[HN Gopher] Contra Wirecutter on the IKEA air purifier
___________________________________________________________________
Contra Wirecutter on the IKEA air purifier
Author : Ariarule
Score : 1416 points
Date : 2022-06-20 16:27 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (dynomight.net)
(TXT) w3m dump (dynomight.net)
| CodeWriter23 wrote:
| Not surprising given Wirecutter was acquired by NYT a few years
| back and mainstream media's obsession with not-quite-robust "fact
| checking"
| bombcar wrote:
| Whoops this wasn't meant to be a top level post. Erp.
|
| Moved it here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31813424
| sorry for those responding
| abracadaniel wrote:
| Project Farm is another great one for tools or anything you
| might find in a garage. - https://www.youtube.com/c/ProjectFarm
| He buys everything himself, and does good comparisons and
| testing, often to failure.
| bombcar wrote:
| "Review to failure" is a good benchmark to see if they are
| actually really reviewing the tool, even if the failure is
| obscenely beyond any normal use of the product.
|
| _Especially_ if they then can breakdown _why_ it failed (and
| if they 'd improve anything).
| dusted wrote:
| excellent write.. I bought multiple of these airfilters after
| reading that review, because, honestly, I didn't believe it
| anyway, and my particle sensors clearly show when the filter is
| running.
|
| Unfortunately, the build quality is not exceptional, so there is
| a bit of noise from the unit, even at the low settings, but
| placed far enough from the bed, it's hard to notice. The particle
| count is higher during the night, but not as high as with the
| filter completely turned off. I can even see when my sleep is
| interrupted, and when I go to bed and wake up from the particle
| count graph.
|
| I must admit that I capture the data with the ikea "VINDRIKTNING"
| sensor, it has a TX pin exposed and that is easily hooked to RX
| on an ESP8265, which simply runs a TCP socket server that streams
| the reading via wifi.
| vanous wrote:
| Awesome, thanks for the tip!
| jve wrote:
| Great article. I myself have IKEA air purifier.
|
| Has anyone used https://www.mi.com/global/mi-air-purifier-3c ?
| Can it achieve lower noise per CADR? IKEA one on full speed is
| pretty loud (I may not know what loud air purifiers are, but I
| get concert of sounds at home I want to minimize - refrigerator,
| freezer, dishwasher, electric water boiler, air purifier)
|
| Does it work via LAN with Home-Assistant? Are they "smart"
| filters you are forced to change or "dumb" ones?
| brnt wrote:
| I have two Fornuftigs for bedroom and office, and a Winix Zero
| in the living room. The Winix definitely beats Ikea in terms of
| noise production on max airflow, it positively sounds like a
| jet is taking off. It moves quite a bit more air of course. I
| was rather surprised that the Fornuftig is nearly perfectly
| quiet at the lowest setting, which is really great for a
| bedroom and offce, although I don't know how much or little it
| stil does at that setting.
| alleskleber wrote:
| Mi does some (not so) secret (anymore) authentication trying to
| force users into buying their genuine replacement filters
| cartridges.
|
| Recently there was an article on HN on how someone got around
| this. [1]
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31540394
| fmajid wrote:
| Also worth reading, in the same vein:
|
| https://danluu.com/nothing-works/
| Tade0 wrote:
| > That's lower, but do we care? The first level is already
| comparable to the least polluted cities on the planet. And most
| people reading this probably have less drafty windows or cleaner
| outside air.
|
| I wish. I live in an area that routinely goes to 100ug/m3+ during
| the winter.
|
| I picked a local brand because it had all the features I wanted:
| a numerical indicator, ioniser and the filter was aligned
| vertically, so the device doesn't occupy too much space.
|
| It has a CADR of 300m2/h or ~ 185sq ft/min. That's enough to
| survive the worst smog events.
|
| I could buy three of those IKEA ones for the price though, which
| is actually the recommended approach, because air purifiers
| generally work very locally.
| OJFord wrote:
| > (Yeah, power usage goes down when you add the extra carbon
| filter to the IKEA purifier. I've confirmed this myself with a
| power meter. Physics is weird.)
|
| Well it's not _that_ weird is it? It went down because CADR went
| down, the airflow is lower so the motor 's not 'pushing so hard'.
| ricardobayes wrote:
| Can someone recommend a good purifier available in Europe? I feel
| like Dyson is hyped up and there are better alternatives.
| cosmodisk wrote:
| I've done so much research about air purifiers that I think I
| could do a thesis if I were in academia. The vast majority of
| these devices fall under one category: rubbish. Lots of gimmicks
| performed when it comes to efficacy. Bending reality with
| borderline claims or inventing useless terms that mean nothing.
| If you are serious about indoor air quality, start with IQAir.
| Their products are bulky, contain multiple filters and you know
| that you'll be able to get replacement filters 5 years later.
| Blueair has some reasonable products too (ignore the smaller,
| cheap product lines).
| jefftk wrote:
| Most air purifiers are a high-quality filter and a fan to move
| air through it. That's a solid approach, and they perform close
| to how you'd expect given their flow rate and filter rating.
|
| Why are IQAir products especially good?
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| Their humidifier recommendations have similar problems. If you
| want a humidifier, I recommend checking out Technology
| Connections on YouTube.
|
| For anything else, Consumer Reports. They don't accept
| advertising or commissions.
| rhexs wrote:
| The air purifier review market is about as useful as searching
| for a credible mattress review.
|
| Snake oil everywhere.
| ilamont wrote:
| _they refer to the IKEA purifier as using a "PM2.5 filter"_
|
| Take a European brand. Add some mysterious spec numbers to the
| name, and turn a milquetoast product into something cool or
| respectable.
|
| My favorite: the "Merkur XR4Ti" which was basically a Ford Sierra
| hatchback (family car) with a vaguely sporty look and slightly
| higher performance engine.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkur_XR4Ti
| highwaylights wrote:
| I have three of the Fornuftig and am very pleased with them, save
| for the noise being quite bothersome at the highest setting.
|
| They've helped quite a bit with a pollen allergy.
|
| Getting good information has been a nightmare and it's nice to
| see a post calling out the utter nonsense that gets spread about
| HEPA and filtration, with no thoughts to diffusion.
|
| The big problem I have now is that I would like to upgrade to the
| Starkvind smart purifiers as they'd be ideal, save for again not
| being able to get any decent information on filtration and flow
| rate.
|
| If the author ever reads this, I'd absolutely love a deep dive
| like this one on the Starkvind!
| sampo wrote:
| Ikea Starkvind flow rates:
|
| From https://www.ikea.com/us/en/p/starkvind-air-purifier-
| white-00... "Product details" and then "Other documents" gives
| you
|
| https://www.ikea.com/us/en/manuals/starkvind-air-purifier-wh...
|
| and there the table on page 7 gives you the flow rates.
|
| The filter is EPA12.
|
| "The particle filter is tested according to EN 1822-1 and ISO
| 29463-3 which corresponds to class EPA12."
|
| https://www.ikea.com/us/en/p/starkvind-2-piece-filter-set-s9...
| highwaylights wrote:
| I appreciate this, and thanks.
|
| Sadly it seems like it's essentially giving the same not-
| particularly-helpful stats as listed in the authors article.
|
| I'd love some independent particle test results for it
| (carried out properly as described in the article of course).
| Mister_Snuggles wrote:
| I'm not qualified at all to do a deep dive, but I've got a
| FORNUFTIG and a STARKVIND and can give you some thoughts.
|
| The STARKVIND is a LOT bigger than the FORNUFTIG. Assuming
| you're getting the standalone model, it's probably the depth of
| two or three FORNUFTIGs. This really surprised me. The table
| version is very interesting because it eliminates that problem
| by being a functional piece of furniture.
|
| The STARKVIND filters are different than the FORNUFTIG, so no
| filter sharing. Conceptually they're the same - a paper
| particle filter plus an optional carbon filter. At its highest
| setting it's louder than the FORNUFTIG's highest setting, but
| at its lowest it's virtually inaudible. If you leave it in Auto
| mode you'll hear it ramp up when it detects particulates in the
| air and ramp down when the air quality returns to normal.
|
| The main reason I bought the STARKVIND was the Zigbee
| interface. The IKEA Home Smart app is functional, but after the
| initial setup I only use Home Assistant to control it. In Home
| Assistant there are sensors for particulates and filter life,
| and controls for fan speed and mode (auto/manual). I'm using
| the IKEA gateway for my STARKVIND since deCONZ support wasn't
| completely ready at the time. Overall, it lives up to
| expectations as far as control goes.
| highwaylights wrote:
| This is my use case more or less. Basically I want to be able
| to leave the house and say "hey google, clean this mess" and
| it'll start my strategically placed robot vacuums and run the
| filters on max while that's happening to minimise particulate
| spread.
|
| Mostly though, I just want some extra power for larger rooms.
| Mister_Snuggles wrote:
| I run my STARKVIND in Auto mode most of the time, but from
| 4PM to 9PM I have scheduled it (via Home Assistant) to run
| on full power - basically to clean the air, regardless of
| what the sensor tells it, before bedtime.
|
| What you're asking for is 100% reasonable and easily
| achievable.
| wpietri wrote:
| Who is Dynomight?
|
| For me this piece leans pretty heavily on authorial confidence.
| But I couldn't find any indication of who the author is, or what
| his expertise is. I get why he's casting aspersions on their
| revenue model and how it might affect what they write. But then
| he doesn't disclose what his revenue model and personal interests
| might be.
| screye wrote:
| As a reader, if I had to generalize; Dynomight is a SF-
| rationalist-substack-adjacent blogger with a good understanding
| of statistics. The 2 closest popular bloggers I associate him
| with are SSC and Gwern; both pretty popular on HN.
|
| I particularly loved his blogs on the homelessness[1] and
| drug[2] crisis in the US. He? digs deep, does the statistical
| due diligence and usually finds conclusions that richer-
| academics-media houses have yet to find. I have found his
| arguments to be in good faith and are generally unencumbered by
| the political repercussions of said findings.
|
| [1] https://dynomight.net/homeless-crisis/
|
| [2] https://dynomight.net/p2p-meth/
|
| my 2 cents. Don't actually know him or anything.
| elxr wrote:
| Great pitch, might add a few of his articles to my list.
|
| I'm a fan of Gwern too, but who is SSC? Haven't heard of this
| one.
| screye wrote:
| Scott Alexander of Slate-star-codex fame. Now at
| astralcodexten.substack.com
|
| It is funny you that you have never heard of SSC. Most
| people I know have found Gwern through SSC.
| wpietri wrote:
| Ok. How would you describe SSC's revenue model and
| incentives, then?
| screye wrote:
| SSC spent the last decade as a blogger on the side. He had
| a big enough following to monetize it, but actively chose
| against it. It was only after the whole NYT debacle, that
| he actually moved to blogging fulltime.
|
| If his incentives were aligned with money, then he'd have
| tried to monetize his platform far sooner than he did. If
| anything, a portion of the new subscription money is
| already being invested into weird community moonshots that
| would've never seen the light of day.
|
| There is revenue that facilitates means needed to make good
| content; and then there cases where the revenue is the end.
| I have yet too see him do the latter and the former is
| essential to any healthy career.
| wpietri wrote:
| That's interesting, but that does not answer my questions
| about what SSC's incentives are.
| ck2 wrote:
| Particle sizes visualized, note PM2.5 vs PM10
|
| https://i.imgur.com/dU990L8.jpg
| nerdjon wrote:
| I use the IKEA air purifier and love them, but I had a specific
| use case in mind.
|
| My cat boxes are in an enclosed big box with a single entrance, I
| wanted to put the filter in front of the opening (kinda creating
| a walkway) to help eliminate smell and dust. It does these tasks
| wonderfully.
|
| I don't think I could see myself using them for filtering an
| entire room, but they do a good job for what they are.
| amelius wrote:
| > The EU HEPA filter spec--yours to download today for a bargain
| $1148.24--
|
| How can this be true? Weren't these standards produced with tax
| money?
| Sebguer wrote:
| Sort of. I'm not super familiar with the EN, but ISO is a non-
| governmental organization, and is funded by 'subscriptions'
| from every participating nation (which are apparently based on
| GDP?)
|
| They are also funded by selling access to their full standards
| reports. You can see a preview for the one in question here:
| https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:29463:-1:ed-2:v1:en
|
| It's only 88 CHF (~90 USD, I think?)
|
| I'm a lot less familiar with the European Standards, and the
| ISO above is apparently derived directly from the $1148 doc
| mentioned in the article (https://www.emw.de/en/filter-
| campus/iso29463.html)
| TootsMagoon wrote:
| TLDR - Where is Wirecutter's test data?
| irishloop wrote:
| I see a lot of discussion here about Wirecutter and/or Consumer
| Reports being untrustworthy. But I am not sure "reviews" are a
| solvable problem, really.
|
| The human element of perception is inherent to reviewing
| products. I might think something is genuinely better than you
| because it meets my needs better. Or because you got a bad part
| in yours through sheer bad luck. Or I had a migraine that day.
|
| I usually just try to google whatever product I am trying to
| understand and read a few articles and try to at least hone in on
| what might be the most authentic or at least reviews that are
| well-written and seem to care about the product.
|
| But there's no perfect system. I went through this whole process
| trying to figure out the best mattress and at some point you just
| gotta give up and say hey they're all basically glorified piles
| of hay let's just do this.
| armchairhacker wrote:
| That's why you look at reviewers who have similar other
| opinions to yours, and look at pros / cons instead of the
| overall rating
| pigbearpig wrote:
| People should use Wirecutter and CR to find a list of products
| that they'll probably be happy with. The expectation that they
| can identify the absolute best product for everyone is
| impossible and this article/discussion is probably a bit
| unfair.
|
| If I'm an expert in a product area, then I'll find a more
| specific review site or do the analysis myself, but if I'm not,
| then Wirecutter and CR do a pretty good job of helping me avoid
| duds.
| Androider wrote:
| There might be better air purifiers, but the recommended Coway
| purifier is really good. I've had one for 5 years, still working
| as well as the day I bought it. I also have a 3x more expensive
| high-end Alen unit, but it's not nearly as effective or quiet as
| the simple Coway. The filters are way more expensive too.
| pnathan wrote:
| Same. The Coway is very quiet, and it works rather well, as
| measured by the Dylos particle counter elsewhere in the room.
| inferiorhuman wrote:
| I bought two Coway units based off the Wirecutter reviews.
| Both had noisy, off balance fans (gee I wonder why there are
| reports of the fan blades blowing up). The newer one had a
| HEPA filter that reeked of VOCs and went back to the retailer
| because Coway refused to honor their warranty. The air
| purifier "review" was _the_ thing that really soured me on
| Wirecutter as a source of trustworthy reviews.
|
| Oh yeah Coway deserves a shout out for trying to sneak some
| binding arbitration agreement in at the end of their warranty
| drivel.
| SrslyJosh wrote:
| I have four of them to cover both floors of a two-story
| house. They work well (so long as you remember to clean the
| prefilter every month or two!) and are very quiet on the
| lower fan speeds.
|
| The only thing I'd ding them for is not having a fan speed
| setting in between "nearly silent" and "jet engine", but you
| should only need the highest setting in unusual
| circumstances.
| roldie wrote:
| I have the Coway Mighty in my living room and the Blue Air 411
| in my bedroom. Both are great, and I would recommend them to
| anyone.
|
| And I have the same sentiment as others, Wirecutter is
| definitely suspect, but at least for air purifiers their
| recommendations were spot on for me.
| atlgator wrote:
| Wirecutter was great when it was independently owned. Since it
| was bought by NYT it doesn't seem as neutral. They conveniently
| seem to favor products sold by Amazon or Walmart where they can
| get referral fees.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| This is good work.
| leguminous wrote:
| Wirecutter seems to make a big deal of the fact that the IKEA
| purifier doesn't use a "true HEPA" filter. As far as I can tell,
| neither does the Blueair purifier that is one of their top picks.
| Blueair claims to use "HEPASilent Ultra," while carefully
| avoiding claiming that their filter meets HEPA standards.
|
| > HealthProtect(tm) is equipped with HEPASilent Ultra(tm), our
| most advanced filtration technology ever. Every component is
| uniquely designed in Sweden to provide the maximum performance
| and energy efficiency. This patent-pending technology combines
| electrostatic and mechanical filtration to remove 99%4 of
| bacteria and remove dust, pollen, dander, mold, VOCs, and odors.
| HEPASilent Ultra(tm) delivers 50% more clean air5, uses 55% less
| energy and has a 10% lower noise than traditional true HEPA
| filtration6.
|
| https://www.blueair.com/sg/healthprotect-family-page.html
|
| As an aside, for air purifiers and some other items I've found
| the energy star site useful:
|
| https://www.energystar.gov/productfinder/product/certified-r...
|
| There are actual measurements and you can sort by several
| categories. The manufacturers submit the measurements themselves,
| but the tests are at least supposed to be standardized. And they
| actually display the wattage used by each purifier. The
| electricity running costs can make up a large portion of the
| total cost of ownership of an air purifier if you have it running
| consistently.
| UIUC_06 wrote:
| For kitchen devices, ATK or SeriousEats.
|
| Anything else: if you don't have a site you trust, then the only
| recourse is to look at LOTS of sites and read between the lines.
| By "sites" I also include "user forums."
|
| This also applies to movie reviews, btw. Rotten Tomatoes is
| trash. You can't average Trash opinions and end up with anything
| other than Trash. What you want to learn is "what is this movie
| like, and will I enjoy it?" So you should find some critics whom
| _you_ think are intelligent, and just read them.
| spiderice wrote:
| > You can't average Trash opinions and end up with anything
| other than Trash
|
| But Rotten Tomatoes doesn't take averages. The reason so many
| people take issue with Rotten Tomatoes is they don't know how
| to read the data.
|
| Rotten Tomatoes shows you the (number of promoters) / (number
| of detractors). In other words, it tells you what percent of
| the people like the movie. Not how much they like it. A score
| of 95% on RT doesn't mean it's a nearly flawless movie. It
| means that 95% of people/critics think it is, at the very
| least, good.
|
| Taken directly from the RT About page[1]:
|
| > The Audience Score, denoted by a popcorn bucket, represents
| the percentage of users who have rated a movie or TV show
| positively
|
| and
|
| > The Tomatometer score represents the percentage of
| professional critic reviews that are positive for a given film
| or television show
|
| If you understand that, RT is a very useful review site.
|
| [1]: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/about
| UIUC_06 wrote:
| The "percent of the people like the movie" still doesn't tell
| you anything about WHO those people are. Nor does (number of
| promoters) / (number of detractors).
|
| "professional critic reviews" ?? Please.
|
| I'll stick with what I said: get to know a few critics, and
| read those.
| rexf wrote:
| > Anything else: if you don't have a site you trust, then the
| only recourse is to look at LOTS of sites and read between the
| lines. By "sites" I also include "user forums."
|
| That's why Wirecutter is useful: convenience. They might not
| have the best product recommendations, but for items they
| "review", they provide an easy to click button to buy the
| product.
|
| No offense, but reading random review sites, reddit, yelp,
| forums, misc google SEO landing pages with affiliate links, etc
| to try to find the best product is a huge pain. If I can go to
| 1 review site that is _good enough_ and just buy the thing, the
| convenience often wins out.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| No offense taken. You do have a site you trust, so you're all
| good.
|
| I find that if I read a whole lot of stuff, I start to get
| the gist.
| blobbers wrote:
| I had a lot of trouble finding "the right" air purifier. Who
| knows if its even the right one. I found wirecutter (and the
| like) to have a bit of a feel of a fake affiliate marketing
| website.
|
| My take is: people currently trust their friends, and they trust
| influencers. They don't really trust "experts", or scientists.
|
| What are thoughts on a social network that was simply product
| endorsements from your social network. You can add influencers &
| friends and list the products you use.
|
| Yeah if influencers want to shill a product, that's up to them
| and you. If you trust them, then you trust what they shill. But
| if you want to see Kara Swisher uses a IQ Air or an Ikea product,
| you can trust them.
|
| Thoughts?
| kn0where wrote:
| Wirecutter really illustrates the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. Some
| of their recommendations are fine, but whenever they review
| something more niche than phone charger cables, I go to the
| comments/Reddit/forums to find out why their pick is
| overpriced/underperforming compared to whatever the community
| prefers.
|
| Edit: also, I'm finding Reddit to be a less useful term to append
| to my google searches over time. Many Reddit communities seem to
| attract novices who quickly learn to parrot the same frequently-
| upvoted claims without context, and the experts flee to niche
| forums instead.
| wlonkly wrote:
| Gordonjcp wrote:
| Reddit can be a hilarious example of the Dunning-Kruger effect
| writ large. I've had people argue with me about the exact
| working of various synthesizers in the synth subreddits, even
| when I've backed up my points with links to the extensive
| service documentation, circuit diagrams, and my own code
| disassembly of the firmware ;-) Like, yes, that's nice that you
| have an opinion, but here's the fat book I wrote on the topic,
| so let's see if we can work out who's right.
| mewse-hn wrote:
| I've read similar comments about interactions with Wikipedia
| editors
| Gordonjcp wrote:
| Endless back-and-forth about the Ensoniq EPS being a 13-bit
| sampler. Yes, "13-bit" makes no sense. Yes, "13-bit" sounds
| really unlikely.
|
| No, I'm looking at the Otto datasheet right now, and the
| 2MB memory expansion on my bench which has three rows of
| 4-bit DRAMs and a row of 1-bit DRAMS. Yes, definitely
| 13-bit.
|
| No, I agree it makes no sense, but there you go.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| I think that if a product requires that much hair splitting
| then at the end of the day it's a wash, pick any recommendation
| and live with it.
|
| Reddit is full of shills as well.
| jacobolus wrote:
| Warning: "community preferences" have plenty of their own
| arbitrary biases.
| chrischen wrote:
| I've noticed that problem with reddit as well. Someone will
| make a comment as if it is a well known fact but it turns out
| it was just one youtube reviewer saying it... and they don't
| provide sources.
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| Stupid shit like this causes urban legends that don't die.
| People to this day still think that setting STALKER to
| "master difficulty" makes the player guns do more damage.
| They don't.
| addicted wrote:
| This article has basic misreading errors.
|
| It assumes that everything the Wirecutter says about the IKEA
| filters and non IKEA filters is a reflection of the difference
| between HEPA filters and non HEPA filters. But the wirecutter
| article does not imply that. It mentions the IKEA filter is not a
| true-HEPA filter and mentions other stuff about the IKEA filter
| which may or may not have derived from the true-HEPA claim.
|
| However, it's likely true because the IKEA spokesperson they
| spoke to confirmed this and said it was a deliberate design
| decision.
|
| I also want to point out that this article makes a big deal of
| having found something on the IKEA website about its filtering
| capacity, but seems to miss the fairly obvious point that in the
| line it highlights, IKEA never states that it's filters meet the
| E12 standard. It only states that it's tested against that
| standard.
| stephen_g wrote:
| Saying it's 'tested' and 'corresponds to EPA12' means to say it
| meets the standard. They couldn't say that if they didn't mean
| it passes the spec for E12...
| fehrm wrote:
| I have both Fornuftig (meaning sensible, great name) and a Coway
| Storm AP-1516D. I prefer the Coway, but it is much more powerful.
|
| The only issue I have with the Fornuftig is the noise level, even
| on medium it is too loud for me. Apart from that, it is fine. It
| isn't as powerful and advanced as the Coway but everyone loves
| the look of it and asks what it is, and shows their spouses it.
|
| Coway is big, powerful, quite silent but also clunky and in the
| way.
| corxi wrote:
| HEPA filters ahahahahah!!! Just look up TPA filters, and....
| Airdog. That's a filter..
| simias wrote:
| Opinions about Wirecutter notwithstanding, I thoroughly enjoyed
| this article. I basically believed every singe "myth" exposed
| here, and especially that a better grade of filter was really
| important when in fact if you recirculate the air constantly it's
| really not a big deal.
|
| Also the fact air filters don't work like sieves is pretty mind
| blowing to me, I must confess.
| jansan wrote:
| IKEA really mussed the chance to provide a way to connect their
| air quality sensor with the air purifier. I was hoping to have an
| automated system that would start the air purifier when a certain
| threshold is reached, but there is no way to achieve this (except
| with intensive hacking).
|
| Also, the air quality sensor ALWAYS shows green. Did it show
| yellow or even red for anyone not living in Hotang?
| bouvin wrote:
| As an owner of a couple of Fornuftigs, I have each connected to
| a smart switch (which I already had) triggered over HomeKit by
| Eve air quality sensors (which I also had). Had the upgrade,
| the Starkvind, been on the market, when I got onboard, I would
| probably have opted for that instead, as it packs both a sensor
| and the ability to be controlled wirelessly over Tradfri.
|
| I have had other air purifiers before, and have been happy with
| the Fornuftigs - the air purifying business is, IMHO, to a
| large degree a racket that was badly in need for disruption. I
| bought my two Fornuftigs with filters for less that what I
| would have needed to pay for a single filter change for the air
| purifier I used before.
| enragedcacti wrote:
| Home Assistant has air quality integrations although it does
| seem most solutions require a whole lot of hacking regardless
| of the sensor you choose and you would have to leave the air
| purifier on and use a smart plug to trigger it.
|
| An easier option is just forking over the cash for the
| Starkvind, which does exactly what you want and optionally
| comes in the form of a coffee table.
|
| https://www.ikea.com/us/en/p/starkvind-air-purifier-white-00...
| diebeforei485 wrote:
| Note that Ikea also sells a more powerful air filter called the
| Starkvind. This one is able to detect the air quality and
| automatically turn itself on.
|
| It is sold either as a standalone device or integrated into a
| nightstand / small coffee table:
| https://www.ikea.com/us/en/p/starkvind-table-with-air-purifi...
| yurodivuie wrote:
| Levoit also sells more powerful air purifiers with particle
| detection, though. I think the point of this article was to
| compare the bottom end.
| screye wrote:
| Wirecutter is like Leetcode interviews.
|
| The goal is not to find the 'best' option, but minimize false
| positives under intense time-pressure. Their recommendation is
| usually the 8/10 solid option that you can blindly buy and be
| moderately satisfied with. In the process, they drop out or
| misrepresent other comparable options, but their final
| recommendation is never shoddy.
|
| This is in stark contrast to other reviewers like IGN who give
| 10/10 to every new cash-cow game, and The-Verge that tows the
| 'mainstream' line to play it safe. Additionally, Wirecutter's
| guides are up-to-date and cover every imaginable category. Are
| rtings, Anandtech, LTT, Crinacle, notebookcheck, gsmarena, etc.
| better ? Yes, a 100%. But each of them cover a small niche and
| particularly leave out appliances of all types.
|
| I agree with Dynomight on Wirecutter being mediocre. But,
| consistent mediocrity is incredibly hard to execute at at scale.
|
| I would never use wirecutter unless I absolutely had to. But,
| often, I absolutely have to. Because no one else remotely
| trustable is going around reviewing humidifiers and vacuum
| cleaners.
| rat9988 wrote:
| I'm not sure why you would trust them to have a good false
| positive ratio when the claim is thay their review is influence
| by their partnerships.
| QuinnyPig wrote:
| I find that the Wirecutter is awesome for things I will never
| go into stupendous depth for on my own -- like spatulas. For
| anything more serious than that, it has increasingly been on
| the decline for years.
| ramraj07 wrote:
| I've just learned to never trust them on headphones lol
| SlimyHog wrote:
| Yeah the one thing I've purchased on their recommendation
| that I'm not satisfied with is headphones.
| logifail wrote:
| I'm pretty skeptical (and that's putting it mildly) of _any_
| website that uses affiliate marketing links. I can 't see how
| objectivity can survive in that environment.
|
| A concrete example is frequent flyer/travel blogs. I vaguely know
| the guy who runs the UK's largest one, I've met him in person
| several times, fairly nice bloke. He's worked very hard to build
| his site, publishes high-quality content, and is often the first
| to write about new places and routes of interest. His site has a
| thriving forum and allows comments on his posts.
|
| He also pushes credit card offers and his site is littered with
| affiliate links.
|
| Hmm, you say, that's OK, it doesn't necessarily mean he's lost
| his objectivity.
|
| Except, his articles will say that the best way to book flight or
| hotel X is via offer Y (coincidentally in affiliate scheme Z,
| which is where the "book now" link sends you to). Then someone in
| the comments will pipe up to mention an alternative cashback
| route that is objectively better. He will delete that comment and
| any replies to it. So those who aren't aware of what's going on
| believe his article is the objective truth, and keep feeding the
| beast by clicking on his affiliate links. They miss out on all
| the better deals because they involve booking in ways that no-
| one's allowed to mention on his site.
|
| This has happened over and over again. To me, affiliate marketing
| is basically a cancer.
| harrisonjackson wrote:
| There are categories where the incentives are equal enough
| across all the products so you can maybe possibly trust the
| reviews more.
|
| If all the products are similarly priced and from the same
| retailer (ie amazon) then there isn't any incentive to
| recommend anything other than the best.
