Trade Participation on Pricescope

[digitaldevo]

But there have been and arguably still are examples of vendors over stepping the mark. So rules keep getting made - but the hardest thing of all is when good people like Jamey Swisher do not understand why the rules got made (e.g the logo on the images Jamey, can be abused by vendors as free ad's).

You are correct. I was not here before as all I ever heard everywhere from everyone was the absolute horror stories of this place. I came here recently by request of a few different folks to share my knowledge and experience. I agree that logo's on images can be a "Free Ad", but so can any image without a logo or watermark, when you consider all images have IPTC and EXIF data that often contain a users copyright and information. There is a large difference when someone posts an image with explicit advertising text to go with it and when one posts an image to share, educate, or just have fun. You have to understand the trouble some have had with images being stolen and the hassle it is to get it "fixed" after it has already happened. It is not fun. I never used to watermark any of my images and just kept them at 640px or less on the large side, then suddenly I found my stuff for sale on book covers, in calendars, on mugs, t-shirts, postcards, advertisements online for other businesses/services, etc. Not only stolen, but being used by other vendors to misrepresent their goods on Ebay and other websites! That is not a good thing from either viewpoint IMO. That is why my images are watermarked and many others I know do the same for the same reasons. It was different when the Government would step in and enforce things, but now you are expected to file a civil lawsuit in order to stop things most of the time, who has time for that BS!?

But seriously, no, I do not know what prompted these rules, you are correct. But, being that I have administered many a website(both commercial and not for profit), many chat rooms on IRC and the like, and many a forum as well over the years, I can only imagine what went on. But, there is ALWAYS good with the bad. Folks are assumed to be innocent until proven guilty, here, it is more the opposite and folks are considered guilty until proven innocent. I do understand the need for rules, trust me! But I also fully understand what overly strict rules can do to a website in today's internet, it is not like it was even a few years ago! Times change and sites need to change with them or get "left in the dust". I've seen it happen to many! I am not saying do away with the rules, merely that they need to be a bit more laxed.

I am new here, but I also know of many who have left here that used to post all the time. I know they are still around because I see them posting on a few other forums and websites fairly regularly.

I'm not sure who craftchris66 is, and I do thank you for the very flattering compliments, but I assure you I am nowhere near the league of any of those labs nor many other Gemologists. Hopefully some day I will have the knowledge they do, but that comes from not only education, but also experience. And while I have over a decade in experience, that is a drop in the bucket to many of these folks! I am just a fledgling in the scheme of things. I am in this because of the love I have for it. I have collected "rocks" since I was a small child, lol. Yes, my Wife is in the trade, but No i am actually not really. I only took the trade person title here because I was given the ultimatum basically of either not taking it and having to totally disassociate myself from my Wife as well as my website, and while I do try to not promote nor anything for my Wife except where allowed(since she hates the internet, lol) I found it an impossible task to somehow pretend neither exists. So I took this title so as to adhere better to the rules and such, which is almost impossible as they are currently IMO even so. It is a bit hard to constantly watch every little word typed or every little watermark on an image(keep in mind my images have multiple watermarks from all sorts of various places not just my Wife's logo ones) and most often I don't even pay attention to which is which to be honest. I have very little time to try and stretch out over a multitude of websites when I am online, and I do this to help, anyone who knows me can and will attest to this fact. I get nothing out of it at all except enjoyment and even socialization as I am disabled severely and don't often even get out of my house/little lab/photo studio I have here because of it. And while there are those with nothing but agendas, I think you will find that the helpful ones without a real agenda can greatly outweigh the issues that the bad apples cause, at least, I think so.

As for the part of one trade person commenting on another's "product"? I see no issue with this, as long as things are kept to facts and NOT opinions. If someone can point out "flaws" or something, then what is the issue? It hurts no one but actually raises the level of quality and level of consumer protection. If a trade person can not back up their statements with facts, then they shouldn't make them, but if they can, then what is the problem with them? It will become very obvious quickly on who is doing things for the right reasons and who is doing them for the wrong reasons.

What some seem to fail to realize is that EVERYONE has some agenda, be it to self promote, to help, to teach, to share, to socialize, to have fun, etc. They are all agendas and everyone has one or they wouldn't bother doing what they do. Laxing the rules means more participation from more members, obviously, which means more knowledge but also more bad apples and more work for the moderators, it all goes hand in hand, I know this first hand! But that is the wonderful(or not so) world of the Internet, rofl, depending how you look at it.

 

[John P]

Pricescope's finest hour was when John Pollard, aka John Quixote, posted freely.

I would agree with that.
John and I would often tag team providing information.
He would mention something and I would provide documentation and vis versa.
That was some of my favorite times on PS ever.

Mine too. And while I bet this John guy you mention would be humbled by your generous comments I suspect he'd point out that Pricescope has always been a community-over-all. The policies back then allowed everyone a bit more latitude, not just one or two or even ten people.

...were these previous extended diccussions really motivated or initiated by talk of somebody's purchase, and subsequent changes of rules have since curtailed the discussion? I doubt this...

I respectfully disagree. Debates over the merits of specific stones being considered for purchase were the seeds of those epic dialogues: Shallow stones, deep stones, painted stones, HCA this-or-that, stones with >41PA, stones with X Brilliancescope, Imagem or ISEE results, etc. The back-and-forth regularly took place in threads with a purchase in-the-making. Under today's rules those dialogues would be disallowed.

What you said has a lot of truth... but the question is what is better for consumers?
The feedback from consumers seeking help in those threads was confusion and the feeling of not being helped in a manner they could understand.

You're right. That's the sword cutting the other way. In fact I was also concerned about reducing the confusion-for-newbies back when the highbrow discussions were at their peak. Now the pendulum has swung the other way. It's a hard balance to maintain (impossible?) and I appreciate Andrey for asking for input here.

As a break from the (healthy) venting that's taking place I thought I'd mention something positive that still exists for trade members here: Diverse and cutting edge information remains in-abundance. Even the most experienced professional can enrich - and be enriched - by stepping up and taking an active part in threads with an open mind. No agenda required.

 

[John P]

4. Other opinions?

What you said has a lot of truth... but the question is what is better for consumers?
The feedback from consumers seeking help in those threads was confusion and the feeling of not being helped in a manner they could understand.

I loved those threads in the old days and was in the thick of it giving everyone a headache :}
BUT I do not believe it was best for the average poster who joined 2 days earlier to have that happen in their thread.

John I think suggested to me once that changing the thread topic after the posters question has been answered, and letting those wonderful exploratory threads run could solve that.
A bit of extra moderation, but probably only a couple a week.

Yes. In that manner a thread that started about a feather and evolved into a discussion about eye-clean and cut grade affected by brillianteering could start (OP topic) as << Is this diamond safe? >> and end after mod-edits as << Is this diamond safe? : feather-eyeclean-painting >>

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

I see no issue with this, as long as things are kept to facts and NOT opinions. If someone can point out "flaws" or something, then what is the issue? It hurts no one but actually raises the level of quality and level of consumer protection. If a trade person can not back up their statements with facts, then they shouldn't make them, but if they can, then what is the problem with them? It will become very obvious quickly on who is doing things for the right reasons and who is doing them for the wrong reasons.

