Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 11:51:40 -0500, dpb wrote:
Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 08:38:12 -0500, dpb wrote:
And, given that few, if any, of us here or in the general
readership audience of FWW are going to be able to go and observe the
actual operating line quality control data from any of the
manufacturers, it would certainly be far more than we know now (or are
likely to know in the future).
We were not discussing the general readership audience
We were? That's news to me!
My comments had to do with the presentation of a single measurement to
the world through the vehicle of a review of a sample of products based
on the measurements taken from that sample. Those are the only data
available to the person reading that article other than some they might
take (if so equipped and inclined to do so) on a similar piece of gear
of their own.
In that respect I questioned the validity of the apparent conclusion
which can be inferred would be drawn by those readers that the data
reported are of value and importance and imply a real difference between
the machines themselves that has some bearing on the selection of one
over another for a prospective purchase. Otherwise, what is the point
of even making the measurement or reporting it other than to have
something to write in the article?
...but the
testers/writers representing the various mags. At my place they had
an open invitation to come whenever they requested, and often did.
However, none spent a week on an assembly line observing units coming
off and collecting quality data. Would be an eye opener if that were
done on a comparison basis. I would have welcomed it.
And I think that it would be more fun to test a bunch of units in the
lab, and quicker to get the results and go to publication.
I don't doubt either of those although it would undoubtedly have been in
the first enlightening and in the second, worthy of discussion and in
reporting. I would doubt though, that the invitation would have
extended to allowing them to publish those data...
Which is what I was driving at. If the vendors would supply the
manufacturing tolerances for the measurements the reviewers thought of
interest and value and those were published as a reference, _THAT_ would
be of real value, far more than an individual number. Lacking that, the
best they can do would be the data from the individual machines. And,
of course, what that leaves out is context of where is this particular
measurement in the overall range of tolerances?
And, of course, there is very little serious evaluation in most reviews
at least of what these measurements _really_ mean in a quantitative
sense of how the machine actually will perform on a comparative basis.
That is where a really knowledgeable reviewer and writer in conjunction
with an open and candid manufacturer could provide a real educational
service to his audience.
Back in the late eighties early nineties, I believe it was, FWW did do
an article on each of the major manufacturing plants, comparing
processes and technology. Somewhere, I have reprints....One
manufacturer stood out for technology, cleanliness and impressive
process control. "like going on the set of Star Wars", I believe was
the quote.
Sadly, that plant is no longer in business, nor, I think, are any of
the others that were in the comparison.
I recall it...it was, as you say very interesting and informative and I,
too, grieve that the subject facility is no more...
Again, it revolves around the product review "game" -- much of it is no
more than that--guys want to write a story and need something to put
into it to make it appear worthwhile...
While sometimes I would question whether a particular functional
judgement was weighted properly in the larger scheme of things, I've
found the tester/writers to be very knowledgeable, competent and fair.
....
I didn't intend anything I wrote to imply otherwise -- my use of "game"
was referring more to the limitations for their reviews owing to the
restrictions of format and volume in a publication. There is far more
to say than can be fit into the available space and many really useful
details are thus never brought out.
--