DP Review puts K-1 Mark II as second worst camera of 2018

biz-engineer · 12-31-2018, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by reh321

I don't care what you call the 'jog' where the 'accelerator' cuts in at about ISO 600 ..... I call it "improving DR that would otherwise be available at a given ISO" - and it is what matters to me

Let say, if you would be shooting at ISO800 with a Pentax K1, you have to increase ISO to 1600 on the K1 mk II to make sure you get as much noise in the image.

reh321 · 12-31-2018, 02:34 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Breakfastographer

I think the astrophotography case is just very clear - that community simply does not accept any noise reduction at all, so they would need this fixed. Or they can keep buying the K-1 at a lower price.

Most would probably suspect Ricoh would rather have them purchase the K-1 II. And Ricoh seem to keep going after the astrophotography market, with the recent lens warmer announcement.

The review by "Astrophotography Review" was positive {even after DPR apparently tried to put their thumb on the scale}
Pentax K-1 Mark II Astrophotography Review – Lonely Speck

Originally posted by Ian Norman:

A previous version of this review made some hasty conclusions about how the K-1 Mark II’s noise performance affected stacked astrophotos. I’ve removed those changes and am investigating the issue further before deciding to change my original review, if at all.

Overall noise performance on the K-1 Mark II is excellent. There is nearly no tangible sensor bloom or electronic glow in highly pushed images and noise levels are low.

The Pentax K-1 II was criticized by DPReview for a strange behavior when it comes to high ISO noise performance. As demonstrated in our ISO invariance test, the K-1 Mark II seems to exhibit slightly less overall noise at ISOs above 400. That’s usually a good thing. However, at these higher ISOs, the noise profile appears slightly “muddier” or smoothed. While my astrophotography exposures at first glance seemed to be generally acceptable for low-light exposures, and I’m fairly happy with most of the images that I’ve made, it’s clear that Pentax is applying some kind of noise reduction to ISO settings above ISO 400. The bigger problem is that this noise reduction affects RAW files and cannot be disabled.

While I don’t personally have the original K-1 with which to compare this K-1 Mark II, in DPReview’s full review of the K-1 Mark II, they showed that the original K-1 could resolve slightly more detail at ISOs above 400. It’s it a big difference? Not really. In practice, the difference is very small and I never felt disappointed with the K-1 Mark II’s capability to resolve detail at high ISOs.

Most importantly, the problem is not detrimental to star details and does not present the same problem as the Sony star-eater issue. I do, however, agree with DPReview and I wish that manufacturers would stop trying to apply noise reducing techniques to RAW files. These operations are much better saved for JPEGs or for post processing when the photographer can make the choice of how much or how little noise reduction to apply.

Breakfastographer · 12-31-2018, 03:33 PM - **1 Like**

Except for the last two sentences in that quote.

**c.a.m** · 12-31-2018, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by BarneyL

DPR team send their regards again :P2019 camera and lens manufacturers' New Year's resolutions: Digital Photography Review

Sigh. The Ricoh/Pentax segment of this latest DPReview article is a strange piece of writing, indeed.

I really can't understand their intention -- sinister or otherwise, and the references to "terrified" and "uncritically gushing praise" are just wacky. Their three suggestions are superficial and, in my opinion, reflect a wholesale lack of comprehension about Ricoh, Pentax, and especially the GR. Double sigh.

@BarneyL, I think you're right -- DPR is sending yet another patronizing message, however veiled.

- Craig

Last edited by c.a.m; 12-31-2018 at 05:46 PM.

**stihlmania** · 12-31-2018, 04:58 PM - **2 Likes**

Until today, I have never been to the DPR web site. A quick look around convinced me there is nothing of value to me there...

**clackers** · 12-31-2018, 05:34 PM - **5 Likes**

Originally posted by stihlmania

Until today, I have never been to the DPR web site. A quick look around convinced me there is nothing of value to me there...

Here are some fun things to do if you ever go back, Stihlmania:

Join their Pentax discussion room and be assailed by trolls.