That is the very problem and it is not as easy as you make it sound. There is at least one trademember(maybe even several) who has posted in this thread and who thinks everything they don't understand is an opinion and has trouble accepting what is and isn't a fact. This is particularly applicable when it comes to technical areas like the AGSL cut research or comparison tools like ASET and Idealscope and how they provide objective factual information. I have seen it far too often, B&M jeweler's dismiss technical comparison tools as they don't support their traditional ways of purchasing and selling diamonds.

Advanced students and teachers of gemology have a set of known reproduceable facts about diamond optics at their disposal, however these may look like a subjective opinion to the less informed and that can create quite a problem. This is especially so when the average consumer reading a thread may not readily tell the difference between the two.

 

[risingsun]

After all of my talk about PS, my B&M jeweler has been lurking on this site. No names to protect their privacy. They sell HOF diamonds and I own numerous pieces. It would be like stepping into a lion's den for them to speak up on PS. I've experienced this, too. I must say that when I have posted my rings and other jewelry, I have gotten very positive and enthusiastic feedback. There is a big but...when anyone asks advice about purchasing a HOF diamond or setting, they are immediately referred to an online vendor for a better deal.

That is because not once has it been proven that an HOF is better (I've seen evidence some in the past have been worse) or just simply not substantially different from the PS vendors H&A rounds being suggested. So why does this brand justify a premium and reccomendation?

There have been a few threads about HOF diamonds led by consumers recently, unfortunately they lacked the equipment, tools and experience to make controlled and precise comparisons without trade help. This is unfortunate, I would love to see a HOF rep or dealer come on pricescope and do those comparisons or talk in depth on a technical level about their stones. Can we loosen the rules enough to allow this?

This logic applies the same way for B&M sores who may want to be reccomended, prove what differentiates your product or services from what is routinely offered here, otherwise the price premium required(if any) to do business with you is not justified.

ETA: If you don't care for this post, please walk on by. I've been flamed enough this week

I have done my own comparison between online superideals and HOF. I've run the numbers, used the IS, examined them under the microscope, viewed them in different lighting conditions and not found online vendors' diamonds to be superior to HOF in any way. I have never visited a B&M store that actually used reflector technology, with the exception of PS vendors who are also B&M stores. That is why I bring my own. I value your opinions on technical topics, ccl, but your response is typical to what I've received whenever mentioning HOF. There used to be several posters on PS who have HOF engagement rings. I think I am the only one left. This forum is so heavily skewed toward online vendors, I would not encourage my jeweler to post on PS, even though they know their stuff. There was a recent post by a man who wants a HOF setting for [I think] a BGD diamond. He asked if anyone had experience with the setting. I responded because I have that setting. Without fail, another poster suggested he have the setting custom made for less money and it would turn out just as well. Unless they use someone like Leon, no it won't. I don't recommend HOF diamonds, in this forum, because of the premium; however, if someone wants a HOF and knows their options, I would tell them to go for it.

 

[Ella]

4. Other opinions?

What you said has a lot of truth... but the question is what is better for consumers?
The feedback from consumers seeking help in those threads was confusion and the feeling of not being helped in a manner they could understand.

I loved those threads in the old days and was in the thick of it giving everyone a headache :}
BUT I do not believe it was best for the average poster who joined 2 days earlier to have that happen in their thread.

John I think suggested to me once that changing the thread topic after the posters question has been answered, and letting those wonderful exploratory threads run could solve that.
A bit of extra moderation, but probably only a couple a week.

Yes. In that manner a thread that started about a feather and evolved into a discussion about eye-clean and cut grade affected by brillianteering could start (OP topic) as << Is this diamond safe? >> and end after mod-edits as << Is this diamond safe? : feather-eyeclean-painting >>

This new forum also gives us the ability to split topics. All anyone needs to do is ask and I can split the thread into a new topic where the technical discussion can be continued without the OP feeling as if their thread was "threadjacked". This also allows a discussion to continue without referencing a specific stone for sale, alleviating many of the concerns voiced.

Any trade member is also welcome to start their own thread, piggybacking on a concern raised in another thread. You are welcome to post a link to the continued discussion in the original thread. As long as it doesn't discuss someone's potential stone specifically and is not self-promotional, we welcome these discussions.

Remember that it may just be another diamond to you, but that thread may represent someone's future engagement ring. No need to taint it. The average new poster will get overwhelmed if trade members start dissecting their choice for the most important day of their life. Just split or start a new thread and angles, lgf, color, cut, etc. can be discussed ad nauseam.

Some things to think about during this discussion.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

I have done my own comparison between online superideals and HOF. I've run the numbers, used the IS, examined them under the microscope, viewed them in different lighting conditions and not found online vendors' diamonds to be superior to HOF in any way. I have never visited a B&M store that actually used reflector technology, with the exception of PS vendors who are also B&M stores. That is why I bring my own. I value your opinions on technical topics, ccl, but your response is typical to what I've received whenever mentioning HOF. There used to be several posters on PS who have HOF engagement rings. I think I am the only one left. This forum is so heavily skewed toward online vendors, I would not encourage my jeweler to post on PS, even though they know their stuff. There was a recent post by a man who wants a HOF setting for [I think] a BGD diamond. He asked if anyone had experience with the setting. I responded because I have that setting. Without fail, another poster suggested he have the setting custom made for less money and it would turn out just as well. Unless they use someone like Leon, no it won't. I don't recommend HOF diamonds, in this forum, because of the premium; however, if someone wants a HOF and knows their options, I would tell them to go for it.

Risingsun,

For context I reference the following post and thread https://www.pricescope.com/communit...m-report-w-aset.147101/#post-2655740#p2655740. I beleive we are in agreement that the HOF stones may be comparable to superideal stones offered here provided they have the same CA/PA and LGF/UGF configurations. I can't speak to the consistancy of the brand, nor have I seen hearts and arrows images, that is why I welcome further discussions with input from an actual HOF dealer.

I also agree that certain settings cannot be copied easily, but that is discussion best left to the poster(s) you disagree with and the thread where it came up. As far as it relates to this thread an HOF dealer could easily come to that thread and explain the difficulty in technical terms of copying the HOF setting you own and why it may not yield the same look, I think it would be valid and perfectly allowed under even current PS rules

Why should a consumer like myself have to provide the marketing evidence to make comparisons between an HOF and other H&A rounds? Why can't the dealers do this themselves?



In the absence of that data can you blame the pricescope community for favouring the vendors and stones where information is readily availabile using the tools we trust?

