Update:

> What could you do best when your recent cheap product doesn't meet the claimed
> specs? Exactly, you plan to sell a more expensive better spec'd successor:
> http://www.mobilemag.com/2011/01/18/exclusive-cherrypads-next-7-inch-android-tablet-will-have-gsm/

CherryPad 2 review:

http://www.thebestandroidtablet.com/android-tablet-reviews/cherrypad-android-tablet-ready-for-bulk-orders/

Update:

> CherryPad 2 review:
> http://www.thebestandroidtablet.com/android-tablet-reviews/cherrypad-android-tablet-ready-for-bulk-orders/

New review of the predecessor:

http://techniczone.com/cherrypal-cherrypad-america/

Okay, Andreas, I think you made substantial mistakes here. It may be partially or perhaps excused to the facts that these are in English which is not your first language, and that the "reviews" (which are not reviews at all) are misleading, even in English.

I'd seen both these before. In my view, neither of the authors has actually based his or her text on hardware that he or she has received, the first one you link is based on a picture and what the author read elsewhere, and the second is based on what the author read elsewhere.

> Andreas, I think you made substantial mistakes here. It may be partially or
> perhaps excused to the facts that [...] the "reviews" (which are not reviews
> at all) are misleading, even in English.

How are these my "substantial mistakes" if those articles "are misleading, even in English", as you say?

> In my view, neither of the authors has actually based his or her text on
> hardware that he or she has received, the first one you link is based on
> a picture and what the author read elsewhere, and the second is based
> on what the author read elsewhere.

This may be true. I don't know. The first article is filed under "Android Tablet Reviews", hence I called it a review, so it's not really my invention or misunderstanding but the author's claim (or whoever put it in that category). I should have put quotation marks to represent that. This is my lapse which I admit.
For the second article it's true that I assumed it's a review. I may have been wrong there. Yet it contains numerous statements that are expressed in a specific way so they normally could only be made by actually testing the device for real (as does the first article albeit to a much lesser degree). And as the article contains no reported speech or explicit references to original external statements I assumed it's a review.
Anyway, thanks for sharing your views on those two articles.

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 11.11.2011 - 07:25 ]

> That you may have been understandably misled doesn't mean you didn't
> make substantial mistakes. It may mean you shouldn't be blamed for them.

Okay, that's a thing we can agree upon I think.

> It is a substantial mistake to inform MZ readers that the "CherryPad 2"
> has been reviewed, when not only hasn't it been reviewed

As I said I should have put quotation marks there as it wasn't meant to be my claim but a reporting of the website's claim that it is a "review". Not putting it in quotation marks was my mistake (substantial or not), yes.

> but it hasn't been sold

A "preview" kind of review then ;-)

> and even its existence is in some doubt

That's an interesting thought. What do you think is it the author believed he wrote that article about, especially in the light of sentences like the following?

"The screen is a capacitive 1024×600 multi touch display [...]; though it still works better with a stylus than without. This leads to a decent picture quality and makes the slate quite capable of showing decent video playback. Physically, the screen itself is still susceptible to glare and the front casing is a tad flimsy"

I'm not sure you can really see those things from paper specs and pictures of the device alone.

> except perhaps as a tenuously-connected Chinese unit that could be rebranded

Ah, so exactly like the original CherryPad then ;-) You believe the author could have taken some random Chinese tablet and called it "CherryPad 2" in his article at a whim?

> I also consider it a substantial mistake to tell them about a CherryPad 1
> review that is not a "review" but rather a person's summary of reviews and
> other information he or she has read, which is what I believe that one to be.

So it's not a review but a summary of reviews, okay. Seems I made the "substantial mistake" to call it "review" instead of "summary of reviews".

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 11.11.2011 - 07:23 ]

> you told MZ readers that the CherryPad 2 had been reviewed,
> and the Cherrypad 1 had been newly reviewed, misinforming
> them on both counts.

I already admitted both "substantial mistakes" in the posting you just replied to. To reiterate:
1st article: By omitting the quotation marks I technically made the website's claim that it was a review my own, so that it was not noticeable any more that it was meant to be a mere reporting of the website's claim. I admitted this "substantial mistake".
2nd article: I called it a "new review" when I should have called it a "new summary of reviews". I admitted this "substantial mistake".
I sincerely thank you for making me aware of those "substantial mistakes". Anything else "substantial" you want to discuss? Like for instance answering my questions from my previous post?

