Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

How monitor makers like Asus are pixelating the truth to fake you out

blueturtle13blueturtle13 Member LegendaryPosts: 12,369
edited March 2016 in Hardware

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/monitor-makers-asus-pixelating-truth-101518851.html


Every piece of technology has a specification (spec) sheet, and we often look at it before we make a purchase. In theory, a spec sheet is the very soul of objectivity. It doesn’t editorialize, or have opinions; it just shows a list of facts. How fast is the processor? What’s the resolution?

The numbers don’t lie, right?

Ah, but they do. And in some cases they’re specifically used to give absurd claims an aura of credibility. You’re likely reading this article on a product made by a company that has itself exaggerated, re-worded, and generally stretched the truth. I’m taking, of course, about your computer monitor.

Outrageous claims

A common claim on monitor spec sheets is an unfathomably high contrast ratio. Contrast ratio is the measurement of the ratio between the darkest black and the brightest white a display can produce. It sometimes reaches as high as 1,000,000:1, or in the case of the Samsung 200 Series monitors, “Mega Infinity Contrast Ratio” — yes, that’s a real term used by a real company. It’s absurd, and it’s untrue.

The best monitors we’ve reviewed barely break 1,000:1 when we measure them with a calibration tool. Televisions do better, but until desktop displays receive OLED technology, they’ll continue to lag behind. Monitors with a measured contrast ratio above 1,000:1 are the cream of the crop.

That’s static contrast ratio, as opposed to dynamic contrast ratio, which is what most manufacturers quote. Static indicates the widest distance between dark and light a monitor can project at a given brightness setting.

Dynamic contrast ratio uses a different measurement. Often, it involves measuring the absolute darkest black and the brightest white, even if each is measured at different display settings. The black reading might be taken with the display backlight nearly turned off, for example, while the white is taken with it at absolute maximum. Dynamic contrast ratio is not a standardized measurement so you can’t ever see all that contrast at once.

Manufacturers often only advertise the dynamic ratio. A third of the LCD monitors for sale right now on the popular retail site NewEgg are listed as having a 10,000:1 or higher contrast ratio. That’s almost 10 times higher than the best contrast ratio we’ve ever measured. 166 monitors (about 6 percent) list a contrast ratio of 10,000,000:1 — and all of them are from Acer or Asus.

Those companies have not perfected super-secret technology. It’s marketing baloney that we shouldn’t excuse.

A picture’s worth a thousand bucks

Manufacturers have taken to using fancy Web gadgets and fabricated images to “demonstrate” the power of higher-resolution displays, refresh-management technology, and other advances. The idea of showing someone how good a monitor is by having them look at images on a different monitor is a difficult concept to begin with, but some companies go above and beyond the call of duty and create misleading images that have no basis in reality.

Asus PG278Q Refresh


거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다












Post edited by blueturtle13 on
«1

Comments

  • blueturtle13blueturtle13 Member LegendaryPosts: 12,369

    Take, for example, the Asus ROG Swift PG278Q. It’s a high-refresh-rate gaming monitor that’s certain to make games look smoother than a standard 60Hz panel. But you might be wondering how much nicer, exactly, so Asus prepared this handy graphic.

    It’s hard to refute the claims Asus is making, because comparing 60Hz and 144Hz within a single picture is basically impossible. It’s like trying to explain how much faster a car can drive by showing a picture of it on a racetrack. There’s certainly a difference between the two refresh rates, but it can only be shown through carefully shot, high-framerate video. Asus took the easy route, and the result doesn’t represent reality.

    Resolution is similarly mistreated. Often, a 4K display will be advertised with “comparison images” against a 1080p screen. The standard setup shows a tiny image with massive pixels, blurry lines, and sometimes even distortion, claiming it represents 1080p. Then another image that’s clear, detailed, and vivid will be used to represent 4K.

    Yes, 4K is technically four times the resolution of a 1080p. But just take a look at some of these images, and you’ll see how exaggerated those claims are.

    Asus even has a fancy slider on the ROG Swift PG279Q page that supposedly shows the difference between 2,560 x 1,440 pixels (which, mind you, is much lower in resolution than 4K) and 1080p.