Or read the original K-1 review that IIRC ClassA and Beholder3 caused to be altered because of lies/mistakes (see the notorious bicycle test). These guys deserve medals for their activism on behalf of our marginalized community. Sorry to anyone who also contributed that I don't remember. Also give yourself an honourary knighthood!

Or the K-1 II review which after complaints from members of the Pentax community they had to apologise for, bringing in a new writer to pen a different piece. (Different JPG settings and beta firmware for starters)

Or the dismissive review by some other nondescript hack at the release of arguably the world's best standard FF prime.

This forum's value, in my view, is as a refuge on the Internet for Pentax owners, and is diminished when other brand owners bring their DPR views and baiting behaviors here. We let them join, and there are *inevitable* consequences. There are Facebook groups where you're asked questions about Pentax ownership and in one case I was asked to link to pictures I'd taken before membership was approved.

**Larrymc** · 12-31-2018, 06:00 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by c.a.m

Sigh. The Ricoh/Pentax segment of this latest DPReview article is a strange piece of writing, indeed.

I really can't understand their intention -- sinister or otherwise, and the references to "terrified" and "uncritically gushing praise" are just wacky. Their three suggestions are superficial and, in my opinion, reflect a wholesale lack of comprehension about Ricoh, Pentax, and especially the GR. Double sigh.

@BarneyL, I think you're right -- DPR is sending yet another patronizing message, however veiled.

- Craig

I didn't bother reading the article but this is perhaps a prelude to labeling Pentaxians a bunch of Terrorists what with the references to being terrified.

**stihlmania** · 12-31-2018, 06:08 PM - **1 Like**

My take on DPR is it is for the 35 and younger crowd that simply wants to argue. As I grew up in a family of 9, I am familiar with disagreements and how that will pass with a little time. Growing up I was noted as obnoxious but that grew tiresome rather quickly as I have so many things I want to do that the time wasted in debate was not logical nor productive. Clackers, your points are all valid, I did read the review and the follow up posts "ad nausea " and I agree with you but I have not found a way yet to change the attitude of the "barbarian horde" other than by getting better images with my inferior [to them] Pentax equipment. The deer is HD DA 55-300 bokeh! Haha!

**BigMackCam** · 12-31-2018, 06:22 PM

Originally posted by stihlmania

I have not found a way yet to change the attitude of the "barbarian horde" other than by getting better images with my inferior [to them] Pentax equipment. The deer is HD DA 55-300 bokeh! Haha!

One other way is to simply ignore them and leave them to it.

I completely understand the frustration with some websites' biases against Pentax and towards other equipment, but I really don't think we're going to make it any more balanced through our objections here. Our numbers (in terms of equipment ownership) are just too small, given Pentax's niche position in the market. The best thing we can do is to keep using and - when we're in a position to do so - buying Pentax equipment, and discussing the good and bad aspects here on PentaxForums. We are being observed... and - at least some of the time, I believe - listened to by Ricoh.

Lovely photo, by the way

Class A · 12-31-2018, 06:44 PM - **4 Likes**

Originally posted by BigMackCam

I completely understand the frustration with some websites' biases against Pentax and towards other equipment, but I really don't think we're going to make it any more balanced through our objections.

I might agree to the notion that our objections may not be capable of ultimately changing the underlying bias, but there is incontrovertible evidence that our objections caused several articles from DPReview to be modified, sometimes significantly so. I believe this result is worth the effort as I'm convinced a significant number of readers have been spared a good degree of misleading (by no means all of it, but every little bit helps).

**BigMackCam** · 12-31-2018, 06:48 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Class A

I might agree to the notion that our objections may not be capable of ultimately changing the underlying bias, but there is incontrovertible evidence that our objections caused several articles from DPReview to be modified, sometimes significantly so. I believe this result is worth the effort as I'm convinced a significant number of readers have been spared a good degree of misleading (by no means all of it, but every little bit helps).

Actually, I'd have to agree with you on that point. Specifically, though, I believe it is discussion - and, I concur, objection - on the website forums in question that might be helpful. I don't think our objections here on PF help necessarily... but that's just my opinion. I've updated my original post to reflect this.

