Re: So surprised by the solid facts, I neglected the conclus
Unwinder said:
demalion said:
The conclusion is more usual of what the site typically does wrong, and it isn't the first time solid factual data suddenly shifted to a definitive conclusion not supported by the data...
First, it's the second of my articles published on Digit-Life (the first was about investigating Intellisample AF optimization techniques in Det 43.45/OGL ). The rest investigation aricles are available on
www.nvworld.ru. So there is no need to tell about wrong conclusions typical for DL.
Perhaps this is a failure of communication? Let me specify a bit more clearly: Digit-Life typically provides rather slanted conclusions, poorly connected to the factual support in the article, and your article's conclusion fit that trend (in my observation and evaulation of visiting Digit-Life, and when observing choices and statements not purely factual made there). There was no implication that the conclusion was not yours, just that it was typically as disappointing of the site.
It is quite simply an observation about a lack of logical support provided (clearly specified by the quoted text and description above).
I'm sorry, a solid body of factual support does not give you license to put forth your opinion and agenda (in this case, blaming both companies and being personally offended by ATI) so blithely, and unchallenged, without establishing some coherent correlation between the two. You establish justification for your factual criticism before the conclusion, but none at all that fits the emotional labels and accusations you put forth in the conclusion, and in fact those labels and accusations seem to directly contradict the facts you established (again, I discussed this above).
It's _my_ conclution, I can agrue it and nothing but NV/ATI comments will change it.
It's your
opinion, and where you are failing is in not being able to notice the absence of logical support evidenced in the article for it. That makes the label of your opinion as a "conclusion" divorced from the phrase "logical conclusion" that you seem to be assuming is deserved because there was some logic in the article before it.
Unfortunately ATI already had a chance to comment 3DMark2001 issues and they missed it.
And then you passed judgement on them for not prioritizing response enough to suite you. That's an emotional reaction of frustration, and it show through rather strongly in the way your conclusion deviates from the quality of what came before.
I'm afraid that only the ppl who can see "Bad ATI, good NVIDIA" or "Good NVIDIA, bad ATI" may say that the conclusion is wrong.
No, the conclusion is slanted, against ATI if anyone, which directly contradicts the factual support, and which is lent credence in the context of your article only by your decision to focus on 3dmark 2001. You mention the application detection evidence relating to nVidia strongly before, but the greater weight of emotional wording and hostility in the conclusion is allocated in the reverse of the observed facts. You could have slanted the other way ("Bad nVidia, Good ATI", which I assume you meant one of your options to be), but what would have been preferrable would have been to try to either avoid such strong emotional weighting at all, and/or work further to stick to specific context established by the established facts.
Second, the article is really rather emotional. I do feel a lot of frustration after seeng such shame in both drivers.
Yes, that's where you messed up. Read again: you establish clearly more negativity towards ATI than nVidia in your conclusion. That is a rather remarkably skewed approach considering the facts and logic in evidence...you should have recognized that your emotions are not fact and treated them accordingly. Instead, you base stated expectations of behavior for both companies in the future on your emotions instead of the fact, and ended up with a slanted piece. Again, only at the end, IMO...the negative comments about ATI before the end seem to me to be quite reasonable and well supported.
I was not surprised to see a lot of bad things in NV drivers, but it's really sad that ATI benchmark results are also distorted by the driver.
You keep establishing what you did wrong and that you don't see a possibility of a problem with it. You had a greater emotional reaction to your perception of the 3dmark 2001 cheats in ATi's case, because you expected nVidia to disappoint you. That's only because you had reason to expect better from ATI. In point of fact, you
did get much better from ATI according to the facts you established,
but that is nowhere evident in the emotions that determined your conclusion. What's wrong is that the
context of your description of the companies has them starting off at different standards of expectations, which you then apply to the objective facts, and that's just inherently unfair. Even moreso when
actually delivering a higher standard of behavior (3dmark 03, lack of extensive application image quality reduction evidence) is the
reason you have a higher expectation in the first place. Talk about illogical....you do realize that people with incomplete knowledge will be reading the article too?
