Hate the software, it’s ok. Do not put me in your discussion at personal level.
I'm not politically correct, and I treat people the same way I'm treated. It's my philosophy of life, a life that has never been easy for me.
Leonardo Orazi
Spewing hate...
I didn’t see anybody spewing hate, I see people sharing their experience with a product and the support they recieved for that product. Like it or not, since you are the support for your program, so you are going to be part of reviews. If you are the only place to go for help, and you’re being off putting and unhelpful, why wouldn’t someone include that in their review of the program?
And treating people as they treat you makes you no better than them.
Cheers,
Scott
Well Written Respectful
No hate that I saw, just a dissatisfied customer sharing their frustrations. Judging by your post, it certainly validates the criticisms. I’ve considered Voyager recently, but I’m certainly not going to now.
Well Written
Quinn Groessl · Oct 16, 2025 at 02:12 PM
I didn’t see anybody spewing hate, I see people sharing their experience with a product and the support they recieved for that product. Like it or not, since you are the support for your program, so you are going to be part of reviews. If you are the only place to go for help, and you’re being off putting and unhelpful, why wouldn’t someone include that in their review of the program?
This is what bothered me so much about this whole episode. If someone is unhappy with a policy, their comments should be about the policy itself; not a person, no matter who it is, and that’s not what happened here. Leo is absolutely right. In my opinion, this got WAY too personal and far too many people conflated the idea of a product review with something that had all the appearances of a mostly fact-free personal disagreement over a support policy. In my view, it ignited a mob response that has ignored the lack of facts and likely negatively affected Leo and his business. And, that’s the effect that the OP may have been after.
I’m done commenting on this episode but I find it discouraging. Product reviews both positive and negative are a good thing; but I strongly disagree with the way this whole thing was handled. Personal disagreements and personal attacks should NEVER be a part of any legitimate product review.
-John
Come on guys! It hasn’t even been 12hrs since the last thread got closed and here we are again. Let’s all just drop the matter and put our anger and frustration towards the ever present clouds!
John Hayes · Oct 16, 2025 at 04:50 PM
Personal disagreements and personal attacks should NEVER be a part of any legitimate product review.
I fully agree!
John Hayes:
. If someone is unhappy with a policy, their comments should be about the policy itself; not a person, no matter who it is, and that’s not what happened here.
Hi John, respectfully, the issue is that it is hard or impossible to separate the personal interaction from the policy.
A business owner is perfectly within their rights to set a policy that says an additional license request after the support period is ended constitutes support that must be paid for, but where the written policy is unclear, there is then the responsibility to explain that courteously to the customer, or take accountability for the fact that the policy was unclear and make corrections thereof. At least in my mind that is what customer service looks like. And, as other people in this thread have said, interaction with the merchant when there is a problem is a big part of the customer experience. You cannot simply separate the product from the customer experience any different than you can do that at a restaurant that serves good food but has wait staff that are rude to you.
The unfortunate thing here is that the product itself appears to be to good - but the customer interaction is what multiple people in that thread commented on, not just the OP. Like ScottF, I am in the market for new software too, but there are choices, and knowing that the customer interaction is what it seems to be stops me from making the time investment to learn it. In that sense, the post served a purpose of informing the consumer, imperfect and emotional as it was.
John Hayes · Oct 16, 2025 at 04:50 PM
Quinn Groessl · Oct 16, 2025 at 02:12 PM
I didn’t see anybody spewing hate, I see people sharing their experience with a product and the support they recieved for that product. Like it or not, since you are the support for your program, so you are going to be part of reviews. If you are the only place to go for help, and you’re being off putting and unhelpful, why wouldn’t someone include that in their review of the program?
This is what bothered me so much about this whole episode. If someone is unhappy with a policy, their comments should be about the policy itself; not a person, no matter who it is, and that’s not what happened here. Leo is absolutely right. In my opinion, this got WAY too personal and far too many people conflated the idea of a product review with something that had all the appearances of a mostly fact-free personal disagreement over a support policy. In my view, it ignited a mob response that has ignored the lack of facts and likely negatively affected Leo and his business. And, that’s the effect that the OP may have been after.
I’m done commenting on this episode but I find it discouraging. Product reviews both positive and negative are a good thing; but I strongly disagree with the way this whole thing was handled. Personal disagreements and personal attacks should NEVER be a part of any legitimate product review.
-John
I think you’ve overthought the response, but I do agree that things did spiral out of control, not necessarily incorrectly, but it did grow legs. I do believe the OP of this thread missed an opportunity to set the record straight, if indeed it needed to be. However, that did not happen, and what it did do, at least in my mind, is affirm the original contentions of the other thread’s OP regarding the interactions. When dealing with a large company, naming names isn’t going to happen because you will never deal directly with the owner(s). In small companies, where a single owner interacts directly with the customer, it’s only natural to name the person, so I don’t see an issue with that. The title of that thread, sure. I have exactly three data points on the software: the other post, the response by the owner here, and from a person I sold a telescope to a few years ago. The person I sold the scope to was quite positive about the software and the owner’s support when he needed it.