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 22.10.2011 - 19:21 ]

> then you respond to the clause as if the parent sentence didn't exist!

No, I did take the parent sentence into account when I replied to the modifying clause.

>> What do you think is it the author believed he wrote that
>> article about, especially in the light of sentences like
>> the following? [...]

> I think the author believed he or she wrote about the
> tenuously-connected Chinese unit.

What I meant is: Do you think the author believed it was only "tenuously-connected" or do you think he believed he wrote about the device to be released by Cherrypal as the successor of the original CherryPad?

>> You believe the author could have taken some random
>> Chinese tablet and called it "CherryPad 2" in his article
>> at a whim?

> No, tenuously-connected is different from random. The
> tenuous connection is that Cherrypal identified the device.

With "identified the device" I take it you mean "presented it to the author of the article as the CherryPad 2". In your opinion, what would have been a stronger connection for a pre-sale device other than Cherrypal "identifying the device"? What do you think the author had access to to base his statements in the article on? You said previously "a picture and what the author read elsewhere". Anything else like paper specs from Cherrypal or even a working, physical device he got from Cherrypal? Do you have examples for this "elsewhere" you talked about from which he could have adopted the statements I quoted in a previous posting?

|||


[ Edited by Velcro_SP 03.11.2011 - 09:18 ]

> Your interests now seem to be about the CherryPad 1 article.

No, you're mistaken. The whole of my previous post was about the CherryPad *2* article alone.

> I've already said my opinion that it's not a review.

Yes, a "summary of reviews", I know.

> explain your perspective on [...] whether or not you think it is a review.

I already said several times that you convinced me that its filing on the website under "Android Tablet Reviews" is misleading as it's a "summary of reviews", not a review.

> At that point if necessary I'll either counterpoint or agree with you

I wouldn't be too suprised if you counterpointed my view that it is a "summary of reviews" now ;-)

> and then move on to other things.

Like answering my questions about the CherryPad *2* article? Now that would be nice.

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 03.11.2011 - 09:16 ]

> I meant the Cherrypad 2 article. [...] Please reread my
> previous post, but mentally substitute "2" where the "1" is.

I'll do:

> I've already said my opinion that it's not a review.

True, you did. And if we apply a definition for "review" that says a review can only happen on something that's actually publicly available then it's clear it can only be a "preview", if at all. But that's not what my questions to you are about. First and foremost thing I want to know is if you think the author had a real physical unit to base his article on or not. I think that's the most important thing to judge the nature of that article. You said in posting #159 that in your view "neither of the authors has actually based his or her text on hardware that he or she has received" and that it "is based on a picture and what the author read elsewhere". Is that still your view?

> explain your perspective on [...] whether or not you think it is a review.

If we apply the above definition for the term "review" it's clear that the article is no review. If we don't apply this strict definition and instead view previews as a special kind of reviews it depends on whether or not the author based his article on a physical device which he had access to and which was presented to him by Cherrypal as the CherryPad 2.

> At that point if necessary I'll either counterpoint or agree with you

I'm looking forward to it.

> and then move on to other things.

Like not evading my questions? That would be nice.

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 23.10.2011 - 16:16 ]

> I don't understand the difficulty of defining "review."

I didn't either until you said in posting #161 that it can't be a review of the CherryPad 2 "when not only hasn't it been reviewed, but it hasn't been sold". It was you who made me think about the definition of the term "review" in connection to the availability status of the product.

> In the case of a review of hardware, the author must
> actually have had the hardware.

That's exactly what I said. I'm glad we agree here.

> Yes, it could be a review of hardware not publicly available.

I classify this as a retraction of your "but it hasn't been sold" statement of objection to calling it a review.

> A preview is something entirely different.

I'm fine with discarding that term in the scope of this discussion as the only reason I brought it up in the first place was your "but it hasn't been sold" statement of objection to calling the article a review.

> A review of prototype, unfinal, not publicly available hardware, is [...]
> a review of prototype, unfinal, not publicly available hardware.

I'm in full agreement.

