I went back to a Black Widow, what!?

[Lastpilot]

It stands to reason it could be a contributing factor, but if it were exceedingly high, what reason would I have to believe it wouldn't be reflected in a vast number of reviews, not just on Amazon, but YouTube, tech sites, etc.? From what I can see, most of the people who are complaining seem to be in the minority.

And here lies the proof that you are unaware of problems associated with assessing products solely from online reviews.

As I've stated before:

"-I'm not even talking about minorities or majorities. I have already made my point clear that the people who write reviews do not necessarily nor accurately represent the people who have bought the product. They are different statistical pools. That would be a good reason.

-Example: Product recalls. The Mazda RX-8 underwent recalls because of improperly installed seals that would result in engine failure. However, there are few product reviews that show this because the people who did reviews did so within a short amount of time of owning it. The fact that most reviews are time-sensitive causes reviews to be farther from an actual representation of product experience.

-Even if you don't accept that, there are companies that exist where they require their employees to write positive reviews on their own products. Another good reason."

[Lastpilot]

"To put it another way, I never claimed Amazon reviews were without fault. I never claimed they were perfect. In effect, I never claimed they conformed to any sort of scientific standard. Apparently you were under the impression I thought Amazon reviews didn't have problems, which I assume is why you invoked the suggestion that they don't rise to the level of blind studies. Why else?"

You misunderstand my criticism. I do not criticize the reviews themselves, I criticize the way you use the sum/median/mean of the reviews as an assessment tool.

[cherpalla]

Yes, because that's what I was referring to regarding my original sentiments related to reviews which you replied to out of context. My original comment regarding Amazon reviews was directed at cherpalla, not you. In terms of reliability and Amazon reviews though, anyone can write a review at any time and they don't even have to have purchased the product from Amazon. Thus, if people were having major reliability issues, what reason would I have to believe it wouldn't be reflected in said reviews?

It is reflected in said reviews. Did you even read them? Plenty of the 4+ star reviews also talk about product failure and on-arrival defects.

[Lastpilot]

How much weight do you put on empirical vs. subjective / experiential data? Your comments seem to indicate that you're primarily focused on empirical data.

Good job ignoring your entire argument against nobody, then proceeding to ask leading questions that will get us nowhere. Who cares where I put weight on what, that's not what I'm questioning. That's not part of the topic. I'm questioning the idea of using the the sum/median/mean of the reviews as an assessment tool.

You injected the notion that blind studies help reduce bias. I was pointing out that they're not necessarily reliable. That's it and that's all.

You are pointing out the obvious for no reason. I'm not even sure of the purpose of your reply. Studies are never "necessarily reliable". That's why they are studies. But blind studies can help reduce bias and can make something more likely to be reliable.

To put it another way, I never claimed Amazon reviews were without fault. I never claimed they were perfect. In effect, I never claimed they conformed to any sort of scientific standard. Apparently you were under the impression I thought Amazon reviews didn't have problems, which I assume is why you invoked the suggestion that they don't rise to the level of blind studies. Why else?

I am under the impression that you fail to grasp the fallacies that you assume when you use the quantity of reviews as an assessment tool. I have quoted and outlined this in reply #150 to this topic. You have already indirectly admitted that you do not understand why # of reviews can not be reliable.

[Lastpilot]

Yes, because that's what I was referring to regarding my original sentiments related to reviews which you replied to out of context. My original comment regarding Amazon reviews was directed at cherpalla, not you. In terms of reliability and Amazon reviews though, anyone can write a review at any time and they don't even have to have purchased the product from Amazon. Thus, if people were having major reliability issues, what reason would I have to believe it wouldn't be reflected in said reviews?

It is reflected in said reviews. Did you even read them? Plenty of the 4+ star reviews also talk about product failure and on-arrival defects.

+1

EXACTLY. This is EXACTLY what I meant when I said " The fact that a review is positive or negative is not as important as why that review was positive or negative; that is where the useful data comes in"

[1391406]

"Obviously it's useful for those interested in what others think, otherwise no one would bother to read or write those reviews. That it's not useful for you is a personal preference and I can respect that."
-I am talking about quantity of reviews, not the reviews themselves. The usefulness of the reviews is not solely dependent on the quantity of reviews. Worst case scenario, you can have a million reviews and not learn anything from them.

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.

"It stands to reason it could be a contributing factor, but if it were exceedingly high, what reason would I have to believe it wouldn't be reflected in a vast number of reviews, not just on Amazon, but YouTube, tech sites, etc.? From what I can see, most of the people who are complaining seem to be in the minority."
-I'm not even talking about minorities or majorities. I have already made my point clear that the people who write reviews do not necessarily nor accurately represent the people who have bought the product. They are different statistical pools. That would be a good reason.

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?

-Example: Product recalls. The Mazda RX-8 underwent recalls because of improperly installed seals that would result in engine failure. However, there are no product reviews that show this because the people who did reviews did so within a short amount of time of owning it. The fact that most reviews are time-sensitive causes reviews to be farther from an actual representation of product experience.

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?

-Even if you don't accept that, there are companies that exist where they require their employees to write positive reviews on their own products. Another good reason.

That wouldn't explain the numerous YouTube videos and countless tech reviews extolling Blackwidows.

Hell, when I posted that picture I'm was not even talking about the flaws of counting reviews, I was simply showing the product and making a hypothesis. Again you are arguing against points I have never made, while at the same time ignoring my prior arguments.

It would be nice if you'd quote me rather than making claims without proper reference.

""Who cares about reviews? Just take a take a picture and look at the quality of the PCB that the Black Widow uses and it's done."?
-This does not mean I do not care about reviews, I just feel that there may be more important issues at hand then the reviews themselves. Like the actual product.

Why not simply explain that rather than make statements that strongly imply something else?

-"insert my objective quotes"
Simply because I cite objectivity is NOT the same as limiting myself to it. I am simply bringing these facts into attention because I feel that they are important. Of course there non-quantifiable aspects of a review; I never refuted that fact, nor did I ever deny it. Again you are arguing points I have never made.

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.

"Comments such as the aforementioned tend to imply that your primary focus is on data that is quantifiable / empirical. I never claimed that you wanted to invoke a scientific standard, however. I did state that I never claimed Amazon reviews were based on some sort of scientific standard, and I also asked how many members here invoke double blind studies in their reviews, that is since you called the sampling pool of Amazon's reviews into question."
-Invoking a blind study inside a geekhack review has nothing to do with citing pools of amazon reviews. I'm not sure how your question pertains to anything regarding the Black Widow.

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)?

[1391406]

Yes, because that's what I was referring to regarding my original sentiments related to reviews which you replied to out of context. My original comment regarding Amazon reviews was directed at cherpalla, not you. In terms of reliability and Amazon reviews though, anyone can write a review at any time and they don't even have to have purchased the product from Amazon. Thus, if people were having major reliability issues, what reason would I have to believe it wouldn't be reflected in said reviews?

It is reflected in said reviews. Did you even read them? Plenty of the 4+ star reviews also talk about product failure and on-arrival defects.

Most of them discuss things like a sticky key or USB port sensitivity, yet claim that they love the keyboard otherwise, hence the 4 star rating. That said, have you perused the 427 five star ratings of the Blackwidow Ultimate?, which represent the vast majority of buyers?

[cherpalla]

Yes, because that's what I was referring to regarding my original sentiments related to reviews which you replied to out of context. My original comment regarding Amazon reviews was directed at cherpalla, not you. In terms of reliability and Amazon reviews though, anyone can write a review at any time and they don't even have to have purchased the product from Amazon. Thus, if people were having major reliability issues, what reason would I have to believe it wouldn't be reflected in said reviews?

It is reflected in said reviews. Did you even read them? Plenty of the 4+ star reviews also talk about product failure and on-arrival defects.

