I think this review encapsulates my concerns with the edge

[scveteran]

Originally Posted by gastan

They actually use the gadget, huh? For what, like 20 or 30 minutes -- maybe an hour? On the other hand, mgm1979 and others have been using the gadget daily for hours per day for several weeks now. I would much rather hear their opinions/problems/successes than some dude (generic term) with a definitely discernable pre-conceived opinion.

It's not that those sites use "fake" people. They just don't always use people that are professional or even informed. Their reports often contain errors of fact in addition to personal opinion, which has no place in any review (unless it's clearly stated as such).

As a last note, I don't understand people who concentrate on the negative and insist on comparing apples to oranges. I've decided the eDGe isn't for me for several reasons but this device has a target audience and people who fit that audience seem extremely happy with it.

The detractors who insist on comparing it to every other gadget on the market remind me of someone who would complain that a Freightliner semi truck isn't any good because while it has enough room to haul the whole family around it doesn't perform like their Corvette and it's hard to find a parking spot for it.

I disagree with you about the validity of personal opinion in reviews. I think all good reviews do have personal opinion in them.

Edited to add: I wanted to make sure that it is clear that I am saying personal opinions can be a part. Just not the major part. That is reserved for the facts.

[DawnFalcon]

There is a clear and consistent institutional bias against epaper which comes from Engadget and Gizmodo, though, which along with the constant stream of basic factual errors they make renders their "reviews" of epaper devices essentially ranting rather than anything informative.

There are plenty of other sites which have better reviews, and it's those we should pay attention to.

[scveteran]

Originally Posted by leebase

An eReader that's not meant for hand holding for extended period of time? You don't see the flaw in that?

In general, though, I agree that a review should cover the good parts of a device, what makes it unique and desirable. It's like all those iPad reviews that point out all the ways the iPad isn't a netbook. Well duh, it's not a netbook.

I'm interested in what "screen interactions" you are speaking of. That might change my first reaction of "why wouldn't I just get two devices".

Lee

I don't see a flaw in an ereader that's not meant for hand holding for extended periods of time. I almost never hold a book up for extended periods of time. I lay it on the table. I am willing to bet many others do as well.

I would even be willing to bet that people use a small table in bed when they read. I know that I have seen enough ads from Bed Bath and Beyond that shows this. I also see them in ads from suppliers of eguipment to those who are physically challanged.

I will agree with you that it might be more of a hinderance to use for those who do hold their books upright. Pretty much the same as when you try and hold up physical books that are heavy.

[scveteran]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

There is a clear and consistent institutional bias against epaper which comes from Engadget and Gizmodo, though, which along with the constant stream of basic factual errors they make renders their "reviews" of epaper devices essentially ranting rather than anything informative.

There are plenty of other sites which have better reviews, and it's those we should pay attention to.

This is your personal opinion. Pretty much all similar sites will have some errors. The real question is whether they give enough information to help the reader. I think that much of the time they do.

As to your perceived bias, it may be that you are simply mistaking their desire to give the readers as much information about problems as they can on products; as an instututional bias. I know that I have not recognized this bias on their part: though I do have to say I don't read them all the time.

Lastly, I think we all should have the right to use whatever sources we want, and not be restricted to the ones you want us to use. Or even the ones that I like as we all know that my picks are the best.

[DawnFalcon]

Personal opinion? Have you actually read their articles on ereaders? Every single one is littered with factual errors and they actively mock them.

There are plenty of other sites such as Ars Technica and TechCrunch which are more than willing to give ereaders a fair hearing, and don't suffer from the same sort of blatant factual inaccuracies which come from their dismissive attitude and failure to do the research.

Your advocacy of blatantly inaccurate data and poorly researched reviews reflects directly on your posts here, where you accuse people of saying things they never said (for starters, I had not previously mentioned other sources, so your libellous crap about "the ones you want us to use" is precisely that). Moreover, I am sure that most people here can recognise basic factual errors in reviews, even when you refuse to acknowledge that they exist, or that a "review" based on such is not worth the time of day.

[scveteran]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Personal opinion? Have you actually read their articles on ereaders? Every single one is littered with factual errors and they actively mock them.

There are plenty of other sites such as Ars Technica and TechCrunch which are more than willing to give ereaders a fair hearing, and don't suffer from the same sort of blatant factual inaccuracies which come from their dismissive attitude and failure to do the research.

Your advocacy of blatantly inaccurate data and poorly researched reviews reflects directly on your posts here, where you accuse people of saying things they never said (for starters, I had not previously mentioned other sources, so your libellous crap about "the ones you want us to use" is precisely that). Moreover, I am sure that most people here can recognise basic factual errors in reviews, even when you refuse to acknowledge that they exist, or that a "review" based on such is not worth the time of day.

No where did I advocate inaccurate data or poorly researched reviews. You really need to learn how to read better. It would prevent you from making so many mistakes.

You made the statement: "There are plenty of other sites which have better reviews, and it's those we should pay attention to." That is what I reffered too. So your accusation of libel is false since the truth is an absolute defense to that claim. You wanted to tell the forum to stay away from one site and go to others. You don't have that right.

