gdgt

Was looking for the Flip UltraHD on this site and all I found was a Flip Ultra...the native resolution for the latter is listed at 640x480 rather than 1280x720, and while that's the most significant, the list goes on and on. I don't know about you guys, but as a techy, the difference in resolutions makes it a much different product. I was surprised when my rather laborious entry on the UltraHD, (as opposed to the Ultra) was rejected. I was told one was a variant of the other. Ridiculous.

Here's mine: http://gdgt.com/pure-digital/b1c27/specs/

Here's the original: http://gdgt.com/pure-digital/flip/ultra/2nd-gen/specs/


in terms of quality of entry, mine serves out much more detail than the previous 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 it just neglected to enter it in.


As for the particulars of the device: storage, Img qual, even the 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.

How can I trust this site to lead me to the products I want when the specs they have laid down are off and when they reject superior information?

edit: 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

Wow, this dude is super angry! Now I feel happier by comparison.... some things frustrate me on here too (my rejected HDHomeRun submission) but I realize its new and theres bugs to work out. And my device was kinda out there and I was just trying to bump my stats anyway!! Dave knows that... the site makes me way happier than pissed off though......

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.shtm
l

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.

I didn't mean to sound angry. It was late/early, so I was certainly tired, and because of the reasons stated above, certainly confused. I'll keep that in mind when I post next.

We all have are days...

I've been thinking about this a little more and I realised that, according to these rules, the iPhone 3G and the iPhone 3G S should be on the same gadget page, as the 3G S is obviously a variation on the 3G.

But they each have their own page, here:

http://gdgt.com/apple/iphone/3gs/

and here:

http://gdgt.com/apple/iphone/3g/

We need to treat every device, it's upgrades and variations with the same respect if we're to have a social media site that works, that people can trust and feel they can adequately contribute to. If the 3GS were placed as an addendum to the specification page of the 3G, gadget lovers would all have a fit. I know the Flip UltraHD is not as high profile as Apple's iPhone, but because of the above-stated reasons, you have to admit, it deserves the same treatment.

Time will heal these problems... or we'll complain too much and get banned and not have to worry about it! LOL