Talk:Batteroo Boost

UL test

It should be noted that the test UL conducted was done exactly as batteroo requested; these kinds of tests by UL are merely "we confirm that by doing these steps, the outcome is that". It was never meant to be a runtime/lifetime test by UL. UL did a statement on that a while ago, unfortunately I failed to find it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.61.9.75 (talk) 09:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

It is in the official report, that is already referenced.

90.145.31.194 (talk) 08:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Missing significance

Don't give a cheap Chinese scam product a platform, delete it from Wikipedia. There isn't anything notable about just another scam product on Indiegogo, so no need to advertise for it on Wikipedia. The article just seems like a paid side-note on some business magazine, nothing that should be kept in an encyclopedia.

It meets our general notability guideline WP:GNG in that multiple, intellectually independent, reliable sources have given substantial coverage to it. Thus, it should be covered here. It may or may not be case that the product is Chinese, a scam, or cheap, but that is not relevant. For example, there are articles on Bernie Madoff and Enron as well as regular things. There are articles on products from China and elsewhere. And there are articles on cheap and expensive products. ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 16:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Boost converter

I've been looking for a reliable, independent electronics references that describes Batteriser. Best I can find is their own descriptions of it being a miniaturized boost converter. --Ronz (talk) 18:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

how about claim 3 of https://www.google.com/patents/US20120121943 ? SageGreenRider (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Also a primary source, but should suffice. --Ronz (talk) 20:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes WP:PRIMARY says in part Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia... I didn't add any interpretation, just a straight quote from claim 3 SageGreenRider (talk) 20:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Promotion in first sentence

Marketing blurbs shouldn't be presented in Wikipedia's voice at all, and shouldn't be given such prominence, re: 'that aims to produce a device that will extend battery life by "up to eight times."' --Ronz (talk) 14:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

OK feel free to change it. SageGreenRider (talk) 15:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Summarizing reviews and comments

While we need to avoid original research, throwing together all reviews, regardless of access to the product and expertise of the reviewer, seems highly inappropriate. Highlighting Jones without details on what he said, especially so. --Ronz (talk) 14:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

OK Feel free to change it. Jones is the one most frequently mentioned in secondary sources. SageGreenRider (talk) 15:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to find GA-quality articles that cover similar topics (new product, commentary/reviews without access to product) to see how best to handle it. --Ronz (talk) 15:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Looks good to me. SageGreenRider (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Expanded Stub

New Wikipedia editor here. I've been doing a ton of research on the Batteriser product and the controversy surrounding it, and felt like the Wikipedia page could benefit greatly from less vagueness about what the product is claimed to do and what the media has said about it. This is the result of my findings. I personally am inclined to believe the Batteriser works (if not as well as advertised, perhaps?), but I've done my best to keep the article neutral in tone, and to make sure it's clear that details about the Batteriser are largely claims from Batteroo, and also to show both sides of the theoretical arguments around what the product does. If you think I've messed up or believe my grammar or style could be adjusted, please help. Any constructive feedback would be great too. Jgiallo (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! As the contributor who created the original stub, the expansion seems pretty good to me, perhaps a little biased toward Batteroo. (FWIW, I can believe the device might squeeze another 5-10% out of a battery but (apart from the possible exceptional/pathological case of a poorly designed device with a ridiculously high cutoff voltage) the claims of 800% more are mere puffery: most devices already have a reasonably good built-in regulator. My $0.02) BTW I always thought it was pronounced batti-Riser as in #RiseUp the voltage... ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 01:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

In my research, I found most claims about 800% actually originated from detractors (I could be mistaken, though). Batteroo advertised 8x more battery life, or 500% more, if my math is right, and that number got taken out of context. As for the pronunciation, I've heard it both ways from friends who are also interested. I don't think Batteroo ever released an official statement of pronunciation, but I could check back on their videos to confirm.Jgiallo (talk) 21:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Something is wrong in your numbers: "8x more" is "800% compared to" or "700% more; and "500% more" is "6x", just like "2 times faster" is "100% faster". Staszek Lem (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, 8x more means 800% more, which means 900% the original. 8x = 800%. <something> more means that something plus the original. 07:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blargg (talk • contribs)

Oh, you're right. Got thrown off by some of the wording and numbers in the Gizmodo article. My bad. Jgiallo (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

