I like you new version, full of extremely informative contents, and you make several excellent points in these pages. Congrats.
About the media quality ranking I think you really don't do things right, sorry. This is because of an important point that is at the root of the controversy you raise with this ranking :
This is not right, not in the least. :disagree: It's no the media quality that is determined by the coaster rate, but the media wide usability in many different burners.
A media of high quality but poor firmware support in several drives, which would lead to a high coaster rate, would still be quality media, just not widely usable.
So-so media (would it be from low reflectivity, poor stability, mediocre mechanical characteristics) having good firmware support in many drives, which would lead to a low coaster rate, would be widely usable, but it would still be poor quality media.
A typical example of the first case is CMC MAG E01 under serious brands like HP, Imation, Philips, TDK... (I'm not referring to unbranded or E-net brands CMC stuff of course). Until recently, many burners simply didn't have a proper firmware support for this MID. Heavy testing shows that despite this "incompatibility", this MID (when high grade) is of excellent quality.
In your pages, you mention the NEC thing, that CMC burns well in NEC burners but not in most other burners: you need to reactualize this! :doh: Most recent burners of all brands do burn these with good quality! At least BENQ, LG, PIONEER, NEC in my experience.
A typical example of the second case is Ritek G05. Most of the production is really crappy, with extremely poor climatic stability and poor mechanical characteristics. But as almost all burners have a very good writing strategy with these, the coaster rate is low. It doesn't make them any "better" than the CMC discs, just more "usable".... at first! Because several months later, the coaster rate can be high, and in some instances even 100%. :bigsmile:
I really think you should re-think the whole thing around the important distinction between "wide usability" and "quality". The way I see things, your ranking is flawed because your basis to determine quality is flawed. Just replace "quality" by "wide usability" or something similar, and you'll be better off.
As I mention above, the rest of your new pages, despite some unnecessary bickering in places (but I guess I wouldn't have been less bickering if I were in your shoes :bigsmile:), is extremely informative, and I congratulate you for the hard work.