|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 18.04.2011 - 19:20 ]

> I didn't say different results occurred in this case

I know. That's why I've been assuming you get the same 7 results all along.

> I said not generally "many" but rather "many of those results."

Yes, that's exactly how I've understood it.

> in the context of 7 results should be read as "substantial portion,"

Yes, no misunderstanding here either.

> After all, 7 itself is not "many."

No doubt about that. And 2 out of 7 is not "many" as well, I think.

> There might have been a non-indexed image that referred
> to Freescale as well. I dunno

I just checked all 7 results and didn't see any "non-indexed image that referred to Freescale". So we're still at 2 out of 7. But as I said, even if all 7 results contained the term "Freescale" or a derivation of it they would still reside on limepc.com, not on freescale.com or any other site.

> I try to be aware of the important facts, not the nitpicking details.

If you stopped conceiving such details I wouldn't have to refute them ;-)

Update:

> else that thread wouldn't have been started by TurboPascal on
> cherrypal.com, speaking about a "significant mismatch".

Apparently, the issue has not been resolved yet. It's now even called a "physically absolute nonsense marketing trick" there:

http://www.cherrypal.com/support/index.php?topic=1400.msg2073#msg2073

> has Cherrypal completely scammed us on this one?

While *I* don't feel scammed by them it seems their Japanese distribution partner does:

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ja&tl=en&u=http://gpad.tv/topic/cherrypal-scam
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ja&tl=en&u=http://www.redstar.co.jp/cherrypal.htm

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 13.07.2011 - 10:38 ]

> I translated "scam" to Japanese with an online tool, searched
> the untranslated page for the Japanese text and found it.

Yes, the English word "scam" is even in one of the URLs.

> I can see that Redstar cancels its relationship with Cherrypal.

Yes, and I can also see the phrases "legal action", "law enforcement", "we have a number of lawsuits filed" and "both for civil and criminal" mentioned in the Google translation.

> what role should some "distribution partner" play, I don't know.
> It might be a "sales partner."

I don't know either. I just took the word from the "domestic distribution agreement with the company" phrase that's in the Google translation.

> Here is a familiar-looking cheap tablet: link.

Lower specs than the C515 (400 MHz ARM9 VIA WM8505+ vs. 800(?) MHz ARM11 Telechips TCC8902)

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 ]