| jefftk wrote:
| Agreed: the Wirecutter's emphasis on HEPA is not right for a
| purifier that sits in a room. Once you get to reasonably high
| removal efficacy (even 90%, let alone 99.5% vs 99.97%) flow rate
| matters far more than filter spec.
|
| I also wish the Wirecutter would publish more detailed logs. They
| just check the particle density after half an hour, which is
| generally super low. Instead they could show the particle density
| curves, or the minute-over-minute decreases (ex:
| https://www.jefftk.com/p/testing-air-purifiers)
| [deleted]
| asojfdowgh wrote:
| > which is generally super low.
|
| Except when it isn't, which is kinda the point: Its a fan and a
| filter, if the fan is improperly fitted, path of least
| resistance starts playing, if the filter is improperly fitted,
| blah blah
|
| making a fan spin to the point of getting the most volume
| allowed through a filter, is probably the easiest bit of the
| entire process
| 99_00 wrote:
| >HEPA is not right for a purifier that sits in a room
|
| Why not? I don't know anything about HEPA, or quality, air
| flow, etc.
| highwaylights wrote:
| Almost all of these review sites, not understanding the
| physics involved, believe a HEPA filter sieves particles down
| to a size of 0.3 microns, which implies that anything smaller
| passes on through.
|
| This is utterly false. HEPA filters are measured at the
| efficiency of what's known as the MPP (the Most Penetrating
| Particle size). It's the hardest particle size to capture as
| it can get by the two methods used to capture large particles
| (impaction), and smaller particles (diffusion).
|
| Considering almost none of the air in a room is passing
| through the filter at a given moment, the efficiency of the
| filter is less important than how much air it moves through
| the filter media per minute, which IKEA have favoured here.
|
| Essentially this filter performs close to par with more
| expensive units, while using less energy, and having
| dramatically lower costs for filter replacements when due.
|
| What they don't do is give reviewers either kickbacks or
| basic physics lessons.
| weaksauce wrote:
| > Almost all of these review sites, not understanding the
| physics involved, believe a HEPA filter sieves particles
| down to a size of 0.3 microns, which implies that anything
| smaller passes on through.
|
| To be fair, it took a pandemic for me to go to the
| literature of mask effectiveness and finally found the "on
| the filtration efficiency of fiberous filters" paper that
| showed the u shaped curve. it's not something that they
| scream from the hills about in their product brochures.
| That said it should be screamed from the hills.
| highwaylights wrote:
| You might also enjoy this:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cagRuiyAsio
| weaksauce wrote:
| that's a president really standing by their product...
| impressive.
| DantesKite wrote:
| Thank you for this comment. Really gave me a lot of clarity
| for how to think about air filters.
| s0rce wrote:
| HEPA makes sense if you filter all the air, ie. the filter is
| inline like in a laminar flow cabinet/cleanroom or directly
| inserted in an air stream filtering 100% of the downstream
| air. In those cases you care a lot about how many particles
| make it through since they will cause yield loss or
| contamination in the processes.
| seoaeu wrote:
| Yeah, the difference is whether you can run the same air
| through the filter multiple times.
| jefftk wrote:
| The article explains it well:
|
| _Here's a thought experiment: Take a 1000 cubic feet room
| and a purifier that processes 100 cubic feet of air per
| minute. (I follow Wirecutter in using vulgar imperial units.)
| Assume pessimistically that all particles are the worst-case
| size. If you run that purifier with an E12 filter, the
| fraction of particles that will remain after one minute is
| .1 x (1-.995) + .9 = 0.9005.
|
| That's because 10% of the air goes through the purifier and
| has 99.5% of particles removed, while 90% of the air doesn't
| go through the purifier at all.
|
| Meanwhile, if you run that purifier with an H13 filter
| instead then the fraction of particles that remain will be
| .1 x (1-.9995) + .9 = 0.90005.
|
| If you noticed that 0.9005 and 0.90005 are almost identical
| then congratulations--you understand air filters better than
| the Wirecutter. Both 99.5% and 99.95% are close enough to
| 100% that performance is almost entirely determined by the
| volume of air they process._
| etchalon wrote:
| The idea that the difference between 0.9005 and 0.90005 is
| "small" is ... weird.
|
| The moment I read that I checked out on the rest of the
| authors opinions.
| 1986 wrote:
| Why? It's a 0.05% difference, seems pretty small to me.
| etchalon wrote:
| The difference between 99.5% and 99.95 is the difference
| between an event happening 1 in 200 times and happening
| and 1 in 2000 times.
|
| It's a 10x difference.
|
| The author's "I'll just times .1 by the percent of flow,
| and produce very small numbers that look fine! See! The
| numbers are so small!" trick is just ... wrong.
|
| The author implies that the difference can be made up by
| the volume of air being processed, but that would only be
| true of a sealed environment, where no new pollutants are
| added to the air.
|
| Setting aside the basic misunderstanding of probability,
| and ignoring that home purifiers don't operate in sealed
| environments, the IKEA unit does not process 10x the
| amount of air as the other units, so the point is mute.
| rootlocus wrote:
| Consider a purifier that purifies 99.995%. According to
| your "probabilities", that's a 100x improvement. Now
| consider this purifier purifies 1 cubic millimeter of air
| per hour. That is to say, each hour 1 cubic millimeter of
| air is 99.995% purified (no probability). Would you say
| that this purifier is 100x better than the IKEA one with
| 99.5% purification at 1 cubic feet of air per minute?
| Considering air flow is not a trick.
| etchalon wrote:
| A E12 filter filters out 99.5% of particles above 0.3
| microns.
|
| An H13 filter filters out 99.95% of particles above 0.3
| microns.
|
| Assuming a volume of 10000 particles above 0.3 microns:
|
| An E12 filter will leave 50 particles.
|
| An H13 filter will leave 5 particles.
|
| The "rootlocus" filter would leave 0.5 particles.
|
| So yes, I would say your filter is 100x better because it
| literally is.
| rootlocus wrote:
| > Assuming a volume of 10000 particles above 0.3 microns:
|
| That volume is not the same volume processed by all
| filters in the same amount of time.
|
| In the first minute: E12 filters 10000
| particles @ 99.5% performance -> removes 9950,
| leaves 50 H13 filters 10000 particles @ 99.95%
| performance -> removes 9995, leaves 5 RLv1
| filters 10 particles @ 99.995% performance ->
| removes 10, leaves 0 RLv2 filters 1000000
| particles @ 99% performance -> removes 990000, leaves
| 10000
|
| RLv1 only filters a tiny amount of air each minute, while
| RLv2 filters a lot of air each minute (I've improved the
| flow, but drastically botched the performance)
|
| By your method, RLv2 is 2000x slower than H13, but in the
| same ammount of time filtered 99x more particles. RLv1
| needs to run 99000 minutes to filter the same amount of
| particles RLv2 does in one minute.
|
| The example is meant to show air flow totaly dominates
| performance, and it's not "a trick" to multiply by it. I
| also want to point out that comparing the amount of
| particles "left" (50 vs 5 vs 0 vs 10000) is nonsense and
| absolutely no indication of performance in any way.
| hexane360 wrote:
| In other words: you miss 100% of the particles you don't
| circulate
|
| (With apologies to Wayne Gretzky)
| snowwrestler wrote:
| Probabilities and amounts are not comparable even though
| they both use % notation.
|
| In this case they are measuring the % of particles
| captured (an amount), not the likelihood a particle is
| captured (a probability). The parent is right, it's a
| tiny difference.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| This is how it works because the room is not sealed, nor
| is the filter being used to filter outside air into a
| positive pressure area.
|
| It is (hopefully) easy to see that e.g. a filter that
| removes 99.5% of particles, but moves twice as much air
| per minute will remove almost twice as many particles per
| minute as a filter that removes 99.95% of particles.
|
| Using the numbers from TFA (20% of the room for the 99.5
| rather than 10%): .2 x (1-.995) + .8 =
| 0.801
|
| vs .1 x (1-.9995) + .9 = 0.90005
|
| Thus proving the point in TFA that the airflow matters
| more than E12 vs H13. The fact that the steady state
| (given that "dirty" air is being introduced somehow) is
| lower for the filter that moves more air follows from the
| fact that it removes particles at a faster rate.
| weaksauce wrote:
| > The idea that the difference between 0.9005 and 0.90005
| is "small" is ... weird.
|
| it is. that's one minute of filtration and the difference
| is minuscule. over time, this would trend to zero. in 10
| minutes you'd expect to be near the steady state of the
| room. (obviously not completely steady state since you
| are filtering some already filtered air and probably
| introducing more particulates but close enough for an
| approximation)
| etchalon wrote:
| It's a 10x difference. It's not small.
|
| In a sealed environment, you're right, you'd eventually
| end up with all particles filtered.
|
| But homes are not sealed environments.
| diffeomorphism wrote:
| What? Where are you getting the 10x from? Both numbers
| are about 0.9 and the difference is about 0, not 10. If
| you are refering to the sticker number, yeah the whole
| point of that calculation is that a 10x sticker number
| does absolutely not translate to a 10x difference.
|
| > but homes are not sealed.
|
| Correct, but neither are they ultra high throughput (at
| which point any filter sitting in the room would be
| useless anyway, since you never get the filtered air). So
| "not sealed" is too vague to make any conclusion.
| hexane360 wrote:
| (0.9005 - 0.90005) / 0.90005 = 0.00049997222
|
| It's a 0.049997% difference, not a 10x difference.
|
| In an unsealed environment, the steady state will be
| related to amount filtered * % filtered / amount
| exchanged for any given time period. The difference in %
| filtered is not a significant factor in the above ratio.
| weaksauce wrote:
| in practice the filtration in a room goes down
| exponentially and quite quickly even with budget filters
| that only filter out 90%. even in shops where you are
| sanding.
|
| https://woodgears.ca/dust/dylos.html
| [deleted]
| kbelder wrote:
| No, a 10x difference would be between 0.9 and 0.09. What
| was given was about a 1.0005x difference. If you had a
| child that was .9005 meters tall and one that was .90005
| meters tall, you couldn't tell which was taller without a
| precision ruler.
| etchalon wrote:
| A E12 filter filters out 99.5% of particles above 0.3
| microns.
|
| An H13 filter filters out 99.95% of particles above 0.3
| microns.
|
| Assuming a volume of 10000 particles above 0.3 microns:
|
| An E12 filter will leave 50 particles.
|
| An H13 filter will leave 5 particles.
|
| That's a 10x difference.
| rcoveson wrote:
| The only point the author was making with the 0.9005 vs
| 0.90005 example was that _if_ you 're only processing 10%
| of the air, _then_ the efficiency of your filter doesn 't
| matter. The entire section honestly would have been
| better without numbers, because they cause some amount of
| confusion and they don't really help make the point since
| it's obvious. If your room's air is recycled with outside
| air fully over the course of one day, and your filters
| take ten days to work through the volume of air in your
| room, then the efficiency of your filter doesn't matter.
|
| That's it. Yes, one filter is 10x as efficient. It
| doesn't matter because in this example they aren't moving
| enough air relative to the room size/leakiness for it to
| matter.
| etchalon wrote:
| Saying, "OK, but as a total percent of the air in your
| home at any given time, the difference is tiny" is ...
| weird. It's still a 10x difference.
|
| Using small numbers to make the difference look small
| doesn't hide that.
| amluto wrote:
| Sorry, you're still missing the point.
|
| If you are taking air, running it _once_ through a
| filter, and using the air that comes out for an
| application that needs very few particles, then a 99.99%
| filter is "10x" as efficient as a 99.9% filter in the
| sense that the air coming out will have 1 /10 as many
| particles. For example, a 99% efficient face mask is
| "10x" as efficient as a 90% efficient mask (assuming both
| fit perfectly, which they don't, although a PAPR
| approximates a perfect fit).
|
| But an air purifier doesn't do this at all. It
| continuously sucks in air, removes particles from it, and
| sends the filtered air right back into the room to mix
| with all the other air. The performance of a 95% filter
| in this context is barely distinguishable from that of a
| hypothetical 100% filter. Your characterization would
| have the 100% air purifier being "infinitely" more
| efficient.
| etchalon wrote:
| I understand the point. The point doesn't matter.
|
| Air purifiers operate on a fraction of available air.
| That air supply is continually being cycled, refreshed
| and mixed. Particulate matter within that air is not
| evenly dispersed.
|
| That, for a single minute, as a percentage of total air,
| a 99.5% and a 99.95% purifier produce a minor difference
| in total air quality is deeply irrelevant to the overall
| performance of the purifier over any length of time. The
| 10x difference, however, will matter over time.
|
| This is why the tests, which the author dismissed without
| any reasoning beyond "looks wrong!", in the original
| WireCutter article showed such stark differences between
| the performance of the Fornuftig and the Levoit Core 300,
| over a 30 minute span.
|
| If you were correct, over those 30 minutes, the amount of
| particulate in the test room would have been roughly
| equal for both purifiers. It wasn't. The Fornuftig
| removed only 64.5% of the particulate while the Levoit
| removed 97.4%.
|
| Can you point to a test which shows dramatically
| different results than the ones the WireCutter reported?
| rcoveson wrote:
| You started this subthread with the comment:
|
| > The idea that the difference between 0.9005 and 0.90005
| is "small" is ... weird.
|
| When you use the author's numbers, 0.9005 and 0.90005,
| the implication is that you're taking the parameters of
| they hypothetical as given. You then go on to say that
| the difference between those numbers is significant.
| Remember that in this abstract, idealized scenario, the
| air filters are only able to process 1/10th of the air in
| the room (hence the shared 0.9, the dominant portion of
| the magnitude). Perhaps the room reciculates with its
| environment at the rate of one room volume per day, and
| the filters can only process 1/10th of the room per day.
| Given that, do you still think the difference is
| significant? Or are you just outright refusing to
| participate in the thought experiment at all? Because
| that's what it seems like now that you're trying to
| broaden the scope of your contention to the other
| sections of the article.
| etchalon wrote:
| I started the subthread with the comment because saying
| the difference between those numbers is small is weird,
| ... because it is.
|
| Those numbers represent percentages (90.005% and
| 90.0005%) and those two inputs, especially when applied
| to a chaotic system, will produce outsized differences
| over time.
|
| And the data shows that the two filters produced outsized
| differences over time.
|
| I'm not broadening the scope of my contention. I'm
| pointing out that my contention (there is a large
| difference in those numbers that is hidden by the way the
| author presents them) is confirmed by the data.
| rcoveson wrote:
| The data have _nothing to do_ with the hypothetical where
| the air filters process 10% of the air in the room. They
| also have nothing to do with the air filters in the
| thought experiment, which are simplified, ideal filters
| that have the exact characteristics we say they do.
| Nobody is applying the numbers in question to any
| "chaotic system", because this is just a simple framing
| designed to illustrate _exactly one, utterly banal point_
| : If you don't process most of the air, it doesn't matter
| how efficient you are. In fact, that's all the section
| should have been. That one sentence. No numbers (it
| doesn't need them), and very little detail. Just, "if you
| don't process most of the air, the efficiency doesn't
| matter". You can't disagree with that conditional
| statment. You can argue that the _premise_ is flawed, or
| irrelevant, or unrealistic to the point of uselessness,
| but you can 't argue with the totally boringly obvious
| statement that _if you aren 't processing 90% of the air
| at all, then your efficiency doesn't matter_. It's not
| more controversial than saying that "if your air filters
| are turned off, their efficiency doesn't matter."
| jefftk wrote:
| _> the original WireCutter article showed such stark
| differences between the performance of the Fornuftig and
| the Levoit Core 300, over a 30 minute span. If you were
| correct, over those 30 minutes, the amount of particulate
| in the test room would have been roughly equal for both
| purifiers. It wasn 't. The Fornuftig removed only 64.5%
| of the particulate while the Levoit removed 97.4%._
|
| Note that you are talking about the 0.3 micron
| measurements: if we look at larger particles the
| difference is smaller. But that's fine!
|
| There are two big ways that that comparison is different
| from what we're talking about here:
|
| * Those two purifiers have very different capacities: 135
| CFM (CADR) for the Levoit, 82 for the Fornuftig
|
| * The filter on the Fornuftig is much less effective
| against very small particles. The math above is comparing
| filters that are 99.5% vs 99.95% effective, while in this
| case it's more like 70% vs 99.97%.
| etchalon wrote:
| We're talking about 0.3 micron measurements because the
| input value for his numbers is the efficiency of the
| filters in removing 0.3 micron particles (99.5 vs 99.95).
|
| The author claimed the difference between the purified
| air, as a percentage of total air volume, was small. He
| used percentages expressed as a decimal to make that
| difference look small (0.9005 vs 0.90005). But a clever
| observer would translate those numbers back into their
| percentages (90.05 vs 90.005), start applying some math
| (i.e. 100000 x 0.9005 vs 0.90005), see the 10x
| difference, understand how that 10x different is going to
| multiply over time in a chaotic system, check the data to
| see if that's true, and then throw away the author's
| point.
| amluto wrote:
| Multiplying .9005 and .90005 by 10000 does not actually
| cause a 10x difference to appear. No, really, try it!
|
| If your goal is to play with numbers, you could raise
| them both to a large power. You would discover that the
| ratio between them increases exponentially, but this
| would pale in comparison to the fact that both results
| would exponentially approach zero much faster than the
| ratio would increase.
| etchalon wrote:
| 10000 x .9005 is 9,005. 10000 x .90005 is 9,000.5.
|
| Meaning that the first filter left 5 particles vs the
| second filter leaving .5 particles.
|
| A 10x difference.
|
| The goal isn't to "play with numbers" but to understand
| why/if the relative effectiveness of a filter results in
| a substantive difference in air quality.
|
| The data shows it does.
| jefftk wrote:
| _> The data shows it does_
|
| As I described above [1] the data show that the
| difference between 70% and 99.95% matters, not that the
| difference between 99.5% and 99.95% does. (And that's
| ignoring difference in flow rates, which is also very
| large.)
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31823047
| etchalon wrote:
| The 70% and 99.95% difference is because of the 10x
| filtration efficiency difference, combined with the CADR
| difference.
|
| This is very straight-forward.
| jefftk wrote:
| The "10x" you've been referring to is about the
| difference in how many particles make it through filters
| of 99.5% vs 99.95% efficacy [1], not 70% vs 99.95%, which
| would be 600x [2].
|
| [1] (1-.995)/(1-.9995)
|
| [2] (1-.7)/(1-.9995)
| etchalon wrote:
| "CADR" is a word I included for a reason.
| amluto wrote:
| Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The
| data shows a huge difference which cannot be explained by
| the difference between 5 particles and 0.5 particles.
|
| As noted in the article, the Wirecutter does not explain
| its methodology or give particularly complete data, and
| what explanations they do give about filtration make no
| sense.
| etchalon wrote:
| It's a 10x difference in filtration efficiency, combined
| with a CADR difference between the two units.
|
| I don't understand why you think more of an explanation
| is required?
| amluto wrote:
| There is a 10x difference between (1-efficiency) for the
| two filter media choices. Explanation needed as to why
| this is at all relevant.
|
| Your comment is like observing that car A burns 87 octane
| gasoline and another burns 89 octane gasoline and
| claiming, without explanation, that one of them
| accelerates faster because (90-octane) is 3x lower.
|
| hint: the bigger purifier wins because it has a more
| powerful, more power hungry fan pushing air through it.
| Its performance might be further improved (depending on
| the fan and motor characteristics) by putting a less
| efficient, lower pressure drop filter in because _more
| air would go through it per unit time_.
|
| Meanwhile, two IKEA filters will outperform it in every
| measure, including cost, noise, and power consumption.
| But their efficiency will still be lower.
| amluto wrote:
| > That, for a single minute, as a percentage of total
| air, a 99.5% and a 99.95% purifier produce a minor
| difference in total air quality is deeply irrelevant to
| the overall performance of the purifier over any length
| of time. The 10x difference, however, will matter over
| time.
|
| Can you explain, with actual math, what you're trying to
| say?
|
| There are plenty of plausible explanations for
| Wirecutter's unexpected results. They could have messed
| up (quite likely). The difference in the behavior of the
| fans could be circulating the air differently (also seems
| reasonably likely). The conditions of the test could be
| such that the difference in CADR was relevant (possible
| but doesn't seem likely). They could have failed to set
| up the IKEA filter correctly (I once failed to set up a
| Conway filter correctly -- it was somewhat embarrassing).
| Or, by pure magic, the fact that the extremely clean
| outgoing air from the IKEA filter was less extremely
| clean than the extremely clean outgoing air from the
| other filter made a difference (seems very unlikely).
| stephen_g wrote:
| So? We're talking about practical effectiveness here. The
| difference really only matters if you only have one
| chance to filter the air, like the filter in a
| ventilation system bringing air into a cleanroom (the
| article goes into this).
|
| Since the air purifier intakes and exhausts in the same
| space (meaning filtered air gets re-filtered), all the
| slightly worse filter means it that you'd need to run it
| for a couple more minutes to get the room down to a
| similar concentration of particulate per unit volume...
| So the difference in particulate concentration would
| likely _not_ be anywhere near 10x at steady state, it
| would be much smaller (but depends how much air leaks
| into the room from outside, the particulate content of
| the outside air, the volume of air you 're getting
| through the purifier per unit time, etc.)
| evancox100 wrote:
| This entire subthread is the math version of "most
| programmers can't even do fizz buzz".
| csours wrote:
| The author explicitly states that it's small in the home
| use context. If you're talking about medical or cleanroom
| manufacturing contexts, yes it's a huge difference.
| amluto wrote:
| Even in a medical context, the difference, _when operated
| like an air purifier_ , is negligible.
|
| The genuine HEPA filter in a cleanroom [0] is not sitting
| in front of a fan in the middle of the room. It's very
| carefully installed such that _all_ the air coming into
| the clean area goes through it once. The calculation is
| entirely different. (A medical or industrial HEPA filter
| may well be in the _exhaust_ , in which case the
| considerations are again different.)
|
| [0] There's none of this "true HEPA" stuff in a
| cleanroom. There is a filter that meets a specific
| standard, and that filter will have a gasket that seals
| with considerable force against the air handling
| equipment. The "true HEPA" filter in a Wirecutter-
| approved air purifier achieves nowhere near 99.97% due to
| the lack of the aforementioned gasket regardless of how
| amazing the filter media may be.
| etchalon wrote:
| Small home or not, homes are not sealed environments. A
| 10x difference is a 10x difference.
|
| Using one small number or produce another small number,
| so the difference looks small, doesn't hide the 10x
| change.
| jefftk wrote:
| How is there a 10x change? I see a 0.1% change.
| dan-robertson wrote:
| 0.90005 times 10 is 9.0005, not 0.9005 (I.e. the two
| fractions presented are 90.005% and 90.05%). Even if you
| look at the complement you get 9.995% vs 9.95% which is
| small. One could imagine that these differences could
| also arise from eg obstructions to airflow or positioning
| in the room or the direction of the wind outside. The
| point is that the difference is dominated by air flow in
| a typical environment rather than filtering differences.
| infinityio wrote:
| Is it a 10x difference? If you used the better filter,
| you would still have 99.95% of the particles you would
| have had if you used the worse filter
| rcoveson wrote:
| The difference between 0.9005 and 0.90005 is not huge in
| a medical context, or in a chip fab context, or in any
| other practical context. We're not talking about the
| difference between 0.0005 and 0.00005. The numbers in
| question are 0.9005 and 0.90005, and the point being made
| is that the 0.9 problem dwarfs the 10x efficiency
| difference way over in the thousandths place.
| csours wrote:
| That difference is from his comments on the toy model of
| 1000 cubic feet room and 100 cubic feet per minute
| recirculating air.
|
| In an operating room or chip fab, the room would be over
| pressure and the new air coming into the room would be
| filtered. The cleanliness of that air would be determined
| by the quality of the filter.
|
| Also, if you need air that clean, you need to have
| strategies for all sorts of things besides filtering.
|
| The point is, you need to be very careful when you put
| numbers on the internet, and when you read numbers on the
| internet. Numbers make things feel more real than they
| are.
|
| For me to actually trust the numbers here, I would need
| to see the graphs for multiple runs of each filter.
| tempestn wrote:
| Yes, but in that case you wouldn't be comparing 0.9005
| and 0.90005, but rather 0.0005 and 0.00005. No one is
| arguing that the difference in filters wouldn't matter in
| a cleanroom context, just that recirculating air in a
| home the difference in filtration is more like 0.9005 vs
| 0.90005, and the difference between those numbers is
| small (in any context to which they apply).
| rcoveson wrote:
| Yes, the numbers are from a toy example, one that the
| author used to make one uncontroversial point in one
| section of the post. Those are the numbers we are
| discussing in this subthread, which began with:
|
| > The idea that the difference between 0.9005 and 0.90005
| is "small" is ... weird.
|
| We aren't talking about a situation where both filters
| are processing all the air in the room. We're talking
| about a situation where the filters are only processing
| 10% of the air in the room. That's the defining
| characteristic of the hypothetical.
| csours wrote:
| I did a poor job of being explicit in my first reply to
| etchalon.
| jefftk wrote:
| _> In an operating room or chip fab, the room would be
| over pressure and the new air coming into the room would
| be filtered._
|
| You're describing a situation where the filter is on the
| intake, but this thread and article are about purifiers
| within rooms. I agree that the math is really different
| in your situation.
| bramblerose wrote:
| Why do you feel it is weird? They are both 90%, because
| 90% * 100% + 10% * "effectively 0%" is completely
| dominated by the first term.
| rootlocus wrote:
| Another application of Amdahl's law.
| jefftk wrote:
| "the overall performance improvement gained by optimizing
| a single part of a system is limited by the fraction of
| time that the improved part is actually used"
|
| Thanks for teaching me the name for this principle!
| Gigachad wrote:
| This is how I feel every time HN suggests rewriting every
| website in C while ignoring the fact the database takes
| most of the time for average web apps.
|
| Or the articles about how Python is causing climate
| disaster while the author continues to drive an oversized
| SUV.
| asojfdowgh wrote:
| I really don't like this math, no one actually stops at
| that point, you take the output, la, "0.9005" and re-run it
| (0.9005 x .1) x (1-.995) + (0.9005 x .9)
|
| and again, and again, etc, point being that over time it
| does cycle the entire room, due to entropy, and then
| suddenly the differences start to stack up a bit, not a
| lot, but when one filter is letting 10x the particles
| through vs the other filter, it'll show
| jefftk wrote:
| _> suddenly the differences start to stack up a bit, not
| a lot, but when one filter is letting 10x the particles
| through vs the other filter, it 'll show_
|
| It doesn't show: the difference is too small to notice at
| every stage: https://www.jefftk.com/remaining-particles-
| by-minute-995-vs-...
|
| Even comparing 95% vs 99.95% it's barely noticeable:
| https://www.jefftk.com/remaining-particles-by-
| minute-95-vs-9...
|
| Sheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wVIdWR0lWg
| ZRt4gbnVaH...
| asojfdowgh wrote:
| fair
| Lazare wrote:
| For EU standards, a filter removes X% of the hardest particle
| size to remove (called the Most Penetrating Particle Size or
| MPPS). That size varies between filters, but is often around
| 0.3 microns. Filters will do better than X% for particles
| both _larger_ and _smaller_ than the MPPS. So for the EU
| standard, we 're saying "it'll do X% worst case, and better
| than X% for all other cases, meaning it'll always filter out
| more than X% of all particles, regardless of size".
|
| If X% is 99.95% or higher and below 99.9995%, it's
| technically HEPA; 99.9995% and above it's ULPA, and below
| 99.95% (but 85% or higher) it's EPA.
|
| So let's say you've got an E12 filter that removes 99.6% of
| particles. Technically not HEPA, but after one pass through
| the filter and you've got 0.4% of the particles left. Two
| passes and you've got 0.0016% left, three passes and it's
| 0.0000064% left.
|
| An H13 filter might remove 99.97% of particles. One pass and
| you've got 0.04% left, two passes and you've got 0.000016%
| left.
|
| Or in other words, one pass through a technically HEPA filter
| might leave you with 25 times more particles than two passes
| through a technically non-HEPA filter. So if the air is
| cirulating back through the filter (as it would in a closed
| room), what matters is both _how good the filter is_ and _how
| much air it can filter_. And since at the high end the
| filters are all so good, the volume of air processed
| dominates. A filter that processes twice as much air is
| _vastly_ better than one that filters out an extra fraction
| of a percent of particles.
|
| (US standards are similar, but the cutoff for HEPA is 99.97%
| of 0.3 micron particles, not 99.95% of "whatever the filter
| is worst at". But the difference is generally irrelevant.)
| Miraste wrote:
| My biggest takeaway from this article is that it costs thousands
| of dollars just to see what EU standards actually say. Why?
| jiveturkey wrote:
| Glad to see some strong analysis backing up my decision to ignore
| wirecutter reviews for a couple of years now. Basically when they
| started publishing reviews for things they did not actually
| review.
| shoelessone wrote:
| I wasn't aware they did this. Any chance you have an example of
| this?
| jiveturkey wrote:
| Sorry I don't. But they were publishing various reviews based
| simply on product specs, or advertised/PR features. With
| affiliate links to buy of course. Maybe they don't do it
| anymore? I took a quick look across 3 random categories and
| didn't find any. I guess I have to apologize for the noise,
| since I can't back up my comment.
| IndySun wrote:
| Who or whatever dynomight is, they take things seriously. And I,
| for one, am grateful.
| idk1 wrote:
| Can anyone tell me what 'Contra Wirecutter' means. It's like I've
| gone mad, everyone seems to know what this term means, both of
| these words mean nothing to me and I've spoken English my entire
| life. You're all acting like they're two words that make perfect
| sense. Haha. It would be really great is someone could explain
| the two words to me.
| 7402 wrote:
| Dictionary definition of _contra_ : "against; in opposition or
| contrast to"
|
| So "Contra Wirecutter on the IKEA air purifier" means that it
| is an essay in opposition to the opinion of the Wirecutter.com
| website regarding the IKEA air purifier.
| idk1 wrote:
| Oooo thank you so much! I can't believe I've never come
| across this word, and I love words! I thought it was a video
| came and that's it. I guess it's the short version of
| contradict?
|
| I also think in the context of having Wirecutter, a website
| I've never heard of afterwards, also added to the confusion.
| Thanks so much!
| wux wrote:
| Contra (preposition): 1: AGAINST -- used chiefly in the phrase
| pro and contra 2: in opposition or contrast to
|
| (Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contra)
|
| Wirecutter: https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/
| wlonkly wrote:
| "Contra" means "against" or "in contrast to"[1]. The author has
| a position that is against Wirecutter's position. It is a Latin
| borrowing.
|
| [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contra
| spatley wrote:
| Contra wirecutter is clearly invented for this article. But in
| short I take it to mean that it asserts a point of view that is
| in disagreement with the point of view asserted on the popular
| wirecutter.com product review site.
| idk1 wrote:
| Ah ok, I thought wirecutters we things used for cutting
| wires.
| pja wrote:
| They are, but in this case it's a reference to the website
| that carries product reviews called "The Wirecutter"
| EnderWT wrote:
| On the first point in the article, there is a definition for HEPA
| which for ISO is 99.95% efficiency. The Ikea purifier doesn't
| meet this. It meets the EPA standard, hence the designation of
| E12 (99.5%).
| Gordonjcp wrote:
| A little further into the article, it explains why this doesn't
| make any difference.
| adolph wrote:
| As noted by the sibling comment, the parent comment
| mischaracterizes TFA's reference to "true-HEPA." It also makes
| the same hash of characterizing standards as the affiliate
| blogspam. Read TFA, which has an interesting characterization
| of the tradeoffs involved and not this comment.
| rahimnathwani wrote:
| The article didn't say HEPA has no definition. It said that
| 'true-HEPA' has no definition.
| kllrnohj wrote:
| Which seems intentionally nitpicky given that "HEPA" is
| defined and the Ikea one doesn't meet it while the others do.
| Therefore, "true-HEPA" almost certainly just means "HEPA",
| and the "true" just means "is actually HEPA" not some other
| special definition.
|
| The rest of the article's points are good, but this one comes
| across as just axe grinding.
| rahimnathwani wrote:
| Yeah. I'd assumed that 'true-HEPA' was a made-up term
| intended to trick people into thinking something is HEPA
| when it's actually worse. But that doesn't seem to be the
| case.
| wlonkly wrote:
| The Wikipedia HEPA article[1] says it's actually a
| reaction to people doing that -- some companies advertise
| "HEPA-type" or "HEPA-style", and so companies with actual
| HEPA filters market them as "True HEPA". It's a race to
| the bottom.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HEPA#Marketing
| [deleted]
| Saint_Genet wrote:
| Not to be a conspiracy theorist, but the IKEA one which they
| singled out as not recommended to buy is the only one in the
| article they don't earn a commission on when someone buys it
| davidcbc wrote:
| There are other categories where they do recommend IKEA as the
| top option despite not getting a commission
| elromulous wrote:
| This is definitely not a conspiracy theory. Incentives affect
| reviews, which is why truly unbiased review sources exist.
| hammock wrote:
| Sometimes conspiracy theories are true. They are still
| conspiracy theories
| CharlesW wrote:
| "A conspiracy theory is not the same as a conspiracy;
| instead, it refers to a hypothesized conspiracy..."