Thanks for the reality check

Class A · 12-31-2018, 07:11 PM

Originally posted by Kunzite

In the Imaging Resource interview, Mr. Takashi Arai talks about a kind of processing which cannot be reproduced when post processing the RAW files:

Well, he is trying to sell a product and I don't blame him for that.
The actual claim he made is non-sensical (see below) and possibly owed to a translation issue.
We cannot be sure what he really said (unless there is an original transcript).

Originally posted by Kunzite

and then an accessory unit does a kind of signal processing which cannot be obtained by just software processing mechanism without degrading the resolving performance of the sensor."

Anything that is computable at all can be achieved through software processing. There is nothing hardware can achieve that software couldn't achieve given access to the same data. If there is an actual claim regarding the inability of software to achieve the same effect outside the camera, it would have be to be argued differently.

Everything about the K-1 II files points to a standard ex post facto processing. This, combined with the fact that modern Sony sensors are essentially black boxes which spit out the final data without offering options to interfere at the low-level A/D conversion level, make any claims regarding a processing that could not be replicated outside the camera extremely unlikely to be true.

If someone were so inclined, I'm rather certain they could replicate the look of a K-1 II image from a K-1 image. The demonstrated attenuation of spatial high frequencies is entirely consistent with regular post capture denoising. The merit of the "accelerator" is not that it does something unique, but that it relieves the user from doing it.

Originally posted by Kunzite

By the way, here's a good, detailed explanation why the accelerator isn't optional:

I've read it and I agree with clackers that there is no explanation as to why it wasn't made optional.

It seems there is a hint as to why the processing starts so unusually early (ISO 640). If they had let the denoising kick in at ISO 3200, say, it would have been very obvious that something odd is going on as the look of the images would dramatically change from one ISO setting to the other. By gradually introducing more and more processing, starting very early, the processing becomes rather inconspicuous. It fooled DPReview the first time around (-> KP).

I speculate that reasons that there hasn't been a firmware update that makes the processing optional could include Japanese pride that shies away from implicitly admitting mistakes, and the fact that treating the processing as non-optional gives credence to the idea that the K-1 II's low noise levels are not just the result of an image processing algorithm (running on specialised hardware, the so-called "accelerator").

reh321 · 12-31-2018, 07:15 PM

Originally posted by Class A

By gradually introducing more and more processing, starting very early, the processing becomes rather inconspicuous. It fooled DPReview the first time around (-> KP).

If it is that inconspicuous, I don't understand why everyone is so focused on it - and now that it is 2019 in Japan, I'd rather look forward to see what goodies Pentax has for us in the "Centennial Year".

Class A · 12-31-2018, 07:20 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by BigMackCam

I don't think our objections here on PF help necessarily... but that's just my opinion.

I believe a positive aspect of discussing objections on PF can be that we keep each other informed in what particular way another website has not given Pentax due credit, sharing solid arguments as to why they've got it wrong.

I believe that building constructive criticism in this manner allows us to better object on the offending websites, delivering well-reasoned and factually correct arguments, as opposed to coming across as just being b*tthurt about a website not sharing the love for Pentax.

**BigMackCam** · 12-31-2018, 07:27 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Class A

I believe a positive aspect of discussing objections on PF can be that we keep each other informed in what particular way another website has not given Pentax due credit, sharing solid arguments as to why they've got it wrong.

I believe that building constructive criticism in this manner allows us to better object on the offending websites, delivering well-reasoned and factually correct arguments, as opposed to coming across as just being b*tthurt about a website not sharing the love for Pentax.

Absolutely

What I don't agree with - or, rather, what I feel achieves little and potentially does us a disservice - is simply to hurl general criticisms and insults at other websites. I'm not making that observation of you; nor indeed anyone here specifically.

