[kerelybonto]

It would be nice to see jude weigh in here just to see if this is even a possibility or not.

And, Hirsch, if it dies again, change the title to 'Preview Pics: '03 Playmates to Pose in Grados.'

kerely

 

[MacDEF]

Quote:

Originally posted by markl With all due respect, I would rather not entrust MacDEF, for example, to be the editor and arbiter of how the CD3000 or the R10 sound, and how that information is selectively presented. Moderators are certainly not above having strong opinions and unconsciously using their editorial powers to summarize opinions that mostly gel with their own.

I have my own opinions, but I'm also professional enough to leave those opinions at the door when it comes to writing a summary. In fact, in my professional life, I have to do that quite often.

I don't like the CD3000, but I wouldn't write that; I'd write a summary of the comments presented in the "feedback" thread for the CD3000.

Quote:

How about this: 1. After a general description of the product (price, measurements, data, marketing fluff lifted from their web pages), we have two separate threads: 2. "CD3000 Pro" 3. "CD3000 Con" The Pro and Con threads contain *informed* and well-written comments on the product in question. I think these threads should never be closed, but should be heavily moderated for irrelevant comments and side-discussions.

The problem with this is that "pro" people would argue in the "con" thread, and vice versa.

That's why I'm for a single thread for each headphone, limited to constructive feedback, with a separate summary page (or the summary posted at the beginning of the feedback thread). I mentioned my proposed process earlier:

1) Open a feedback/"Call for Comments" thread for a certain headphone.

2) After a couple weeks or so, someone writes the summary.

3) Comments on the summary are solicited (in the feedback thread).

4) Edits are made and the summary is posted.

5) Summaries should be posted on a web page, with a link to the feedback thread. That way new members can get a quick overview of each headphone, but can also view the thread on which the summary is based.


Quote:

MacDEF, I think you are pooh-poohing the significance of such threads, and you ought to hear the voices of the Members on this.

What threads?

 

[Tyll Hertsens]

FWIW, my original picture was simply a thread for each product in a separate forum called ... say "Official Member Opinions", and that qualified people would post their impression about a particular headphone. Then they could go back and edit their impression whenever they had a change of opinion or wanted to add something.

The advantage of this system is that all the technologies to implement it already exist and would be a labor or money strain on anyone (Jude). Moderators could remove non-allowed posts if needed. The format is recognizable and harmonious with the rest of the board, so it would continue to have the same "taste" to the viewer as the rest of Head-Fi. Also, it may be worthwhile to establish a post format for the threads something like:

Sonics
Comfort
Applications
Pros
Cons
Value
Related or Substitute Products

it might be more readable, accessible, and lend itself to greater credibility. In addition, there would be nothing stopping you from plagiarizing yourself and putting the post on epionions and Audio Review.

The only downside is that newbies may errantly reply with questions to the threads. I suggest that the first post in each thread may have a quick policy statement followed by a picture and possibly the manufacturers specs. If desired it could be this first post that summarized the rest of the thread if desired; it, too, could be continuously updated.

My main motive was that it would allow a continuously current set of member opinion about a particular product, that's why I'm not too fond of a static web page. FWIW I would think that once the threads were established, if the links to them were posted on the Head-Fi home page that then the search engines would crawl them. Also, if you guys would post opinions in Epinions and Audio Review, which included links to the threads, then Google would count the additional referrals and index them.

 

[shivohum]

Quote:

I have my own opinions, but I'm also professional enough to leave those opinions at the door when it comes to writing a summary. In fact, in my professional life, I have to do that quite often.

You're welcome to summarize things as you see fit, but any summary by definition has to distort the data to condense it.

Therefore, I see no reason that any particular person's summary should assume "official" status and thus gain the disproportionate influence that entails. No one person should be allowed to claim to speak for all of us, period.

 

[MacDEF]

Quote:

Originally posted by shivohum You're welcome to summarize things as you see fit, but any summary by definition has to distort the data to condense it.

Not necessarily. Condensing data does not have to "distort" it. A good summary will be representative of the views presented.


Quote:

Therefore, I see no reason that any particular person's summary should assume "official" status and thus gain the disproportionate influence that entails. No one person should be allowed to claim to speak for all of us, period.

For this idea to be useful, some kind of summary has to be made -- otherwise people should just search for threads in the forum, since there will be little difference between an "official" DT250-80 feedback thread and one of the myriad pre-existing threads in the forums discussing the DT250-80. Plus the whole reason this idea was brought up is so that new users could see a quick summary of each headphone. Posting a new thread that ends up having 80, 100, 200, 400 posts, and calling it the "official" thread for that headphone, isn't going to serve that purpose.

Shiv, if you look at my proposed process above, it's clear that I'm trying to avoid any kind of "distortion" or "personal opinion" finding its way into the proposed summaries. I've included a feedback phase, where people who are concerned about the writer's bias distorting the summary can comment on the draft. I've suggested that all summaries include a link back to the original feedback thread, so that if a reader wants to see ALL the comments on that particular model, the original thread is just a click away.


