{"id":12,"date":"2022-09-20T01:59:13","date_gmt":"2022-09-20T01:59:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/flashlightreviews.ca\/wp\/?page_id=12"},"modified":"2023-04-18T03:37:01","modified_gmt":"2023-04-18T03:37:01","slug":"methodology","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/flashlightreviews.ca\/index.php\/methodology\/","title":{"rendered":"Methodology"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"My review thread structure certainly evolved over time, but my testing methodology has remained largely consistent. This allows you to directly compare output and runtime numbers from one review to another (i.e. an output level of “50” in one review is the same as a “50” in any other). I will explain the testing methodology on the linked pages below.<\/p>\n

But first off, I owe a great deal to the methodology developed by Doug P. on his outstanding flashlightreviews.com site. Sadly, this excellent resource is no longer active (the domain name was sold several times, and all the original content has been lost). Through my evolving review formats, I tried to carry on the tradition in my own way, using a consistent methodology. To learn more:<\/p>\n