12-31-2018, 02:34 PM - 1 Like	#467
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,180	Originally posted by Breakfastographer I think the astrophotography case is just very clear - that community simply does not accept any noise reduction at all, so they would need this fixed. Or they can keep buying the K-1 at a lower price. Most would probably suspect Ricoh would rather have them purchase the K-1 II. And Ricoh seem to keep going after the astrophotography market, with the recent lens warmer announcement. The review by "Astrophotography Review" was positive {even after DPR apparently tried to put their thumb on the scale} Pentax K-1 Mark II Astrophotography Review – Lonely Speck Originally posted by Ian Norman: A previous version of this review made some hasty conclusions about how the K-1 Mark II’s noise performance affected stacked astrophotos. I’ve removed those changes and am investigating the issue further before deciding to change my original review, if at all. Overall noise performance on the K-1 Mark II is excellent. There is nearly no tangible sensor bloom or electronic glow in highly pushed images and noise levels are low. The Pentax K-1 II was criticized by DPReview for a strange behavior when it comes to high ISO noise performance. As demonstrated in our ISO invariance test, the K-1 Mark II seems to exhibit slightly less overall noise at ISOs above 400. That’s usually a good thing. However, at these higher ISOs, the noise profile appears slightly “muddier” or smoothed. While my astrophotography exposures at first glance seemed to be generally acceptable for low-light exposures, and I’m fairly happy with most of the images that I’ve made, it’s clear that Pentax is applying some kind of noise reduction to ISO settings above ISO 400. The bigger problem is that this noise reduction affects RAW files and cannot be disabled. While I don’t personally have the original K-1 with which to compare this K-1 Mark II, in DPReview’s full review of the K-1 Mark II, they showed that the original K-1 could resolve slightly more detail at ISOs above 400. It’s it a big difference? Not really. In practice, the difference is very small and I never felt disappointed with the K-1 Mark II’s capability to resolve detail at high ISOs. Most importantly, the problem is not detrimental to star details and does not present the same problem as the Sony star-eater issue. I do, however, agree with DPReview and I wish that manufacturers would stop trying to apply noise reducing techniques to RAW files. These operations are much better saved for JPEGs or for post processing when the photographer can make the choice of how much or how little noise reduction to apply. Last edited by reh321; 12-31-2018 at 02:42 PM. Reason: reference to DPR

12-31-2018, 05:34 PM - 5 Likes	#471
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	Originally posted by stihlmania Until today, I have never been to the DPR web site. A quick look around convinced me there is nothing of value to me there... Here are some fun things to do if you ever go back, Stihlmania: Join their Pentax discussion room and be assailed by trolls. Or read the original K-1 review that IIRC ClassA and Beholder3 caused to be altered because of lies/mistakes (see the notorious bicycle test). These guys deserve medals for their activism on behalf of our marginalized community. Sorry to anyone who also contributed that I don't remember. Also give yourself an honourary knighthood! Or the K-1 II review which after complaints from members of the Pentax community they had to apologise for, bringing in a new writer to pen a different piece. (Different JPG settings and beta firmware for starters) Or the dismissive review by some other nondescript hack at the release of arguably the world's best standard FF prime. This forum's value, in my view, is as a refuge on the Internet for Pentax owners, and is diminished when other brand owners bring their DPR views and baiting behaviors here. We let them join, and there are inevitable consequences. There are Facebook groups where you're asked questions about Pentax ownership and in one case I was asked to link to pictures I'd taken before membership was approved. Last edited by clackers; 12-31-2018 at 05:57 PM.

12-31-2018, 06:22 PM	#474
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,674	Originally posted by stihlmania I have not found a way yet to change the attitude of the "barbarian horde" other than by getting better images with my inferior [to them] Pentax equipment. The deer is HD DA 55-300 bokeh! Haha! One other way is to simply ignore them and leave them to it. I completely understand the frustration with some websites' biases against Pentax and towards other equipment, but I really don't think we're going to make it any more balanced through our objections here. Our numbers (in terms of equipment ownership) are just too small, given Pentax's niche position in the market. The best thing we can do is to keep using and - when we're in a position to do so - buying Pentax equipment, and discussing the good and bad aspects here on PentaxForums. We are being observed... and - at least some of the time, I believe - listened to by Ricoh. Lovely photo, by the way Last edited by BigMackCam; 12-31-2018 at 06:54 PM. Reason: Updated to reflect advice later in thread