Most of them discuss things like a sticky key or USB port sensitivity, yet claim that they love the keyboard otherwise, hence the 4 star rating. That said, have you perused the 427 five star ratings of the Blackwidow Ultimate?, which represent the vast majority of buyers?

The first 5 star review I see other than  "I love it" on the 2013 model you linked (we were discussing the 2014 model, not sure why you would link the one without the proprietary switches???)

"Comfortable and Cool!
By Sushi Boyon August 29, 2014
Style Name: UltimateVerified Purchase
The keyboard works fine and it is comfortable to type and cool!
I bought 2013 model, although 2014 model is in the market. The reason is cherry keys seem more reliable than razer's original key manufactured by unknown Chinese company. Also except keys no major differences."

The first review that isn't a first impression review:

"1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
5 months and some keys not working
By Cecilia Ruiz Huidobroon May 18, 2014
Style Name: Ultimate Battlefield 4Verified Purchase
I got this for my son as a Christmas present and its been about 5 months and he says some keys on the keyboard are nor working well. I don't see the warranty information or how to make a claim!"

But again, I find this data irrelevant to our discussion since we are specifically discussing the newest model with their own Cherry MX dupes. In general, from what I've observed in customer service, is that customers will only subtract 1 star for various defects we've described, and will not subtract any more than that (and may possibly add that star back) if customer support handles the defect quickly and with great regard to the customer. I consider 4 stars and below on Amazon to be something I won't buy. There are way too many 4.5+ star products that indicate I'll have better luck in getting something that isn't going to fall apart on me.

I stand by that, 100%, and I've been on Amazon since they opened their doors in my home town.

[1391406]

How much weight do you put on empirical vs. subjective / experiential data? Your comments seem to indicate that you're primarily focused on empirical data.

Good job ignoring your entire argument against nobody, then proceeding to ask leading questions that will get us nowhere. Who cares where I put weight on what, that's not what I'm questioning. That's not part of the topic. I'm questioning the idea of using the the sum/median/mean of the reviews as an assessment tool.

You asserted that I made a claim regarding the emphasis you put on quantifiable data, yet when asked you refuse to clarify. Okay.

You injected the notion that blind studies help reduce bias. I was pointing out that they're not necessarily reliable. That's it and that's all.

You are pointing out the obvious for no reason. I'm not even sure of the purpose of your reply. Studies are never "necessarily reliable". That's why they are studies. But blind studies can help reduce bias and can make something more likely to be reliable.

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.

To put it another way, I never claimed Amazon reviews were without fault. I never claimed they were perfect. In effect, I never claimed they conformed to any sort of scientific standard. Apparently you were under the impression I thought Amazon reviews didn't have problems, which I assume is why you invoked the suggestion that they don't rise to the level of blind studies. Why else?

I am under the impression that you fail to grasp the fallacies that you assume when you use the quantity of reviews as an assessment tool. I have quoted and outlined this in reply #150 to this topic. You have already indirectly admitted that you do not understand why # of reviews can not be reliable.

Did you not read my reference to corroborating evidence via other reputable sources as a source of confirmation?

[1391406]

The first 5 star review I see other than  "I love it" on the 2013 model you linked (we were discussing the 2014 model, not sure why you would link the one without the proprietary switches???)

So you were you referring to the 2014 model when you replied with:

"You can check other forums for complaints about Razer products as well, it's certainly not limited to GHers."

But again, I find this data irrelevant to our discussion since we are specifically discussing the newest model with their own Cherry MX dupes.

My original comment was in reference to the above, and you weren't specifically referencing the latest Blackwidow, nor was I.

In general, from what I've observed in customer service, is that customers will only subtract 1 star for various defects we've described, and will not subtract any more than that (and may possibly add that star back) if customer support handles the defect quickly and with great regard to the customer. I consider 4 stars and below on Amazon to be something I won't buy. There are way too many 4.5+ star products that indicate I'll have better luck in getting something that isn't going to fall apart on me.

Well, that's your personal preference and I can respect that. Whether you would buy it or not is irrelevant, in my opinion. The original point is that 4 out of 5 stars would typically represent a satisfied customer.

[Lastpilot]

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.

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.

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 :[

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.

It would be nice if you'd quote me rather than making claims without proper reference.

Or you could just go back and read the next two posts that you directed to me after I posted that picture. But since you asked nicely here you go:

vvvvvvvvvv

Not all keyboard enthusiasts value the same qualities equally. Further, the ratings I originally posted were simply to show that the average consumer is generally satisfied with Razer's Blackwidow(which pertains to the topic of the thread). As such, the reviews simply represent a consensus, and if the mean result ordains that a product is "good", it simply presents a likelihood proposition to the next consumer that they will have a similar opinion or experience with it. Whether you or anyone else considers a keyboard (such as the BW) bad because it doesn't retain attributes you associate with a quality keyboard can be a bit subjective, in my opinion.

^^^^^^^^

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.

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.

But regardless of my epistemological-orientation, my argument still stands.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Lastpilot]

It's gotten to the point where many of your replies are simply ad hominem and do not contribute to the topic. Since you are so curious about my opinions I would probably associate your posts with the Dunning-Kruger effect.

I've already proved one of my main points citing your own words as evidence. There is nothing left to discuss.

[cherpalla]

The first 5 star review I see other than  "I love it" on the 2013 model you linked (we were discussing the 2014 model, not sure why you would link the one without the proprietary switches???)

So you were you referring to the 2014 model when you replied with:

"You can check other forums for complaints about Razer products as well, it's certainly not limited to GHers."

But again, I find this data irrelevant to our discussion since we are specifically discussing the newest model with their own Cherry MX dupes.

My original comment was in reference to the above, and you weren't specifically referencing the latest Blackwidow, nor was I.

In general, from what I've observed in customer service, is that customers will only subtract 1 star for various defects we've described, and will not subtract any more than that (and may possibly add that star back) if customer support handles the defect quickly and with great regard to the customer. I consider 4 stars and below on Amazon to be something I won't buy. There are way too many 4.5+ star products that indicate I'll have better luck in getting something that isn't going to fall apart on me.

Well, that's your personal preference and I can respect that. Whether you would buy it or not is irrelevant, in my opinion. The original point is that 4 out of 5 stars would typically represent a satisfied customer.

1. My comment was about why I don't choose to try new Razer products in general, including the new BW, and defending that I don't have any unfair bias and that I wasn't lying about my experience by showing that similar experiences are not limited to me nor GHers.

My conversation about the OT - being the question of whether or not the new BlackWidow and its proprietary Chinese Cherry MX dupes are equal or greater quality, and thus dependability, than other higher-end boards and switches, would be limited to the 2014 model.

2. Sure, but not an overwhelmingly satisfied customer, which would be 4.5-5. Which is what I said to begin with. As I said before, it would need to be a 4.5 or greater to catch my attention, mostly because it is the general public, but also because I'm not looking for "Above Average" products that cost hundreds of dollars.

[1391406]

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.

[1391406]

The first 5 star review I see other than  "I love it" on the 2013 model you linked (we were discussing the 2014 model, not sure why you would link the one without the proprietary switches???)

So you were you referring to the 2014 model when you replied with:

"You can check other forums for complaints about Razer products as well, it's certainly not limited to GHers."

But again, I find this data irrelevant to our discussion since we are specifically discussing the newest model with their own Cherry MX dupes.

My original comment was in reference to the above, and you weren't specifically referencing the latest Blackwidow, nor was I.

In general, from what I've observed in customer service, is that customers will only subtract 1 star for various defects we've described, and will not subtract any more than that (and may possibly add that star back) if customer support handles the defect quickly and with great regard to the customer. I consider 4 stars and below on Amazon to be something I won't buy. There are way too many 4.5+ star products that indicate I'll have better luck in getting something that isn't going to fall apart on me.