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
| hammock wrote:
| My point is it's a mistake to conflate anything labeled a
| conspiracy theory as being automatically false, which is
| often what happens, or the label is applied something
| that's already false. Many theories turn out to be true
| jstanley wrote:
| A conspiracy is when people collude in secret. A
| conspiracy _theory_ is a theory that some people collude
| in secret. Conspiracy theories are true when they
| correspond to true conspiracies.
| Gigachad wrote:
| People get the idea that theory means wrong or imaginary
| when it really means the concept of something rather than
| the actual thing. But the concept can be correct and
| fully proven like the theory of math or physics.
| bombcar wrote:
| Exactly, if they're true it's a conspiracy fact or just a
| conspiracy.
|
| And even if they do NOT take kickbacks, there's no
| financial incentive at all to "link" to a sales page that
| doesn't offer affiliate links, where there is one to
| link. And so the best way to handle this is to _not
| review_ at all products that aren 't available through
| said sites.
|
| Think Southwest tickets not being available from
| aggregators.
| CharlesW wrote:
| > _And even if they do NOT take kickbacks, there 's no
| financial incentive at all to "link" to a sales page that
| doesn't offer affiliate links..._
|
| And yet Wirecutter does this.
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/best-stuff-
| from-i...
| oldgradstudent wrote:
| Every prosecutor is a conspiracy theorist. The courts
| decide whether the conspiracy theory corresponds to a real
| conspiracy.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| Especially when they already have a proven track record of
| nastiness: https://www.xdesk.com/wirecutter-standing-desk-
| review-pay-to...
| elromulous wrote:
| Oh wow! I hadn't seen this. Thanks for sharing.
| GavinMcG wrote:
| I've used the Wirecutter, so I'm not going to claim to be
| totally unbiased. But I'm just not seeing any nastiness
| there: the reason they gave for switching their
| recommendation (while retaining their original
| recommendation as an upgrade pick) seems entirely
| legitimate. And as much as the company wants to emphasize
| the use of the word "kickback" it's not really apt:
| Wirecutter's model has always been affiliate linking, and
| that's exactly what they reached out about in their first
| and second emails. And when turned down, they still
| published the recommendation and (later) still identified
| it as the best option if cost isn't an issue.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| But the problem is that it ultimately skews the
| incentives and contradicts their claim that the editors
| are totally isolated from the commercial part of their
| business.
|
| Their homepage currently suggests the following:
|
| > _We independently review everything we recommend._ When
| you buy through our links, we may earn a commission
| [emphasis mine]
|
| The "about" page claims:
|
| > _There's no incentive for us to pick inferior products_
| or to respond to pressure from manufacturers--in fact,
| it's quite the opposite [emphasis mine]
|
| That's not really true when the same person who writes
| the reviews is the one trying to solicit kickbacks in the
| background, and puts the credibility of the entire
| website into question. Their adjusted review _could_ be
| completely legitimate but there 's no way to be sure so
| it's better to err on the side of caution.
| donohoe wrote:
| But the editors are isolated from the commercial side.
|
| Regardless of what they pick, they do not manage the
| affiliate links. Thats an entirely different process.
|
| >> That's not really true when the same person who writes
| the reviews is the one trying to solicit kickbacks in the
| background
|
| No. The person doing the review has no insight or
| commission on any affiliate income.
|
| Whether you like the NYT or not, their coverage and
| reviews are made to the best of the abilities, and while
| mistakes happen, the writers are not trying to nickle and
| dime you.
| GavinMcG wrote:
| Sure, and I'm not saying there's _no possible_ influence
| in any direction. At the same time, I suspect things are
| more separate than in 2014, and I don 't see that claim
| on their pages from back then [0][1]. In fact they seemed
| to have independently reviewed the desks and only _then_
| asked about an affiliate program.
|
| When they switched their recommendation to Fully, they
| apparently didn't have an affiliate relationship with
| them, either. NextDesk calls that "false" -- but based on
| Wirecutter linking to _Amazon_ to earn a commission. That
| 's a bizarre conflation (although like you said it's not
| _nothing_ ) but it's what Wirecutter usually did
| regardless of the product, and they were up front about
| it at the time [1].
|
| [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20150603092537/https://th
| ewirecu...
|
| [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20150518125823/http://the
| wirecut...
|
| (Wirecutter used the word "kickback" here, too, so if
| anything it seems like they were trying to be as
| uncharitable as possible about their own model.)
| lozenge wrote:
| Wirecutter's "business team" won't let their "editorial
| team" review the new iterations of the NextDesk product
| because if their "unbiased recommendation" is NextDesk,
| revenue will go down.
|
| The CEO was explicit in his email that he looks to
| maximise revenue on the standing desks page (and by
| implication, every other page on the site).
|
| The "business team" was explicit - the editorial team
| doesn't act directly, they can only get review units
| arranged by the business team - which is refusing to
| receive review units because no affiliate program is in
| place.
| GavinMcG wrote:
| Eight years ago, right? Are they refusing now? (Genuinely
| curious if you've got up-to-date info. If they are
| terribly biased I want to know it, so I can downgrade my
| trust, which is why I upvoted the OP about the air
| purifier.)
|
| Also, it's not really clear to me that "independently
| review" has to mean "we completely isolate any business-
| related decision-making from editorial functions" as
| Nextgrid seems to assume.
| hamburglar wrote:
| Well it certainly calls their objectivity into question,
| and the objectivity is supposed to be the entire point.
| The way they described the better (and more expensive)
| desk before the shakedown made it clear that it was the
| best one. That they changed it to a runner-up after many
| attempts to solicit a kickback is a seriously bad look. I
| don't trust them at all now.
| GavinMcG wrote:
| They didn't change it to a runner up--they changed it to
| an upgrade pick, that is, _still_ the best, but without
| enough marginal benefit for the substantial marginal
| cost. Not sure what pricing was like back then, of
| course, but at this point Wirecutter 's recommendations
| run about seven hundred dollars, and NextDesk's offerings
| _start_ at _eighteen hundred_.
| hamburglar wrote:
| And in the first article, they acknowledged the large
| price disparity and were very explicit that it was well
| deserved and worth every penny.
| tyre wrote:
| They make more money from me if their reviews are
| accurate. If they're are only motivated by money, then
| that incentive favors honest reviews.
|
| If I buy products that they recommend and they're shit, I
| won't go back and click anything again in my life. Making
| an extra $3 from on purchase isn't worth it.
| hackernewds wrote:
| It works if you, the reader, doesn't suspect malice.
| Which it seems there is.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| But the problem is that there's a difference between
| "okay" and "shit". They indeed won't make money if they
| recommend shit that gets returned, but a lot of products
| can be "okay" enough for people to keep around even if
| there are better products out there (that the review site
| doesn't recommend because the "okay" product provides
| better kickbacks). The standing desk situation is
| actually a very good example of that - the hassle of
| shipping and assembly means that once you've received it
| you are unlikely to ship it back unless it's absolutely
| bad despite other models being even better.
|
| Frankly, for "okay" products, most of us don't need
| review websites. Even with the shit-show that Amazon
| reviews are it's usually easy enough to tell an outright
| bad product. The purpose of a review website (as a
| consumer) would be to find the absolute _best_ product
| possible out of a sea of mostly "okay" ones.
| seoaeu wrote:
| Honestly, when I'm looking at buying something OK is
| usually all I'm looking for. Sure getting the best widget
| would be nice, but I'm happy as long as it doesn't break
| right away or otherwise cause me problems.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| Do you have proof of that? Otherwise it kind of is conspiracy
| theorist. I assume Hanlon's razor here rather than malice on
| the part of NYT/WC.
| dchest wrote:
| I thought the same, but IKEA does have an affiliate program.
| rahimnathwani wrote:
| This is mentioned in the first line of the article:
|
| "you should instead buy a different purifier that totally
| coincidentally happens to pay affiliate marketing commissions."
| clairity wrote:
| i literally ran into this with wirecutter when searching for
| an air purifier years ago. they recommended an inferior
| performing coway when their own tests concluded that blueair
| (211+) was significantly better. they've long since removed
| the chart showing this discrepancy, and they still recommend
| coway, no doubt because that's their affiliate partner. i
| bought the 211+ and have been mostly satisfied with it for my
| studio apartment, but beware, filters are relatively
| expensive.
|
| in any case, if you really care about effective air
| purification, buy the largest/most powerful fan you can get
| (CADR tries to proxy this, but is an imperfect measure),
| because the critical factor is getting as much of the air
| volume through the filters before the dust settles
| (literally). filter effectiveness isn't nearly as critical as
| throughput.
|
| nowadays i'd probably opt for two of the ikeas instead, and
| put them on opposite sides of the room (but not against a
| wall). that'd be cheaper and likely just as effective.
| asojfdowgh wrote:
| They recommend against a bunch of things even if they get
| commission
| arkitaip wrote:
| You know what the messed up thing about Wirecutter's affiliate
| marketing is?
|
| Their Amazon links are consistently broken to the point where
| the links don't point to products but are faulty search
| queries. Like, if you are going to compromise your reputation
| doing affiliate marketing, at least get the damn links right so
| I don't have to perform a Amazon search to find the actual
| product.
| bombcar wrote:
| Some might say this is intentional, the whole point for the
| link is to corrupt your Amazon cookie so that they get credit
| for the (next?) purchase you make.
|
| At least that's how I've always assumed the links work, not
| that you have to buy the exact product immediately.
| hackernewds wrote:
| This blew my mind. And would be highly unethical that
| Amazon should know, since the accounting often happens on
| the publisher's side
| harrisonjackson wrote:
| The product link not resolving doesn't improve this
| payout for the publisher. The cookie gets dropped _either
| way_ and when a purchase happen Amazon will check for a
| referral cookie and payout accordingly for whatever
| qualifies in that cart.
|
| As long as you end up on amazon's site, then the cookie
| was likely dropped and your next purchase may pay out
| affiliate commission to whichever publisher's links you
| most recently clicked through.
| bombcar wrote:
| https://toolguyd.com/top-tool-deals-11122020/ has some
| comments on what the _site owner_ can see, things like
| which links work better than others, etc. Surprisingly
| large amounts of info could leak without anyone really
| realizing it, even if everything is entirely
| "anonymized" there's still the total dollar amount paid
| out, etc.
| apendleton wrote:
| I definitely feel like there's a bit of a Gell-Mann Amnesia
| effect going on with Wirecutter reviews: when they review things
| in areas I happen to know well, I often notice errors or missteps
| in their thinking in the review, but for some reason I still
| blindly trust their reviews in products that I know less about,
| even though obviously it's not particularly likely that they're
| uniquely inexpert in the areas I happen to know well. Posts like
| this are a good reminder to be skeptical of all of it.
| GistNoesis wrote:
| I am no professional but air quality as been a pet peeve of mine,
| here is my advice.
|
| The main problem with air purifier is that they create a false
| sense of security while doing only part of the job, and in many
| cases the job can be done better by opening the windows to change
| the air.
|
| The step number one if you care about your air quality, is
| getting an air quality monitor. They are quite cheap, and should
| display temperature, humidity, PM2.5, TVOC (total volatile
| organic compounds), and CO2.
|
| Then you can treat the problem adequately if you have one.
|
| If your home ventilation was well designed and you live in a non-
| polluted area the numbers should be OK. Then you only need an air
| purifier if you create some kind of dust and/or not ventilate
| during cooking.
|
| If they aren't : try opening windows a little and experiment to
| see if you can maintain the number in the correct range
| throughout the day and year. If you can't you'll probably have to
| have some form of professional installation to get the
| ventilation done properly or need to move.
|
| HEPA filters in air purifier, only remove particulates but have
| no effect on TVOC or CO2. HEPA filters are expensive and need to
| be changed regularly.
|
| TVOC and CO2 only grow indoor, the only thing you can impact is
| how fast they grow, and therefore how often you will have to
| change your air to maintain good enough quality.
|
| To reduce the growth rate of TVOC the first thing to do is track
| the sources of it and remove them (for example avoid bad paints,
| glues, remove clutter (the less object surfaces you have the less
| they emit and use inert surface materials), chemical bottles...),
| and then make sure that you keep temperature and humidity stable.
|
| To remove CO2, the only way is to have adequate ventilation
| (either by opening the windows or by mechanical ventilation),
| (and you can only get as low as the CO2 concentration of the
| outside air (which is growing...) ).
|
| This ventilation will bring fresh air from the outside. Then it
| all depends on where you live and the quality, temperature,
| humidity of the exterior air.
|
| For example if you live in a cold place, opening the windows will
| lose lot of heat, so you can mitigate this problem by using a
| ventilation that recover part of the loss heat. If you live in a
| humid place bringing you probably need some ventilation that dry
| the air. But the key is to ventilate as little as possible to
| maintain the number in the good range.
|
| If you live in a place where the quality of the exterior air is
| bad, you probably should move, but in the mean time you can use
| an air purifier to mitigate the PM2.5 problem.
|
| If you live in an old place that was designed without ventilation
| in mind, it will be quite expensive and may create some noise,
| and you probably should move.
| Youden wrote:
| Nothing against the rest of what you say but I wouldn't
| recommend a "cheap" air quality monitor for CO2.
|
| "Cheap" usually means eCO2, which isn't actually a CO2
| measurement but rather an estimation based on VOC measurements.
| This has basically zero correlation to actual CO2 levels [0].
|
| For CO2, you need to look at air quality monitors that cost at
| least $100, or which do nothing but monitor CO2. These will
| have real sensors in them that actually measure CO2 levels
| (NDIR). You should check to confirm they advertise NDIR
| somewhere to be sure.
|
| You also need to be very careful with calibration. If your area
| has consistent low levels that don't match ambient, the
| calibration will be thrown off and all your readings will be
| garbage.
|
| TVOC and particles don't have the same problems, there are
| fairly cheap sensors for them that work pretty well, it's just
| CO2 you have to be picky about [0].
|
| [0]: https://jsss.copernicus.org/articles/7/373/2018/
| throw90259475 wrote:
| On the same subject but from another source, some arguments in
| this video are off:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uZKBlwLEFs
| wabain wrote:
| This article falls into the trap of conflating the Wirecutter's
| misapplication of filtration standards with irrelevant minutiae
| about which terms and diameters they cite for the filter classes.
| So alongside a pretty cogent description of how fine-matter
| filtration works by particle size, there's the claim that "a
| 'PM2.5 filter' ... isn't a thing," despite the PM2.5 class of
| fine particulate matter being the range specifically mentioned in
| the Ikea product description in the screenshot. A cursory search
| will turn up lots of results for filters which show that this is
| a pretty common term. Where the Wirecutter review actually goes
| wrong is in taking 2.5 microns as the lower bound of the
| particulate range, whereas it's conventionally the upper bound.
|
| Then there's the idea that "Neither size mentioned (0.3 microns
| or 2.5 microns) has any relationship to either of the design
| specs" [the EU E12 and H13 standards]. When I google "hepa" my
| first hit is a US EPA page giving the specification for the most
| penetrating particle size of HEPA filters as 0.3 microns, rather
| than the 0.15 microns given in the article (from the empirical
| research or EU standards, I'm not sure which). This is from North
| America, but then, the Wirecutter is an American review site.
| It's worth considering this kind of (IMO) misfire in light of the
| article making the least charitable possible inference, that the
| Wirecutter deliberately set out to discredit the Ikea product
| because it couldn't give an affiliate link.
|
| [1] https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/what-hepa-filter
| rdl wrote:
| Wirecutter has gone way downhill since NYT bought them, too. :(
|
| The only review source I trust is
| https://www.youtube.com/c/ProjectFarm/videos
| js2 wrote:
| True HEPA means exactly what it says: HEPA as defined by the US
| EPA.
|
| E12 is NOT a HEPA filter. Which is why it's called E12. HEPA
| starts at H13 and H14. This is right in the wikipedia page TFA
| links to:
|
| > The specification used in the European Union: European Standard
| EN 1822-1:2009, from which ISO 29463 is derived, defines several
| classes of filters by their retention at the given most
| penetrating particle size (MPPS): Efficient Particulate Air
| filters (EPA), HEPA and Ultra Low Particulate Air filters (ULPA).
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HEPA#Specifications
|
| So the IKEA filter is an Efficient Particulate Air filter, but
| not a HEPA filter.
|
| There is nothing wrong with The Wirecutter's review. TFA's
| allegation that The Wirecutter dismissed the IKEA filter because
| they don't get an affiliate fee from IKEA is without evidence or
| merit. The Wirecutter does in fact recommend other IKEA products:
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/best-stuff-from-i...
|
| The Wirecutter is not a perfect site, but it's where I often
| start my product research and it has yet to let me down.
| rossmohax wrote:
| Looking for an indoor air quality monitor to buy, any
| recommendations?
| Someone1234 wrote:
| To monitor what (e.g. what particular size, VOX, radon, etc)?
| And do you need logging? Because that almost entirely
| determines which one.
|
| For simple, cheap, PM2.5 and above, the Ikea "VINDRIKTNING" is
| a good choice. It only offers a simple traffic-light system
| though, no logging and numeric readout. USB-C powered (cable
| and power-brick sold separately). Around $25~ including buying
| the USB-C cable and power-brick, $13 alone.
| rossmohax wrote:
| Mainly to know when to open windows (CO2 monitor?) and to
| vacuum and its effect (PM2.5?) and maybe some generic stuff
| because why not (temperature, humidity, pressure). I probably
| want something more precise, that just a traffic light
| system, but don't plan to plot readings in Grafana either.
| Someone1234 wrote:
| CO2 can be a little expensive, AirThings sell one but
| $200(!).
| sydthrowaway wrote:
| Oh great, Wirecutter is full of paid shills now too.
|
| Why the fuck does everything turn to shit?
|
| Fuck Google.
| toofy wrote:
| if there is a way to make more money by being dishonest,
| twisting definitions, or cutting corners they will. over and
| over again. we see this repeatedly.
|
| greed, for power, for influence, for money, etc...
|
| when the incentives push someone to "race to the bottom" in
| terms of quality, this is what they do. always. over and over
| again.
|
| greed leads to a race to the bottom.
| swagasaurus-rex wrote:
| I've tried out various air purifiers, the only one I've found
| that's truly quiet is RabbitAir.
|
| It's amazing how much noise pollution most air purifiers create.
| breput wrote:
| Big Clive made a video and wrote an OpenSCAD script[0] which
| allows you to 3D print a base and adapter to convert a regular
| 120mm computer fan into a "true" HEPA air purifier.
|
| You might already have a spare 120mm fan laying around - I am
| using a $8 ARCTIC P12 fan[1] which is very quiet and is designed
| to work with high static pressure. The generic filters[2] are two
| for $17, (supposedly) H13 grade, available from a number of
| suppliers, and last a very long time. You could use them one at a
| time but I stack the two filters on top of each other and seal
| them with electrical tape for more surface area.
|
| The fan isn't super powerful (56 CFM) and the appearance is not
| as polished as commercial models, but it does have a certain
| aesthetic to it. The area where I live rarely has any air quality
| issues but I have noticed it really cuts down on dust.
|
| [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Vmh2Ip2Vxg (script in the
| Description)
|
| [1] https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B07GB16RK7
|
| [2] https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B08N1FP2WT
| aftbit wrote:
| Thanks for sharing this! Can you provide the values of the
| variables for that exact linked filter and fan? I'd like to
| print this while I wait for Amazon shipping. I bought ASIN
| B07GJG285F instead - same fan, but faster shipping for me.
| screwhole=5; //fan screw hole diameter (5)
| filterhole=92; //HEPA filter hole diameter
| thickness=1.5; //Thickness of plastic layer (1.5)
| insert=10; //Length of insert into filter (10)
| breput wrote:
| You'll definitely want to bump thickness up to 2.0 mm for
| more rigidity. Otherwise just measure the diameter of your
| filter and maybe round up slightly.
|
| I put a layer of electric tape around the flange where the
| filter adapter inserts into the filter and it makes a very
| nice airtight fit. Finally, just print it with the big end
| facing down and you shouldn't need any supports.
|
| screwhole=5; // fan screw hole diameter (5)
|
| filterhole=59; // HEPA filter hole diameter
|
| thickness=2; // Thickness of plastic layer (1.5)
|
| insert=10; // Length of insert into filter (10)
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| That air filter will move such a small volume of air, it's
| basically useless unless you're in a small closet.
| breput wrote:
| Well, my experience refutes that opinion, but yes, it sized
| for a smaller room or less polluted larger areas.
|
| My office is approximately 12' x 12' x 8' or 1,152 ft3. That
| means the room's air would (theoretically) completely pass
| through the filter every 20 1/2 minutes. As the article
| explains, even the lower quality filter in the Ikea air
| purifier is so close to 100% efficient that it isn't worth
| worrying about, so completely filtering the air three times
| per hour is nothing to sneeze at...
|
| And the cost is negligible - the fan might cost $0 to $10,
| filters are $20/year, and electricity usage is around 2 watts
| or probably under $2/year.
