3 ms·

> [...] one pair ordered from Amazon, one pair sent by Levi’s for each style. [...] It seemed the tipster was half right. The tests confirmed a lot of variabili

by neilv 2y ago

> [...] one pair ordered from Amazon, one pair sent by Levi’s for each style. [...] It seemed the tipster was half right. The tests confirmed a lot of variability between two pairs of the same jeans — you could buy the same style from Amazon and Levi’s and feel a difference. But it didn’t add up to gaps in quality; there was no indication that the Levi’s from Amazon were worse. All this time, researchers have been wasting money on sample sizes larger than 1 before drawing conclusions. Also, I find the word "commingling" nowhere in the article. It's very relevant to the question of what product you're receiving when you buy from Amazon.

tclancy 2y ago
FWIW and only anecdata, I have been using the same Buy It Again link for a pair of Levi's on Amazon for about a decade and they vary wildly from order to order.
- ethbr1 2y ago
  At the end of the day, most modern clothing isn't made in brand factories. It's subcontracted out to tons of shop, who then subcontract their orders out to even more shops. Unsurprising that given such a system product varies.
  - kyleee 2y ago
    Yes, and reducing the variation would increase costs. There are likely acceptability standards in play, but they are probably very lax standards.
- opan 2y ago
  Do you wear them anyway, or return or tailor them or what?
  - tclancy 2y ago
    I mean, they’re jeans and I live in New England. I will beat them to hell living in them and I am married. Sending them to a tailor feels funny!
- giraffe_lady 2y ago
  They have been notorious for this for generations, to the point where it's sort of surprising to see it mentioned explicitly. Obvs this isn't a fashion forum and not everyone knows, but probably most people who want a specific pair of levis does know.
frankfrank13 2y ago
Its journalism not research, this is absolutely the norm for any type of product coverage, e.g "my [press] car (with 50k in upgrades) had an incredible sound system, the cabin noise was non-existent, and the ($2000 extra) paint looks incredible). Even wirecutter does n=1 coverage, and it shows! You expect all LL Bean sheets to feel the same?! They probably ship a million sets a year. So yeah its annoying, but you get used to it.
- neilv 2y ago
  Good point that reviews tend to be n=1. But reviewing a car is different than doing investigative journalism on a "tip" about jeans bought on Amazon, and dismissing it. I don't think anyone is alleging that BMW is cutting corners on materials shipped to only some dealers for a given market. Nor is anyone alleging that there's counterfeit Ferraris constantly being snuck onto dealer lots. What happened here looks closer to lowbrow propaganda or PR, than journalism. And I suspect that any kids reading pieces like this -- rather than learning from good example -- are instead being confused about journalism, science, and critical thinking.
- calmbonsai 2y ago
  It's still bad journalism. Given the inherent nature of variances in garment manufacturing, individual fitment, and item cost, they should've at least done a sample size of 3. Please also don't use The Wirecutter as an example of good journalism. It's the worst of a bad lot of Consumer Reports clones with all the disincentives of rapid-fire constant publication and ad-driven revenue. It was bad prior to the NYT acquisition, but it's "bottom of the barrel" atm. Much akin to CNBC for securities, it's now just a source of noise and, occasionally, even negative signal.
  - Terretta 2y ago
    There's a difference between writing in your journal and doing research. One of these is just "reporting the news". Even the magazine is not called "Consumer Research".
    - 2y ago
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> All this time, researchers have been wasting money on sample sizes larger than 1 before drawing conclusions It's a case study. We should, as a public, be scientifically literate enough to parse them. If someone wants to take the bait and publish a double-blind study, by all means. In the meantime, there is more signal than noise in this article.

by neilv 2y ago

tclancy 2y ago

FWIW and only anecdata, I have been using the same Buy It Again link for a pair of Levi's on Amazon for about a decade and they vary wildly from order to order.

ethbr1 2y ago
At the end of the day, most modern clothing isn't made in brand factories. It's subcontracted out to tons of shop, who then subcontract their orders out to even more shops. Unsurprising that given such a system product varies.
- kyleee 2y ago
  Yes, and reducing the variation would increase costs. There are likely acceptability standards in play, but they are probably very lax standards.
opan 2y ago
Do you wear them anyway, or return or tailor them or what?
- tclancy 2y ago
  I mean, they’re jeans and I live in New England. I will beat them to hell living in them and I am married. Sending them to a tailor feels funny!
giraffe_lady 2y ago
They have been notorious for this for generations, to the point where it's sort of surprising to see it mentioned explicitly. Obvs this isn't a fashion forum and not everyone knows, but probably most people who want a specific pair of levis does know.

frankfrank13 2y ago

Its journalism not research, this is absolutely the norm for any type of product coverage, e.g "my [press] car (with 50k in upgrades) had an incredible sound system, the cabin noise was non-existent, and the ($2000 extra) paint looks incredible). Even wirecutter does n=1 coverage, and it shows! You expect all LL Bean sheets to feel the same?! They probably ship a million sets a year. So yeah its annoying, but you get used to it.

neilv 2y ago
Good point that reviews tend to be n=1. But reviewing a car is different than doing investigative journalism on a "tip" about jeans bought on Amazon, and dismissing it. I don't think anyone is alleging that BMW is cutting corners on materials shipped to only some dealers for a given market. Nor is anyone alleging that there's counterfeit Ferraris constantly being snuck onto dealer lots. What happened here looks closer to lowbrow propaganda or PR, than journalism. And I suspect that any kids reading pieces like this -- rather than learning from good example -- are instead being confused about journalism, science, and critical thinking.
calmbonsai 2y ago
It's still bad journalism. Given the inherent nature of variances in garment manufacturing, individual fitment, and item cost, they should've at least done a sample size of 3. Please also don't use The Wirecutter as an example of good journalism. It's the worst of a bad lot of Consumer Reports clones with all the disincentives of rapid-fire constant publication and ad-driven revenue. It was bad prior to the NYT acquisition, but it's "bottom of the barrel" atm. Much akin to CNBC for securities, it's now just a source of noise and, occasionally, even negative signal.
- Terretta 2y ago
  There's a difference between writing in your journal and doing research. One of these is just "reporting the news". Even the magazine is not called "Consumer Research".
  - 2y ago

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> All this time, researchers have been wasting money on sample sizes larger than 1 before drawing conclusions It's a case study. We should, as a public, be scientifically literate enough to parse them. If someone wants to take the bait and publish a double-blind study, by all means. In the meantime, there is more signal than noise in this article.