Well, that's your personal preference and I can respect that. Whether you would buy it or not is irrelevant, in my opinion. The original point is that 4 out of 5 stars would typically represent a satisfied customer.

1. My comment was about why I don't choose to try new Razer products in general, including the new BW, and defending that I don't have any unfair bias and that I wasn't lying about my experience by showing that similar experiences are not limited to me nor GHers.

Everyone who commented in the quote tree I originally responded to wasn't strictly referring to the new BW model exclusively, either. The Kraken and Dethadder were both being discussed.

2. Sure, but not an overwhelmingly satisfied customer, which would be 4.5-5. Which is what I said to begin with. As I said before, it would need to be a 4.5 or greater to catch my attention, mostly because it is the general public, but also because I'm not looking for "Above Average" products that cost hundreds of dollars.

My original comment referenced the majority. However, I'd still consider 143 five star ratings and 35 four star ratings (178 overall ratings) overwhelming positive compared to the combined 49 one, two, and three star ratings. Absolutely.

Amazon considers their top rated products to be their best, thus I can only assume they believe those products have met with overwhelming approval. Check the list and you'll find that a number of them are rated 4 stars.

[Lastpilot]

"An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. "

Ad hominem = It has to do you your irrelevant replies about me personally. It has nothing to do with my character. Sorry bro.

You are presenting ad hominem arguments because your replies consist of questions of my personal opinion, when that is neither here nor there AKA irrelevant. You continue to harp on about how I would approach product review assessment which is also neither here nor there. My argument was about assessing the flaws in your product assessment procedure, it was never intended to provide a replacement. I just thought people should know better than to blindly look at sum/median/mean of product reviews. THATS IT. Look at my main points I made a freaking 3-point outline for you in reply #142.


----
Not many reviews here are based on "primarily subjective impressions". There are many objective factors such as layout, budget and OS compatibility which play a major role in reviews here. Look at any "what keyboard should I buy" thread and you will see someone mention budget. No amount of subjectivity will get around that.

I already told you my point about the picture. It was my emphasis on evaluating the product itself rather than evaluating numerical review patterns. The picture is more supportive of failure rate claims than #'s of reviews because it reveals production process flaws. Plain english.

Time sensitivity is an issue with RX-8 reviews, please re-read my example. My example remains untouched by your reply and still remains extendable to the black widow.

"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."
-Once again I am taken out of context. I said 'who cares about X' and presented an alternative; the picture. The common presumption to make here is "picture > X". It would be foolish to assume "picture > X in all possible situations" and that I am literally making an exhaustive claim when I ask who cares about X.

"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."
-Again please refer to reply #150 of my post where I show exactly how your words prove my argument.

Questions about my "emphasis" on certain data is still ad-hominem because it in no way relates to the point I have already proven. It just baits me into assessing my own objectivity. What does that have to do with the problems of drawing general conclusions from aggregates of ratings? I'm glad you can recognize when I make an emphasis. Now all you have to do is recognize what my argument is and how it has been proven in reply #150 of this topic. While your at it please look at my outline in reply #142; as you have yet to reply to that.

"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."
-Again, I am not appealing to blind studies as a possible alternative to your process of product assessment. You misunderstand me more. I am using blind studies as an example of a factor that exposes a flaw in your process.
-Again you fail to argue against my argument but offer ad hominem statments instead citing what I appeal to instead of defending yourself. Then you assume that I am actually trying to reach a level of certainty. That is not my point at all. I even made a 3-point outline of my points, I'm not sure how to make it more simple. Again refer post #142. My point is that you are drawing data by only asking "how many/how much" instead of "why."

"Probably because you originally implied it."
I clarified to you why your aggregation was not a randomized sample. You were the one that brought up the "necessary reliability" of studies as a response.
----



Congratulations!
You have still yet to attack my actual stance, while at the same time embarrassing yourself with more ad hominem arguments. Please continue; as at this point it has become a point of entertainment for me.

[DuckNorris]

Note to self, never make a BlackWidow or Razer related post on Geeckhack.

Next post whenever I get a HHKB if ever down the road maybe things won't turn out this way xD. I am not mad or anything, just woah haha.

[rowdy]

This thread so reminds me what the internet is really about.

Thanks guys

[cherpalla]

The first 5 star review I see other than  "I love it" on the 2013 model you linked (we were discussing the 2014 model, not sure why you would link the one without the proprietary switches???)

So you were you referring to the 2014 model when you replied with:

"You can check other forums for complaints about Razer products as well, it's certainly not limited to GHers."

But again, I find this data irrelevant to our discussion since we are specifically discussing the newest model with their own Cherry MX dupes.

My original comment was in reference to the above, and you weren't specifically referencing the latest Blackwidow, nor was I.

In general, from what I've observed in customer service, is that customers will only subtract 1 star for various defects we've described, and will not subtract any more than that (and may possibly add that star back) if customer support handles the defect quickly and with great regard to the customer. I consider 4 stars and below on Amazon to be something I won't buy. There are way too many 4.5+ star products that indicate I'll have better luck in getting something that isn't going to fall apart on me.

Well, that's your personal preference and I can respect that. Whether you would buy it or not is irrelevant, in my opinion. The original point is that 4 out of 5 stars would typically represent a satisfied customer.

1. My comment was about why I don't choose to try new Razer products in general, including the new BW, and defending that I don't have any unfair bias and that I wasn't lying about my experience by showing that similar experiences are not limited to me nor GHers.

Everyone who commented in the quote tree I originally responded to wasn't strictly referring to the new BW model exclusively, either. The Kraken and Dethadder were both being discussed.

2. Sure, but not an overwhelmingly satisfied customer, which would be 4.5-5. Which is what I said to begin with. As I said before, it would need to be a 4.5 or greater to catch my attention, mostly because it is the general public, but also because I'm not looking for "Above Average" products that cost hundreds of dollars.

My original comment referenced the majority. However, I'd still consider 143 five star ratings and 35 four star ratings (178 overall ratings) overwhelming positive compared to the combined 49 one, two, and three star ratings. Absolutely.

Amazon considers their top rated products to be their best, thus I can only assume they believe those products have met with overwhelming approval. Check the list and you'll find that a number of them are rated 4 stars.

We, again, were explaining our experiences with other Razer products, defending that we did in fact have these problems as others have experienced them as well. Referencing other products to explain the experience with the company is not the same as specifically targeting the reviews to analyze them. Do you get it?   

Given that I just explained to you how I chose the words I did, and what I meant by them, I really could give a **** about what you feel is overwhelmingly positive. Overwhelmingly positive to me is an overwhelmingly high number of 5 star ratings, leading to a 4.5 star or greater. Do you understand that I was the one who wrote that statement, not you, therefore I know what I was saying better than you? And then, given that I explained WHY I don't believe a 4 star review is stellar, even with mathematics and logic to explain it is simply "above average", even reading many of the reviews concerning defects which only subtracted one star, my conclusion is that the overall rating is simply "above average", and thus for me overwhelmingly is not a word I would choose to describe it. When you use the word "overwhelm" the intention is to add serious strength and power to the word it is modifying. When I said that, I should have just typed that only 62% of the reviewers on Amazon found the product to be excellent, and many of the "above average" and "excellent" scores reflect defects with the keyboard either on arrival or within one year of ownership, but wonderful customer service. Which to me, says a positive experience, but certainly not anything that would make me modify my language to infer it is fantastic and to give it a chance.

I'm sorry that in spite of the fact that I went into great detail to explain to you why I chose the words that I did, you still don't seem to get that I was the one who wrote the comment and so I dictate what it meant. I've now explained it again.

[1391406]

We, again, were explaining our experiences with other Razer products, defending that we did in fact have these problems as others have experienced them as well.

You stated, "I find this data irrelevant to our discussion since we are specifically discussing the newest model with their own Cherry MX dupes".