 

[risingsun]

^^^ccl~ I didn't mean to get us on a threadjack. I just wonder if HOF and other B&M people would feel welcome to post or feel set upon as soon as they started expressing their opinions. Many of us have been here a long time. We are not always welcoming to newcomers [trade], who are trying to understand our culture. I have been guilty of being over reactive myself and I'm working on changing that. OTOH, if someone turns out to be a shill, out they go

ETA: I can't answer your question about why they don't provide certain information. I had some questions, recently, and spoke with their Director of Education. She was quite helpful.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

^^^ccl~ I have seen this comparison before. I dont think it is a good respresentation of a HOF IS. I've used my IS on a number of HOF stones and they do not look like this. Could 8* be a bit biased in their comparison? Their painted girdle is another subject entirely. I didn't mean to get us on a threadjack. I just wonder if HOF and other B&M people would feel welcome to post or feel set upon as soon as they started expressing their opinions. Many of us have been here a long time. We are not always welcoming to newcomers [trade], who are trying to understand our culture. I have been guilty of being over reactive myself and I'm working on changing that. OTOH, if someone turns out to be a shill, out they go

ETA: I can't answer your question about why they don't provide certain information. I had some questions, recently, and spoke with their Director of Education. She was quite helpful.

HOF is perfectly welcome to post here and if I were them I'd write an article to start their first post and thread. I am sure if it is educational it should be accepted. You've put up a defense for HOF now lets see if you can convince them to participate.

 

[risingsun]

^^^ccl~ I have seen this comparison before. I dont think it is a good respresentation of a HOF IS. I've used my IS on a number of HOF stones and they do not look like this. Could 8* be a bit biased in their comparison? Their painted girdle is another subject entirely. I didn't mean to get us on a threadjack. I just wonder if HOF and other B&M people would feel welcome to post or feel set upon as soon as they started expressing their opinions. Many of us have been here a long time. We are not always welcoming to newcomers [trade], who are trying to understand our culture. I have been guilty of being over reactive myself and I'm working on changing that. OTOH, if someone turns out to be a shill, out they go

ETA: I can't answer your question about why they don't provide certain information. I had some questions, recently, and spoke with their Director of Education. She was quite helpful.

HOF is perfectly welcome to post here and if I were them I'd write an article to start their first post and thread. I am sure if it is educational it should be accepted. You've put up a defense for HOF now lets see if you can convince them to participate.

I was just reading the thread for which you provided a link. You and I have had this same conversation before, with the exception of HOF participating in this forum. I believe this is known as a bald snark

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

4. Other opinions?

What you said has a lot of truth... but the question is what is better for consumers?
The feedback from consumers seeking help in those threads was confusion and the feeling of not being helped in a manner they could understand.

I loved those threads in the old days and was in the thick of it giving everyone a headache :}
BUT I do not believe it was best for the average poster who joined 2 days earlier to have that happen in their thread.

John I think suggested to me once that changing the thread topic after the posters question has been answered, and letting those wonderful exploratory threads run could solve that.
A bit of extra moderation, but probably only a couple a week.

Yes. In that manner a thread that started about a feather and evolved into a discussion about eye-clean and cut grade affected by brillianteering could start (OP topic) as << Is this diamond safe? >> and end after mod-edits as << Is this diamond safe? : feather-eyeclean-painting >>

This new forum also gives us the ability to split topics. All anyone needs to do is ask and I can split the thread into a new topic where the technical discussion can be continued without the OP feeling as if their thread was "threadjacked". This also allows a discussion to continue without referencing a specific stone for sale, alleviating many of the concerns voiced.

Any trade member is also welcome to start their own thread, piggybacking on a concern raised in another thread. You are welcome to post a link to the continued discussion in the original thread. As long as it doesn't discuss someone's potential stone specifically and is not self-promotional, we welcome these discussions.

Remember that it may just be another diamond to you, but that thread may represent someone's future engagement ring. No need to taint it. The average new poster will get overwhelmed if trade members start dissecting their choice for the most important day of their life. Just split or start a new thread and angles, lgf, color, cut, etc. can be discussed ad nauseam.

Some things to think about during this discussion.

Ella in some or many cases the original start to the discussion might be also required. So say we used the current thread jack as an example and wanted to seperate the CCL and RisingSun example - it includes posts from different pages etc - could you actually do that and make a selfstanding new thread called "Watch CCL and Rising Sun Tear Each Other Apart" ???

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

^^^ccl~ I have seen this comparison before. I dont think it is a good respresentation of a HOF IS. I've used my IS on a number of HOF stones and they do not look like this. Could 8* be a bit biased in their comparison? Their painted girdle is another subject entirely. I didn't mean to get us on a threadjack. I just wonder if HOF and other B&M people would feel welcome to post or feel set upon as soon as they started expressing their opinions. Many of us have been here a long time. We are not always welcoming to newcomers [trade], who are trying to understand our culture. I have been guilty of being over reactive myself and I'm working on changing that. OTOH, if someone turns out to be a shill, out they go

ETA: I can't answer your question about why they don't provide certain information. I had some questions, recently, and spoke with their Director of Education. She was quite helpful.

HOF is perfectly welcome to post here and if I were them I'd write an article to start their first post and thread. I am sure if it is educational it should be accepted. You've put up a defense for HOF now lets see if you can convince them to participate.

I was just reading the thread for which you provided a link. You and I have had this same conversation before, with the exception of HOF participating in this forum. I believe this is known as a bald snark

No idea what a bald snark is I was serious they should write an article where they can sum up the virtues of their brand. This could be a springboard to their participation in pricescope. I think the PS admin and mods are welcoming such submissions from brand names.
If I was a director of education I'd welcome the free exposure. You could even write it or help them do it.

Thats it I'm not taking this threadjack any further until "Watch Rising Sun and CCL tear each other apart" and all related posts is split off into another thread.

Round 1 Ding

 

[Ella]

4. Other opinions?

What you said has a lot of truth... but the question is what is better for consumers?
The feedback from consumers seeking help in those threads was confusion and the feeling of not being helped in a manner they could understand.

I loved those threads in the old days and was in the thick of it giving everyone a headache :}
BUT I do not believe it was best for the average poster who joined 2 days earlier to have that happen in their thread.

John I think suggested to me once that changing the thread topic after the posters question has been answered, and letting those wonderful exploratory threads run could solve that.
A bit of extra moderation, but probably only a couple a week.

Yes. In that manner a thread that started about a feather and evolved into a discussion about eye-clean and cut grade affected by brillianteering could start (OP topic) as << Is this diamond safe? >> and end after mod-edits as << Is this diamond safe? : feather-eyeclean-painting >>

This new forum also gives us the ability to split topics. All anyone needs to do is ask and I can split the thread into a new topic where the technical discussion can be continued without the OP feeling as if their thread was "threadjacked". This also allows a discussion to continue without referencing a specific stone for sale, alleviating many of the concerns voiced.

Any trade member is also welcome to start their own thread, piggybacking on a concern raised in another thread. You are welcome to post a link to the continued discussion in the original thread. As long as it doesn't discuss someone's potential stone specifically and is not self-promotional, we welcome these discussions.

