Originally Posted By: kschachn
Well, call it hostility all you like, take it personal, make jokes about the F.I.A. (whatever that is), say we don't have input because we haven't used the product, or say whatever you want to say - but it isn't personal. If someone wants to test something it needs to be a valid test.
The only thing worse than what you suggested would be to take two random drives and compare those. Actually that would be marginally better since it is possible that two random drives would be identical. In your scenario, the only thing you assure is that the two trips are not identical.
No matter what you do, since it is basically an uncontrolled test the results will always be anecdotal. But don't you see that the results of the test you propose would have no meaning whatsoever? Those are two completely different routes.
This is the whole thing with the additive crowd. And once again, it's not about the additive! It's about the analysis of its effectiveness. The results you are going to see, or not see, aren't that big and will be easy to lose in the noise.
Stop taking it personal and retreating behind the straw man wall of "you haven't used it". Rather, devise and run a better test that aims to eliminate variables as much as possible. That's the only way any kind of credible evidence is going to be obtained.
Well, call it hostility all you like, take it personal, make jokes about the F.I.A. (whatever that is), say we don't have input because we haven't used the product, or say whatever you want to say - but it isn't personal. If someone wants to test something it needs to be a valid test.
The only thing worse than what you suggested would be to take two random drives and compare those. Actually that would be marginally better since it is possible that two random drives would be identical. In your scenario, the only thing you assure is that the two trips are not identical.
No matter what you do, since it is basically an uncontrolled test the results will always be anecdotal. But don't you see that the results of the test you propose would have no meaning whatsoever? Those are two completely different routes.
This is the whole thing with the additive crowd. And once again, it's not about the additive! It's about the analysis of its effectiveness. The results you are going to see, or not see, aren't that big and will be easy to lose in the noise.
Stop taking it personal and retreating behind the straw man wall of "you haven't used it". Rather, devise and run a better test that aims to eliminate variables as much as possible. That's the only way any kind of credible evidence is going to be obtained.