I ran into this last year. Customer bought this window AC with special high efficiency heater, not knowing (nothing in the literature actually explains it) it was basically pointless in really cold climates. So I wrote a second review explaining the whole thing. Now the two reviews are presented as best best and best worst, like a political news show:
http://www.amazon.com/Frigidaire-FRA08PZU1-Compact-Window-Conditioner/product-reviews/B004P8K382/
The internet was supposed to provide liberation from from the influence of mass communication. But micro communication has proven just as vulnerable to manipulation by those who earn enough to make it worth while.
Perfect example.
The issue with the internet as a venue to provide liberation from "mass media" is that is then provides a venue for mass media.
Some topics are just too complicated for someone with no background to really understand.
Savvy advertisers/marketeers realize that, and strive to "Simplify" the selection criteria. As most humans have trouble keeping more than about 3 criteria in a weighable context at the same time, THREE selection criteria are the most often chosen.
A good example is the "Good Better Best" options when you say get to the tire store (Sears, PepBoys, etc...). They will list a few attributes under each of the Good better best categories, say, mileage warranty/treadwear, heat resistance and wet traction....(Price of course is in lock step with good better best...) so that the consumer can focus upon those selection criteria, and then make a decision.
The consumer than scrolls across the criteria, and, if all he cares about is how long they last, he chooses the one with the highest treadwear, and so forth. As the criterial are directly derived from the tire makers own ratings (Sidewall data, such as AAA, etc), its an easy chart to make, and, easy for Joe Public to use in a decision process.
The chart will not TELL Joe Consumer/Public/Pigeon that the numbers are somewhat arbitrary, assigned by the maker, and, certainly not that the numbers are not necessarily the most important criteria per se, etc.....it keeps it simple...weigh 3 criteria, pick one, pay the cashier.
In expert witness work - we run into this all the time. NOTHING being discussed is within the experience or knowledge of the Jury, or even the Judge most of the time.
It would be akin to you being in a Jury and two experts testify that in some language you never heard of, one expert "proves" XYZB means love, and the other expert "proves" that XYZB means fealty.....and, the defendant is innocent if it means love, and guilty if it means fealty. Both experts say a bunch of linguistic jargon that includes no words or concepts you are familiar with, both give examples that they say illustrates why they are right and the other side is wrong, and you have to decide who's right.
Most jurors will simply try to gauge who's the most "expert" of the two experts, and, will most likely pick the guy with the nice gray beard and doctorate from Harvard over the clean shaven younger guy from Rutgers, as Harvard and grey beard beats clean shaven from Rutgers in court. (Statistically at least)
One of my favorites was where two experts from Harvard conclusively proved that it was physically impossible for calcium flow within cells (A bio-effect) to be influenced by magnetic fields, and therefore their client (Who happened to be a large entity which sold the masses stuff delivered along routes lined by large magnetic fields...), was NOT causing bio-effects to those exposed.
The side that lost, as it was proved, in court, that calcium flow could NOT be influenced by magnetic fields, took the concept, and developed a system that healed reticent bone fractures, by, yes, influencing the flow of calcium in cells to route calcium into bone fractures to heal them. So, it obviously worked, it healed a lot of fractures that otherwise remained unhealed for even years, and, was proven in court (Harvard/Beards) to not be even possible.
