<![CDATA[CNet Scoring System Analyzed; 70% of all gadgets between 6.0 and 7.9 - Gizmodo Comments]]> <![CDATA[CNet Scoring System Analyzed; 70% of all gadgets between 6.0 and 7.9 - Gizmodo Comments]]> <![CDATA[CNet Scoring System Analyzed; 70% of all gadgets between 6.0 and 7.9]]> Why would anyone trust a review from CNET? We have all read about the reviewer who resigned after management told him to give the product a better rating.

CNET and JD Powers - two places where it's well known you can *buy* a good review.

Guy-Fawkes

]]> <![CDATA[CNet Scoring System Analyzed; 70% of all gadgets between 6.0 and 7.9]]> I think it might have to do with multiple releases of very similar products, look at computers most are the same and take a look as digital cameras most of the updated cameras aren't much better than before and many of the previous were fine.

Ultraorange

]]> <![CDATA[CNet Scoring System Analyzed; 70% of all gadgets between 6.0 and 7.9]]> How are user scores distributed?

For products that receive similar scoring from users and editors, it'd be hard to argue with the results.

If there's no correlation, CNET needs a new scoring system.

jac7

]]> <![CDATA[CNet Scoring System Analyzed; 70% of all gadgets between 6.0 and 7.9]]> I have never found CNet to be useful past price comparisons. Their reviews are barely informative and the product comparison feature on the site ultimately sucks.

bms

]]> <![CDATA[CNet Scoring System Analyzed; 70% of all gadgets between 6.0 and 7.9]]> @BensAngel:

If you widen the distribution you get a more normalised bell curve.

The point's already been made: CNET don't review absolute shite so there is a weighting towards "average to good".

Sleeper_Service

]]> <![CDATA[CNet Scoring System Analyzed; 70% of all gadgets between 6.0 and 7.9]]> Some of their reviews dont make sense, especially in their cell phone section, it think the problem is that they dont have a standard, except maybe in their prizefights. Plus kent German depresses the hell out of me. Its like he hates cell phones but he got stuck with that job.

Xacnhto

]]> <![CDATA[CNet Scoring System Analyzed; 70% of all gadgets between 6.0 and 7.9]]> Where's the bell curve, useless statistics without it...

BensAngel

]]> <![CDATA[CNet Scoring System Analyzed; 70% of all gadgets between 6.0 and 7.9]]> Comment on CNet Scoring System Analyzed; 70% of all gadgets between 6.0 and 7.9 This also makes comparing reviews between sites very difficult. But I think that the number itself shouldn't be taken all that seriously, its the relative score that matters. How does a product score compared to others like it is what really matters. Unless of course you just want to buy something and you don't care what.

ShyamalAsina

]]> <![CDATA[CNet Scoring System Analyzed; 70% of all gadgets between 6.0 and 7.9]]> I really think they should adopt a similar rating system to what the big brokerages use for recommending (or not) stocks. They usually have one of three ratings, Buy, Sell or Hold (or some variation thereof). Cnet could do something similar. How about Buy, Don't Buy or Wait for V2.0?

theoldwolf

]]> <![CDATA[CNet Scoring System Analyzed; 70% of all gadgets between 6.0 and 7.9]]> That makes sense - most products big enough to be reviewed range from decent to pretty good as far as most people who look at them will say. Rarely is any product the ultimate everyone-pleaser, and most products that are total crap are rare, and obvious enough you won't find them for sale at most places.

fuchikoma

]]> <![CDATA[CNet Scoring System Analyzed; 70% of all gadgets between 6.0 and 7.9]]> As for CNET and there absolutely, for sure, guaranteed virus and trojan free downloads, I rate them a smoking hole in the ground where their credibility crashed some time ago.

I'd also like to take this time to thank them for all the trojans and viri they tried to install on my system every time I was desperate or stupid enough to try and download something there.

Gary_7vn

]]> <![CDATA[CNet Scoring System Analyzed; 70% of all gadgets between 6.0 and 7.9]]> @Don Is: Cheap shot. I don't think any one has any grounds accusing CNet gadget reviewers of being anything but honest.

Brian Lam

]]> <![CDATA[CNet Scoring System Analyzed; 70% of all gadgets between 6.0 and 7.9]]> @bandit: Great point.

Brian Lam

]]> <![CDATA[CNet Scoring System Analyzed; 70% of all gadgets between 6.0 and 7.9]]> Well, if you're expecting a wider gaussian distribution, I doubt that's going to happen. It simply means that most companies have decent QA, some with superior QA, and some with shitty QA.

dagamer34

]]> <![CDATA[CNet Scoring System Analyzed; 70% of all gadgets between 6.0 and 7.9]]> I rate this article at 7.9. Please send my cheque to the usual address.

Gary_7vn

]]> <![CDATA[CNet Scoring System Analyzed; 70% of all gadgets between 6.0 and 7.9]]> Not all that surprising. As someone who has an unhealthy gadget fetish (as just about everyone who surfs giz)i still think that there site is invaluable. Sure there reviews aren't always spot on but they're still relatively objective. Moreover, and most importantly, the 'reader reviews' are typically where you find the goods. I spend at least 20mins going through them for all my big purchases. Usually, the readers are even more objective. Or, just out of there minds. In any case, I've yet to be disappointed.

r.p.goodfellow

]]> <![CDATA[CNet Scoring System Analyzed; 70% of all gadgets between 6.0 and 7.9]]> This is pretty typical of most review sites. Regardless of what they say they rate on a grade scale. 60-70% is a D 70-80% a B and so on. In absolute terms most products do more right than wrong so this makes sense. However we really care how they rank in relation to each other, no absolute. I think a "5 star system" works better in gerneal. Sure its less granular, but I think reviews are more likely to give crap products 1 or two stars while the average is more around 3.

1roll20s

]]> <![CDATA[CNet Scoring System Analyzed; 70% of all gadgets between 6.0 and 7.9]]> I don't think thats any kind of bias, or reflective of a broken review system, but rather a reflection of the quality (or lack thereof) of consumer goods.

ibelli

]]> <![CDATA[CNet Scoring System Analyzed; 70% of all gadgets between 6.0 and 7.9]]> There is also selection bias in that CNET probably declines to review products that are pure junk, just like the Times Book Reviews don't review crappy books unless they are released by "big names." I'd be curious to know if the products between 5.0 and 8.9 fall into a natural curve. If so, I think you've got no legitimate complaint here. <4 =fail, 5=bad, 7=good, 8.5=great. Now go play.

bandit

]]> <![CDATA[CNet Scoring System Analyzed; 70% of all gadgets between 6.0 and 7.9]]> I've never trusted reviews from Cnet, ESPECIALLY after the Gamespot's firing of Jeff Gerstmann because of his "truly honest" review. Their advertising team is intimately connected to their reviewers.

I chuckle every time a DirectTV commercial is on, touting their DVR as "better than TiVo according to Cnet dot com." Money talks, and can buy a good review (or supress a bad one) at Cnet and Gamespot.

rdldr1

]]> <![CDATA[CNet Scoring System Analyzed; 70% of all gadgets between 6.0 and 7.9]]> Ignore the score.
It isn't going to take that much more time to read the text below the score, and you'll get a much better idea the pluses and minuses of the product.

dry-roasted-peanuts

]]> <![CDATA[CNet Scoring System Analyzed; 70% of all gadgets between 6.0 and 7.9]]> Sadly, this is the kind of chart that makes CNet's advertisers jiz their pants.

Don Is

]]> <![CDATA[CNet Scoring System Analyzed; 70% of all gadgets between 6.0 and 7.9]]> Do you change the scale to represent the high quality of products out there today, or do you simply allow products to all score in the same general range?

The reason to change the scale is that, if everything scores between 5 and 8.9, that means that a seemingly small difference (7 versus 7.5) is actually over twice as large as it seems in the metrics.

The reason to not change the scale is that CNet relies on advertising to pay the bills, and this rating system makes everyone happy (more or less), even if it is less useful to their target audience.

Yes, I have over-analyzed something that nearly everyone concluded immediately will never be changed.

Monty

]]> <![CDATA[CNet Scoring System Analyzed; 70% of all gadgets between 6.0 and 7.9]]> its like figure skating. maybe the scores are high because most products that make it to the market are actually reasonably capable of accomplishing the necessary tasks.

mac_tanaguchi

]]>