Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion [2024]

[davis.anthony]

Most review channels state if they received a unit for review or if they purchased it. That information is pretty standard at the start of videos. Rtings just released a review on the Samsung S90D today. Go watch it and see how they disclose how they acquired the unit.

Why does it matter if DF purchased the hardware or not?

Spit it out....

 

[Flappy Pannus]

Dude you have personal problems you need to sort out.

Rtings just released a review on the Samsung S90D today. Go watch it and see how they disclose how they acquired the unit.

That's reviewing a single item, the method of procurement is relevant if an outlet gives an exceptionally glowing review to a singular product.

This however, is a roundup of 4 separate products, with plenty of critique - none of them were exceptional from DF's review. So if DF were given the products for review, as the vast majority of outlets covering products are, that would mean...what, exactly? What is the implication for the review content?

Again, this is like pulling teeth with you for some reason. Is this another example of DF's 'absence of information speaking loudly", as you put it previously? if you think DF has an ethical problem, they just say so - don't do this silly dance. For example, I think DF's 1/2 hour 'tech reviews' of individual games can certainly be interesting and worthwhile, but they also fly a little too close to infomercial territory for my taste, and have said so previously. Otherwise, it's just a weird critique - the overall thrust of the conclusion is that every one of these products have significant flaws and are held back by tying themselves to Windows. What influence do you think was potentially bought here?

So again, just say what you mean.

 

[Boss]

Why does it matter if DF purchased the hardware or not?

Spit it out....

Surely that’s a joke question. What kind of question is that? Of course it matters. If it didn’t matter, people would disclose it? It matters because as an interpreter of the content, it provides context on how to interpret the content. In fact, it’s weird if you don’t provide that context.

 

[Flappy Pannus]

Surely that’s a joke question. What kind of question is that? Of course it matters. If it didn’t matter, people would disclose it? It matters because as an interpreter of the content, it provides context on how to interpret the content. In fact, it’s weird if you don’t provide that context.

In the context of 4 simultaneous reviews, what is the interpretation then? Do you think some of them were unnecessarily praised? All of them? The content of the review is a part of the context.

If the content of the roundup was "All of these products are exceptional and provide a great experience", then you would have a point. But the content was clearly not that, heck some of the products have already been reviewed (with also mediocre conclusions), this is largely just catching up to see how most of them have improved. Did you even watch the video?

Like if you watch that video and want to insinuate influence was bought, the only logical conclusion one can draw is that is was bought - by Valve, as they all suffer from the same flaws every Windows handheld does.

 

[Boss]

In the context of 4 simultaneous reviews, what is the interpretation then? Do you think some of them were unnecessarily praised? All of them? The content of the review is a part of the context.

If the content of the roundup was "All of these products are exceptional and provide a great experience", then you would have a point. But the content was clearly not that, heck some of the products have already been reviewed (with also mediocre conclusions), this is largely just catching up to see how most of them have improved. Did you even watch the video?

Like if you watch that video and want to insinuate influence was bought, the only logical conclusion one can draw is that is was bought - by Valve, as they all suffer from the same flaws every Windows handheld does.

If partial transparency is ok for you, that’s fine. However don’t assume it’s ok for others. Being a modern reviewer poses a serious conflict of interests issue. You sometimes receive products from the manufacturers who have the ability to cut off till your access to future products. Inherently, by design the system is already flawed. Which makes it more important to be 100% transparent with the audience.

I watched the video and could not understand which units were purchased and which ones were not. That bothers me personally and I’ll call it out. When I watch other reviewers, I can understand how they acquired the product.

 

[Flappy Pannus]

I watched the video and could not understand which units were purchased and which ones were not.

The criteria you determine for what unit would be 'purchased' vs. 'gifted' is then...what?

Again...and again...just say what you mean. This statement that you 'couldn't understand what units were purchased' implies strongly that you believe there is a 1:1 correlation between units donated for review. vs self-purchased in content, so just have the courage to say "I don't think any review which relies on donated equipment is valid", as that's effectively what you're saying here.

If you can't discern by the content alone, then that completely invalidates any argument of 'context' - there is none. Donated hardware for review = invalid. And that's absolutely fine! I think in the context of a comparative review that's a little weird, but it's a stance that's not completely invalid in general. But just at least have the courage to come out and say so.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Surely that’s a joke question. What kind of question is that? Of course it matters. If it didn’t matter, people would disclose it? It matters because as an interpreter of the content, it provides context on how to interpret the content. In fact, it’s weird if you don’t provide that context.

