3 ms·

There are big differences in the impact of misleading tests though. For a TV, meh. It's a little more energy used, and financially barely is noticeable by the

by buro9 11y ago

There are big differences in the impact of misleading tests though. For a TV, meh. It's a little more energy used, and financially barely is noticeable by the owner. When you're done it's essentially disposable. For the cars though... oh wow. It hits taxation levels in some countries, and fuel cost everywhere. It hits resale value, which likely hits financing companies. It actually causes additional pollution in crowded cities. It crosses thresholds in which large swathes of the market would choose not to purchase the vehicle based on those numbers (business leases). Everyone knows that advertised numbers are approximations based on ideal conditions on a very small sample. The question is really how misleading those approximations are, and what the impact is on the consumer and any third parties.

marze 11y ago
The whole point of testing is to give consumers data, so if the test can be gamed by companies like Samsung, it is a bad test. There are so many TVs and they run so many hours a day the aggregate energy use is non-negligible. Consumers should avoid products from firms that game tests such as these. Toyota, for example, was singled out in the fuel consumption report as a company that did not cheat on the tests.
- Asbostos 11y ago
  Any kind of improvement motivated by the test is kind of "gaming" the test. There's no clear boundary line between optimizing for test conditions and optimizing for something broader. I think the onus is on the designers of the tests to make sure they reflect realistic use. It can't help but be a cat and mouse game but at least the effects of cheating can be reduced to small enough levels that it's OK. An analogy is a student studying for the exam. That's gaming it somewhat too. The exam is supposed to test what they learnt during the semester and retained over a long period, not what they crammed the night before and will forget by next week.

by buro9 11y ago

marze 11y ago

The whole point of testing is to give consumers data, so if the test can be gamed by companies like Samsung, it is a bad test. There are so many TVs and they run so many hours a day the aggregate energy use is non-negligible. Consumers should avoid products from firms that game tests such as these. Toyota, for example, was singled out in the fuel consumption report as a company that did not cheat on the tests.

Asbostos 11y ago
Any kind of improvement motivated by the test is kind of "gaming" the test. There's no clear boundary line between optimizing for test conditions and optimizing for something broader. I think the onus is on the designers of the tests to make sure they reflect realistic use. It can't help but be a cat and mouse game but at least the effects of cheating can be reduced to small enough levels that it's OK. An analogy is a student studying for the exam. That's gaming it somewhat too. The exam is supposed to test what they learnt during the semester and retained over a long period, not what they crammed the night before and will forget by next week.