I use both Mac and PC (lately more PC) but I much prefer to use Macs. Now, I have gotten better at explaining 'why'; but at first it was almost purely subjective. Yet it was still valid. I know PC users that found the same 'subjective' qualities when they started using a Mac, and found they preferred it also. But they will not be found on a spec sheet.

Even some that can be described/listed; don't seem to have an impact until used. Things that objectively seem 'no big deal' or 'no big difference' may make a bigger subjective implact. (ie. maybe a small difference in bass range equates to a bigger in person effect)

Subjective opinions are important, they just can't be accepted as objective truths.

The original question reminds me of a seismology seminar.

With that out of the way, some explanation: I developed a regression model for estimating earthquake size (Moment magnitude, rather more precise/analytically justified than but comparable to Richter's) based on Intensity data. Intensity is a collection, statistically treated (though often on insufficient data sets) to wheedle out "how bad" an earthquake felt at various places - the results at a reasonable scale are just what you'd expect them to be: earthquake effects generally decrease away from a fault. But here's the kicker; one researcher was drumming for, literally, Billions US$ for strong-motion seismographs on a grid throughout active portions of the US. An eminent professor near me pointed out that, for instance, the balance system in a normal (statistically) human being is very, very precise: a certain horizontal acceleration will make a person fall over, time and again. And there are rather a few homo sapiens sapiens in California. Furthermore, because of the numerical superiority of the "human seismographs" their statistically determined error is LESS THAN the interpolation error between spaced electronic instruments. And people can implicitly take into account some of the perplexing problems of earthquake motion; site effects, focusing, multi-path, non-linear attenuation, etc. which would require obscenely precise knowledge of geology, physical properties of materials, etc. Finally, all of the information available prior to about 1920, or even earlier in less monied areas (including most of the truly great earthquakes in North American history), is entirely based on diary or newspaper accounts with no, or grossly misleading, numbers attached to them.

Last but not least, the same professor went on to comment about data analysis in general that the human eye is a magnificent "sensor" within its limits - we can read from an analog earthquake record rather precise numbers which would otherwise require days (after the problem is over) to manipulate into a Fourier series for analysis.

Alternatively, I've seen plenty of X-Ray spectrograph analysis of minerals which were, well, wrong. Cost several Million for the machine, though, and it makes great sounds (whir, ping, zzz).

All this towards a point: all data (because your ear vibrates to pressure pulses and very precisely translates these into electronic signals which are then permanently (?) encoded in your brain, can any auditory impression be titled "subjective" - sure some human equipment is better than others, but does not being able to read a few numbers matter THAT much?) is collected by a "subject" - the human receptor. Later "subjects" read the data, or sometimes just the conclusions, and process them according, for example, to their faith in numerical or adjective descriptions. The "subject" can't be removed from science except in very small portions of an overall inquiry. The trick is rational explanation when something is quantified to a standard below the rest of the inquiry. And in being adaptive enough to squeeze every bit of value out of "subjective" data instead of assuming that the "truth" always comes with the purchase of more equipment.

Great topic.

Hey AG #10 and AG #24

I also noticed i have that disparity between the eyes.
My right eye tends to fall to a "bluer" temp while my left is more at a "yellow" temp. The right eye is also a bit more light sensitive then my right one.

And after a lasik i have a small defect in my left eye so i have a small ghosting/shadow when the pupil is big. Although im going back in august to see if its worth another op to try to correct that.

Where my subjective values and the doctors objective values together will decide if im going to do another op. Although the doctors opinion is a more major factor as the cost is coverred by them in case of a reop.

But yes, how much stock you put in other peoples subjective opinions tend to fall in line with how good of a grip you have on what they like compared to your own likes/dislikes.

One problem that tends to come up that even if you have objective values, is that to make sense of those you must also define a reference to measure them against. Your objective values between A, B and C can be totally different to my objective measurements of the same unless you have the same base or reference. Even though they are objective within their respective groupings.