The fact is, most of the discussion in this thread hasn't been squarely focused on the latest BW. The vast majority of it has devolved into a discussion related to reliability of Razer's products in general. So when you sit there and say you were explaining your experiences with Razer products and defending that you had problems, stating that others have experienced them as well, that's exactly what I'm doing. Why you think it's any less relevant than claiming others have experienced problems as a way to validate the claim that Razer products are unrealiable is anyone's guess. The difference is I'm simply offering supporting evidence rather than anecdotal hearsay.

Referencing other products to explain the experience with the company is not the same as specifically targeting the reviews to analyze them.

What's your point? It's evidence to support a claim. That's what you do when you make a claim; you present evidence to bolster it. It's no less relevant than you stating that other Razer owners have also experienced problems in an effort to validate your claim that Razer products are prone to failure.

Given that I just explained to you how I chose the words I did, and what I meant by them, I really could give a **** about what you feel is overwhelmingly positive. Overwhelmingly positive to me is an overwhelmingly high number of 5 star ratings, leading to a 4.5 star or greater. Do you understand that I was the one who wrote that statement, not you, therefore I know what I was saying better than you?

This isn't about me not understanding with what you were saying. It's about me not AGREEING with your interpretation of the star rating satisfaction levels. If you're locked into your opinion and have no interest in debating it then we can simply agree to disagree and move on. There's no need for histrionics. Seriously.

And then, given that I explained WHY I don't believe a 4 star review is stellar, even with mathematics and logic to explain it is simply "above average", even reading many of the reviews concerning defects which only subtracted one star, my conclusion is that the overall rating is simply "above average", and thus for me overwhelmingly is not a word I would choose to describe it. When you use the word "overwhelm" the intention is to add serious strength and power to the word it is modifying. When I said that, I should have just typed that only 62% of the reviewers on Amazon found the product to be excellent, and many of the "above average" and "excellent" scores reflect defects with the keyboard either on arrival or within one year of ownership, but wonderful customer service. Which to me, says a positive experience, but certainly not anything that would make me modify my language to infer it is fantastic and to give it a chance.

Obviously you're entitled to your opinion. I disagree with it. I've explained why in detail, even citing the dictionary definition of the word overwhelmingly earlier in the thread as evidence to support my position. However, since you don't give a sh!t about that definition, we can simply agree to disagree.

I'm sorry that in spite of the fact that I went into great detail to explain to you why I chose the words that I did, you still don't seem to get that I was the one who wrote the comment and so I dictate what it meant. I've now explained it again.
[/quote]

[mikekey]

tl;dr

[cherpalla]

We, again, were explaining our experiences with other Razer products, defending that we did in fact have these problems as others have experienced them as well.

You stated, "I find this data irrelevant to our discussion since we are specifically discussing the newest model with their own Cherry MX dupes".

The fact is, most of the discussion in this thread hasn't been squarely focused on the latest BW. The vast majority of it has devolved into a discussion related to reliability of Razer's products in general. So when you sit there and say you were explaining your experiences with Razer products and defending that you had problems, stating that others have experienced them as well, that's exactly what I'm doing. Why you think it's any less relevant than claiming others have experienced problems as a way to validate the claim that Razer products are unrealiable is anyone's guess. The difference is I'm simply offering supporting evidence rather than anecdotal hearsay.

Referencing other products to explain the experience with the company is not the same as specifically targeting the reviews to analyze them.

What's your point? It's evidence to support a claim. That's what you do when you make a claim; you present evidence to bolster it. It's no less relevant than you stating that other Razer owners have also experienced problems in an effort to validate your claim that Razer products are prone to failure.

Given that I just explained to you how I chose the words I did, and what I meant by them, I really could give a **** about what you feel is overwhelmingly positive. Overwhelmingly positive to me is an overwhelmingly high number of 5 star ratings, leading to a 4.5 star or greater. Do you understand that I was the one who wrote that statement, not you, therefore I know what I was saying better than you?

This isn't about me not understanding with what you were saying. It's about me not AGREEING with your interpretation of the star rating satisfaction levels. If you're locked into your opinion and have no interest in debating it then we can simply agree to disagree and move on. There's no need for histrionics. Seriously.

And then, given that I explained WHY I don't believe a 4 star review is stellar, even with mathematics and logic to explain it is simply "above average", even reading many of the reviews concerning defects which only subtracted one star, my conclusion is that the overall rating is simply "above average", and thus for me overwhelmingly is not a word I would choose to describe it. When you use the word "overwhelm" the intention is to add serious strength and power to the word it is modifying. When I said that, I should have just typed that only 62% of the reviewers on Amazon found the product to be excellent, and many of the "above average" and "excellent" scores reflect defects with the keyboard either on arrival or within one year of ownership, but wonderful customer service. Which to me, says a positive experience, but certainly not anything that would make me modify my language to infer it is fantastic and to give it a chance.

Obviously you're entitled to your opinion. I disagree with it. I've explained why in detail, even citing the dictionary definition of the word overwhelmingly earlier in the thread as evidence to support my position. However, since you don't give a sh!t about that definition, we can simply agree to disagree.

I'm sorry that in spite of the fact that I went into great detail to explain to you why I chose the words that I did, you still don't seem to get that I was the one who wrote the comment and so I dictate what it meant. I've now explained it again.

[/quote]

1. I was talking about the current BW (the OT) when saying that I didn't feel that the response to this product was "overwhelmingly positive," and thus, would not be swayed to give them another shot with the new switches. So again, getting reviews from the 2013 model is irrelevant.

2. If you wanted to argue that the current BW was worth giving a shot, you would have argued any point that was relevant. You argued semantics of what I said, first with incorrect mathematics, then with irrelevant data from reviews on an old model (perhaps because there were more reviews than the newer one??). You would have compared products I have experience with (namely my most negative experience is with the Naga from 2011-2013) and the product in question (the 2014 BW with the new switches) to show that the expectation of this product having defects is much less likely than what I experienced with others.

3. You may not agree that 1 is poor, 2 is below average, 3 is average, 4 is above average and 5 is excellent, but hey, you can't teach everyone basic logic and arithmetic. Regardless, why would you want to change my interpretation of what is quality on the scale of 1-5? Did you even bother to look up the Amazon star rating of the products I, and almost everyone I know, had the exact same issue with, the Naga? I literally had 12 of them fall apart from the inside within one year. I tried 5 models. The Naga Molten edition, the Naga epic, the Naga Hex (green) and the MMOG. All of them had the same problem (falling apart from the inside), 7 of them also had right mouse button failure from daily MOBA playing. All of these are rated 4 stars on Amazon. Telling me the values of the scale in my perception are off doesn't even accomplish convincing me that the BW does not suffer from defects as often as the other products I've tried, given that according to reviewers, these items offer the same level of satisfaction, which for me, was garbage with good customer service to always replace the garbage for free.

I have no idea what you are trying to accomplish by arguing with me, since so far it just looks like you want to tell me my use of the term "overwhelmingly positive" was incorrect.

[epzy]

tl;dr

tl:dr yuck fou

[1391406]

"An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. "

Ad hominem = It has to do you your irrelevant replies about me personally. It has nothing to do with my character. Sorry bro.

Wrong:

Ad hominem: Marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

You are presenting ad hominem arguments because your replies consist of questions of my personal opinion, when that is neither here nor there AKA irrelevant.

An irrelevant comment is an ad hominem when it's not only irrelevant but accompanied by an attack on a persons character. I don't mind being called on a logical fallacy, but this one's baseless.

You continue to harp on about how I would approach product review assessment which is also neither here nor there. My argument was about assessing the flaws in your product assessment procedure, it was never intended to provide a replacement. I just thought people should know better than to blindly look at sum/median/mean of product reviews. THATS IT.

Did someone claim that people should only look blindly at the sum/median/mean of product reviews?

