Consultants on the forum

[Peter Apps]

To see what this follows from, check out the residual solvents thread on the GC board.

What goes around comes around, and one of the pillars of science is that what you learned from others you pass on to others. The forum is one channel for passing knowledge around. In Utopia we would all be doing this for nothing.

We don't live in Utopia though. By the look of it, a lot of the forum posts are from people in commercial companies which are presumably either selling their results, or using them to generate products that make money. Many of the posts are at a pretty basic level, quite a few of them can be Googled with no problem.

The crusty old cynic in me sees this use of the board as an attempt to get information for nothing when alternative sources (such as literature searches, a few books on the basics, training courses and hiring more experienced people) cost money.

Nearly all of the answers on the forum are from people who have spent time and money (either their own, the government's or their employer's) to build up the knowledge that they are giving away. Some of those people are on the supply side of chromatography - working for instrument and column companies big and small for example. The forum itself is kept going by the chromatography supply industry. I think that it is fair enough for there to be some payback.

The paradigm consultant sells common sense and common knowledge in a fancy package for a high price. I cannot think of a worse place than the Chromforum to try this sort of marketing - any consultants that tried to sell common sense and common knowledge would be pre-empted by posts on the forum before they could even get their pitch in. If anyone is prepared to pay a consultant to tell them what they could get off the internet for themselves, then good luck to all concerned. If anyone has specialist knowledge that someone else can use to make or save money then it is a matter for their own conscience whether to give it away or sell it.

OK, I'm putting on my helmet and ducking below the parapet

[tom jupille]

First of all, let me apologize for the convoluted path to this thread. The Forum software lets me split threads, but not (as far as I know) to combine them.

Next, let me throw in my two cents' worth about the Forum.

From the very beginning (1999), one of the "unwritten" (but ruthlessly enforced) rules of the Forum is that vendors are encouraged to talk about their own products / services, so long as:

1. It is a legitimate response to a question or problem (i.e., no "spamming" the Forum*).

2. You do not disparage competing products or services.

With that as background:

Schmitty, I went back and looked at the thread you mentioned. The OP asked for advice on purchasing equipment. The various posts from "vendor" people were, in my opinion, perfectly appropriate.

JA, it's really a matter of context and "judgment call" (mine!). Had the original question been a more specific one (like the one on residual solvents), then a post that simply said "e-mail me for details" would probably have triggered a private e-mail from me clarifying the unwritten policy. A link to an application note would be OK (because anyone can access the information). A more extensive post providing information/insight along with an "e-mail me if you want to discuss it further" would be OK as well.

Rod, I think your post was appropriate. In your many previous posts you've provided a lot of useful information, and often suggested that people contact you at Supelco for additional information. I don't see that the situation is any different now that you're selling your own time rather than an employer's products.

That said, Peter makes a very good point. I can tell you a foolproof way to make a small fortune in the chromatography consulting business: start with a large fortune and work your way down from there. You won't get rich, but you can earn a living and have a lot of fun in the process.

For what it's worth, what we've tried to do in the Forum is to provide a 21st century version of a scientific meeting (except asynchronous and with no travel costs).

As a user of chromatography attending a meeting, I certainly want to pick as many brains as possible (both from vendors and other users) for "free", but I also realize that beyond a certain level, I'm going to have to buy the book, pay for the course, or retain the consultant in order to get enough detailed knowledge and understanding to solve my problem. As a vendor attending a meeting, I want to talk to as many users as possible for several reasons:
- to maintain a feel for "what's happening",
- to troll for prospective customers/clients, and
- to maintain visibility and "mind share" in the user community so that they will contact me when they have a need to buy products or services.

As a user participating in the Forum, I'm in the same situation: I want to find out as much as I can, but I also realize that past a certain point, it will be more cost-effective for me to pay for detailing information than to try and figure it out on my own. And as a vendor on the Forum I want to learn, to maintain "mind share", and to troll for customers (pretty much in that order).

I'll get off my soapbox with a final comment which I have made before, but which bears repeating: compared to many other groups on the Internet, the Chromatography Forum community is a remarkably civil, polite, and professional group. Over 9-plus years, I've had less than a dozen situations where I've had to ask people to "tone it down". That says a lot about the quality of the people who participate, and it makes my job as Admin/Moderator incredibly easy. Keep it up (please!!).


* Since I "own" the Forum and pay the bills, I naturally claim exemption from that rule for myself!

[Schmitty]

...

Schmitty, I went back and looked at the thread you mentioned. The OP asked for advice on purchasing equipment. The various posts from "vendor" people were, in my opinion, perfectly appropriate.

...

That's fine, and I was only expressing my opinion.

I know I could have contributed more on some occasions, and have withheld on others. For some reason that particular thread just got to me.

Thanks for the hard work.

[lmh]

I'm writing as a newcomer to the forum, so please disregard anything I write that's too naive...

Looking back at the two threads that seem to have caused offence (to one of which I also contributed) there's a big difference between them.

The GC-MS thread seemed to me very straightforward and above board. Someone asked for information on instrumentation available, and naturally some sales staff offered their services; they declared themselves up-front as working for particular companies. I personally felt it appropriate and tactful that they merely offered contact details instead of trotting out a lot of (potentially one-sided) sales patter in public.