I can imagine many people tend to follow reviewers advice when they after some time have found out that persons reference pretty much coincides with yours.

Many people also read more then one review to get a better common reference for a product but may put a higher value for a special reviewers subjective value of a products finish.

I know i tend to prefer the subjective advice of Ars and TR before 10pages of graphs from many other sites(anand, toms, xbit, etc, etc)

Im done for now.

Cheers

i think you guys take these reviews way to seriously. its one thing to take what Damage says into consideration, but its a completely different story to take what he says as gospel, which is what you people seem to WANT to do. If he says its sucks, it sucks, if he says it rocks, it rocks. No. When someone tells me something sucks ass, I don't just take that as the be all and end all, you take others opinions into consideration... you know why? Cuz they are OPINIONS. Not facts. A review is someone elses opinion on a given product in order to help you, the consumer, make a decent purchase. Not for someone to pick out what you're going to buy for you.

Actually, AG57 has the right idea, one practiced by the "major league" audiophile magazines, like [i]Stereophil/i] and [i]The Absolute Soun /i] among others. Each reviewer lists all the equipment used in the review, and also lists each recording, down to label and serial number. After reading the magazines for several months, a subscriber learns the listening preferences of the various reviewers. Comparing these to one's own preferences, then verifying the observations through listening at suitably equipped stereo shops (difficult in VT), allows a reader some level of confidence in what the reviewer says.

Can I "prove" it? Can I slap a vernier micrometer on it and measure it down to the 9th sig dig? No. When it comes to the matter of personal preferences, be they visual or audio, the best we can hope to do is to translate our preferences into a certain sort of measurements that guide us in the alpha-testing of potential new components. Fellow [i]Stereophil/i] readers will well know JA's admonition that what sounds best to us in our own home is Class-A sound regardless of how the magazine rated the components in our system.

I fear that what far too many consumers really want is some external verification of the choice they just made with their credit card. Forget what others say. If you're happy with the sound quality of the new stereo rig, or the visual quality of the new vid card, don't let the chattering masses get you down. After all, all they're trying to do is to get you to upgrade more often than you would otherwise.

The Captain
--
As soon as you idiot-proof something, the world just makes a better idiot.

tankz fur perntin' dat out!

http://labs1.google.com/glossary?q=quanitifiable

Careful. Your typo quotient is nearing CmdrTaco's.

I've read most of the posts on this thread, and I think two bottom lines can be derived:

1) There are those who will espouse all "subjective"reviews merely because they are "subjective"

2) There are others who will try to place the "subjective"reviews in a context as it applies to them as individuals.

As was aptly stated by one poster, most information provided including "hard science"research is merely the presumed representative model of a population. Now, there are several inherent errors with this framework insofar as, how truly "representative" is the population that was tested. Think of how often an anthropologist reconstructs an ancient civilization based on the excavation finds....what happens if the anthropologists dig up the village idiot and rebuild society according to him???

Changing pace, for example, there may be posts that are öbjective in terms of hard numbers that can be provided by counters with acceptable error, such as video card fill rates. Now, that is as close to objective as one may get with the caveat that the tests were preformed on certain systems, with certain drivers and under certain conditions. So, if you have a different driver at home, a different system, etc, your results may vary. Does this make an öbjective review also worthless? This doesn't factor into account that not all wafers are created equally. Despite all these variables, there is reproducibility in some of these tests which provides us some affirmation that they are close enough to the truth for all practical purposes. But does all that matter if you get the crappy wafer? No, some will email sites declaring how crappy the chip is regardless of what the tests show. This is how the population and individual differ. Population is based on what is most likely to be the truth, not necessarily the truth and hence the term "confidence interval".