Not many reviews here are based on "primarily subjective impressions".

Did I say "totally subjective impressions" or "primarily subjective impressions"?

"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."
-Once again I am taken out of context. I said 'who cares about X' and presented an alternative; the picture. The common presumption to make here is "picture > X". It would be foolish to assume "picture > X in all possible situations" and that I am literally making an exhaustive claim when I ask who cares about X.

Your comment was obviously a response to my previous reply, the context of which wasn't strictly related to reliability. Thus, picture or no picture, I assumed your reply was within the context of my comment. My understanding at this point is that your comment and deference to the picture was in reference to the dependability of the product, but you simply muddied the waters originally by presuming I should know you were replying out of the context with which my comments were made.

"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."
-Again please refer to reply #150 of my post where I show exactly how your words prove my argument.

Your argument is simply that 'people who write reviews do not necessarily nor accurately represent the people who have bought the product'. The truth is, you don't know whether people who write reviews necessarily or accurately represent people who've purchased the product, thus the more apropos reply might be why take chances? That said, most people, including many of whom read reviews on this forum for example, aren't primarily concerned with whether the reviewer is necessarily representative of those who've purchased the product. In my opinion, they not only look at what's being said but how many people are saying it. I appreciate your intent, but your argument is irrelevant on a practical level.

Questions about my "emphasis" on certain data is still ad-hominem because it in no way relates to the point I have already proven. It just baits me into assessing my own objectivity. What does that have to do with the problems of drawing general conclusions from aggregates of ratings? I'm glad you can recognize when I make an emphasis. Now all you have to do is recognize what my argument is and how it has been proven in reply #150 of this topic.

Re-read the definition of ad hominem. (posted above)

Secondly, because you're either unable or unwilling to maintain the context with which many of my replies were made, I have no interest in continually writing a sequential compendium of our exchanges in an effort to edify you as to why they're relevant. Honestly, if you can't comprehend how they relate to the thrust of our discussion, I'm certainly not going to continue to hand-hold you through their relevance. Peruse them a bit more closely and look for the connecting context clues for all I care. I don't know what to tell you. I don't have all day to write CliffNotes in order to clarify their relevance.

"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."
-Again, I am not appealing to blind studies as a possible alternative to your process of product assessment. You misunderstand me more. I am using blind studies as an example of a factor that exposes a flaw in your process.

Obviously you were using blind studies to attempt to expose a flaw. I gathered that several replies ago. If the idea was to show how a certain method is flawed, why appeal to a method that itself is flawed and unreliable?

My point is that you are drawing data by only asking "how many/how much" instead of "why."

You've stated that "We don't care about the NUMBER of complaints; we care about what is CAUSING them."

The truth is, if only 10 out of the hundreds of thousands of Razer product owners complained, no one would care. So, yes, number of complaints matters. Would there be any cause for concern if only ½ a percent of all product owners were complaining?

[mikekey]

tl;dr

tl:dr yuck fou

Wow, nice community you have here.

[epzy]

tl;dr

tl:dr yuck fou

Wow, nice community you have here.

Wow, nice crybaby we have here.

[1391406]

1. I was talking about the current BW (the OT) when saying that I didn't feel that the response to this product was "overwhelmingly positive," and thus, would not be swayed to give them another shot with the new switches. So again, getting reviews from the 2013 model is irrelevant.

Please quote the relevant passage(s) you're responding to rather than leave them all in a cluster above your bullet points.

2. If you wanted to argue that the current BW was worth giving a shot [...]

Did I claim I was debating the current BW exclusively?

3. You may not agree that 1 is poor, 2 is below average, 3 is average, 4 is above average and 5 is excellent, but hey, you can't teach everyone basic logic and arithmetic.

Feel free to demonstrate how the interpretation of Amazon's rating scale is directly correlated with logic or arithmetic.

Regardless, why would you want to change my interpretation of what is quality on the scale of 1-5?

I've already stated that we can agree to disagree. Just because I don't agree with someone's opinion and give reasons for doing so doesn't automatically mean I care whether they change theirs opinion.

Did you even bother to look up the Amazon star rating of the products I, and almost everyone I know, had the exact same issue with, the Naga?

I clearly stated earlier in the thread that, "I singled out the Blackwidow specifically. I haven't spent much time looking at reviews for other products", namely because I've never owned any of them.

I literally had 12 of them fall apart from the inside within one year. I tried 5 models. The Naga Molten edition, the Naga epic, the Naga Hex (green) and the MMOG. All of them had the same problem (falling apart from the inside), 7 of them also had right mouse button failure from daily MOBA playing. All of these are rated 4 stars on Amazon. Telling me the values of the scale in my perception are off doesn't even accomplish convincing me that the BW does not suffer from defects as often as the other products I've tried, given that according to reviewers, these items offer the same level of satisfaction, which for me, was garbage with good customer service to always replace the garbage for free.

Just so you know, Amazon's rating for the Naga is at odds with other reputable sources. I've consistently clarified that I take other sources into account. Tom's Hardware, for instance.

I have no idea what you are trying to accomplish by arguing with me, since so far it just looks like you want to tell me my use of the term "overwhelmingly positive" was incorrect.

I don't agree with your interpretation. If I wanted to argue, I wouldn't have offered to agree to disagree. What part of that doesn't make sense to you?

[cherpalla]

1. I was talking about the current BW (the OT) when saying that I didn't feel that the response to this product was "overwhelmingly positive," and thus, would not be swayed to give them another shot with the new switches. So again, getting reviews from the 2013 model is irrelevant.

Please quote the relevant passage(s) you're responding to rather than leave them all in a cluster above your bullet points.

2. If you wanted to argue that the current BW was worth giving a shot [...]

Did I claim I was debating the current BW exclusively?

3. You may not agree that 1 is poor, 2 is below average, 3 is average, 4 is above average and 5 is excellent, but hey, you can't teach everyone basic logic and arithmetic.

Feel free to demonstrate how the interpretation of Amazon's rating scale is directly correlated with logic or arithmetic.

Regardless, why would you want to change my interpretation of what is quality on the scale of 1-5?

I've already stated that we can agree to disagree. Just because I don't agree with someone's opinion and give reasons for doing so doesn't automatically mean I care whether they change theirs opinion.

Did you even bother to look up the Amazon star rating of the products I, and almost everyone I know, had the exact same issue with, the Naga?

I clearly stated earlier in the thread that, "I singled out the Blackwidow specifically. I haven't spent much time looking at reviews for other products", namely because I've never owned any of them.

I literally had 12 of them fall apart from the inside within one year. I tried 5 models. The Naga Molten edition, the Naga epic, the Naga Hex (green) and the MMOG. All of them had the same problem (falling apart from the inside), 7 of them also had right mouse button failure from daily MOBA playing. All of these are rated 4 stars on Amazon. Telling me the values of the scale in my perception are off doesn't even accomplish convincing me that the BW does not suffer from defects as often as the other products I've tried, given that according to reviewers, these items offer the same level of satisfaction, which for me, was garbage with good customer service to always replace the garbage for free.

Just so you know, Amazon's rating for the Naga is at odds with other reputable sources. I've consistently clarified that I take other sources into account. Tom's Hardware, for instance.

I have no idea what you are trying to accomplish by arguing with me, since so far it just looks like you want to tell me my use of the term "overwhelmingly positive" was incorrect.

I don't agree with your interpretation. If I wanted to argue, I wouldn't have offered to agree to disagree. What part of that doesn't make sense to you?

You already did argue (and technically, you still are). Again, I don't care about your interpretation of a 5-point scale. Where does arithmetic come into interpreting said scale? You count the number of options, find the middle and give each point in the scale a meaningful value relative to what you are rating. If 3 is the average of the scale, we can easily come to what the others should be, relative to the knowledge that the mid-point should be an average product.

