Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sizing chaos

pudding.cool

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 458 posts

Re: Sizing chaos

#281

Post by Maxion »

fao_ wrote: post #228
apt-apt-apt-apt wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They use precise but indirect terminology e.g., "heightened level of appearance self-esteem" rather than "confident in their appearance". Indirect phrasing e.g., "they respond more favorably to products that can help to repair their damaged appearance self-esteem" rather than something direct and easy to understand like "they feel bad that they don't fit, so they end up buying other things like makeup/jewelry to feel…

Maybe it's me, but only the first quote seems cumbersome, and wasn't very cumbersome in the article when I read it in context.

Being able to easily, and quickly read scientific literature is not a universal trait. You're in the top 1% (probably top 0.1%?) if you're able to do that and actually understand the source material.

The average person has a hard time reading and fully understanding a newspaper article or cooking instructions on a pre-prepared meal.

Re: Sizing chaos

#282

Post by Markoff »

bsimpson wrote: post #44
socalgal2 wrote: post #25

This feels almost like a made up issue - like, "we want to considered victims so lets make up something to whine about" A few concrete issues: (1) they complain there are no international standards - And? Why should Japan, who's average size be much smaller than the USA be required to use USA standards? Their population doesn't need to care about people outside of Japan. You could say they should relabel the clothing…

Japan was the example that stood out to me. (It's where UNIQLO is from.) I'm 5'11"/180cm with US11/EU45 feet. They didn't sell boots that fit me in Japan. I got a deal on an "XL" jacket that the salesman insisted I buy, because I was the only person to have ever come into the store that it fit. (It's the only thing I've ever worn labelled "XL.")

same problem in China, usually the biggest available shoe size is 44, it improved a bit, but it's still lottery, I usually buy 46 in Europe, I was this summer in China, bought relatively cheap shoes online knowing it will be lottery and result didn't surprised me: 46 size shoes I received were more like 44-45 47 size shoes were actually like 47

in the end I have one pair of shoes which is fairly tight and other pair which is very loose, but got used to that, easier than tight one

and I tried to read reviews where people describe how accurate are the sizes for sizes in XL, I am quite skinny and very tall so I end up with something like 3 or 4XL to get ordinary size

btw. wife got used to European sizing where she buys XS or S size and she had very bad surprise after shopping in China where she found out she is now by Chinese sizes considered more like M or L since those XS and S Chinese sizes are pretty much for small girls :-))

Re: Sizing chaos

#283

Post by Maxion »

elil17 wrote: post #276
_main wrote: post #240

If you shop online and use raw measurements, then it will both fit and be available. The real concern I have is how the large majority of westerners are overweight or obese. That's a serious issue way beyond the practicality of buying clothes

You are assuming that listed raw measurements online are accurate (they rarely are).

Or that individual pieces of a garment are consistent, which they aren't. Only if you buy in to the more expensive brands.

Re: Sizing chaos

#284

Post by galkk »

zamadatix wrote: post #22
fishtoaster wrote: post #14

This is a great use of data to make a compelling case that sizing sucks for women's clothing! I do wish it attempted to answer the question at the end, though: "Sizes are all made up anyway — why can’t we make them better?" Like, why doesn't the market solve for this? If the median woman can't buy clothing that fits in many brands, surely that's a huge marketing opportunity for any of the thousands of other clothing…

In the "THe VILLaIN aRC oF VANiTY SiZINg" section, vanity sizing is framed as marketing strategy which is successful because of the psychology around that - linking out to https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S10577... for more detail. It certainly wouldn't be the first time the most profitable marketing strategy is unrelated to aligning with what's optimal for the consumer.

This is the weirdest section, and is just unnecessary virtue signaling.

Women don’t buy their real size because it makes them feel bad -> market pressures companies to address that by doing vanity sizing -> brands bad

I cannot comprehend that jump in the logic.

Re: Sizing chaos

#285

Post by Maxion »

crote wrote: post #172
Galaco wrote: post #60

At a previous employer this was a problem we identified (and larger retailer customers) had recognised, although for other reasons. We had developed a size recommendation system for them, that used real product measurements in every size and a method of obtaining your body measurements from fully clothed photos. We also offered a statistical average measurement set for those who couldn’t/wouldn’t take photos of thems…

There's also a surprising lack of consistency item-to-item. More than once I have grabbed two of the same pants (same model, same size label, next to each other on the rack) and one would fit well while the other was way too large or way too small.

This is a QA issue, the factory makes sizes to a pattern. But to be fast, they don't cut it out that accurately or sew it that accurately. So you end up with big variance from size to size.

In order to get fast fashion made cheaply and quickly, corners are (left) uncut.

Re: Sizing chaos

#287

Post by mrkandel »

apt-apt-apt-apt wrote: post #137
goodmythical wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am genuinely curious as to which words in the cited are 'confusing science speak' in your view. Having read the article, I can't venture a guess without feeling condescending...non-conforming? Compensatory? Legitimately confused.

They use precise but indirect terminology e.g., "heightened level of appearance self-esteem" rather than "confident in their appearance". Indirect phrasing e.g., "they respond more favorably to products that can help to repair their damaged appearance self-esteem" rather than something direct and easy to understand like "they feel bad that they don't fit, so they end up buying other things like makeup/jewelry to feel…

You can't write "feel bad that they don't fit" in a paper. What do you think this is, the yellow papers?

Re: Sizing chaos

#288

Post by mrkandel »

galkk wrote: post #280

> Cultural narratives around vanity sizing often square the blame on female shoppers, not brands. Newsweek once called it “self-delusion on a mass scale” because women were more likely to buy items that were labeled as sizes smaller than reality. But there’s more to the story. > Vanity sizing provides a powerful marketing strategy for brands. Companies found that whenever women needed a size larger than expected, the…

Well, the first description puts it as "self delusion", while the other describes it as a rather natural reaction and puts the initiative for the change on the brands.

Re: Sizing chaos

#290

Post by scotty79 »

I hope with computers getting better at handling soft materials we could finally get fully automated tailor as a service. Mass production in clothing has so many pathologies that it needs to be replaced with something better and less wasteful asap.
Post reply on HN