    Asus ROG Swift PG279Q Slider
    Asus ROG Swift PG279Q Slider

    The WQHD side has clear details and sharp visuals, while the 1080p side is so pixelated it looks like a Sega Genesis game. We liked the PG279Q a lot when we reviewed it, but that’s not remotely how it looks next to a 1080p monitor.

    They’re taking advantage of you

    One of the reasons manufacturers can get away with these hijinks is that the average user doesn’t have access to calibration tools that might reveal the truth. We use a DataColor Spyder4Elite in our testing and calibration process, and that’s a $300 piece of kit, which is about what most users are likely to spend on a monitor every few years. And it’s not a particularly fancy piece of equipment. The best calibration hardware costs thousands of dollars. Most people don’t have it, so they have no way to know if a monitor lives up to its claims.

    But that’s no excuse. Misleading claims are bad for buyers and ultimately breed distrust. It’s easy to claim a high contrast ratio to make a product look better, and a normal buyer may not catch on at first. But eventually they’ll realize what’s up, and get fed up – perhaps so much so, that they no longer see the point in trying to buy a great monitor and resort to a budget model.

    That would be a shame. A great monitor can make a PC way more fun, especially for those who like to watch movies and play games. As our own reviews have shown, there’s a big difference between the best and worst displays. Don’t get suckered into the hype. Do your research, and buy the display that truly excels.

    https://www.yahoo.com/tech/monitor-makers-asus-pixelating-truth-101518851.html



    거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다












  • Solar_ProphetSolar_Prophet Member EpicPosts: 1,956
    How does that old saying go? 
    "Figures don't lie, but liars can figure."
    Good old Mark Twain. 

    AN' DERE AIN'T NO SUCH FING AS ENUFF DAKKA, YA GROT! Enuff'z more than ya got an' less than too much an' there ain't no such fing as too much dakka. Say dere is, and me Squiggoff'z eatin' tonight!

    We are born of the blood. Made men by the blood. Undone by the blood. Our eyes are yet to open. FEAR THE OLD BLOOD. 

    #IStandWithVic

  • VrikaVrika Member EpicPosts: 6,436
    edited March 2016
    Could you please tell your source, or otherwise mark that your post is a quote, at the start of the quote. Hiding the information that your first post is not written by you at the bottom of your second post is really confusing.

    EDIT: The articles you post are interesting, thank you for them.
     
  • GruntyGrunty Member EpicPosts: 8,657
    edited March 2016
    Vrika said:
    Could you please mark that your source, or otherwise mark that your post is a quote, at the start of the quote. Hiding the information that your first post is not written by you at the bottom of your second post is really confusing.

    EDIT: The articles you post are interesting, thank you for them.
    He's not quoting articles. He's plagiarizing them by copying the entire article. None of the information in these posts were created by him.

    Quoting comes under fair use of copyrighted material. This isn't fair use.

    But it is a way to gain points on this website.
    "I used to think the worst thing in life was to be all alone.  It's not.  The worst thing in life is to end up with people who make you feel all alone."  Robin Williams
  • H0urg1assH0urg1ass Member EpicPosts: 2,380
    As someone who plays iRacing, Gran Turismo, Project Cars, Dirt 2&3... I can verify that 144hz refresh rate is fantastically better than 60hz when playing racing games.

    Trying to show that difference with a still picture is hilarious.  The reason 144hz is so much better for racing games is because it refreshes so much faster that you don't get blurry images of the cars around you and the track.
  • blueturtle13blueturtle13 Member LegendaryPosts: 12,369
    edited March 2016
    Grunty said:
    Vrika said:
    Could you please mark that your source, or otherwise mark that your post is a quote, at the start of the quote. Hiding the information that your first post is not written by you at the bottom of your second post is really confusing.

    EDIT: The articles you post are interesting, thank you for them.
    He's not quoting articles. He's plagiarizing them by copying the entire article. None of the information in these posts were created by him.

    Quoting comes under fair use of copyrighted material. This isn't fair use.

    But it is a way to gain points on this website.
    That is not what plagiarizing means.

    pla·gia·rize

     (plā′jə-rīz′)
    v. pla·gia·rized, pla·gia·riz·ing, pla·gia·riz·es
    v.tr.
    1. To reproduce or otherwise use (the words, ideas, or other work of another) as one's own or without attribution.

