Absolutely. Someone spending over $200 on something should be far more critical of it than someone who is just happy to get something under $40. It’s always a “for the price, my rating is...” thing.

This should be called “Higher priced running shoes are not rated better by consumers than lower priced alternatives.” The definition of “better” here is definitely misleading.

Wait a minute. Who is rating this stuff? These are customer reviews? I don’t think you can draw the conclusion suggested by the title of your article. The types of runners buying brooks are likely very different from those buying sketchers. The only way to make something like this really work is to randomly assign…

This is review based and not based on whether a shoe is better for running. The people that are buying cheap shoes probably have no idea what is good or bad and maybe aren’t even using them for running at all! The people that are buying the better shoes might be more critical because chances are they are running a lot…

“a little bias”

For any purchase that I care about, I shop in great depth, reading lots of reviews for each quality level - from the top-of-the line to the first couple results you get when you sort ebay by “lowest price first”.

I say, without any hesitation at all, that it’s not just “a little bias”: it is typical for…

I’m a bit skeptical about this type of polling the same way you are because I’m not exactly convinced the same type of people are buying expensive AND affordable shoes to establish any meaningful baseline.