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| But little to no dust will get into your computer, meaning
| less cleaning is necessary.
| steamer25 wrote:
| Matthias Wandel recently did some experiments over several
| options. A decent furnace filter, when duct-taped to a box-fan,
| did surprisingly well:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDZ9yUdM2wA
|
| It turned out that my local hardware store had a similar pre-
| manufactured offering with a slightly less Jerry-rigged
| aesthetic. We bought one for my son's allergies but I also
| noticed an improvement on the whole upper floor of our house.
| Box fans can move a lot of air. Furnace filters are cheap
| commodities with a large cross-sectional area that also allow a
| fair amount of flow.
| breput wrote:
| There seems to be two main use cases for a room-sized air
| purifier:
|
| If you live in a polluted city or are affected by wildfires,
| having a box fan-sized model is almost a necessity. It is
| going to be noisy and unsightly but undeniably more
| effective. Having a few furnace filters laying around for air
| quality emergencies is probably not a bad idea.
|
| For day to day use in a low pollution area, where dust or
| pollen is the major concern, I really like the little 120mm
| fan purifier. It runs 24/7, unobtrusively, and is really
| effective for what it does.
| vl wrote:
| Surprisingly, there are ultra-quite full-size fans as well.
| I bough Vornado fan from Amazon, and this is one of the
| best devices I ever had. On first two speeds it's basically
| silent, I use it 24/7 to ventilate room with bad air flow
| in my house. It's also Alexa integrated, but I never can
| remember the commands.
| hubraumhugo wrote:
| Since most people are relying on Reddit for product research,
| this list of the most discussed air purifiers on r/AirPurifiers
| might be a good start too:
| https://looria.com/reddit/AirPurifiers/products
|
| What enthusiasts and authentic users say is far more valuable
| than an article that was made for views by some corporates.
| Redditors and other forum members are more interested in boosting
| their ego by showing their depth of knowledge on the topic (and
| correcting others on the topic), whereas corporate websites are
| more interested in raking profit by displaying (potentially)
| dishonest information.
| pubby wrote:
| If filters struggle to trap particles around some specific
| particle size, wouldn't it make sense to combine two filters with
| different ranges together?
| gpm wrote:
| I'm pretty sure that they all have their worst performance at
| roughly the same particle size, because they're all working on
| the same two mechanisms (discussed in the article), and that's
| the small area where neither mechanism works very well.
| pkulak wrote:
| They all struggle at the same size, is the issue.
| flanbiscuit wrote:
| Here's the original Wirecutter review:
| https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/blog/ikea-fornuftig-air-p...
|
| "Our pick among small-space purifiers, the Levoit Core 300, is
| not much more expensive, is a true-HEPA machine, and has a CADR
| of 135, which means it's effective in rooms up to 200 square
| feet."
|
| Non-affiliate direct link to the one Wirecutter recommends:
|
| https://levoit.com/products/core300-true-hepa-air-purifier
|
| Just linking for information in case anyone else was curious.
| sizzle wrote:
| Since we are among experts here, please recommend the best air
| filters available to retail customers and I will gladly whatever
| price for the peace of mind, since I am not an expert and trust
| sites like Wirecutter over Amazon type of reviews.
| elhudy wrote:
| Seriously. I'm just left sitting here wondering which damn air
| purifier to buy for my kitchen.
| justsomeguy123 wrote:
| Likewise. All the debunking and debunking debunking means I
| have no actual choice. If anything things are more muddy.
| Welcome to adulthood I guess.
| backtoyoujim wrote:
| Ikea interested me when they worked with teenage engineering for
| some silly bits. But that was quickly reduced into a markup game
| from resellers so it lost my interest.
|
| bless their hearts and billy-bookcases but they have never moved
| me on much else.
|
| and i don't need my home-appliance obsolescence bar to descend
| even further towards flat-pack territory.
| detritus wrote:
| From the very last line - "The only motive here is indignation."
|
| Brilliant.
| tssva wrote:
| Regarding the section about whether it is or isn't a true HEPA
| filter, the Wirecutter is a US based website targeting mostly US
| based consumers so maybe we should look at the major US standard
| regarding HEPA filters which is DOE-STD-3020-2015. This standard
| was originally developed to cover HEPA filters supplied by DOE
| contractors in nuclear facilities.
|
| How does it define a HEPA filter? "High Efficiency Particulate
| Air (HEPA) Filter: A throwaway, extended-medium, dry type filter
| with a rigid casing enclosing the full depth of the pleats. The
| filter shall exhibit a minimum efficiency of 99.97% when tested
| with an aerosol of 0.3 micrometer diameter."
|
| So according to the standard in the target market for the review
| the IKEA air purifier does not use a true HEPA filter and the
| recommended unit does.
|
| Edit: I looked closer at the European specification used in the
| article. By that specification the filter in the IKEA unit also
| is not a true HEPA filter but an EPA filter. The Exx designations
| mean it is a EPA filter and the Hxx designations mean a HEPA
| filter.
| Havoc wrote:
| The emphasis on flow rate misses a feature that is more important
| to me - live measurement and adjustment of fan speed dynamically.
|
| I don't want a turbine that cranks out the decibels 24/7
| regardless of state of air
| varispeed wrote:
| Isn't IKEA now mostly branded Chinese tat with a slightly premium
| pricing? I have noticed that you can buy good quality Chinese
| stuff cheaper without having to pay for Western branding. Now
| that Western corporations are outsourcing whatever they can to
| make extra profit, basically becoming a shell and investment
| vehicle rather that a company actually making something, I think
| that it is now more ethical to actually buy from Chinese
| corporations without Western involvement. These greedy
| corporations are a part of the reason why Western economies are
| tanking. No meaningful jobs and people can't keep up paying off
| their debts. They also lobbied governments to put regulations on
| top of regulations so only big corporations could keep up with
| changes and it wouldn't be possible for a small business to even
| start unless they also outsource to Asia. I am sorry for quite a
| rant, but when I see IKEA it hits a nerve.
| r12343a_19 wrote:
| I am legit wondering if air purifiers wouldn't be a good addition
| in preschools. A classroom isn't that big and one of these things
| would probably be enough. A school year would require 2-3
| replacements, ie. not much.
|
| Anybody did something like this?
| mh- wrote:
| Yes. Especially since covid.
|
| This was just the first link that came up, but there was state-
| level funding going back to 2021 at least for this in some
| places.
|
| https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/how-covid-funding-could-...
| r12343a_19 wrote:
| I knew that but funding was for big ventilation. I wonder if
| any of these home-use devices have been deployed and if
| there's some data with comparative results.
| mh- wrote:
| At the schools my kids were in, they deployed commercial-
| looking freestanding units. I don't know if that was
| intended to be a temporary measure until they got central
| units installed.
|
| I haven't seen any data, agree it would be nice to know.
| hypersoar wrote:
| I don't know how it went, but I recall that improving
| ventilation and filtering in schools was pushed among the many
| Covid countermeasures.
| Ataraxic wrote:
| Looking at the wattage comparisons, the article talks about the
| "Wirecutter recommended air purifier" but seems to go out of its
| way to not mention it by name. Why?
|
| Second, I don't believe this air purifier, or really any
| recommended air purifier is going to use 45 watts for any
| extended period of time. The main power draw is simply the fan
| and a fan using 45 watts is going to be extremely loud.
|
| Secondly, I think there is an argument to be made for an air
| purifier quickly reducing particle count and then switching back
| into a lower noise mode.
|
| The suspicious CADR numbers do require more investigation on the
| wirecutter side though.
| mbrubeck wrote:
| > Second, I don't believe this air purifier, or really any
| recommended air purifier is going to use 45 watts for any
| extended period of time.
|
| The article says it is comparing to the Wirecutter's current
| "small space" pick, which since April 2022 has been the Levoit
| Core 300:
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/best-air-purifier...
|
| The Wirecutter measures it at "34.6 watts on medium (and 31.8
| watts on low)." The manufacturer's specs give a "Rated Power"
| of 45W, which might correspond to the "high" setting:
|
| https://levoit.com/products/core300-true-hepa-air-purifier
|
| 45W for high is reasonable, but the other modes are weirdly
| inefficient. Even the low power mode uses several times more
| energy than _medium_ on the filter I have in my living room.
| Maybe it 's using the extra power to mine bitcoin.
| mlyle wrote:
| > Looking at the wattage comparisons the article talks about
| the "Wirecutter recommended air purifier" but seems to go out
| of its way to not mention it by name. Why?
|
| He probably wants to avoid possible legal harassment by the
| manufacturer. It's not material to his point against
| Wirecutter, and it would poke one other party with resources to
| annoy him.
| Denvercoder9 wrote:
| > seems to go out of its way to not mention it by name. Why?
|
| Bad publicity is still publicity.
| gigaflop wrote:
| I interpret that the lack of names (WC pick 1, 2, etc) is to
| keep focus on the core message, and to not give out free
| advertising.
|
| While I happily admit to use of certain products, I don't want
| to serve as a billboard for them.
| Ataraxic wrote:
| Sure totally, it just makes it harder for me to verify
| _their_ numbers though.
|
| Someone else replied to me and said it is the levoit core
| 300. Their fan does seem weirdly inefficient, but comparing
| the high mode of the levoit model to the ikea isn't really
| the right comparison imo.
| daenz wrote:
| Protip: you can turn a box fan into an incredibly effective air
| purifier[0] (particle measurements in thread). The one they show
| is pretty elaborate, using 4 filters and some construction, but
| you can also use a single filter and slap it on the back of the
| box fan and have similar results. The air purifier industry is
| more about aesthetics than it is function.
|
| 0. https://twitter.com/LazarusLong13/status/1425517352624410627
| makeitdouble wrote:
| Is that a "pro" tip ?
|
| Otherwise Vacuum Wars channel had an entertaining test on this:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QT8SQjp-y0
|
| The channel is great in general for everything vacuum. As far
| as review goes they put a serious effort in them. The brief
| foray into air cleaners was a great parenthesis.
| adolph wrote:
| Like generic drugs theres no money in practically free,
| recycled or dual use.
| jeromegv wrote:
| I mean... I'm an IT professional. I have no time, energy,
| desire or ability to build. my own fan, maintain it, and trust
| that it does a good job. That's the reason I bought an air
| purifier.
|
| The restaurant industry is also there for people that don't
| want the time to learn to cook certain dishes themselves. And
| (many) restaurants are still thriving.
| postalrat wrote:
| As an IT professional I find myself with the time, energy,
| desire, and ability to do many projects like this myself.
|
| Are you sure you are a real IT professional?
| prash_ant wrote:
| We should appreciate the diversity of the 7,903,275,000
| people in the world. Everyone single one of us has
| different opinions, ideas, abilities and interests.
| lwelyk wrote:
| Is it really inconceivable that someone might want to pay a
| modest sum of money to avoid having to build and maintain a
| custom-made version that is uglier?
| spiderice wrote:
| Surely this comment is satire
| turtlebits wrote:
| The problem is that on low, it's too loud and pushes/filters
| too much air to be needed 24x7. It's also bulky. I rather use a
| smaller profile one that can be left on all the time (even if
| it costs more)
|
| I have the box fan and only use it when AQI is high (wildfire
| season)
| DantesKite wrote:
| Thank you. This is amazing. Precisely what I've been searching
| for. Something cheap, affordable, and most of all, moves a
| large quantity of air within a short amount of time. Loudness
| doesn't bother me one bit since I almost always have white
| noise playing in the background.
| donohoe wrote:
| > The air purifier industry is more about aesthetics than it is
| function
|
| Well, sure, to a point.
|
| I could make my own air purifier (like the one you link) but it
| looks awful. I would not want that in my home. So yeah,
| aesthetics do matter. Its _not_ the only thing but it is a
| factor.
| daenz wrote:
| > it looks awful. I would not want that in my home.
|
| When west coast forest fires put dangerous levels of smoke
| into peoples homes, box fan air filters are an extremely
| valuable tool for lower income families. Consider yourself
| extremely fortunate if you are able to choose form over
| function on devices like this.
| post_break wrote:
| Your comment is hilarious. Buying an air purifier that
| looks good makes sense, making an air purifier during times
| of crisis also makes sense. They are not even remotely the
| same thing. Oh boy you're so lucky you can get a Dyson,
| we've got wild fires here in California! You see how
| ridiculous that sounds?
| daenz wrote:
| The funny thing is, I agree with your comment. Which is
| why I'm so confused about someone who sees an air
| purifier that is clearly made for purposes other than
| aesthetics and says "I don't want it because it's ugly."
| It's not for you, obviously.
| jeromegv wrote:
| Of course, but nobody is preventing that information to be
| shared. When I looked for air purifier last year, there was
| tons of articles I saw on how to build your own. This isn't
| hidden, there's tons of good resources out there.
|
| I don't understand why you try to shame us for choosing to
| buy our own. Of course we are fortunate we can afford it.
| We aren't talking of a sports car here, it's few hundreds
| dollar, this is a perfectly fine trade off to decide to buy
| one.
| mlyle wrote:
| > I don't understand why you try to shame us for choosing
| to buy our own.
|
| I don't see anyone shaming anyone for choosing to buy
| their own. I see someone pointing out it's possible to
| make one, and I see someone else defending the choice to
| make one by pointing out not everyone can buy an
| expensive, pretty pre-made one.
| toofy wrote:
| > I don't understand why you try to shame us...
|
| I suspect you may have unintentionally read too much into
| the motivations from the comments. I didn't see anything
| which resembled shaming.
| daenz wrote:
| I am being polite in explaining the low-income
| perspective on devices like these. Looking at a device
| designed for low-income people who are trying to breathe
| healthy air and saying, essentially, "it's ugly, I would
| never want that" is extremely tone deaf around why it
| exists in the first place: because desperate people need
| an inexpensive solution. If you feel shame from that
| alternate perspective, I would suggest it comes from
| within.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| daenz wrote:
| You're misquoting me. I never said they were extremely
| fortunate for choosing one model over the other, I said
| they were extremely fortunate for "being able to choose
| form over function." When wildfire season rolls around
| and air becomes very hazardous where I lived, local air
| purifiers of all kinds were completely sold out, and the
| box fan solution is all a lot of us had[0]. It's not just
| inexpensive, it's about availability of materials.
|
| >just to try to dunk on someone
|
| You're attributing negative intentions to my posts, which
| isn't appreciated.
|
| 0. https://twitter.com/seattlefire/status/142526070156897
| 0752
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| Are you talking about emergencies, or are you talking
| about "the low-income perspective"?
|
| Because you said you were doing the latter, and I was
| criticizing your words using that context. In that
| context, your words come across as judgemental.
|
| If you're actually talking about the former, then you
| chose your words pretty poorly.
| daenz wrote:
| The low-income people are often the most impacted when an
| emergency hits. I'm sure if someone had $1000 for an air
| purifier, they could get one the next day, in most
| circumstances. Though I'm not low income (now), I got a
| reminder of it when local materials were totally gone and
| I would have had to pay through the nose to keep my place
| breathable. It was bad. The hallways in our apartment
| building had a haze of smoke 24/7. Fortunately the city
| let everyone know about the box fan solution, so that's
| what we did.
|
| For me, being unprepared in a new city, and for low
| income people who aren't prepared, choosing form over
| function was a luxury.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| > The low-income people are often the most impacted when
| an emergency hits.
|
| Yes, but it's not relevant to low-income people in
| general. For someone getting an air purifier in a normal
| situation, they can go for an ikea model about as well as
| any other solution. Especially considering the box fan
| uses a ton of power, costing money.
| daenz wrote:
| >Especially considering the box fan uses a ton of power,
| costing money. box fan: $40 ikea:
| $70 box fan electricity: 73W x 24 x 365 x
| $0.11kWh = $70/year ikea electricity: 14W x 24 x
| 365 x $0.11kWh = $13/year
|
| Assuming 24/7 usage, in the first year you'd save $27,
| and in subsequent years, $57.
|
| But this isn't counting filters. You can get a much
| higher range of standard filters for a box fan, meaning
| you can run it much less and filter more. And when IKEA
| discontinues the product, you're SOL finding filters, so
| you have to buy something new, whereas you'll never have
| that problem with a box fan. All things considered, I
| think box fan would win on cost.
| [deleted]
| donohoe wrote:
| Um. Okay. I was just responding to your comment about:
|
| "The air purifier industry is more about aesthetics than it
| is function"
|
| I didn't mention anything about dangerous levels of smoke,
| forest fires, low income families...
|
| I take your overall point but I think you need to keep the
| context of which it was said and not add a different one.
| daenz wrote:
| >So yeah, aesthetics do matter.
|
| I'm not even sure what your point was. I never said
| aesthetics didn't matter, nor did I say it is the only
| factor. You seemed to feel inspired enough by the
| ugliness of a product to speak out against it, without
| recognizing why it exists.
| goodpoint wrote:
| First, a nice looking case does not justify the extortion
| prices of most purifiers. Also many people have serious
| allergies and don't have 200 $/euro to spare.
|
| Second, you know you can max a box yourself or hide a thin
| purifier under a desk or above a tall cabinet?
| Hamuko wrote:
| I almost want to replace my old Electrolux EAP300 with an
| IKEA one because it looks less like shit. The EAP300 is just
| this big floor beheamoth with no aesthetics. Lower filter
| costs wouldn't be bad either (if the IKEA filters last as
| long as the Electrolux ones, they're under half the cost).
| It's just so hard to justify as long as my old air filter
| still functions.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| I think the point is that aesthetics matter to you but not a
| lot of people care if they have a box fan + air filter
| stashed away in their bedroom for a cheap airfilter. Maybe if
| it was more prominent in the living or guest bedrooms?
| fomine3 wrote:
| Where to put air purifier is also important (but depends on
| situation). So design is a bit important to put on good
| place.
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| I now run a MERV 16 furnace filter (yes, my aprilair system
| explicitly supports it, no I will not hurt my furnace) for
| central air filtration alongside two box-fan filters (the easy
| slap on the back kind - I think I'm using something equivalent
| to MERV 13 on the back, can't go higher for the size) around
| the house and a quiet regular air-filter in our room.
|
| All of my wives problems related to allergies or breathing have
| gone completely away. Guests comment at how good/clean our
| house smells. Stuff takes longer to mold when its left out.
| 10/10 would recommend.
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| Compared to a dedicated air purifier, a box fan one is louder,
| has higher energy consumption, and is uglier (I suppose the
| last one is subjective).
|
| If it's something you only use a couple days a year when your
| region is on fire, then absolutely go with the design with
| lower upfront costs. But if you're running it 24/7, it's worth
| thinking about the extra 40-80 watts that a box fan uses.
|
| For me, I figure the electricity difference comes out to around
| $100/yr so getting a dedicated air purifier has paid for itself
| (although I live in an area with fairly expensive electricity).
| It also has some nice bonuses compared to a box fan like auto
| adjusting speeds and a prefilter that hopefully helps the
| "real" filter last longer.
| 99_00 wrote:
| Is that what you use? What is your personal experience with it?
|
| I think this is good if you are in a wild fire scenario and air
| purifiers are sold out, or for your home work shop.
|
| Otherwise I suspect it is very energy inefficient and noisy.
| [deleted]
| daenz wrote:
| I haven't used that specific construction, but I have used
| this one[0] when I moved to a location without realizing the
| extent of the wildfire smoke. It worked well, but yes it is
| noisy on the highest setting. I continue to use it because
| it's inexpensive and the parts are readily available.
|
| 0. https://deohs.washington.edu/edge/blog/how-make-box-fan-
| filt...
| ethbr0 wrote:
| One thing that irks that shit out of me in reviews -- not
| normalizing or banding for cost.
|
| Measuring performance without taking into account cost is
| meaningless.
|
| Hat tip to (old) Tom's Hardware for being the first site I knew
| that did this well, with their cpu / gpu hierarchy, which
| attempted to rank the last 2 generations or so of product against
| each other.
|
| It boiled it down to two columns (Intel, AMD), with gaps where
| each manufacturer didn't have product for that performance.
|
| It really helped in "Should I buy previous gen +spec, or current
| gen -spec, given they both have the same price now?" questions.
|
| Sadly, it seems to have devolved into this, which is less useful:
| https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html
| thehappypm wrote:
| I don't think I agree. The world gets really confusing when you
| take costs into account. Try buying a phone charger. The $5 one
| might be overflowing with 5 star reviews saying how great it is
| for the price, but it's just crap. Likewise the $100 one that's
| amazing but some 3 star reviews for "too expensive".
| ethbr0 wrote:
| The issue is _why_ they completely ignore costs and legacy
| substitution: vendor relations and content.
|
| The true answer is often "The old version was just as good or
| better, don't upgrade."
|
| But nobody gets a continual churn of review clicks and
| affiliate purchase cuts off of that.
|
| Ignoring it with "price is hard" is disingenuous on the part
| of review sites. Notably, this was initially one of
| Wirecutter's key draws: presenting winners in a price-
| segmented manner.
| londons_explore wrote:
| I wish analysis like this would stop using tests of the filter
| material to make any judgement about the purifier.
|
| If the air passed through the filter precisely once and then
| ended up in your room, it would be valid. But it doesn't - the
| air passes many times through the filter, and mixes with the room
| air again and again each time.
|
| That means it is far less important to get 99.9% filtration, and
| far more important to get more cubic feet passing through the
| filter each minute. That dramatically changes the optimal design.
|
| To see why, imagine a room of 1000 cubic feet. Now filter one of
| those cubic feet, and put it back into the same room. A good
| 99.9% filter has just removed 0.0999% of the dirt. A bad 90%
| filter with double the airflow removed 0.18% of the dirt. The bad
| filter is much better!
| TootsMagoon wrote:
| Great points. I just scanned the article. Did Wirecutter do any
| actual testing? They can refute and prove the claims are wrong
| on paper...but it really comes down to testing. Where is
| Wirecutter's test data?
| addicted wrote:
| This article actually makes a bunch of claims itself that are
| false. For example, it claims that the Wirecutter believes air
| filters work like sieves. Whereas the Wirecutter review page for
| air purifiers goes into how they do not behave like sieves and
| also references a NASA study that shows how HEPA filters are good
| at capturing both particles smaller and larger than the 0.3
| micron test standard.
|
| It's pretty obvious that the Wirecutter has used HEPA standard
| filters as a filter for whittling down the many air purifiers
| that exist in the world. They eliminated the IKEA filters because
| they do not meet HEPA standards (this blog's focus on he true-
| HEPA marketing term is misguided, because the authors own
| referenced wiki link shows that E12 is not considered HEPA).
| However, they also reached out to IKEA about this, and the IKEA
| spokesperson told them their focus is on PM2.5.
|
| They don't recommend the IKEA filter based not on its inability
| to capturer finer particles, but because it's not AS efficient as
| capturing finer particles as HEPA filters, AND because of its
| lower CADR.
|
| It doesn't meet the standards they set, so they don't include it
| for price comparisons.
|
| Maybe they haven't set the right standards. Maybe they should
| have allowed for lower CADRs or for filters that meet lower
| filtration standards than HEPA.
|
| However, the insinuation this article makes that they don't seem
| to understand what they're talking about is completely wrong.
|
| Maybe this author should try reviewing over 20-30+ different air
| purifiers at a minimum without setting arbitrary thresholds up
| front and then get back to the Wirecutter folks.
| Lazare wrote:
| The Wirecutter article _is_ pretty bad though:
|
| > But it isn't a true-HEPA purifier, or a very powerful
| purifier, period. It's designed to capture PM2.5--that is,
| particles 2.5 microns in diameter and above, in contrast to the
| 0.3-micron HEPA standard. That means it's optimized for larger
| airborne particles such as pollen and mold spores, rather than
| for very fine particulates like wildfire smoke, as HEPA filters
| are.
|
| First, "True-HEPA" has no legal or scientific meaning, so
| that's not a great look.
|
| Second, and a minor point, the 0.3-micron standard related to
| the US HEPA standard, not the EU one. It is true that acording
| to IKEA it doesn't meet the EU standard for HEPA (barely), but
| we don't know whether it meets the US one. Eliding the
| difference between different standards isn't helpful
|
| Third, and more seriously, PM2.5 means particles 2.5 microns in
| diameter and _smaller_ , not _larger_ , and PM2.5 filters are
| designed to capture particles 2.5 microns and _smaller_. Mold
| spores are mostly 4 to 20 microns, pollen averages around 25
| microns, so while the IKEA unit may or may not be good at
| filtering wildfire smoke, it _is not_ optimised for mold and
| pollen and is probably terrible at it, so that entire line of
| analysis is just backwards.
|
| That's a lot of errors to pack into a short passage, and it
| really gives the impression that the author doesn't really
| understand or care about the topic.
|
| As for CADRs, the linked post digs into the tests pretty well,
| and I agree with the conclusion - they're _not_ credible. Note
| specifically that they get a variance of over 2.4 times between
| tests, and in somes cases measure a CADR vastly higher than the
| manufacturers claimed CADR. If you 're reading a benchmark of a
| new graphics card and someone ran a benchmark twice and got 100
| FPS once and 240 FPS the second time, and they just shrug and
| pick the number most convenient for their conclusion, you'd
| probably think something was up.
|
| (That being said, the linked post is a bit iffy too. I'd call
| out specifically that they could have done a better job of
| acknowledging that US HEPA standards are a thing, that PM2.5
| filters are a thing even if they're not a standard, and that
| technically E12 filters aren't HEPA, even if that's an
| arbitrary distinction most people ignore. But they're quite
| right that the Wirecutter - on the review of the IKEA unit -
| does in fact seem to think air filters work like sieves.
| Certainly I can't think of any other explanation for that
| passage about PM2.5 being good for pollen!)
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > Second, and a minor point, the 0.3-micron standard related
| to the US HEPA standard, not the EU one. It is true that
| acording to IKEA it doesn't meet the EU standard for HEPA
| (barely), but we don't know whether it meets the US one.
|
| Wikipedia cites this statement:
|
| > Common standards require that a HEPA air filter must remove
| --from the air that passes through--at least 99.95% (ISO,
| European Standard) [...] of particles whose diameter is equal
| to 0.3 mm
|
| to "European Standard EN 1822-1:2009, "High efficiency air
| filters (EPA, HEPA and ULPA)", 2009". Have they made a
| mistake? ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HEPA )
|
| The same sentence goes on to note that the American standard
| is similar, but more strict, requiring filtration of 99.97%
| of 0.3 mm particles. As such, it is not possible to meet the
| American standard while failing to meet the European
| standard, so there's no need to discuss the American standard
| separately.
| Lazare wrote:
| From the same Wikipedia page:
|
| > The specification used in the European Union: European
| Standard EN 1822-1:2009, from which ISO 29463 is
| derived,[4] defines several classes of filters by their
| retention at the given most penetrating particle size
| (MPPS): Efficient Particulate Air filters (EPA), HEPA and
| Ultra Low Particulate Air filters (ULPA).
|
| The Wikipedia citation goes to a specification which is,
| annoyingly, not freely available, but Google seems to
| confirm that Wikipedia is correct. Many sources confirm
| that EU standards measure penetration at the MPPS, I can
| find nothing suggesting they use 0.3 microns for anything.
|
| I think the introduction paragraph for that Wikipedia page
| is simply wrong, and it's conflating two different
| standards. The actual section on HEPA specifications,
| however, is much clearer.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| Technically, if retention at the most penetrating
| particle size is 99.95%, then retention at the 0.3 micron
| level is at least 99.95%.
|
| But obviously measurement is not actually done at the
| most penetrating particle size, because retention at that
| size would be indistinguishable from zero. It isn't clear
| what they mean when they say "most penetrating particle
| size".
|
| > defines several classes of filters by their retention
| at the given most penetrating particle size
|
| If the MPPS is given... what is it?
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > This article actually makes a bunch of claims itself that are
| false.
|
| There's this howler:
|
| > This passage implies that a ("true"?) HEPA filter is designed
| to capture particles that are 0.3 microns or larger. But an H13
| filter must, by definition, capture 99.95% of particles of all
| sizes.
|
| According to this guy, an H13 filter is required to capture
| 99.95% of neutrinos that pass through it. He's not in a
| position to accuse anyone of not knowing what they're talking
| about.
|
| Moving to wikipedia, we see this text:
|
| > Common standards require that a HEPA air filter must remove--
| from the air that passes through--at least 99.95% (ISO,
| European Standard) or 99.97% (ASME, U.S. DOE) of particles
| whose diameter is equal to 0.3 mm
|
| I know which of those claims is more plausible. The standard
| described by wikipedia is theoretically capable of both being
| measured and being met. Neither is true of what dynomight.net
| says.
| samatman wrote:
| You cannot possibly be serious.
|
| If you are, well, you will find that particles are
| contextually defined as pieces of matter in the solid or
| liquid phase which are suspended in the air.
|
| I don't know if the standards body took pains to define
| matter _in terms of atoms_ but if you want to run off and
| check? I won 't stop you.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > you will find that particles are contextually defined as
| pieces of matter in the solid or liquid phase which are
| suspended in the air.
|
| What is this supposed to mean? The solid or liquid phase is
| defined by the interaction of related molecules with each
| other. Suppose I have a cluster of 15 water molecules,
| suspended in the air, interacting with each other such that
| I can call them a tiny droplet of liquid water. Suppose I
| have one oil molecule, also suspended in the air. It is
| much larger than the 15 water molecules are combined. But
| it's not in a solid or liquid phase, because there's only
| one of it. The filter is required to handle the water, but
| there are no requirements for how it should handle the oil?
| IshKebab wrote:
| He's just honing his HN pedantry to a razor edge so he can
| point out that _ackshewally_ it 's not an air filter at all
| because it isn't restricted to gaseous fluids in the ratio
| of 0.78 oxygen to 0.21 nitrogen plus trace gases.
|
| It can actually filter many types of gaseous compositions
| so it's really a _gas filter_. Have the authors even done a
| rudimentary PhD on filtration nomenclature? They are
| clearly unqualified to comment.
|
| Seriously though I've seen enough of these sorts of Poe's
| that at least some of them must be serious. Must be weird
| living your life like that.
| phnofive wrote:
| > HEPA filters are good at capturing both particles smaller and
| larger than the 0.3 micron test standard
|
| That is due to MPPS - the only thing that matters is the actual
| reference particle size, not larger or smaller particles, as
| these are ultimately easier to filter. That is, particles
| between 0.2 and 0.3 microns are the most difficult to
| effectively filter out.
|
| > their focus is on PM2.5
|
| Which doesn't mean it doesn't trap 0.3 micron particles, as
| PM2.5 is Particulate Matter up to 2.5 microns in size, not 2.5
| microns and up.
|
| There are inconsistencies between their main air filter
| recommendation article and the specific review; if you haven't,
| read the article about the IKEA filter here:
| https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/blog/ikea-fornuftig-air-p...
| ohmyblock wrote:
| For running/hiking shoes, check out www.runrepeat.com
| yurodivuie wrote:
| Probably more aggro than necessary... Wirecutter takes H13 to be
| the minimum level that can be considered "HEPA" because that
| seems to be the "H" in "H13", per the same chart that Dynomight
| references in Wikipedia (though they cut off that column in their
| own article).
| hooloovoo_zoo wrote:
| The Wirecutter takes that standard to be minimum as that is the
| minimum necessary to be considered a HEPA filter, which the
| author should presumably know as that is stated in 2 articles
| they cited lol.
| stephen_g wrote:
| That's not the point though - that part is technically true
| (EPA filters are 'Efficient Particulate Air' filters and HEPA
| are 'High Efficiency Particulate Air' filters, and the E and H
| correspond to those respectively).
|
| The point of the article is that the Wirecutter authors don't
| understand the physics of air filters and gives the difference
| more emphasis than what actually matters - it doesn't actually
| make a massive difference _in this particular application_. For
| a purifier that intakes and exhausts in the same space, getting
| more airflow through the filter per hour can mean over time it
| 's basically the same effectiveness, and using a slightly lower
| spec filter can be a good design trade-off because it doesn't
| require as much pressure so it can use less power per unit
| volume of air filtered.
|
| Of course, in other applications, like bringing air into a
| cleanroom, it makes a massive difference, but that's not what
| we're talking about.
| batmanthehorse wrote:
| Yeah this was very bizarre to me. It seems like the author just
| missed the basic fact that the H13 is the same H that makes it
| 'true' HEPA.
|
| He can (and did) argue that this distinction doesn't really
| matter, but the distinction is still part of a well-defined
| standard that The Wirecutter didn't invent.
| jldugger wrote:
| What does the H in H12 stand for then?
| adament wrote:
| According to the table it is not H12 but E12 which
| corresponds to Efficient Particulate Air filters (EPA), I.e.
| not high-efficiency.
| yurodivuie wrote:
| It's actually E12 vs H13 - there is no H12. The "E" in "E12"
| stands for "EPA", as opposed to "HEPA".