My contention is that ALMOST all data we have presented to us is almost entirely subjective. We have our own inherent biases (though we try to filter them out), and there are inherent testing biases. Thirdly, we also have the issue of whether or not we got the perfect representative population for our applicability to the majority. (note I say majority). Do the four video cards really represent what everyone gets in the OEM box or retail box? Sometimes the answer is no, as seen with the Radeon with the different stock memory speeds in the OEM and retail versions.

NOW, regarding "subjective"testing: there is value in the reviews. It provides SOME framework on which to build or at least if there is too much error, one can identify what is faulty and rework that scheme. Specifically, there would be no great way to test sounds cards as they inherently depend on another dependent variable, in this case the speakers. If you had the same speakers and sound card and tested for reliable reproduction of waveforms, one could start to argue that you can provide some meaningful objective data. But, as mentioned earlier, suppose you like listening to music with a more bassy sound and configure your sound as such, then a system which may have good overall sound fidelity but not be strong on the heavy loaded bassy sound you like would render such a review meaningless to you.

I remember not too long ago buying a wine recommeneded to me by someone. When I got to the specialty store and asked after the wine, the proprietor asked why I'd want that vintage. I told him it was recommended to me by someone who I thought knew his wines....The guy smirked and said, "some people wouldn't know good wine from piss if they were blindfolded". I tried the wine anyway and liked it despite his comments.

In the end, it all comes down to context, personal preferences, and how well they overlap. Plus, if you don't like the review don't read it. If you have constructive feedback, provide it. The authors on this site have been receptive (or so it seems to me - another subjective opinion) to such feedback.

In the end, specifically relating to speakers, you can test these at certain outlet stores....and most reviews of sound usually preface the article by saying that most of the time these are subjective.

So, take these issues in the context provided.

Just my 67cents...sorry bout the longwindedness.

it's funny how all these people have no sense of reviewing things that can't be measured.

sure, there's a lot of emotion around sound and taste and vision, but all a good review requires is a base for comparison. by now, we've probably all heard a SoundBlaster live Value OEM in one thing or another. if we remember how it sounded, and we can read Scott's comments on how it sounded, and we tend to agree, that's where we start.

easy.

the trouble comes when there's no established "reference" system by which others are judged primarily and before further comparison with other products.

if scott always listens to an Audigy over MidiLand speakers, we should know that, and which models, so we get a feel for his usual listening bar and where the judgements are coming from.

then we can evaluate the comparative statements more fully, relative to the base reference setup.

HERE IS SOMETHING.

Movie reviews. Critics do it for a living, if there is nothing to be gleaned from them, why are they still talking?

As in any subjective opinions, the qualifier is the degree of respect you have for the person giving the opinion. One thing I like about this place is the sense of community it creates. You get to know the people here, even anticipate what they might say about something, and something i think most of can agree on is we hold the people who run this site in high regard.

I feel like I can trust you guys, but that's just me. It so happens that my thoughts tend to coincide with yours, and there are just as many people who probably feel different. Anyway I think the subjective opinions are what make TR (or any other place for that matter) distinctive, and it's why i particularly enjoy you guys.

peace

Last AG, I thought it was a great review.

Stop whining about whiners, whiner.

Where is the fake Danny e. when you need him

stupid fucking whiners!

None of you have a fucking clue how hard it is to write a review like this. Once its done, every one has an opinion on why it sucks. "You start too many sentances with 'the.'"

Write your own damn review and see if anyone reads it!

Then there are the people who are burned with a bad card. "You didn't review the Shiny Star Chinese Army Golden Hamster 1200 8.1 card!"

Do your research before you buy!

And then there are the subjective listening complaints. Every review you read is subjective. I get phone calls from review geeks all the time. Most are just dumb ass high school students with a jones for free hardware. Fanboys with preconceived notions regarding what is best. "Buy AMD, get a GF4, Creative rules."

If you don't think that every review you have ever read is subjective, then you are a RETARD!

You think this is bad? Read the dumb ass, barely english comparison between the GF4 and Radeon 8500le on xbit labs.