Remember that it may just be another diamond to you, but that thread may represent someone's future engagement ring. No need to taint it. The average new poster will get overwhelmed if trade members start dissecting their choice for the most important day of their life. Just split or start a new thread and angles, lgf, color, cut, etc. can be discussed ad nauseam.

Some things to think about during this discussion.

Ella in some or many cases the original start to the discussion might be also required. So say we used the current thread jack as an example and wanted to seperate the CCL and RisingSun example - it includes posts from different pages etc - could you actually do that and make a selfstanding new thread called "Watch CCL and Rising Sun Tear Each Other Apart" ???

Theoretically yes.

In practice there is often a tipping point in a consumer thread where their question vanishes in favor of technical discussion. At this point it could be broken out into two threads, allowing the trade members the ability to freely discuss a concept, and also allowing the consumer to feel that their question was heard and their diamond choice not overwhelmingly difficult.

Sometimes these initial threads disappear not because of trade members overstepping rules, but because the OP gets upset that their thread has been highjacked and asks us to remove it. There are many threads where the perception is that we removed it to stop technical discussions when in reality the OP was upset that their engagement diamond thread was highjacked. Just another facet to think about. Many times threads are removed or closed at the OP's request.

The idea is that it could be a continuation of a discussion or an offshoot of a discussion if vendors want to discuss something more in depth. Linking back to the original post that sparked the topic. It isn't perfect, but it would allow trade members to have the freedom to get into more in-depth discussions without raining on a consumer's parade.

An easier solution of course is for trade members to recognize when they have threadjacked and start a new thread themselves with an OP that asks the question at hand.

 

[kenny]

So, what will be the rules for TEOA . . . this new, "Tear Each Other Apart" forum?

I wonder how much activity there will be.

 

[digitaldevo]

I see no issue with this, as long as things are kept to facts and NOT opinions. If someone can point out "flaws" or something, then what is the issue? It hurts no one but actually raises the level of quality and level of consumer protection. If a trade person can not back up their statements with facts, then they shouldn't make them, but if they can, then what is the problem with them? It will become very obvious quickly on who is doing things for the right reasons and who is doing them for the wrong reasons.

That is the very problem and it is not as easy as you make it sound. There is at least one trademember(maybe even several) who has posted in this thread and who thinks everything they don't understand is an opinion and has trouble accepting what is and isn't a fact. This is particularly applicable when it comes to technical areas like the AGSL cut research or comparison tools like ASET and Idealscope and how they provide objective factual information. I have seen it far too often, B&M jeweler's dismiss technical comparison tools as they don't support their traditional ways of purchasing and selling diamonds.

Advanced students and teachers of gemology have a set of known reproduceable facts about diamond optics at their disposal, however these may look like a subjective opinion to the less informed and that can create quite a problem. This is especially so when the average consumer reading a thread may not readily tell the difference between the two.

Actually it is that easy. If stating something as fact then have proof to back it up. Plenty of lab articles or the like that can be used to back up claims if need be. Technical tools can't be dismissed if they are legitimately industry tools accepted as such. Then the b&m is just wrong outdated and needs to accept technology or retire, lol. It is here to stay and more being developed every day. Proven technology just can't really be argued with. If the labs use it then it is proven technology, not difficult at all.

No one has to take anything as opinion as if it is a fact then there is proof that can be provided to back up their claims. If not then it is not factual so it gets removed if posted. You write a book or paper you cite your sources or provide your proof in the end. Same simply goes for posting as well. Not difficult at all except to those who'd be talking out their butts and trying to pass opinions off as facts.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

I took my time to catch up with the different views in this thread and while I think that many have offered interesting insights, I have a slightly different overall-view.

For those who remember the era of strong technical discussions, let me start my post with:

Forgive me, but I think that you are all missing the bigger picture.

If we look at the the technical discussions of the past, I think that the content of such threads attracted a lot of attention of professionals, consumers (possibly prosumers-in-the-making) and created part of the reputation of PS. Looking back over the past 10 somewhat years, I think that we must agree that the number of such discussions becoming less and the reducing trade participation is not a phenomenon of the last months, but a development over the past three to four years. If the goal is thus to revive these 'golden days', one should probably look at more structural aspects, and not small cosmetic changes.

If we consider PS as a community, one of the natural aspects of a community is their desire to come to an organized structure, in which every member holds a certain position. It is a natural desire for structure, that eventually leads to a status-quo. It generally are outside-events that challenge the status-quo and that allow members to challenge the position of other members, thus creating interesting phenomena to follow up.

If we describe the current status-quo, there are various levels:
- Specific vendors have obtained a solid market-share of the PS-buying-public (and of the references) and they want to maintain that. Apparently, not contributing in the RT-forum is more beneficial for them.
- Other vendors and other professionals have reached a level, in which they are regarded as experts here, and they like to keep that position. Hence, they do not like their expertise being challenged, nor too many newcomers threatening their position.
- The same is true for most prosumers. They have also obtained recognition as experts, and they also do not like that position being challenged.

Over time, this status-quo has led to the average post or advice being less and less detailed, carefully steering away from aspects of diamonds that could raise controversy. In the quality of diamonds being advised this also leads to a culture of 'good enough is good enough', compared to an earlier culture where members wanted to understand and/or explain what was better or best.

Let us face it, this community has probably reached a level in which most members (including the professionals and the most vocal consumers) prefer to show what they know instead of finding out what they do not know yet.

In the past, that natural status-quo was often challenged by outside factors. AGSL introducing new cut-grading-systems, GIA starting a cut-grade, even the introduction of tools like the brilliancescope were outside-events that challenged the PS-equilibrium, and were at the roots of various great technical discussions.

Unfortunately, we cannot expect GIA to introduce an update of their cut-grading-system, AGSL apparently is not capable of finalizing their fire- and scintillation-studies and the cut-grading-equipment has never reached a level in which it can be taken seriously. As a result, there has not been a significant step forward in the past three years, nor an outside-event triggering an attack of the PS-status-quo.

All in all, I fear that we have to look this reality in the eye. In many ways, this is a choice between maintaining the status-quo and eventually PS losing the appeal it once had or actively challenging the status-quo with all the uncertainties that this brings along.

For many here, especially the people most vocal in threads like this, it also means that their position will be challenged and that they must accept possibly losing their position. It is a difficult choice that politicians are often facing. If we truly want to rebuild society towards a better future, we inevitably hurt the interests of the most important players in the current society.

LIve long,

 

[serenitydiamonds]

I see no issue with this, as long as things are kept to facts and NOT opinions. If someone can point out "flaws" or something, then what is the issue? It hurts no one but actually raises the level of quality and level of consumer protection. If a trade person can not back up their statements with facts, then they shouldn't make them, but if they can, then what is the problem with them? It will become very obvious quickly on who is doing things for the right reasons and who is doing them for the wrong reasons.

