Although most can't help but learn by picking-up facts as they go along, it certainly would be nice if, along with may vendors' zeal to differentiate themselves from all the others, they would also agree and adopt SOME sort of compatibility standard for naming that goes beyond RN-4081 = DSE103 = "Super-mini" (sometimes) etc, if only it correlated to such basic information as the battery gender, diameter, and thread size.
At the end of the day, HOW detailed the standard would be wouldn't be nearly as valuable as the fact that a standard existed. For example, any battery, atomizer, charger, or cartridge that could fit a DSE103/RN-4081 could be listed as "Type A" comaptible. Those that fit the DSE901/RN-4075/BE901 could be "Type B".
I know it's very easy to make these kinds of suggestions when someone ELSE has to do the work, but this is where a body like the community forum could really bring some practical benefit to bear. As much of a central repository of information about the subject as exists, it could create a list of these kinds of commonalities and simply ask of any vendor who wants to advertising its wares through this forum that it include a simple comment in the description of each item. For example:
Joe's Ye Olde vaping Shoppe:
Cartridges
Item Quantity Description
CART001 5 (ECF "A") Sooper Dooper Vapor Cartridges - Brown
ATOM001 1 (ECF "B") Sir Vapesalot Atomizer
USB001 1 (ECF "C") Mongo-Vapor USB Passhtrough
and so forth.
Again, I don't mean to volunteer ECF into any more responsibility or work than they wish to perform, but it would be a terrific opportunity to create some sort of consumer-oriented standard, and as the central gathering place where most e-smokers/vapers come to visit, I can't think of a better non-partisan body to be the keepers of the established norms. It also seems like a great way for individual vendors to tie-in with the forum, as the only thing they would have to do (apart from adding the "type" reference to each item description), is include a brief section in their FAQ which could link to the ECF "Types" page that always has the most current data. The presence of this kind of standardized reference information on a vendor's site would also be a helpful way to tell apart vendors who "participate" from those who happen to set up shop and decide a week later they'd rather go back to their day jobs.
I'm sure I'm neither the first nor the only person to whom this thought has occurred, so please forgive me if it has already been mentioned. And again, I don't mean to imply that the forum operators should assume the additional responsibility after being good enough to provide us with this free forum to begin with; but it's the kind of thing that wouldn't be likely to succeed without the kind of centralized critical mass the forum has, or if any one person would try to do it independently. I mean, why would any vendor listen to any one person? On the other hand, their motivation for adopting something ECF implements are obvious.
Finally, by the existence of even a minimal kind of "common standard", it would be beneficial both to the vendors and the community as a whole. It would sure reduce the kind of "Does your XYZ work with my ABC?" questions vendors must receive in droves, and ANYTHING that serves as ANY kind of organizing or stabilizing factor among the broad swath of vendors would only further the perception that vaping is more than is a collection of situationally opportunistic entrepreneurs and foster likelihood of broader acceptance across all segments, from the consumer to the inevitable regulator.
Again, please excuse me if this has been previously proposed or discussed in any fashion before. I don't mean to be the latest person to recommend someone else's great idea. I only mention it as something that was a significant challenge for me when I began exploring the idea of vaping (and occasionally continues to be), which I think could have the chance to benefit the entire community, vendor and consumer alike.
At the end of the day, HOW detailed the standard would be wouldn't be nearly as valuable as the fact that a standard existed. For example, any battery, atomizer, charger, or cartridge that could fit a DSE103/RN-4081 could be listed as "Type A" comaptible. Those that fit the DSE901/RN-4075/BE901 could be "Type B".
I know it's very easy to make these kinds of suggestions when someone ELSE has to do the work, but this is where a body like the community forum could really bring some practical benefit to bear. As much of a central repository of information about the subject as exists, it could create a list of these kinds of commonalities and simply ask of any vendor who wants to advertising its wares through this forum that it include a simple comment in the description of each item. For example:
Joe's Ye Olde vaping Shoppe:
Cartridges
Item Quantity Description
CART001 5 (ECF "A") Sooper Dooper Vapor Cartridges - Brown
ATOM001 1 (ECF "B") Sir Vapesalot Atomizer
USB001 1 (ECF "C") Mongo-Vapor USB Passhtrough
and so forth.
Again, I don't mean to volunteer ECF into any more responsibility or work than they wish to perform, but it would be a terrific opportunity to create some sort of consumer-oriented standard, and as the central gathering place where most e-smokers/vapers come to visit, I can't think of a better non-partisan body to be the keepers of the established norms. It also seems like a great way for individual vendors to tie-in with the forum, as the only thing they would have to do (apart from adding the "type" reference to each item description), is include a brief section in their FAQ which could link to the ECF "Types" page that always has the most current data. The presence of this kind of standardized reference information on a vendor's site would also be a helpful way to tell apart vendors who "participate" from those who happen to set up shop and decide a week later they'd rather go back to their day jobs.
I'm sure I'm neither the first nor the only person to whom this thought has occurred, so please forgive me if it has already been mentioned. And again, I don't mean to imply that the forum operators should assume the additional responsibility after being good enough to provide us with this free forum to begin with; but it's the kind of thing that wouldn't be likely to succeed without the kind of centralized critical mass the forum has, or if any one person would try to do it independently. I mean, why would any vendor listen to any one person? On the other hand, their motivation for adopting something ECF implements are obvious.
Finally, by the existence of even a minimal kind of "common standard", it would be beneficial both to the vendors and the community as a whole. It would sure reduce the kind of "Does your XYZ work with my ABC?" questions vendors must receive in droves, and ANYTHING that serves as ANY kind of organizing or stabilizing factor among the broad swath of vendors would only further the perception that vaping is more than is a collection of situationally opportunistic entrepreneurs and foster likelihood of broader acceptance across all segments, from the consumer to the inevitable regulator.
Again, please excuse me if this has been previously proposed or discussed in any fashion before. I don't mean to be the latest person to recommend someone else's great idea. I only mention it as something that was a significant challenge for me when I began exploring the idea of vaping (and occasionally continues to be), which I think could have the chance to benefit the entire community, vendor and consumer alike.