| jldugger wrote:
| aww jeez
| bobcostas55 wrote:
| IKEA says the fornuftig is only for 8-10 square meter rooms. How
| "real" is that limitation?
| enragedcacti wrote:
| As the OP talks about a bit (see (math) in the "On Weakness"
| section), the things that really matter are:
|
| 1. the rate at which clean air is replace with dirty air, the
| ventilation half-life (e.g. steady state from an outside draft,
| bursts from cooking)
|
| 2. the rate at which the purifier extracts particles (CADR)
|
| 3. your personal tolerance for particles.
|
| 4. (unstated in the OP) your tolerance for noise level.
|
| Ikea arrives at that size through some form of that math, but
| if you live in a less polluted area, have a well sealed home,
| or just have a higher tolerance then it could absolutely be
| suitable for a larger room.
|
| You can buy air quality sensors to test this or purchase a
| purifier with one built in, such as the Starkvind from Ikea. it
| can automatically adjust the speed to satisfy some level of
| pm2.5 particles (I'm not sure what that level is because I
| don't have it connected to anything smart). I have this in my
| bedroom and find that the vast majority of the time it stays on
| setting 1 or 2.
| dubswithus wrote:
| Levoit seems to be recommended by /r/AirPurifiers/
|
| https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07VVK39F7/
|
| The replacement filters are quite expensive though.
| pkulak wrote:
| I've been super happy with my Winnex and Coway. Pretty sure
| they are the ones that Wirecutter likes as well. The Levoits
| just don't seem to move much air. I like big, quiet fans that
| move lot's of air.
| reaperducer wrote:
| I don't recommend Levoit.
|
| I've had two of the very expensive ones die in the last year.
| Both the same kind of death where the software gets confused
| and it does not respond to any commands and won't boot.
|
| Crazy that we live in an age where a fan+filter+sensor needs to
| boot an operating system.
| mthoms wrote:
| I've got a Blue Air 211+ and am pretty happy with it. I have
| extraordinarily bad seasonal allergies.
|
| Well, I'm happy except the fact that the filters have gone up
| in price by 40% in the past year. I suspect this must be
| standard industry practice; launch a new purifier and price the
| filters at (near) cost. Once all the reviews have been written
| and the initial sales start to trail off, raise the filter
| price considerably.
|
| Luckily there are knockoff filters.
| latchkey wrote:
| While we are recommending filters, I absolutely love my Mila.
| Their best filter is about $100 and about once a year. I put
| the sock on there and clean that regularly and I suspect that
| makes the filter last a lot longer.
| 6510 wrote:
| A more dense filter will just restrict air flow. What you want is
| a crappy filter with a large surface area.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| The best air purifier is a $20 Lasco box fan with a 3M square
| furnace filter duct taped to it.
|
| You can vary the cost and filtration ability based on the filter.
| A super duper filter is like $35, and a midrange is about $20.
| bitlax wrote:
| Step it up to a comparetto.
|
| https://youtu.be/Y7eL2OAnqc8
| Mister_Snuggles wrote:
| I've got this setup to deal with cat litter dust. It works very
| well for that purpose and the filters are cheap (I get the
| cheapest one that's not see-through, <$10CAD I think).
|
| That said, it's very loud even at the lowest setting. It's not
| something you want to share a room with. I use my home
| automation stuff to only run it when required, based on a
| motion detector at the litter boxes.
| s0rce wrote:
| Box fan is too loud even on the lowest settings, good when the
| air quality is horrible but not for general use, imho.
| Linda703 wrote:
| hypersoar wrote:
| The Wirecutter is a highly flawed review site, but at least it's
| a real one. There are vanishingly few left for general consumer
| products. There's WC, Consumer Reports, and what else? They've
| seem to have all been killed off. When I'm researching some
| category of product, I feel lucky if I find any professional
| reviews written by people who have actually touched the thing
| they're reviewing. I know we've all had the experience googling
| "reviews of X" only to get overwhelmed with SEO spam. Forget
| finding something written by somebody who has experience with it.
| It's hard enough to find something written by a _human_.
| allenu wrote:
| > I feel lucky if I find any professional reviews written by
| people who have actually touched the thing they're reviewing
|
| I would say even Wirecutter doesn't always do this. I recall
| doing research on some products before and encountering a
| Wirecutter article and the research was essentially just what
| they themselves pieced together from online sources. They
| didn't actually try any of the products themselves (they
| admitted as much in the article). It was very strange and very
| disappointing.
| aiisjustanif wrote:
| I'm going to dissent here on this thread because I'm not
| seeing any references. I personally feel the quality of
| Wirecutter has gone down since NY Times just a bit. However,
| after almost a decade of reading Wirecutter they have
| overwhelming provided a decent "why you should trust us"
| section for staple consumer items. There is a good example
| from just today. [1] You can always say they should do more,
| but honestly they do more research that many others in the
| space.
|
| [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/best-air-
| conditio...
| criddell wrote:
| I'd love for Tim Heffernan of Wirecutter to respond to this
| article. It seems pretty damning and I think it hurts his
| credibility.
| charlie0 wrote:
| In general, when a company gets bought out, quality tends
| to drop. Maybe not immediately, but definitely with time.
| The new owners have to make back their money and they'll
| start to cut corners wherever they can. These cuts, even if
| small, eventually have a negative impact.
|
| I've lost a lot of faith in Wirecutter after NYT bought
| them out. This is my own very subjective feel on the topic
| and this article has vindicated my feelings.
| Majromax wrote:
| > In general, when a company gets bought out, quality
| tends to drop.
|
| I think you can simplify that to "in general, quality
| tends to drop."
|
| It isn't malicious; it's reversion to the mean. An
| organization's reputation comes from its high-water mark
| of making the most impact and having the widest reach,
| and being solidly average after that looks like a step
| back.
|
| This correlates to buyouts because would-be corporate
| parents (obviously and understandably) want to associate
| themselves with the prestigious up-and-comer.
|
| However, replacement-level output doesn't compare to the
| historic highs. This is made more visible because the
| buyout acts as a nice "before/after" marker even if it
| has no structural impact, and it remains in the public
| eye because a high-profile corporate overlord can't let
| their new acquisition fade into obscurity.
|
| See also the results of Electronic Arts' independent
| studio buyouts, where they buy out a developer at the top
| of their game only to see quality fade _before_ corporate
| meddling sets in.
| wgjordan wrote:
| >> They didn't actually try any of the products themselves
| (they admitted as much in the article).
|
| > I'm going to dissent here on this thread because I'm not
| seeing any references.
|
| OK, here's one such reference in "The Best Baby Formula"
| [1]:
|
| > We didn't do any testing for this guide, because babies
| have minds of their own, and it would be impossible to
| control for all of the variables that might make a baby
| prefer one formula over another.
|
| Now there might be various reasons why actually testing the
| product is difficult or unnecessary to produce a helpful,
| well-researched review article, but there are definitely
| examples of this.
|
| [1] https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/best-baby-
| formula...
| xapata wrote:
| Testing is different from research.
| aiisjustanif wrote:
| Tell that to the person I replied to...
|
| > a Wirecutter article and the research was essentially
| just what they themselves pieced together from online
| sources. They didn't actually try any of the products
| themselves.
|
| They are saying research is trying the product aka
| testing...
| tobylane wrote:
| That seems justified. (IMO I'd want a review of the
| ingredients, then it's up to my kid to prefer flavours.)
| That choice isn't related to the choices for products for
| adults, which is what we care about.
| wgjordan wrote:
| The only point was to confirm that Wirecutter doesn't
| always actually test all of the products they review,
| regardless of whether it's (arguably) justified in each
| individual case.
| aiisjustanif wrote:
| It was postured to whether is is justified or not because
| the commenter said if true then..
|
| > It was very strange and very disappointing.
|
| To which I replied that Wirecutter delivers on many
| occasions and is still a good review site that does do
| research on most staple consumer products.
| AuryGlenz wrote:
| Eh, it'd be easy enough to give samples to 10 different
| babies to at least see if they have any flavors they
| prefer. Obviously digestive issues are another matter but
| your kid drinking it without hassle is the first hurdle.
| eloisius wrote:
| Doing research on live humans is more complicated than
| that
| aylons wrote:
| This actually speaks a lot in favor of Wirecutter. I wish
| more guides would be upfront about limitations like this
| and this is a very reasonable justification.
| inferiorhuman wrote:
| "Why you should trust us" or not, I take issue with
| Wirecutter specifically with their air purifier reviews.
| They've continued to recommend Blueair and Coway despite
| being faced with complaints. I don't care why Wirecutter
| claims you should trust them but I do care when they just
| stick their head in the ground WRT feedback.
| aiisjustanif wrote:
| The have 30 BBB complaints that are all resolved... [1]
|
| [1]: https://www.bbb.org/us/il/chicago/profile/air-
| purification-s...
| calsy wrote:
| Doesn't the blog post clearly show thats its not a real review
| site. It's also not that hard to find things written by humans.
| astura wrote:
| Is Tom's Hardware still around?
|
| Personally, I don't trust reviews unless I personally know the
| reviewer. Too much garbage out there.
| msbarnett wrote:
| Yeah but it's little more than an SEO farm these days.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| They sold the property in 2007. It's not the worst now, but
| it's certainly no longer the most editorially-independent.
| bombcar wrote:
| ServeTheHome does some review-like stuff, but its not
| entirely detailed though they do actually run the hardware
| and measure things like noise, power, etc.
| WhitneyLand wrote:
| On the continuum between "highly flawed" and imperfect I find
| WC to be generally good intentioned and skewed more toward the
| latter than the former. Is there something that keeps it from
| thus threshold in your view?
| bayindirh wrote:
| There is also Rtings (https://www.rtings.com).
| SmellTheGlove wrote:
| I wish rtings had a Boolean on tvs so we could search
| explicitly for non smart models. That is basically the only
| thing else I'd want from that site, it's really good.
| nopcode wrote:
| Not sure why you would care so much but this is pretty
| close:
|
| https://www.rtings.com/tv/tests/ads-in-smart-tv
| mschild wrote:
| I think the main problem is probably finding any mainstream
| consumer TVs that are non-smart. I have looked and beyond
| some obscure brands or short of incredibly expensive
| commercial models there are barely any options.
| applecrazy wrote:
| Any TV is stupid if you don't connect it to the Internet.
| TheBozzCL wrote:
| Sadly, that assumes the TV will behave and not connect to
| open networks, or use companies' mesh networks (like
| Amazon Sidewalk), and that they'll never include their
| own SIM cards.
|
| Granted, none of this has happened yet... but when it
| happens, I'll start busting open my devices to disconnect
| any and all antennas.
| applecrazy wrote:
| That's terrifying and I hope this isn't a default.
| arsome wrote:
| You already have to do it with cars, only a matter of
| time before these sorts of solutions start creeping in to
| other products.
| bayindirh wrote:
| I've recently read (in HN), that Samsung's appliances
| mesh network with other Samsung appliances with the hope
| of reaching the internet. So it's around the corner, it
| seems.
| seized wrote:
| Not really, my Vizio has no connection to anything
| (firewall drops it's traffic, and it's on a separate
| VLAN). It takes 15 seconds to respond to input changes
| after waking it up.
| plushpuffin wrote:
| I haven't bought a TV in about ten years and I've started
| shopping recently, knowing I'll probably have to get one
| soon. What I'm interested in, knowing I'll probably have
| to do this (smart TV with no internet), is what the out-
| of-box experience is without internet.
|
| Will it have preloaded ads that will never change because
| it can't download new ones? Will there be huge gray boxes
| where the ads should be in the UI? Will it try to connect
| to open WiFi or use HDMI to share my streaming box's
| internet connection? Will it nag me with an alert box in
| the middle of the screen asking me to connect it? Will it
| disable features if I don't give it internet access? Will
| there be bugs and performance problems requiring me to
| update the firmware, and if I do, will that firmware
| update introduce any of the above?
| Miraste wrote:
| From personal experience, Roku OS TVs (TCL mostly) have a
| very good non-internet user experience, with a dedicated
| mode for being a dumb display. WebOS (LG) is decent.
| Tizen (Samsung) ones are okay, although the one I have is
| from before they started putting ads in the menus so I
| don't know if there are placeholders. None of them have
| disabled any features or nagged me, or tried to sneakily
| connect to the internet. Google/Android/whatever-
| it's-called-this-year TV (Sony) might not even be usable
| without internet, I'm not sure. It's also terrible.
|
| Generally, firmware updates on modern TVs are used for
| creating bugs and performance problems, rather than
| fixing them. They also add advertisements. Don't ever
| connect it to the internet, and it'll be fine.
| neuronexmachina wrote:
| This doesn't answer all your questions, but the Rtings
| search tool can filter on whether TVs are ad-free:
| https://www.rtings.com/tv/tools/table
| kup0 wrote:
| I'll give you my anecdotal experience with a TV that has
| Amazon's FireTV built-in. It is disconnected from any
| network. It allowed me to set a setting that says
| "remember last input" so it always looks at a particular
| HDMI input for signal when it's turned on (because I
| always have it set to viewing input, not the smart
| interface itself). Set like this, it essentially acts as
| a non-smart TV.
|
| The only downsides are that, being a smartTV, even in
| this pseudo-non-smart mode, if the TV loses power (rather
| than just being in an "off/standby" state) then it takes
| a bit longer for the TV to start up the next time. I wish
| I could avoid a TV having a "boot sequence", but my
| experience is close enough to a non-smart TV that it
| works for me
| duskwuff wrote:
| Even if the "smart" features of a TV are rendered
| nonfunctional by not giving it a network connection,
| you're still stuck with a TV that takes a while to boot
| up (yes, really), and which may be built around a UI
| designed to navigate its smart features (like booting to
| a home screen instead of passing through HDMI input).
| epolanski wrote:
| I've never seen a recent mid budged tv take longer than 4
| seconds to boot
| addandsubtract wrote:
| My TCL takes 2:40 to boot up. There is (or rather, used
| to be) a fast boot option, but it stopped working after
| the second firmware update.
| duskwuff wrote:
| I have a Sceptre TV from a few years ago that takes about
| 15 seconds from power-on to even display a boot screen.
| It takes another 10 seconds or so after that to actually
| become usable.
|
| Maybe it's just an outlier? It's certainly slow, though.
| bayindirh wrote:
| Mine cold boots in 15-20 seconds (I need to check that),
| and wakes up in less than four seconds if it's on. It's a
| 2020 model.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| My tb takes 40 seconds from click8ng power button untill
| even HDMI input works. The smart features take another
| minute.
| EricE wrote:
| It boggles my mind that anyone would connect a TV to the
| Internet (!)
|
| Although it wouldn't surprise me at some point if Samsung
| or other makers started bundling cellular modems in or
| had deals to have them automatically log into the "free
| wifi" for the major cable internet providers :p
| AuryGlenz wrote:
| LG's app interface is good, my TCL just has Roku built in
| - why wouldn't I?
|
| I'll agree on Samsung's end though. Everyone's Samsung TV
| I've ever tried has been stupidly laggy.
| baq wrote:
| Look for digital signage displays and be prepared to pay
| double the price.
| mwt wrote:
| I'm with you, but I wonder if this is the sort of "only
| people on this site care and the vast majority of the
| readership wouldn't use it" thing ... I'm not sure it is,
| but it could be, and I wonder if somebody with their ear to
| the ground/access to more analytics knows.
| mrandish wrote:
| Yes, for the things they cover Rtings is excellent.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| On the topic of displays, and specifically monitors, also the
| excellent TFT Central ( http://tftcentral.co.uk/ ).
| saiya-jin wrote:
| another one - https://pcmonitors.info/
|
| Run by one guy but he tests really well, bought my
| relatively cheap 32" few years ago and its great for both
| work and gaming with VRR.
| napkin wrote:
| Adding my personal beef with the majority of tech 'reviews':
| The lack of honest distinction between a (medium-term usage)
| product review, and hands-on/impressions. Even with some hard
| data/testing methodologies- when you're a media outlet relying
| on page views and advertising, and you're racing to get your
| 'reviews' posted sooner or at least at the same time as the
| other sites- the reviews are going to be based on increasingly
| short-term impressions.
|
| We need a better place than reddit where a wide variety of
| users can congregate and honestly discuss their experiences
| with products. Very hard problem when the market is basically
| at odds with what consumers want, in this regard.
| reagle wrote:
| https://www.rtings.com/ It's really good at what they cover.
| permo-w wrote:
| in the UK, there's _Which?_ , which is pretty good
| Splendor wrote:
| For synthesizers and other music gear, there's loopop on
| YouTube. His reviews are so in-depth that they can often
| function as replacements for the product's user manual.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/c/loopop
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| I've always enjoyed Marques Brownlee (MKBHD)[0].
|
| He's made a pretty lucrative career of great reviews, without
| selling his soul.
|
| [0] https://www.youtube.com/user/marquesbrownlee
| ferongr wrote:
| MKBHD is good for entertainment purposes only.
| B1FF_PSUVM wrote:
| I find him soothing.
|
| Most TV these days is so "nails on chalkboard" omg-turn-it-
| off-quickly that I wonder how they make money.
|
| Perhaps they get paid to give viewers anxiety.
| ReaLNero wrote:
| He's great at getting there first with the unboxing or review
| with insane visuals and editing, but the content itself is
| very lacking. He's very heavily biased towards Apple devices,
| and doesn't dig deep at a technical level, preferring more
| subjective judgements which are difficult to compare across
| devices. I don't find his advice any more objective than a
| Reddit comment.
| fomine3 wrote:
| Dave2D is similar style but more detailed
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| I tend to use reviews as a "try this door" kind of thing,
| and do my own research. Probably the most awesome review
| site that I used to rely on was DPReview[0]. I haven't
| really looked at that site, in the last five years, but
| they used to be absolutely top-shelf, and full of geek
| value.
|
| I tend to be heavily Apple-biased, myself (I write native
| Swift software for Apple devices). Other sites tend to be
| heavily biased towards Intel/AMD (usually gaming review
| sites).
|
| [0] https://dpreview.com
| makeitdouble wrote:
| You seem to be longing for a combination of iFixit
| teardowns, Anandtech deep dives and JerryRigEverything
| roughtless tests.
|
| I am with you, but that's a hell of a niche to fill.
| nexus7556 wrote:
| I think he is entertaining, but I don't find his reviews
| critical enough. He typically reads off a spec sheet and
| shares subjective opinions of just a few days of use. I need
| deeper, more critical reviews
| danachow wrote:
| The reviews as actual reviews are terrible. And the retro
| tech series - well if you know anything about the items being
| discussed you'll find quite a few inaccuracies. It's pure
| entertainment.
| bombcar wrote:
| Toolguyd reviews tools and is open about where he gets them and
| when he's in a sponsorship relationship:
| https://toolguyd.com/category/tool-reviews/
|
| But it's not all tools and often aren't super detailed.
|
| AvE also reviews tools in slightly unorthodox ways:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztpWsuUItrA&list=PLvgS71fU12...
|
| Terry Love has toilets: https://www.terrylove.com/crtoilet.htm
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| Being open about when you are in a sponsorship "relationship"
| is not something that earns you an internet cookie, _it 's
| required by the FCC_
| https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/sponsorship-
| identificat...
| bombcar wrote:
| You would be surprisingly sad to learn the number who do
| _not_ even attempt to do this, and the "marketers" that
| encourage it.
| geerlingguy wrote:
| It's absolutely rampant on any social media platform, and
| most blogs. I'm guessing it's extremely rare anyone is
| prosecuted for violating the disclosure laws. Some choose
| to do it to keep their viewers trust, but one big problem
| as platforms go all-in on algorithms, it's less about
| having a trusting audience and more about doing what you
| can to get random videos/posts picked up by the
| algorithm, regardless of content.
| syedkarim wrote:
| Those FCC regulations are for broadcasters.
| anamexis wrote:
| No they're not: https://www.ftc.gov/business-
| guidance/resources/disclosures-...
|
| Whoops, missed FCC vs FTC. Anyways, there are similar
| regulations from the FTC.
| lifeisstillgood wrote:
| I actually subscribe to _Which_ a UK consumer reports guide.
| And mostly it 's kind of like subscribing to the Guardian
| newspaper - putting a few quid where my shrivelled liberal
| conscience used to sit.
|
| Oddly there is a episode on this on BBC podcast -
| https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-bottom-line/id2643...
|
| This podcast is not the best (it's often too lightweight and
| too frightened to dig deep, or the format is wrong or
| something). But anyway this week was particularly terrible -
| hardly any teeth at all. But in amoung at all the annoying self
| serving justifications of the guests, it did try to raise the
| fundamental problem - truth, trust, and a sea of opinions,
| mendacious or not. How do we deal with it all?
| gerdesj wrote:
| "I actually subscribe to Which a UK consumer reports guide."
|
| I used to too, for quite a few years.
|
| However, their IT related reviews boiled down to "Windows PC:
| Good, Apple: Pretty, Linux and Open Source: Not on my watch".
| A Consumer Forum "for good" completely ignores Open Source -
| why? Personally I think it is down to a lack of imagination
| rather than anything politically motivated.
|
| I did find many of their reviews useful - you get some great
| details on their working and they spend a decent amount of
| time on reviewing non IT stuff. The content articles were
| also often very decent, well written and often thought
| provoking. Their consumer campaigning has got as far as
| making changes to Laws too in the past so I do think _Which_
| is a general force for good.
|
| I just got pissed off that as soon as a laptop or desktop or
| software article came along, the usual turgid crap would come
| out. Perhaps this has improved since around 2015 when I
| ditched them after being a subscriber for over 10 years.
| nathancahill wrote:
| Surely this will be the year of the Linux desktop.
| bearmode wrote:
| "Linux and Open Source: Not on my watch". A Consumer Forum
| "for good" completely ignores Open Source - why?"
|
| Because for general consumers, most of it really isn't
| suitable compared to their competition.
| Goz3rr wrote:
| I'm very happy that in the Netherlands we have tweakers.net.
| Not only do they do tech news and reviews, they also have an
| amazing parametric search/price watch tool that I'm reasonably
| sure is a major contributing cause to how competitive pricing
| is here compared to neighboring countries. Every time I happen
| to use Amazon I die a little inside because of how bad their
| search is.
| janandonly wrote:
| Agree. https://www.tweakers.net rocks !
|
| Also, to use Amazon I search for the 1/2/3-star reviews and
| see if I disagree with the given reason for the low review.
| If I disagree, I will contemplate buying the product.
| wly_cdgr wrote:
| I think all the good reviewers have moved to YT
| neuronexmachina wrote:
| I've found Rtings to be pretty good for audio/visual products.
| elbigbad wrote:
| Outdoor Gear Lab is another good one for outdoor gear. Actual
| things reviewed by real people, though perhaps flawed in the
| same way as wire cutter. At least it's real people putting the
| products through the paces in real use cases.
|
| https://www.outdoorgearlab.com/
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| Yeah. I want to read about the real opinions and experiences of
| real people, not some paid-for marketing piece. I used to
| search reddit for that kind of thing but it's probably been
| compromised by now. I wonder if there even is a place that
| isn't. Real place gets created, real people start going there,
| marketers realize that's where the people are and immediately
| start working the place.
| wgd wrote:
| Regarding "reviews written by people who have actually touched
| the thing they're reviewing", I'm not sure Consumer Reports
| deserves to be listed these days either.
|
| I bought a subscription a few months ago because I needed to
| buy several large appliances for my home, but all I found
| behind that paywall curtain was computer-generated tables of
| star ratings and statistics about mechanical reliability. Which
| is probably useful to somebody, but isn't something I found
| valuable.
|
| I ended up ignoring CR's data tables, cancelling my
| subscription, and buying the same models of appliances my
| parents have because at least I could try those out in person
| and verify that they worked decently well without any glaring
| flaws.
| thechao wrote:
| I have a service tech for appliances. I just ask him what I
| should buy. He usually has suggestions from all the cost-
| ranges. Sometimes, I buy used through him (built-in fridge);
| sometimes I buy new. Since I had the opportunity to buy a
| bunch of equipment this year (a _huge_ power surge from my
| HVAC fried appliances, and bad luck):
|
| Built in fridge: GE monogram;
|
| Dish washer: anything that is quiet (below 42 dB);
|
| Dryer: anything with turn-timers; and,
|
| HVAC: American Standard.
| watersb wrote:
| Clothes washer: Staber
|
| My repair guy would bring other techs over to my house to
| see our Staber washing machine. Nothing else comes close.
|
| https://www.staber.com
| zerkten wrote:
| I can't believe I've never heard of this brand. How do
| they compare to Maytag and Speed Queen of new and old?
| ethbr0 wrote:
| So much this. Find someone who does a lot of residential
| repairs of X. Ask a few of them for recommendations,
| specifically on what not to buy.
|
| As the Farmer's Insurance jingle goes, "They know a thing,
| because they've seen a thing."
|
| Every service tech I've ever asked has immediately had a
| "Never buy {popular brand}, because they all {have shoddy
| part | catastrophic design error}."
|
| And it's night and day between what service techs all know
| vs what even the most detailed internet sleuthing would
| give you, because they actually see a representative sample
| size.
| danachow wrote:
| The flip side of this - is that service techs are by
| their nature biased to failures. They don't come out to
| the machines that are working. This is an issue for top-
| selling items where they may see a lot of service calls
| but the overall rate is lower than something they see
| less frequently. In my experience I have known few
| technicians that have the statistical smarts to account
| for this.
| selykg wrote:
| My library has a subscription to consumer reports, don't have
| to pay for it. I only bring this up because you said you paid
| for it. Worth checking if you have some local resource that
| has a subscription already.
| bombcar wrote:
| I've noticed a tendency for them to review spec sheets; the
| whole point of a reviewer should be to do the in-depth
| checking and verification that I _cannot_ do. I want someone
| to speak to how long the model has been sold, parts
| availability, repairability, etc.
|
| Some of this can't be entirely determined until years after
| the product is released but you can check the company.
|
| As for me, I went with SpeedQueen for the washer/dryer and
| wish I could find an equivalent company for refrigerators,
| but I basically consider those disposable.
| lozenge wrote:
| I found similar at the UK take, Which. Everything is boiled
| down to star ratings and then Mail Merge creates the review
| text.
|
| Apparently, each air purifier which can handle a large room
| is big, heavy and loud. And the air purifiers that score
| highly on being quiet have the downside that they can only
| handle small rooms. Oh, and they did measure the CADR, and
| will tell you that "this air purifier scored five stars on
| our CADR test".
| rkagerer wrote:
| For air purifiers, if cost is no constraint, my IQAir GC
| has worked like a champ. The lower three speeds are
| reasonably quiet, and speed 6 cleans out the room in no
| time when my partner burns the cooking. Comes with a 10
| year warranty.
| jfim wrote:
| Keep in mind air purifiers are just a fan with filters in
| front of it. A box fan with a furnace filter strapped to
| it, while ugly, will do similarly for reducing the amount
| of particles in the room.
|
| What you're paying for is basically three things: a
| design that looks acceptable in a room, a fan that's
| reasonably quiet, and ability to source filters in the
| future.
| rkagerer wrote:
| Check, check and check. And also a filter quality and
| seal design that's been tested and proven to work (they
| do a QA particulate test on each individual unit before
| it ships https://imgur.com/a/exTrjU7).
| nextos wrote:
| IQAir are really good. My only complaint is that they are
| expensive and that their fan uses too much energy.
|
| I wish they would release a smaller machine that was a
| bit cheaper and could compete in price and energy usage
| with mid-sized Coway models.
| prvit wrote:
| I have a few, just wish I could link them with an air
| quality sensor.
| darzu wrote:
| YouTube or google site:reddit.com usually yields the best
| actual human reviews for me.
|
| Or specific categories like America's Test Kitchen for kitchen
| stuff.
| AussieWog93 wrote:
| 100% this. YouTube's fantastic for real reviews.
| adastra22 wrote:
| Video is terrible as a medium though. Can't skim, can't
| grep, not trivial to index. I hate that more and more
| content is moving to video (or podcast) format.
| saiya-jin wrote:
| Also once its removed due to whatever (copyright, owner
| is removed from youtube, reported, million other reasons)
| its gone. No archive.org, google cache or anything left.
| idoh wrote:
| site:reddit.com works and I use it often. But I do wonder how
| long it will be until reddit starts to get gamed as well (if
| it isn't already).
| charlie0 wrote:
| If there's money to be made (and there is) assume it's
| getting gamed to some degree.
| kettleballroll wrote:
| It regularly gets gamed very hard. You can sell old high
| karma accounts for quite a lot of money, because those are
| best for such things. It's also a thin line between
| astroturfing and fill on spamming products. But I have no
| doubts that some reviews on Reddit are payed for.
| KoftaBob wrote:
| > You can sell old high karma accounts for quite a lot of
| money, because those are best for such things.
|
| Why is the accounts karma important for something like
| that? Does the Reddit algorithm favor high karma accounts
| when deciding what posts to rank higher?