That is the very problem and it is not as easy as you make it sound. There is at least one trademember(maybe even several) who has posted in this thread and who thinks everything they don't understand is an opinion and has trouble accepting what is and isn't a fact. This is particularly applicable when it comes to technical areas like the AGSL cut research or comparison tools like ASET and Idealscope and how they provide objective factual information. I have seen it far too often, B&M jeweler's dismiss technical comparison tools as they don't support their traditional ways of purchasing and selling diamonds.

Advanced students and teachers of gemology have a set of known reproduceable facts about diamond optics at their disposal, however these may look like a subjective opinion to the less informed and that can create quite a problem. This is especially so when the average consumer reading a thread may not readily tell the difference between the two.

I want to point out first I am a fan of ASET.

However, portraying opinions (even well educated opinions, that I agree with on some aspects) as a fact or scientific law "chaps my hide".

Forgive my technical background, but this is what quantifies a fact:
It's called a scientific law. It is something that is true, universal, and absolute. It has been proven via research and publication in a peer reviewed technical publication (Science and Nature are good ones, G&G for us in most cases.) . It's research has been reproduced by other technical experts in the field and those results published as a scientific law.

Here's a brief overview:
http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

If what you are stating is indeed a 'fact', a theory, or a hypothesis, post a link to your peer reviewed document with your message. If not, what you are stating is an opinion.

Once again, I'm a fan of ASET, don't flame me to try and dispute that.

--Joshua

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I want to point out first I am a fan of ASET.

However, portraying opinions (even well educated opinions, that I agree with on some aspects) as a fact or scientific law "chaps my hide".

Forgive my technical background, but this is what quantifies a fact:
It's called a scientific law. It is something that is true, universal, and absolute. It has been proven via research and publication in a peer reviewed technical publication (Science and Nature are good ones, G&G for us in most cases.) . It's research has been reproduced by other technical experts in the field and those results published as a scientific law.

Here's a brief overview:
http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

If what you are stating is indeed a 'fact', a theory, or a hypothesis, post a link to your peer reviewed document with your message. If not, what you are stating is an opinion.

Once again, I'm a fan of ASET, don't flame me to try and dispute that.

--Joshua

We are wandering off topic a little Joshua, but try to think about these 2 conflicting facts.
AGSL proved reflectors and ASET works
GIA disproved it (even though the reported inventor of ASET was part of their cut research team).

The only point i choose to make is that Pricescope IS a place (and was a very lively one) of peer review.

 

[serenitydiamonds]

I want to point out first I am a fan of ASET.

However, portraying opinions (even well educated opinions, that I agree with on some aspects) as a fact or scientific law "chaps my hide".

Forgive my technical background, but this is what quantifies a fact:
It's called a scientific law. It is something that is true, universal, and absolute. It has been proven via research and publication in a peer reviewed technical publication (Science and Nature are good ones, G&G for us in most cases.) . It's research has been reproduced by other technical experts in the field and those results published as a scientific law.

Here's a brief overview:
http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

If what you are stating is indeed a 'fact', a theory, or a hypothesis, post a link to your peer reviewed document with your message. If not, what you are stating is an opinion.

Once again, I'm a fan of ASET, don't flame me to try and dispute that.

--Joshua

We are wandering off topic a little Joshua, but try to think about these 2 conflicting facts.
AGSL proved reflectors and ASET works
GIA disproved it (even though the reported inventor of ASET was part of their cut research team).

The only point i choose to make is that Pricescope IS a place (and was a very lively one) of peer review.

That is very common in the scientific community, it's an official peer review that couldn't attain consensus. It remains a hypothesis typically based on the results of the studies. A scientific fact it is not.

Yes and Pricescope for peer review is a great idea. My issue is posters declaring items facts which are not. As we all know grading anything about diamonds is extremely subjective, and that should be quite strongly re-enforced.

It just turns me off as a 'Trade Person' to have people's opinions that are contrary to the 'elite' shot down by 'facts', attacked, disrespected, retaliated against, etc. For this reason I only butt my nose in if someone is really getting unfairly slammed or misled, otherwise it's just a waste of my time. (I'm speaking about Rocky Talk exclusively, life seems a little friendlier in the Color Stones area).

--Joshua

 

[Rockdiamond]

I see no issue with this, as long as things are kept to facts and NOT opinions. If someone can point out "flaws" or something, then what is the issue? It hurts no one but actually raises the level of quality and level of consumer protection. If a trade person can not back up their statements with facts, then they shouldn't make them, but if they can, then what is the problem with them? It will become very obvious quickly on who is doing things for the right reasons and who is doing them for the wrong reasons.

That is the very problem and it is not as easy as you make it sound. There is at least one trademember(maybe even several) who has posted in this thread and who thinks everything they don't understand is an opinion and has trouble accepting what is and isn't a fact. This is particularly applicable when it comes to technical areas like the AGSL cut research or comparison tools like ASET and Idealscope and how they provide objective factual information. I have seen it far too often, B&M jeweler's dismiss technical comparison tools as they don't support their traditional ways of purchasing and selling diamonds.

Advanced students and teachers of gemology have a set of known reproduceable facts about diamond optics at their disposal, however these may look like a subjective opinion to the less informed and that can create quite a problem. This is especially so when the average consumer reading a thread may not readily tell the difference between the two.

This is exactly what will keep more tradespeople out of PS.
Last time I looked it's not CCL's PS- yet open discussion or questioning of reflector technology is not allowed- he holds us hostage.
If you dare to question the relevance of aset, be prepared to be insulted- sometimes to the point of breaking forum rules.
Even if one did not break the rules as he has, it's simple to use the pejorative language he's used here.

I don't mean to turn this into a discussion of aset, but rather how it's used to exclude approximately 95% of the trade- who does not use it.

PS- thank you Josh- you've expressed it well.

 

[kenny]

AND aren't the vast majority of diamonds sold poorly cut?
SO isn't ASET a threat to sellers of this majority of stones?

Hmm, perhaps there's a connection here.
My perception is sellers of good cut will embrace technologies like ASET.

 

[Rockdiamond]

AND aren't the vast majority of diamonds sold poorly cut?
SO isn't ASET a threat to sellers of this majority of stones?

Hmm, perhaps there's a connection here.
My perception is sellers of good cut will embrace technologies like ASET.

Ah yes, ccl's oft-time parter in crime- hi ken

Let's hypothesize that 75% of all diamonds sold are poorly cut.
Let's further hypothesize that of that 25% remaining, 25% of those are sold by sellers utilizing reflector technology.

What we're left with a fair percentage of sellers, offering well cut diamonds, who do not use reflectors.
Currently, you and ccl and few others, prevent any of those sellers from posting.

 

[kenny]

Over time, this status-quo has led to the average post or advice being less and less detailed, carefully steering away from aspects of diamonds that could raise controversy. In the quality of diamonds being advised this also leads to a culture of 'good enough is good enough', compared to an earlier culture where members wanted to understand and/or explain what was better or best.

