Adjusting the iSoaker.com Rating System

[soakinader]

Thanks for all the replies. I am looking forwards to some more data goodness. !_!
-Though I would like to see a rough Power Ratio stat again one day, despite the inconsistancy. Forget not the past, it is where we came from.
I had a chance to test my 2700 again; when it is completely full, it seems to be more awkward than I remembered. The weight is a little unbalanced, but I still like the pump angle. I think there is a good reason that they made the 2700 the way they did; I believe it should have been the "CPS 4000" (forgive my personal bias on the numbering system) but had the pump been linear and had the handle sticking out from the body like the 2000/2500/3000, I think the handle would have been prone to breaking.
That all aside, it is a subjective system, and at the end of the day it gives us a rough idea of what it's like to wield weird & wonderful water weapons. Props to you, my friend.

[the oncoming storm]

I have noticed a few problems with isoaker %stats, first the xp 215 has been given a power rating of 5% while the Lightning storm which has = output and more range has the right power rating at 1%

Then my other problem your %'s don't use stock best as 100% instead you use average bests instead

[isoaker]

I have noticed a few problems with isoaker %stats, first the xp 215 has been given a power rating of 5% while the Lightning storm which has = output and more range has the right power rating at 1%

That's a typo on my part; the XP215 should have a rating of 1%.

Then my other problem your %'s don't use stock best as 100% instead you use average bests instead

Not sure what you mean by this. Power rating is set using the CPS 2500's 20x nozzle as 100 and should have used the best nozzle from a particular soaker for the rating, not averaged. It was tough to go through over 200 entries, but if you seem to have found a mistake somewhere, please let me know and I'll correct it.

[the oncoming storm]

We all know the CPS 2000 has the best power of any water gun ever built it should be used as 100% not the 2500 as you used for power, and we all also know that 13m isn't best stock range, the 2000 also holds this at 15m and capacity is held by the 3000 it should be used as 100%. And if you wish to make a distinction between backpack and non backpacks the 2700 is your 100% mark not sure what you used there either.

That is what I mean, and I'm sorry if I sound rude I really am

[isoaker]

We all know the CPS 2000 has the best power of any water gun ever built it should be used as 100% not the 2500 as you used for power

If you want the true, calculated power rating, it is given for every nozzle in the nozzle statistics section. The iSoaker Power Rating is meant to be a little more subjective; the CPS 2000, while being the most powerful, is not being considered as the 100 rating since it seems to be an outlier as no other water blaster nears its power level. The CPS 2500 seems to be the more realistic expect maximum, thus any blaster performing as well as the 20x on the CPS 2500 in terms of power gets a rating of 100.

and we all also know that 13m isn't best stock range, the 2000 also holds this at 15m

for range, the rating of 100 is given to any stock water blaster that gets above 12m (~36'). As ranges measured, themselves, are not that precise, I instead looked at where general stock water blaster ranges tended to cluster. Now, if a lot of future water blasters start easily getting over 12m, the scale would be adjusted, but for now, 12m is the number that we look for in terms of having a good range for a stock water blaster.

and capacity is held by the 3000 it should be used as 100%. And if you wish to make a distinction between backpack and non backpacks the 2700 is your 100% mark not sure what you used there either.

The 100 rating for capacity is set at 5L (5000mL). Capacity is for total capacity (PC and reservoir filled if applicable) and makes no distinction between backpack or non-backpack blasters.

That is what I mean, and I'm sorry if I sound rude I really am

No worries. The main mistake made above is that the ratings are NOT percentages; they just happened to be ranked using 100, but that's 100, not 100%. They are also not calculated directly and have some additional subjectivity to some of them. Moreover, they are also rounded - if they were calculated, you'd end up having a lot more needed decimals along with the rating numbers.

Overall, the iSoaker.com Rating system is mean to be a reflection of various aspects of a stock water blaster as judged by me, hence being an iSoaker.com Rating. What you seem to be desiring are just calculated ranks and those can be made by doing a little arithmetic with the actual statistics which are provided. While the review pages offer some calculations in the nozzle statistics section, I'm currently not providing any others since there is a decent amount of variability in the numbers I do measure, but I don't want to go through a full error analysis to all the stats provided - that will make for a LOT of work and end up probably confusing the average reader even more. Moreover, since I primarily only use stats I've measured on soakers I have, if the soaker I used performs poorer than the average, my impression would be worse than others who have better soakers of the same model.

The system ain't perfect; it's just a rough guide. Those wanting harder facts should stick to the measured statistics and disregard the ratings. OF course, again, these are stats typically only from 1 blaster tested so a grain of salt should always be taken.