5 ms·

Articles like this aren't helpful because they pick and exhibit a few case studies instead of attempting to estimate base rates and risk proportions - of cours

by ve55 6y ago

Articles like this aren't helpful because they pick and exhibit a few case studies instead of attempting to estimate base rates and risk proportions - of course some Amazon products have caught on fire, Amazon has sold a billion of them. What needs to be provided in this type of reporting is actual estimates of how many of the products may be dangerous, which is of course never provided or even attempted as an estimate.

Someone1234 6y ago
> Articles like this aren't helpful because they pick and exhibit a few case studies instead of attempting to estimate base rates and risk proportions So you're saying articles aren't allowed to criticize manufacturers without proprietary information that only the manufacturer itself has? A better question might be: Why aren't Amazon publishing the number of units sold relative to number of fires? Instead of putting the journalist trying to cover this with imperfect information into the dock, let's see Amazon defend it.
- ve55 6y ago
  >So you're saying articles aren't allowed to Nope, I said nothing of what is allowed, and the majority of reports like this will never contain useful statistics regardless. I just said it's not helpful to consumers, because it doesn't actually help them make a better decision when you don't know if the brand is more or less safe than the alternatives. They could easily write an article about a huge problem someone had with product X. Then consumers instead buy product Y, which could have a higher rate of problems, and the article has done harm instead of good. I can't make a claim about this article, but given they're just written for clicks, it's not like they have the consumer's interests in mind either way.
  - Someone1234 6y ago
    > I just said it's not helpful to consumers, because it doesn't actually help them make a better decision when you don't know if the brand is more or less safe than the alternatives. I agree. But I am confused why this lack of statistics is the journalist's fault instead of either the manufacturer who has is sitting on the information, or lack of regulatory rigor that could force public disclosure. You haven't proposed how the journalist gets this proprietary information? Only that they should sit down and be quiet until they have it somehow. If your point is that all manufacturers should disclose, so we can compare/contrast, I agree entirely. But it comes across more like you think journalists shouldn't report on problems if the people they're reporting on aren't cooperating vis-a-vis full disclosure. Which is tantamount to the end of investigative journalism.
    - ve55 6y ago
      The journalist definitely cannot access the information in the detail we'd want them to, that's true. My issue is more with their phrasing, because never would an article provide basic nuance like "This problem might not be common, and we don't know about how common it is in other products, these are just some randomly-selected cases we have found that happened in the past few years". I think even with proper disclosures, we wouldn't necessarily be getting useful articles, but perhaps it'd at least help by enabling them to be more easily written.
  - Bedon292 6y ago
    They did look at a similar product from another manufacturer and compare the rate of safety concerns in reviews as a part of the article, but it was a tiny part. I would have liked to see a full table of: Amazon Product vs Multiple Similar Products though.
TimSchumann 6y ago
I disagree with the assertion that this type of article isn't helpful. I would say it's 'not scientific', but not unhelpful. I don't think Amazon is likely to release those statistics anytime soon, but I'm glad people are talking about this as it may change perception on both sides. Either the consumer sees this article and purchases less 'Amazon Basics' branded products, or someone inside Amazon sees it and decides to do something about it. Not optimal, but far from unhelpful.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
paxys 6y ago
The reason a news outlet can't publish actual data is that Amazon doesn't share any of it. This is the only way to force them to do so.
mthoms 6y ago
The articles uses Amazon's own reviews to provide statistical indications that the failure rate is higher for some Amazon Basics items: >Since the microwave's release in the fall of 2018, its product page has been flooded with reports from consumers about problems including flames, smoke and sparks. These kinds of reviews made up roughly 5% of the AmazonBasics microwave's more than 3,000 reviews as of February [...] A microwave that has been reviewed less frequently but is the same size and wattage had only 10 reviews describing similar safety issues -- amounting to around .7% of its roughly 1,350 reviews on Amazon and.. >Amazon said its own analysis, which added global reviews about the AmazonBasics surge protector, found 1.1% involved claims of overheating, fire and other dangers. One former AmazonBasics product manager ...[said] that a ratio of around .05% would have been seen as more acceptable when she worked there. Not smoking guns (wires?) but certainly indications that further investigation is warranted.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
bri3d 6y ago
I found a few parts of this article to be quite insightful, barring a statistical analysis using data that's not available: * The use of a real lab to tear down and inspect a microwave, identifying a real design flaw leading to a safety hazard. This seems to indicate that Amazon did not send their product for independent inspection before sourcing it, or that the labs or staff they used to do so were less thorough or competent than the lab CNN found. * Interviews with former Amazon staff indicating that standards have likely been loosened, because public available information (like reviews) which would have triggered a product's removal in the past no longer seem to do so.

