[hughes]

Hi ProfCrash, I appreciate the feedback:

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

I don't think anyone is going to really agree with an excellent, good, fair type rating for e-readers. There are many people here who are very devoted to their readers.

Agreed. There is no excellent, good, or fair rating for the alternative ereaders. It's only within the factors that such terms appear. For example:

How good is the reading experience on the ereader?
How well does the ereader function beyond reading (apps and games)?

There may remain some subjectivity, but the guide tries to sort through the issues via descriptions and pros-and-cons lists within each factor. Mistakes or adjustments may also remain to be made, and I welcome everyone's suggestions in that regard.

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

I would suggest that you let people choose the features that are most important to them and then have the devices rated based on the ones that meet most of those criteria.

So someone looking for an e-reader with touchscreen, no wifi, pearl screen, and expandable memory would have a result of excellent returned for the Sony 650 and a Poor for a Kindle. Someone looking for an e-reader with 3G, TTS, and Pearl Screen would get an excellent for a Kindle and a Poor for a Sony 650.

ie make the ratings reflect the features that are important for the user and not based on reviews and subjective opinions of a particular e-reader.

Yes, that is indeed the intention. It may be that I need to adjust the interface or labeling to make this more clear.

Clicking on any factor's plus icon reveals selectable values, allowing one to express just such criteria as you suggest. Further, once such selections are made, the URL hash is adjusted, allowing one to share the specific criteria with others via a single URL.

Although "expandable memory" is not yet a factor, the guide is very close to covering your two examples:

touchscreen, no wifi, pearl screen yields the Sony Pocket 350 and the Sony 650.
e-reader with 3G, TTS, and Pearl Screen yields the Kindle 3G+WiFi and the Kindle DX.

Note: In place of "Pearl Screen," I clicked the upper range (best, very good) for the reading experience factor. One might argue that I should surface Pearl explicitly as a factor, and perhaps I'll change it at some point. The current rational is that newcomers initially will prefer to express the importance of the reading experience at a more abstract level; later they may dig deeper into the pros and cons and learn the rationale for the best-through-fair classifications for the reading experience factor.