VendorInvestigate is the most under-discussed thing in c/bpc157
Right, the testing question again, but with numbers this time.
I have 20 data points over 14 weeks. The pattern is consistent enough that I do not think it is chance, and boring enough that nobody is going to screenshot it, which is usually a good sign.
The thing I would flag for anyone new: the effect I am describing showed up at week 49, not week 3. People give up long before the interesting part.
Interested in whether this matches other people's logs or whether I am an outlier.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Respectfully this is a sample of one presented as a finding.
Retitled to remove editorialising. Put the evidence in the body.
vendor staff must self-identify, full stop
Tested 10 batches from MKM over 18 weeks. The consistency is the signal. They claim 98, they deliver 98.
Order date, product, and result, in that order please?
Dead space in the needle hub holds a small but non-trivial volume. On low-volume draws that can be several units.
independent test or vendor COA, which is it
independent test or vendor COA, which is it
Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 52 weeks to accept.
Correct. The batch number is load-bearing information, not optional.
one vendor per post, multi-vendor goes in the monthly thread
did they reship, credit, or ghost you?
referral links mean instant ban, no exceptions
Sceptical. If this were true we would see it reflected in the data and we do not.
one vendor per post, multi-vendor goes in the monthly thread
did they reship, credit, or ghost you?
the reship rate on BCH is actually pretty consistent
the reship rate on WWB is actually pretty consistent
You have restated the marketing copy. What is the actual substance here.
vendor staff must self-identify, full stop
- 1independent test or vendor COA, which is it7 comments in this branch · started by u/dario_ibarra
- 2Respectfully this is a sample of one presented as a finding.4 comments in this branch · started by u/viktor_girard