The other thread, I have to agree, sadly degenerated. Again, my personal opinion: I feel that an answer that verges on "I know what you want to know, but I'm not going to tell you unless you're really nice to me" is highly likely to cause upset in a public forum. Also, where a poster has the faintest financial interest in what they're posting, it is right to declare it in their very first post.

But hey, this is (by far) the most polite and professional forum I've ever come across. Even disagreements are settled without resort to rudeness. Congratulations to everyone who makes it so.

[Bruce Hamilton]

Wow, syringes at 30 paces, and I missed it! Bugger.

First Off. Rod, I sincerely hope this thread will not discourage your future contributions. I don't believe that you acted improperly or misleadingly. You still have to find the new balance point between providing free information and selling valuable IP in your new role. I wish you every success, and look forward to many more valuable contributions.

The whole issue is about IP and disclosure. Almost all of the industry posters identify their affiliations when they make recommendations about their products or discuss competitors' products, and nobody should expect any more or less. An excellent example is the recent discussion on fused core columns in the LC section.

With consultants, the balance is between altruism and survival, and I believe some useful help is better than no help. If the discussion goes to email, the original poster can always return to the the forum if they don't want to, or can't, pay for offered additional support.

I sometimes wonder who would be the most culpable, an employee who claims skills they don't possess, and uses altruistic experts on Internet fora to surreptitiously fill the gaps; or a consultant who offers some guidance, but withholds further knowledge that they usually sell to clients.

I believe it's the former and, as a consultant and contract analyst, I am amazed at how fast some arrogant, opportunistic, clueless "scientists" make it up large corporate hierarchies merely by reciting partially- understood jargon to other managers.

Overall, much ado about nothing. No choices were harmed or lost in the making of this thread.

Please keep having fun,

Bruce Hamilton

[mbicking]

This seems to be one of those gray areas that sometimes slips toward the black or white side sometimes. Like most others, I would rate this forum area as pretty good from a professional standpoint (but the "fused core" discussion thread did indeed stray towards the boundaries!).

Having said that, I am a consultant and this forum represents all the good and the bad that exist on the internet and in the business world. First, the free flow of ideas is a critical component, and the ability to get the "opinions" of other scientists is a tremendous asset for everyone. None of us are experts at everything (although some claim to be ), and getting a little help from someone with experience helps solve problems and develops new relationships. People new to chromatography should have a resource to help them get started, since too few companies have the in-house mentors anymore!

But that's about where the "good" part ends. The last point (no mentors) means that many people are learning how to use instruments, and techniques, and software, and doing method development on their own. Their company will not pay for adequate training, so they come here, and get much of their advice for free. Now, I don't mind providing a little bit of help to someone now and then, but when I see people trying to get extensive method development or troubleshooting help for free, I have to start drawing some lines in the sand. And when these people work for large (and usually profitable) companies, my blood pressure starts to rise.

This leads to a related concept that I have written about elsewhere - too many people confuse the "free flow of ideas" with the idea that "everything should be free." There should be some value placed on knowledge (alas, it isn't a balance sheet item), and people should at some point expect that value to have some cost.

I think it is perfectly appropriate at some point to say, "your problem requires significantly more help than can be provided in a public forum, and you should consider getting paid assistance (from me, or someone else, or ...?)." It is really no different than the column manufacturer who says, "here's the application note, if you want to know if your sample will work the same way, why don't you try buying one of our columns!"

P.S. If you ever meet me in a bar, we can share some real horror stories about what some people will do to an LC when they have no training! Scary!

[DR]

< - - - has had the benefit of working w/ Rod

I strongly suspect that the above is entirely correct­° and appropriate - that for instances where a quick suggestion or tilt toward a product that would be very helpful is usually free and easy to get from this forum. I also think that slightly more involved and specific suggestions based on the potential shortcomings of previous attempts to get a result are appropriately discussed offline. Let's not get too wrapped up in whether or not someone has income on their mind as long as they're at least trying to be somewhat helpful and give them the benefit of the doubt when they want to go offline.

On the whole, I've found this to be one of the most congenial, least moderated (except for tossing occasional spammers) boards anywhere on the web.

°-my only difference of opinion with the above post- this place certainly falls short of offering one a view of the worst of the web (to see that, find some fast moving, poorly or unmoderated forums where flame-fests are common - there are more than a few to choose from).

[Kostas Petritis]

In general I agree with the views of Tom, Bruce and Merlin and I think that Tom does an excellent job administrating the forum through ways that a lot of times are transparent to most users of the forum (i.e. private e-mails, inapropriate post deletion etc).

At the same time I also like it when people freely express their opinion when they believe that someone "abused" the forum as it helps maintaining a clean forum and/or leads to threads like this one where the "unwritten" rules (I am quoting Tom here) are reminded to everyone.

On another note it would be great if we could do something about the bandwidth of the forum as I have ended up having one hand on the mouse and the other one on the F5 buttom (i.e. page refresh) in order to be able to browse through the forum.

[gcguy]

In line with most of the comments, I tend to agree that this forum is generally of use. I have found some useful information and hopefully contributed some posts of interest. In terms of consultants on the forum then people have to make a choice as to whether or not they are willing to pay for a quick and easy answer or whether they are willing to learn a little about what they themselves are paid for by doing a little of their own research.
I work in industry where my work is in support of manufacture, not contract research, so I personally do not have an issue with sharing my experiences, I am not paid to give advice to people.
When all is said and done nobody is forced to view this forum or contribute to it or indeed to make contact with consultants.