> My view of the article has not changed.

So you still believe that "neither of the authors has actually based his or her text on hardware that he or she has received" and that it "is based on a picture and what the author read elsewhere". And I conclude that you must believe that the part of the article I quoted in posting #162 was pulled from thin air by the author.

> Perhaps at some point you'll state yours

Gladly. I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm still undecided whether the author of the article had a physical unit at hand or not as I believe there's supporting evidence for either view, which means I'm also still undecided whether the article is a review or not. It was you who took one side yet has failed to present his reasons for taking that side. But as you seem to feel so confident about your decision that you even say calling the article a review is a "substantial mistake" I ask some of my previous and yet unanswered questions again:

Do you think the author believed it was only "tenuously-connected" or do you think he believed he wrote about the device to be released by Cherrypal as the successor of the original CherryPad?
In your opinion, what would have been a stronger connection for a pre-sale device other than Cherrypal "identifying the device"?
Do you have examples for this "elsewhere" you talked about from which he could have adopted the statements I quoted in a previous posting?

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 23.10.2011 - 16:14 ]

> your interpretations of my remarks as a retraction here and a conclusion
> there are wrong.

So you say that you think it can't be a review "when not only hasn't it been reviewed, but it hasn't been sold" and at the same time say you think that a review can be done on "hardware not publicly available". Well, I'm not a native English speaker but I see a gross logical contradiction there as according to my understanding "when" equals "since", "as", or "because" in this context. I may be wrong in my understanding of this English phrase here but I won't take your word on it (as you surely understand) but prefer the opinion of another native English speaker. Anybody here being a sport and giving his opinion?
If my conclusion that you must believe that the part of the article I quoted in posting #162 was pulled from thin air by the author is wrong then what do you believe how this part was written without access to a physical device as you say?

> You have me retracting something I didn't retract

I'm still convinced that you've been contradicting yourself. Interpreting the latter statement as a retraction of the former was the only way to avoid a cognitive dissonance as to my mind you can't believe both statements to be true at the same time.

> and making a strangely specific conclusion about something I didn't even address.

Exactly. The fact that you evaded addressing it and stating your opinion on it despite having been asked for it is the "problem" I see here. The part in question contains information and utterances of look and feel that could normally only be stated with access to a physical device. That's where I think it conflicts with your opinion that the article is not based on access to a physical device. So, would you please tell your opinion on said part of the article?

> in #161 I phrased it as fact that the Cherrypad 2 had not been reviewed.

I hadn't even noticed.

> Everywhere else discussing it, including when I first responded to it,
> I think I've phrased it as opinion

Yes, you have. All fine in that regard.

> It is only my opinion that the unit has not been reviewed.

And it's only your opinions that my questions to you in this recent discussion are about, just in case you didn't notice by now. After all, nobody is obliged to have an opinion and take sides, but you did, so I believe you have reasons for having the opinions you have. So far you failed to give even one single of those reasons that made you form your opinion that the author didn't have access to a physical device so that the article can't be a review.

> thanks for saying you are "undecided."

You're welcome.

> By undecided do you mean there's not enough evidence for certainty, or do you mean
> that the evidence is so evenly balanced you have no opinion one way or the other?

The latter.

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 22.10.2011 - 19:19 ]

> if you're not ready to allow me to clear up your misconceptions about the
> meaning of my own remarks, even where you acknowledge you potentially
> misunderstand the English, there isn't much point in continuing the dialogue.

Of course you can try to clear up what you think is my misconception about what you *meant* to write. It's just that I won't take your word that this is what you actually *wrote* (I'm still hoping for some other native English speaker to state his opinion), making me believe that you retracted your former statement that a review can't be on something that "hasn't been sold" when you later said that a review can be done on "hardware not publicly available".

And as I have your attention again I ask those yet unanswered questions once more:

Do you think the author believed it was only "tenuously-connected" or do you think he believed he wrote about the device to be released by Cherrypal as the successor of the original CherryPad?
In your opinion, what would have been a stronger connection for a pre-sale device other than Cherrypal "identifying the device"?
Do you have examples for this "elsewhere" you talked about from which he could have adopted the statements I quoted in a previous posting?
If my conclusion that you must believe that the part of the article I quoted in posting #162 was pulled from thin air by the author is wrong then what do you believe how this part was written without access to a physical device as you say? Would you please tell your opinion on said part of the article?