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| I'm guessing here, but a lot of subreddits have a minimum
| karma requirement to make posts or comments (it's a
| decent anti-spam measure, but easily gamed by low effort
| bots reposting content every month or so, pretty high
| chance a lot of people won't have seen it before).
|
| And as with other social media companies, the company
| behind it is fine with it; bot engagement and bot content
| is still content, people still watch it, upvote it, and
| ads and other things are still sold.
| idoh wrote:
| Just speculating, but if you create a new account and
| then spam some positive reviews people will notice and
| downvote / get you banned from the sub-reddit. If you
| have some built up history it looks more legit to the
| other community members.
| ssully wrote:
| I wouldn't use Reddit for anything but general product usage
| information. You can get some honest reviews from Reddit
| users, but I find a lot of it is people justifying their
| purchase instead of honest feedback.
| OrwellianChild wrote:
| Just going to throw out https://www.outdoorgearlab.com/ as a
| solid option for the climbing, hiking, and outdoor sport
| equipment they review. Most reviews involve real-world
| subjective testing, which is really what you need when you're
| trying to figure out whether a jacket is warm or a rain shell
| keeps you dry, etc.
| GloriousKoji wrote:
| I haven't trusted them for years, their testing is too
| subjective and the "objective" tests aren't considering the
| right things.
|
| For example I bought hiking boots based on their
| recommendation. They were the most comfortable hiking boots
| I've ever worn but their terrible traction literally nearly
| got me killed despite their claims of having excellent
| traction. I angrily returned those boots.
|
| I also bought a backpack based on their recommendation. They
| have this volume test filling a backpack with pingpong balls.
| It sounded like a great objective test in theory and my new
| pack had a higher volume than my old pack but I couldn't fit
| everything into it as the shape changed too much with a
| sleeping back and bear can in it reducing usable volume.
|
| Finally I gave up on them when I was looking to buy a new
| headlamp. They ranked a headlamp lower because it's battery
| life was less than all the other headlamps being tested. But
| that headlamp max brightness was 3x the lumens of the other,
| batter life should have been tested at a comparable
| brightness level.
| charlie0 wrote:
| I like this site as well. I trust them because I feel they
| are upfront with the level of subjectivity they are
| introducing. Also, it seems they at least buy and try out the
| gear.
| onemiketwelve wrote:
| These guys were the first thing I thought of but to be honest
| for me, their suggestions have been a bit off. Ofc it's all
| subjective but I remember distinctly buying two full face
| helmets they had on their list because their ratings were so
| different from the concensus from reviews. I could'nt tell
| who to trust. The gearlab suggestion was very obviously
| inferior beyond first impressions
| s0rce wrote:
| I like to read their subjective discussions as one point of
| view but its really hard to get much use from their rankings.
| One obvious example is at one point in time all their highest
| ranked ultralight sleeping bags were quilts (ie. open back,
| no zippers) and then all of a sudden the quilts dropped to
| the bottom and were replaced with more traditional zip up
| bags. I assume the reviewer changed and simply doesn't like
| quilts, which is totally reasonable, they don't work for
| everyone but it wasn't clear how the rankings are useful when
| they just shuffled so drastically.
| OrwellianChild wrote:
| Agreed on the challenges with subjectivity and I probably
| should have clarified - I like their full-length
| testimonials. Never did figure out how their star rating
| and badges worked...
| 404mm wrote:
| As somebody not familiar with Wirecutter's history or legacy, I
| always considered them to be one of the paid fake review
| websites that pretend to offer very shallow reviews, mostly
| just built based on referral links and information that can be
| harvested from product descriptions. I just don't agree that
| they are a real website that does actual testing. 0/10. Would
| block form Google if I could.
| mrkwse wrote:
| It will be interesting if LMG can pull off what Linus is aiming
| for with the massive investment in a laboratory environment.
| There are huge parts of the tech market where the most critical
| reviewing you can find is anecdotal accounts of if the reviewer
| liked a product or not (or the more clinical reviews are
| drowned out by the anecdotal noise).
| donmcronald wrote:
| I think the review industry is so bad that even a mediocre
| quality endeavor could gain a ton of traction. The problem
| with the current tech review industry IMO is that it seems
| like the benchmarking and review part of it are treated like
| separate business units that need to be self sustaining /
| profitable.
|
| If you go by what LMG says on their podcast it sounds like
| the intent is for the lab to give them credibility and to act
| as an eyeball funnel, even if it needs to be subsidized by
| the entertainment side of the business. They've already shown
| that it's possible to make entertaining reviews if you keep
| the technical details light, so what they really need is hard
| data to back them up when they trash a product or get accused
| of being a corporate puppet.
|
| I personally find their videos to be entertaining, so if I'm
| looking to buy something and I know they evaluate tech
| products, I'll go to their labs site, look for entertainment
| videos that are produced from that data, and watch those
| videos. Then when I find something I think looks like a good
| fit for me I'll jump back to the labs side to look at the
| details.
|
| IMO the thing that might make LMG's effort different is that
| they're going into the space as a new participant. I think
| they realize the technical aspect of the lab is basically
| going to be content that needs to exist, but that no one
| reads (enough to be profitable) and their monetization is set
| up to accommodate that scenario. Compare that to traditional
| reviewers (and SEO spammers) that rely on page views for
| their revenue.
|
| The whole review industry is going to keep shifting towards
| video and the low cost, low value SEO spam sites are a big
| part of that. Any existing review businesses that aren't
| shifting towards a hybrid model like the LMG / Labs plan are
| going to get crushed IMO. Even if it's not LMG doing it, it's
| going to happen eventually.
| thr0wawayf00 wrote:
| The big problem with most YouTube review channels is that
| they're reliant on the vendors to provide them with free test
| units and other forms of access in order to grow their
| channels, and Linus is no exception.
|
| I actually came across a "why I'm shutting down my channel"
| video a while back in which the host showed emails from the
| company whose product she was reviewing (it was a drawing
| tablet or something like that) pressuring her to show the
| product in a more favorable light.
|
| It's so hard to tell who's actually objective in those review
| videos and who's censoring themselves at the request of a
| vendor.
| hoseja wrote:
| LTT is certainly NOT dependent on free review units any
| more.
| thr0wawayf00 wrote:
| Maybe not, but those channels still largely rely on
| regular access from these companies, which always
| presents a conflict of interest.
|
| I'm sure Linus does just fine in this regard, but the
| underlying problem still stands: if my Youtube channel's
| success is dependent on getting that kind of access to
| products early (as most top-tier reviewers do), I'm
| always going to have to decide between being as objective
| as possible and not biting the hand that feeds me.
|
| If you've watched a handful of review videos on YT at
| this point, there's a pretty good chance at least one of
| them was pre-approved by the vendor of the product being
| reviewed and you just don't know it.
| fartcannon wrote:
| Do you trust Linus, though? He often promotes himself as
| without bias, but he very clearly hates Apple (except the
| watch). He also loves things he already understands (anything
| Microsoft). He's got heavy duty fanboyitis. And he's clearly
| someone you can buy demonstrated by his flip flopping
| AMD/Intel/NVidia praise.
|
| I don't think he outwardly lies (at least not in a way that
| matters), or anything, but he's got pretty good soft selling
| skills which he definitely uses for evil/to make money.
|
| All LMG channels are great. But to me anyways, they're great
| because they're basically comedies.
| teh_klev wrote:
| > And he's clearly someone you can buy demonstrated by his
| flip flopping AMD/Intel/NVidia praise.
|
| He gives praise where praise is due, that isn't bias. Many
| times on the WAN show he's reminded viewers and especially
| Red/Green/Blue fanboys that none of these companies are
| your friend. And big deal if he's more productive using
| Windows than Linux.
|
| I'm in no way defending Linus, there's a bunch of stuff him
| and another staffer get up to that's utterly cringeworthy.
| But as to the rest of your comment I think it's your own
| biases that are playing in your head.
| fartcannon wrote:
| Maybe, but those WAN show lectures are often starkly
| mirroerd by strongly worded submarine advertisement
| playing as segments on his various shows. He basically
| does a thing, then says that people shouldn't do that. To
| put it gently, it's exactly what someone with soft sales
| skills would do. He deflects like a politician. Even if
| he's wrong, and admitting it, he's very skilled at making
| it sound like its everyone who was wrong, or he's the
| hero for admitting it.
|
| Narcissist is probably the word.
|
| Again, I like the shows (well until his rabid fanboyism
| or petulance comes out). I mostly just don't trust him to
| review things.
| teh_klev wrote:
| > Maybe, but those WAN show lectures are often starkly
| mirroerd[sic] by strongly worded submarine advertisement
| playing as segments on his various shows.
|
| Every one of their videos clearly mention who the
| sponsors are i.e. the "sponsored showcase" videos. And
| when they're not those types of videos, but just have
| regular advertising, they say out loud and clear "and
| this segway's to our sponsor...".
|
| I'm not shilling for the fella but their content is some
| of the best when it comes to being transparent about
| who's paying for their videos. He can't risk getting that
| wrong.
|
| > Narcissist is probably the word.
|
| He's clearly offended you somehow and sometime in the
| past so why continue to watch their content? If a content
| creator offended me this much then I'd just walk away.
| fartcannon wrote:
| How do you know what he's saying isn't only half truths?
| You just trust him. I have seen enough of his behaviour
| over the years to prefer to see his videos as comedy.
| That's all.
| teh_klev wrote:
| You clearly have an axe to grind and there's no point in
| me wasting more time discussing this with you. Good
| night, and good luck.
| fartcannon wrote:
| It's just a conversation on the internet, my friend. I
| thank you for your contribution and apologise if I
| offended you.
|
| Goodnight and good luck to you too.
| hoseja wrote:
| The word is "segue", not "segway".
| teh_klev wrote:
| I know and realised after it was too late to edit. And I
| used work in radio and should know better. Sitting here
| with bright red shame-face :)
| coldtea wrote:
| I think that's a little naive. He's more of an
| entertainer making money with sponsorships than a
| reviewer telling hard truths.
|
| Heck, even the Wirecutter, owned by the NYTs, is known to
| push products based on sponsorships...
| p1necone wrote:
| > flip flopping AMD/Intel/NVidia praise
|
| This is a silly take. Tech evolves and companies release
| more than one product at a time. It would be weird if LTT
| /didn't/ have "flip-flopping" takes on various companies.
| fartcannon wrote:
| I disagree that it's silly. I think that's unfairly
| dismissive of a valid point when he is paid money to
| advertise for those companies and we are discussing the
| validity of his reviews of that equipment.
| p1necone wrote:
| LTT very clearly demarcates which videos are sponsored
| and which are not.
| fartcannon wrote:
| How do you know that that's everything? It's just taking
| their word.
| DominoTree wrote:
| How do I know your comments aren't being sponsored by a
| rival YouTube channel?
| fartcannon wrote:
| You don't. But if I said, "I'm not being sponsored by a
| rival YouTube channel" would you just go ahead and
| believe me? What if I also linked to a bunch of videos
| from a rival YouTube channel while repeating that I'm not
| sponsored by them.
| p1necone wrote:
| Do you have even an ounce of evidence? You're being
| ridiculous.
|
| You can't just sling mud baselessly and expect people to
| take you seriously.
| [deleted]
| criley2 wrote:
| LTT makes almost all of it's money from floatplane,
| youtube premium, and youtube advertisements. The "deals"
| they work with companies are almost entirely outside of
| the product space they review.
|
| This mud-slinging idea you continue to push (with zero
| evidence) is contrary to their financials and directly
| contrary to their business model.
|
| Why on earth would Linus leverage his entire business in
| debt to buy a huge facility to produce hardware reviews
| if that would mean "his sponsors" (your salacious claim)
| would abandon him or force him to change?
|
| It literally doesn't make sense. If they were truly
| bought and paid for and producing faux-content that is
| actually advertising, they would have legitimately zero
| need to spend millions of dollars on hardware testing
| labs.
| hoseja wrote:
| >LTT makes almost all of it's money from floatplane,
| youtube premium, and youtube advertisements
|
| In the recent video they did on their most profitable
| videos Linus explicitly said money from YouTube is only a
| small fraction of their revenue. I don't imagine
| Floatplane is much of a profit centre either...
| criley2 wrote:
| Linus did a video on how much money they make from
| youtube premium/ads and the numbers can get as high as
| $50k-$100k/video for their most popular streams. It's not
| nothing. Floatplane is profitable because it's a
| subscription based system, and that's where the money
| always is. Hence patreon.
| hoseja wrote:
| For a company with 50 employees, that is really not all
| that much.
| freemint wrote:
| Oh LTT also sells a lot of expensive but high quality
| merch.
| fartcannon wrote:
| Salacious is a bit of a salicous word for doubting their
| reviewer credibility.
|
| I get it. You disagree with me. I hope you are right
| because he's got quite a bit of power these days.
| criley2 wrote:
| Salacious is an eminently accurate word for your string
| of source-less comments describing your feelings about
| their advertisements under the guise of actual
| accusations of wrongdoing.
|
| I don't "disagree with you", I dismiss you. I provided an
| accurate description of their financials and incentives
| and demonstrated that your salacious claims literally
| don't make sense.
|
| This is good and normal! We should always dismiss peoples
| feelings especially when they directly contradict all
| available evidence. However, I happily await your
| evidence demonstrating that Linus has been corrupted by a
| hardware partner into producing devious advertising! We'd
| all love for you to back your claims up.
| fartcannon wrote:
| Now you're just being rude.
| freemint wrote:
| I didn't perceive it as rude but as harsh.
| [deleted]
| teh_klev wrote:
| > I hope you are right because he's got quite a bit of
| power these days.
|
| Oh c'mon. The guy is just a YouTube celeb like hundreds
| of others and easily disposable, what is this _" power"_
| he wields?
| fartcannon wrote:
| On the most recent wan show, his fans located and
| harassed an ex employee of the new facility he bought
| because he was mildly perturbed over the state of the
| building. That's some unchecked power.
| kup0 wrote:
| Which he told them beforehand not to do, and afterwards
| chastised them for doing so, being clearly frustrated
| that his fans would so something like that and make
| things worse for everyone.
|
| If _he_ wielded the power himself (encouraged that
| behavior) that 's one thing, but fanbases of scale will
| eventually always have a subset of people that behave
| poorly like this _despite_ even being directly told not
| to by the person they 're supposedly a fan of...
| dhzhzjsbevs wrote:
| It's silly because it isn't a valid point. Linus flip
| flopping on those brands is precisely why he isn't
| suffering from fanboyitis.
|
| It's kind of rediculous to claim he's a fanboy in one
| sentence then claim he's just a shill in the next when
| the evidence contradicts your first statement.
| fartcannon wrote:
| Well, again, I disagree. It's ridiculous to see a
| behaviour with your own eyes and then choose to believe
| it's the opposite.
| dhzhzjsbevs wrote:
| What behavior exactly? Got receipts?
|
| Because from what I see he's both called Intel on it's
| bullshit and still worked with them on a professional
| level.
|
| Same for amd.
|
| As for apple, they funded a whole new Apple channel
| without Linus precisely because he knows he couldn't be
| unbias.
| fartcannon wrote:
| Yes, and I agree that you can see those actions as being
| contrary to my proposed scenario. I sort of see them as
| evidence in the other direction, but it's good to hear it
| said out loud. Makes good food for thought.
| p1necone wrote:
| Not having bias doesn't mean not having an opinion on
| things. It's a review channel, it doesn't work unless he
| "likes" some things and "hates" others, as long as he
| elaborates on the /reasons/ for those opinions.
| fartcannon wrote:
| Well, no, it would work way better if he had no bias.
| Otherwise you have to trust that he's aware of his bias
| and is somehow capable of separating his opinion from
| reality. Otherwise how does it help anyone make a
| financial choice?
|
| I like the show(s). They're fun. But I don't use them to
| determine which CPU to buy or whatever. Their opinion
| changes depending on who is sponsoring them, no?
| crummy wrote:
| Are there reviewers you would recommend without any
| biases at all?
| fartcannon wrote:
| No. :(
| jamiek88 wrote:
| It's pretty much impossible for humans to be unbiased.
| All we can do is work around it like with double blind
| experiments for example.
| kadoban wrote:
| > Their opinion changes depending on who is sponsoring
| them, no?
|
| No, to the extent humanly possible. They have reviews,
| which are not sponsored by anyone having anything to do
| with the product being reviewed. Those are their actual
| opinions and evaluations of products.
|
| Separately they have sponsored showcase videos, or
| whatever they call them, where they won't say anything
| untrue, but they're just showing off whatever it is, not
| really evaluating it deeply. These videos are _very_
| obviously different, and very obviously labelled.
|
| LTT has top tier policies and openness about these issues
| compared to really anyone on youtube or anywhere.
|
| More anecdotally, I've seen them give takes on previous
| or current sponsors that were _very_ not in their
| financial best interests. If sponsors are paying for easy
| coverage, they're not getting their money's worth.
|
| > Well, no, it would work way better if he had no bias.
|
| That would just be lying. There are no humans without
| biases.
|
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-zt57TWkTF4 is probably a
| good summary on Linus's thoughts on sponsors/funding. If
| you trust what he says or not is up to you. I do though.
| fartcannon wrote:
| Like, not to be dismissive, but how do you know? Talk is
| cheap.
|
| Edit: thanks for the link to the video.
| kadoban wrote:
| Same way anyone knows anything, really. I look at what
| they've said, look at their actions and decided if they
| matched. You can tell that they genuinely want and try to
| do good.
|
| Certainly feel free to evaluate differently for yourself.
|
| I watch a lot of their content. Mostly it's just fun, but
| I do trust them to have pretty good takes on things when
| I'm considering buying something as well.
|
| I do always check others though, mostly for the real
| gritty details that LTT doesn't usually focus on. I'm
| hoping that their Labs project starts providing a lot
| more of those too.
| fartcannon wrote:
| Thanks, I have and that is where my original position
| comes from. Got some good alternative perspectives today
| though. Interesting to hear the same thing as evidence of
| either position.
|
| My fav part of the channel is the rest of the team. One
| thing you can't fault Linus for is his ability to hire
| entertaining characters and promote a fun environment.
| That is a great skill. There's at least 5 other people
| there who could be YouTube empires all on their own.
| kadoban wrote:
| > One thing you can't fault Linus for is his ability to
| hire entertaining characters and promote a fun
| environment. That is a great skill. There's at least 5
| other people there who could be YouTube empires all on
| their own.
|
| Yeah, agreed, it's a bit absurd to me how they've managed
| to collect so many actually talented, entertaining
| people.
| freemint wrote:
| By offering them a a better deal then starting from
| nothing as a YouTuber and then "hooking" them with things
| such as writing staff, filming locations, good equipment,
| good people behind the camera, credit for their work and
| editing staff as well as access to hardware they would
| not get otherwise. They surely spend mid 6 digits on
| their workshop for example. Mostly to make CNC machines
| create custom heat spreaders.
| fnimick wrote:
| He's also vocally anti-union and actively tried to stop his
| employees from marketing themselves on personal social
| media (to stop them from building a following and then
| leaving, I'm guessing), so I refuse to watch any of his
| content or support his business in any way now.
| junkieradio wrote:
| I watch one of his employees stream on twitch, I found
| out about his channel from a Linus tech tips video, I
| don't think your second claim is all that true.
| fartcannon wrote:
| I googled it and there's this. I'm not sure if it's what
| OP is talking about or not. Here you go:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bTHSwBZVNI
| nighthawk454 wrote:
| a lot of LMG employees have personal social media and
| either YouTube or Twitch streams, often getting viewers
| from fans of their persona on LMG videos. I think the
| issue is only with competing content and/or leveraging
| the LMG platform. For example, if an employee started a
| GPU review channel and called it out in an LMG video,
| like ok yeah probably not. More like non-compete than
| some draconian restrictions
| normaler wrote:
| Can you elaborate in the anti-union thing? I can't seem
| to find anyone discussing this.
| rhyzomatic wrote:
| Do you mind sharing some links to back up these claims?
|
| Just watched a video [0] where he clearly comes across as
| being pro workers rights, and against passing prop 22 in
| California. He seems to be generally pro-union while
| still trying to point out some general issues with them.
| He also says he would be "offended" if his employees
| unionized at LMG, which while maybe is a bit stupid to
| say, I don't think counts as anti-union.
|
| [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpyiNOD-MOk
| bradlys wrote:
| People should also understand why he said he would be
| offended. He would be offended because it meant they
| didn't talk to him and work with him - and that he did
| such a bad job as a manager that they decided to
| unionize.
|
| He's pro-union - he just hopes he is a good enough boss
| that his employees don't feel like they need to unionize.
| He clarified his viewpoint in later videos. Offended was
| probably not the best choice of word - and he admits that
| too. I don't recall the video but someone can find it.
| (I'm on mobile and on vacation - idk why I'm even here)
| fartcannon wrote:
| Pro-union but would be offended if his employees made a
| union?
|
| That's the kinda double speak I'm talking about.
| bradlys wrote:
| It's really not. People tend to only form unions when
| they feel that they're being unjustly treated and this is
| one of their last resorts.
| framapotari wrote:
| This is an extremely American -- and misinformed -- view
| of unions. Where I'm from unions are the default, not
| formed as a last resort to unjust treatment but a natural
| counterbalance to corporate/institutional power.
|
| Someone saying they'd rather not have their workers form
| a union is not pro-union. That's like saying you support
| workers sharing information but you would be offended if
| your workers talked about their salaries because that
| would infer that they don't trust you to be fair.
| bradlys wrote:
| Is it misinformed if it's just generally how they work in
| the US?
| fartcannon wrote:
| If you're pro-something, surly you'd want people to do
| it?
| bradlys wrote:
| I'm pro-choice - does this mean that I think every fetus
| should be aborted?
| modriano wrote:
| Pro-choice != pro-abortion.
|
| Pro-choice means every pregnant woman should have the
| choice and a real chance to abort their pregnancy if they
| choose. It's kind of right there in the name.
| bradlys wrote:
| Unless you believe children shouldn't exist - almost no
| one is pro-abortion. So, that's not really an argument
| that anyone is making, is it?
|
| In the same way people say pro-union - they mean "pro-
| choice" as in you should have the choice and freedom to
| form and be part of a union easily.
| framapotari wrote:
| If you're pro-choice then I wouldn't expect you to say
| that in some cases you'd be offended if the person had a
| choice.
| 9935c101ab17a66 wrote:
| Pro-choice literally means you think women should be able
| to choose whether or not they terminate an unwanted
| pregnancy.
|
| I hope you're trolling -- you're comment made me lol when
| I first read it because it's so misguided.
| fartcannon wrote:
| No, that would mean you support each woman who wants to
| have one and you probably shouldn't tell them it offends
| you if they do. Especially if they depend on you
| financially and you can break up with them without
| consequence.
| Germanika wrote:
| I interpret it closer to being pro-choice while hoping to
| not personally need an abortion. Unions form when workers
| feel they aren't being heard and aren't being properly
| represented. Having a union form at your own company is
| an indication that you failed your employees in one way
| or another. You can be pro-union while hoping to
| personally never need one or have to sit across the table
| from one.
| framapotari wrote:
| > Having a union form at your own company is an
| indication that you failed your employees in one way or
| another.
|
| This is absolutely untrue. A kind of propaganda talking
| point that paints unions like some kind of vicious weapon
| that you want workers to have if they absolutely need to
| defend themselves against assault, but you'd rather not
| have the assault take place at all.
|
| Unions give workers concentrated power to balance against
| the concentrated power of corporations. That's it. They
| are one side of the scale.
| hoseja wrote:
| That's a wrong way to view unions though, a propagandized
| American way. Unions should really be default and not
| imply some sort of moral failing about the employer.
| Sadly they are viewed as such.
| fartcannon wrote:
| Yeah, pro-choice but hoping not to have an abortion is
| probably a lot of people's position. But then telling
| your partner who depends on you financially that it would
| disappoint you if they had one sorta changes things, dont
| you agree? Especially if theyre already pregnant.
|
| As for unions, everyone should unionize. It's literally
| the only way to even out the power dynamic. Good
| companies, bad companies - it makes no difference. There
| goal is to pay you as little as they can, so yours should
| be to get paid as much as you can. Unions make that
| process easier for the majority of people.
| 9935c101ab17a66 wrote:
| Anyone who is truly "pro-union" would recognize that
| seeing yourself as a good manager/boss doesn't mean you
| don't take advantage of your employees. Furthermore,
| there is ALWAYS a power dynamic at play that makes it
| difficult for individuals to speak up about their
| concerns or ideas for improving working conditions --
| even "nice" managers will disagree or see certain things
| as pointless / unnecessary / frivolous. Not to mention,
| Linus is both the owner AND the manager of LMG, making
| the relationship between employer / employee even more
| complex and unbalanced.
|
| Unions are a tool to give individual workers more
| leverage in negotiations that almost always favour
| employers / managers.
|
| A side note: Linus could be a great day-to-day manager,
| but that doesn't mean he isn't a bad "ceo" if that's what
| he calls himself. He can be incredibly personable and
| kind and supportive, but also have unreasonable
| expectations about work hours, employee's social media
| activities, compensation, etc.
| freemint wrote:
| Do you have a source for the work hours? I had the
| impression that he very much tries to not ask for more
| then he pays for. Do you have a source that the
| compensations at LTT are somehow unreasonable?
|
| As for not having a YouTube channel, i find that a
| reasonable demand for employees of a company running
| YouTube channels. They are allowed to do game streaming
| stream on Twitch and stuff like that.
| fartcannon wrote:
| Ah, that's pretty brutal. Thanks for the information I
| will keep that in mind. Seems less funny now. :/
| armadsen wrote:
| I know this is completely subjective, and his millions of
| subscribers tell me my opinion is far from ubiquitous,
| but he's also just straight up obnoxious to me. One of
| those people whose voice, demeanor, appearance,
| everything, just immediately turns me off.
| bigDinosaur wrote:
| I think he, personally, is largely entertainment. His
| company does produce some genuinely useful (as in, not
| total SEO spam) reviews etc. though.
| teg4n_ wrote:
| Agreed. I always think of his Amazon go video where
| thinks he "stole" tampons that were actually pads.
| Dracophoenix wrote:
| Because he sounds like the stereotype of a Hot Topic-
| shopping turbonerd c.2002 ? Personally, I find it
| nostalgic, and even endearing.
| girvo wrote:
| I find his semi-rare discussions of 2000s tech nostalgic.
|
| Yes sir, very Atomic. I miss that era.
| p1necone wrote:
| Yeah it's kinda awesome to me too. I want to travel back
| in time and go to a lan party with 16 year old Linus.
| [deleted]
| fartcannon wrote:
| It seems like he creates a fun environment at the
| workplace too. I bet they have awesome work parties.
| danudey wrote:
| As an Apple fanboy, I can easily say that Linus does _not_
| hate Apple.
|
| Linus DOES hate a lot of what Apple does; cases where they
| make things more unrepairable for no real reason, or
| various socio-political causes (like opposing Right to
| Repair or unions or whatever).
|
| Regardless of that though, I would trust a Linus review of
| a new iPhone or iPad a lot more than I would trust a lot of
| other sites, because I know he's not going in with Apple
| fanboyism (the way I would, for example), and he gives
| reasons for all his opinions.
|
| Fundamentally, he always comes across as principled. If he
| has an opinion he'll tell you, and he'll give you a reason.
| He'll admit that he was wrong when he (believes he) was
| wrong. He'll contextualize his thoughts so you can decide
| if this or that opinion is really relevant to your
| situation.
|
| As far as I've seen, his AMD/Intel/nvidia opinion changes
| follow along with the facts. He's pretty PO'ed at Intel for
| basically just sitting around with their fingers up their
| asses for however many years, and only actually trying to
| make good products at good prices (and largely failing)
| when AMD suddenly stepped everything up.
|
| nvidia makes great video cards, the best on the market, but
| he's not going to avoid calling them out for shady or anti-
| consumer business practices. AMD makes great CPUs and good
| video cards, but if they have a disingenuous benchmark or
| claim he's going to say something about it.
|
| I dunno, no one is entirely unbiased, but from what I've
| seen over the years, I can trust Linus more than most other
| people.
| simondotau wrote:
| As an Apple apologist, I also concur with most of the
| above.
|
| Though I do find it amusing that Linus has often
| commented negatively on companies that don't want their
| employes to unionise, when Linus does much the same
| thing. In the case of LMG, Linus employs emotional
| threats, publicly warning his employees that forming a
| union would represent a declaration of "personal
| failure". Don't get me wrong, I agree 100% with Linus
| here. Unionising is what you do in response to
| exploitation, not as a default state of affairs. I just
| wish he could see the parallel when commenting on other
| companies which aren't currently unionised.
|
| [Edit: just noticed that this exact point was already
| discussed to death elsewhere in this sub-thread.]
| bigDinosaur wrote:
| You also unionise to prevent exploitation, it's not just
| a reactionary option. Yes, it can get unnecessarily
| adversarial. We'd be better off if unions were the
| default but were only adversarial where necessary. I
| believe countries like Germany do a bit better at this?
