No announcement yet.

Cafetto Misleading Article

This topic is closed.
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Cafetto Misleading Article

    I have edited this post so that it only includes a modified graph more accurately representing the effect of cleaning your group head, based on the scores awarded in a small study by Cafetto.

    While the study did aim to meet some scientific standards, it probably ran into a small issue based on default graphing templates in Excel.

    My previous comments were far too accusatory and mean.
    Attached Files
    Last edited by Radiopej; 16 August 2012, 10:50 PM. Reason: Was too mean.

  • #2
    Yeh mate, I see where you're coming from.... it's a bit flaky, but they fully disclose their 'research method'.....I can't see any misrepresentation. It's obviously an no biggie from my perspective....I can't imagine anyone is going to mistake it for an in-press article in the New England Jnl of Medicine. If only Mrs Marsh, the Colgate and the chalk were bigger on disclosure.
    Last edited by Barry O'Speedwagon; 16 August 2012, 06:56 PM. Reason: missing word


    • #3
      You ought to see what the drug companies do to the results of anti-depressant trials!



      • #4
        Originally posted by Radiopej View Post
        I've just sent an email to Cafetto
        You just sent an email to them and instead of waiting for a response from a very respected player in the Australian coffee industry you felt the need to slap them in public first? Pretty poor form I think.

        That article from a trade magazine is 3 years old so hardly breking news.

        Scott Callaghan pulled shots, Hazel De Los Reyes and Em Oak blind tasted them. That's about as good a crowd as you could ever get to do technical and sensory in a coffee experiment. If you cannot trust those three putting their name to this then you would have a lot of trouble finding a replacement crew.

        Perfect science? Maybe not but there is every chance that they did a number of shots and the reference to "single" was a 25ml expresso, not a single coffee.

        I suggest...
        Relax and smell the (clean) coffee.


        • #5
          That's true about me being really harsh. I just get really, really annoyed when I see ill-performed science. While the article may not be scientific literature, they certainly tried to get controls in place, which is good. I think that's probably what did it - their attempt to semi-meet scientific standards automatically put my brain into assessment mode. So I do agree with you, I was a lot harder on them than I should have been. Am I able to delete my posting?

          This article probably took the brunt of it because I got annoyed enough to use it as an example with my first year undergrad kids. These are issues in data representation, replication and tunnel vision that we drill into them from the beginning, so to see a company do it (even though that's what companies do) while making it appear legitimate.


          • #6
            Don't forget to teach your 1st year undergrads to count to 30 before hitting send too.

            I know Chris and doubt that his motivations were ever about marketing, more likely he wanted an independent team to prove one way or another if regular cleaning would make a difference to the taste. Of course in a commercial context you would doubt the results would be published if the differences were not noticed but that didn't happen.

            We all know the difference cleaning makes, you can taste it and see it in the pours

            There is every chance that the fudging of the graph scale was done at the magazine to look better on the page or to protect the coffee company from 8/10 coffee scores.

            After your major editing of the initial post this thread is a little cryptic now so I'll lock it off.