12-31-2018, 06:48 PM - 1 Like	#476
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,674	Originally posted by Class A I might agree to the notion that our objections may not be capable of ultimately changing the underlying bias, but there is incontrovertible evidence that our objections caused several articles from DPReview to be modified, sometimes significantly so. I believe this result is worth the effort as I'm convinced a significant number of readers have been spared a good degree of misleading (by no means all of it, but every little bit helps). Actually, I'd have to agree with you on that point. Specifically, though, I believe it is discussion - and, I concur, objection - on the website forums in question that might be helpful. I don't think our objections here on PF help necessarily... but that's just my opinion. I've updated my original post to reflect this. Thanks for the reality check Last edited by BigMackCam; 12-31-2018 at 06:58 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Best and worst of 2018	surfar	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	5	12-11-2018 05:35 PM
Mark I vs Mark II ISO Comparison Plus Files	SirTomster	Pentax K-1 & K-1 II	64	07-31-2018 01:06 PM
K-3 upgrade to "Mark I" or Mark II	neal_grillot	Pentax K-1 & K-1 II	20	06-01-2018 02:25 AM
DP Review's review of the K-r is up....	ccd333	Pentax K-r	67	03-20-2011 09:41 AM
DP Review modifies K2000 Review	jeffkrol	Pentax News and Rumors	8	02-05-2009 07:44 PM

12-31-2018, 02:11 PM	#466
biz-engineer Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2015 Photos: Gallery Posts: 12,232	Originally posted by reh321 I don't care what you call the 'jog' where the 'accelerator' cuts in at about ISO 600 ..... I call it "improving DR that would otherwise be available at a given ISO" - and it is what matters to me Let say, if you would be shooting at ISO800 with a Pentax K1, you have to increase ISO to 1600 on the K1 mk II to make sure you get as much noise in the image.

12-31-2018, 03:33 PM - 1 Like	#468
Breakfastographer Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2018 Posts: 673	Except for the last two sentences in that quote.

12-31-2018, 04:51 PM	#469
c.a.m Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Ottawa, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,189	Originally posted by BarneyL DPR team send their regards again :P2019 camera and lens manufacturers' New Year's resolutions: Digital Photography Review Sigh. The Ricoh/Pentax segment of this latest DPReview article is a strange piece of writing, indeed. I really can't understand their intention -- sinister or otherwise, and the references to "terrified" and "uncritically gushing praise" are just wacky. Their three suggestions are superficial and, in my opinion, reflect a wholesale lack of comprehension about Ricoh, Pentax, and especially the GR. Double sigh. @BarneyL, I think you're right -- DPR is sending yet another patronizing message, however veiled. - Craig Last edited by c.a.m; 12-31-2018 at 05:46 PM.

12-31-2018, 04:58 PM - 2 Likes	#470
stihlmania Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Spring Branch, Tx Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 705	Until today, I have never been to the DPR web site. A quick look around convinced me there is nothing of value to me there...

12-31-2018, 06:00 PM - 1 Like	#472
Larrymc Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2014 Location: Mississippi, USA Posts: 5,251	Originally posted by c.a.m Sigh. The Ricoh/Pentax segment of this latest DPReview article is a strange piece of writing, indeed. I really can't understand their intention -- sinister or otherwise, and the references to "terrified" and "uncritically gushing praise" are just wacky. Their three suggestions are superficial and, in my opinion, reflect a wholesale lack of comprehension about Ricoh, Pentax, and especially the GR. Double sigh. @BarneyL, I think you're right -- DPR is sending yet another patronizing message, however veiled. - Craig I didn't bother reading the article but this is perhaps a prelude to labeling Pentaxians a bunch of Terrorists what with the references to being terrified.