    I link my sources.

    Sometimes I copy an article I find interesting and share it here. Usually the ones I do not send to Suzie to post for news stories. I never claim they are mine unless it is not linked with a source. If it is not linked it is mine and I wrote it.
    This article was too long to submit as one post. (there is a character length restriction) so I split it into two posts.
    Sorry you think this is for a 'points' scheme @Grunty but I post not just on this site and always link my sources. If Suzie posts my news articles then I avoid posting it on other sites. 
    I like to share articles on gaming and tech that I find interesting. Others seem to enjoy it as well. Sometimes they may have not seen the article if I had not posted it here. I make sure to link it to allow them to read further or to discover a new site.

    It is fair use. All you have to do is link back to the source.
    unlike you posting a link here:
    http://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/446250/dice-awards-game-of-the-year-goes-to-fallout-4#latest
    I post the article and provide the link that way someone does not have to leave the site if they do not want to.  ;)

    Thanks for your concern though. Cheers!


    거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다












  • blueturtle13blueturtle13 Member LegendaryPosts: 12,369
    Vrika said:
    Could you please tell your source, or otherwise mark that your post is a quote, at the start of the quote. Hiding the information that your first post is not written by you at the bottom of your second post is really confusing.

    EDIT: The articles you post are interesting, thank you for them.
    Sorry for the confusion. This is one article split into two posts. There is a max character restriction for posts so I had to split it between to posts. I linked the source at the end of the article but should have added the link to the first part as well. I have fixed it and will be more aware next time. Thank you.

    거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다












  • GruntyGrunty Member EpicPosts: 8,657
    Grunty said:
    Vrika said:
    Could you please mark that your source, or otherwise mark that your post is a quote, at the start of the quote. Hiding the information that your first post is not written by you at the bottom of your second post is really confusing.

    EDIT: The articles you post are interesting, thank you for them.
    He's not quoting articles. He's plagiarizing them by copying the entire article. None of the information in these posts were created by him.

    Quoting comes under fair use of copyrighted material. This isn't fair use.

    But it is a way to gain points on this website.
    Snip


    Sometimes I copy an article I find interesting and share it here. Usually the ones I do not send to Suzie to post for news stories. I never claim they are mine unless it is not linked with a source. If it is not linked it is mine and I wrote it.
    This article was too long to submit as one post. (there is a character length restriction) so I split it into two posts.
    Sorry you think this is for a 'points' scheme @Grunty but I post not just on this site and always link my sources. If Suzie posts my news articles then I avoid posting it on other sites. 
    I like to share articles on gaming and tech that I find interesting. Others seem to enjoy it as well. Sometimes they may have not seen the article if I had not posted it here. I make sure to link it to allow them to read further or to discover a new site.

    It is fair use. All you have to do is link back to the source.
    unlike you posting a link here:
    http://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/446250/dice-awards-game-of-the-year-goes-to-fallout-4#latest
    I post the article and provide the link that way someone does not have to leave the site if they do not want to.  ;)

    Thanks for your concern though. Cheers!


    Ok, you know what plagiarize means. It is still not fair use.

    If you were to quote a small (relative) portion of the article and link to the article then it is fair use. Copying the majority of someone else's copyrighted material is still not fair use.
    "I used to think the worst thing in life was to be all alone.  It's not.  The worst thing in life is to end up with people who make you feel all alone."  Robin Williams
  • blueturtle13blueturtle13 Member LegendaryPosts: 12,369
    edited March 2016
    Grunty said:
    Grunty said:
    Vrika said:
    Could you please mark that your source, or otherwise mark that your post is a quote, at the start of the quote. Hiding the information that your first post is not written by you at the bottom of your second post is really confusing.

    EDIT: The articles you post are interesting, thank you for them.
    He's not quoting articles. He's plagiarizing them by copying the entire article. None of the information in these posts were created by him.

    Quoting comes under fair use of copyrighted material. This isn't fair use.

