I was preparing a review of Lightroom News (a site I am prepared to strongly endorse). I noticed that Lightroom News describes itself as ". . . independently published and not endorsed or sponsored by Adobe Systems."

This claim to being independent of Adobe is the same claim made by its sister site, Photoshop News. I guess it depends on how one defines sponsorship. A large banner advertisement for Adobe at the top of the main page might be interpreted as sponsorship. At a minimum, it implies an ongoing commercial relationship with Adobe, not independence. Both sites are run by Pixel Genius, which makes commercial plug-ins for Photoshop and whose principal partners proudly boast of consulting contracts with Adobe.

The principal partners at Pixel Genius have a tendency to leave messages in forums around the Web, self-referring to their own wares, their partners' books, etc. without a word of disclaimer about their relationships to Pixel Genius, Adobe, etc. This gives readers of forums the impression that independent comments and evaluations are being offered.

The partners at Pixel Genius are not the only offenders. I selected them because of their bold claim of independence from Adobe while they depend upon Adobe for early access to write books, hold consulting contracts from Adobe, etc. If you read forums like DPReview.com and RobGalbraith.com, you will find messages posted by software manufacturers and their consultants under noms de plume and no mention of their commercial stake in the products they are touting.

I believe this under-handed touting of commercial products violates trust on the digital photography forums. Many readers of forums go there to read about the experiences of other users of digital photography tools, like Photoshop plug-ins. They are misled when commercial agents do not disclaim their conflicts of interest and openly acknowledge their ownership, partnership, or employment by the very companies whose products they recommend. The carnival world has a term for this kind of activity: shilling. The shill walks around with lots of prizes and claims to have won them from a game on the carnival midway. In reality, it's a sham. They won no prizes at all and the game is rigged.

The hosts and moderators of forums inadvertently make the situation worse. Many sites have a policy that no one can post links to products on other sites where they have a commercial interest. They want to avoid lots of messages littering their sites that are nothing more that unpaid commercial advertisements. This ban encourages the corporate agents to adopt false monikers to hide their identity and hide their commercial relationships. 

The Lights Right allows the representatives of commercial tools to reply to questions and recommend their products as solutions so long as those representatives are honest about their identity and their relationship. I have found that consultants and representatives of commercial software tools can be highly knowledgable. Their tools can, indeed, solve real world problems for digital photographers. Forum readers deserve to learn all they can about tools that can improve their digital photography.

Respect for the reader of digital photography forums includes being honest in attempts to help and giving readers the fullest context about our reviews and recommendations. Let the readers decide how much weight to give to claims by commercial vendors and their representatives and how much weight to attach to the opinions of other forum readers.

Technorati Tags: digital photography misc