knightry
I'm Not Fat, I'm Festively Plump
join:2002-05-06
Oviedo, FL
| reply to AthlGrond
Re: Western Digital VelociRaptor
And what reliability!
quote:
According to filtered and analyzed data collected from participating StorageReview.com readers, the Western Digital VelociRaptor WD3000BLFS is more reliable than (collecting data, check back soon!)% of the other drives in the survey that meet a certain minimum floor of participation.
*sigh*
--
It takes two to lie, Marge. One to lie, and one to listen. |
|
The Flash
You don't win friends with salad
Premium
join:2002-10-17
Toronto, ON
 ·TekSavvy Solutions..
·Execulink
| said by knightry  :And what reliability! quote:
According to filtered and analyzed data collected from participating StorageReview.com readers, the Western Digital VelociRaptor WD3000BLFS is more reliable than (collecting data, check back soon!)% of the other drives in the survey that meet a certain minimum floor of participation.
*sigh* Well the drive is new, give it time. |
|
knightry
I'm Not Fat, I'm Festively Plump
join:2002-05-06
Oviedo, FL
1 edit | My point is that the page shouldn't have been included before they had any numbers. Leave it out of the report for now, include it once you have the data. It's like publishing a researching paper and leaving the Results Conclusion section as [insert results and conclusions here].
--
It takes two to lie, Marge. One to lie, and one to listen. |
|
signmeuptoo
Tune in to XM 120. BOO
Premium
join:2001-11-22
LOSTinSpace
clubs:  | I agree, highly improper. If scientific workers did things like that, they'd get fired. |
|
AthlGrond
Premium,MVM
join:2002-04-25
Aurora, CO
 ·Comcast
| reply to knightry
said by knightry :My point is that the page shouldn't have been included before they had any numbers. Leave it out of the report for now, include it once you have the data. It's like publishing a researching paper and leaving the Results Conclusion section as [insert results and conclusions here]. They use an automated system of compiling reliability reports so that they don't have to update their reviews later when the information becomes available. I agree that they have a clumsy way of presenting the lack of information. 
Since the reliability information isn't the primary reason people are reading a review of a new hard drive, it could hardly be likened to the main conclusions of a research paper. My analogy would be that it's like a computer program where there is a menu option that doesn't work until they have released the first (or second, or...) update for the software.
They added that section to their reviews after the IBM Death Desk Star fiasco, and I don't think that they've updated the way it works since then.
--
"You are technically correct. The best kind of correct." -Bureaucrat 1.0 |
|
CylonRed
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County
| reply to signmeuptoo
said by signmeuptoo :I agree, highly improper. If scientific workers did things like that, they'd get fired. But then we are not talking about scientific web site and probably makes it easier to maintain as AthlGrond alludes to I think. |
|
