On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 13:16:37 -0500, dpb wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:
...

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.
Your contention is that most do not already know how a particular
feature measurement translates into real world comparitive
performance? Do you?
For a lot of these measurements reported, no, I don't

Well that's too bad, maybe you should study up a little, or better
yet, use your machines to get some practical experience.

(and certainly
don't believe the general audience for which such reviews might be of
real value do either).

Then there is probably no basis for continuing this discussion. I
believe the vast majority do. I base my conclusion on talking with
literally thousands of end user woodworkers at shows and directly
resolving issues as quality manager for a number of years. And your
belief is based on...
...

That there is no direct correlation of the magnitude of a measurement of
the vertical post alignment to the actual misalignment of the guide
blocks for an adjustment on the height into an actual performance
statistic for the saw as just one example. The last review in FWW
mentions the misalignment can cause a need for readjustment as a general
reason for looking at it but gave no guidelines at all on how much is
too much or would be considered acceptable.

That "smaller is better" is a given, but whether 3 or 10 or 30 is
really, really bad isn't clear to a general audience who is looking to
buy a saw for the first time, certainly, which is a large part of the
target audience of such reviews.

I'd be terribly surprised if you could take a sample of the readers of
any of the general circulation magazines and have even 5% of those who
are owners of a bandsaw and could come anyways close to telling either
what their saw measured for that statistic or had ever actually measured
it or thought to.

And it still doesn't address the issue of how the distribution of
individual machine measurements correlate to the measurements of the
population of machines of which the tested one was a single sample.

All I'm pointing out is that w/o some context, the reviews have some
merit but could be more informative than they are but recognizing there
are limitations to the format.

Don't know what you're seemingly so angry over or feel the need to
denigrate, but whatever you say...


And absolutely nothing in that answer had anything to do with any
statistical supporting basis for your belief that most end users
don't know. As I thought, strictly an opinion. That's fine. I
believe most do. My sample is large, and the vast majority could
discuss those things clearly.

However, as I recall, you're the same guy who believes that end user
woodworkers are relatively dumb and are clamoring for a 10% lower
price to get chinese junk. Your stated belief from an earlier thread,
is that is what is causing the flight to china rather than the
manufacturers "corporate whiz kids", who by the way share your belief,
that is, those woodworkers are dumb, cut the cost by 25%, cut the
price by 10%, give them junk and they'll be happy as clams and we'll
clean up.

Not angry, just know BS when I see it.

Frank