Dpreview's reviews "Highly Recommended" is highly questionable

In article cebecf23-5534-4c1e-9987-ef11496d80e6@
24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com, says...

Both cameras got "highly recommended." Evidently, it's a highly
flexible attribution.
E-P1 versus D300

Given that there have been only *six* "below average" ratings doled out
in the whole history of DPReview - and *hundreds* of "above average,"
"recommended," and "highly recommended" ratings - the most charitable
thing that can be said about their reviewing process is that someone is
painfully confused about the meaning of the word "average."

So DPReview falls into the same trap as a lot of other reviews sites; in
that there are really only two categories of rating:

(1) "Highly Recommended" == "This is a good camera, and worth buying."

(2) any other rating == "It's ****; avoid it like the plague."



--
Giftzwerg
***
"It isn't conservative rumors or lies that are stopping healthcare
legislation; it's the justifiable alarm of an electorate that has been
cut out of the loop and is watching its representatives construct a
tangled labyrinth for others but not for themselves. No, the airheads of
Congress will keep their own plush healthcare plan - it's the rest of us
guinea pigs who will be thrown to the wolves."
- Camille Paglia

Giftzwerg wrote:
In article cebecf23-5534-4c1e-9987-ef11496d80e6@
24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com, says...

Both cameras got "highly recommended." Evidently, it's a highly
flexible attribution.
E-P1 versus D300

Given that there have been only *six* "below average" ratings doled out
in the whole history of DPReview - and *hundreds* of "above average,"
"recommended," and "highly recommended" ratings - the most charitable
thing that can be said about their reviewing process is that someone is
painfully confused about the meaning of the word "average."

So DPReview falls into the same trap as a lot of other reviews sites; in
that there are really only two categories of rating:

(1) "Highly Recommended" == "This is a good camera, and worth buying."

(2) any other rating == "It's ****; avoid it like the plague."

Well put!
Reminds me of Lake Wobegon, but Keilor is clearly t.i.c.

--
john mcwilliams

Giftzwerg wrote:

In article cebecf23-5534-4c1e-9987-ef11496d80e6@
24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com, says...

Both cameras got "highly recommended." Evidently, it's a highly
flexible attribution.
E-P1 versus D300

Given that there have been only *six* "below average" ratings doled out
in the whole history of DPReview - and *hundreds* of "above average,"
"recommended," and "highly recommended" ratings - the most charitable
thing that can be said about their reviewing process is that someone is
painfully confused about the meaning of the word "average."

Not to defend DPreview but ISTM they don't review just any camera, they
only review cameras that are likely to be of interest to serious
photographers. Looking at the range of cameras sold by my local
supermarket, not one of them had been reviewed by DPReview. Basically they
don't review crap, so it is not surprising that their reviews generally
rate things fairly well.

At the same time though, I feel sure the pressure to please manufacturers
must also play a role, there are very few totally unbiased review sites of
anything online, at least not when they are reliant on the goodwill of
manufacturers for advance samples or for advertising, the classic example
of this is computer games reviews where software houses have actually
managed to put embargoes on reviews of their games which score less than
8/10, eg. the infamous case where Eidos is generally believed to have got
someone sacked for posting a bad review for the latest Tomb Raider game.

random link:
http://play.tm/news/14870/website-ed...-review-score/

Giftzwerg writes:
Given that there have been only *six* "below average" ratings doled out
in the whole history of DPReview - and *hundreds* of "above average,"
"recommended," and "highly recommended" ratings - the most charitable
thing that can be said about their reviewing process is that someone is
painfully confused about the meaning of the word "average."

Probably it's best to ignore the "editorial" component of the reviews
(which can be swayed by all sorts of factors not really relevant for
prospective buyers) and just pay attention to the various detailed tests
they do, which seem quite reasonable.

-Miles

--
Everywhere is walking distance if you have the time. -- Steven Wright

Giftzwerg wrote:
In article cebecf23-5534-4c1e-9987-ef11496d80e6@
24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com, says...

Both cameras got "highly recommended." Evidently, it's a highly
flexible attribution.
E-P1 versus D300

Given that there have been only *six* "below average" ratings doled out
in the whole history of DPReview - and *hundreds* of "above average,"
"recommended," and "highly recommended" ratings - the most charitable
thing that can be said about their reviewing process is that someone is
painfully confused about the meaning of the word "average."

Or they simply do not bother reviewing poor cameras. Given that a
review takes considerable time and effort (and money) it would make no
sense to review a poor camera that nobody is interested in.

So DPReview falls into the same trap as a lot of other reviews sites;

You fall into the same trap too many people do: You make assumptions
based upon an unwarranted overestimate of your own knowledge.

--
Ray Fischer

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Ray Fischer wrote:
Giftzwerg wrote:
In article cebecf23-5534-4c1e-9987-ef11496d80e6@
24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com, says...

Both cameras got "highly recommended." Evidently, it's a highly
flexible attribution.
E-P1 versus D300

Given that there have been only *six* "below average" ratings doled out
in the whole history of DPReview - and *hundreds* of "above average,"
"recommended," and "highly recommended" ratings - the most charitable
thing that can be said about their reviewing process is that someone is
painfully confused about the meaning of the word "average."

Or they simply do not bother reviewing poor cameras. Given that a
review takes considerable time and effort (and money) it would make no
sense to review a poor camera that nobody is interested in.

So DPReview falls into the same trap as a lot of other reviews sites;

You fall into the same trap too many people do: You make assumptions
based upon an unwarranted overestimate of your own knowledge.

The less you know the more important becomes each thing that you do
know. The pathological extreme of this is reached in the monomaniacal
shrieking of the trolls who only know one thing and are quite rightly
terrified by the yawning chasm of total ignorance which would engulf
them if the only thing they know turned out to be wrong.

--
Chris Malcolm

In article ,
says...

So DPReview falls into the same trap as a lot of other reviews sites;

You fall into the same trap too many people do: You make assumptions
based upon an unwarranted overestimate of your own knowledge.

*plonk*

--
Giftzwerg
***
"It isn't conservative rumors or lies that are stopping healthcare
legislation; it's the justifiable alarm of an electorate that has been
cut out of the loop and is watching its representatives construct a
tangled labyrinth for others but not for themselves. No, the airheads of
Congress will keep their own plush healthcare plan - it's the rest of us
guinea pigs who will be thrown to the wolves."
- Camille Paglia