Hi! We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
But as we’re losing ad-revenue from this then why not make a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
Joined: Aug 25, 2004 Posts: 634 Location: Lincolnshire, England
Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2005 6:10 pm Post subject:
Of course, Rattle, newer purchasers can read these threads. However, look at the sheer volume that has developed. How is a prospective purchaser, who may be new to Pocket PC navigating, or even to computing generally, to see the wood for the trees? What about those, for example, who see the title "Executive Editor" and assume that he must have it right?
The forum team have done rather more than give one point of view: they have represented what they say as fact, and have not corrected it. Furthermore, they have clouded the issue further when their errors have been pointed out. Whether these failures have been deliberate or accidental, I am not going to speculate, but it is clear that corrective action is still needed.
Contrary to what you suggest, Rattle, there is an urgent need for the forum team to revise the review.
Joined: Aug 25, 2004 Posts: 634 Location: Lincolnshire, England
Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2005 8:52 pm Post subject:
I hesitate to hog the thread, but I have missed a crucial point.
Thinking back to when I purchased CP 5, I did not even consider raking through the forums. The review left me in no doubt that this was a superb, even unsurpassed, application. Only when I started having problems did I even consider looking to the forum. It was not that I could not be bothered (see Rattle's post above), but that I had been given to believe that there was no reason to worry.
What about those who come across the review now? Without the experience of the forum that we now have, why should they be tempted to look further. No doubt, also, there will be those who, like me six months ago, have never before used a forum. Are they likely to look past this glowing review? How are they to know what to expect?
Come on, team, let's see you get this straightened out. Then, you can carry on with your heads held high.
Joined: Aug 16, 2004 Posts: 589 Location: Hampshire, UK
Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2005 9:33 pm Post subject:
Sigh! Ponderous, who woke up the PC brigade and calls an obvious tounge in the cheek touch of irony/joke something tastless...all humour is tastless....double sigh! Come on Ponderous, chill out. Nonetheless I hereby apologise to anyone I offended, except the left handed people...damn that one just slipped out...I just can't help it I guess
Oh, Latvians...very cool people.
Anyhow, Darren is understanably annoyed as this is not a job for them but a very well run hobby. I don't know anyone here is is not grateful for this board in one form or another. However I am with Ponderous, PC humour to one side(which one on the list were you P?), in that Dave & Co should at least consider rewording the CP5 to reflect the obvious issues with routing. Somthing in the form of a revisit dealing with the specific route issues others are having. Skippys routes would be a good start. As the big P points out it would "help" new readers who are tempted by, what is now, an old review. Is the issue of possibly upsetting ALK a problem here? I can certainly understand that this would make overly critical reviews tricky.
Hugs and kisses _________________ TomTom 720
Nokia Lumia 800 with Nokia Maps, iPhone 4S with Apple Maps (sigh)
Joined: 11/07/2002 14:36:40 Posts: 23848 Location: Hampshire, UK
Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2005 9:47 pm Post subject:
topgazza wrote:
Is the issue of possibly upsetting ALK a problem here? I can certainly understand that this would make overly critical reviews tricky.
I can categoricaly assure you that we have absolutely no problem offending any supplier or manufacturer where it is justified, we have always prided ourselves as an impartial resource and indeed impartiality is our raison d'etre, this site started because of the problems we all had with the first Navman GPS Jackets and we shouted from the roof tops about them!
What I do have an issue with is being brow beaten by one or two users into amending an review when the vast and silent majority have no issue, he who shouts loudest is not always righteous. There are approx a dozen contibutors to this thread including Team members and moderators which does not to me suggest an issue that affects or concerns the vast majority.
However, I will offer the hand of peace, I will put this to the whole team and discuss if an addendum discussing this issue or perhaps highlighting the existence of this thread is added. I make no promises.
