… “Which might materially affect”… : If all participiants pay a fee, what should be the unethical affect? Do you think, the products would score under 90% if it was free, and just because theres a regular fee, there must be something fishy with 97%? Something misleading?
The tester doesnt advertise the antivirus product, and he doesnt founding the reason for its existence. Because if the product fails, it would be negative. So the tester gives an “relative” estimation about if the product has reproduceable protection abillities (whatever in particular this features might be).
And, when you citate sentences of books of another country, i am sure there are sentences somewhere else which would state, if you dont have prove dont make assumptions that could discredit without reason.
Its one thing to speak about that they take money (REGULAR). Thats an information. But this combining with unethical, un-independent, thats your assumption. And you repeat it to make it fact.
The ethical issue is: Public should know if there is a financial relationship so that they can judge however they want to judge.
its not upto AV-Comparatives to disguise the fact by not telling public everywhere where they mention the tests that they are paid for these. If they mention the test results then they should declare that they are paid for those, its a simple ethical rule.
Its an ethical issue and one that would be illegal here in the US. You have to arm the public with information and have to let them be the judge.
Maybe its an ethical issue for you Melih and its illegal in your country. But you can not say about other companies from other countries with other rules and laws they are illegal and unethical if you have not a proof for it. So we come back to my last post that you have still not answered. For you again, maybe you had not read it:
There are many US based companies who take part and there are many US based users who read and gets mislead by these tests by AV-Comparatives. Its borderline illegal to “pretend” to be “independent” while there is a financial relationship with AntiVirus vendors which AV-Comparatives is not transparent about…
i thought independent was not relying on anyone what so ever
and if anyone takes money and says i am independent then i guess it is a scam or fraud since innocent users are the ones who suffer
what if someday a fake antivirus software gives money for tests and results and gets scored above 99% wouldn’t users fall prey then who will suffer then ?
their one post can cause many users to suffer so they should be public if there is no scam involved
Yes, maybe you are right, its borderline maybe. But then it comes the next question, what is transparent and what not? we turn in a circle… cause for some people, like par excample SLE it is transparent and well known since few years, cause you could read this “pay-relationship” in the methodology on their website. For him and some others it is transparent. For you it is not transparent cause you can not read it in every Test. So, what is transparent? … it all turns only in a circle.
No solution now, nothing will better… only more and more questions…
I stay to my first opinion, that i can only say, i can understand both sides, you Melih and others like SLE too. But is it really usefull to go this way Melih?
Now for me, its only a very good marketing, cause Comodo is in all mouths
Edit: btw, for me its transparent too, cause i can read it on their website and its well known since few years.
I think you believe then that results are being modified and knowing that you still belive that they are not wrong “SICK”
and by the way melih could have easily offered them money to make comodo score better then others but he didn’t instead he offered them an auditor so that there is no modification of results or what soever involved and the tests are fair
and my dear 50000$ is not less and if comodo can pay for an audit then it could have easily paid them for good results if it was a marketing stunt or whatever you call it
and yes if they take money they should mention i with their tests as well that so and so paid so much if they are so honest
Finally - Thx for clarification!
Only US, and we are now speeking that they are telling (in methodology) but Melih thinks it should be everywhere. So a different and weaker point than at the beginning.
If a roque would store 99% only because they pay - than indeed the test would be a farce. But come on…how realisitc is that case?
Where Comodo is concerned, end users/public comes first!!!!
Ah. So how often took you part in on-demand tests in the past? Why never results were published by you?
Yes, PR. But even if Comodo is in many mouths - read at wilders, read at dsl-reports, … it’s not good.
In Case if you dont know this is what their about page states they say that they are non profit then why they want money and they clearly even state they are not responsible for any loss cased by their results and hey also dont guaranty for the correctness, completeness, etc and many schh more read if you have not read yet
About Us
AV-Comparatives is an Austrian Non-Profit-Organization, which is providing independent Anti-Virus software tests free to the public. For more information, please refer to the document with the FAQ.
Vendors interested in getting tested by AV-Comparatives can contact the management board by using the contact form. You can write in English, German or Italian language.
Magazines can use the published results free of charge, as long as a source is given.
Contact:
AV-Comparatives e.V.
Andechsstrasse 44
6020 Innsbruck
AUSTRIA / Europe
ZVR: 017712505
Legal notes, disclaimer, copyright, exclusion of liabilty, trademarks, privacy statement:
It is not allowed to offer the results in any form in full or in parts on a website for download,or to take parts of it into own tests or to use the data ulterior without a written permission of the management board of AV-Comparatives. We can not be made liable for any damage or loss which might occur as a result of, or in connection with the use of the informations provided on this website or test results. We take every care to ensure the correctness of the basic data, but a liability for the correctness of the test results can not be taken by the AV-Comparatives members. We do not give any guaranty for the correctness, completeness, etc. for a certain purpose of any of the information/content provided on these pages at any given time. No one else involved in creating, producing or delivering test results shall be liable for any indirect, special or consequential damage or loss of profits arising out of or related to the use or inability to use the services provided by the site and correlate data. Software names are subject to legal copyright, trademark and patent protection. We assume no responsability for the content of any of the linked sites or errors coming forth from the links. All access to our website will be stored for statistical reasons only. Personal data will not be saved. We do not share any personal data or access logs with third-parties. You are allowed to download, view, print and copy the material from the site on the hard disk of your computer and to use it for your own personal, non-commercial purposes as a personal information resource in good faith only. Any other type of use requires the prior written agreement of AV-Comparatives and a link to the main site is obligatory. You agree that you will not use AV-Comparatives directly or indirectly in any way which is abusive, defamatory or obscene or which will harass, distress or inconvenience any person or company or which might restrict or inhibit the use and enjoyment of AV-Comparatives by any person. It is forbidden to create a database (electronic or otherwise) that includes material downloaded or otherwise obtained from AV-Comparatives. It is also forbidden to transmit or re-circulate any material obtained from AV-Comparatives to any third party without the written agreement of AV-Comparatives. AV-Comparatives, the domains and the AV-Comparatives logos are registered trademarks of Andreas Clementi.
Of course - every public matters. But you can’t take US guidelines as a law for a non-US organisation. And beside that, I can’t read such clear sentences like “it must be written anywhere” in those guidelines.
@loveboy_lion:
And? Where is the proof for your imputation that money has influence on test result and Comodo would have scored better if Melih had paid?
Do you have a proof that doesn’t take place, like an Audit/Validation of some sort? The standard procedure for testing organisations to be transparent and audit themselves to give confidence to public that they follow their methodologies. What evidence can you present to validate that AV-Comparatives.org follow their methodology?
so do you have a proof? thats how the whole industry works…by auditing…av-comparatives themselves said that they want to get ISO certification but today they don’t have it…so they acknowledged the need for auditing…
so SLE…where is the audit to prove that they are following their methodology?