Paul, very good points on the contributions of ego/sociology/psychology to what's happening here.
Egos are like those other things that everyone has, and they all stink.
Unfortunately both items are essential to the human organism, so we try to minimize their offensive qualities in public.

About the descent from recommending the best to recommending good enough . . . a couple things . . .
First, your business model is to cut/sell the best so "good enough" is not good for you.
That's fine.
I don't mind when vendors of good cut plug good cut here; I mind when vendors of poor cut attack good cut here.
I'm just a consumer; I sell nothing but just have an almost religious fervor for good cut.
I've seen what it can do and it made me a convert.

The second thing is PCness.
PS is hyper hyper PC, to a fault.
Wouldn't want to hurt anyone's feelings.

PS is getting polluted by a steady drip of "if all people are equal then all diamonds must be equal too".
"Good cut is just an opinion."
It is sad to watch admin tolerate it in the name of diversity.
IMHO, they want PS to appear open to all views, even if a view is subversive and cancerous to the PS mission.

When a buyer here of shallow windowing diamonds says she just loves the look, everyone's too nice to say that's because she hasn't seen it side by side next to something better.
The attack on good cut is like a cancer here, growing a little every day.
You don't have to look to closely to see niceness trumping reason here these days.

IMHO this nice-itis and misdirected PC-ness is harmful to what I think PS should be all about... the pursuit of the most beautiful diamonds at the best price for consumers.

PS claims to be a consumer forum.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Joshua,

With every post this thread has begun to prove my point. Already we have several different opinions on generally what can be considered a fact and this is precisely why Andrey doesn't want to allow trademembers to comment on other vendor's products.
What I deem to be a fact is what others call an opinion.

I am not sure of your level of scientific expertise (please specify your background) but I would welcome it especially if you are informed or choose to be in future.

I've been in academic research for 8 years have 3 peer reviewed articles where I am primary author in journals with reasonable impact factors. I know academia, and I know the peeer review process.

Here is Jose Sassian's work while at the University of Arizona through his peer reviewed article.

http://www.agslab.com/spie/spie_lo_res.pdf

Have you read it thorougly as to give an informed opinion? Can you seperate the facts from the opinions in the article?
Garry where is GIA-GTL's article(s) that disproved AGS's cut grading?
(Note that is seperate issue and is a continually evolving application of the foundations laid out in the article above)

AND aren't the vast majority of diamonds sold poorly cut?
SO isn't ASET a threat to sellers of this majority of stones?

Hmm, perhaps there's a connection here.
My perception is sellers of good cut will embrace technologies like ASET.

Ah yes, ccl's oft-time parter in crime- hi ken

Let's hypothesize that 75% of all diamonds sold are poorly cut.
Let's further hypothesize that of that 25% remaining, 25% of those are sold by sellers utilizing reflector technology.

What we're left with a fair percentage of sellers, offering well cut diamonds, who do not use reflectors.
Currently, you and ccl and few others, prevent any of those sellers from posting.

I want to point out first I am a fan of ASET.

However, portraying opinions (even well educated opinions, that I agree with on some aspects) as a fact or scientific law "chaps my hide".

Forgive my technical background, but this is what quantifies a fact:
It's called a scientific law. It is something that is true, universal, and absolute. It has been proven via research and publication in a peer reviewed technical publication (Science and Nature are good ones, G&G for us in most cases.) . It's research has been reproduced by other technical experts in the field and those results published as a scientific law.

Here's a brief overview:
http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

If what you are stating is indeed a 'fact', a theory, or a hypothesis, post a link to your peer reviewed document with your message. If not, what you are stating is an opinion.

Once again, I'm a fan of ASET, don't flame me to try and dispute that.

--Joshua

We are wandering off topic a little Joshua, but try to think about these 2 conflicting facts.
AGSL proved reflectors and ASET works
GIA disproved it (even though the reported inventor of ASET was part of their cut research team).

The only point i choose to make is that Pricescope IS a place (and was a very lively one) of peer review.

 

[oldminer]

Kenny, You are making some good remarks with merit, but there is another side of the coin. Some people would choose a less lively diamond even if they compared a fine bright stone side by side to a limpid watery one. Why is not in question. It is a choice they can make if they choose. It could be for the lower cost, or they just like the look. It doesn't matter. The gurus of the industry have decided that more brightness, scintillation and sparkle are superior to less. That's my own feeling about it and I have worked many years on a technology to grade these effects. Even before we had technology, I worked on parametric grading of cut quality. It has been since the mid-1980's that it has been on my daily agenda. I think most of us tend to understand these somewhat compatible approaches and pretty much find them useful and practical. However, None of these systems are a universal truth of nature, but only human constructs to help us categorize what we see into convenient quality slots.

There is room here for diversity of opinion, but undermining the current concept of grading cut quality via measures of light return characteristics is the order of the diamond business today and naysayers really begin to look insincere after a time. Initially, one might agree with you that such naysayers are a strong negative to the atmosphere on Pricescope, but I think their presence is a window into just what goes on when consumers go to shop. Once prepared, the consumer can get what they want in spite of opportunistic selling techniques. Consumers can read and make intelligent choices and I trust in their general ability to tell BS from good info. Consumers understand the idea of beauty being a personal choice, but when it comes to grading and unquestioned quality of brilliance, those diamonds graded as top cut do look superior to others in many ways. Not everyone agrees 100%, but the principles of this are solidly grounded.

I think PC is okay within reasonable bounds. The good guys don't want or need to stoop to street tactics to defeat other points of view. Even some small amount of mis-information is tolerable so long as correct information can also be provided nearby in a thread. When any poster gets personally insulting, it not only hurts the thread, but injures Pricescope and the person making the insulting comments, too. To a great extent, this effect creates some amount of self-policing. The rest of the policing lies in freedom of speech for other posters who show proper respect for one another and moderators taking off rude and low quality comments.

Traffic may be down or the level of questions less interesting since there is such a large body of accessible knowledge already posted here that many topics have been well covered previously. Once users research their questions and have so much in the way of ready answers, what is left to ask? I don't like to repeat answers very often and probably few others do, as well.

 

[delayedreaction]

I just wanted to offer a few observations from someone who is new to Pricescope, but participate in a few other forums similar in stature to PS, and I’m offering 3 points as a contrast. You'll probably be offended at some or all points.

1. Moderation - My "home" forum has extremely good moderation, with a small army of volunteer mods, and small paid staff. And it's a forum devoted to heavy duty number crunching, statistical analysis and simulations for a video game, so you can image the potential for flame wars coming from young (mostly male) geeks. There's about 300,000 members, maybe about 1,500 simultaneous right now, and peak simultaneous users was over 22,000. It's not that big compared to some of the other sites that I frequent, but it's the highest quality.