Bottom line, if someone spends the amount of time researching a writing a review as this guy did, then I trust his opinion. But an opinion is all that it is. This is not gospel.

Originally Posted by wumpus
AG 49, excellently stated-- you really ought to register and get a named account here.

Gerbil 30/38/45/49:

What we're basically arguing about is whether TR "ought to" publish subjective evaluations when there's no objective data available. You categorically state that they should not, because that information's worthless unless you want to be led around by a string through your nose (to paraphrase a bit... but not in a pejoritive way ;).

I think that's silly. Not only do I know from experience that Damage's subjective evaluation generally matches mine, but (and this is important, so read carefully) [i][b]this is not the only website I get information from![/b][/i] I weigh Damages info right along with the others, and watch for trends.

So much for my not understanding the difference between an individual and a population (BTW, I took the statistics courses, and I use plenty of statistics in my line of work). I know you said you're not in the middle of the curve, but you're insisting that [io on/i] can gain information from the curve, regardless of where they fall. To which I reply, WTF? as I scratch my head in bemusement.

I think you're dreaming when you pretend that you can somehow escape the influence of subjective information in life (either that or you're a Randite... uh, sorry, "objectivist" ;). IMHO there's nothing wrong with recognizing it, being cautious about it, and carefully selecting people whose judgements come close to yours. But just claiming it's all nonsense... well, you know what I think.

You're the one who said "I don't have average tastes and preferences" and then extended that to cover [iverythin/i], so that you refuse to pay attention to others' subjective impressions. Well, my subjective impression of that self-description is, "Wow. One alieniated dude!" (and that's because the definition of "alienated" is "withdrawn or unresponsive", which is what you've said you are with respect to other people's input... okay? I'm not just writing this at random...).

Now you can go away mad, or you can take this in the same spirit I'm writing it (I'm laughing as I type, and I just opened another beer -- a tasty one, subjectively, a Hacker-Pshorr Weisse... yummy! But I prefer a beer with more body during other seasons), and consider that by your standards, I'm perfectly justified in rejecting your subjective opinion of what this website ought to do.

[i]Yo/i] don't have to pay any attention to Damage's review, but some of rest of us would like to evaluate and maybe use it. So please don't insist that he not use subjective data -- we want it, and Damage probably isn't going to listen to you anyway. ;) <---denotes humor, in case you missed it

Useful information, be it subjective or objective, is all based on trust. The more trust you have, the more the information means to you. If Roger Ebert happens to give positive reviews to all the same movies that you like, then you'll be more inclined to trust just a star rating from him without reading the entire review. On the other hand, if Joe Armpit says "five stars!", you'll be less likely to trust him. But the trust builds if he includes some specific "objective" reasons for his opinions, or if you read more of his reviews, or such.

Objective information is the same. Oftentimes information seems objective but is laced with hidden assumptions, or even just plain false. When someone says "The G4 is a 128-bit processor!" or "Four out of five doctors recommend Centrum," it sure sounds like an objective statement. But should you trust them? How to lie with statistics and all that.

"Gerbil 30/38/45, you're denying that subjective information has any use at all."

No, I'm saying that subjective information has no use when it is not backed by objective information. IOW, claiming that a sound card "sounds better" is not useful when there is no objective evidence put forward about why it sounds better. It could be that it sounds better to an individual because it emphasizes bass more, or it could more accurately reflect how the music really sounded when it was recorded. Depending on why it actually sounds better to an individual, I might or might not agree.

"And that's obviously wrong, I provided arguments as to why, and you're ignoring them -- instead, you want to play word games. "Subjective information can be useful" != "all information is useful", and "some subjective information is useless to me" != "all subjective information is useless to everyone" -- yet you appear to be claiming both identities."

I guess I am not being clear enough; there is a difference between a population and an individual. Trying to project the opinions of a population on an individual doesn't work very well.

