MRG Rogue Software Test

huh this thread now is an arena where people with "conflict of interest" are shooting from the hip. Dr who who has a real tiff with puss,Emsisoft who has mrg tests to vouch for a2 and mrg vis-i-vis true honest and credible testing which is lost somewhere in this multiple identity issue

 

Two wrongs does not make a right.

What can be proven is that MRG people in this forum using different nick names and are manipulating opinion. Very simple to prove.

How old are you ?

Paul can prove at least one thing: they are cheating.

" What if...."

Let's stick with reality. Crux of the matter is that there are people from MRG in this forum that have an agenda.

It seems to me that validity of a test should be the most important thing to you.

I would not dare to even suggest this.

 

Who, me ?

You hopefuly mean: The principal promoted software company even level criticism at Paul Wilders for revealing it.

 

egghead, we're talking about different things it seems.

Your arguments are based on the double identity issue, mine are solely based on the initial post by Paul Wilders that states that MRG sent malware samples to Comodo and therefore is no longer trustworthy.

 

Retadpuss' attitude here (Wilders) towards a Malwarebytes representitive was incredibly rude and he judged the programs detection ability as rubbish. This is the same guy that was demanding Malwarebytes allowed MRG to test the product - never announcing who he is within MRG.

Max_Zorin + Retadpuss = same person on this board ?. They both share the same intense dislike of Malwarebytes getting any recognition and always going that one step too far with the criticism.

Check their rhetoric out. It's bizarrely so similar it has to be the same person.

Zorrin

Retadpuss

 

Confirmed here too.

 

Whether the statement is true or not is not important to me.

Using different nicks and manupulating opinion are symptoms.

Shady practices like this shed a completely different light on these people and their reliability.

 

As well as their credibility.

 

I was agreeing with you but just pointing out that Christian has got all high and mighty about Paul Wilders revealing of their dishonest practices.

Still Christian chooses not to acknowledge this outed dishonest practice.

Just for the record if folks think i had big heat with retadpuss it is purely because i knew that he had an agenda and was in no way an independent tester that he claims to be.

Welcome Mike Nash to the topic,

Glad you did'nt have to pay for the results as we know it dose'nt have to go down like that.

I refer you back to my original post about how dubious software review sites carry out business.You have the chosen ones and the smattering of average ones inorder to promote sales of the principal softwares.
The question stands
Why does an independent testing site have a recommended softwares download page with a purchase now option for only a selected group of softwares ?

http://malwareresearchgroup.com/downloads/




Not to say that a2 or OA are bad software as this is far from true but MRG is geared to promote their softwares.Hell Retadpuss and Astech have been doing great job of it for both parties in this forum.

How can they claim to be independent when they have made public postings bashing the hell out of one of the softwares they want to test!

How more manipulated and obvious can it be ?

An earliar poster hoped that Emisoft would'nt get tarred with the same brush because of the actions of thoes 2 and as it stood you should not have.

Since then A2 now defends the actions of these folks and now i have to think if the cap fits,then wear it

 

Tell only half the story (we didn't pay for the tests) and leave out the other half of the truth (MRG is our affiliate respectively business partner, we both earn money for every copy sold via regnow from their site).
Make the best of a bad job.

Cheers

 

someone is going to need to get more slats for this bed. It is getting heavier and heavier by the day.

 

What is the purpose of a testing website finally?

I'd say to tell people which products are good. To help them deciding which software to use - and buy.

I don't see a problem if the top rated products are linked on the page. The low affiliate earnings can't pay for the whole website I'm sure.

Asked the other way round: If MRG only wants to make money with the affiliate links, wouldn't it be the most effective way to put the best-selling products on top instead of less-known brands like Online Armor? Making Kaspersky test winner would increase the affiliate earnings for at least 5 times.

 

A testing website requires trust - trust is easily broken - trust is not easily earned.

 

Right. A good reason to not destroy it by posting accusations without proofs, like the initial one.

 

That's besides the point, the trust has already been broken by the whole multiple users thing which is not only morally objectionable, but also against the forum ToS.

 

Hi Subset,

I was going to stay the hell out of this thread, but I don't appreciate the sly comment and innuendo. I think Tall Emu has been around long enough for people to know that we always try to do the right thing.

To clarify - our affiliates are set to auto-approve. This is a RegNow recommendation. It means: Anyone can sign up.

I do get an email when a new affiliate signs up. I ignore them because after the excitement of opening the first 20,they're all sites I've never heard of and most of them deliver absolutely nothing in terms of sales. For all I know, you're an affiliate.





Cheers,


Mike

 

Lesser known ? I thought we were friends

 

Agreed. But that all started after the initial accusation, right?

I see that thread more like a cause-and-effect chain..

 

Not to justify having multiple user accounts, but I did consider it at one point.

One for "Official Tall Emu Comments as representative of Tall Emu" and the other for "Anonymous Mike, just another dude on the internet".

I'd love to comment on business practices of some vendors - not to undermine the competition, but just because sometimes they do something silly that needs pointing out. Of course, I have a vested interest - but I also have an opinion of my own. I decided not to, and I can't participate in such threads, no matter how interesting they are because anything I say is taken as being said by Tall Emu.


It will be interesting to see how MRG respond to this. If I were in their place I'd drop the extra accounts if they have them, apologise as required and move on. Either trust will be restored or not. Time will tell.

It is a pity that the focus of the discussion is about the tester and not the tests. Is the concensus that the tests themselves are any good?

 

Darn and i thought you too were in each other pockets...come clean guys everyone who did'nt know will shortly know that you have a mutual financial interest from each other software success or failure.

So cut the banter,lets face it look at the standard dubious software test site format....2 or 3 highly rated softwares...in this case high scorers in the test and not reviews embedded amongst average performers to promote sales of better performers.

You are the promoted softwares and thats ok because now every one knows that MRG are not a serious test site but simply a review site with very opinionated and manipulative owners.

 

running in circles aren't we,the bottom line(borrowing your famous phrase jeff) is that testers will test,sellers will sell,users will use regardless of what transpires here for tests invoke queer rationalizations,viz. Pcmag is a norton promoter thus review trash,matousec-testing mamutu etc as firewall how unscientific,matt-fun but non-serious and now mrg- what to say

 

Yes. You're absolutely right. Christian and I are in each others pocket. The secret that was announced in press releases months ago has finally gotten out.

Emsisoft represent us in EU. We licence their dual engine. This is common knowledge, not a secret and has been for months.

 

Well Paul's assertion is that the tests are 'bad' because there is a conflict of interest of some form between a Comodo rep/forum member and MRG. We still don't know if that claim is true or not. Attention has been diverted to the multiple identity issue. Even if MRG aren't busted on charge 1 (unethical testing), they are nailed on charge 2 (unethical promotion and practices). You can probably say "Hey sorry, I was stupid" on charge 2 and just maybe survive with a full and frank apology, but you'll never recover from charge 1. So it is probably still important that Paul either proves the accusation or withdraws it.

 

I do not think Paul Wilders would knowingly make a false statement about this. There's the possibility of a mistake - but that's for Paul to cover if he chooses.

I'm here posting because of comments made in relation to us. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Fully agree. I was just trying to untangle what this all meant. Personally I find it hard to believe that MRG could exhibit such massive errors of judgement and poor professional behaviour on this forum, and yet be consumate professionals in their malware testing.