    But it is a way to gain points on this website.
    Snip


    Sometimes I copy an article I find interesting and share it here. Usually the ones I do not send to Suzie to post for news stories. I never claim they are mine unless it is not linked with a source. If it is not linked it is mine and I wrote it.
    This article was too long to submit as one post. (there is a character length restriction) so I split it into two posts.
    Sorry you think this is for a 'points' scheme @Grunty but I post not just on this site and always link my sources. If Suzie posts my news articles then I avoid posting it on other sites. 
    I like to share articles on gaming and tech that I find interesting. Others seem to enjoy it as well. Sometimes they may have not seen the article if I had not posted it here. I make sure to link it to allow them to read further or to discover a new site.

    It is fair use. All you have to do is link back to the source.
    unlike you posting a link here:
    http://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/446250/dice-awards-game-of-the-year-goes-to-fallout-4#latest
    I post the article and provide the link that way someone does not have to leave the site if they do not want to.  ;)

    Thanks for your concern though. Cheers!


    Ok, you know what plagiarize means. It is still not fair use.

    If you were to quote a small (relative) portion of the article and link to the article then it is fair use. Copying the majority of someone else's copyrighted material is still not fair use.
    Yes it is @Grunty ;.  Look at the front page news stories. The FF14 story Suzie posted. I sent her that and am mentioned in a thank you. It came from the source site and is able to be used. Why? It is linked to the source. If you simply find an article you like, post it and link back to the source it is fair use. Under US copyright law

    What Is Fair Use?

    In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner. In other words, fair use is a defense against a claim of copyright infringement. If your use qualifies as a fair use, then it would not be considered an illegal infringement.

    So what is a “transformative” use? If this definition seems ambiguous or vague, be aware that millions of dollars in legal fees have been spent attempting to define what qualifies as a fair use. There are no hard-and-fast rules, only general rules and varied court decisions, because the judges and lawmakers who created the fair use exception did not want to limit its definition. Like free speech, they wanted it to have an expansive meaning that could be open to interpretation.

    Most fair use analysis falls into two categories: (1) commentary and criticism, or (2) parody.

    - See more at: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/what-is-fair-use/#sthash.Jpwt2B21.dpuf

    거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다












  • Octagon7711Octagon7711 Member LegendaryPosts: 8,967
    You don't sale the steak you sell the sizzle the steak makes.  

    "We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa      "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are."  SR Covey

  • HrimnirHrimnir Member RarePosts: 2,413

    Waaayy back in the day of CRT monitors, my buddy and I used to joke about this exact topic because monitor companies were moving towards a lot of these ridiculous names, trying to evoke performance in the names.  So we created the idea of the "Maxi-hella Scan" monitor, again as a joke.

    However, I am a firm believer that unless the company willfully withholds information or purposefully gives incorrect information in order to entice a buyer (Ponzi schemes, etc).  Then the onus falls on the consumer's shoulder to properly research anything they buy.

    I am a big purveyor of personal responsibility.  The consumer is ultimately the one that makes the choice to buy a product or not.  If they are unwilling or uninterested in doing the research, or are too trusting of the salesman, that's their problem.

    However, that is also why resources exist to call bullshit on companies claims.  As far as tech there are places like anandtech, tomshardware, etc, where you can get relatively unbiased information as to whether a product performs in the manner the company says it does, or not.

    "The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."

    - Friedrich Nietzsche

  • blueturtle13blueturtle13 Member LegendaryPosts: 12,369
    Hrimnir said:

    Waaayy back in the day of CRT monitors, my buddy and I used to joke about this exact topic because monitor companies were moving towards a lot of these ridiculous names, trying to evoke performance in the names.  So we created the idea of the "Maxi-hella Scan" monitor, again as a joke.

    However, I am a firm believer that unless the company willfully withholds information or purposefully gives incorrect information in order to entice a buyer (Ponzi schemes, etc).  Then the onus falls on the consumer's shoulder to properly research anything they buy.

    I am a big purveyor of personal responsibility.  The consumer is ultimately the one that makes the choice to buy a product or not.  If they are unwilling or uninterested in doing the research, or are too trusting of the salesman, that's their problem.

    However, that is also why resources exist to call bullshit on companies claims.  As far as tech there are places like anandtech, tomshardware, etc, where you can get relatively unbiased information as to whether a product performs in the manner the company says it does, or not.