by ve55 6y ago

Someone1234 6y ago

> Articles like this aren't helpful because they pick and exhibit a few case studies instead of attempting to estimate base rates and risk proportions So you're saying articles aren't allowed to criticize manufacturers without proprietary information that only the manufacturer itself has? A better question might be: Why aren't Amazon publishing the number of units sold relative to number of fires? Instead of putting the journalist trying to cover this with imperfect information into the dock, let's see Amazon defend it.

ve55 6y ago
>So you're saying articles aren't allowed to Nope, I said nothing of what is allowed, and the majority of reports like this will never contain useful statistics regardless. I just said it's not helpful to consumers, because it doesn't actually help them make a better decision when you don't know if the brand is more or less safe than the alternatives. They could easily write an article about a huge problem someone had with product X. Then consumers instead buy product Y, which could have a higher rate of problems, and the article has done harm instead of good. I can't make a claim about this article, but given they're just written for clicks, it's not like they have the consumer's interests in mind either way.
- Someone1234 6y ago
  > I just said it's not helpful to consumers, because it doesn't actually help them make a better decision when you don't know if the brand is more or less safe than the alternatives. I agree. But I am confused why this lack of statistics is the journalist's fault instead of either the manufacturer who has is sitting on the information, or lack of regulatory rigor that could force public disclosure. You haven't proposed how the journalist gets this proprietary information? Only that they should sit down and be quiet until they have it somehow. If your point is that all manufacturers should disclose, so we can compare/contrast, I agree entirely. But it comes across more like you think journalists shouldn't report on problems if the people they're reporting on aren't cooperating vis-a-vis full disclosure. Which is tantamount to the end of investigative journalism.
  - ve55 6y ago
    The journalist definitely cannot access the information in the detail we'd want them to, that's true. My issue is more with their phrasing, because never would an article provide basic nuance like "This problem might not be common, and we don't know about how common it is in other products, these are just some randomly-selected cases we have found that happened in the past few years". I think even with proper disclosures, we wouldn't necessarily be getting useful articles, but perhaps it'd at least help by enabling them to be more easily written.
- Bedon292 6y ago
  They did look at a similar product from another manufacturer and compare the rate of safety concerns in reviews as a part of the article, but it was a tiny part. I would have liked to see a full table of: Amazon Product vs Multiple Similar Products though.

TimSchumann 6y ago

I disagree with the assertion that this type of article isn't helpful. I would say it's 'not scientific', but not unhelpful. I don't think Amazon is likely to release those statistics anytime soon, but I'm glad people are talking about this as it may change perception on both sides. Either the consumer sees this article and purchases less 'Amazon Basics' branded products, or someone inside Amazon sees it and decides to do something about it. Not optimal, but far from unhelpful.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

paxys 6y ago

The reason a news outlet can't publish actual data is that Amazon doesn't share any of it. This is the only way to force them to do so.

mthoms 6y ago

The articles uses Amazon's own reviews to provide statistical indications that the failure rate is higher for some Amazon Basics items: >Since the microwave's release in the fall of 2018, its product page has been flooded with reports from consumers about problems including flames, smoke and sparks. These kinds of reviews made up roughly 5% of the AmazonBasics microwave's more than 3,000 reviews as of February [...] A microwave that has been reviewed less frequently but is the same size and wattage had only 10 reviews describing similar safety issues -- amounting to around .7% of its roughly 1,350 reviews on Amazon and.. >Amazon said its own analysis, which added global reviews about the AmazonBasics surge protector, found 1.1% involved claims of overheating, fire and other dangers. One former AmazonBasics product manager ...[said] that a ratio of around .05% would have been seen as more acceptable when she worked there. Not smoking guns (wires?) but certainly indications that further investigation is warranted.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

bri3d 6y ago

I found a few parts of this article to be quite insightful, barring a statistical analysis using data that's not available: * The use of a real lab to tear down and inspect a microwave, identifying a real design flaw leading to a safety hazard. This seems to indicate that Amazon did not send their product for independent inspection before sourcing it, or that the labs or staff they used to do so were less thorough or competent than the lab CNN found. * Interviews with former Amazon staff indicating that standards have likely been loosened, because public available information (like reviews) which would have triggered a product's removal in the past no longer seem to do so.