This is what I meant above by people being too suspicious about the process. Everyone is so afraid of anyone injecting any iota of personal opinion into the proposed summaries that they're willing to do away with the idea of summaries altogether just to avoid it. The truth is that any objective summary writer will have FAR less influence on the summary's "slant" than each of the people who participate in the feedback thread from which the summary is drawn.

 

[shivohum]

Quote:

Not necessarily. Condensing data does not have to "distort" it. A good summary will be representative of the views presented.

A good summary can be representative to an extent, but it has to sacrifice certain facets of the subject matter for others. Ask any mapmaker. Every map projection is a distortion of the earth. Some distortions are useful because distances between objects are accurate, and other distortions are useful because the shapes of objects are accurate. But it's impossible to find a projection that has everything right. You would need a map as large as the Earth!

Quote:

For this idea to be useful, some kind of summary has to be made -- otherwise people should just search for threads in the forum, since there will be little difference between an "official" DT250-80 feedback thread

The difference will be that if a feedback thread is properly set up, people can scan a thread full of very short individual summaries that will give them a quick overview in a way that is very FAIR. As you point out, each individual entry in the feedback thread will indeed itself be biased, but at least that entry speaks for no one else.

I don't deny that summaries are immensely useful. Certainly I've often relied on them in my own decision, knowing that they are idiosyncratic and less than perfect. I still deny that they should be official.

Quote:

I've included a feedback phase, where people who are concerned about the writer's bias distorting the summary can comment on the draft.

That's not going to solve the fundamental problem with summaries. At best (or worst?) it will turn the summary into a mindless piece of inoffensive mush.

Let's imagine, for instance, that someone thinks the HD590 is lacking in detail and insist that you include this view in your summary. What will you say in your summary then? "Some people think the HD590 is bright, while others think it's detailed. Some people think it's dark, and not so detailed. Others think it's just right. Some think it matters which amplifier you use. Others don't. Everyone agrees that things vary from person to person. Your taste will play a role. Your mileage may vary."

That's useful

Actually, replace the HD590 with the HD580 and you have the truth of the situation.

Quote:

Everyone is so afraid of anyone injecting any iota of personal opinion into the proposed summaries that they're willing to do away with the idea of summaries altogether just to avoid it.

Please do inject your iota; just don't claim to speak in an official capacity for anyone else who hasn't explicitly consented to your representation.

 

[Tyll Hertsens]

Just another comment: Once these threads exist, I will be happy to link to them from our product page of that particular product. In the past we've wanted to find more interesting ways to link to Head-Fi and I think this would be a perfect opportunity to do so.

 

[MacDEF]

Quote:

Originally posted by shivohum A good summary can be representative to an extent, but it has to sacrifice certain facets of the subject matter for others.

Yes, it may sacrifice certain details; however, that is a MUCH different thing than "distorting" which is the term you used before. But, again, you seem to be missing the point that summaries are what are being discussed here -- warts and all -- in order to provide a "quick reference" to headphone models. And, again, the reason that I'm suggesting every summary LINK to the original discussion, so that anyone reading the summary would be able to see EXACTLY what has been said (and can make their own judgements as to the summary) if they want to.

The ONLY alternative is to not have summaries of headphones at all.


Quote:

The difference will be that if a feedback thread is properly set up, people can scan a thread full of very short individual summaries that will give them a quick overview in a way that is very FAIR. As you point out, each individual entry in the feedback thread will indeed itself be biased, but at least that entry speaks for no one else.

But the reason the proposal of summaries/FAQs for individual model was made is that many people don't want to read a long thread of individual opinions. That's one of the things new members request the most often: a guide to headphone models.


Quote:

I don't deny that summaries are immensely useful. Certainly I've often relied on them in my own decision, knowing that they are idiosyncratic and less than perfect. I still deny that they should be official.

I don't think you're giving readers enough credit. It would be crystal clear at the beginning of each summary that it is merely that: a summary of a feedback thread for quick reference. It would also be crystal clear that they could see the thread that precipitated the summary by clicking on a link right there. No one with half a brain is going to ignore all that, read the summary, and then think it's the gospel of headphones. Give people some credit. Plus I still think you're worrying FAR too much about bias here, without any empirical evidence that your concern is warranted. Why not see how the first few turn out? You might be surprised.



Quote:

That's not going to solve the fundamental problem with summaries. At best (or worst?) it will turn the summary into a mindless piece of inoffensive mush.

I disagree completely. Perhaps you've never worked on a publishing data for an entity that must represent multiple views. I do it as part of my professional work all the time. Producing a document, asking for feedback, then revising the document, taking care to consider the views of concerned parties, is how things are done in any number of fields of study. Asking for feedback does not mean that your summary is going to be "mindless" and "inoffensive."