But to be quite honest with you, the statistical average is much higher than that as I've observed it, and after a little research, I've learned that the average rating for the Technology/Electronics is actually 4.2. With this knowledge, this skews the scale and makes anything below a 4.5 average or lower. There are the lowest number of 2 & 3 star reviews, in fact, while those tend to be the most valuable.

Anyway, I'm not sure why you responded to me in the first place at this point, since this entire exchange between us stemmed from my original comment that I didn't find this product's reviews to be any more stellar than the products I've used and apparently you didn't realize that or something.

I don't agree to disagree with you about Amazon's rating system, because quite frankly I think you are just trying to defend random points for no other reason than trying to win an argument. Nothing you've presented is cohesive in the least, and you don't even seem to know what the comment you originally responded to was pertaining to.

"I constantly take other sources into account." This would be a good statement, except for the fact that you never really talked about the products themselves, certainly not the BW in question, simply my interpretation of what a 4-star product is relative to other products on Amazon and pointing out that the 2013 model is rated 4 stars, also on Amazon. My take-away from a lot of forums is that the BW comes defected out of the box and also has issues almost as often as other products I've used. It feels more like the people who are most vocal have had problems with customer service (which I never had a problem with, they always responded quickly and replaced my peripherals almost as fast). Whether that is fewer people, the same or more, I have no idea, and since I'm sure that's data you haven't gathered either, you're of no help to prove that that is not the case.

And again, my issue with Razer is their Quality Control and Durability. A lot of people describe the BW to feel like "cheap plastic," but a superb experience when it comes to the feel of the depressing the keys in comparison to other . That doesn't exactly inspire confidence that this is better than the other **** that's fallen apart. Show me that these two items have improved with your research and I'll be glad to reconsider Razer. Until then, I still fail to see your purpose in arguing with me (earlier in this thread).

[Roibhilin]

did razer decide to do a viral marketing run on GH? this coincided with a "razer blackwidow love" thread

No, wtf?

I have owned like 4 different coolermaster keyboards and I think the only thing razer I own is this keyboard and a old mousepad of theirs. Past 4 keyboards coolermaster, before that corsair , a ducky, 2 original IBM model Ms, and such. I am not a razer fanboy as I have crap talked them for years before this but was impressed by this new stuff. Before this keyboard I would be back to recommending other keyboards. Just found a switch I liked.

I don't know the other dude with the love thread and I think I made this before him but not sure. My first posts here were regarding model Ms too, I have gone all over and was surprised I would ever like anything keyboard related by this company.

I'm really sorry I caused others to make such assumptions about you and for turning your thread in a direction you would never have intended it to turn. Only thing you and I have in common is we like razer orange switches. I too am surprised and was hesitant to try it because of all the criticisms against Kailhs being naturally inferior as they are chinese made not german.

Stick around and you'll see that elitekeyboards is the major benefactor of the hhkb pro 2 lovefest, the 'better-than-a-filco' KUL-es87, the  topre realforces, not to mention it is the official clack-factory outlet. They make out they are elite forms of rubber domes. And they have a hierarchy for those who have them depending on how much they spent on them. The in-group i guess including certain viral posters seem to love them some cup rubber like it makes their titties hard when they touch them. Go check out the KUL thread and see the review there and how it has suddenly been raised above the tried and true filco by some of these guys. The hype is well organized. They don't apply the same measure to Razer though. It's all "it might be good, but how do I know it won't break down?". Synapse I do agree is not so good and shouldn't be installed unless you want to. If keys start misbehaving the simple fix is to uninstall it. But, somehow they just know the KUL will outperform, outlast and offer a better keyboarding experience for noobs looking to get the next cool best keyboard cos it just feels so amazing - BETTER THAN A FILCO!

Well, I feel the same way about the razor orange switches. They feel so good, and like you, I've tried everything so why not maybe proclaim them as better than cherry mx? They are not the old Kailh - they are new and improved by Razer after all - just not sold at elitekeyboards.

edit: very aggressive viral marketing

[rowdy]

tl;dr

tl:dr yuck fou

Wow, nice community you have here.

Very few threads are as exciting as this one.  Please do not take this to be typical of GH.

[Lastpilot]

Sorry to be a debbie downer but I'm no longer participating in this discussion. This has probably been the worst online experience I've ever had, and I never thought it would be on Geekhack. I have continuously felt harassed and provoked while at the same time being led off topic by user 1394602. I've reported him for trolling and I'm ready to move on with my life.

Trolling can be defined as when a member posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent or consequence of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion

[saturnotaku]

Sorry to be a debbie downer but I'm no longer participating in this discussion. This has probably been the worst online experience I've ever had, and I never thought it would be on Geekhack. I have continuously felt harassed and provoked while at the same time being led off topic by user 1394602. I've reported him for trolling and I'm ready to move on with my life.

Screw it. Not worth the time I wasted.

[1391406]

You already did argue (and technically, you still are).

No offense, but why don't you quote relevant passages in a response?

Again, I don't care about your interpretation of a 5-point scale.

If you don't care, then why do you keep debating the issue? Seriously.

Where does arithmetic come into interpreting said scale? You count the number of options, find the middle and give each point in the scale a meaningful value relative to what you are rating. If 3 is the average of the scale, we can easily come to what the others should be, relative to the knowledge that the mid-point should be an average product.

Designating a meaningful value to each point on the scale is a completely subjective process. In fact, if there's any challenge in interpreting the ratings on a site like Amazon, it's due to that; reviewers aren't necessarily using the same interpretation of the points on a scale when rating a product. Thus, one persons 3 might be another persons 2. One buyers 4 may be another buyers 3.5. If you're going to debate this point, please cite a reputable source to back it up.

I don't agree to disagree with you about Amazon's rating system, because quite frankly I think you are just trying to defend random points for no other reason than trying to win an argument.

You realize that makes absolutely no sense, don't you? If I was insistent on defending random points simply to win an argument, I wouldn't have suggested or offered to agree to disagree.

Nothing you've presented is cohesive in the least.

I appreciate your opinion regarding my lack of cohesion in this discussion. It's been duly noted and filed at the bottom of the trash can.

"I constantly take other sources into account." This would be a good statement, except for the fact that you never really talked about the products themselves, certainly not the BW in question,

What you're actually admitting is that you missed my comment regarding my own Blackwidow.

My take-away from a lot of forums is that the BW comes defected out of the box and also has issues almost as often as other products I've used. It feels more like the people who are most vocal have had problems with customer service (which I never had a problem with, they always responded quickly and replaced my peripherals almost as fast). Whether that is fewer people, the same or more, I have no idea, and since I'm sure that's data you haven't gathered either, you're of no help to prove that that is not the case.

Exactly. That's _your_ impression. I already stated earlier in the thread that it's the people that have problems who are generally the most vocal(my opinion), thus it leaves the potentially lopsided impression that there are a lot of problems with Razer's keyboards in general. Whether that's actually true, I don't know, and I don't claim to know. I've maintained that if reviews are any indication, it seems most customers are fairly satisfied. Do I KNOW that most customers are satisfied? Did I ever CLAIM to know, for a fact, that most customers are satisfied? No. I'm basing the idea on the probability that if most customers weren't satisfied (ie. unhappy), I would tend to think they'd be more vocal in reviews, either on Amazon, Newegg, YouTube, tech site reviews, etc. The majority of reviews I read from the various aforementioned sources tend to reflect positively, if not extoll, the Blackwidow, both older and current models. If you don't agree with my position, then don't agree, however I've continued to defend that position for lack of convincing evidence otherwise.

And again, my issue with Razer is their Quality Control and Durability. A lot of people describe the BW to feel like "cheap plastic," but a superb experience when it comes to the feel of the depressing the keys in comparison to other . That doesn't exactly inspire confidence that this is better than the other **** that's fallen apart. Show me that these two items have improved with your research and I'll be glad to reconsider Razer. Until then, I still fail to see your purpose in arguing with me (earlier in this thread).

