Originally Posted by goofjb
It is kind of funny when you read, "Look at that review." We have already read the review most likely or we wouldn't be here. It's interesting how many different views can be attainted from the same thing.
Yeah, but those different 'views' are motivated for more selfish reasons and often have little relevance to the review being discussed.
I remember a government agency counting inspections that were conducted by private companies as if they (government) were the ones doing it.
At first glance, it looks like somebody was trying to take credit for something they didn't do (i.e. the funky inspection accounting to make it appear that their division was doing a whole lot of work). But beefing up the # of inspections wasn't their real target. The # of inspections was used to calculate a compliance rate (i.e. the percentage of inspected people that followed that law). By including these private inspections with the government inspections, the compliance rate ended up being around 99+% every year.
With a compliance rate that high, there was no justification to hire new government inspectors to find the bad guys when almost everyone was law abiding, according to this accounting scheme.
The defense for this accounting scheme was allegedly the statutes. When the individual responsible was replaced, the funky accounting system was also replaced.
The individual continues to claim that his scheme was correct even though it is no longer being used.
The same attitudes exist for reviews. People will say things they know isn't true and then cite a review as allegedly supporting them. I remember one guy claimed that XYZ's review on the TNT2 showed it being "spanked" but in virtually all tests provided in that same review, it showed the TNT2 having the higher frame rates.