@Andreas_Wolf
Quote:

Yeah okay, why not. Whilst I wouldn't say I am a perfect communicator, I am English, and I therefore meet your criterion.

I haven't read the whole thread, but if I understand correctly the phrase in question is "when not only hasn't it been reviewed, but it hasn't been sold".

This is a perfectly solid statement, it's not quite how I'd word this message, but it does not contain a logical contradiction. If a native English speaker were to break it down, it would sound like "it hasn't been reviewed yet, it hasn't even been sold yet".

A phrase like this is used as a way of hammering home your point by piling up the facts with whomever you're debating with. The second statement is intended to be more dramatic than the first, but other this contrast, there is only a minor link between them.

For example, if I was talking about a new car due out on the market I could say "when not only hasn't it been driven yet, it hasn't even been built yet".

Does this make sense to you? If not, feel free to ask any questions you have.

[ Edited by HenryCase 27.08.2011 - 22:30 ]

> Yeah okay, why not.

Thanks.

> if I understand correctly the phrase in question is "when not only hasn't it been
> reviewed, but it hasn't been sold".

That's part of it, yes.

> This is a perfectly solid statement, [...] it does not contain a logical contradiction.

Of course it does not. Nobody suggested it would. The question is whether the following two statements:

(1) "It is a substantial mistake to inform MZ readers that the "CherryPad 2" has been reviewed, when not only hasn't it been reviewed, but it hasn't been sold" (#161)
(2) "Yes, it could be a review of hardware not publicly available." (#171)

do contradict *each other*. In my understanding of phrase 1 it paints "not having been sold" as one reason that the article about the device is not a review, logically rendering the device "having been sold" a prerequisite for an article on it to be a review. Now, phrase 2 says that an article on a device that is "not publicly available" and thus hasn't been sold (yet) can very well be a review. That's where I see the logical contradiction. Do you?

> If a native English speaker were to break it down, it would sound like "it hasn't
> been reviewed yet, it hasn't even been sold yet". A phrase like this is used as a
> way of hammering home your point by piling up the facts with whomever you're
> debating with. The second statement is intended to be more dramatic than the first

That's well understood, even by me. But that was not the question. My question is what semantic function "when" has in "when not only hasn't it been reviewed, but it hasn't been sold" regarding the preceding "It is a substantial mistake to inform MZ readers that the "CherryPad 2" has been reviewed". In my understanding "when" can only have the same meaning like "because", "as" or "since" in this context. What's your opinion on this?

> Does this make sense to you?

Unfortunately not, as my question was about something entirely different.

> If not, feel free to ask any questions you have.

Done above.

@Andreas_Wolf
Quote:

The statements still do not contradict each other. It's commonplace for companies to send products out for review before they are sold to the general public, to build up a buzz around the device, though companies only do this when they're confident that the product they're selling will get a good review (whether though fair means or foul).

Quote:

This is clearly where you're getting confused. Let's take those three words and substitute them for when in turn so we can see what's going on:

The original:
"It is a substantial mistake to inform MZ readers that the "CherryPad 2" has been reviewed, when not only hasn't it been reviewed, but it hasn't been sold"

With 'because' in place of 'when':
"It is a substantial mistake to inform MZ readers that the "CherryPad 2" has been reviewed, because not only hasn't it been reviewed, but it hasn't been sold"

With 'as' in place of 'when':
"It is a substantial mistake to inform MZ readers that the "CherryPad 2" has been reviewed, as not only hasn't it been reviewed, but it hasn't been sold"

With 'since' in place of 'when':
"It is a substantial mistake to inform MZ readers that the "CherryPad 2" has been reviewed, since not only hasn't it been reviewed, but it hasn't been sold"

These three words change the meaning of the statements, they are not ones you can simply replace if you don't understand the use of when. The reason they change the meaning is that when is more versatile than you credit it for, it's not necessarily justification in absolute terms, but can also be a way to change the focus in a sentence. When in this context only loosely links the statements, you could skip it out entirely and get back the same meaning, like this:

"It is a substantial mistake to inform MZ readers that the "CherryPad 2" has been reviewed - not only hasn't it been reviewed, but it hasn't been sold"

The statement in question isn't one I would personally make, I don't think it's that strong a statement, but the question is not over whether it was convincing, but rather whether it made sense. It does make sense to a native English speaker.

