Quote:
Originally Posted by MGlitch
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sh...=284795&page=3
That poll would seem to indicate you’re overstating the issue. Yes several people had issues but a clear majority had zero issues. That majority grows when you factor in that you could vote for multiple answers, thus inflating the results for spots in various corners vs the ‘no’ option which obviously would be exclusionary to the other results.
Also factor in that people are more likely to voice complaints than to say everything is fine.
Though I’ll grant I was mistaken that it had no issues. Clearly it had some. On the plus side Kobo rectified the issue in subsequent models.
|
As I've tried explaining (unsuccessfully) many times in these kinds of discussions, the bias effect works in precisely the opposite way you're assuming it does. It's much much more likely that the poll results significantly understate the frequency of problems because people self-justify their purchases after the fact by rationalizing away problems in products they own.
This is why amazon reviews, for instance, are mostly useless. There are countless products that are actually FAKE (ie: cheap knock-offs of an original) that have nearly perfect reviews. This is a consumer phenomenon shady sellers knowingly exploit to give their scams apparent credibility.
We simply don't know the rate of screen problems on the Aura One. I could be overestimating it...but the evidence suggests strongly to me I'm not.
More than the poll data, I find the number of posters who returned 3 or 4 devices to be a better indicator. These are people who decided they weren't going to rationalize away irregularities before they made their initial purchase, who still
very much wanted a Kobo Aura One, but simply couldn't get one after multiple efforts.
There were a lot of posters who returned their first Aura One thinking they would get a better one who simply decided to keep the second flawed device because they concluded the problems were inherent to the manufacturing process.