OK Their actual claim is "600% life extension" https://vimeo.com/135935197 on the Garmin Golf GPS. I think the Australian video blogger EEVblog guy showed that that was a pathological device that does some sort of weird cut off at a very high value of 1.3V per cell or something. ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 01:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Because of the use of so much marketing press without any better sources to support the content, I've tagged the article. --Ronz (talk) 18:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! But if you have some time, could you instead remove the unsupported (or poorly supported) content, as you see it? Thanks again. ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 18:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Ronz. Part of the problem of writing a page like this is that without product information formally released and more neutralized tests, it's hard to provide any information about it without relying on claims. I tried to do my best to ensure that it's explicit that these are claims, and to provide the counterclaims from other sources, but you're correct. If/when the product ships, I'll be looking to update with substantiated, non-advert claims. Jgiallo (talk) 22:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

IMO right now the article does not contain any fancy claims; neither it a promo in tone, and has a fair amount of criticism. Since there is no product yet, I suggest to stop expanding the article with various beating around the bush in both directions: neither adverts, nor criticism. This is wikipedia; we are to supply knowledge, not guesswork, however educated it may be. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I've restored the tag, per the large amount of content from their own pr campaign including all this: [1]. --Ronz (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps we should revert to the pre-expansion stub version pending resolution of these issues. Thoughts? ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 02:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Doing that gives up the detailed information on the controversy, which I think may be the most important part of the article. Also, I'd be willing to put in the legwork on trying to restore claims from non-PR sources, but it seems questionable at best, as most all information about the Batteriser (that isn't coming from their PR campaign) is coming from journalists they selected to demo the product or from people who haven't tried it. Unbiased information is rather hard to come by; particularly because at the end of the day, we're taking blogger's words that they're independent, and we can't assume Batteriser's selected journalists are unbiased either. I'm a little unclear on Wikipedia philosophy surrounding primary documents, but perhaps going back to the patent would be the most prudent course of action, with respect to providing details on the Batteriser? Let me know what you think. Jgiallo (talk) 16:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I think you understand the problems well. My rule-of-thumb for primary, non-independent sources is to use them only to expand upon details brought up in better sources. That way we'll be fairly sure that the material is encyclopedic (meets WP:NOT and worth mention (meets WP:NPOV).

Until the product is released for independent assessment not constrained by legal agreements with Batteroo, we will struggle to have much detail. --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

So, do you think supplementing, say, the PCWorld article with information from the Batteriser website/patent would be acceptable? They got to use the Batteriser prototype, but their neutrality is suspect. Conversely, what about the Gizmodo article? No product usage, but it's far more likely they're unbiased. I feel like some information, properly tagged, is better than no information at all, right? Jgiallo (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

As a tertiary work, our job is to fairly summarize what secondary (reliable sources) have said about the topic. We can use primary sources for simple facts like foundation date or so on, but the article should mainly be a summary of what secondary reliable sources say and nothing more. If stuff is missing there, then so be it. It's that simple. ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 23:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

That's a very helpful guideline. I appreciate all y'all's help in editing this. Jgiallo (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Patent

I am not familiar with the patent law. Is batterizer patent granted or only filed? Staszek Lem (talk) 00:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

PS. The patent cited does not contain the name "Batterizer" (although the description fits). Which sources connect the product with the patent? (without them we have a bit of WP:SYNTH.) Staszek Lem (talk) 00:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Let me Google that for you. http://www.pcworld.com/article/2928997/batteriser-is-a-250-gadget-that-extends-disposable-battery-life-by-800-percent.html ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 19:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

US Patent application US20120121943 was abandoned by the Applicant in October 2015 by failing to respond to a Restriction Requirement (i.e. requirement to limit the claims to one of many separate inventions). Thus the patent application was not around long enough to even receive a first Office Action from a USPTO patent examiner (i.e. an opinion by the examiner whether the claims are patentable or not). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.148.79.230 (talk) 05:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Foul Play

The foul play section claims it was likely the work of a competitor. The sole citation for this claim says a competitor or Batteriser themselves could have done it but there is no evidence either way. While it is possible someone other than Batteriser is responsible, Batteriser has no competitors whatsoever. The claim in the article about competitors therefore should be removed. Is there any disagreement on this before I proceed? Dmdx86 (talk) 10:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

UL Test - recent removal

In the test by UL (safety organization), a Garmin Golf GPS using Batteriser was shown to have a lifespan of 10 hours and 12 minutes, in contrast to the 1 hour and 43 minutes of operating time without a Batteriser. However, later the test was independently duplicated by TechnologyCatalyst to demonstrate that Garmin runs OK for over 17 hours on ordinary AA batteries, and the report by UL was based on the sloppy test design.