One thing I'd point out that native English speakers listen to non native English speakers a lot, and often have to accommodate their less than perfect grasp of the language (for the most part we don't mind). With this increased practice in interpreting what someone is trying to say, you pick up on one key skill, which is that the word choice only tells you some of what is intended, the other part of understanding comes in understanding why they're saying it.

The reason you're failing is because you're too hung up on the word choice. If you broaden your view to try and understand the reason why it was said, there's no confusion. To paraphrase the sentence with the intention in mind, you could say "It's a mistake to say the product is reviewed, it clearly isn't ready yet".

Does this make sense now? Again, if not, ask any questions you have.

Thanks.

[ Edited by HenryCase 28.08.2011 - 10:16 ]

> It's commonplace for companies to send products out for review before they
> are sold to the general public, to build up a buzz around the device, though
> companies only do this when they're confident that the product they're selling
> will get a good review (whether though fair means or foul).

Fair enough (and Vecro_SP and I went through this already), but then how can it be "a substantial mistake to inform MZ readers that the "CherryPad 2" has been reviewed, when [...] it hasn't been sold"? How can the fact that it hasn't been sold yet cause the article to be a non-review when reviews on not yet sold hardware are possible?

> These three words change the meaning of the statements, they are not ones you
> can simply replace if you don't understand the use of when.

Hence I said "in this context". I'm aware that most oftenly "when" can not be substituted by either of those three words.

> when is more versatile than you credit it for, it's not necessarily justification in
> absolute terms, but can also be a way to change the focus in a sentence. When
> in this context only loosely links the statements

Let's get to the point: Of what semantic nature is this "loose" link created by "when" in this phrase?

> you could skip it out entirely and get back the same meaning, like this:
> "It is a substantial mistake to inform MZ readers that the "CherryPad 2" has
> been reviewed - not only hasn't it been reviewed, but it hasn't been sold"

With this I'm afraid we're at square one again. What's the semantic connection between the part preceding and the part succeeding the dash? There is one, isn't it?

> the question is not over whether it was convincing, but rather whether it
> made sense. It does make sense to a native English speaker.

For it to make any sense there must be a semantic connection between the parts. What is it?

> The reason you're failing is because you're too hung up on the word choice.

You're mistaken. I'm hung up on the word *meaning* (i.e. its semantic function) in the specific context.

> To paraphrase the sentence with the intention in mind, you could say
> "It's a mistake to say the product is reviewed, it clearly isn't ready yet".

We're going in circles, so I have to ask again: What is the implied semantic connection between the two parts of that sentence? What's the reasoning behind putting those two phrases into one sentence, separated by a comma? I mean it's certainly not like for instance "The sun is shining, a bratwurst contains large amounts of cholesterol.", is it?

> Does this make sense now?

Unfortunately not.

> Again, if not, ask any questions you have.

Again, done. See above :-)

@Andreas_Wolf
Quote:

You're taking the statements too far out of context, they were not made in the same post. Let me bold the key words for you in the second sentence:
" Yes, it could be a review of hardware not publicly available. No, it could not be based on looking at pictures, watching videos, or doing websearches."

What Velcro_SP is saying is that there is a chance that a proper review has happened, in essence saying there's a chance you might be right, but it does not take away from the essence of earlier sentence, which is saying we have no real proof the device is ready.

Quote:

Quote:

These quotes sum up where you're going wrong. A loose link does not mean unrelated. What's the semantic function of "however"? It links two statements but it does not imply anything more than another perspective to consider. The same with when in this context, it is not a 'when' saying something can't possibly be true because of this, but rather a 'when' saying 'look at it like this'.

Perhaps you're thinking 'that's not how I would use the word when', which is fine, but people don't have to talk exactly like you for you to understand them. Understanding context is as much about understanding the intentions of the author as it is about looking at the words being used. You're only seeing half the picture, if you looked at the other half I'm confident the words would make sense to you.

[ Edited by HenryCase 28.08.2011 - 11:30 ]