I really don't understand why you're so cynical about this idea. Is it that you don't trust me personally (as markl has said), are you afraid readers are really so dumb that they won't understand what a "summary" is, or what? That's an honest question.

I understand the concerns about the drabacks of a summary; I just think that considering the demand for and usefulness of "quick reference" info on individual models, the benefits FAR outweigh the concerns being raised, provided there are avenues for feedback such as those I've suggested.




Quote:

Please do inject your iota; just don't claim to speak in an official capacity for anyone else who hasn't explicitly consented to your representation.

 

[shivohum]

Quote:

Yes, it may sacrifice certain details; however, that is a MUCH different thing than "distorting" which is the term you used before.

Details are qualifiers, caveats, emphases, warnings, and nuances. Thus the question of what is fundamental and what is a detail is itself an enormously subjective judgment that could well be a source of distortion. To put it another way, if a headphone omits the sheen of a cymbal or the proper tautness of a drum, that's distortion. It may not be as objectionable as if it replaced that drum beat with a trumpet solo which happened to sound taut

, but I'm sure you could find someone to disagree with that.

Quote:

The ONLY alternative is to not have summaries of headphones at all.

Not at all. Post as many summaries as you like. I like summaries. I even posted one myself on the R10, composed of a patchwork of quotes from other people's reviews.

But no one summary should be given "official status." That status implies that we all agree with that summary, which would almost certainly not be the case. Head-Fi is not a newspaper, to have an editorial board that can with some justification claim to represent the views of its members.

Quote:

But the reason the proposal of summaries/FAQs for individual model was made is that many people don't want to read a long thread of individual opinions. That's one of the things new members request the most often: a guide to headphone models.

And I've never disputed that this would be a good thing. Please, post your summary. And if a user asks for a summary, point them to it. If your summary is good enough, other people will point newbies to it for you.

Indeed, I even suggested above that it might be nice if there were a user rating system in place so the most well-liked posts (or summaries) could be given some prominence. But let everyone realize that your summary is YOUR summary.

Quote:

I don't think you're giving readers enough credit. It would be crystal clear at the beginning of each summary that it is merely that: a summary of a feedback thread for quick reference.

And would it be clear that this summary does not reflect a consensus opinion among Head-Fi as a whole, but only reflects a consensus, at best, among the people who wrote in the thread?

If so, then I don't see why the summary should deserve the highest place of honor. You don't think that people will take this as a "gospel of headphones." I think that while that may be exaggerating, some similar if milder effect will certainly occur. As I'm sure you know, it's a lot of work to do proper research--even when buying headphones!--and I think there would be a strong temptation for people to simply latch on to the first "comprehensive" and "official" "consensus" they see. They may realize that it isn't complete; indeed, they may go on to consider other material as well.

But I think the strength of an official document in a place as large as Head-Fi would allow the summary (a distortion of the consensus of a thread) of a smattering of comments in a thread (a distortion of the true consensus in the population) to enjoy disproportionate influence.

Indeed, even an official feedback thread is an iffy proposition, but at least everyone would have a more equal voice (earlier comments obviously have more influence). If the feedback posts are strictly limited in size, they could be really useful. Those posts would be distorted, too, of course, but at least they would be distorted exactly according to the reviewer's wishes. An overall summary would be considerably worse.

Quote:

Producing a document, asking for feedback, then revising the document, taking care to consider the views of concerned parties, is how things are done in any number of fields of study.

And how many concerned parties have you dealt with? 10? 20? 200? 1000? Will you be able to squeeze every crackpot view in the thread into your summary?

Quote:

Is it that you don't trust me personally (as markl has said), are you afraid readers are really so dumb that they won't understand what a "summary" is, or what?

Not at all. I just think the summary of an official feedback discussion would enjoy too much power in a thread that is supposed to gather an enormous number of conflicting views. Such distortion might be acceptable in a corporation or government office where decisions have to be made quickly and the higher-ups KNOW and TRUST the summarizer's judgment.

Head-Fi opinions, though, do not go by majority rule; they go by individual rule. We are not all part of some "body" that *decides* the consensus view of things, nor should we be. If people want to find a consensus in the din of individual opinions, they can do it and even post it, but don't expect all of us to go along for the ride.

The beauty of a forum is that the most eccentric views can gain currency among a certain sector; an official summary would give one eccentric view a much greater shot, which is unfair. It's also simply unnecessary when individual summaries can already be posted, just without the prestige of official backing.

Quote:

Why not see how the first few turn out? You might be surprised.

Well, tell me how you would address the example I gave above. People have absolutely contradictory opinions about the HD580, and while there may be patterns in the mess, it'll take a hell of a lot of work to find it. How would you report on the HD580's characteristics in a way that will satisfy everyone yet still be useful?