If you want to consider anecdotal evidence based on various feedback from God knows where as grounds for not buying their products, I say knock yourself out. Frankly, I don't care whether you buy any or all of their products. That's your business. As far as providing evidence to demonstrate that the quality of the hardware in the BW has improved, consider this. While not the latest BW, that's a teardown of the 2013 Blackwidow Ultimate Battlefield 3 Edition. Note the quality of the soldering and PCB.

The bottom line here is that you can believe whatever makes you feel good. If you want to believe Razer products are dogsh!t, knock yourself out. Based on everything I, personally, have read from various sources, I'm not willing to jump to that conclusion. That's me, though. If you don't agree, then don't agree.

[ynrozturk]

My experience with Razer products over the years have been very... average. The Deathadder is great. I currently use the Lachesis 5600 Refresh and while sometimes it likes to disconnect on it's own for no apparent reason, I like the look and feel of it a lot. And the extra buttons on the right side I love to death as I've assigned macro's to them.

I have the original Black Widow Tournament Edition, and I still like it. Hasn't given me any problems - just don't use Synapse or whatever the hell it's called, that's just terrible. But because I hate the branding and actually the logo and everything, I stripped the case off of it and just made it a bare bones board. It actually feels and sounds a lot better now. Replaced the caps on it too obviously. Looks like this :

[katushkin]

Well this took a pretty horrible turn...

The two Razer products I've ever bought are still going strong. My dad uses my 2011 Black Widow every day for work, and I still use my Razer Mamba even if it doesn't work wirelessley anymore. But pretty much from then on I've heard nothing but bad news about most of their products.

They have always been overpriced and over marketed, but they used to work pretty well. As for the new switches, I can't really comment on the Kalih family at all just yet, but I will be able to soon. I think they may have just developed the sliders and used everything else to be quieter or whatever.

[Polymer]

Exactly. That's _your_ impression. I already stated earlier in the thread that it's the people that have problems who are generally the most vocal(my opinion), thus it leaves the potentially lopsided impression that there are a lot of problems with Razer's keyboards in general. Whether that's actually true, I don't know, and I don't claim to know. I've maintained that if reviews are any indication, it seems most customers are fairly satisfied. Do I KNOW that most customers are satisfied? Did I ever CLAIM to know, for a fact, that most customers are satisfied? No. I'm basing the idea on the probability that if most customers weren't satisfied (ie. unhappy), I would tend to think they'd be more vocal in reviews, either on Amazon, Newegg, YouTube, tech site reviews, etc. The majority of reviews I read from the various aforementioned sources tend to reflect positively, if not extoll, the Blackwidow, both older and current models. If you don't agree with my position, then don't agree, however I've continued to defend that position for lack of convincing evidence otherwise.

Everyone will interpret it differently but....When you're looking to buy a product and you see the number of reviews for a newly released item...If you saw the BW 2014 numbers on Amazon, you wouldn't think anything of it?  Forget about what you know about the product...For me, 15% 1-2 stars on a newly release product is a big warning sign.  Now granted, some of them are just lame reasons to mark it down, but even when you look at some of the better reviews, they comment on it...on a NEW product.  So we can assume these people haven't gotten to the 1 year mark or so where they're still expecting the product to last but it hasn't..these are just the DOA or near DOA type issues...

To you what is a more significant assessment of the keyboard?  The 5 star person that said "LEDS WOWOWOW" or the 2 star or 3 star person that is explaining what issues they've had?

I have no doubt Razer's quality on their mech keyboards is better today than it was a few years ago...but a lot of people have had issues in the past and that isn't so easily forgotten...and really, unless you specifically want a gaming keyboard with all of the extra features, is that really the keyboard you want?

[tp4tissue]

IDK why you guys keep arguing..

Razer has been and continues to be a crummy buy @ their asking price.....

Little kids buy this thing..  Little kids write reviews..  IDK what you're all trying to gleen from these reviews written by little kids...

to ANY non-tech-novice,  it's as clear as day WHY razer sux0rz..


Generally, inconsistent or poor solder joints....

Poor design

Flimsy  Frame

Board flexing...

Terrible key cap quality,   with un-uniform / wrapped stems

they still didn't fix that spacebar stabilizer thing after YEARSSSS of complaints on inconsistent spacebar performance..

[ynrozturk]

I don't agree with the poor design part. Some of their products look very good. That's it though - they just look good.

[tp4tissue]

I don't agree with the poor design part. Some of their products look very good. That's it though - they just look good.

look good?   perhaps.. but  the way they basically rely on screws to tension the frame, that is bad, because with all the plastic, it warps and loosens quickly with mild use.

[cherpalla]

You already did argue (and technically, you still are).

No offense, but why don't you quote relevant passages in a response?

Again, I don't care about your interpretation of a 5-point scale.

If you don't care, then why do you keep debating the issue? Seriously.

Where does arithmetic come into interpreting said scale? You count the number of options, find the middle and give each point in the scale a meaningful value relative to what you are rating. If 3 is the average of the scale, we can easily come to what the others should be, relative to the knowledge that the mid-point should be an average product.

Designating a meaningful value to each point on the scale is a completely subjective process. In fact, if there's any challenge in interpreting the ratings on a site like Amazon, it's due to that; reviewers aren't necessarily using the same interpretation of the points on a scale when rating a product. Thus, one persons 3 might be another persons 2. One buyers 4 may be another buyers 3.5. If you're going to debate this point, please cite a reputable source to back it up.

I don't agree to disagree with you about Amazon's rating system, because quite frankly I think you are just trying to defend random points for no other reason than trying to win an argument.

You realize that makes absolutely no sense, don't you? If I was insistent on defending random points simply to win an argument, I wouldn't have suggested or offered to agree to disagree.

Nothing you've presented is cohesive in the least.

I appreciate your opinion regarding my lack of cohesion in this discussion. It's been duly noted and filed at the bottom of the trash can.

"I constantly take other sources into account." This would be a good statement, except for the fact that you never really talked about the products themselves, certainly not the BW in question,

What you're actually admitting is that you missed my comment regarding my own Blackwidow.

My take-away from a lot of forums is that the BW comes defected out of the box and also has issues almost as often as other products I've used. It feels more like the people who are most vocal have had problems with customer service (which I never had a problem with, they always responded quickly and replaced my peripherals almost as fast). Whether that is fewer people, the same or more, I have no idea, and since I'm sure that's data you haven't gathered either, you're of no help to prove that that is not the case.

Exactly. That's _your_ impression. I already stated earlier in the thread that it's the people that have problems who are generally the most vocal(my opinion), thus it leaves the potentially lopsided impression that there are a lot of problems with Razer's keyboards in general. Whether that's actually true, I don't know, and I don't claim to know. I've maintained that if reviews are any indication, it seems most customers are fairly satisfied. Do I KNOW that most customers are satisfied? Did I ever CLAIM to know, for a fact, that most customers are satisfied? No. I'm basing the idea on the probability that if most customers weren't satisfied (ie. unhappy), I would tend to think they'd be more vocal in reviews, either on Amazon, Newegg, YouTube, tech site reviews, etc. The majority of reviews I read from the various aforementioned sources tend to reflect positively, if not extoll, the Blackwidow, both older and current models. If you don't agree with my position, then don't agree, however I've continued to defend that position for lack of convincing evidence otherwise.

And again, my issue with Razer is their Quality Control and Durability. A lot of people describe the BW to feel like "cheap plastic," but a superb experience when it comes to the feel of the depressing the keys in comparison to other . That doesn't exactly inspire confidence that this is better than the other **** that's fallen apart. Show me that these two items have improved with your research and I'll be glad to reconsider Razer. Until then, I still fail to see your purpose in arguing with me (earlier in this thread).

