Should IPVM Assign Manufacturers a Credibility Rating?

Manufacturers have been known to stretch the truth. But do ALL of them? And to what degree?

Consider a hypothetical honest manufacturer: Marketing puts pressure on engineering to claim some specification which can differentiate their product from the rest. Engineering pushes back. Marketing sulks.

Furthermore, industry pundits, like John, in an effort to protect the flock, steadfastly warn against trusting ALL manufacturers word on anything not easily verified, advising a skeptical attitude is best.

Though this must have a demoralizing effect on the honest manufacturer, who figures what's the point of issuing real specs that are going to automatically assumed to be inflated/distorted? Might as well keep up with everyone elses version of reality. No incentive to tell the truth.

IPVM could provide that incentive, in the assignment of a manufacturer credibility rating, or a fudge factor, or Ponocchio noses, or whatever.

Maybe re-evaluted annually. Based on IPVM reaserach of the previous year concerning things like low-light, dynamic range, expected vs actual ship date, etc.

With the primary aim to reward quantitatively manufacturers for dealing honestly, as well as to be an aid to members.

Let's give the manufacturers a reason to change!

Login to read this IPVM discussion.
Why do I need to log in?
IPVM conducts unique testing and research funded by member's payments enabling us to offer the most independent, accurate and in-depth information.

*** ******* **** ** ********** ** **, ****** *** *** ratings ****.

* ********* ***'* **** ****** **** ** / ***, ** 9.5 / ** ** *.* *****, ***. ******* **** **** to ****** ***** ****** ** ********* (*.*., ** ******* ****** a ** ** **** * **, ***.)

*** **** ****, ** ****** ****** ** **** ** *** specific ****** / ****** / ************* **** *** ********** / misleading ***** ** **********. ****** *** *** **********.

* ***** **** ** ******* ** ** * ****** **** nuanced **** **** *** ********, ****** * **** *** ******* idea.

** ***** **** **** ***** **** ***, *** ********* ****** believe **** **** **** *** ** ************* *******, **** ** not *********** **. ** ****** **** * "******" *********** *******, that ***** ** ****** ** ******** **** **** ******** *********** data ** ***** ** **********.

**** ***** ****** * ****** ** ******* ** ********** ********* releases, **********, ***., *** **** ******* ** ******* *******. ** interesting ******** ***** ** ** ****** **** " * ****** X *** ******* * ** ****** *". ***** *********** *********** true, *********** ** *** **** ******* ****** ** ** ******* in ***** ****. ********* ****** ** *****, ********, ***-***** ***********, bandwidth ********** *** ** **.

**********, * ***** **** **** ***** ** **** ** ** attempt ** ***** ********* ****** ** **** ******* *** **** doesn't **. ****** ** ***** **** **** ********. **** ** the ********* ****** *'** *** **** ** ******* ******** ****.

** * ****** *****, * ******* **** *********** ******** ********* that *** ********** ** **** ********* *** ** ** ********** of * ******* **** *** ** ***** ************** ** *****. If *** *** **** ***** *** ***** ******** ****** *** companies **** **** ****-**** ********* **. *** **** **** *** only *** *** *****-**** *******.

"** *********** ******** ***** ** ** ****** **** "* ****** X *** ******* * ** ****** *"

************* ******, **** *** **** ****. * ** *** **** if ** ** ******* ********* *** **** **** ** *** veracity ** ** **** ******* *** ********* ** **** ********* that ******** *** *****-********* ***...

"**** ** *** ********* ****** *'** *** **** ** ******* accurate ****."

* ***** ****'* * **** *****, ********* '****' *** *'** seen **** **** ****** ***** *** ********* ******* **** **** to **** **** *** **** **** ** ********.

**** *****, * **** **** ** *** ** * ******** low ***** ** ********* ****, ****** ************* **** ***** ** be **** ** *** *** ***** ** *** ********...

"************* ******, **** *** **** ****. * ** *** **** if ** ** ******* ********* *** **** **** ** *** veracity ** ** **** ******* *** ********* ** **** ********* that ******** *** *****-********* ***..."