I will close by re-iterating that we are not responsible for the problems nor am I happy that certain people seem hell bent on drawing members of the team into the fracas in their crusade to convince all that the problem exists. _________________ Darren Griffin
Joined: Aug 16, 2004 Posts: 589 Location: Hampshire, UK
Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2005 11:08 pm Post subject:
Can't say fairer than that Darren. I certainly wasn't suggesting you be brow beaten but I guess yourself and Dave etc appear to be disgruntled CP5 owners only route of complaint. ALK couldn't care less. That much is obvious. I think others here like Ponder have a lot of frustration at the lack of feedback from ALK, I'm just amazed by their silence. I personaly would say that any addendum to the CP5 would be of value to the many that read it .
I would take one issue in that it a vociferous minority. I don't think it is its a lot. The Aussie site repeats the same issues, as do several USA sites. I think its more than a coincidence and I suspect that many, me included, just create their routes on the PC and use waypoints becuse the routing is not predictable. I don't have the issue that others have as I do the above actions but an issue there is for sure in the basic program. The fact that people are suggesting programming fixes tells us that.
Problem is that as this market, SAtNav, matures the "all hands to the pumps" approach to product releases with clever bods devising fixes has to become a lesser practice for this business to be taken as anything other than boys toys or for gadget freaks. Its inevitable.
Companies like ALK have professional responsibilities to deliver what they promise and fix what is wrong. The routing in CP5 is seriously flawed , there is no possible arguement against that. People like me have got used to it or work around it and thats not right. They complain about pirating as stifling their funds and they need bizarre registration processes to stop it but fail to support what they sell in a manner thats within any reasonable if not legal expectations. Thats my gripe and if I have given any indication that its with you or the other guys then that wasn't my intention. _________________ TomTom 720
Nokia Lumia 800 with Nokia Maps, iPhone 4S with Apple Maps (sigh)
Joined: Jul 28, 2004 Posts: 61 Location: Poole, Dorset, UK
Posted: Sat Apr 16, 2005 1:49 am Post subject:
As one of the (generally) silent many, I too believe that CP5 is a badly flawed product, and despite putting up with its many deficiencies for nine months I have now voted with my feet towards TomTom.
Now that I am roused I could go on for ever on its limitations, but how can it take ALK so long to localise v ...48; not that it fixes many of the problems. And where's traffic - one of the main reasons I chose the product.
Can I suggest a poll for the many who take a regular interest in what others are saying about the product, but for whatever reason don't want to join in the debate, to say whether they feel that the review should be caveated.
I think this site is a fantastic resource, and respect the founders and mods for their knowledge and commitment, but I for one would break my usual silence and say "yes" in this instance.
Joined: Aug 25, 2004 Posts: 634 Location: Lincolnshire, England
Posted: Sat Apr 16, 2005 7:20 am Post subject:
This is an appropriate time for me too to say how much worse off we would all be if the forum had not been set up. It certainly must have taken hard work, and I am grateful for it.
Topgazza and prusling could have taken took their words right out of my mouth.
If the team will confirm the errors and point out that the recommended tweaks do not work when they make their amendment to the review, that will be much better.
A carefully worded set of caveats in any future review and care in nthe wording of the review itself will be helpful too.
The above three paragraphs do not detract in any way from the first paragraph.
I agree about how lucky we are to have a site like this.
Six months ago I knew absolutely nothing about PDAs or GPS and owe the founders and moderators of the site a huge vote of thanks for providing a resource from which I have learnt everthing I now need to know.
However, I agree that the glowing review that prompted me to buy CoPilot5 instead of TT3 should now be updated to include the caveats and shortcomings that so many of us have discovered during daily usage - and in all fairness that would probably not have shown up in "review testing".
