Colonial Photo & Hobby

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Sandman:
From recommendation from Tony, I went to Colonial
Photo and Hobby, just to check it out. Was a really small
store with one half hobby and the other photo-related stuff.
Pretty cramped, but really nice british salesman that I talked
to.

Eric Stevens:
Here is their web site. It gives some idea of their size.
http://www.colonialphotohobby.com/index.htm

Sandman:
Uh, yeah? I was there, remember? It was a tiny store. Why is this
a problem for you? Do you have some form of pride invested into
the size of this store? Why? What's it to you?

Size is a relative thing, especially if you judge by the size of B&H
or similar.

Colonial was slightly bugger than B&H, but B&H was also very tiny.

Here is Camera & Camera, my preferred store in Auckland. This what
they sell: https://www.camera-camera.com/

And here is what they sell it in: http://tinyurl.com/ku9es8f

Physically they are not large but judging by what they do, they are
quite a big store. At least they feel that way to me.

I'm not sure what I should do with this information.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Whisky-dave wrote:

Sandman:
The photo on their site makes it look bigger than it is,

Well there's a suprise, but it still looked far bigger to me than
where I brought my 2nd camera. I can tell even from the outside.

How so? THe store is 65% hobby and 35% camera products.

Sandman:
since it's taken with a wide-angle lens. It's really cramped and
one small counter with some cameras behind. They have lots of
stuff cramped into the shelves, for sure, but the store itself is
pretty small.

But it doesn't look as small as where I brough my camera not from
the inside or out, I did notice the double swing doors.

I'm not sure what the size of a store where you bought a camera have to do
with anything.

Sandman:
I don't mind small stores, though, so it's no problem to me.

Neither do I, I just wouldn't call the colonial... store small

It's tiny.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Tony Cooper:
I think, based on a comment by you some
time ago, I did check a Best Buy and found one of 24
that wouldn't turn on and reported that information
here. I wouldn't call that "often".

nospam:
you think wrong.

Tony Cooper:
Well, you consider 4-point-something percent of
the display models to be without a battery to be enough to
be "often", so that shows your aptitude in assessing a
problem. It does cast doubt on your use of "numerous",
though.

nospam:
where did you come up with 4.something% ? oh yea, your
ass.

Tony Cooper:
24 cameras on display, 1 non-working (presumably w/o battery)
4.something percent non-working. An even 4% would be less than
one unit.

Sandman:
Ironic that you should talk about problem-assesing when your
number is based on one visit to one store.

Yep. That's what he said, right at the beginning. It was entirely
clear what his calculations were based on.

Huh? I was talking to Tony here, did you reply to the wrong message?

Tony visited one store and then were all sarcastic about nospam's "problem
assesing" aptitude, which was hilariously ironic, when his own was pretty
much non-existant.

Tony Cooper:
It's right up above. You need to download an app to do the
math?

Sandman:
And classic troll insults.

Well, nospam's inability to recognise what was being calculated was
a little disconcerting. If I had made the same error at the age of
10 I expect my teacher would have made an equivalent comment.

No, nospam just didn't assume that Tony would be stupid enough to make a
general claim about camera functioning based on ONE visit to ONE store and
then claim it was the actual percentage.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

One store, one informal survey, is miles ahead of a vague claim of
"often".

It is hilarious that you actually believe this, old man.

Better than a visual airplane aisle market share analysis.



--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

Tony Cooper:
Actually, I am sorry that Jonas was not pleased with the store.
I do try to provide information about this city, and specialty
information if requested, to any visitors. I rather suspected
that nothing I recommended would be favorably commented on here,
though. I was certainly not surprised to not to see a "Thanks
for the information" about the information about the store and
the directions. Someone with a bit more class would have done
so.

Sandman:
Haha, you're quite the whiner, aren't you? How about the multitude
of times I've corrected you on technical issues and you've never
thanked me,

If it ever happens, I'll thank you.

No you didn't, liar.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

i'd estimate that in somewhere around half the visits, there is at
least one problem camera on display, either visually, such as
missing a lens or otherwise obviously broken, or something wrong
in actual testing, such as with a dead battery or otherwise
non-functional.

so it's not 4%.

It is 4-point-something for the one store that I reported on.
Actual figures used, not "way more" and "probably" or "based on my
experience".

It certainly is based on your very very narrow experience with one single
store.

I've made no claim for Best Buy stores other than the one store that
I actually checked out.

Which renders the claim as statistical information worthless.

You, however, use the broad brush without actually checking.

You mean, other than his explicit claim about: "I'd estimate that in
somewhere around half the visits", which means that he has at least visited
enough stores for a number of them being "about half", which puts it
roughly in at least around ten stores (4/10 is "about half"), so he already
has ten times as much statistical data than you (i.e. infintaely more,
since you have none).

All it really points out is that some Best Buy managers do a better
job than others in seeing that the display products are functional
and in working order.

No it doesn't.


--
Sandman[.net]

On 2014-04-16 13:34:11 +0000, Sandman said:

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Sandman:
From recommendation from Tony, I went to Colonial
Photo and Hobby, just to check it out. Was a really small
store with one half hobby and the other photo-related stuff.
Pretty cramped, but really nice british salesman that I talked
to.