"In your first post you said:
I may have an entirely different subjective opinion of sound quality than damage, whereas if we both use the same objective measurements, we should come to the same conclusion regardless of our opinions.You may come to the same conclusion about the measurements, if you use the same methodology and instrumentation (your flat statement tells me you're not in the hard sciences, because as it stands your statement is far too broad); but I'll bet you won't always form the same final conclusion about using that information (as in, "will I buy this?" or "will I eat here?"), because you'll weight the various factors differently when putting them into an overall picture. And that's just the way people make subjective decisions, too."

The way individuals weight things are all different; some are more different than others, of course. Does damage weight characteristics of sound cards identically to you? I doubt it. There is a difference between an individual making a subjective choice based on objective data and making a choice on somebody else's subjective opinion.

"Use of subjective measurements is about as valuable as flipping a coin. This is absurd: flipping a coin is a 50/50 venture, and you're claiming that there's no greater correlation than that between people's subjective opinions? I'd suggest you're not in the social sciences, either, because it's well-known that opinions are often correlated between people; that's why polls are useful, and how supermarkets decide what to stock. Either you're woefully ill-informed about such things, or you're simply beating a drum."

You seem to misunderstand the difference between an individual and a population. It is one matter to make inferences about a population, it is rather another matter to use inferences about the population to make claims about an individual.

"The exception to this is for people who are unable to form their own opinions and look to others to tell them what to think.And this is just needlessly deprecatory and quarrelsome, in addition to being wrong. You'd suggest that the President needs no Cabinet, or else he's incapable of thinking for himself? I think I hear that drum again..."

I hope to god the president doesn't have people in his cabinet merely to give him their subjective opinions; rather, I hope he has people there who give him the facts about why they have their opinions. With the facts in evidence, there can be an informed discussion about the correct course of action. However, given the way politics works, you may exactly right that the president is merely given subjective opinions.

"Look, I'm not saying that posting a minority opinion is beating a drum, and I suspect you actually know that. No, your claim is that no one else's subjective opinion can possibly be of use to you, because you're outside the consensus area on every single subjective issue which can possibly come up... and I say that's absurd, and obvious posturing -- I can't imagine that you are really so alienated from your fellow man."

Here's the problem which keeps you from understanding my argument; you apparently believe that somebody who is opinionated and doesn't agree with the majority on most issues must be "alienated."

"Instead, you're adopting an extreme position and insisting it's true -- beating your drum..."

This thread was created to answer this question: "Human perception is limited and faulty, but is it so faulty as to be completely useless?" My answer is that in terms of using other people's perceptions in place of your own; yes. You are beating your own drum by saying that anybody who believes that and actually has the gall to say so when asked and who sticks to it when other people argue against it is "alienated" and "beating his own drum."

In any case, the argument isn't going anywhere now, since the same thing is being repeated over, just in different words. You now won't have to worry about anybody disagreeing with you; hope that makes you feel better.

Oops, wrong button. "Find dining"? So much for careful editing...

-ludi

[q]No, I am saying that the subjective opinion is no better than a coin toss. You may go to a restaurant based on somebody's opinion and find out you like it, whereas you may not like it.[/q]
Coin toss? I beg to differ. Many people tend to group themselves amongst people somewhat like-minded, even though some opinions in that group are hot debating points.

Thus, if a friend known to be a well-versed patron of find dining says, "This restaurant is really good, I suggest trying the 'Grilled Chicken & Broccoli Alfredo' as it was the creamiest I had ever tasted with a perfect amount of garlic", that means more to me than if I stumble across a random restaurant review column in the paper, an author whose works I have never followed.

Sure, my friend can take along a chemistry set, analyze the stupid chicken and tell me that it has 33% more zesty grilled flavor than the other leading competitior, but I value his or her subjective judgement because the numbers can't always tell me what I want to know in that kind of situation.

