"Paul B" wrote ...
Here's a UK example of an ambiguous mixed up description . It says
"3.5MM JACK PLUG, MONO"
http://cpc.farnell.com/AV15207/cable...s/product.us0?
sku=pro-signal-psg01659
And when the same supplier reverses the direction of the
illustration, they give a different description of effectively the
same item: "ADAPTOR, 3.5MM S TO PHONO P"
http://cpc.farnell.com/pro-signal/ps...or-3-5mm-s-to-
phono-p/dp/AV15537
What a muddle that first one is!
At least they both refer to A and B. Is there a convention for
which is A and which is B? (Without the photo it might be hard to
know which is which.)
There seems to be trend towards using people as content
editors (and even creators) who have not a clue about the
subject matter.
RadioShack here in the US is getting better, but for a while
there, their website featured trendy, small, square "photos" of
some part of the merchandise that probably looked "artistic"
to the "art director" but was complete nonsense to anyone
who knew anything about the goods.
For example, they would show the handle/grip part of the
connector, and crop out the actual working end. Combined
with the scrambled and incomplete "descriptions" the combined
result was a complete dog's breakfast mess of random words
and photos.
Fortunately, someone broke through to the management and
showed them that they were shooting themselves in the foot
by making their online information worse than useless.