gdgt

There's more to a product's value than its screen size. The iPhone 4S receives stellar ratings in most of its criteria categories, both by critic and people who own it.

Not to be mean, but my wife also has one. She's had laser eye surgery and is 31 years old. She wore glasses before the surgery.

My father is 59, with no glasses, he also has an iPhone.

I wear glasses, and have an iPhone.

If your wife can barely see the screen then it's probably a problem with her eyesight.

I really don't mean to be mean, but millions on people CAN see the screen...

By the tone of your response to mike, one might conclude that you advocate gadget scores based on an algorithm that is heavily weighted by screen size . . . which seems way too simplistic to me, and I hope that screen size is not given any more importance than it already garners. But different strokes . . . I trust that you will agree that reasonable people can disagree on this point?

Where I do agree with you is that there should be some way to see if review scores are declining over time. It makes perfect sense to me that a gadget's score should decline over time relative to the competition - assuming there is competition in a product category. However, I can see some problems with making such a system work at gdgt and even with the assumption itself:

• Apps and the general device ecosystem may actually get stronger over time - even as any given device that is a member of that ecosystem ages. In the case of smartphones, this is probably more important than screen size, weight, battery life or any single physical characteristic. Or at least that is how I see things; I am sure there are others that won't share this view.
• User review scores may not correlate well with more professional reviews. Thus, it may be hard to know what to make of user score trends.
• Few professional reviews ever get updates as time passes - which is the real pity.
• Deprecating the value of user reviews over time might discourage users from posting reviews - which seems counter to the original goals for gdgt. On the other hand, it might encourage us to update our reviews more often.

We could probably quibble over any device's score up to what? Say five points on either side depending on how each of us chooses to weight the features, characteristics or whatever that go into a gadget's score? And, in the end, never arrive at a score that consistently pleases even a majority of the users. I am not sure that a decaying score system would significantly improve matters; and it would probably complicate things . . . at least initially.

In your case, isn't it fair to say that you would always have given the 4S a lower score than another smartphone with a larger screen? There were many smartphones with larger screens when the 4S launched almost a year ago, and the Android market does seem to be on a bigger is better trend. This may or may not be a good thing depending on user preference. At least with Android you have a choice when it comes to the size of your phone.

You now know that screen size matters a lot to you and your wife - and that you may care about screen size more than some . . . and maybe many of the users here. Unless Apple changes their ways, your way forward would seem to be clear.

In any event, some of us that contribute to the gdgt community do so because we too have felt the pain of a disappointing device. I hope your future gadget purchases are a better experience for you.