I argue that the same happens with hardware review communities, people tend to flock around a site that suits their particular interests. With issues like sound quality or visual clarity, you can only go so far in the lab -- monitor dot pitch? Available color temperature settings? Sound S/N ratio? Frequency response range? Okay, a random person might stumble across, for example, the TR soundcard review and say "meh". Someone who has followed TR for a while, though, tends to somewhat "know the reviewer" and may find the subjective analysis quite useful.

-ludi

Gerbil 30/38/45, you're denying that subjective information has any use at all. And that's obviously wrong, I provided arguments as to why, and you're ignoring them -- instead, you want to play word games. "Subjective information can be useful" != "all information is useful", and "some subjective information is useless to me" != "all subjective information is useless to everyone" -- yet you appear to be claiming both identities.

In your first post you said:[q]I may have an entirely different subjective opinion of sound quality than damage, whereas if we both use the same objective measurements, we should come to the same conclusion regardless of our opinions.[/q]You may come to the same conclusion about the measurements, if you use the same methodology and instrumentation (your flat statement tells me you're not in the hard sciences, because as it stands your statement is far too broad); but I'll bet you won't always form the same final conclusion about using that information (as in, "will I buy this?" or "will I eat here?"), because you'll weight the various factors differently when putting them into an overall picture. And that's just the way people make subjective decisions, too.

[q]Use of subjective measurements is about as valuable as flipping a coin.[/q] This is absurd: flipping a coin is a 50/50 venture, and you're claiming that there's no greater correlation than that between people's subjective opinions? I'd suggest you're not in the social sciences, either, because it's well-known that opinions [i]ar/i] often correlated between people; that's why polls are useful, and how supermarkets decide what to stock. Either you're woefully ill-informed about such things, or you're simply beating a drum.

[q]The exception to this is for people who are unable to form their own opinions and look to others to tell them what to think.[/q]And [i]thi/i] is just needlessly deprecatory and quarrelsome, in addition to being wrong. You'd suggest that the President needs no Cabinet, or else he's incapable of thinking for himself? I think I hear that drum again...

Look, I'm not saying that posting a minority opinion is beating a drum, and I suspect you actually know that. No, your claim is that no one else's subjective opinion can possibly be of use to you, because you're outside the consensus area on every single subjective issue which can possibly come up... and I say that's absurd, and obvious posturing -- I can't imagine that you are really so alienated from your fellow man.

Instead, you're adopting an extreme position and insisting it's true -- beating your drum...

...unless, of course, you're merely trolling.

"Any information is potentially useful information ... so that information is of very limited use to me."

I didn't ask whether it was "potentially useful"; I asked whether all information was useful. Your answer suggests that you agree with me that not all information is very useful to an individual.

"But someone who has used both can tell me a lot more."

I have two friends that use both Macs and PCs on a daily basis; one has to use a PC at work (CAD) and uses a Mac at home, and one has to use a Mac at work (publishing) and uses a PC at home. They will both give me the opposite subjective opinion about Macs vs. PCs; but they both use both platforms. Use of subjective opinions like that is basically a coin toss. However, they can also provide objective data about the strengths and weaknesses of the respective platforms, and that is useful.

"You seem to be laboring under the impression that if you accept a subjective review from someone, you are somehow obliged to accept it, all or nothing -- obligated not to eat at the restaurant unless everyone who ate there liked it, for instance. So you just reject all subjective opinion."

No, I am saying that the subjective opinion is no better than a coin toss. You may go to a restaurant based on somebody's opinion and find out you like it, whereas you may not like it.

"But surely you realize that this response to reviews is just... your subjective opinion!"

Yes, and forums like this are where people's opinions belong. It's interesting and intertaining to argue about things like this; but in the end, my opinons aren't going to change your mind, are they? Computer review sites are full of opinions that aren't necessarily based on objective facts; Mac vs. PC, nVidia vs. ATI, Intel vs. AMD, etc. Such subjective opinions are entertaining but provide little substantive value.