I suspect we shall all watching for the TT5 review with baited breath, wondering whether to ditch CPL5 and invest in better software. But can we ask that the forthcoming review is brutally honest and describes the new TT5 product "warts and all"? _________________ Nokia E65 & TT Nav6
Joined: Aug 25, 2004 Posts: 634 Location: Lincolnshire, England
Posted: Sat Apr 16, 2005 4:48 pm Post subject:
Sorry to say it, but we must not lose sight of the fact that the forum team have long since lost any excuse to believe much what they wrote in the review, or, perhaps even more importantly, regarding the supposed "tweak" solution. They have apparently preferred to throw in specious arguments and inaccurate further statements rather than acknowledge the situation. According to Darren, that might now change, but until the evidence is there, future reviews need to be treated with the utmost caution.
For me, recent reviews and other writings about TT 5 do appear rather evangelical.
Again I say that this does not take away my gratitude for this resource. Let us not forget, however, that to be grateful for a Police force, for example, does not mean that we should look the other way when individual constables, or superintendents or above for that matter, do not appear to be receiving the appropriate training or peer advice.
Joined: 02/11/2002 22:41:59 Posts: 11878 Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posted: Sat Apr 16, 2005 5:13 pm Post subject:
@gripp,
TomTom Navigator 5 plays in a different league than CoPilot 5. It is much more targeted at the beginner driver, and lacks quite some functionality, even compared to TTN3 (we have a side by side article on TTN3.07 vs TTN 2004 which is not too different from TTN5).
As you can also see from the ALK website CoPilot is more targeted at the professional driver, delivery, fleet manager etc. Especially the itinery optimizer is a function that is not seen in any other product (including TomTom) but is vital for multi stop requirements. (Let's leave the route calculation discussion aside for a moment).
What matters in the end is that a product matches your personal expectations and requirements. We can only assist you with that, eventually it's your own decision. _________________ Lutz
Joined: Aug 16, 2004 Posts: 589 Location: Hampshire, UK
Posted: Sat Apr 16, 2005 6:32 pm Post subject:
Fair enough Lutz. But I suspect the disgruntled CP5 users would gladly sacrifice the percieved extra functionality for trustworthy routing. Our man from Suffolk cannot use CP5 with any success for multiple drops as it takes him considerabley longer distances than is required. I don't think you can divorce the function of multi stop dropoffs and the poor routing. The latter is a basic requirement of the former. Unless in the US versions it performs better than the UK ones due to road differences etc
I would agree that CP5, for me, is more solid in its use mainly due to the PC element. But thats it. TT is a simpler point and squirt product....but....TT does the basics as in routing far far better than CP5 and isn't that the whole point of these products.
Another can of worms is the Traffic option which many bought CP5 for and they claimed at launch it would be available "soon". My brother in law maintains that the word "soon" in terms of when it was going to be available has long passed its sell by date and its non appearence would be viewed as justification for a refund if you claim you bought it waiting for that. He's a lawyer. It would still be a hassle though and never any guarantee. He also thinks their claim for never being lost again is dubious if some of the odd routing could be proven. Theres lost and theres lost depending on how you look at it. Again for heavens sake, where are ALK? _________________ TomTom 720
Nokia Lumia 800 with Nokia Maps, iPhone 4S with Apple Maps (sigh)
Joined: Aug 25, 2004 Posts: 634 Location: Lincolnshire, England
Posted: Sat Apr 16, 2005 6:45 pm Post subject:
Lutz says:
Quote:
What matters in the end is that a product matches your personal expectations and requirements. We can only assist you with that, eventually it's your own decision.
And CP 5 does that?
He does not even begin to acknowledge any of the problems. Is he in denial, or what ...? Please tell us.
Of course, Rattle, newer purchasers can read these threads. However, look at the sheer volume that has developed. How is a prospective purchaser, who may be new to Pocket PC navigating, or even to computing generally, to see the wood for the trees? What about those, for example, who see the title "Executive Editor" and assume that he must have it right?
Just where exeactly did you see "executive editor" on that review? Or is that hypothetical user new to navigation, pocket pc and computing in general going to read the review, then open the forums page via the comments link and there read the first post, examine the footnote, detect words "executive editor" and at that moment assume that everything in that review is written in there in blood? This borders on ridiculous, to put it mildly.