The mod staff is far more draconian about shutting down useless topics and handing out infractions to posters (bans are handed out for 1-, 2-, 3-day and on a permanent basis.), and the forum's culture encourages people to report posts that are inflammatory or don't add any original or useful content. To give you some context, there are subforums called the "Dung Heap" where insipid and pointless topics moved, and the BanHammer where users infractions are posted. Infractions are categorized, which include, but are not limited to: Poor Grammar, Communicate clearly, Do not post unless you have something new and worthwhile to say, No whining, and You're an idiot. (The Dung Heap had a far more colorful name before the site started taking advertising from major corporation and subscriptions from premium users.)

Threads tend to be heavily consolidated, much like the Jewelry Pieces "Do you have a Favorite Gold Designer", except think hundreds of pages (like over 400) and anywhere between 300,000 to 2 million views. As a consequence, the forums are very clean, but it heavily relies on a good search tool.

Now obviously PS culture is different. The most obvious is that a great many of the posts here can be summed up as "ooh pretty", and there you can't even say "good idea" without adding something of substance. But I'm still surprised at how long it takes for a mod to step in here. Hours are not acceptable given how fast flame wars escalate. And this is a forum that is expecting professionals/trade people to participate? Why exactly should anyone subject themselves to ridicule, much less someone that is on the clock?

And if you’re going to have a trade person designation, allow them to list their qualifications as part of their visible profile on each post, not just a generic “Trade Person” banner, which is probably the most unprofessional looking label you can have for a professional. Was it designed on the original Mac? It will save some time, especially since a lot of the posts for forum unknowns tend to be thinly veiled versions of “Who the f___ are you?”

2. Group think – This happens in all the consumer forums I participate in, whether it’s fine watches, high end home theater, high end headphones (yes that exists), or fashion/style. For example, if I could tell your right now what a guy in looking for suit advice on a certain forum would be immediately steered towards Canali, Zegna, Ralph Lauren Black/Purple Labels, but only if it’s at least 80% off retail, because everything else is a complete rip off, or you can do much better going to a handful of internet made to measure houses that do offshore production in Asian factories.

Then, as long as you either sleep with a sales associate, and/or live within driving distance of Woodbury Common Outlet, and know the exactly delivery date, you too can score that 90% off last season’s suit/shoes. Then you can dismiss every else’s purchases as overpriced and tout the extreme superiority of buying off the internet/ebay/the resale subforum/superior shopping skills by detailed photographs showing off your perfectly tailored (by forum recommended artisans) purchases. Which is naturally paired with the perfect forum approved color palette shirt, tie, and pocket square combination (all bought on extreme sale or from the handful of approved internet dealers, some of which are members who went into the trade themselves), and presented in hopes you get chosen by one of the forum elite’s pictures of the week digest. Or better yet, you make the year-end best of the best thread.

Of course, any new person with a sense of style that’s outside the somewhat conservative nature of the forum will be re-educated into the forum’s overall aesthetic. The only people allowed to innovate are 5 or 6 well-established members. Many of the old members, genuine enthusiasts, and members of the trade lost interest and left the forum after an influx of members attracted to the site based on good press from the New York Times, Esquire/GQ, and other mass media outlets.

Does this sound familiar?

There are multiple problems, some bigger than others. The first of two is really related to my first point, and I can’t even phrase in a remotely diplomatic way at all: insecure small timers that denigrate all other people’s choices that aren’t similar to theirs. Small budgets aren’t the problem, it’s the people that try and ensure that their favored vendor/brand is regarded as THE ANSWER, and it’s enabled by lax moderation. And, over time, it poisons the discussion for everyone.

Lack of new experts, consumer or professional. Over time, if you don’t get fresh perspectives, then the site atrophies and dies. For a clothing forum, it needs professionals and people in the trade to explain all the hidden costs and the details of doing business with overseas factories, and how corners are cut by unscrupulous businesses. It needs consumers with a certain means to buy the $1,600 shoe (yes, men’s shoes easily rival women’s shoes for cost, but stylistically outlast them by decades), the $300 bespoke shirt, the $700 bespoke pants, and the $2,500 bespoke blazer and to be able to articulate how these items hold up in comparison to already respected brands/tailors/houses. Otherwise, you end up with a forum where you’ve memorized the forum approved recommendations and see that they’re still the same years later.

3. Design - PS 2.0 failed as a redesign. Period. I'm not talking about aesthetics either, but design in terms of function and usability. Get a usability expert and a real design house to redo the site. I can and will use PS 2.0 as an illustration on failed redesigns.

The two most important things on this site is the ability to communicate with knowledgeable posters and search the wealth of information that people spend hours of their lives creating. Yet, the search function is crippled and almost as bad as PS 1.0, and the structure is ridiculous. Why are there two search boxes, one of which disappears and reappears and does different things in different contexts? And why exactly is it so hard to get to advanced search? You have to run a search before you can even get to it easily. And then the diamond search is buried under resources. I could keep going, but that’s really enough for now, but the overall organization of the top level menu is strangely constructed. I’ll just leave it at this: it feels like PS 2.0 was redesigned by a web developer (programmer). If it was a designer, don’t ever use them again.

PS 2.0 does not encouraging people to stay because the overall user experience on this forum is subpar.

 

[kenny]

Kenny, You are making some good remarks with merit, but there is another side of the coin. Some people would choose a less lively diamond even if they compared a fine bright stone side by side to a limpid watery one. Why is not in question. It is a choice they can make if they choose. It could be for the lower cost, or they just like the look. It doesn't matter. The gurus of the industry have decided that more brightness, scintillation and sparkle are superior to less. That's my own feeling about it and I have worked many years on a technology to grade these effects. Even before we had technology, I worked on parametric grading of cut quality. It has been since the mid-1980's that it has been on my daily agenda. I think most of us tend to understand these somewhat compatible approaches and pretty much find them useful and practical. However, None of these systems are a universal truth of nature, but only human constructs to help us categorize what we see into convenient quality slots.

There is room here for diversity of opinion, but undermining the current concept of grading cut quality via measures of light return characteristics is the order of the diamond business today and naysayers really begin to look insincere after a time. Initially, one might agree with you that such naysayers are a strong negative to the atmosphere on Pricescope, but I think their presence is a window into just what goes on when consumers go to shop. Once prepared, the consumer can get what they want in spite of opportunistic selling techniques. Consumers can read and make intelligent choices and I trust in their general ability to tell BS from good info. Consumers understand the idea of beauty being a personal choice, but when it comes to grading and unquestioned quality of brilliance, those diamonds graded as top cut do look superior to others in many ways. Not everyone agrees 100%, but the principles of this are solidly grounded.

True dat.
But to me respecting diversity (when it applies to poor cut) is like respecting people who make poor choices in life and end up on welfare or doing illegal drugs.
Yeah, once it happens to a person we still respect the person, BUT wouldn't it be good to prevent all that?
Once the poorly-cut engagement ring is on her finger we should only say kind things, BUT wouldn't it be good to prevent that?

Absurd comparison?
Perhaps.
But perhaps not.

Yes, I respect diversity but there ARE inherently good choices and bad choices in life and in diamonds.
Let's educate people here at PS so they can make informed choices.