Eric Stevens:
Here is their web site. It gives some idea of their size.
http://www.colonialphotohobby.com/index.htm

Sandman:
Uh, yeah? I was there, remember? It was a tiny store. Why is this
a problem for you? Do you have some form of pride invested into
the size of this store? Why? What's it to you?

Size is a relative thing, especially if you judge by the size of B&H
or similar.

Colonial was slightly bugger than B&H, but B&H was also very tiny.

"bugger"???

"...B&H was also very tiny."???

None of that response makes any sense at all.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , nospam
wrote:

I think, based on a comment by you some time ago, I did check a Best
Buy and found one of 24 that wouldn't turn on and reported that
information here. I wouldn't call that "often".

you think wrong.

Well, you consider 4-point-something percent of the display models to
be without a battery to be enough to be "often", so that shows your
aptitude in assessing a problem. It does cast doubt on your use of
"numerous", though.

where did you come up with 4.something% ? oh yea, your ass.

24 cameras on display, 1 non-working (presumably w/o battery) =
4.something percent non-working. An even 4% would be less than one
unit.

there were way more than 24 cameras on display at the best buys i've
been at and i didn't check every single camera to see if every single
one was functional, therefore any numbers you pull from your ass are
going to be incorrect (not that there was any doubt).

there were probably 4-5 slrs (don't remember) and i only looked at slrs
and of those, just nikon and canon. i don't know (nor care) how many of
the compacts were functional but based on my experience, there were
likely to be several that had one problem or another.

i'd estimate that in somewhere around half the visits, there is at
least one problem camera on display, either visually, such as missing a
lens or otherwise obviously broken, or something wrong in actual
testing, such as with a dead battery or otherwise non-functional.

so it's not 4%.

i happened to be near a best buy today and had some time to spare so i
stopped to check the cameras, phones and computers.

they had 6 nikon slrs, one of which (a d7100) had no lens which made it
non-functional and all i could do was look at its menus. the same thing
happened a few years ago with a d7000 (at a different best buy).

i didn't count how many canons there were, but the 60d didn't work
properly. the 70d did, as did a rebel.

all of the slrs had a cable running out of the battery compartment,
which eliminates one failure mode. however, the compacts did not and of
the couple i tried, one had a dead battery.

the phones were mostly dummy models, although they did have a couple
that did work. one of the imacs was not paired with its mouse so it was
non-functional and one of the macbooks had its display set wrong.

overall, not a particularly good score.

On 16 Apr 2014 14:05:04 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Tony Cooper:
I think, based on a comment by you some
time ago, I did check a Best Buy and found one of 24
that wouldn't turn on and reported that information
here. I wouldn't call that "often".

nospam:
you think wrong.

Tony Cooper:
Well, you consider 4-point-something percent of
the display models to be without a battery to be enough to
be "often", so that shows your aptitude in assessing a
problem. It does cast doubt on your use of "numerous",
though.

nospam:
where did you come up with 4.something% ? oh yea, your
ass.

Tony Cooper:
24 cameras on display, 1 non-working (presumably w/o battery)
4.something percent non-working. An even 4% would be less than
one unit.

Sandman:
Ironic that you should talk about problem-assesing when your
number is based on one visit to one store.

Yep. That's what he said, right at the beginning. It was entirely
clear what his calculations were based on.

Huh? I was talking to Tony here, did you reply to the wrong message?

No. I was interjecting. I was pointing out something relevant which
you had either missed or were ignoring.

Tony visited one store and then were all sarcastic about nospam's "problem
assesing" aptitude, which was hilariously ironic, when his own was pretty
much non-existant.

Tony wasn't all sarcastic, not even when nospam wrote "where did you
come up with 4.something% ? oh yea, your ass". That was an elementary
error by nospam followed by an unwarranted insult. I don't think
Tony's response" as below was out of line. nospam should have felt
embarrassed rather unfairly insulted.

Tony Cooper:
It's right up above. You need to download an app to do the
math?

Sandman:
And classic troll insults.

Well, nospam's inability to recognise what was being calculated was
a little disconcerting. If I had made the same error at the age of
10 I expect my teacher would have made an equivalent comment.

No, nospam just didn't assume that Tony would be stupid enough to make a
general claim about camera functioning based on ONE visit to ONE store and
then claim it was the actual percentage.

Which is probably why Tony didn't do that. I suggest you read it
again.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 16 Apr 2014 14:16:52 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

i'd estimate that in somewhere around half the visits, there is at
least one problem camera on display, either visually, such as
missing a lens or otherwise obviously broken, or something wrong
in actual testing, such as with a dead battery or otherwise
non-functional.

so it's not 4%.

It is 4-point-something for the one store that I reported on.
Actual figures used, not "way more" and "probably" or "based on my
experience".

It certainly is based on your very very narrow experience with one single
store.

I've made no claim for Best Buy stores other than the one store that
I actually checked out.

Which renders the claim as statistical information worthless.

.... except for the one store, as Tony stated.

You, however, use the broad brush without actually checking.

Where did he use a broad brush?

You mean, other than his explicit claim about: "I'd estimate that in
somewhere around half the visits", which means that he has at least visited
enough stores for a number of them being "about half", which puts it
roughly in at least around ten stores (4/10 is "about half"), so he already
has ten times as much statistical data than you (i.e. infintaely more,
since you have none).

Do you really call an estimate "statistical data"?

All it really points out is that some Best Buy managers do a better
job than others in seeing that the display products are functional
and in working order.

No it doesn't.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens