[H]ard|OCP's P4 3.06 review questioned : what's the truth?

[jadison]

I don't really know which side to believe...truthfully tho it hasn't altered my opinion of them, and I will still be sending my news to Kyle.

Here's the latest on this: (sry a little late on delivering the latest )

Honesty & Integrity:
If you think [H]ardOCP has been not been founded on honesty and integrity over the last five years, then you might as well stop reading now, as what I have to say will not pertain to you. We are an enthusiast site that existed before we were called "enthusiasts". We have watched the community grow and we have grown with it. Our readers are our peers and our number one concern, and never think any different.

There is a situation that we need to discuss that has been brewing since we posted the Intel 3GHz review on the 13th at 9pm CST. After two days of talking and listening to our readers and our peers that we have full trust in, it is evident that we have done something that is inexcusable.

After researching this fully for two days, I have been able to pull together 100% factual evidence that a single set of benchmarks in the 3GHz article were changed after publication of the article. The 3DMark benchmark was changed from "17829" to "17329". The fact of the matter is that we did not note this change. It is standard operating procedure that anytime a portion of an article is changed, outside spelling and grammar, it is noted and explained as to why the change was made. This was not done.

As I am Editor-in-Chief of HardOCP.com this is 100% fully my responsibility to make sure issues such as these do not occur. The change in the benchmark without notation is fully my responsibility and I did not fulfill my responsibility to you. For that I apologize.

Our detractors have been posting stories that have reached from one end of the spectrum to the other every since they smelled blood in the water. I assure you that we do not post lies, and we have never intentionally posted numbers or benchmarks that we have known to be wrong. Doing that is simply not in our character. We do not accept bribes and we do not play favorites. While this site has become my livelihood, it is never viewed as "for profit" business. Our first and foremost objective is to supply solid information to our readers. At this point, if you question our competency, I can understand as we have given you a reason for doing so. Please do not let this be a mark against our integrity and honesty.

I assure you that this will not happen again.

Kyle Bennett
Editor-in-Chief [H]ardOCP.com

Personally, I think this was a smart move...whether it will work or not: we'll just have to wait and see.

[Google]