***, **'* ******* *****-********* ** *********** ***. * ***'* ***** the **** **** **** *** ****** * ***** ***** ********. I **** ***** *** ******* ***** ****** ******, *** **** a **** *********** ***********.

**** *****, * **** **** ** *** ** * ******** low ***** ** ********* ****, ****** ************* **** ***** ** be **** ** *** *** ***** ** *** ********...

***, * ***'* ***** ****'* * *** ***** (*** ***** of *** ********). ** **** **** **** *** * *** bona-fide ******* ********* ** ******. ** ** ****** **** *** transport ** ******, *.*** ** *** ********* ******** ******, ***** is * ******** **********. **** ** *** ******** *** ****** control ***** ** ***** ****** **** (***). * ***** **** than "*** ********" ** **** ++ ******** ** ******** ******. A ***** ***** ****** **** **** ***-*****, ***, ********* *****/****, IPv6, ******** ****, ** ****, **** ***** *** ****** ***** of $*** ** ****.

** ***'* **** (***) * ****** **** **** ******* *** its **, ** * ****** **** ***** ** * *** form ******, ** * ****** **** *** *** ***** *****. We **** **** * ****** **** **** ** ** **% of *** ****** ************, **** *** *** *** ************* ******* on *****, ** ********, ** *******, ** ********* ***** **** trying ** **** ****** ** * *** *********. ** ******* by ******* *** ***** *********, ****** *** *** **** ***** ahead (*** ****** *** $***, ***** ****** *** $**, ***.).

**** ***** *** ********, *** **********, ***. ** **** *****, we ***'* **** "***" ** **** ** ** **** "******".

***** **** *** ************ *********, * *** ******** **** **** A,B,C,D.

* **** *** * ********* ****, * ****mathematical ***** ******, that would work like this: Whenever IPVM would measure the performance of a camera's stated specification, during normal testing, the difference between that and the stated spec would affect the manufacturer's fudge factor for that spec. Sounds complicated, but an concrete example might help. N

*** ********, **** ********* *** ******* ***** ** ***** ***'* U-WDRVII ********, *** **** **** *** ** ** ****** ******* range ******* ** *** ******** *****, *** ****** ***** ** fudge ****** ** -****.You ********* **** *** ******* ************ ** *** ****** ** *** ***** ******.

*** **** ***** ** **** *** ************ *** *** ***** abysmal ** ******* ***** ******** ** *** ******. **** **** ****** *** **** *****. *****! **** ******** -25 ** +* *********!

******** ** *** ** **** **** ** ********** ** **** degree, **** ** **** * *** ** *** ** *** there ******* *** **** ************* * **** ****** *** ***** the **** ****...

***, *** ****** * *** ******** **** *** ******* ** your ********** ******** ** ******* ******:

** **** ** *** ****** ******* **** ******* ******* *** WDR ** ***** ** **** ***** *** ****'* ****?

* ****'* **** ** *** **** ****** **** ****** *** better **********, ** **** **** ***** ***, ** ***** **** Vivotek *** ** * *** **** *****?

*** *** ** ******** ** ** **** **** *** ******* and **** **** *** **** ** ******* ****. ** ***'* just **** ** * *** **** ********** *** * *** more ******.

***** **** * **** ****, *** * **** *** '*********' concept **** *,*,*,*,*, ***.

******** ** ***** ** ***** ** ********** *******, ** * combination ** ********** ******* *** ****'* ********.. :*

**********, **** ****** **** ** * *** ************'* *********, **'* just *** ****** ** ** **** ** ****** ******* ********.

** ******, * **** **** *** ********* ******* ** ********** arguments ***** ******* ********* ** * * ** * *, is ** * *- ** * *+, ***.

*'* ****** **** **** * **** ** *** **** ********* that ****** *** ********** ****** *** ***** ** *** ********* that.

***** *** *****/******* *** ******* ** ** ********* **** ** soon ** *** ************ ***** ****** *** ************* ***** **** in ******** ** ** ** **** **** ******** ***********?