    Agreed. Marketing will always paint a picture of their product being more than it is. It is our job as the consumer to research before we part ways with our money.

    거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다












  • GruntyGrunty Member EpicPosts: 8,657
    edited March 2016
    Grunty said:
    Grunty said:
    Vrika said:
    Could you please mark that your source, or otherwise mark that your post is a quote, at the start of the quote. Hiding the information that your first post is not written by you at the bottom of your second post is really confusing.

    EDIT: The articles you post are interesting, thank you for them.
    He's not quoting articles. He's plagiarizing them by copying the entire article. None of the information in these posts were created by him.

    Quoting comes under fair use of copyrighted material. This isn't fair use.

    But it is a way to gain points on this website.
    Snip



    Thanks for your concern though. Cheers!


    Ok, you know what plagiarize means. It is still not fair use.

    If you were to quote a small (relative) portion of the article and link to the article then it is fair use. Copying the majority of someone else's copyrighted material is still not fair use.
    Yes it is @Grunty ;.  Look at the front page news stories. The FF14 story Suzie posted. I sent her that and am mentioned in a thank you. It came from the source site and is able to be used. Why? It is linked to the source. If you simply find an article you like, post it and link back to the source it is fair use. Under US copyright law

    What Is Fair Use?

    In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner. In other words, fair use is a defense against a claim of copyright infringement. If your use qualifies as a fair use, then it would not be considered an illegal infringement.

    So what is a “transformative” use? If this definition seems ambiguous or vague, be aware that millions of dollars in legal fees have been spent attempting to define what qualifies as a fair use. There are no hard-and-fast rules, only general rules and varied court decisions, because the judges and lawmakers who created the fair use exception did not want to limit its definition. Like free speech, they wanted it to have an expansive meaning that could be open to interpretation.

    Most fair use analysis falls into two categories: (1) commentary and criticism, or (2) parody.

    - See more at: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/what-is-fair-use/#sthash.Jpwt2B21.dpuf

    First sentence in 'What is Fair Use?

    "In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work."

    See that word 'limited'? It's there for a reason.

    Try to copy and publicly present Stephen King's book Christine in it's entirety and add a statement that links to a site where you can purchase the book. Because, you know, that's fair use.
    "I used to think the worst thing in life was to be all alone.  It's not.  The worst thing in life is to end up with people who make you feel all alone."  Robin Williams
  • KrynKryn Member UncommonPosts: 172
    edited March 2016
    Everything is marketed this way now.  Ever seen all those LED keyboards and mice.   Its a gimmick.  False advertisement is over used on most all products these days.  Not just monitors.
  • CnameCname Member UncommonPosts: 211
    @blueturtle13 - thanks for posting this informative article and others here.

    Most printed newspaper and magazine would just attributed their articles in a byline, which is placed after headline - it can be at the end or before the text of article.

    To me, your link back to article served the same purpose and more.

    Sad-to-see that a few here have Pharisaic view on proper news and article attribution.
    (Last part is a slight jest because of today's occasion which is a significant religious event in the West).

    "A game is fun if it is learnable but not trivial" -- Togelius & Schmidhuber

  • GruntyGrunty Member EpicPosts: 8,657
    edited March 2016
    Cname said:
    @blueturtle13 - thanks for posting this informative article and others here.

    Most printed newspaper and magazine would just attributed their articles in a byline, which is placed after headline - it can be at the end or before the text of article.

    To me, your link back to article served the same purpose and more.

    Sad-to-see that a few here have Pharisaic view on proper news and article attribution.
    (Last part is a slight jest because of today's occasion which is a significant religious event in the West).
    No skin off my nose if blueturtle13 won't seek the knowledge needed to protect himself.
    "I used to think the worst thing in life was to be all alone.  It's not.  The worst thing in life is to end up with people who make you feel all alone."  Robin Williams
  • blueturtle13blueturtle13 Member LegendaryPosts: 12,369


    What Is Fair Use?

    In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner. In other words, fair use is a defense against a claim of copyright infringement. If your use qualifies as a fair use, then it would not be considered an illegal infringement.

