I have a question.
On all the other Mac models on this website, you use Apple's primary model I identifies, which are the "Mid 2008", "Late 2014" etc identifiers. But with the iMacs, you instead uses these meaningless "EMC" numbers, why is that? Why not just stick to the real, meaningful identifiers? It would make finding the right iMac guide so much easier, and so much less like pulling teeth.
I've been thinking about this a bit and I'm torn here. When you focus on a given product group things don't always line up that also fit with other products. So there needs to be a bit of flex in how this is done that also works across other product areas.
So as an example if we focus on MacBook systems we have 5 groups:
So we are all over the place on how we delineate just within this one subgroup!
So with this info we can see we really need a way to allow people to isolate the system by different ways (A number EMC number or even year) to get to the correct guide. One of the issues I've noted as of late is really needing the processors clock speed as some systems within the series have unique issues.
So what would be ideal here would be a popup listing once you get to the major group (in our case MacBook). So you would see here the headings: A number, EMC number or Year and the pop up would then offer you a list of systems based on your choice then you would be greeted with the models of the sub set to then click on. The next field would allow one to plug-in the CPU's clock speed as optional. Instead of clock it could be memory as in the case of iPhone or iPad.
Hopefully this would be workable across other devices.
One last point I forgot in my original posting:
While I've been focused on the MacBook here the method also needs to work with other devices besides Apple's gear (lawnmower, cars, toaster ovens ...)
EMC numbers are very helping for identifying a particular machine when that series, such as an A1174 ( which has eight machines in it). The EMC narrows it to just one machine.
6 Comments:
Not all the time. Sometimes a EMC can be shared with multiple releases of the same system, like A1297 for my old MacBook Pro. The A1297 model was shared with with the 17" series until Apple pulled the plug in 2011.
by Nick
Nick, looks to me like all A1297 from early 2009 until late 2011 had different EMC numbers for each model. Meaningless? I don't think so. It is the EMC number that helps you to properly identify your hardware.
by oldturkey03
The A1297 series had 11 different machines in it although 5 did have the EMC 2352 designation it helps to narrow down a particular machine. This is usually not the case.
by mayer
That's because the A1297 wasn't updated as often, because the 17" was a niche machine for people who either wanted a 16:10 screen beyond 1680x1050 or really needed it.
by Nick
How is that related to the "meaningless" EMC number?
by oldturkey03
Hi All!
Categorization is definitely a tough circus to run! We tried to pick identifiers that are most relevant to differentiating devices by hardware. We split models up based on the physical components because we want the associated guides to be accurate to that machine. Sometimes the best identifier is the model year, sometimes it's the EMC number (A numbers are usually too broad in scope).
A lot of stuff like clock speed, storage capabilities, color, etc are left to the summary field. Those differences are important for solving specific software issues, but they don't change the guides. When you type in the search bar, it takes the summary into account, so regardless of which identifiers you know, you should be able to land on the device page.
Is there a better identifier we should use in the title? Should we include summaries on device thumbnails in categories? Are we missing certain information in some summaries that makes searching hard? Can we put more identifiers in summaries on some devices?
Regarding identification, we do have the ID your Mac https://www.ifixit.com/Info/ID-your-Mac tool. Should we just have a link to this on Mac device/category pages? It seems to me that most people asking questions are probably just typing a device name into a new Answers post. Ideally they'll get help from the autocomplete/search system, but sometimes they miss that and ask a question about "Apple MacAir 2015" I'm not sure that an ID your Mac on the category page can solve that problem.
3 Comments:
There's actually a certain amount of guide switching one can do, depending on the machines in question. If I was to link someone to my 530s DVD drive guide you can use the guides for my version(E8200/Windows) on a 530s n series(Linux) machine since in that case it's only a variation in the license on my machine and the fact mine has the E8200. You can also do it for the RAM, sort of. On those machines the M02 and M03 have different RAM limits. The M02 is 4GB* and the M03 is 4GB** for RAM. There is also variations in the boards. The M02 can only take up the 3.33GHz C2D while the M03 can take the C2Q processors. Using the 530s as an example, mostly. If you had a C2Q model you need the M03 board and have more RAM options then a M02 owner. You can still reuse the guides, but the variations in the CPU and RAM need to be noted.
by Nick
*With a modified BIOS, it can do 8GB as well. Most people should not do this, since it can brick the motherboard. Even I don't want to do it, and I can probably recover it if it happens. **Dell says 4GB, but flash the BIOS to the newest version and 8GB is confirmed to work.
by Nick
@Sam - The summary info is often not fully visible within the selection (checkout the iPad listings). That might be a way to help isolate things with more consistent info (having the Model info, Year & CPU type when needed. I Still think one has to hand feed a lot of people to get them to the correct direction. You do need to think this a different way don't think about the guide think about what the skill set is of the person selecting the information to gain access to the correct set of guides. Yes, this sounds like the same here! Metaphorically is the same as looking at a half filled glass is it half empty or half full ;-) We keep looking at this as half empty while most people think of it as half full. Hopefully this makes sense!
by Dan
1 
31 
1