’s one of the main issues addressed in this video: You are not transparent about this, when you swap out videos without notice or bury corrections in a non-pinned comment.
Listing the wrong amount of cache on a table for a CPU review is sloppy, but given that our conclusions are drawn based on our testing, not the spec sheet, it doesn’t materially change the recommendation.
If the listing is wrong, who guarantees the lab tests on which the conclusion is based on are not wrong?
The thoroughness that we managed on our last handful of GPU videos is getting really incredible given the limited time we have for these embargoes.
Take the time it needs to produce correct reviews then. Who wants fast but false results?
How do you make “We’re too sloppy to do things the right way and too lazy to hide it” sound like a good thing?
We know that we’re not perfect. We wear our imperfection on our sleeves in the interest of ensuring that we stay accountable to you. But it’s sad and unfortunate when this transparency gets warped into a bad thing.
Someone has a very bright future in public relations.
He already made a post in the LTT forum excusing himself and implying GM is bad journalism for not contacting him or LMG to ask for comment. Including the beautiful gem “We haven’t paid yet but we agreed to financially compensate [the heat sink company] for their prototype”. The backlash from his own community was so great they deleted the post.
GN released a followup this morning addressing his response. The bit about “already” having an agreement to compensate Billet Labs is nothing more than a bald-faced lie. He reached out after the GN video, and Billet hadn’t yet responded when GN asked them about it. Billet is not “good” as he claimed in another post.
The implication that GN did bad journalism by not contacting them is a fair point though. It is considered good practice to give a chance to the accused party to defend themselves about the allegations presented by the journalist.
“We don’t have to contact corporations if we think they have a pattern behaviors or that there may be a significant chance that they will try to cover up or prepare pre-written responses that may twist the narrative and in this case manipulate the audience.” -Gamer Nexus
How Linus publicly responds to these very fairly laid out criticisms will really affect their standing in the tech review space going forward.
Linus generally sucks at taking warranted feedback & criticism, so I can see him crashing and burning super hard in whatever post or podcast comment he makes publicly about this.
This looks like a huge issue as far as moving from a “haha wacky video” tech channel to a “hard data driven testing” tech channel, but also it’s not like they haven’t done “serious” reviews prior to the Labs stuff in the past so I’m not about to hand wave away their issues as “growing pains” or anything like that; it’s just indicative of sloppy workflow and low effort internal culture.
Here is his response: https://linustechtips.com/topic/1526180-gamers-nexus-alleges-lmg-has-insufficient-ethics-and-integrity/page/16/?__cf_chl_rt_tk=riEm65zw7EleA5UJEi3eN8ZaHnVo6Smg27vxUlGW5uk-1692115262-0-gaNycGzNDGU#comment-16078641
My take on it:
Yeah, well, that’s one of the main issues addressed in this video: You are not transparent about this, when you swap out videos without notice or bury corrections in a non-pinned comment.
If the listing is wrong, who guarantees the lab tests on which the conclusion is based on are not wrong?
Take the time it needs to produce correct reviews then. Who wants fast but false results?
Followup on Linus’ response from GN: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3byz3txpso
How do you make “We’re too sloppy to do things the right way and too lazy to hide it” sound like a good thing?
Someone has a very bright future in public relations.
He already made a post in the LTT forum excusing himself and implying GM is bad journalism for not contacting him or LMG to ask for comment. Including the beautiful gem “We haven’t paid yet but we agreed to financially compensate [the heat sink company] for their prototype”. The backlash from his own community was so great they deleted the post.
GN released a followup this morning addressing his response. The bit about “already” having an agreement to compensate Billet Labs is nothing more than a bald-faced lie. He reached out after the GN video, and Billet hadn’t yet responded when GN asked them about it. Billet is not “good” as he claimed in another post.
The implication that GN did bad journalism by not contacting them is a fair point though. It is considered good practice to give a chance to the accused party to defend themselves about the allegations presented by the journalist.
“We don’t have to contact corporations if we think they have a pattern behaviors or that there may be a significant chance that they will try to cover up or prepare pre-written responses that may twist the narrative and in this case manipulate the audience.” -Gamer Nexus