German reader Horst checked in. "Hello Srajan, another week, another mysterious tweak. It seems like manufacturers of them keep knocking on your doors. I don't envy you these assignments. In fact following up one of your "crumbs" in the latest Boenicke review led me to Amré Ibrahim's review of the H.T.S. for Image Hifi whose header is "Shitstorm?" and whose entry paragraph deals with the typical forum reactions to such products. Because of it, there aren't many credible press outlets left that would even cover products that are guaranteed to trigger online shitstorms. Do you see any risk of painting yourself into a voodoo corner by maintaining such coverage regardless?"…
These are fair questions whose answers could interest other readers, too. I obviously don't know anything about editorial decisions elsewhere and how as a result inexplicable tweaks get handled there. I give my few contributors free rein to pursue what interests them and do the same for myself. "Anything goes" is filtered merely by an individual writer's curiosity versus their bullshit detector. Here it helps if one has prior positive experiences with a given brand's classic products. For example, LessLoss make a DAC and cables, Boenicke loudspeakers, Reimyo electronics. Those products fall squarely into the accepted categories even if they include tweaks which do not. But the reviewer and reader both are assured that their designers have a solid-enough grasp of textbook Physics and electronics. That builds trust when it comes time to indulge the same designers with products which they can't or won't fully explain. So the selection process at 6moons, about what to review, is certainly informed by such connections. And it will also be true that our mostly open-door policy regarding such products invites more solicitations than a publication will get which has a track record of not touching them; or crucifying them instead for easy clickbait.
As far as corner painting goes, I don't think that we're at risk of a lopsided balance in our product mix. How I see this is very simple. Our work must and does speak for itself. Mine now stretches across 23 years of stacked archives. If you trust my opinion on speakers and amplifiers but bail when I review odd tweaks, you're practicing selective trust. By what remote-viewing metric do you do this? In my world, if I can't trust a writer to speak his or her truth about a tweak, neither can I trust them with an amplifier or speaker. Because of that, I'm not worried. Should we lose a few readers because we review a mysterious tweak or trigger a shitstorm on a forum I don't visit anyway, that's simply the nature of working in the public eye; and not under a handle. "Can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen" applies not just to chefs and their staff. And, if a reviewer will only give an honest opinion in private then soft-pedal in public for fear of reactions, he or she is in the wrong business.
About said business, publishing spans various models. My colleague John Darko for example publishes review videos of high production values on YouTube. His audited subscriber numbers and views per review inform the algorithm which informs his earnings. With the same week's worth of time and energy spent on a video production which appeals to his audience vs one that tanks—after 10 years he has a good idea on what his audience wants—it makes no sense to produce videos guaranteed to alienate both viewers and the algorithm. Part of his work includes an open comments sections beneath each video. He must pay moderators to patrol for anarchists and dog poop. He knows which topics set off the dogs to mostly not tease them. I shield behind an email wall. It blacklists miscreants and deletes their messages which never see the published light of day. Whilst my Google ranking seems sufficiently robust to list 6moons reviews high on a search page, I do absolutely nothing to make it so. I just publish very regular content. If the Google algorithm rates our work, I don't know by what metric. I couldn't cater to it even if I wanted to; which I don't. I prefer the freedom to choose our subject matter solely on the basis of what I and my contributors find interesting. It's what has kept the moons in orbit for 23 years already. Unless there is a cosmic collision of sorts, I see no reason to change our tune. That doesn't imply no behind-the-scenes tweaks. We recently upgraded the site to PHP8 and the latest WordPress version. That finally tripped some glitches. My webmaster and his team are presently recoding the entire backbone of the site and its archives. Once wrapped, our little constellation should revolve orderly for years to come, whether folks prick a doll with needles and black wishes or wrap her up in a pretty bow. At the end of the day, having adults play with hifi toys isn't much different to kids playing with dolls. It's harmless fun as long as we let others play with the toys they like best. Cheers to that; and down with schoolyard bullies…