If you want to consider anecdotal evidence based on various feedback from God knows where as grounds for not buying their products, I say knock yourself out. Frankly, I don't care whether you buy any or all of their products. That's your business. As far as providing evidence to demonstrate that the quality of the hardware in the BW has improved, consider this. While not the latest BW, that's a teardown of the 2013 Blackwidow Ultimate Battlefield 3 Edition. Note the quality of the soldering and PCB.

The bottom line here is that you can believe whatever makes you feel good. If you want to believe Razer products are dogsh!t, knock yourself out. Based on everything I, personally, have read from various sources, I'm not willing to jump to that conclusion. That's me, though. If you don't agree, then don't agree.

I don't take the time to take the actual quotes I'm replying to because I don't think this conversation is worth taking the time to do so. I only keep responding because one of my (sometimes) negative qualities is that I don't let things go.

I didn't miss your comment about owning a BW, and I would assume it was the 2013 model, since you, albeit irrelevantly, used Amazon's reviews of that product to argue against my comment that the new BW has not had an "overwhelmingly positive" response from consumers. While I appreciate, based on your experience with that product, that Razer doesn't make a lot of poor quality, nice looking garbage, it didn't support your argument against my statement at all.

You're wrong about the Amazon star rating. The average item being rated a 4.2 in Amazon's electronics department tells us that statistically, reviews are skewed left (at least in this department), and so a 4-star rating should be interpreted to be about a 3 (2.85 rounded up). (3/5 = 4.2/x, x ~ 7, 4/7 = x/5, x ~ 3). That's really the only point I was arguing with you. (And no, I can't find the exact skewness (3(mean-median)/Standard Deviation) because I'd have to request the actual numbers from Stanford who gathered the data in the first place).

As I said before, if your point is that the 2014 BW is better quality than their other products, you've done a fairly crappy point of supporting your stance thus far, and if you'd like to use your other sources of information, other than the 4 star rating of the 2013 BW on Amazon to do so, I'm happy to read such things.

[ynrozturk]

I don't agree with the poor design part. Some of their products look very good. That's it though - they just look good.

look good?   perhaps.. but  the way they basically rely on screws to tension the frame, that is bad, because with all the plastic, it warps and loosens quickly with mild use.

"Looks good" and "built properly" are two very different things. I never got into how well (or poor) they were made.

[mikekey]

Deathadder  FTW!

[cherpalla]

I don't agree with the poor design part. Some of their products look very good. That's it though - they just look good.

look good?   perhaps.. but  the way they basically rely on screws to tension the frame, that is bad, because with all the plastic, it warps and loosens quickly with mild use.

"Looks good" and "built properly" are two very different things. I never got into how well (or poor) they were made.

Translation:

Good aesthetic design, poor engineering design. You're both right! Yay!

[ynrozturk]

I don't agree with the poor design part. Some of their products look very good. That's it though - they just look good.

look good?   perhaps.. but  the way they basically rely on screws to tension the frame, that is bad, because with all the plastic, it warps and loosens quickly with mild use.

"Looks good" and "built properly" are two very different things. I never got into how well (or poor) they were made.

Translation:

Good aesthetic design, poor engineering design. You're both right! Yay!

Leave it to the woman to put what we were trying to say in a single cohesive sentence  )

[tp4tissue]

I don't agree with the poor design part. Some of their products look very good. That's it though - they just look good.

look good?   perhaps.. but  the way they basically rely on screws to tension the frame, that is bad, because with all the plastic, it warps and loosens quickly with mild use.

"Looks good" and "built properly" are two very different things. I never got into how well (or poor) they were made.

Translation:

Good aesthetic design, poor engineering design. You're both right! Yay!

Leave it to the woman to put what we were trying to say in a single cohesive sentence  )

Dude, you guys gotta stop hitting on her..  it's like 4 pages of that now... slightly embarrassing at this point...


Or do ya'll not realize, that NONE of the response to -cherp- are at all cohesive arguments,  they're just words for the sake of carrying on a conversation..  user -139xxxx   has been the main perpetrator of this..


and because -cherp.. is what she is, a female (internet attention **** type),  she feeds on any and all attention..

Could we please get back to the Razr ... and how it's awful..

[ynrozturk]

Yes I'm hitting on a girl who is located halfway across the planet from me because that's so realistic.

[tp4tissue]

Yes I'm hitting on a girl who is located halfway across the planet from me because that's so realistic.

Yes, you are, and I find that VERY irrational..

[cherpalla]

I don't agree with the poor design part. Some of their products look very good. That's it though - they just look good.

look good?   perhaps.. but  the way they basically rely on screws to tension the frame, that is bad, because with all the plastic, it warps and loosens quickly with mild use.

"Looks good" and "built properly" are two very different things. I never got into how well (or poor) they were made.

Translation:

Good aesthetic design, poor engineering design. You're both right! Yay!

Leave it to the woman to put what we were trying to say in a single cohesive sentence  )

Dude, you guys gotta stop hitting on her..  it's like 4 pages of that now... slightly embarrassing at this point...


Or do ya'll not realize, that NONE of the response to -cherp- are at all cohesive arguments,  they're just words for the sake of carrying on a conversation..  user -139xxxx   has been the main perpetrator of this..


and because -cherp.. is what she is, a female (internet attention **** type),  she feeds on any and all attention..

Could we please get back to the Razr ... and how it's awful..

Show Image

[cherpalla]

Yes I'm hitting on a girl who is located halfway across the planet from me because that's so realistic.

You don't need to defend yourself, he's the resident troll; ensuring to keep all irrational stances such as sexism alive in our forums.

[1391406]

Exactly. That's _your_ impression. I already stated earlier in the thread that it's the people that have problems who are generally the most vocal(my opinion), thus it leaves the potentially lopsided impression that there are a lot of problems with Razer's keyboards in general. Whether that's actually true, I don't know, and I don't claim to know. I've maintained that if reviews are any indication, it seems most customers are fairly satisfied. Do I KNOW that most customers are satisfied? Did I ever CLAIM to know, for a fact, that most customers are satisfied? No. I'm basing the idea on the probability that if most customers weren't satisfied (ie. unhappy), I would tend to think they'd be more vocal in reviews, either on Amazon, Newegg, YouTube, tech site reviews, etc. The majority of reviews I read from the various aforementioned sources tend to reflect positively, if not extoll, the Blackwidow, both older and current models. If you don't agree with my position, then don't agree, however I've continued to defend that position for lack of convincing evidence otherwise.

Everyone will interpret it differently but....When you're looking to buy a product and you see the number of reviews for a newly released item...If you saw the BW 2014 numbers on Amazon, you wouldn't think anything of it?  Forget about what you know about the product...For me, 15% 1-2 stars on a newly release product is a big warning sign.

Personally, I wouldn't consider 15% a red flag necessarily, but that's me.

To you what is a more significant assessment of the keyboard?  The 5 star person that said "LEDS WOWOWOW" or the 2 star or 3 star person that is explaining what issues they've had?

False dilemma. What's relevant to me in a review is well-rounded and substantive input about the product as a whole, including but not limited to problematic issues.

I have no doubt Razer's quality on their mech keyboards is better today than it was a few years ago...but a lot of people have had issues in the past and that isn't so easily forgotten...and really, unless you specifically want a gaming keyboard with all of the extra features, is that really the keyboard you want?

Personally, I don't know exactly how many people have had issues with Razer's keyboards, nor do I know exactly how many are satisfied, but based on the collective ratings and reviews I've seen / read from various sources, my impression is that most customers are fairly happy. As to your question, though. If the Blackwidow had a matte finish, no macro keys, used what I considered a legible font, and didn't incorporate that stupid Razer logo below the space bar, then yes, it might be a keyboard I'd want.