I have bought better-looking diamonds cheaper because of PS.
That simple paradigm is under attack.

In the past the industry was all about
Cut for max yield of the rough, not light performance - then keep customers ignorant about light performance so they won't demand it.
We still see this vendor attitude disguised as diversity, 95% of sellers blah blah blah, or honoring tradition today on PS.

PS has played a HUGE roll in exposing how the diamond industry has been overcharging us for junk.
Now, more buyers know better and are demanding good cut at good prices.
The old-school players are pissed and are fighting back.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Kenny, You are making some good remarks with merit, but there is another side of the coin. Some people would choose a less lively diamond even if they compared a fine bright stone side by side to a limpid watery one. Why is not in question. It is a choice they can make if they choose. It could be for the lower cost, or they just like the look. It doesn't matter. The gurus of the industry have decided that more brightness, scintillation and sparkle are superior to less. That's my own feeling about it and I have worked many years on a technology to grade these effects. Even before we had technology, I worked on parametric grading of cut quality. It has been since the mid-1980's that it has been on my daily agenda. I think most of us tend to understand these somewhat compatible approaches and pretty much find them useful and practical. However, None of these systems are a universal truth of nature, but only human constructs to help us categorize what we see into convenient quality slots.

There is room here for diversity of opinion, but undermining the current concept of grading cut quality via measures of light return characteristics is the order of the diamond business today and naysayers really begin to look insincere after a time. Initially, one might agree with you that such naysayers are a strong negative to the atmosphere on Pricescope, but I think their presence is a window into just what goes on when consumers go to shop. Once prepared, the consumer can get what they want in spite of opportunistic selling techniques. Consumers can read and make intelligent choices and I trust in their general ability to tell BS from good info. Consumers understand the idea of beauty being a personal choice, but when it comes to grading and unquestioned quality of brilliance, those diamonds graded as top cut do look superior to others in many ways. Not everyone agrees 100%, but the principles of this are solidly grounded.

I think PC is okay within reasonable bounds. The good guys don't want or need to stoop to street tactics to defeat other points of view. Even some small amount of mis-information is tolerable so long as correct information can also be provided nearby in a thread. When any poster gets personally insulting, it not only hurts the thread, but injures Pricescope and the person making the insulting comments, too. To a great extent, this effect creates some amount of self-policing. The rest of the policing lies in freedom of speech for other posters who show proper respect for one another and moderators taking off rude and low quality comments.

Traffic may be down or the level of questions less interesting since there is such a large body of accessible knowledge already posted here that many topics have been well covered previously. Once users research their questions and have so much in the way of ready answers, what is left to ask? I don't like to repeat answers very often and probably few others do, as well.

Dave- All due respect- but these are simply opinions- NOT scientifically grounded facts.
What you might see as "limpid watery looking" others find beautiful. The term itself is pejorative.

Take AGS versus GIA.
I disagree with Garry's statement that AGS proved something- or that GIA did either.\
Both are commercial organizations, with ample incentive to have their methodolgy accpeted.
AGS graded Princess cuts are a perfect example.
The grade is simply not accepted on any sort of broad basis.

If we want to point to usage by professionals there is no comparison- GIA wins that war, and handily.
Does that make GIA right, and AGS wrong.
No, of course not.
But it does give a lot of weight to the argument that GIA's cut grade is accepted by more professionals than AGS grading.

It does give me pause when consumers who have not seen the stone in question begin to criticize the cut of diamonds GIA graded "EX" cut grade based on "scientific" evidence which is only hypothesis.

 

[serenitydiamonds]

Joshua,

With every post this thread has begun to prove my point. Already we have several different opinions on generally what can be considered a fact and this is precisely why Andrey doesn't want to allow trademembers to comment on other vendor's products.
What I deem to be a fact is what others call an opinion.

I am not sure of your level of scientific expertise (please specify your background) but I would welcome it especially if you are informed or choose to be in future. Some trademembers have made a conscious choice not to be, or just can't be bothered putting in the effort.

I've been in academic research for 8 years have 3 peer reviewed articles where I am primary author in journals with reasonably good impact factors. I know academia, and I know the peer review process.

Here is Jose Sassian's work while at the University of Arizona through this peer reviewed article.

http://www.agslab.com/spie/spie_lo_res.pdf

Have you read it thorougly as to give an informed opinion? Can you seperate the facts from the opinions in the article?
Garry where is GIA-GTL's article(s) that disproved AGS's cut grading?
(Note that is a seperate issue and is a continually evolving application of the foundations laid out in the article above)

My original training was in Aerospace, specifically supersonic and hypersonic fluid flow in aerospace vehicles. Naturally my recent training is in gemology.

Like I said, I'm a fan of ASET, but it isn't the end all. I've been researching it for awhile and I am very interested in learning more about its related research moving forward. However, I still stand behind that its research can not be dictated as fact, especially to customers. I feel that's misleading. Remember AGS has a vested interest in that particular form of analysis, as it's used in their product. Just as in GIA has a vested interest in Facetware.

As for fact and opinion, I feel that all diamond analysis breaks down into what someone's opinion dictates as a 'best cut' based on their personal objectivity, or in most cases a scientific sample of viewers. All those being opinions. Given that, gemstone analysis is inherently an opinion.

It's a great theory and a great way to break it down. It's makes it easy to discard obviously bad cuts. It doesn't adequately answer for me what the 'best' or 'ideal' cut in a diamond may be, as that is very subjective depending on the viewer. It's that subjectivity I think that causes the conflict. I always feel the best decisions in gem selection are made viewing the gem yourself.

--Joshua

 

[Rockdiamond]

True dat.
But to me respecting the diversity (when it applies to poor cut) is like respecting people who make poor choices in life and end up on welfare or doing illegal drugs.
Yeah, once it happens to a person we still respect the person, BUT wouldn't it be good to prevent all that?
Once the poorly-cut engagement ring is on her finger we should only say kind things, BUT wouldn't it be good to prevent that?

Absurd comparison?
Perhaps.
But perhaps not.

Yes, I respect diversity but there ARE inherently good choices and bad choices in life and in diamonds.
Let's educate people here at PS so they can make informed choices.

I have bought better-looking diamonds cheaper because of PS.
That simple paradigm is under attack.

In the past the industry was all about
Cut for max yield of the rough, not light performance - then keep customers ignorant about light performance so they won't demand it.
We still see this vendor attitude disguised as diversity, 95% of sellers blah blah blah, or honoring tradition today on PS.

PS has played a HUGE roll in exposing how the diamond industry has been overcharging us for junk.
Now, more buyers know better and are demanding good cut at good prices.
The old-school players are pissed and are fighting back.

Just curious, but what's the basis of this statement Ken?
Who's "light performance" are we talking about?

Or is the entire concept of "Light performance", as it's commonly discussed here on PS, simply a way for some sellers to distinguish their wares, and attempt correlate what they sell to a "scientifically superior product"