Engadget finally does their battery run down "test"

[BigDinCA]

Engadget lazy.

I know. I'm ridiculous to expect a thread and subsequent conversation about another website to actually have a link posted. Nobody else on this site ever posts a link and very few websites themselves actually use links. The more I think about it the more it seems that Hypertext Transfer Protocol is stupid, just on principle.

I hope at this point you have recognized the sarcasm. But thanks for the link, except your link just goes to engadget's home page, not the actual page this thread refers to. Here's the correct link, should anyone need it.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/10/htc-evo-4g-lte-for-sprint-review/

 

[DougB541#CB]

really?

 

[BigDinCA]

Yep.

 

[Glenn]

Well in all fairness I'm sure some people out there just leave there bluetooth on like myself for those who have it automatically pair with there car or other devices rather than having to always turn it on and off... I know I cannot be the only one that leaves on BT... other than that... yeah I agree that LTE and wifi should be turned off

9 hrs is respectable considering they said that it was a video that was constantly running... so those who don't use there phones that hardcore should even get more hours yes?

I leave my Bluetooth on all the time, and answer my phone with my Bluetooth headset, which is usually either sitting on the desk next to the phone, or in a carrying pouch. I like not having one of my hand tied to answer the phone, with extended calls causing pain in my ear with the phone pressed up against me.

 

[sabbys]

Excellent thread. Thanks for the link. Oh wait.......

First of all, there was already a thread titled "EVO LTE reviews" (updated to "EVO LTE reviews (latest: Droid Life 5/14)" after I posted this thread). I did not want to create a redundant review discussion - I wanted to start a discussion on Engadget's updated battery test.

Second, I created this post so I would not start a second discussion branch on the above mentioned thread.

Third I felt this was newsworthy enough item for a topic of discussion in and of itself.

Forth, I pasted the whole text of the battery test portion of the review from Engadget's site:

a) so people would not have to jump out of my post to read that section and return to this thread to discuss it.
b) because not knowing for sure how to get an # or "go-to" link to that section of text from the review page, a link would just drop folks at the top with them having to scroll themselves to find the relevant section.

Fifth, I thought that if someone was piqued regarding the review itself they might have seen the proper thread that already had all links which had been up for a couple of days and had been staying at the top for quite a while (see first point).

Sixth, the target audience was addressed to those who had already read aforementioned thread containing all the necessary links.

Last, in adding a general Engadget link that would send folks out to that page I was concerned that a general Engadget review discussion would occur here where that was not the intention.

sabbys

 

[BigDinCA]

I was asking for a link to the original article. I wasn't asking for your first born child or your ATM pin code. Moreover, what I was asking for would be considered by nearly everyone who posts in these or any other forums to be standard protocol or etiquette, however you want to look at it. Kinda' like not typing in all capital letters. Your first 3 points are in the same vein, so I will say this: it is a newsworthy item and I was happy to read the thread. I can understand you not wanting to see your point bogged down in a similar thread that is pushing 150 comments. Hell, I even "thanked" the original post!

But (and this goes to your fourth and fifth points) reading a single paragraph that you copy and paste does not give me any perspective about the review or the reviewer who I may or may not agree with. Also when you copy and paste, the text appears to be yours. So at first glance it looks like you posted an update to your own post. You don't make the type bold-face or italicised or differentiate it in any way. It took a second to realize that you were actually quoting a different source. I've read all of the reviews on this device, as I'm sure most people here have done as well. Do I specifically remember what site A said vs. site B or site C? Not so much. They tend to be a blur. So it's nice to hit the link and get a quick refresher. And hitting that link, by the way, opens a new tab on my PC or my phone. It doesn't navigate away from this thread. You would rather have me navigate away from this thread back to the forums; then to the appropriate thread listing the relevant info you were discussing here; then navigate that thread to find the link to the info you were discussing here; then click that link which opens a new tab, but then I have to navigate back to the forums (again) and then back to this thread (again). Which of those sounds easier? I understand that it isn't back-breaking labor in either case, but it is a matter of simplicity.

As for your last 2 points, you can't dictate the target audience of a thread. None of us can. The best you can do is put it in the correct forum and sub-forum (i.e. HTC Android Phones > Sprint HTC EVO Forums) and then everyone else gets a crack at it. If you wanted to address your points only to people who had read the other thread regarding all of the device reviews, that's where you should have put your comments, but we've already discussed why they were not posted in that thread. And while I can appreciate your not wanting to get into a discussion of Engadget or their reviews in general, you'll see that 3 responses in, your thread turned into exactly that:

I hate Edgadget reviews & their podcast is even worse there's no reason to have the wifi and lte on if its not connected

And then the topic turned to comments on the review site itself.

I'm not trying to be a schmuck here, although it may appear that way, but I certainly don't think asking for a source link is asking for much. You've done it in other treads that you have started. And one of those (wait for it........... ) was an Engadget article! All that being said, I do appreciate the update on the review because we're all looking for some more anecdotal information on long-term battery life from this device.

 

[DougB541#CB]

really?

 

[BigDinCA]

Yep.