OK, I've tried saying that a few times in a few different ways, hopefully one of the times it will succeed in communicating what I'm trying to say. Please realize that this doesn't relate to the opinions you hold yourself (though you might consider looking at things in that perspective, because I think it relates to why you have such friction with OpenGL guy), but with the responsibility of representing those opinions for a reader who doesn't have knowledge as complete as you do, and that your primary goal shouldn't be to lead the reader to think as you do but to give them accurate info and conclusions directly related to facts. The first is done by representing emotional reasons as factual ones and a basis for definitive conclusions at the end of an article....that's what you did, not the latter. Again, a failing typical of digit-life (and other sites, quite often to a worse degree) is in this regard.
I _respected_ their reaction on 3DMark2003 and I really trusted them.
The delta in emotion from trust to what you feel now is represented in the article, but the starting standard of trust is not. You just don't seem to be recognizing that there is a difference yet in your response to me. That change in emotion is not inherently justified such that you can just present it as a factor in your conclusions outweighing the facts you did establish.
As for the CM comments...I read those too, and have the same feeling that it would be disasterous. But did you read the other statements that followed about how that course was stated to be rejected? If so, why, besides your own emotional reaction, were they not represented accurately as well in your expectations for ATI?
I would _really_ like to make different conclusions from such statement and investigation results, but I see nothing but lying in this statement. Nothing more, nothing less.
I'm assuming this is a mistranslation of some sort, because the quoted statement was not a lie, and in fact seemed rather frank and emotional reaction on CM's part. He later indicated that cooler heads and higher ranking personnel had killed the idea dead...you have a right to disbelieve that, but not a right to ignore it or propose an emotional reaction as fact that ignores it.
Are you still trying to assure me that the conclusion is wrong?
This looks, again, like possible miscommunication. I'm saying you were "wrong" to represent your conclusion as you did, for the reasons you did, and with the body of facts you presented, but that doesn't necessarily mean at all that I'm saying your expectation itself is "wrong", though the facts do make it look unlikely at the moment. Your response reads like you are confusing my statements as indicating the expectation itself is wrong (where in fact I encourage, for example, continued inspection of all vendor's drivers for application detections and evaluation of whether they work for or against consumers accurately evaluating the product).
My position is plain and simple: if you're trying to play good guys, do it completely or don't do it at all.
And that's the classic simplification that completely and utterly continues to disappoint me. You make the choices "perfection" or "not giving a damn", and then punish a company more for being closer to "perfection" and ever failing the standard at all, than for "not giving a damn". What kind of behavior do you think results from that type of condemnation?! I'd propose that it is different from sticking to representing thorough factual analysis of what companies did wrong, without focusing so strongly on your own emotional reactions to them, and that the stated purpose of your article isn't served by it either.
I'll continue a long debate of that in PMs if you wish, but I offer you the alternative of exposing what specific cheats the companies did being your focus, and the idea that just maybe letting nVidia get off more easily for "not giving a damn" is not reasonable outside of your own emotional reaction to this issue because you react more strongly against "aiming more towards perfection and falling short".
Finally, it looks like you missed the main idea of this investigation. It's clearly stated in the last paragraph.
Please don't make statements like that, Unwinder. Please take time in reading and trying to process what I said, because being intelligent does not mean that everything you say is automatically evidence of that attribute. I got that the main idea is to call attention to this issue, and before the conclusion you did a good job of that, but then the conclusion further condemned ATI more than nVidia because of your own personal emotional involvement rather than the established facts, and what you ended up doing was serving the end of establishing that competing by more cheating and not admitting or deviating from that course is better than admitting anything or deviating at all from that course. Sorry, that is not a worthwhile point for your article...not because it is ATI you chose, but because the only thing it served fairly was your emotional satisfaction and was a distortion of the facts established in order to do so. Saying I missed something does not do anything to address that.
It has been my observation that plenty of intelligent people are quite capable of refusing to consider (I do not mean "agree with", or "automatically accept", I mean even consider as at all as applicable to what they'd prefer to believe) things said in disagreement to them. Please take a step back, consider the question of what your choice of condemnation in conclusion does differently than your condemnation before it does, and respond to the issue I'm trying to get accross to you rather than with hostility at the idea of criticism. I repeated the same premise at each opportunity where it seemed your commentary failed to consider it, so quote only as necessary to clarify where you don't feel I've established what I object to about your conclusion and why it a valid reason to object.
