is there any chance to see a direct comparison to the C940 yoga?

To NBC/Editor: You appear to be ignoring the comments now, but in case that's not true, you should know this review is missing the laptop tag, causing it to not show up properly when filtering. Also, you really should put the convertible tag with the other main filters on the main page instead of burying it under the "restrict" pop-up.

Quote from: Mark S. on October 04, 2020, 21:03:51

Quote from: vertigo on October 04, 2020, 18:53:18
Wow, that's a great approach, to insult your readers, without whom you have no business and no work.

Indeed, my previous comment criticizing the ratings system was also deleted for no apparent reason. So, it seems that criticism is not appreciated by the great editors. Good day and good riddance.

I noticed that as well. If the other comment were truly by somebody pretending to be an editor (not sure why, and it seems more likely it was the editor, but anything's possible I suppose and people do some bizarre stuff, so it wouldn't really surprise me somebody would do that), it still doesn't explain why they took your post down as well.

In that case I apologize for the harshness of my response, but stand by my analysis of some of the reviews and articles here. While I wouldn't buy a laptop based off of one review from one site, I always start at NBC and go from there, since the reviews are (generally) highly detailed, standardized, and consistently laid out. For example, other review sites check battery life by simply turning the display to min or max brightness, which instantly shows they have no idea what they're doing, and with NBC it's easy to jump straight to the sections I care most about, allowing me to quickly rule out a notebook based on keyboard, battery life, display, etc. However, I've come across several reviews here that gloss over areas that are generally well-covered, which I always find disappointing.

I also wish you guys would do better at ensuring you carry important negatives from the review into the summary (e.g. I've seen multiple examples of PWM, high temps, etc not listed in the cons and even not mentioned in the summary) and holding manufacturers accountable for poor decisions. For example, the small arrow keys are something that I hate, and I'm fairly certain many others do as well, yet that's hardly even mentioned, much less made a big deal of. Same with home/end/pgup/pgdn keys (or lack thereof), lack of webcam shutters/switches, (micro)SD card slots that the cards stick out of, etc. Manufacturers are going to keep putting out products with all these various compromises if they're not called out on and knocked for it.

And I would really like to know this reviewer's justification for such a high score on a refreshed, expensive, supposedly high-end laptop that uses a now year-old CPU when laptops are just, at the same time, starting to release with Tiger Lake. And not only that, but a) they used Comet Lake instead of Ice Lake, and so it still has UHD620 graphics, and b) the main reason for doing so would be for better CPU performance, yet it doesn't even achieve that.

Quote from: vertigo on October 04, 2020, 18:53:18
Wow, that's a great approach, to insult your readers, without whom you have no business and no work.

Indeed, my previous comment criticizing the ratings system was also deleted for no apparent reason. So, it seems that criticism is not appreciated by the great editors. Good day and good riddance.

Quote from: vertigo on October 04, 2020, 18:53:18
Wow, that's a great approach, to insult your readers, without whom you have no business and no work. You say you want smart readers, but when readers don't just buy into what you shovel them and actually question the logic behind your reviews, you attack us. So which is it, do you want smart readers or sheep? And what I don't understand is how you can give one of the highest ratings I've seen to an expensive refresh of a laptop that not only updates it to the last-gen CPU but, according to your very own review actually performs worse than its predecessor. A reviewer worth a damn would call the manufacturer out on that and their score would reflect that total failure (not to mention the poor battery life and high temps, despite which it still somehow managed to achieve a very high score).

Credibility is everything in journalism, and you're quickly losing yours. And based on some of the sloppy reviews and ridiculous articles and "reviews" I've read here, I wager I know more about tech than some of your writers. But keep acting like you're infallible and everything you say is unquestionably right and if your readers do question it they're tech-illiterate idiots. See how far that gets you.

The user "Benjamin H," who you are referring to in your post, was not our editor but someone else not related to Notebookcheck using his name. His comment and one other were deleted. We would never insult our readers and ask the same in return from everyone participating in the discussions here.

Wow, that's a great approach, to insult your readers, without whom you have no business and no work. You say you want smart readers, but when readers don't just buy into what you shovel them and actually question the logic behind your reviews, you attack us. So which is it, do you want smart readers or sheep? And what I don't understand is how you can give one of the highest ratings I've seen to an expensive refresh of a laptop that not only updates it to the last-gen CPU but, according to your very own review actually performs worse than its predecessor. A reviewer worth a damn would call the manufacturer out on that and their score would reflect that total failure (not to mention the poor battery life and high temps, despite which it still somehow managed to achieve a very high score).

Credibility is everything in journalism, and you're quickly losing yours. And based on some of the sloppy reviews and ridiculous articles and "reviews" I've read here, I wager I know more about tech than some of your writers. But keep acting like you're infallible and everything you say is unquestionably right and if your readers do question it they're tech-illiterate idiots. See how far that gets you.

Quote from: vertigo on October 04, 2020, 06:01:12give scores that don't align with the review. Either the reviewers are biased or they just don't understand the concept of scoring.

That certainly is a possibility. Another possibility is that it is you who doesn't understand it.  ;)

There is a reason why scores exist and why dedicated, written summaries exist.

The score is based on a comparable scoring system that is mostly based on measurements and specs.

The verdict meanwhile can take more aspects into account - such as price, market position and such. The verdict can contain the subjective opinion of the reviewer.

A device can be very good on its own - at the same time, it might still not be worth a recommendation if there are better options.

The idea of Notebookcheck is to pursue as much objectivity as possible. This concept has its limits (can't really rate some things like design objectively), but personally, I think it works much better than purely subjective reviews from other sites.

So they finally refresh this to a 10th gen just as 11th gen is rolling out, they don't even use Ice Lake so it could at least have a somewhat decent GPU, and it not only doesn't perform at it's full capacity, which makes choosing Comet Lake even more pointless, but it's actually worse than its predecessor running Whiskey Lake (8th gen), it has poor battery life, and it can be used as a space heater, yet somehow it earns an 88%??? Even a year ago I wouldn't agree with this rating, now it's just blatantly absurd. At this time, and for the asking price, this laptop is a joke and should be rated more like 78%.

This is my preferred site for reviews due to the depth and the standardized battery testing, but I've learned to take the ratings and the pros/cons at the end with a grain of salt; they tend to often glaze over important things (e.g. PWM is almost never mentioned in the summary cons and often isn't even mentioned in the summary at all) and give scores that don't align with the review. Either the reviewers are biased or they just don't understand the concept of scoring.