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| > Unionising is what you do in response to exploitation,
| not as a default state of affairs.
|
| You're not from France I can tell ;)
|
| But yeah if people in such a small company start
| organising it means stuff is wrong
| usednet wrote:
| Unionisation as a default state of affairs is what
| prevents exploitation. Join a union.
| simondotau wrote:
| Which is great in theory, until you realise that unions
| can and do exploit workers too. Collectives of people
| (whether corporations, unions, or entire countries) tend
| towards corruption as they scale. History has shown that
| large unions are similarly prone to exploitation and
| corruption.
| baq wrote:
| the choice is between having no negotiating power with HR
| or having some at the cost of being part of an
| organization.
| simondotau wrote:
| If you're part of a union, you don't gain negotiating
| power, you trade away individual negotiating power for
| collective negotiating power. Sometimes this is a good
| trade. It depends on the context, on the industry, on the
| sort of work you do.
| DubiousPusher wrote:
| Yeah, just be one of .0001% of workers with a rare,
| highly marketable skill and you won't need a union...
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > History has shown that large unions are similarly prone
| to exploitation and corruption.
|
| Mostly in the US, it seems. Unions in Europe are healthy
| and effective. The key difference IMO is the interest
| people show in democracy and holding delegates
| accountable.
| DubiousPusher wrote:
| It's also somwehat moot. Unions in the U.S. get their
| workers better pay and better benefits pretty much
| regardless of corruption and did so even at the peak of
| their influence and corruption.
|
| I think it's reasonable to argue against corruption but
| if you're argument against almost any human institution
| is just that it is corrupt, then you are arguing against
| the majority of human institutions ever. Which simply
| isn't practical.
| aaa_aaa wrote:
| Here is my experience with "public" unions. When I was
| working at a public research institute, employees were
| kind of forced to enter a union. It seemed ok because
| union's cut was paid by government. Government just wants
| to look cute to public eye and EU. That union were more
| or less useless and just collecting huge sums of money.
| Where does that money goes nobody dares to check. My wife
| also had to enter a Teacher's union and that is a much
| larger scam. IMO, Most public unions are parasites living
| on free government money.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| In the Netherlands they've also become corrupted. The big
| union leaders have become so used to sitting at the
| executive table that they've lost track of the people
| they represent. Of course there's exceptions but I feel
| that they listen to corporate concerns way too much.
|
| But unfortunately the Netherlands is the country with the
| most Anglo-Saxon model that is still in the EU. So it was
| bound to happen.
| DubiousPusher wrote:
| Not to mention that if you wait to unionize until you are
| being exploited, you will have far less power to resist
| coercion. Striking when you have some money under the
| mattress is a lot easier than doing so after you've eaten
| the last of the shoe leather.
| fartcannon wrote:
| As someone who loathes Apple, I disagree. But I do agree
| that there's basically no place to get a trustworthy
| resource on Apple. Because, for the same reason I don't
| trust Linus, money is involved.
| simondotau wrote:
| It is unreasonable to expect any one source to be
| consistently reliable. The "trustworthy resource" is
| multiple sources with diverse views. Combine your LMG
| diet with some Rene Ritchie, Hoeg Law, etc.
| fartcannon wrote:
| Diversify your trust portfolio. I like it.
| AshWolfy wrote:
| I think the truth is you cant trust any one reviewer, you
| should always look at multiple reviewers.
| 411111111111111 wrote:
| Thats was true some time ago, but isn't anymore - for
| every authentic review you will find hundreds of fake SEO
| article/comments. This means that by simply increasing n
| you're basically guaranteed to be less informed.
|
| Welcome to the age of misinformation.
| klausjensen wrote:
| As somebody who has followed Linus for the last couple of
| years, I have to say I deeply disagree with your conclusion
| about hating apple and being for sale.
|
| He is not without flaws, but I think he is fair, balanced
| and very well-intentioned.
| yummypaint wrote:
| Gamersnexus has been similarly expanding their capabilities
| with very expensive fan testing equipment. They seem to be
| one of the better sources of consumer tech journalism these
| days.
| throw10920 wrote:
| What's the profit model for LMG? Ads? I'm not sure how long
| that will sustain even a smallish channel with no expenses,
| let alone electronic testing equipment and products to test.
| cush wrote:
| Phones and anything Apple are reviewed to oblivion. There are
| some incredible consumer product review YouTube channels out
| there too.. The Best one imo is project farm
| (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vO3UX4oEnZI). If you're into
| headphones, Crinacle's site/YT are on a completely different
| level than any other review site
|
| I really hope LMG does videos in these styles with their lab
| jterrys wrote:
| Project Farm is pretty great. Got great advice for water
| filters, car wax, and drills
|
| There really are brands out there that charge 200% more for
| a shittier product to just get carried by brand recognition
| alone.
| geerlingguy wrote:
| And I love the test rigs PF devises. Some really clever
| ones like the oil wear tester in his most recent review.
| manchmalscott wrote:
| I believe their intention with the lab is to focus more on
| written articles instead of video content? He's complained
| on his podcast (in the context of talking about the lab)
| about the decrease in quality print journalism in the tech
| space.
| Smoosh wrote:
| I would also recommend The Torque Test Channel as very
| similar in approach to Project Farm.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZem9C5rWjSb0B8tV3k2EZg
| dymax78 wrote:
| > If you're into headphones, Crinacle's site/YT are on a
| completely different level than any other review site.
|
| Audio Science Review was posting deep-dive technical
| reviews of amps, dacs, daps, iems, and headphones, years
| before crinacle made a post on headfi, and I say that as a
| member of the latter since '02. Many audio engineers and
| enthusiasts have attempted to remove the "reality
| distortion field" that permeates the prominent audiophile
| communities (headfi, audiogon) for years; ASR was one of
| the first to successfully to so (excluding sites dedicated
| to specialized equipment).
| McAtNite wrote:
| It will be nice if they do come up with an experiment based
| approach to reviews. Personally I really enjoy Gamer Nexus
| since they already do this.
|
| Their coverage of the Nvidia cooler design change was really
| interesting to watch, and they went into depth on their
| testing methodology with both its strengths and weaknesses.
|
| Their channel really convinced me to take a more critical
| look at other "reviews" and how they conduct them with either
| lazily held thermal camera or smoke machines.
| tapland wrote:
| And GN has someine making graphs who knows how to make them
| readable.
|
| In LMG videos the graphs could be really crazy, though I
| haven't watched them for a while now.
| unwind wrote:
| Just in case not everyone are in the loop, LMG is Linus Media
| Group [1] which is the publishing agency behind the popular
| YouTube channel "Linus Tech Tips" [2]. It is a different
| Linus, not Torvalds. :)
|
| [1]: https://linusmediagroup.com/
|
| [2]: https://www.youtube.com/c/LinusTechTips
| Tagbert wrote:
| Thank you. I had wondered about that.
| kitsunesoba wrote:
| I'm hopeful for LMG's lab too. It's still a bit of a gamble,
| but from the sound of it the company is set up such that they
| can review products in an objective, data-backed way and tank
| any blowback from manufacturers that occurs as a result.
|
| It's much more focused on enthusiast computer hardware, but
| Gamers Nexus[0] is doing good things in this space too. Their
| style is much more dry and data-dense than LMG's though,
| which isn't everybody's cup of tea.
|
| [0]: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChIs72whgZI9w6d6FhwGGHA
| girvo wrote:
| While they don't focus on the same equipment, Hardware
| Unboxed scratches that data-dense itch for monitors,
| processors and other components.
| humaniania wrote:
| Gamers Nexus is better than Linus in every way that
| matters.
| newsclues wrote:
| Entertainment matters for about 10 million subscribers
| Brakenshire wrote:
| https://www.notebookcheck.net/ also seems to do a lot of
| their own testing.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| Yeah they're great and in-depth and without the stupid
| showmanship of Linus. Just the info without the hot air
| :) Always the site I go for, wish they did more types of
| products.
|
| For screens I use displaycheck.
| Shalomboy wrote:
| Hey, maybe the showman ship isn't for you, but what Linus
| and his Media Group have done is create the Top Gear of
| Enthusiast computer hardware. Tremendous entertainment
| value, exposure for niche sects of the culture, and an
| easy entry into the space for newcomers and young folks.
| That's gotta be good for something.
| sixothree wrote:
| Got a link to DisplayCheck? I'm not finding what I think
| should be correct.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| Sorry I remembered it wrong.
|
| It was DisplayMate, not DisplayCheck.
| https://www.displaymate.com/mobile.html#Latest
|
| Their display "shootouts" are unparallelled in my
| opinion. For example they look at colour accuracy not
| only at high brightness but also at really low
| brightness, where displays often 'cheat' by reducing the
| contrast when they reach the limit of their backlight
| dimming. Which significantly impacts colour fidelity.
|
| They also do many other types besides mobile displays, I
| just linked to that as an example.
|
| PS: Sorry for calling out Linux for his showmanship but I
| just dislike this generation of Youtube "celebrity" that
| appeals to the mainstream over getting out of the way of
| high quality content. The only one I really have time for
| is Dave from EEVblog. Despite being quite the showman he
| really has the brains and doesn't hold back on technical
| info.
| sixothree wrote:
| Thank you for the link. And there is no reason to
| apologize. You are not incorrect in your interpretation.
| I subscribe to LTT on YouTube, but it's for
| entertainment.
| k12sosse wrote:
| Don't apologize for what you've said about the cult of
| Linus. Congrats to him for what he's built, but it's just
| not for us, and that's ok.
|
| Thanks for linking DisplayMate, at first glance it's
| something I'll be needing to dive deeper into soon.
| srazzaque wrote:
| Second this. Whenever I'm looking up a review for a
| notebook, my default search term is "<model>
| notebookcheck" to see if they've done a review.
|
| The visual size comparison tool is also extremely handy
| for comparing something you're about to buy, with
| something you already have access to. It gives you a much
| better sense of how much bigger/smaller this thing is.
| biggc wrote:
| I appreciate the depth of gamer's nexus, but their videos
| are like watching someone read an Anandtech breakdown.
| geerlingguy wrote:
| Heh, at least they give chapter markers so you can glance
| at the benchmarks you want then skip to their
| conclusions.
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| This is such a welcome feature! It makes going to videos
| without these pretty painful.
| hansword wrote:
| I want to second the gamers nexus recommendation here.
|
| (To be frank, I think LMG labs is very much inspired by
| what GN has been doing over the last year or two.)
| danudey wrote:
| I go with LTT if I want to know if a laptop is good to
| use or not.
|
| I go with Gamer's Nexus if I want to know if a GPU used
| the wrong kind of thermal interface for their VRMs and
| what effect that has on core clocks second by second,
| backed by rigorous scientific benchmarks producing huge
| amounts of data, summarized in highly detailed graphs.
| sixothree wrote:
| My problem with LTT is finding a _work_ laptop using
| their recommendations. I don't need gaming graphics and I
| cannot work on a 13" screen.
| omega3 wrote:
| On a tangential note, I prefer GN for their understated
| delivery and heavy use of data and charts. On some
| channels the emphasis is clearly more on the -tainment
| part of infotainment. The default tech video is is now
| produced with the same template: little jokes between
| presenters, background history, open ended questions,
| Netflix type camera shots on the couch, post processing,
| visual effects etc. With GN at least it's easy to FF to
| see a graph and listen to conclusions. Other channels
| require me to be emotionally invested in the content and
| delivey method and it gets very tiring after a while.
| branko_d wrote:
| I think rtings.com are doing a good job on monitors.
| hirvi74 wrote:
| There is no denying that "Linus (Torvalds) Tech Tips" would
| not be extremely entertaining though. I would love to see
| him just go off on everything. :)
| [deleted]
| bmn__ wrote:
| Linus S on Linus T:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kua9cY8q_EI
| djmips wrote:
| Code review: Suggestion make logic positive. "Linus
| (Torvalds) Tech Tips" would be extremely entertaining" :)
| ajolly wrote:
| For detailed tech reviews with lots of data of really been
| enjoying Igor'slab from Germany lately
| wincy wrote:
| I'm curious about this too. He did a breakdown of how much
| money they get from ads and it's not much considering how
| many employees they have. They have a lot of sponsorships and
| selling swag but I'm just not sure what their maximum size is
| as just another YouTube channel, even one with lots of
| revenue streams.
| AussieWog93 wrote:
| Honestly, I think Linus has reached the point where even if
| his endeavour fails his family will be OK. Plus, he'd get
| to spend more time with them.
| fnimick wrote:
| Dude literally has a brand new house where he wrote off
| all the renovation as business expense as he was filming
| it for his channel. He's totally fine.
| maremp wrote:
| What about Rtings? For tech stuff, I found the reviews to be of
| good quality and it does not seem like it's biased or
| sponsored.
|
| > googling "reviews of X"
|
| DDG produces somewhat better results, or at least does not rank
| the seo spam, generated garbage up to the first page. Also, I
| do not have ads following me everywhere for the next week.
| malermeister wrote:
| If you happen to speak German, Stiftung Warentest is great and
| reviews a wide range of stuff.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stiftung_Warentest
| dunco wrote:
| The sites I've found to be at least making an honest evaluation
| are:
|
| choice.com.au (Australian context, Aus version of consumer
| reports) Their reviews just seem to miss the mark sometimes,
| but at least you can count on the fact its an honest take so
| you can kind of pick specific facts from the reviews and take
| them as true, maybe don't rely on their overall recommendations
| though. funded through magazine/web subscritoions
|
| rtings.com - tech stuff, detailed and with a good table tool
| for comparison. funded through subscriptions
|
| notebookcheck.com - funded by ads, but does a very good job of
| highly detailed and consistent reviews. same as choice where
| you don't necessarily follow their recommendation, but they
| give you lots of information that you can compare. Their model
| is a red flag, but my impression is of general trustworthiness.
|
| I subscribe to choice and rtings to support them because honest
| brokers are so rare in this space.
| bash-j wrote:
| I also subscribe to choice. They do lots more than product
| reviews. They have general guides on how to get the best use
| out of products, mystery shoppers reviewing customer service,
| tools to compare health insurance, etc. The reason I stay
| subscribed is they campaign about consumer rights issues
| which actually cause industries as a whole to change, e.g.
| bank fees. They also have the shonky awards which usually
| gets a bit of media attention each year, where they shame
| companies for poor behaviour, quality, outright scams, etc. I
| think of it like a lobby to help us consumers out, which we
| need more of. Too often we are listening to the advice of the
| industry bodies that represent the companies rather than the
| consumers.
| dunco wrote:
| totally agree. In fact the consumer advocacy is probably
| more of why I stay subscribed than the reviews :)
| nojs wrote:
| Depends how you define "real". It's a standard issue affiliate
| marketing site that recommends products according to deals they
| have with manufacturers: https://www.xdesk.com/wirecutter-
| standing-desk-review-pay-to...
| dangus wrote:
| The worst part about Consumer Reports is that they barely test
| anything.
|
| They're only useful for a specific set of popular products.
|
| There are too many categories where the content says "sorry, we
| stopped testing this category, this information is old."
| guelo wrote:
| It's a real shame Consumer Reports were so bad at transitioning
| from their 20th century business model to the online era. We
| really need non-commercially funded reviews but it feels like
| CR is barely functioning anymore.
| a_f wrote:
| gamersnexus for pc gaming hardwear is another
| ornornor wrote:
| I have no faith whatsoever in WC's reviews or advice anymore.
| I've bought several of their recommendations post NYT
| acquisition and they've all turned out to be flawed in a way
| that I'd aimed to avoid by following their recommendations.
|
| I find ,,site:Reddit.com" a much much much better source of
| actual information that isn't SEO spam.
| throw0101a wrote:
| > _The Wirecutter is a highly flawed review site, but at least
| it 's a real one. There are vanishingly few left for general
| consumer products. There's WC, Consumer Reports, and what
| else?_
|
| I like America's Test Kitchen for kitchen-y stuff.
|
| Project Farm (on YouTube) for tools / DIY stuff perhaps.
| Smoosh wrote:
| I already mentioned it above, but repeating it here.
|
| I would also recommend The Torque Test Channel as very
| similar in approach to Project Farm, maybe a bit more
| technical and thorough. Their focus was on impact drivers,
| but they have branched out into other power tools, LED lights
| and hand tools.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZem9C5rWjSb0B8tV3k2EZg
| tehwebguy wrote:
| Project Farm rules for the types of products he tests, which
| is pretty narrow.
|
| It seems like the only way to really get a review is to find
| someone on youtube who shows the product being used in a way
| you plan to use it, or someone who does a re-review after a
| period of time like a year etc
| Xcelerate wrote:
| > I like America's Test Kitchen for kitchen-y stuff.
|
| For me, America's Test Kitchen compromises on quality too
| much for the sake of convenience. And perhaps that is their
| target audience, but they dismissed Demeyere's cookware out
| of hand for being too heavy and unwieldy, whereas a site like
| centurylife uses IR cameras and probe thermometers to
| actually measure heat distribution and retention across
| different cookware sets.
|
| I don't understand the "too heavy" complaint anyway; people
| cook with cast iron (Lodge / Le Creuset) all the time, and it
| is significantly heavier than Demeyere.
| throw0101a wrote:
| > _I don't understand the "too heavy" complaint anyway;
| people cook with cast iron (Lodge / Le Creuset) all the
| time, and it is significantly heavier than Demeyere._
|
| Yes, and they have reviews for cast iron for people that
| (a) can deal with the weight, and (b) want the thermal
| 'inertia' of all the extra mass.
|
| But plenty of folks (i) aren't strong enough, or (ii) want
| something more responsive to heat adjustments.
|
| They have testers of all shapes and sizes: (five-foot-
| nothing?) Lisa McManus and (six-foot?) Adam Ried would
| handle things differently:
|
| * https://www.americastestkitchen.com/tour
|
| If something is heavy/unwieldy, and you have hot oil in it,
| then it can become a safety hazard. There are trade-offs in
| any engineering decision.
| zucked wrote:
| ATK is, as far as I am concerned, the gold standard for
| kitchen reviews.
| [deleted]
| yurishimo wrote:
| And they include best picks that have actually been tested
| if you might not be able to afford the number 1. So many
| channels might make a passing comment about a cheaper
| option, but you never know if the quality is kind of close
| or just the best option for them to make some affiliate
| revenue off of. At least ATK has the pedigree to backup
| their testing claims and anecdotal evidence. Their best
| pick spatula for example, I've seen in every commercial
| kitchen I've worked in.
| zucked wrote:
| I've bought a lot of both their high end and value picks
| and haven't found a dud yet. I'd trust Adam with my life
| at this point :D
| birdman3131 wrote:
| I like a lot of project farm's videos but his electrical tape
| video was far off the mark of what actually matters. They
| were good tests for tape but bad tests for Electrical tape.
| TheCraiggers wrote:
| Fair, and I'd also say that many of the tests he does could
| really use more data points. For example, testing torque
| using bolts- I've had a few bad bolts in my life that were
| weaker than they should have been. I really hope he does
| that but edits it out.
|
| However, I would say that's the price you pay for an
| independent reviewer these days. He's (presumably) not
| simply reading a carefully prepared script by the vendor.
| That he actually pays for all the things he reviews is
| astonishing. Likewise, I'll forgive him the occasional bad
| video.
|
| Speaking of, in the electrical tape video you mention, he
| tests for things he cares about. Presumably you would have
| want him to test resistance I presume? I would think so
| too, but in doing some research while responding to your
| post, that doesn't seem what anybody actually cares about.
| Most tapes advertise heat resistance only. I can't actually
| find a mention of tape in the NFPA, aside from checking it
| for heat-damage, which makes sense as in house wiring you
| would be using wirenuts, not tape to actually bridge and
| insulate connections.
|
| Frankly, I can't think of a single time I've ever cared
| about it being an insulator since I was a kid hacking
| together batteries and wires. All that said, on second
| thought, I guess his video is fine after all; in my book,
| at least.
| Darrengineer wrote:
| It depends on what it's being used for. Adhesion across
| the expected temperature range is likely the most
| relevant factor to consumers. The NFPA would likely not
| call it out specifically, and rather rely on NRTL
| approval for acceptability. For reference electrical
| equipment for use in ordinary locations (ANSI 61010),
| insulating tapes list UL standard 510, CSA no. 197, and
| IEC 60454.
| birdman3131 wrote:
| Not resistance. More along the line of usability. (I will
| gladly admit that I am a fan of super 33+ and will pay
| the $5 a roll any day. My thoughts are a bit skewed.)
|
| Things that matter in electrical tape to me is
| flexability when wrapping wires. And how well it lasts in
| the sun. I get that the later test takes awhile. He has
| done a of couple year long tests but I get why thats
| rare.
|
| It is hard to explain the difference in cheap electrical
| tape but if I was to take cheap tape and super 33 (or 88
| which is a bit thicker) and wrap something with it the
| difference in how well they conform is night and day. And
| the adhesive itself is also a lot better.
| AviationAtom wrote:
| Don't forget about the huge amount of paid reviews now too!
| [deleted]
| callahad wrote:
| In the UK, https://www.which.co.uk/ fills a similar niche to
| Consumer Reports.
| lathiat wrote:
| Australia: https://www.choice.com.au/ New Zealand:
| http://consumer.org.nz/
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| I used to subscribe and they were generally good, but they
| made no account of cost.
|
| So you might have (made up example) an Electrolux vacuum
| getting a score of 73, but a Dyson gets a score of 74 and
| wins their "recommended buy" then you see the Dyson is, like,
| twice the price.
|
| I can see they might do the review price-blind, but it does
| make one suspicious that they get some sort of financial
| benefit from having top picks be vastly more expensive
| products.
|
| Useful reviews though.
| permo-w wrote:
| It is good to be sceptical, but _Which?_ is a charity that
| doesn 't take advertising money, and keeps afloat with paid
| subscriptions. If it got out that they were taking
| kickbacks, even setting aside the probable illegality,
| they'd never sell a subscription again.
|
| It's one thing for some shady website with little to no
| reputation to lie about these things, but Which is an old
| company whose model is entirely based on trust.
| gmac wrote:
| Which? annoys me in various ways, but not taking the cost
| into account in their ratings is I think actually one of
| their better moves.
|
| In your example, you can see very plainly that the
| Electrolux is a much better buy. If they'd included cost in
| the rating, you'd probably be left wondering whether the
| Dyson was worth the extra.
| bityard wrote:
| I used to subscribe to Consumer Reports back in the day, and
| basically regretted it. They rarely described their testing
| methodologies and more often than now, when they did, I
| wasn't impressed. Their testing usually just boiled down to
| whether or not the specs met the manufacturers claims, not
| anything useful like how well it was built and how long it is
| likely to last.
| viktorcode wrote:
| There is Rtings for television, and other specialised sites for
| other product categories. I don't think you can stick to any
| general review source and consistently get quality reviews.
| MrDunham wrote:
| I had the privilege of working in a co-working space in Tahoe
| that also subleted out to outdoorgearlab.com/techgearlab.com.
|
| Having been on their private list where they resell items that
| I purchased I can say that they do purchase and touch every
| single item that they've used.
|
| I also find the reviews tend towards a higher priced end of the
| spectrum because it is affiliate paid. Nevertheless, I was
| pretty impressed by how much they put everything through its
| paces.
|
| For the record, I haven't talked to anyone there since 2016 and
| have no reason to pump them.
| bearmode wrote:
| Which? in the UK is pretty excellent.
| matthewfcarlson wrote:
| I've quite enjoyed rtings.com but they only cover a few
| categories. I remember growing up that my grandparents were
| huge consumer reports fans
| manishsharan wrote:
| rtings.com only covers a few categories but they cover those
| categories really well and they do a excellent job of testing
| those products.
| underhill wrote:
| I feel like the crowd-sourcing / SEOing / optimization of
| reviews on the internet has, for all its benefits, made
| everything too noisy and untrustworthy. I know myself and a lot
| of other people first search reddit now instead of google
| because it's impossible to get anything written by a real
| nonbiased human otherwise.
|
| For similar reasons I've used things like Yelp less and less
| and tried to use professionally editorialized reviews (Eater,
| The Infatuation, Bon Appetit, etc) for food, well-known travel
| sites/bloggers for hotels, etc. There's still some paid
| incentives there too obviously but I can at least calibrate it
| to how much I align with the publication.
| bityard wrote:
| Heh. The biggest problem I have with Amazon isn't even the
| fake reviews, it's the people who leave reviews and don't
| even know what a review is, which is almost all of them.
|
| "My gadget just arrived today and I haven't even used it yet
| but it looks well-made and I'm sure it will last forever.
| Five stars!"
| closewith wrote:
| A five star preview.
| wingworks wrote:
| I see this ALLOT on AliExpress. I mean what can you expect,
| but somehow I expected more. Like why even bother posting
| if you havn't even opened the package up yet?!
| ethbr0 wrote:
| I (about half-honestly) blame Amazon, and more recently
| Google Maps.
|
| All reviewers are not created equal.
|
| In the early days before mass-SEO, you at least got the
| benefit of most reviewers being authentic, even if inept.
|
| Now, we have the worst of all possible words: mass fake
| reviews + a public trained to expect only amateur-level
| reviews.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| It doesn't help that google has largely de-prioritized
| smaller sites.
|
| For better or for worse, my reviews about banks and their
| products have now been replaced by 10 links in a row to
| different sub-pages of the bank's domain.
|
| At least it used to make sure a blog article and a forum
| would appear on most search term's top10.
|
| I get it for my "XYZ Bank's Phone Number - talk to a human
| now" pages. They probably shouldn't have out-ranked the
| bank's own official site, but the bank's own website was
| much less user friendly than my own despite the abuse
| potential.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| I wonder if we can ever have a centralized review site that
| also has the subject matter expertise in each area. The future
| of in-depth and unbiased reviews is distributed and perhaps
| there is a dire need to collect all the scattered reviews on a
| central platform. Like a sub stack of product reviews.
| okdood64 wrote:
| A lot of times, after I get a product, I disagree with the WC
| review on many points about a recommended product and have to
| end up returning it. That said, I still use it to inform my
| purchase decisions.
|
| Anyways, how specifically is it "highly flawed" though?
| ramraj07 wrote:
| Hey at least be happy you have some options! It's 2022 and I
| cannot get a single reliable suggestion on ANY product,
| refrigerator or cell phone, in india. Which is fine for small
| electronics since I can lookup Wirecutter but for anything else
| where the models in india don't match American ones, there's
| absolutely nothing on the internet to guide you to an informed
| opinion. Market opportunity?
| tediousdemise wrote:
| Consumerlab.com is a paid but excellent resource for obtaining
| information about various foods and supplements that we can
| find on the shelves.
|
| Just last night I was eating some of my favorite organic
| roasted seaweed from Costco and spit it out half-way when I
| read that they are laced with lead, cadmium and arsenic, which
| was confirmed by independent third party testing [0].
|
| This website has opened my eyes that many foods and supplements
| we have access to are deceptively unsafe.
|
| [0] https://www.consumerlab.com/reviews/seaweed-snacks-and-
| foods...
|
| > All of the products contained the heavy metals lead, cadmium,
| and arsenic at levels often exceeding tolerable upper intake
| levels. It is no secret that there are heavy metals in seaweed
| snacks, in fact, many have warning labels indicating that they
| may pose a risk of reproductive harm or cancer (typically due
| to lead), as this is a legal requirement for products sold in
| California under its Prop 65 law. However, labels don't tell
| you how much lead or other heavy metals are present in a
| product. We even found that one product without a warning was
| more contaminated than one with a warning. Our report shows
| exactly how much iodine and heavy metal contamination we found
| in each product (see What CL Found).
|
| Individual concentrations can be found in their product table
| for paying customers. The subscription cost is worth more than
| its weight in gold.
| rasz wrote:
| 'Gamers Nexus' (gamersnexus.net) is striving to deliver
| reliable impartial consumer advice for Computer stuff. Unlike
| LTT (unless something changed and Linus started hiring people
| who know what they are doing) GN is leaning heavily on industry
| best practices instead of 'this feels good' opinions:
|
| We Bought Apple's Old Acoustic Testing Mini-Chamber
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n97ot-gXXVw
|
| This Thing is Huge: Fan Tester Setup, Install, & Overview
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikRcG1xE3xs
| rocqua wrote:
| RTINGS is a pretty good actual review site for electronics.
| Sometimes I find their focus on measurable data a bit annoying.
| Intangibles matter aswell. But they are exhaustive reviews and
| make comparing very easy.
| DeathArrow wrote:
| Project Farm is testing a lot of things:
|
| https://youtube.com/c/ProjectFarm
| fartcannon wrote:
| I love it. I love the accent, cadence and volume.
| dan-robertson wrote:
| I watched a few of these a while ago and I can somewhat see
| why they're popular as they have this fast-paced data-dump
| look-at-all-this-testing format but I didn't really think
| they were very good. I thought many of the tests were likely
| poor metrics for actual quality and that results would
| therefore be misleading. A stupid example would be trying to
| measure how much torque a Phillips head screwdriver can apply
| before camming out because the point of the screw design is
| that screw drivers should cam out at a certain torque (so
| better screw drivers shouldn't necessarily let you go
| tighter).
