>THE FOLLOWING FACT RELATED TO THIS REVIEW WILL
>WELL ILLUSTRATE HOW STATSOFT HAS AVOIDED EVEN TO GIVE
>ANY IMPRESSION OF ATTEMPTING TO INFLUENCE IN ANY WAY
>THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING ITS SOFTWARE. Until now
>StatSoft has never made public (or even reported to
>the editors of PC MAGAZINE), the fact that Mr. Grant
>Blank--the reviewer (whose lukewarm evaluation of
>STATISTICA allowed SYSTAT to get the highest rating in
>that comparative review) was a close associate of
>SYSTAT.
Ms Czyz misrepresents the ratings given in the PC Magazine
article. First, each package was rated on three dimensions
(Czyz statement implies there was one rating).
Second, Systat was reviewed by Sheryl Canter and Charles
Kadushin who, as far as I know, have no relationship to
Mr. Blank. Wouldn't one have to posit a conspiracy
theory so that (a) Statistica would be rated poorly and
(b) Systat be rated highly? Third, Systat did *not* receive
the highest ratings. Examination of pages 259 and 284
will clearly show that SPSS 5.00 for Windows had the
highest ratings of all of the packages (SPSS/PC+ Ver 5.0
and Systat, which had ratings combined for both DOS and
Windows products, had similar ratings except that SPSS/PC
exceeded Systat for advanced statistics and Systat exceeded
SPSS/PC for basic statistics). Canter and Kadushin also
did the reviewing of the three SPSS packages reviewed.
SPSS/WIN was also presented before Systat in the Editor's
Choice column.
>This fact can be easily verified through a
>variety of sources and public records. For example,
>in a preface to one edition of the SYSTAT manual, it
>is acknowledged that:
> "SYSTAT benefited from suggestions
> from ... Grant Blank."
>
>The preface to the next edition elaborates further
>that:
> "Grant Blank and Chris Gruber have continued
> to be my [L. Wilkinson's] most constructive
> critics and supporters. The new structure of
> the manual is largely due to them. Grant
> introduced me to Mark Bjerknes and had a
> primary role in the design of the full screen
> editor. He also introduced me to ... at the
> National Opinion Center... [etc., etc.]"
>It is our belief that it was the ethical and
>professional obligation of Mr. Grant Blank to reveal
>these facts to the editors of PC MAGAZINE and to let
>them know about his close association with SYSTAT and
An aside here. How does Ms. Czyz know that Mr. Blank
*didn't* inform the editors of PC Magazine of his past
"association" with Systat? Isn't it possible that he
did and that the editors did not see any problem? Again,
the argument being made here appears to be based on
insufficient or inappropriate information.
>his contribution to the SYSTAT products (especially
>when it was so well known that SYSTAT was not only the
>major rival but also an adversary of the company whose
>product Mr. Blank was about to evaluate). For
>example, how much trust can a reader of the PC
>MAGAZINE review have in Mr. Blank's criticism of
>STATISTICA's manual or full-screen editor (knowing
>that he "had a primary role" in designing those for a
>major rival?!). In our view, it was also the ethical
>and professional obligation of SYSTAT (while accepting
>the honor of the top rating), to reveal its
>association with the reviewer whose lukewarm review of
>the rival's program contributed to SYSTAT's top rating
>in the comparative review.
The above comments are misleading and should be retracted
by Statsoft. Specifically, SPSS/WIN had the highest ratings
and was presented first in the Editor's Choice column.
-Mike Palij/Psychology/New York University