John Hayes · Oct 16, 2025 at 04:50 PM
Quinn Groessl · Oct 16, 2025 at 02:12 PM
I didn’t see anybody spewing hate, I see people sharing their experience with a product and the support they recieved for that product. Like it or not, since you are the support for your program, so you are going to be part of reviews. If you are the only place to go for help, and you’re being off putting and unhelpful, why wouldn’t someone include that in their review of the program?
This is what bothered me so much about this whole episode. If someone is unhappy with a policy, their comments should be about the policy itself; not a person, no matter who it is, and that’s not what happened here. Leo is absolutely right. In my opinion, this got WAY too personal and far too many people conflated the idea of a product review with something that had all the appearances of a mostly fact-free personal disagreement over a support policy. In my view, it ignited a mob response that has ignored the lack of facts and likely negatively affected Leo and his business. And, that’s the effect that the OP may have been after.
I’m done commenting on this episode but I find it discouraging. Product reviews both positive and negative are a good thing; but I strongly disagree with the way this whole thing was handled. Personal disagreements and personal attacks should NEVER be a part of any legitimate product review.
-John
Totally agree John.
I also do not think violating someone’s right to privacy is acceptable at all, no matter what the size of the company is or where it it’s located.
I don’t understand the concept of privacy in this context.
Well Written Respectful
How is one expected to review poor customer service received by a business owner without it being considered hate or legally precarious? Some of the responses I have read are baffling to me, as someone who values user reports on products and customer service.
Arun H · Oct 16, 2025 at 05:05 PM
A business owner is perfectly within their rights to set a policy that says an additional license request after the support period is ended constitutes support that must be paid for, but where the written policy is unclear, there is then the responsibility to explain that courteously to the customer, or take accountability for the fact that the policy was unclear and make corrections thereof.
Where is the policy and licensing agreement unclear? Please show your work and cite the policy itself directly instead of making a general claim about it. You of all people should demonstrate the level of engagement you hold others to.
Well Written
Joey Conenna · Oct 17, 2025 at 01:20 AM
How is one expected to review poor customer service received by a business owner without it being considered hate or legally precarious? Some of the responses I have read are baffling to me, as someone who values user reports on products and customer service.
Here is an example:
I had a bad experience with the provider of Foo software. Here is what happened, explained without using personal attacks against a specific person, without sharing information about the persons identity without their permission, and without using text exchanged in a private discussion that would violate their right to privacy without their permission to share it.
Here is an example of this from an Amazon review of the Celestron NexStar 8 system:
📷 image.png
Here is another one from the same system:
📷 image.png
The second one is a little spicy and strongly worded but I do not see anything precarious about it at all.
“A personal attack is a rude or abusive comment that attacks a person's character, appearance, or background…”
A quick definition from the web. I don’t see such a thing in the original post about this incident. The privacy part is a bit rich as well. It’s one thing considering a private conversation between individuals to a conversation with a business entity. In the Celestron example above, what if the person had said, “I spoke with John Doe, head of quality control North America who was gruff and dismissive.” Would that be a privacy violation, or an honest explanation of the experience??
Well Written Insightful Engaging
I have been using Voyager for many years, and I am happy with the product.
With this program each computer requires a unique key.
When installing it on a second (or third) computer, you simply need to download it and install. After starting the computer you need to request a new license key using the code provided. You will then get a new key within 24 hours by email. Put it on the computer in question and all should be good.
You can not simply move a licensed copy for one computer to another.
I hope this helps.
Well Written Helpful Concise
Dark Matters Astrophotography:John Hayes · Oct 16, 2025 at 04:50 PMQuinn Groessl · Oct 16, 2025 at 02:12 PM
I didn’t see anybody spewing hate, I see people sharing their experience with a product and the support they recieved for that product. Like it or not, since you are the support for your program, so you are going to be part of reviews. If you are the only place to go for help, and you’re being off putting and unhelpful, why wouldn’t someone include that in their review of the program?
This is what bothered me so much about this whole episode. If someone is unhappy with a policy, their comments should be about the policy itself; not a person, no matter who it is, and that’s not what happened here. Leo is absolutely right. In my opinion, this got WAY too personal and far too many people conflated the idea of a product review with something that had all the appearances of a mostly fact-free personal disagreement over a support policy. In my view, it ignited a mob response that has ignored the lack of facts and likely negatively affected Leo and his business. And, that’s the effect that the OP may have been after.
I’m done commenting on this episode but I find it discouraging. Product reviews both positive and negative are a good thing; but I strongly disagree with the way this whole thing was handled. Personal disagreements and personal attacks should NEVER be a part of any legitimate product review.
-John
Totally agree John.
I also do not think violating someone’s right to privacy is acceptable at all, no matter what the size of the company is or where it it’s located.
In the UK company director names are public record.
In the US and elsewhere probably similar.
Since the original topic was closed, maybe there’s just no need for more drama?
Well Written
So the Orange Man took over and now everyone feels they can start threatening defamation? Over a customer support email being copy-pasted? Clown world.
So much sensitivity and overreaction. Good or bad, a reputation has a way of getting around. Looks like the chickens have come home to roost. I love NINA so much!
The original topic was indeed closed as the discussion had too much potential for toxicity. Seems like we're heading that way too. I permitted this post to allow Lorenzo to respond, and he took his opportunity, so we can end this discussion here before it gets even more heated. Thanks for understanding!
Well Written Concise