|
|
|
|
|
|
by ahaucnx
315 days ago
|
|
|
A few thoughts from me on the discussion so far, which I find incredibly insightful. Many thanks to everyone sharing their perspectives. I truly appreciate it. On subjective reviews:
I think there's absolutely nothing wrong with reviews based primarily on an author's subjective opinion. However, such reviews should be appropriately labeled. For example, "My Favorite Air Quality Monitors" rather than "The Best Indoor Air Quality Monitors". The title sets reader expectations for objective evaluation with consistent methodology. On the defective display:
Important clarification: we did not ship a broken device. The display issue developed during the review period—this wasn't a QC failure on our part. Hardware can fail during use (as it can with any electronic device), which is exactly why we immediately offered replacement parts, a new unit, and detailed repair instructions when we learned about it. On the tiny display and lessons learned:
We're well aware that opinions on our display vary significantly, as evidenced by this discussion. Some users love it, others find it too small. We actually have differing opinions within the AirGradient team as well.
We're planning a refresh of our indoor monitor next year and are currently testing around 10 different display types—including e-ink, colour OLED, touchscreens, and others. So far, we haven't found the ideal replacement, but we're planning to involve our community later this year to gather feedback on the various options. |
|
|
Unfortunately, that ship has sailed. There have now been so many review articles for so very long titled "Best X" when the nature of the review is "... in the subjective opinion of the review author" that it is unlikely anyone views a "best X" article as having any objective evaluation or rigor behind it at all.
Your suggestion would be nice to enforce, but there's no way to get that ship back to port to change its course now.