"Myself, I've discovered food, wine, restaurants, music, books, movies, software -- I could go on and on -- which I'd never have tried but for the subjective opinion of someone that it was worth trying. I wouldn't give some of these discoveries up for the world!"

You've never discovered things you dislike based on other people's opinions? In my experience, it's simply a coin-toss.

"But again, when I receive nothing but bad reviews from an ever-increasing number of people, I tend to not waste my time adding yet one more negative experience."

I suspect that if you look back, you will find that people had negative opinions based on objective data (i.e. food is expensive and you have to wait 2 hours for a table), rather than a subjective opionion that they didn't like it because it didn't "feel right" or "sound right."

"But you've got a drum to beat, so I don't expect you to listen to me."

Huh? Here I am posting what is a minority opinion on this thread and actually responding to you and you claim the above? How does that not apply equally to you? Is it because the majority here agree with you, and therefore anybody with a minority opinion has "a drum to beat", or is it just that I disagree with you?

Intriguing. That Matrox presentation (Rule of thumb: trust manufacturer literature as far as you can throw it, especially if it seems really rational) shows the GF4 having pretty decent 2D.... Better than Radeon 8500, in fact.

As a matter of fact, that presentation goes so totally against the grain from what I've actually seen, that I must question it's validity. In comparing the IQ of a friend's 8500LE and my GF4 TI4600, I actually saw results 180 degrees from Matrox's... 2D was a little crisper and clearer on the Radeon, with the GF4 seeming slightly oversaturated. I'll have to leave that one undecided.

Yes, I recall those graphs in the Matrox presentation and thought it unusual to see nVidia coming in second with ATI a distant third, as, like you, I've read many subjective reports of the ATI engine being the better looking of the two. Of course, I have also read reports of the Matrox engine being the better looking of the three, so it would appear, at least, that there is some sort of validity to the Matrox method, although what it might be exactly is elusive.

Generally I'm very skeptical of manufacturer's claims for their products, especially in areas like this because we cannot know the conditions under which a competitor's product was compared. With a videocard, for instance, how would we know the settings for gamma, etc., used when the measurement was taken? Or, suppose such settings were irrelevant to the result (which would only further confuse the image-quality comparison) of this particular test?

Image quality is yet another area which benefits from subjective impressions, but the bottom line with both video and sound-card products is that you actually have to use the products in your own system environment to get an accurate feel for them, and there's little a reviewer can do to simulate that. So if you can buy your peripherals locally or on-line from a supplier who offers a money-back, no-questions-asked guarantee, and try the item before deciding to keep it, you're probably going about it the best way possible. (I say "you" rhetorically...:))

[q]I never ask about subjective things like "ambience" or "trendiness" or even how good the food is...

I don't have average tastes and preferences and therefore what average people prefer is completely useless to me.[/q]Must get awfully lonely, out there in the world of bad food anf rotten music. ;)[q]Are you insisting that all information is *useful* information? Are Macs really superior to PCs for most people because some people believe they are, based on subjective measures?[/q][i]An/i] information is potentially useful information -- it must be balanced with knowledge of the subjective reviewer's biases. I [ixpect[/i] a Mac user to insist Macs are superior, so that information is of very limited use to me. OTOH, so is the PC user's positive assessment of PCs relative to Macs, devoid of other information.

But someone who has used both can tell me a lot more.

You seem to be laboring under the impression that if you accept a subjective review from someone, you are somehow obliged to accept it, all or nothing -- obligated not to eat at the restaurant unless everyone who ate there liked it, for instance. So you just reject all subjective opinion.

But surely you realize that this response to reviews is just... [iour subjective opinion![/i]

Myself, I've discovered food, wine, restaurants, music, books, movies, software -- I could go on and on -- which I'd never have tried but for the subjective opinion of someone that it was worth trying. I wouldn't give some of these discoveries up for the world!

But again, when I receive nothing but bad reviews from an ever-increasing number of people, I tend to not waste my time adding yet one more negative experience.

