Usually, editors post a "full" review of a particular product, which includes covers all of the key points, includes a rating breakdown, etc. However, they will occasionally post a very brief description of the product, typically if it's related to a product they did review or is something they've used in passing but aren't actually reviewing. In such cases they'll call it an "editors' take" as opposed to an "editors' review." I too find the content to be minimally useful at best, but it's not supposed to be a review and it is better than nothing at all in some respects. Perhaps it would help if they better differentiated a "review" from a "take" so you know what to expect?
Note: This post was edited by forum moderator on 03/21/2011 on 3:16 PM PT
...I guess I'll just post this here.
Is not a review. It is a simple item description with less actual information than you get on any merchant sales sites. As a user who has relied on CNET over the years for product related information posting this sort of thing is a tremendous disappointment. The product in question is a solar charger, so trivially a review should give data on:
How long this takes to charge a device?
How long the charger takes to store a full internal battery charge...from the sun? via its USB charging capability?
How it compares to similar products available on the market?
Ideally it would add data regarding device compatibility. Does this work with the Droid X or other Motorola handsets? Could you use an adapter to use it with non-Motorola products? (As Motorola products are often compatibility impaired these are non-trivial questions that would cost a typical user time and money to answer for him/herself.)
Unfortunately you are letting the quality and value of your site slip. Shame on you.