Who are the people who vote "poor" on great equipment, and "great" on poor equipment?

[beeface]

Show yourselves

 

[Doodski]

Hehe... There's always a joker in a group and here we see that in this voting mischief.

 

[Deleted member 48726]

Make a poll?

 

[Deleted member 48726]

But in seriousness is "great" and "poor" not supposed to be subjective? Then what's a great product to you may be considered not good enough for others.

 

[JSmith]

I reckon review votes should be publicly visible...


JSmith

 

[jasonhanjk]

TANCHJIM Space Portable Headphone Adapter Review

This is a review, listening test and detailed measurements of the TANCHJIM Space portable DAC and balanced headphone adapter. It was sent to me by the company and costs US $90. I like the transparent window so that you can see the insides. There is an LED that lights up there when you reach...

www.audiosciencereview.com

I rate this poor. This device was suppose to drive headphone, which is why the 32ohm thd+n plot is the most important graph to read. Which it fail quite bad.
Higher than 0.01% thd+n at 1mW. This gotta be a joke.

 

[JSmith]

This device was suppose to drive headphone, which is why the 32ohm thd+n plot is the most important graph to read. Which it fail quite bad.
Higher than 0.01% thd+n at 1mW. This gotta be a joke.

Did you miss this part?

The compatibility issue I have with testing causes the noise floor of these sweeps to be about 15 dB higher than they really are. So let's use them for computing max power:

JSmith

 

[Deleted member 48726]

TANCHJIM Space Portable Headphone Adapter Review

This is a review, listening test and detailed measurements of the TANCHJIM Space portable DAC and balanced headphone adapter. It was sent to me by the company and costs US $90. I like the transparent window so that you can see the insides. There is an LED that lights up there when you reach...

www.audiosciencereview.com

I rate this poor. This device was suppose to drive headphone, which is why the 32ohm thd+n plot is the most important graph to read. Which it fail quite bad.
Higher than 0.01% thd+n at 1mW. This gotta be a joke.

Deleted. Context was missing that JSmith pointed out..

 

[Digby]

Perhaps some people vote poor because they think something is bad value for money or doesn't perform well enough, even if it is cheap?

 

[Pareto Pragmatic]

Lifetime prevalence of oppositional defiant disorder (in the US) is about 11% for men and 9% for women, from a study of 3200 adults in 2007. There are quite a few people who will go contrarian "just because". So 1+1=2, yes? In binary it is 10, there is no 2 in binary, so not always!

Looking at a whopping 3 amplifier polls, it does seem like 10% is a good number to start with for contrarians on the site.

Opinions are asked for, so a better way to frame the OP question would be "Who are the people who vote poor on highly accurate equipment..." Accurate only equals good if you value accuracy. As has been pointed out by Digby, they might be using value for money. They might be super picky about one thing. They might love tube amps and no other. They might downgrade for "ugly".

To the extent these (self selected and not at all random) polls are useful, they are useful in the aggregate, in a wisdom of the crowds way. Subset analysis is usually not worth the time. For this data, I can see some value of paying attention to the split among the positives (for highly rated) or negatives (for the low rated). Given 2 results of 80% great/10% fine and 40% great/50% fine... there is probably a reason for the difference. So I might dig in to find out what people are saying, if I were in the market and considering those two bits of equipment. Maybe the reason for the "fine" won't bother me, maybe it would.

I would probably not look for amplifiers, since I assume the correlation between ratings and SINAD is pretty high. For speakers, more likely to investigate the split, if I came across one when reading reviews of potential speakers. Not very likely, but more likely.

 

[Sokel]

Great equipment is a very broad term.
I can vote poor an 120 SINAD thing if it has an old OLED display for example cause I know it will be unreadable in a year.
Or by looks,only.
Or,or,or...

 

[fpitas]

I'm sure some are honest disagreement. I'm also sure we have plenty of trolls.

 

[Galliardist]

I reckon review votes should be publicly visible...


JSmith

Only on items costing over $1500

 

[fpitas]

I find it hard to get excited about it. But maybe restrict the voting to those who have been around a while.

 

[Soria Moria]

It’s sometimes tempting to vote great on truly useless terrible products but as of right now my hands are still clean.

 

[sprellemannen]

If, say, a person has bought a product with great measurements which fails in operation (poor reliability, poor user friendliness, bad remote control, for headphones: terrible to wear over longer time, etc.) and thereafter experiences very poor customer service from the manufacturer it makes sense to vote 'poor'.

Contrary, it never (IMO) makes sense to vote 'great' for a product with terrible measurements (clearly audible poor).

 

[Digby]

If, say, a person has bought a product with great measurements which fails in operation (poor reliability, poor user friendliness, bad remote control, for headphones: terrible to wear over longer time, etc.) and thereafter experiences very poor customer service from the manufacturer it makes sense to vote 'poor'.

Really, so (if you include customer service) then we're not judging the product alone, but the whole experience of ownership, including warranty service. I dunno, it doesn't seem like that is what is intended by the grading system, in my view.

 

[sprellemannen]

Really, so (if you include customer service) then we're not judging the product alone, but the whole experience of ownership, including warranty service. I dunno, it doesn't seem like that is what is intended by the grading system, in my view.

For me, it does not make sense not to take that in consideration when voting: Reliability and good customer service is a "part of the product". If I for instance bought product X with great measurements and experienced the mentioned bad things, I would certainly vote 'poor'.
I am willing to pay extra to avoid hassle, frustration and wasting time.

 

[jasonhanjk]

Did you miss this part?


View attachment 309981


JSmith

Ahh. Then I will un-vote, re-vote when it's fixed.

 

[dasdoing]

first time on the internet?