Ponderous further wrote:
Quote:
The forum team have done rather more than give one point of view: they have represented what they say as fact, and have not corrected it. Furthermore, they have clouded the issue further when their errors have been pointed out. Whether these failures have been deliberate or accidental, I am not going to speculate, but it is clear that corrective action is still needed.
Contrary to what you suggest, Rattle, there is an urgent need for the forum team to revise the review.
Well, let's get one thing straight here: do you want the future readers to be well informed or do you want the PocketGPS team to suffer, on their knees and begging for your mercy?
Because if it's the former, all you had to do was to consolidate all problem descriptions given by at least yourself and maybe others as well, and post them as one message into the "review comments" discussion thread. Anybody who reads the review will (if only to establish that it was written by the executive editor) also read the thread and thus be informed on all angles of the story. It's as easy as that. Could have done that months ago, without help from anybody. Instead, you choose to spend hours writing up all this nonsense about how THEY are just oh so bad and how for that THEY should do all of the things that you tell them to. I know it's much easier to find a hundred reasons not to do something that one reason to do it, but I suggest you stop making a fool of yourself here.
Ok, enough said about that, hope it is understood that this is with regard to the forum and not ALK and CP as such.
Joined: Aug 25, 2004 Posts: 634 Location: Lincolnshire, England
Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2005 10:51 am Post subject:
Thanks for that, Rattle. As I am sure you must realise, this a question not of begging for mercy, but of misleading information. The team could have been silent if they had wanted early on, even if they did not wish to give an explicit correction. Instead, they continued (and still continue) to compound the confusion.
Yes, I could summarise the issues, but just about every mention of an issue is met by what amounts to an unwarranted rebuttal from the forum team, and I cannot see any summary that I or others might produce being received any differently. My view on this is reinforced by lbendlin's latest post in which he refers to route optimisation without reference to the problems that occur when it is put into use, as described by me last timne he recommended CP 5 on the basis of route optimisation.
The situation now needs to be resolved with a corrective statement from the originators of the misleading information. If that is ridiculous to you, then that is fine.
As for the forum team, please do not be misled into thinking I am after an apology, however appropriate it might be. An accurate account is what is needed, that is all. I do not imagine you are bad, as Rattle tries to imply. You just need to change some important aspects of the way you run the forum.
Sorry mate, but you're just not seeing my point. A person on a forum-enabled website forms their opinion based on all the information, not just the review. Therefore all views will be considered: the reviewer's and the users'. Which one prevails and whether the product gets chosen is everyobody's own choice in the end. Putting a list of problems into the review is not going to increase the credibility of that information, as the fact of this information being in the discussion will not detract from it.
Let me tell you a boring story about how I was buying a laptop I zeroed in on a specific model (Dell Inspiron 9200) and read some glowing reviews about it on a review site (zdnet if I recall correctly). Had I not read also the user comments mentioning problems with a specific WUXGA screen, I would have ordered exactly this configuration. After getting this information (which was not moved into the review to increase the credibility) I decided that the risk of getting a bad screen was too high, so I chose a screen with a lesser resolution. Haven't regretted my chioce.
So, making a summary would disclose the issues and the forum team could write as many rude rebuttals as they like, but, short of deleting the message, everybody would get an objective view of what is, let's face it, an experience report of a few users.
Oh, and please don't go around misquoting people, it doesn't do anyone any justice ;)
Posted: Today Post subject: Pocket GPS Advertising
We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
Have you considered making a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
Hi! We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
But as we’re losing ad-revenue from this then why not make a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in for private messages
Log in
I zeroed in on a specific model (Dell Inspiron 9200) and read some glowing reviews about it on a review site (zdnet if I recall correctly). Had I not read also the user comments mentioning problems with a specific WUXGA screen, I would have ordered exactly this configuration. After getting this information (which was not moved into the review to increase the credibility) I decided that the risk of getting a bad screen was too high, so I chose a screen with a lesser resolution. Haven't regretted my chioce.