I agree that most people can recognize basic factual errors, but so what. All sources have some errors in their review because they have such tight time lines and limited usage of the product.

Again, you need to learn to read better, I never said anything like your accusation. I explicitly have said in this thread that they did have errors.

You talk about a review based on factual errors not being worth the time of day. Yet this is plainly wrong. I have never said that it would. I believe that the reviews may have some errors but they are not BASED on that. I also believe that every site has some errors. That includes your favorite sites Ars Technica and TechCrunch.

Over all, you have misread and misconstrued pretty much everything I said. However, that is ok since I expect that from all of your posts.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by scveteran

No where did I advocate inaccurate data or poorly researched reviews. You really need to learn how to read better. It would prevent you from making so many mistakes.

You endorsed Gizmodo and Engadget, by trying to say that "everyone makes these mistakes". I provided counter-examples, and you are now trying to worm your way out being caught red handed as a liar by trying to claim that you didn't type what you did. You, as can be plainly read, did.

That is what I reffered too

No, it it what I referred to.

You wanted to tell the forum to stay away from one site and go to others. You don't have that right.

No, this is once again your invention. Your attacks on any sites other than your chosen ones is amusing: I was simply pointing out that Gizmodo and Engadget have a well-deserved reputation for often getting facts wrong and that they have an institutional bias against epaper. People are of course free to visit them, and I am free to mock people who try and use them as a reference. Hi!!!!

You talk about a review based on factual errors not being worth the time of day. Yet this is plainly wrong.

Oh yes, a review based on someone's misunderstanding of what the product is, and thus being under false pretences is worthwhile. Wait, no it's not. You are defending factually inaccurate review's worth.

I also believe that every site has some errors. That includes your favorite sites Ars Technica and TechCrunch.

Yes, every site has errors. However, this is different from having a systematic bias, and you are once more making things up again - my favourite tech sites are most certainly NOT Ars or TC. I simply mentioned them as examples of sites which have given ereaders fair reviews, which is clear from even a cursory reading of what I actually typed.

Your your constant instance that other people are typing things they never said and never intended but you have simply made up to justify what you previously typed is symptomatic of your rude, bullying approach. It's getting rather pathetic.

[hidari]

Well, Please continue your bickering because I am really enjoying this, but, I just noticed that neither one of you seem to own an eink reader. Why not buy one and see how it actually works for yourselves.....

[DawnFalcon]

...I have regular access to one (but don't own it), and have owned one in the past.

Assumptions, heh.

[hidari]

seem to....I said Dawn... Enjoy your chill pill.

[DawnFalcon]

Heh, you think I'm worked up. No, it takes oh... being shot at... to actually annoy me. (As opposed to being yet another bridge dweller I'm being massively sarcastic towards)

[pilotbob]

OK... enough with the personal insults. Let's play nice or not play at all.

Moderator

[andrys]

More unfair damage is being done by that AP 'review' making the rounds, including being mistaken for a NYT review.

While lambasting it (to extremes) for qualities some (particularly academics) will not mind, it does say this

"The flaws aside, the Edge is an interesting device. It's the most capable e-reader yet,"

(they then indicate the iPad will outdo it, showing no understanding of what it does do).

And yet the rest of it is a hit piece with really awful headlines in various papers and we are not talking Gizmodo or Engadget.

[mgm1979]

oh my - can't we all just get along?

Let people go where they want to see/read reviews of the devices their researching...if people aren't smart enough to decipher a thorough review vs a biased one, then there isn't much that the back and forth banter here will accomplish anyway.

I think the latest posting from enTourage (in their Community section) is a direct result/appeal to some of the recent reviews that have hit the net - b/c as discussed in this thread here, as well as others, this device IS getting slightly misunderstood.

I like their approach, and think (in time) the truth/reality will set in...of course, the Apple fanboys and girls will have their iPad, and the JooJoo looks like its finally shipping, not to mention the countless other devices out there, or coming soon, to address the eReader and Netbook world(s)...take the first-gen eDGe device for what it is - an exciting new world of eReader/netbook technology sure to grow and improve in the coming months/years.

[Batman Jr.]

Originally Posted by mgm1979

I think the latest posting from enTourage (in their Community section) is a direct result/appeal to some of the recent reviews that have hit the net - b/c as discussed in this thread here, as well as others, this device IS getting slightly misunderstood.

mgm1979,

I agree with you completely. It's hindsight, of course, but I think if enTourage had put that statement (http://www.entourageedge.com/blog/?p=439) out earlier on in the process, it *might* have helped avoid some of the misconceptions being bandied about regarding the target usage of the eDGe (of course, a little more practice of basic journalistic fact-checking wouldn't have hurt, either ). This might be a case where because the eDGe *can* do so many things, the previous lack of a unifying description by the company allowed it to be shaped in reviewers' minds in whatever way fit their preconceptions of what it *should* do. From the selfish perspective of one who wants to protect his investment, I just hope that there's enough balanced reviews that are written of the product that *is*, versus misconceived or hoped-for ones, that enTourage and the eDGe have an opportunity to sink or swim on their actual merits.