96
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Created page with "This operation seems at least partly useless. To answer your arguments under "''Why focus on smartphone boxes?''" : # '''Hidden Treasures:''' I disagree. It is a stretch to t..."
This operation seems at least partly useless.
To answer your arguments under "''Why focus on smartphone boxes?''" :
# '''Hidden Treasures:''' I disagree. It is a stretch to talk about a goldmine : smartphone boxes contain only very few and superficial technical specifications.
# '''Completeness and Accuracy:''' I mostly disagree. As said above, the completeness enhancement would be quite minimal if based only on smartphone boxes. Also, in order to obtain every information, one would often need to take photos of the 6 sides of the box, which will further slow down and reduce operation participation compared to normal Open Food Facts operations (which are already, to my knowledge, not particularly popular). I agree, though, that adding photos enhance the trust that people can have in the data ; but this also implies the need to take photos of the 6 sides of the box.
# '''Accessibility:''' I disagree. This doesn't imply the source of data should be smartphone boxes instead of something else : accessibility depends on data presentation, not on data source. Open Food Facts could contain the most technical specifications, it doesn't impact accessibility at all if the product page is separated between something like "Overview" and "Detailed" sections, or if there is a "Display/Hide details" button. Also, if a person doesn't have "''the technical know-how to navigate complex smartphone settings or decipher online specifications''", that person will not decipher the photo of the smartphone box talking about "''VoLTE calls''", "''IPS display''", "''CDMA support''", "''1400 mAh battery''", "''QVGA camera''", etc either.
# '''Packaging Insights:''' I mostly disagree. When talking about packaging materials and sustainability efforts (and contrary to food), the packaging is entirely insignificant compared to the smartphone itself. I agree, though, that data about included accessories is very useful, but this data, like the rest, can also be found elsewhere (manufacturer's website, third-party databases, etc).
In summary, taking photos is good for improving trust, but depending on the operation goals, all of this could/should be completed, if not replaced, by importing data from reliable sources (manufacturers' websites, [https://dbpedia.org/page/Smartphone DBpedia], [https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?limit=500&offset=0&profile=default&search=phone&title=Special:Search&ns0=1&ns120=1 Wikidata], third-party databases like GSMchoice or GSMarena or PhoneDB, etc). This would be a lot easier, faster, and more exhaustive than manually transcribing relevant information from the boxes photos, and as reliable.
-- [[User:Oblackio|Oblackio]] ([[User talk:Oblackio|talk]]) 21:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
To answer your arguments under "''Why focus on smartphone boxes?''" :
# '''Hidden Treasures:''' I disagree. It is a stretch to talk about a goldmine : smartphone boxes contain only very few and superficial technical specifications.
# '''Completeness and Accuracy:''' I mostly disagree. As said above, the completeness enhancement would be quite minimal if based only on smartphone boxes. Also, in order to obtain every information, one would often need to take photos of the 6 sides of the box, which will further slow down and reduce operation participation compared to normal Open Food Facts operations (which are already, to my knowledge, not particularly popular). I agree, though, that adding photos enhance the trust that people can have in the data ; but this also implies the need to take photos of the 6 sides of the box.
# '''Accessibility:''' I disagree. This doesn't imply the source of data should be smartphone boxes instead of something else : accessibility depends on data presentation, not on data source. Open Food Facts could contain the most technical specifications, it doesn't impact accessibility at all if the product page is separated between something like "Overview" and "Detailed" sections, or if there is a "Display/Hide details" button. Also, if a person doesn't have "''the technical know-how to navigate complex smartphone settings or decipher online specifications''", that person will not decipher the photo of the smartphone box talking about "''VoLTE calls''", "''IPS display''", "''CDMA support''", "''1400 mAh battery''", "''QVGA camera''", etc either.
# '''Packaging Insights:''' I mostly disagree. When talking about packaging materials and sustainability efforts (and contrary to food), the packaging is entirely insignificant compared to the smartphone itself. I agree, though, that data about included accessories is very useful, but this data, like the rest, can also be found elsewhere (manufacturer's website, third-party databases, etc).
In summary, taking photos is good for improving trust, but depending on the operation goals, all of this could/should be completed, if not replaced, by importing data from reliable sources (manufacturers' websites, [https://dbpedia.org/page/Smartphone DBpedia], [https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?limit=500&offset=0&profile=default&search=phone&title=Special:Search&ns0=1&ns120=1 Wikidata], third-party databases like GSMchoice or GSMarena or PhoneDB, etc). This would be a lot easier, faster, and more exhaustive than manually transcribing relevant information from the boxes photos, and as reliable.
-- [[User:Oblackio|Oblackio]] ([[User talk:Oblackio|talk]]) 21:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)