I never said it's entirely dependent on the quantity. My original point was related to buyer satisfaction in relation to ratings:
If buyer ratings are any indication, it would seem the majority of those who bought a Blackwidow from a site like Amazon, for example, are fairly satisfied.
Buyer ratings being an indication involve observing the quantity of interviews and drawing an indication from them. They depend on quantity, i.e. the median that you tried to draw from two reviews earlier. Not sure how else to explain that to you.
Perhaps you forgot the clarification regarding corroboration via other sources. Regardless, drawing general conclusions from aggregates of ratings is risky business you say? Well, I say so are blind studies (depending on who's funding them) yet you appeal to those, as well. I'll repeat what I stated at the bottom of this post:
In my opinion, most people aren't expecting to reach the level of certainty you seem to imply is necessary in order to arrive at a reasonable conclusion or buying decision. People on this very forum make some of their buying decisions based on reviews from others that are sometimes nothing more than primarily subjective impressions, yet I don't know anyone here who has a problem with that. I'm not sure if you have a problem with it, but for the sake of being logically consistent, I would think so.
Well, you've stated that a popular discussion with Razer products is its failure rate. Do those who hold such discussions accurately represent the people who've purchased a Blackwidow, for example?
I never said they did and that question is neither here nor there. It has nothing to do with your faulty process of product assessment.
The question was relevant, whether you understand why or not. It pertains to the standards you've applied to my process of assessment (termed faulty) while ignoring your own in relation to Razer's keyboard failure rate. Frankly, who cares whether there's 'popular' discussion of failure rates of Razer products? What was your point? That because some people discuss the failure rate of Razer products that there's some sort of correlation between their complaints and the PCB / soldering quality of their hardware? I'm curious. Perhaps the failure rate of Razer products aren't as prevalent as some people around here presume? Perhaps the failure rate is no worse than that of Filco or Rosewill? It's hard to tell because the people who complain wouldn't be a representative sample, you know?
If you don't understand the point I'm making here, well then, you can simply skip this reply. I don't know what to tell you.
Well, anyone who owns a Blackwidow can write a review on Amazon at any time, regardless whether they purchased the keyboard through Amazon or not. You or anyone else who has an axe to grind with that keyboard has the option of not only updating their review at some later date, but writing a new one. Is there such an outlet for Mazda RX-8 owners other than forums?
There are plenty of user-submitted car reviews on youtube and automotive sites other than forums. Not sure why that is so far-fetched. Sorry that you can't find them on Amazon
Find what on Amazon, reviews for cars like the Mazda RX-8 or what?
If there are plenty of user-submitted car reviews on YouTube for the Mazda RX-8 (which is what you were referring to) then time sensitivity is really a non-issue, just as it's a non-issue with Blackwidow reviews.
That wouldn't explain the numerous YouTube videos and countless tech reviews extolling Blackwidows.
Lack of exhaustive explanation does not refute my statement, the argument still stands.
Lack of exhaustive explanation? Right. You can stand by your argument. I'll stand by mine. We can agree to disagree. I'll make it simple.
Why not simply explain that rather than make statements that strongly imply something else?
Idk how that implies something else. I want to focus on the product. Thus I post an up-close picture of the product.
Well, I'm sorry that you don't understand how that implies something else. Do I really need to explain that when someone asks 'who cares about X?' that it generally implies that said person doesn't care about X themselves? It's a simple, common presumption.
Based on your previous comments, what reason would anyone have to believe that you weren't empirically oriented and put relatively little to no emphasis on subjective data? There's a difference between constructing straw men and making a reasonable assumption based on what has (and has not) been stated.
All ad hominem non-productive conversation here. Why do you have to classify someone as emperically-oriented or subjectively-oriented? It's neither here nor there, but since you want to know so much, I believe in a balance of the two. My subtext has been "Aestheticist" for as long as I can remember, that might be a good clue for any anti-empirical propaganda.
Ah, I see, so clarifying a distinction is an ad hominem attack. Okay. Do you want to define ad hominem or shall I? There's nothing remotely ad hominem about it. What does your stance on empirical evidence have to do with your character?
Further, I don't 'have' to do anything, much less classify you, as you seem to think I want to do. Frankly, I could care less what your orientation is, be it empirical or otherwise, extraneous to the context of this discussion, that is. I wasn't trying to clarify because I'm just so curious about you. You stated that I claimed you limited yourself to objectivity, and I was responding by asking what reason anyone would have to assume otherwise based on your previous comments(which I quoted)? Now you want to claim it's irrelevant? The only reason it was brought up in the first place is because you made numerous comments that elicited that impression.
But regardless of my epistemological-orientation, my argument still stands.
Ah, okay. I see. Well, so does mine then. I mean, if that's all it takes for an argument to stand, count me in.
The point was simple. You called the sampling pool of Amazon's reviews into question. Would you do the same for reviews on this site based on the same grounds(ie. they don't accurately represent the people who've purchased the product)?
More ad hominem arguments. Has nothing to do with the topic.
Questioning the consistency of your logic is an attack on your character now? No, sorry. Again, if you don't understand how the question pertains to the topic, I don't know what to tell you. You're free to ignore the question if you feel it's irrelevant, though.
You asserted that I made a claim regarding the emphasis you put on quantifiable data, yet when asked you refuse to clarify. Okay.
More ad hominem, has nothing to do with original topic.
Another serious misuse of the term. The proper fallacy would be 'red herring', though that doesn't apply either. Just because you fail to understand the correlation between the question as it applies within the context of the original frame of the topic doesn't make it irrelevant, sorry. If you don't understand the relation, I won't bother explaining, per my previous attempts.
Did you bother to read the full reply with quoted text or did you simply read my portion and assume it was pointless? If you can't understand what I was responding to and why, frankly, I don't know what to tell you. It's pointless to keep explaining myself when you refuse to follow the context of the reply.
It was pointless. Studies are not necessarily reliable. If they were they would be laws of physics and not studies. But why do we need to know this obvious piece of information? Not sure, that's on you.
Probably because you originally implied it.
Did you not read my reference to corroborating evidence via other reputable sources as a source of confirmation?
I did read it. You are avoiding my argument. Amazon reviews, tech site reviews, youtube reviews, infinitely _reputable_ reviews. It doesn't matter, my argument still stands. Drawing general conclusions from "aggregates" of ratings in reviews is still a risky business.
Blind studies are risky business too (depending on whose funding them) but you appeal to those, as well. In my opinion, most people aren't expecting to reach the level of certainty you seem to imply is necessary in order to arrive at a reasonable conclusion.