12-31-2018, 06:44 PM - 4 Likes	#475
Class A Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 11,251	Originally posted by BigMackCam I completely understand the frustration with some websites' biases against Pentax and towards other equipment, but I really don't think we're going to make it any more balanced through our objections. I might agree to the notion that our objections may not be capable of ultimately changing the underlying bias, but there is incontrovertible evidence that our objections caused several articles from DPReview to be modified, sometimes significantly so. I believe this result is worth the effort as I'm convinced a significant number of readers have been spared a good degree of misleading (by no means all of it, but every little bit helps).

12-31-2018, 07:11 PM	#477
Class A Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 11,251	Originally posted by Kunzite In the Imaging Resource interview, Mr. Takashi Arai talks about a kind of processing which cannot be reproduced when post processing the RAW files: Well, he is trying to sell a product and I don't blame him for that. The actual claim he made is non-sensical (see below) and possibly owed to a translation issue. We cannot be sure what he really said (unless there is an original transcript). Originally posted by Kunzite and then an accessory unit does a kind of signal processing which cannot be obtained by just software processing mechanism without degrading the resolving performance of the sensor." Anything that is computable at all can be achieved through software processing. There is nothing hardware can achieve that software couldn't achieve given access to the same data. If there is an actual claim regarding the inability of software to achieve the same effect outside the camera, it would have be to be argued differently. Everything about the K-1 II files points to a standard ex post facto processing. This, combined with the fact that modern Sony sensors are essentially black boxes which spit out the final data without offering options to interfere at the low-level A/D conversion level, make any claims regarding a processing that could not be replicated outside the camera extremely unlikely to be true. If someone were so inclined, I'm rather certain they could replicate the look of a K-1 II image from a K-1 image. The demonstrated attenuation of spatial high frequencies is entirely consistent with regular post capture denoising. The merit of the "accelerator" is not that it does something unique, but that it relieves the user from doing it. Originally posted by Kunzite By the way, here's a good, detailed explanation why the accelerator isn't optional: I've read it and I agree with clackers that there is no explanation as to why it wasn't made optional. It seems there is a hint as to why the processing starts so unusually early (ISO 640). If they had let the denoising kick in at ISO 3200, say, it would have been very obvious that something odd is going on as the look of the images would dramatically change from one ISO setting to the other. By gradually introducing more and more processing, starting very early, the processing becomes rather inconspicuous. It fooled DPReview the first time around (-> KP). I speculate that reasons that there hasn't been a firmware update that makes the processing optional could include Japanese pride that shies away from implicitly admitting mistakes, and the fact that treating the processing as non-optional gives credence to the idea that the K-1 II's low noise levels are not just the result of an image processing algorithm (running on specialised hardware, the so-called "accelerator").

12-31-2018, 07:15 PM	#478
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,180	Originally posted by Class A By gradually introducing more and more processing, starting very early, the processing becomes rather inconspicuous. It fooled DPReview the first time around (-> KP). If it is that inconspicuous, I don't understand why everyone is so focused on it - and now that it is 2019 in Japan, I'd rather look forward to see what goodies Pentax has for us in the "Centennial Year".

12-31-2018, 07:20 PM - 1 Like	#479
Class A Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 11,251	Originally posted by BigMackCam I don't think our objections here on PF help necessarily... but that's just my opinion. I believe a positive aspect of discussing objections on PF can be that we keep each other informed in what particular way another website has not given Pentax due credit, sharing solid arguments as to why they've got it wrong. I believe that building constructive criticism in this manner allows us to better object on the offending websites, delivering well-reasoned and factually correct arguments, as opposed to coming across as just being b*tthurt about a website not sharing the love for Pentax.

12-31-2018, 07:27 PM - 1 Like	#480
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,674	Originally posted by Class A I believe a positive aspect of discussing objections on PF can be that we keep each other informed in what particular way another website has not given Pentax due credit, sharing solid arguments as to why they've got it wrong. I believe that building constructive criticism in this manner allows us to better object on the offending websites, delivering well-reasoned and factually correct arguments, as opposed to coming across as just being b*tthurt about a website not sharing the love for Pentax. Absolutely What I don't agree with - or, rather, what I feel achieves little and potentially does us a disservice - is simply to hurl general criticisms and insults at other websites. I'm not making that observation of you; nor indeed anyone here specifically.