Yesterday I was playing around on gdgt, the gadget site we previewed a couple weeks ago on Symbiotek. My particular page doesn't have as many gadgets as I would like, so I started browsing around and found myself looking for the Flip UltraHD. All I found was a Flip Ultra, a sub-standard model of the mini-camcorder in this age of Blue-Ray burners and high-def youtube. The native resolution for the latter is listed at 640x480 rather than 1280x720, and while that's the most significant difference I can come up with, the list goes on and on. I don't know about you guys, but as a techy, the difference in resolutions makes the Ultra a much different product. Imagine my surprise then, when my rather laborious gdgt entry on the UltraHD, (as opposed to the Ultra) was rejected. I was told one was a variant of the other. Ridiculous. Ridiculous!!
Here's mine on the Flip UltraHD: http://gdgt.com/pure-digital/b1c27/specs/
Here's the original on the Flip Ultra: http://gdgt.com/pure-digital/flip/ultra/2nd-gen/specs/
There's nothing "Ultra" about the latter.
One thing that really bugged me was that In terms of quality of the entry, mine serves much more specification detail than the Flip Ultra entry, regardless of the actual product. I've been to the manufacturer's site and all the information for the Flip UltraHd that I listed is there for the regular old FLip Ultra-- the person who inputted the Flip Ultra just neglected to enter everything in.
As for the particulars of the device: storage, Img qual, even the price (price wrongly reflected in my entry (due to their price tracker's error)-- it should be in the $199 range) is different. They may have the same form factor but that's where the similarities end. I mean, the Lexus RX and the Toyota Highlander sit on the same platform and can use the same tires but would you say one is simply a 'variant' of the other? This is ridiculous.
Moreover, how can I trust gdgt to lead me to the products I want when the specs they have laid down are off and when they reject superior information?
At the very least it needs a wiki function where logged in members can add to the specs of a device. That wouldn't directly solve my gripe, but it would help. If indeed my device is simply a variant of the Flip Ultra, then there should be a tree or something, where the specs for the obviously superior "variant" can be laid bare.
EDIT: I just realised that only I can see my proposed entry, so here it is, pasted below:
General
Type: ConsumerForm factor: Handheld
Sensor
Sensor type: CMOSMinimum illumination: 1.4 lux
Video format
Native resolution: 1280 x 720Framerates supported (max resolution): 30pVideo codec support: h.264 / AVC, MPEG-4
Media
Media type: Internal storage (8 GB, Flash)Recording time: 120 mins at lowest quality
120 mins at highest quality
Viewfinder
Viewfinder type: LCDScreen size: 2 inchesScreen resolution: 960 x 240Screen type: LCD (Active, Color, Backlit)
Optics
Zoom: 2 x (digital)
Size and weight
Dimensions: 4.25 inches (h)
2.19 inches (w)
1.17 inches (d)Weight: 6 ounces
Availability
Availability: AvailableOriginal MSRP: $1.99 USDProduct site: www.theflip.com
Additional specs
Power
Battery size: RechargeableBattery type: NiMH (Removable)Recording time: 190 mins
4 comments:
New Data from GDGT:
From Ryan, an admin:
Hey Dwayne, this is partly our fault for not having more available documentation on how to add products (specifically with regard to how we handle alternate configurations). However, while the specs may differ, this does indeed seem to be an alternate configuration -- even Pure's site lists the two products side by side on the same page, as though they're essentially one and the same save for the resolution in which they capture video: http://www.theflip.com/products_flip_ultra.shtml
Posted 22 minutes ago
And a second post by brettdunnam:
Hey Dwayne, I realize it can be frustrating but if you look at the bottom of the specs you can look at the alternate configuration. There the specs for the HD are listed. Only the specs that a different from the original are listed.
You can also edit the specs for the HD configuration if you'd like. But I think you'll find that everything you wanted to do is already listed there.
I agreed. Here's my suggestion response:
I hear you guys; thanks for reaching out. I guess it comes down to the way the information is laid out. I took some time to look at the macbooks (multiple configurations for the same unibody machine) and it lead me to believe that perhaps a specifications *list* is not as appropriate as a specifications *table.* I have a suggestion.
Check out: http://www.theflip.com/products_flip_ultra_specs.II.shtml
If you are to expand the sections, you see that they lay out all of the specs in a table that allows the viewer to see all of their models side by side. If we're going to look at the Flip Ultra and the Flip UltraHD as two variations of the same machine (which I can now agree with), then we need to lay out the data in a way not unlike the spec sheet theflip.com has given its visitors.
You see, right now, the Flip UltraHD is an afterthought on the page gdgt has for the device, and the relatively vanilla Ultra comes across as the flagship when we all know that it's quite likely that the opposite is true. In fact, it very much seems that the flip spec sheet lays out the devices in order of capacity/ability.
We can't expect gdgt to go around laying out every device and their variants based on the exact same criterion, but we can endeavor to lay out the products in a table format, as seen in the above link, so that at the very least variations of devices receive display parity and confusion is minimized. If a new variation should come out, the table could easily be given another column with the new variation's data; that new column might even hold the date of the release of this variation if it's different than that of the original gdgt listing.
Thanks for your friendly response guys.
Post a Comment