| mgdlbp wrote:
| Re: Phillips drive, it's actually a common misconception
| that this was an intentional feature of the design. The
| original patent for the driver[1] specifically describes
| _resistance_ to "camming out" (seemingly in the modern
| sense of the phrase). Omitting some of the verbose context:
|
| > One of the principal objects of the invention is the
| provision of a recess in the head of a screw which is
| particularly adapted for firm engagement with a
| correspondingly shaped driving tool or screw driver, and in
| such a way that there will be no tendency of the driver to
| cam out of the recess when united in operative engagement
| with each other. (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/se
| arch?q=pn%3DUS20468...)
|
| And the patent for the drive (I don't know why under patent
| law several consecutive patents mostly saying the same
| thing had to be filed) uses the word to refer to the
| ejection of trapped debris instead of the driver:
|
| > This same angular formation of both elements is
| especially designed to also create what might be termed a
| camming action during the approach of these angular faces
| toward one another with respect to any substances which
| might have become lodged within the recess of the screw. (h
| ttps://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/search?q=pn%3DUS20468
| ...)
|
| Edit: Wikipedia notes that a later patent acknowledged the
| tendency to cam out and its effect of preventing damage to
| screw heads...perhaps meaning that the head would be saved
| from snapping off--the drive itself surely isn't!
| sgerenser wrote:
| I'll also agree that his reviews aren't perfect, but the
| one on automotive scratch removers was enlightening. I had
| used a random product before that basically did nothing. I
| bought Meguiar's ultimate compound on his recommendation,
| and it did indeed work surprisingly well (with just hand
| polishing, no buffer) on the multitude of surface scratches
| as I was preparing a car for resale.
| bityard wrote:
| It's a myth that Phillips screws designed or intended to
| cam out at a certain torque. Not least of all because, the
| correct amount of torque varies wildly by application, even
| for the same fastener.
|
| I'll agree that Project Farm's videos can be a little
| formulaic and my least favorite thing about the
| presentation is that he shouts instead of talks.
|
| However, he's WAY ahead most YouTube tool reviewers because
| he does NOT accept free tools for review, and he puts the
| tools to real work, often ending in the destruction of the
| tool in order to find its limits. I find his tests to be
| very well designed. He only has limited time to test so
| many things, but he generally hits the important points. He
| goes MUCH farther than any other reviewer I've ever seen
| and his home brew-rigs and testing methodology are an order
| of magnitude better than anything I've ever seen out of a
| "professional" outfit like Consumer Reports.
|
| The only thing I _wish_ he would add regularly to his
| videos is tool teardowns so we can see and compare how
| cheaply various tools are made. (Although we all know these
| days, they are all made like crap due to the race to the
| bottom.)
| geerlingguy wrote:
| To that last point, that's why we have AvE and his BOLTR
| reviews.
| azalin wrote:
| BOLTR is ok if you take the review with a huge grain of
| salt, basically just as a proxy for having and
| disassembling the tool yourself. I largely disregard
| whatever AvE says and make my own conclusions from what
| is visually apparent. His standards for what makes a good
| tool are too focused on physical resilience - basically
| "if it can't survive being dropped into a mine shaft and
| beaten to hell, it's shit" is unrealistic for most
| people. Plus there's been reviews where he broke the tool
| during disassembly and reassembly and then blamed poor
| performance on the tool itself - the Ryobi Airstrike
| staplers come to mind.
|
| This also goes to the other themes in the discussion
| here; there's few to no sources with singularly "good"
| reviews anymore, at best you have to synthesize from
| multiple reviewers and at times hope you can buy from a
| merchant with a good return policy.
| mattacular wrote:
| Consumer Reports used to be good but it seems to have gone
| through change in management or something because now it is
| indistinguishable from the avg SEO spam site.
| [deleted]
| technothrasher wrote:
| I gave up on Consumer Reports many, many years ago when they
| got caught taking kickbacks from tire manufacturers.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| Please provide a source for your claim.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| That's a very serious accusation that I don't believe and
| Google can't find.
| librarianscott wrote:
| Nonsense. As a non-profit founded in 1926 with 50 testing
| labs and partnerships with outside labs, the proof is in the
| test after test after test after test that is unbiased and,
| more importantly, the criteria and testing methods are always
| available and reproducible! So when you don't agree with
| their rankings you can at least agree that there methods are
| clear, not based on SEO, not based on spam, not based on
| money, and pro-consumer.
| tkgally wrote:
| A good specialized site and YouTube channel is Garage Gym
| Reviews [1]. Their reviews are clear and thorough and should be
| useful references for people buying gym equipment for the home.
|
| The owner can go into obsessive detail about equipment features
| that I, at least, have never thought about, like knurling on
| barbells [2]. I have learned a lot from his videos.
|
| [1] https://www.garagegymreviews.com/
|
| [2] https://youtu.be/5rFSsUx_KDI
| harha wrote:
| To add to that: most sites just compare the features at best.
| I'm interested in actual usability and durability, things you
| might need more than five minutes or just reading the specs to
| find out. E.g. how do headphones handle multiple devices, how
| long will the battery survive, what are the options when they
| are broken?
| nextos wrote:
| Yes, assessing devices is far from trivial. In case of air
| purifier reviews, there's little focus on two crucial
| elements:
|
| * Real energy consumption and performance when the filter is
| a bit dirty
|
| * Fan noise and vibrations when the device has already been
| in use for a year or two
|
| For example, in my experience, the top pick from Wirecutter
| (Coway) excels on the first item but fans tens to become
| misaligned after a while and vibrate a lot at low speeds. It
| happened to 2/2 units I bought.
| geekamongus wrote:
| CNN Underscored is trying to be a competitor with legit
| reviews, as I understand it, but it still feels a little
| "affiliaty," if you will. (Disclaimer: I work for CNN Digital).
| inferiorhuman wrote:
| Wirecutter is exceptionally "affiliaty".
| jxramos wrote:
| The Project Farm channel on YouTube does a great objective and
| transparent set of reviews to follow along. It's not exhaustive
| for every product on the market but does a reasonable sample
| and is a joy to watch.
| olivermarks wrote:
| >'The Wirecutter is a highly flawed review site, but at least
| it's a real one.' Since it was bought by the NYT company I no
| longer trust their quality. This great air filter contra
| article is a great example and I appreciate the link and the
| person who took the time to write it
| asix66 wrote:
| Maybe Rtings? Not for "all the stuff", but many things,
| especially TVs snd monitors.
|
| https://www.rtings.com/
| tuna-piano wrote:
| rtings.com has great reviews for electronics, measuring
| detailed metrics and putting them through various tests. (for
| example, their AirPods Pro review:
| https://www.rtings.com/headphones/reviews/apple/airpods-
| pro-...)
|
| Outdoor Gear Lab for outdoor product reviews:
| https://www.outdoorgearlab.com/topics/camping-and-hiking/bes...
| sumoboy wrote:
| The challenge with picking an air purifier is everyone's
| situation is different given the reason for purification,
| room(s), price, and maintenance costs. Someone who has
| allergies vs pets vs volatile chemicals all need something very
| specific, so the BS one size fits all wirecutter recommendation
| would have you believe it's the best. Unless you can talk to a
| real expert who matches up the model(s) you need, reading
| reviews and YT is pretty much worthless. In the world of
| purifiers, you definitely get what you pay for.
| oezi wrote:
| The German consumer reports are also quite good: www.test.de
|
| In many countries there are similar consumer reports
| organizations.
| Stevvo wrote:
| HDTVTest is good for TVs. The reviews are boring as they come;
| the same objective measurements on every TV.
| iancmceachern wrote:
| It's not a review site, but the YouTube channel "project farm"
| is this. He not only has great objective comparison reviews but
| he shares his test setup, results and data so its clear its a
| great objective review.
| janandonly wrote:
| The Dutch "Consumentenbond" is real and paid for by real users.
| But alas, it's in Dutch, and most is paywalled.
|
| https://www.consumentenbond.nl/
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| I'm also really skeptical about their impartiality; I
| wouldn't be surprised if they have a lot of underhanded deals
| with whatever they review and advocate for.
| jonahhorowitz wrote:
| Since some are throwing out good, more specific, gear tests.
| I'd like to throw out Baby Gear Lab
| (https://www.babygearlab.com) if you need baby stuff. They're
| way better than the Wirecutter because they're run by experts
| in baby gear. (I'm not affiliated in any way, but I'm a new
| parent that found it super useful.)
| edgefield wrote:
| rtings.com is very good for certain types of products like TVs,
| headphones, etc.
| srhngpr wrote:
| Definitely trust rtings. They buy every product in store to
| do their testing.
| Night_Thastus wrote:
| Agreed, minus the headphones. Their headphone reviews are a
| joke. It's also worth noting some products have a lot of
| variation due to poor QC (PC monitors) and they may get an
| unusually good/bad unit from time to time, skewing the
| review.
| jorvi wrote:
| For headphones I just use Crinacle. It's served me well so
| far.
|
| For other stuff, I usually check Wirecutter and cross-
| reference it with Reddit reviews.
|
| I also have noticed that Wirecutter seems.. less
| qualitative (?) since they got bought by The NY Times.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| Also on headphones, head-fi ( https://www.head-fi.org/ ).
| ferongr wrote:
| Nope. Head-fi is audiowoo fairy land. Members generally
| loathe scientific testing and subjective, unsubstantiated
| claims are regularly made. There's even a cable forum,
| that, last time I went there, banned double-blind testing
| completely.
| Night_Thastus wrote:
| I don't like head-fi either, but scientific
| testing/measurements are (mostly) worthless. Really, the
| only useful test is an in-home trial in my view. If you
| like it, buy it. If not, don't.
|
| Here's a good video detailing some of why:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fa1y9JRip68
| FireBeyond wrote:
| Sure. Ultimately what works best in your listening
| environment is what works best. But that's the result,
| not the means to the end.
|
| Head-fi is full of woo that thinks that you need a four
| digit power cable, and a rare wood volume knob.
|
| Some of the videos from High End - audio show in Berlin
| right now are just mind blowing.
|
| $12,000 power cables. Speakers that are $345,000 - each.
| Preamps that are the size of 4U rack servers. "This
| device streams from Tidal and Qobuz to your system. It's
| $39,000."
| Night_Thastus wrote:
| I agree. Lots of things make a difference (including
| power) but they are often quite negligible. Is a
| dedicated digital source better than a PC? By many miles.
| Is a $10k source better than a $200 source? Not by nearly
| as much. Do line-level and speaker cables make a
| difference? Sure. But it's _really_ subtle and most
| setups would be hard-pressed to hear anything in a blind
| test. If you have money to burn and the test of the setup
| is 10 's of thousands, a cable costing a couple hundred
| isn't that egregious.
| dymax78 wrote:
| Headfi wasn't always that way. There was a mass exodus of
| their scientific-minded members, who dedicated themselves
| to posting objective, and double-blind tests. Naturally,
| this created a problem with their advertisers, and most
| left en masse. Now, the site's little more than a
| dumpster dive of anecdotal evidence masquerading as
| reputable sources.
| snvzz wrote:
| Hell no. They are audiophool degenerates. They literally
| reject any semblance of objective measurements, to focus
| on non-rigorous (i.e. not done with ABX) subjective
| evaluations.
|
| I cannot recommend audio science review[0] enough.
| They're the opposite. All about objective measurements
| and rigor. None of the bullshit.
|
| [0]: http://audiosciencereview.com/
| noxvilleza wrote:
| Crinacle is probably the best, but for headphones I think
| it's the kind of thing you actually need to try out
| yourselves: the comfort varies so much for people, as
| does the preference for different sound signature (and
| knowing how well headphones handle when they're EQ'd to
| your preferences).
| elabajaba wrote:
| I trust their measurements, I just don't like how they score
| things, and people tend to just use their scores instead of
| looking at the pros+cons and measurements. (they weight all
| the different subscores, and add them up, so eg. if there was
| an excellent monitor except it had a 100:1 contrast ratio,
| it'd still get great scores despite having such a huge flaw
| that most people would consider it to be essentially
| unusable).
|
| It's really bad for HDR monitors, where an edge lit "fake
| HDR" monitor can get a 7, while failing the basics that are
| necessary to give a proper HDR experience. Something like
| TFTCentral or HardwareUnboxed's HDR checklists, and just
| straight up failing monitors that don't meet all the
| requirements would be much better than their current (imo
| misleading) system that can give good SDR monitors high HDR
| scores, when they're terrible at HDR.
| bb010g wrote:
| Sounds like those basic components should be weighted more
| heavily, then?
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| Not really. If any single category is "good enough" then
| the weights are reasonably correct. It's just when a
| single category is a deal breaker that the simple metric
| of adding them up doesn't work.
| throw90259475 wrote:
| Agree - they updated the review for Logitech G PRO X WIRELESS
| build quality while the SoundGuys still show build quality
| 9/10.
| knorker wrote:
| Feedback for the author: If you've never heard of "The
| wirecutter" then it's really hard to understand what you're
| saying.
|
| Are _you_ "The wirecutter"? It's not part of your domain name, if
| so.
|
| "Contra", is that the series of games? Did you, Wirecutter,
| manage to port an old SNES game to the IKEA air purifier (like
| someone recently ported Doom to an IKEA lightbulb)?
|
| I couldn't understand the title or the first few paragraphs.
|
| I had to skim up and down the post to try to get context, in
| order to even understand the first paragraph.
|
| I now believe that this is a critique of a review. A review that
| is not even linked to. If you don't want to link to them in any
| way (understandable, though I disagree) then at least define your
| terms.
|
| I didn't get enough sleep last night, so I'm unusually stupid
| today. But I don't think I'm wrong.
| wodenokoto wrote:
| Does anyone know abut the noise level? My gf brought over her air
| purifier and it has this annoying high-pitched buzz.
|
| I wouldn't mind investing in the Ikea ones if they are tolerable
| to listen to.
| [deleted]
| jackallis wrote:
| s/he said they keep "I keep a big powerful purifier in the
| kitchen which I turn on as needed" down in conclusion section;i
| wonder what that is?
| syntaxing wrote:
| A bit off tangent, but Blueair purifiers was the only brand where
| the output air was 0 PPM2.5 during wildfire season in the Bay
| Area (I have the $50 uncalibrated laser PPM sensor that purpleair
| uses so interpret this as you want). I tried Dyson, Winix, and
| making a V-shape DIY purifier with a vornado fan. Nothing was
| able to pull the indoor air below 15 besides Blueair so I
| recommend it to any of my family and friends.
| garmanarnar wrote:
| Which line of Blueair are you using? I use Bluepure and I think
| they do a great job, but I don't have any instruments to
| measure their efficacy.
| syntaxing wrote:
| I have the Pure and the classic. The classic is actually
| pretty affordable and has a built-in PPM sensor which makes
| me lean towards it more than the Pure.
| kurizu4444 wrote:
| I did a good amount of research and I think the Mila is the
| best cost/performance you can get, especially for a non-closet
| sized room
|
| https://milacares.com
| jefftk wrote:
| As the article explains, unless you're using the purifier to
| filter the air coming into a space, small differences in the
| purifier output PM2.5 level don't matter. If the output has 99%
| lower PM2.5 than the input vs 100% lower, that's dwarfed by all
| the existing particles that the output is about to be mixed
| back in with.
| syntaxing wrote:
| The output air of 0 vs 15 ug/m^3 is not negligible
| difference, especially when the air outside is 200+ during
| wildfires. The reality is, the great output air of Blueair
| filter + 350 cfm CADR is a pretty big difference. My indoor
| ambient air was about 10-15 ug/m^3 compared to 30-40 using
| the other solutions.
| jefftk wrote:
| The difference between an output of 0 and 15 ug/m^3 with an
| input of 200 ug/m^3 is negligible when considering the
| performance of the filter in the room. Let's walk it
| through, imagining 1000 CF room and a flow rate of 250 CFM,
| and comparing something that's 100% effective (0 ug/m^3
| output) vs 92.5% effective (15 ug/m^3 output).
|
| At t=0 your room has a pm2.5 of 200 ug/m^3. At t=1min it
| has filtered 250 CF which is at either 0 or 15 ug/m^3. The
| remaining 750 CF is still at 200 ug/m^3. The air in the
| room is now either: 100% effective: (
| 0*250 + 200*750)/1000 = 150 ug/m^3 92.5% effective:
| (15*250 + 200*750)/1000 = 154 ug/m^3
|
| Repeat this 20 times to simulate 20min and the room is at
| at 0.6 ug/m^3 in the first case vs 1.1 ug/m^3 for the
| second. The absolute difference is never larger than 7
| ug/m^3 (at minute #4), and quickly becomes tiny.
|
| _> the great output air of Blueair filter + 350 cfm CADR
| is a pretty big difference. My indoor ambient air was about
| 10-15 ug /m^3 compared to 30-40 using the other solutions._
|
| My guess is your other solutions had a much lower flow rate
| (and hence a much lower CADR). What are you comparing to?
| aceazzameen wrote:
| I'm under the impression Wirecutter's reviews are also influenced
| from being paid by some manufacturers. No way to prove it, just a
| feeling as a consumer. Yet, I still look at them as a source
| occasionally.
|
| When getting a air purifiers over a year ago, I read Wirecutter,
| Amazon, Reddit, and a few other blog-like websites and used that
| data to compare. For instance, Wirecutter recommends the Coway
| units. Yet Amazon had many recent reviews of their units
| breaking. And filters are expensive year after year. Wirecutter
| also recommends Winix as a runner up, and even says it performs
| better than the Coways, but they liked the Coways because it
| looks nicer. That tells me Coway pays them to be #1. Because
| other sites tell me about the breakage and expensive filter cost.
| Wirecutter omits that Winix has cheaper filters and doesn't have
| manufacturing issues. But according to them it's uglier even if
| it slightly out performs the Coway.
|
| That being said, I got several Winix units and they've been
| great. Wirecutter served it's purpose for me.
| elif wrote:
| This blog post was just too long for the comment box, seemingly
| by out of touch armchair Wikipedian.
| addicted wrote:
| In all it's bluster, this article forgets to add the fact that
| the Wirecutter actually tested the IKEA device, and didn't just
| go by theoretical specs.
|
| > Tim tested the Fornuftig in his 200-square-foot spare room,
| using the methods described above. But rather than focusing on
| its performance on 0.3-micron particles, he noted how well it
| removed 3-micron particles from the air. (IKEA confirmed that
| this was the appropriate size to look at; it's the closest to
| PM2.5 that our TSI AeroTrak particle counter can measure
| separately.) The Fornuftig disappointed, even when we considered
| that the test room was larger than the machine is meant for, as
| it removed just 85.2% of 3-micron particles in 30 minutes on high
| and 73.6% in 30 minutes on medium. Its performance on 0.3-micron
| particles was, as expected, worse: 64.5% removed on high and
| 53.5% on medium. Compared with our budget/small-space pick, the
| Levoit Core 300, which removed 97.4% and 92.6%, respectively, of
| 0.3-micron particles and virtually all 3-micron particles on the
| same settings, that's very poor.
| ipsum2 wrote:
| This is somewhat addressed in paragraph about steady state.
| buildbot wrote:
| Errr direct quote from the article: "These tests... are not
| credible.
|
| Take the 3.0-micron tests on medium, where Wirecutter claims
| "virtually all" particles were removed. If we take that to mean
| 99%, that implies a CADR of 236.2. (The math is below.) That is
| 75% higher than the manufacturer's claimed performance on high.
|
| It also contradicts the Wirecutter's own tests. On a different
| page, they tested the same purifier on medium in a (smaller)
| 1215 ft3 room and found only 92% of particles were removed.
| This implies a (plausible) CADR of just 98.1.
|
| So we can either (a) accept that the purifier's performance
| randomly varies by a factor of more than 2.4 or (b) conclude
| that the Wirecutter did an extremely shoddy job of running
| these tests."
|
| Why did you make three separate top level comments on this?
| anamexis wrote:
| There's a whole section on the Wirecutter's tests, called "On
| tests."
| fabian2k wrote:
| I've never thought about air filters, but the explanation on why
| they also filter smaller particles is very similar to size
| exclusion chromatography, a very common method used in a biolab.
| This is also a method that might appear counter-intuitive at
| first.
|
| The idea there is to separate molecules according to their size.
| So you press them through a column of porous beads. Small
| molecules can enter these pores, which delays them and they
| travel through the column slower than large molecules that cannot
| enter them. This is pretty counter-intuitive, especially as other
| similar methods work as you'd expect with smaller molecules being
| faster to move through the material because they don't bump into
| it as much as larger molecules.
| thadk wrote:
| I have both the Wirecutter pick which I've had for 7-8 years and
| the Fornuftig and I stopped using the Fornuftig after 2 months
| because it doesn't have a pre-filter and once dirty/filled, it
| cannot be recovered without replacing the whole filter. It also
| seems weak--the room can remain dusty indefinitely with it on.
| The Coway filter is just night-and-day more capable.
|
| That said, in 2012, IKEA sold an amazing year-long-capacity-no-
| maintenance fiberglass German "Flimmer" filter like the ones they
| use over-head in their stores to keep products dust-free. That
| was incredible but wasn't marketed well and its replacement
| filters were discontinued in 2015:
| https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/garden/sure-it-purifies-a...
| charlie0 wrote:
| Legit review sites are pretty much dead. Most of them look and
| say exacy the same thing. Almost none of them have any objective
| measurements beyond what's stated already from marketing spec
| sheets.
|
| I've still had strong suspicion that even with the ones that do
| "objective" measurements are somehow misleading and that
| secretly, there are kickbacks for the top rated products.
|
| I have hope that Linus will bring legitimacy to the review space.
| 99_00 wrote:
| Would the Ikea filter with gas cleaning help with my stinky
| farts? Honest question.
| ksherlock wrote:
| You can buy activated charcoal underwear or inserts. They're
| probably less obvious and more effective than strapping an air
| purifier to your derriere.
| bscphil wrote:
| I'm inclined to debunk this debunking. To be clear, I do think
| that Wirecutter has problems. I don't like their practice of
| affiliate-linking. I think a review company should avoid even the
| "appearance of evil". But more importantly, their practices seem
| spotty: they tend to test only a relatively small number of
| models, which may not accurately reflect the market.
|
| But I think this article, while it does present a lot of facts,
| is wrong about many of its conclusions.
|
| On whether the IKEA purifier uses HEPA filters or not:
|
| > They make a big deal about this, which is weird since "true-
| HEPA" has no legal or scientific meaning. Meanwhile, they refer
| to the IKEA purifier as using a "PM2.5 filter" which also isn't a
| thing.
|
| According to Wikipedia [1], "Common standards require that a HEPA
| air filter must remove--from the air that passes through--at
| least 99.95% (ISO, European Standard) or 99.97% (ASME, U.S. DOE)
| of particles whose diameter is equal to 0.3 mm, with the
| filtration efficiency increasing for particle diameters both less
| than and greater than 0.3 mm."
|
| So that's an "H13" or better to use the terminology of the
| article. (The H in the name literally indicates that it's a _high
| efficiency_ , or HEPA, filter.) The IKEA filter, according to the
| website, is a "99.5%" filter; they claim this "corresponds" to
| EPA 12, but Wirecutter's test results (below) may cast doubt on
| this. (The author mocks Wirecutter for apparently not doing this
| "research".) However, this just proves Wirecutter's point: IKEA's
| filters are not HEPA filters, and their pick's filters are. Is
| this important? I don't know, but score one for Wirecutter in
| getting the terminology right.
|
| I'm not sure what Wirecutter is trying to say with the "PM2.5"
| language, but they may be trying to get across to consumers that
| these filters are more akin to a typical filter that you would
| get for your residential air conditioning unit. Notably, such
| filters are often categorized on the MERV scale, which _does_ use
| minimum particle size effectively handled by the filter as a
| metric. Regardless, Wirecutter is somewhere between lazy and
| misleading on this, and the article is right to point this out.
|
| I'm no expert in the physics of filters, and it sounds like this
| author is not either, but I'm a little skeptical that repeated
| applications of a lower efficiency filter are just as good as
| applications of a higher efficiency filter. Their charts rest on
| the assumption that every pass, a HEPA filter will remove 99.95%
| of _remaining_ particles - even though, over time, the particles
| that remain in the room are the particles that the filter had
| "trouble" catching on previous cycles. So you should expect to
| see reduced efficiency on later cycles, I would think.
|
| Regardless, what would really help is if someone had done some
| testing in an actual room. Oh wait, you're telling me Wirecutter
| did this??
|
| > Even if we accepted all these test results (we don't) that
| would just show the Wirecutter pick provides around 3.3 times as
| much cleaning per second.
|
| So, even though nitpicks are in order, Wirecutter's pick costing
| $100 vs the $70 IKEA will clean the air 3.3 times as
| efficiently?? That seems like a good deal. Even if it uses more
| electricity and more expensive filters, I'm not going to want to
| purchase 3 units when 1 will do. (This efficiency difference will
| obviously extend to large rooms in the same way!)
|
| > IKEA claims a CADR of 82.4 on high, and 53.0 on medium. So even
| taken at face value, this says that IKEA performs a bit above
| spec on 3.0-micron particles and a bit below spec on 0.3-micron
| particles.
|
| Uh, sure. The reported result was "CADR 56.3" for 0.3 micron
| particles on high. Notably, 0.3 microns is supposed to be the low
| point for filters tested according to the standards used for
| HEPA. So it's worrying to see IKEA underperform the stated
| efficiency by this much at exactly the particle size we most care
| about when testing for HEPA. If I had to guess, this is probably
| why Wirecutter calls the IKEA filter a "PM2.5" filter: _they are
| at or above their stated efficiency for 3 micron particles, and
| considerably below it for particles used in testing HEPA
| filters_. To my thinking that 's a very important fact that this
| article just glosses over.
|
| At issue here is whether IKEA's claimed 99.5% efficiency, which
| this article touts, is only true of PM2.5 or also true for 0.3
| micron particles. IKEA's product page is somewhat confusing and
| self-contradictory on this issue (which the article doesn't point
| out), but Wirecutter's test results would seem to cast doubt on
| the idea that the filter is 99.5% efficient by HEPA standards.
|
| On costs: point taken, IKEA is cheaper _at the per-unit level_ ,
| both at point of purchase and throughout its lifespan. But given
| the apparent efficiency differences, discussed above, I think
| someone going with the Wirecutter pick is not completely
| unreasonable. If you want to dispute this result, I think the
| only way to do that is to do your own testing (which this article
| does not do).
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HEPA
| elhudy wrote:
| > So, even though nitpicks are in order, Wirecutter's pick
| costing $100 vs the $70 IKEA will clean the air 3.3 times as
| efficiently?? That seems like a good deal. Even if it uses more
| electricity and more expensive filters, I'm not going to want
| to purchase 3 units when 1 will do. (This efficiency difference
| will obviously extend to large rooms in the same way!)
|
| The authors point is that if it takes 3 min to clean the room
| vs 1 min to clean the room, there's essentially no difference.
| The efficiency just translates into time, and hardly much at
| that. Both will clean the room.
| wellthisisgreat wrote:
| Wirecutter is just SEO spam and it makes very little sense to
| read it at all. You can't even go from the opposite of their
| recommendations as it's impossible to know which manufacturers
| caved in to their extortionist paid placement model
| joshstrange wrote:
| Wirecutter has gone to shit and stopped being useful about 3-4
| years ago. Their move to a paid subscription was very odd to me
| because they had also lost all my trust by that point.
|
| There are countless examples of recommends products doing a bait
| and switch (changing the materials/product after the wirecutter
| article recommending them came out) and just cases of Wirecutter
| giving bad recommendations.
| dfdz wrote:
| > Their move to a paid subscription was very odd
|
| above several people note that
|
| > the IKEA one ... is the only one in the article they don't
| earn a commission on when someone buys it
|
| How do you want wirecutter to stay economically viable?
| joshstrange wrote:
| I'm saying that I would have paid 3-4 years ago before I lost
| trust in the site. I have no issue with affiliate links (if
| the site remains neutral which seems almost impossible) but
| it's clear to me WC sold their soul a while back and
| subscription fees are a last-ditch attempt to get some more
| money out of it.
|
| I almost did pay when they announced they were going the
| subscription route but after being burned or almost-burned
| (saved by reading reviews about a bait and switch) I decided
| I no longer cared about WC recommendations.
| bombcar wrote:
| > There are countless examples of recommends products doing a
| bait and switch
|
| This is a larger problem than just Wirecutter, it would be
| interesting to have an industry trade body or something similar
| that would _document_ when material changes have happened to
| the same product name /number. Sure, many would be immaterial,
| but there are substantial ones that happen all the time (if the
| product is big enough to have "fans" they notice and track this
| stuff).
| istjohn wrote:
| The worst is that they've deleted comments calling out bad
| recommendations.
| watersb wrote:
| Am I the only one to be put off by the fact that the value for
| filter performance - clean air diffusion rate (CADR) - is stored
| in the second value of the list structure?
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAR_and_CDR
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-06-21 23:02 UTC)