Originally Posted by RoadLizard
Yeah, good luck. LG should call Panasonic and Pioneer and ask them how this all went with plasma TVs and the seemingly random, hard to quantify cases of burn in. I dunno. Getting tired of it though, that’s for sure.
So what is a statistically significant sample size? Do you have that number? Is it 50% of total owners? 75%? As I said, you’d have to know how many were sold total. Then you’d have to look into each case individually or it’s just hearsay. You may not like this but that’s how facts and actual data works and is deemed legit. Comprehensive and accurate? Yep, show me undeniable proof and I’ll happily buy into all of this as statistically "sound". Until then? A small poll here at AVS just doesn’t cut it. Nothing to do with making up my mind. It’s called tangible evidence.
And no, sorry, I don’t believe everything people say about product use when it comes to TVs or any other product. Because, you know, everyone is always honest about everything in this world. That’s how humans are. Cmon, man.
At the risk of over-simplification, this is how it actually works:
From Wikipedia's definition of error bar:
"Error bars are graphical representations of the variability of data and used on graphs to indicate the error or uncertainty in a reported measurement. They give a general idea of how precise a measurement is, or conversely, how far from the reported value the true (error free) value might be. Error bars often represent one standard deviation of uncertainty, one standard error, or a particular confidence interval (e.g., a 95% interval). These quantities are not the same and so the measure selected should be stated explicitly in the graph or supporting text.
Error bars can be used to compare visually two quantities if various other conditions hold. This can determine whether differences are statistically significant. Error bars can also suggest goodness of fit of a given function, i.e., how well the function describes the data. Scientific papers in the experimental sciences are expected to include error bars on all graphs, though the practice differs somewhat between sciences, and each journal will have its own house style. It has also been shown that error bars can be used as a direct manipulation interface for controlling probabilistic algorithms for approximate computation. Error bars can also be expressed in a plus-minus sign (±), plus the upper limit of the error and minus the lower limit of the error."
This is why most polls, for example political polls, include "margins of error" along with the median values derived from the poll.
Given the uncertainty in the quality of the data in these AVS polls, the statistical certainty of a given percentage of LG OLED "burn in" defects can not be calculated from this data. However, this is not
the same as stating cases do not exist, as they clearly do. Additionally, if the frequency of 'burn in" cases developing under a specific set of conditions was extremely low, it would be highly unusual (in a statistical sense) for the Rtings.com to have been unlucky enough to have randomly purchased one of these rare LG OLED sets for its testing.
If percentage of actual cases of burn in developing in the general public is 5%, 10, 15%, etc is not the point. The point is that the problem is not rare (even a 5% defect rate is substantial if developing in a premium product and is not covered by warranty, especially for the purchaser). My scientific intuition tells me, based upon the discussions on this forum and Rtings.com's testing, that the chance of burn-in developing after several hundred hours of viewing content with a static red, orange or red content at an OLED light setting of 60 or higher will be extremely high. If the purchaser doesn't fit this viewing pattern, he will probably be fine.
But this significant viewing limitation ought to have been/be clearly disclosed by LG to potential buyers so they know what they are getting into before they purchase the TV or can take proper precautions. I don't think anyone reporting burn in here intentionally intended to create this defect in their TV. Initial discussions of 2015 LG OLED displays on this forum indicated burn in almost never occurred in these early LG OLED displays (maybe because there were not that many sold compared to later years or later production changes). LG's mimimilistic disclosures regarding burn in reinforced this sense of security that developed.
However, LG almost certainly must have done enough testing to discover that burn in could develop under the use conditions that forum members with problems are describing here. But, presumably in the interest of not spooking potential buyers, LG chose to not disclose this limitation of use and now there are some pretty unhappy customers. For this reason, in my opinion, the "pox" is on LG's "house", not on the purchaser's.