I'd say there've been plenty of people who've posted about being able to 'read' back horrid quality scanning burns. I have a few discs burned on a LiteOn drive that resulted in PO Failures in the 20's to over 1,000 ... yet, my Benq 1620 can still copy the discs back to the harddrive.
Quality Scans are of some significance in that you can 'gauge' the quality state as time goes by. I think it's a good practice to keep an initial post-burn scan to compare to at later dates.
As for people freaking out about questionable quality scans ... for me, at least, it comes down to the fact that it's inevitable the disc will one day eventually be unreadable. Maybe that's years down the line .. maybe it's just a few months for some media. But, I put a lot of value just in having the ability to somehow assess the state of the burn at the particular moment using quality scans.
Whoever said Quality Scans were 'absolute' indication of quality? That's a pretty ridiculous statement. The discussions regarding quality lately have included plenty of discussion of not only quality scans but of the fact all the other tests (transfer tests, burst rate, scandisk, etc etc) only give you an indication of your burn in that specific place in time.
After that point ... you're at the mercy of a lot of factors you have no control over. You can do your best with regards to the storage conditions, but there's a ton of variables from the quality of the dyes to 'someone else' mishandling them to heat to humidity to whatever ... that will eventually negatively impact the disc.
DVD Media is nowhere near a fail safe archiving method. It's just that good quality media is now cheap enough to not have to worry about re-archiving important stuff down the road. Keep multiple copies (on possibly several different types of storage media) if it's that important.
I will agree with you that there is a lot of attention given to quality scans and results according ... but c'mon ... what else is there to compare to if we want to get a snapshot of a burn? What I'm saying is that you could consider it rather as a tool or avenue to get the discussion rolling about someone's burn. It's a quantitative way to at least assess one aspect of burn quality.
No one ever said it's the defacto be-all-end-all in burn quality assessment. Just the variability in rescanning in the same drives alone will discredit such a thought.
I understand your need to downplay its significance, but at the same time, I wouldn't discount it altogether either. It was an extremely helpful and meaningful tool in putting the pieces together to assess a burn. And, makes for a great conversation starter in this forum, don't you think? Cheers.
... btw ... as for some people nervous about certain spikes here or there or having extremely (relative to your criteria) quality standards ... well, everyone has a different need / use for their media. Maybe their playback reader / dvd player is that much more sensitive than the ones you've used. Maybe they have already experimented with different burn results and know what their 'target' acceptable levels are.
No one will EVER be able to give an absolute tolerance level that will be completely 100% universal ... because we're not all using hte same equipemnt, the same media, the same software, the same systmes, the same what have you ...
Instead of attacking those people on the extreme side of hte criteria standard ... maybe give some recognition to the fact that there are extremely sensitive players out there that can only read back within certain levels of PIE/PIF/POF, etc.
I won't disagree with you that there are many who may freak out about burn results whcih may be satisfactory to you and to most others ... but, at the same time, I won't pretend to think that I know WHY they have such high standards. There's a story behind all of these extreme cases. This place is quite an extreme when it comes to being "FREAKish" about cd/dvd media ... so, I don't think it at all unusual to expect that level of exectations when it comes to their burn quality.
I actually consider it refreshing to see that level of scrutiny. Though some may think it ridiculous or over and beyond ... that's the WHOLE POINT of being here, isn't it? Otherwise, we could spend our time at the 'other' sites that discusss similiar subjects only on a much more generic level ... ie. "Memorex sucks" ... or "this burner doesn't burn good" .... lol.
Instead of discouraging the high standards, I'm all for encouraging it.
As for scans that would 'stray' from the usual expectations ... as in your example above ... why wouldn't you be concerned about it? If you're a CD FReak enough to qulaity scan it, I would only think you'd be concerned why you're getting such results ... say, if you normally don't get those levels of errors. If it plays back fine and you yourself don't really give much credence to scans, then simply don't scan anymore. Burn 'em all ... and enjoy life. Good luck.