    So what is a “transformative” use? If this definition seems ambiguous or vague, be aware that millions of dollars in legal fees have been spent attempting to define what qualifies as a fair use. There are no hard-and-fast rules, only general rules and varied court decisions, because the judges and lawmakers who created the fair use exception did not want to limit its definition. Like free speech, they wanted it to have an expansive meaning that could be open to interpretation.

    Most fair use analysis falls into two categories: (1) commentary and criticism, or (2) parody.

    - See more at: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/what-is-fair-use/#sthash.Jpwt2B21.dpuf

    First sentence in 'What is Fair Use?

    "In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work."

    See that word 'limited'? It's there for a reason.

    Try to copy and publicly present Stephen King's book Christine in it's entirety and add a statement that links to a site where you can purchase the book. Because, you know, that's fair use.
    Correct, for the purpose of commenting upon, criticize or parody.

    What is a forum for? Commenting on and criticizing on. Am I offending you with news articles? Not sure why this bothers you so much. Very strange but Cheers anyway!

    거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다












  • blueturtle13blueturtle13 Member LegendaryPosts: 12,369
    Cname said:
    @blueturtle13 - thanks for posting this informative article and others here.

    Most printed newspaper and magazine would just attributed their articles in a byline, which is placed after headline - it can be at the end or before the text of article.

    To me, your link back to article served the same purpose and more.

    Sad-to-see that a few here have Pharisaic view on proper news and article attribution.
    (Last part is a slight jest because of today's occasion which is a significant religious event in the West).
    Thank you. I send news to 6 gaming websites including this one. I have for 10 years.
    I also post articles I just find interesting. I do not mean to offend anyone by doing so. I give credit to the author or site. If they are my articles there is no link other wise I link back to the source. Most sites news or otherwise do the same thing with the Associated Press. 

    거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다












  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,995
    Monitor numbers are a pretty big scam. I don't like to buy a monitor unless I can compare it alongside others. I've had hit and miss results with most monitor manufacturers. Just like video cards I try and do a little research on the model and find out if other users have like it.
    Fedora - A modern, free, and open source Operating System. https://getfedora.org/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 22,125
    Cname said:
    @blueturtle13 - thanks for posting this informative article and others here.

    Most printed newspaper and magazine would just attributed their articles in a byline, which is placed after headline - it can be at the end or before the text of article.

    To me, your link back to article served the same purpose and more.

    Sad-to-see that a few here have Pharisaic view on proper news and article attribution.
    (Last part is a slight jest because of today's occasion which is a significant religious event in the West).
    Thank you. I send news to 6 gaming websites including this one. I have for 10 years.
    I also post articles I just find interesting. I do not mean to offend anyone by doing so. I give credit to the author or site. If they are my articles there is no link other wise I link back to the source. Most sites news or otherwise do the same thing with the Associated Press. 
    There's an enormous difference between posting a small fraction of an article together with a link to the original versus posting the entire original article.  For example, it's fair use to copy a couple of paragraphs out of a Harry Potter book and post it with attribution to illustrate some point.  It is not fair use to post the entire book, no matter how you attribute it.  The former may lead more people to buy the book (though this effect would be stronger for far more obscure works), but the latter means more people can read it without needing to buy it.

    The site you take the article from isn't going to complain if the result of your post is sending more traffic their way.  But the way you set up your posts, people get to read the entire article without any need to check the original, and people who read half of the article may not even know where the article came from.

    The Associated Press has a business model of gathering news and writing stories that other sites can reproduce in full if they pay a licensing fee to get permission.  Fair use laws are irrelevant if you have permission of the article owner to post it.  But unless you're getting explicit permission, the AP model is irrelevant to what you're doing.
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 22,125
    As for the content of the article, how would you propose to show, in a still picture, the effects of higher frame rates?  How about the benefit of higher image quality, when the quality of both will be limited by the quality of the user's monitor?  The pictures that the author complains about are obviously a dramatization, and it really couldn't be otherwise.
  • blueturtle13blueturtle13 Member LegendaryPosts: 12,369
    Quizzical said:
    Cname said:
    @blueturtle13 - thanks for posting this informative article and others here.