Actually, if you are professional, it makes no difference. The transparency is for when you get a glowing review, you want to know it's genuine or not. If the article isn't a glowing review, it doesn't matter how the product was received. Does the DF content smack of overly positive opinion influenced by a freebie? If not, if there's no reason to think the reviews are biased in favour of a free gift, it doesn't matter where the product came from.

Read the article/watch the analysis. Is it a fair and balanced assessment with good pros/cons comparisons? If yes, that transparency you are after is irrelevant, no?

 

[davis.anthony]

Surely that’s a joke question. What kind of question is that? Of course it matters. If it didn’t matter, people would disclose it? It matters because as an interpreter of the content, it provides context on how to interpret the content. In fact, it’s weird if you don’t provide that context.

It only matters to those who are trying to imply something and we can all see what you're trying to get at.

So just come out with it already.

 

[Boss]

Actually, if you are professional, it makes no difference. The transparency is for when you get a glowing review, you want to know it's genuine or not. If the article isn't a glowing review, it doesn't matter how the product was received. Does the DF content smack of overly positive opinion influenced by a freebie? If not, if there's no reason to think the reviews are biased in favour of a free gift, it doesn't matter where the product came from.

Read the article/watch the analysis. Is it a fair and balanced assessment with good pros/cons comparisons? If yes, that transparency you are after is irrelevant, no?

Nah I disagree and so does the FTC. If you were actually a professional, you’d do so without being queried because you’re confident that your review wasn’t affected in anyway. I seriously question those who pose arguments against transparency. This idea that I should interpret content without context is unacceptable to me. The part that’s even more annoying is that they’re inconsistent. Sometimes the clearly state it and sometimes it’s ambiguous like in this video.

 

[Below2D]

Nah I disagree and so does the FTC. If you were actually a professional, you’d do so without being queried because you’re confident that your review wasn’t affected in anyway. I seriously question those who pose arguments against transparency. This idea that I should interpret content without context is unacceptable to me. The part that’s even more annoying is that they’re inconsistent. Sometimes the clearly state it and sometimes it’s ambiguous like in this video.

View attachment 11201

Well, do you personally think DF’s coverage on this is biased? If such is the case, I think it’d be more productive to come clean with it so we can talk about it rather than the ethics of the FTC.

 

[Boss]

Well, do you personally think DF’s coverage on this is biased? If such is the case, I think it’d be more productive to come clean with it so we can talk about it rather than the ethics of the FTC.

I hate the term biased. Everybody is biased and anyone pretending not to is telling a tall tale. Every single member of DF is biased. John likes retro consoles, Richard likes Sega, Alex likes pc, etc. We all have things that we like that influence how we perceive different things.

So, now to answer your question, I don’t know if the video is biased because context was not provided to how the units were acquired. I can’t tell if a particular unit was undeservedly over/under represented because of a lack of context. That’s the whole point. You provide this information to the audience to provide transparency and context. They annoyingly fail to do this from time to time and I’ll call it out every single time. If you’re not paying for all the products you review, please let the audience know. I shouldn’t have to guess when going into a video if there are any existing conflicts of interest I should pay attention to while interpreting the review.

 

[Below2D]

I hate the term biased. Everybody is biased and anyone pretending not to is telling a tall tale. Every single member of DF is biased. John likes retro consoles, Richard likes Sega, Alex likes pc, etc. We all have things that we like that influence how we perceive different things.

Sure, but given the context is a product review, I do think that it’s possible to be objective. We’re not talking politics or religion here where it’s almost impossible to divorce one’s stance and arguments from one’s beliefs.

So, now to answer your question, I don’t know if the video is biased because context was not provided to how the units were acquired. I can’t tell if a particular unit was undeservedly over/under represented because of a lack of context. That’s the whole point. You provide this information to the audience to provide transparency and context. They annoyingly fail to do this from time to time and I’ll call it out every single time. If you’re not paying for all the products you review, please let the audience know. I shouldn’t have to guess when going into a video if there are any existing conflicts of interest I should pay attention to while interpreting the review.

This is strange, I don’t see the creators mention every single time they have purchased a product with their own money. I do hear them mention when they were given a review sample, however.