5 ms·

> That's literally what the process is called though? I didn't say it wasn't - I said it sounds a bit more alarming than it actually is. The vehicle doesn't ha

> That's literally what the process is called though? I didn't say it wasn't - I said it sounds a bit more alarming than it actually is. The vehicle doesn't have to go anywhere, it just has to pop into the service garage quickly.

ziddoap 4y ago
I guess I'm just not understanding how the process name, which has been the process name for a long time, is "alarmist". The way you phrased it made me think you have some alternate word to use for the process of recall which is less "alarmist".
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  > I guess I'm just not understanding how the process name, which has been the process name for a long time, is "alarmist". It sounds more alarming than is the case in practice. They is literally no 'recall' - you just pop in - so the word isn't even accurate if you read it literally. I'm not sure how to explain it beyond that?
- ChrisLomont 4y ago
  The problem with using one word, "recall", for a massive range of issues, is that people mistake really small issues to be more in the middle of the range. In this case the issue is tiny, the fix is tiny. It's not like a recall where a decent number of people will die from exploding gas tanks, which also falls under the word "recall". Maybe if they added a severity, even a simple 1-5, like computer people use for vulnerabilities, or the military uses for levels of alert, or we use for storms, and so on, this would not happen. But using the correct word can be alarmist if articles, headlines, or pundits use it to scare beliefs into the middle of the possible range when it's at the low end.
- MatthiasPortzel 4y ago
  I’m most familiar with a “recall” in the food industry, where the contaminated food is not salvageable. So my first impression upon reading the headline was that Ferrari was going to have to scrap or replace all cars made since 2005. Obviously that’s wrong, after reading the article. But I think the car industry is an exception in that it makes sense to fix the effected product. Most other products that are recalled (food, or the Galaxy Note 7, or other gadgets, for example), are not quickly fixed. In those industries (most other than automotive) a “recall” means throwing away potentially huge amounts of product. Edit: To clarify, I’m saying the title could be easily misunderstood. I understand that it is correct.
randomdata 4y ago
The dictionary defines recall as "officially order (someone) to return to a place". > it just has to pop into the service garage In other words, a recall. I don't see what's alarming about this. An inconvenience at best, but chances are that you'll pop in for routine service at some point anyway.
- throwaway4kd9b 4y ago
  I think it's more a byproduct of poor human perception of "large" numbers. "Toyota recalls 120,000 vehicles for minor problem XYZ!" zomg, 120k, that's a huge number, what a HORRIBLE thing. Boy they really screwed something up! Never mind the fact that this may span a production run of 4.7 Million vehicles over 8 years. This is less then 3% of customers affected because they all happened to use the same generic part for common function (e.g. a simple brake fluid reservoir cap). This sort of thinking has caused the word "recall" to get a bad reputation. Worse so when it's a "safety recall" which generally is the same thing, but actually tied to a part like a seatbelt, airbag, etc. Combine the negative connotations with the word safety and it just amplifies the unwarranted panic level.
  - randomdata 4y ago
    I guess I still don't see what is alarming about needing to go back to the dealership to have something fixed/replaced, even if the number of people needing to do is high. Short of them making a service call to your place (where the necessary tools may not be available), what's the alternative?

ziddoap 4y ago

I guess I'm just not understanding how the process name, which has been the process name for a long time, is "alarmist". The way you phrased it made me think you have some alternate word to use for the process of recall which is less "alarmist".

chrisseaton 4y ago
> I guess I'm just not understanding how the process name, which has been the process name for a long time, is "alarmist". It sounds more alarming than is the case in practice. They is literally no 'recall' - you just pop in - so the word isn't even accurate if you read it literally. I'm not sure how to explain it beyond that?
ChrisLomont 4y ago
The problem with using one word, "recall", for a massive range of issues, is that people mistake really small issues to be more in the middle of the range. In this case the issue is tiny, the fix is tiny. It's not like a recall where a decent number of people will die from exploding gas tanks, which also falls under the word "recall". Maybe if they added a severity, even a simple 1-5, like computer people use for vulnerabilities, or the military uses for levels of alert, or we use for storms, and so on, this would not happen. But using the correct word can be alarmist if articles, headlines, or pundits use it to scare beliefs into the middle of the possible range when it's at the low end.
MatthiasPortzel 4y ago
I’m most familiar with a “recall” in the food industry, where the contaminated food is not salvageable. So my first impression upon reading the headline was that Ferrari was going to have to scrap or replace all cars made since 2005. Obviously that’s wrong, after reading the article. But I think the car industry is an exception in that it makes sense to fix the effected product. Most other products that are recalled (food, or the Galaxy Note 7, or other gadgets, for example), are not quickly fixed. In those industries (most other than automotive) a “recall” means throwing away potentially huge amounts of product. Edit: To clarify, I’m saying the title could be easily misunderstood. I understand that it is correct.

randomdata 4y ago

The dictionary defines recall as "officially order (someone) to return to a place". > it just has to pop into the service garage In other words, a recall. I don't see what's alarming about this. An inconvenience at best, but chances are that you'll pop in for routine service at some point anyway.

throwaway4kd9b 4y ago
I think it's more a byproduct of poor human perception of "large" numbers. "Toyota recalls 120,000 vehicles for minor problem XYZ!" zomg, 120k, that's a huge number, what a HORRIBLE thing. Boy they really screwed something up! Never mind the fact that this may span a production run of 4.7 Million vehicles over 8 years. This is less then 3% of customers affected because they all happened to use the same generic part for common function (e.g. a simple brake fluid reservoir cap). This sort of thinking has caused the word "recall" to get a bad reputation. Worse so when it's a "safety recall" which generally is the same thing, but actually tied to a part like a seatbelt, airbag, etc. Combine the negative connotations with the word safety and it just amplifies the unwarranted panic level.
- randomdata 4y ago
  I guess I still don't see what is alarming about needing to go back to the dealership to have something fixed/replaced, even if the number of people needing to do is high. Short of them making a service call to your place (where the necessary tools may not be available), what's the alternative?