Useful? It certainly is.

But you've got a drum to beat, so I don't expect you to listen to me.

#37. it follows that: opinions are the subjective result of (hopefully) objective facts...

hmm, i like it.

JQ

a basic point, but i think it deserves making:

#30, this one's for you btw: Subjectivity and personal opinion in reviews (and any other human communication ftm) are fine (IMO), as long as they're accompanied by a clear explanation of the reasoning/motivation behind them. That way we can all understand the thought process behind the opinion presented and formulate our own from there.

JQ

AG #37 - I believe some of the less grammatically acute among us were using the term 'objective opinion' when they indicated, contextually, that they, in fact, were referencing an 'objective conclusion'.

You have to accept a certain amount of fuzzy grammar when dealing with native English speakers, especially Americans. :)

"I'll assume that Gerbil #30 doesn't ask his/her friends about their experience before visiting a new restaurant..."

I only ask them about things that can be objectively described, like how expensive it is, what kind of food they offer, and how long you have to wait to get a table. I never ask about subjective things like "ambience" or "trendiness" or even how good the food is. The reason that I don't ask for subjective information like that is because I am *NOT* them; I make up my own opinion based on the facts, not somebody else's opinion. I don't have the same tastes as they do, so getting such subjective information is worse than useless. If I had used such subjective information, I would have missed many good (to me) meals at restaraunts that other people didn't like.

"while subjective evaluations indeed vary from individual to individual, there is some agreement; to get technical about it, they generally follow a gaussian distribution, with a strong peak around a "consensus opinion" and "tails" of differing opinion at each extreme."

That's fine if you always have average tastes and preferences. I don't have average tastes and preferences and therefore what average people prefer is completely useless to me. Furthermore, in this case, we aren't even talking about average preferences; rather we are talking about the preferences of a single individual who could be anywhere on the curve. IMO, the preferences/opinions of a single individual are worthless to another individual.

"To blindly insist that "subjective" means "no information whatsoever" is... well, blind."

If that was pointed at me (#30), that is *not* what I'm suggesting. Of course it is information. Are you insisting that all information is *useful* information? Are Macs really superior to PCs for most people because some people believe they are, based on subjective measures?

I just wanted to throw this out to you all...

reviewer

\Re*view"er\, n. One who reviews or r"e]xamines; an inspector; one who examines publications critically, and publishes his opinion upon their merits; a professional critic of books.

"...and publishes his OPINION..."

I got a little confused when reading some of these posts - people were talking about objective opinions? I always thought that opinions were, by definition, subjective...?

opinion

n 1: a personal belief that is not founded on proof or certainty;

Maybe I misunderstand the definition - but the words "personal", "belief" and "not founded on proof or certainty" make me think that opinions are subjective, no matter what?

Not trying to flame, just trying to discuss. :)

Speaking of objective, if your sound system sounds REALLY BAD to your music teacher...

...and I'll assume that Gerbil #30 doesn't ask his/her friends about their experience before visiting a new restaurant...

As joel h. pointed out in #17, while subjective evaluations indeed vary from individual to individual, there is some agreement; to get technical about it, they generally follow a gaussian distribution, with a strong peak around a "consensus opinion" and "tails" of differing opinion at each extreme. But a group of "objective" measurements also usually fall into a similar gaussian distribution, the major difference being that the objective measurements form a much sharper peak (depending on the resolution of the instruments -- which is why 2fps in Q3 is meaningless).

Now it's true that the width of the distribution varies dwpending on what we're assessing, and there are differences between groups (especially when there are cultural differences between the groups). Sometimes the peak is so wide that it's meaningless, except for groups the size of a country; and sometimes it's bimodal (with two peaks).

It isn't always easy, but it's still a way to get some information when there's no objective instrument to use -- and often valuable as an adjunct to the objective measurements. To blindly insist that "subjective" means "no information whatsoever" is... well, blind.