    Most printed newspaper and magazine would just attributed their articles in a byline, which is placed after headline - it can be at the end or before the text of article.

    To me, your link back to article served the same purpose and more.

    Sad-to-see that a few here have Pharisaic view on proper news and article attribution.
    (Last part is a slight jest because of today's occasion which is a significant religious event in the West).
    Thank you. I send news to 6 gaming websites including this one. I have for 10 years.
    I also post articles I just find interesting. I do not mean to offend anyone by doing so. I give credit to the author or site. If they are my articles there is no link other wise I link back to the source. Most sites news or otherwise do the same thing with the Associated Press. 
    There's an enormous difference between posting a small fraction of an article together with a link to the original versus posting the entire original article.  For example, it's fair use to copy a couple of paragraphs out of a Harry Potter book and post it with attribution to illustrate some point.  It is not fair use to post the entire book, no matter how you attribute it.  The former may lead more people to buy the book (though this effect would be stronger for far more obscure works), but the latter means more people can read it without needing to buy it.

    The site you take the article from isn't going to complain if the result of your post is sending more traffic their way.  But the way you set up your posts, people get to read the entire article without any need to check the original, and people who read half of the article may not even know where the article came from.

    The Associated Press has a business model of gathering news and writing stories that other sites can reproduce in full if they pay a licensing fee to get permission.  Fair use laws are irrelevant if you have permission of the article owner to post it.  But unless you're getting explicit permission, the AP model is irrelevant to what you're doing.
    Brad sent me the article before he even posted it. If the author wants to send me the article to post to the stable of sites I post them on to add to the backlinks to Digital Trends than that is his business. I have many writers who send me articles to post. I work at IBM but in my off time I run 112 niche websites. I help writers get more exposure to their articles through my private blog network and through the exposure on high traffic forums. Like this one. I enjoy posting articles that I find interesting and have permission to do so. It is called internet marketing. If you do not enjoy the posts I post then move on. Don't read them. Simple as that. I have done this for over 10 years on many sites. How do you think Yahoo got the article To begin with? I sent it to Carrie To post. Same as I send articles to Suzie to post here. I have over 700 of my own articles posted on sites as well. Including through the AP.     Sorry /rant off

    거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다












  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,061
    Most of us have been saying this for a long time about monitors - the specs mean nothing, most of them are made up marketing BS, and the only thing that matters is how it looks to  you.
  • Zen00Zen00 Member UncommonPosts: 152
    Hrimnir said:

    Waaayy back in the day of CRT monitors, my buddy and I used to joke about this exact topic because monitor companies were moving towards a lot of these ridiculous names, trying to evoke performance in the names.  So we created the idea of the "Maxi-hella Scan" monitor, again as a joke.

    However, I am a firm believer that unless the company willfully withholds information or purposefully gives incorrect information in order to entice a buyer (Ponzi schemes, etc).  Then the onus falls on the consumer's shoulder to properly research anything they buy.

    I am a big purveyor of personal responsibility.  The consumer is ultimately the one that makes the choice to buy a product or not.  If they are unwilling or uninterested in doing the research, or are too trusting of the salesman, that's their problem.

    However, that is also why resources exist to call bullshit on companies claims.  As far as tech there are places like anandtech, tomshardware, etc, where you can get relatively unbiased information as to whether a product performs in the manner the company says it does, or not.

    Agreed. Marketing will always paint a picture of their product being more than it is. It is our job as the consumer to research before we part ways with our money.
    I disagree. Most of the information you can get these days that lets you know if a monitor lives up to its claims comes from "New" internet sources (eg: review websites), something that people back in the days (90's-) wouldn't have had access to, and many older people still don't know how to properly utilize due to not living with the technology. For people who don't know how to properly search and utilize internet resources they are being ripped off by weasel words and inflated statistics being used by marketing places.

    Marketing should paint a true picture with actual terms that are easy to understand, otherwise they might as well put on some face makeup and start clowning around because they're not doing anything useful otherwise.
  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,061
    Zen00 said:

    Marketing should paint a true picture with actual terms that are easy to understand, otherwise they might as well put on some face makeup and start clowning around because they're not doing anything useful otherwise.

    Isn't that what they do now?
Sign In or Register to comment.