Cnet sucks big time ****

Why does Cnet suck? The main reason is because it does not do a good job. Reviews are bad. Very little info on products, but also very little work done for each review (as if to maximize profits) Video reviews are even worse. They look like adds for crapware on T.V, in which the announces have no idea about. But today I noticed another reason, namely the naivety of the writers there.

Quote from review:

whose sole purpose is to capture MPEG-4 video, which is more compressed–and, thus, lower in quality–than the MPEG-2 video recorded by MiniDV camcorders.

This is one of the most wrong comments I have ever seen. If you draw some lines randomly on a piece of paper, and then get someone to look at it who is quite stupid has bad visual memory for a very long time, it is likely that they will learn at least some of these lines. However, if you get an extremely smart person person a person who has good visual memory, they would do the same or worse that the first person. Can you conclude that the good visual memory does worse?

In this case, MPEG-4 is the visual memory, and the mpeg 2 is the bad visual memory. At certain data rate, mpeg 4 will usually be better than MPEG 2 at the same data rate. This is because the algorithms for compression have been refined (Hence MPEG 2 > MPEG 4 (why would it be worse if the numbers are increased…)). So why did the person write this in his article, and also why was this not corrected?

Reviewed by: David Carnoy
Edited by: Philip Ryan

The reason is that, either they are too lazy to write the full 5 words more, or that they are trying so hard to appeal to a target audience that they lie to them. Make things simple. “The sky is blue because it reflects the sea”. No. It does not. But would you tell a little kid that to make him shut up, to make him happy?

Don’t use Cnet.

(article you should never visit here)