References

Are there any problems with the content above, which a new editor wants to remove because of his/her original research? [2] --Ronz (talk) 19:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

New product name and advertising campaign

It looks like the product has been renamed "Batteroo Boost", and that a new marketing campaign is underway [3]. I've been unable to find any press releases about availability of the product, and I've not watched the video tests to see if anyone has mentioned how they obtained the product. I expect the new ad campaign will change that. In the meantime, shouldn't we change the article title to Batteroo Boost"? --Ronz (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

The press release is out [4], and I don't see any media echoing or other response.

Anyone object to renaming this article to Batteroo Boost? -Ronz (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I've moved the pages. --Ronz (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Controversies Neutrality

The controversies section seems suspiciously impartial on the side of Batteriser/Bateroo. The second last line mentioning that "most detractors had no tried the product" (paraphrasing) sounds as if it's meant to detract from the arguments of the critics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.186.5 (talk) 14:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense. Most items are uncontested against Batteroo. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Break in

I Made mention of the break in to the batteroo office which was mentioned in the PC world article, yet the entire section was removed. Why's that? It seems entirely relevant considering there is a batteroo controversy section

there is no evidence this break in somehow related to the described controversy. My small company I work with suffered three break-ins. This is a completely nonnotable criminal trivia which has no relevance to the product. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I believe roohparbar stated that the batteroo office was the only office in the building where items were stolen. This is circumstantial evidence that the theft was targeted and planned against batteroo. the actual items taken from the office is further circumstantial evidence. this is all verifiable in a police report as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enrico229933 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

We don't propagate speculations and don't report police reports. Wikipedia is encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Batteroo Boost. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.smh.com.au%2Fdigital-life%2Fdigital-life-news%2Fbatteriser-battery-life-extender-scam-or-saviour-20150915-gjmrql.html&date=2015-11-10 to http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/batteriser-battery-life-extender-scam-or-saviour-20150915-gjmrql.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Production

Batteroo and its shipping company confirmed that they shipped to indiegogo customers, so I added the following to reflect this in the production section. "Batteroo has stated on social media and in a recent update to their Indiegogo supporters that all orders from the Batteroo Boost Indiegogo campaign were shipped to their 7,000+ Indiegogo backers in 2016. Acutrack, the shipping company for the campaign, released a statement on their facebook page confirming that they successfully shipped all Batteroo Boost products to 7,000+ Indiegogo supporters in over 100 countries in 2016."

I see that one editor removed this. can you please explain why? it is relevant considering the speculation in the previous sentence that batteroo is a scam and backers didn't receive products — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enrico229933 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Because we cannot trust the info coming from the company that lies is flexible with truth. We need references from independents sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

By the way, what is you relation to Batteroo? Staszek Lem (talk) 22:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I removed it as blatant advertising. A reliable, independent source on the topic is pretty much essential in cases like this so we can determine what encyclopedic value there may be and what weight it should be given. --Ronz (talk) 23:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

this info isnt coming just from batteroo. acutrack, the shipping company that claims it shipped the products to batteroo's supporters, is an independent source here. i am all for being critical of batteroo's claims, but alleging they didnt ship and not allowing evidence to the contrary is dishonest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enrico229933 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Acutrack is not an independent source. Please review WP:IS. Please stop edit-warring. --Ronz (talk) 15:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Page protection requested

I've requested protection given all the WP:SPA accounts edit-warring to whitewash this article and promote the marketing campaign which has already resulted in a copyright violation.

Let's work from edit requests and discuss the disputed content here. --Ronz (talk) 17:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Reviews by Buss and Jones

There's been a dispute over the following content:

• The first devices were delivered at the end of 2016. Frank Buss, and later on, Dave Jones, concluded in a first test that the device is not efficient when used in an electronically-unregulated toy train.

Anyone recently look for better sources about these or similar reviews? --Ronz (talk) 19:34, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

References