I read 190 product pages. Four in ten do not publish a weight

Every figure in the product library comes from the manufacturer's own page, read on a date and written down as it appears. Doing that 190 times teaches you something about the industry that no single product page shows: brands do not publish the same things, and the gaps are not random.

What the whole library publishes

Of 190 products, 114 publish a weight. That is 60%. Any dimensions appear on 126, material on 143, a waterproof rating on 118, a battery type on 108, a runtime on 64. An insertable length appears on 59, and 55 of those are one brand.

Reviews are thinner. 81 products carry a rating and 70 carry a five-star distribution, which leaves 109 with nothing to go on but what the object is made of.

Each brand publishes a different subset

This is the part that matters, and it is not visible from any single page.

Nexus, 57 products: no weight on any of them, no length-width-height box on any of them. But 96% publish an insertable length and every one publishes a widest point. It is the only brand that systematically prints the two numbers that decide whether something is comfortable to insert, and it prints almost nothing else. 18% carry a rating, and each of those has one or two reviews behind it.

Rocks-Off, 58 products: dimensions on all 58, a weight on 79%, material on 98%. Not one review, because the review widget on their shop has never collected one. You get a complete physical description of an object nobody has written about.

Hot Octopuss, 9 products: everything physical, and every product carries a rating and a star distribution. It is the only brand in the library where both halves are complete. It also publishes no insertable length, which for a cock ring or a wand is not a number you need.

Svakom, 50 products: 88% weight, 86% dimensions, 86% material, 96% rated, 94% with a star distribution. The most evenly covered of the five.

Satisfyer, 16 products: 94% weight, 100% dimensions, 94% material, 88% rated. Close to Svakom, on a much smaller range.

Put those side by side and there is no single axis all five share. Weight comes closest and it is still missing on 76 products. The number that decides whether an insertable toy is comfortable, the insertable length, is published by one brand out of five.

A field can be there and still say nothing

Rocks-Off prints a Circumference row on 21 products. Every one of them reads "Not specified on the sheet." The same page prints Insertable Length on 23 products and fills it in on three.

That is worth knowing if you are reading spec sheets anywhere. A row existing is not the same as a number existing, and a table full of rows can look complete while carrying nothing. When I collected these pages I threw those placeholders away rather than store the sentence, because a reader scanning a comparison would see the row and assume it meant something.

The reverse also happens, and Hot Octopuss is the example worth knowing. Their dimensions are not in a table. The block reads:

> Dimensions 3.14 x 1,18 x 2.36 In 80 x 30 x 60mm (with packaging) 6.29 x 3.93 x 2.55 In 160 x 100 x 65mm

Inches first, millimetres second, and the second pair is the box rather than the object. A reader skimming for a table will scroll straight past it, which is a good reason to read the paragraph text on any page before deciding it says nothing.

What you can and cannot do with this

You cannot rank all five brands on one axis, because they do not share one. No physical field is published by all 190 products.

Within a brand the comparisons hold. The nine cock rings in the library are a good example: four print an inner diameter, and the two most expensive print neither, which is a real finding about that category rather than a gap in my data. The eleven Nexus Revos are another: every one publishes an insertable length, so the whole family can be put on one ladder, and it turns out the £90 between the cheapest and the dearest does not change the shape.

Across brands, the honest comparison is narrower. Nexus and Rocks-Off both make prostate massagers and both publish something, but not the same thing: Nexus prints a widest point on all 35 of its massagers and an insertable length on 34 of them, Rocks-Off prints a bounding box on all nineteen of its own and a weight on 17. You can compare two Nexus massagers with each other and two Rocks-Off massagers with each other. You cannot put one from each on the same scale without guessing.

What it looks like on one page

The Hot Octopuss ATOM is a £49.95 vibrating cock ring with 8 reviews and a 5.0 average. Its page publishes the size, the weight, the material, the runtime, the battery spec, the waterproofing, and every one of those reviews. It does not publish an inner diameter, and for a cock ring that is the number that decides whether it fits.

The opposite case is Revo Slim: 28mm at the widest point, 100mm insertable, £150, and not a single review. You know exactly what arrives and nothing about whether it works.

Both are honest pages. Neither is a page you can decide from alone, which is why the library puts them side by side instead of in separate brand silos.

The rule I work to

If a page does not publish it, the field stays empty. Not estimated from a photograph, not copied from a retailer listing that copied it from somewhere else, not filled in because the number is obviously about 90mm. An empty cell is information: it tells you what the manufacturer was willing to commit to.

Every figure carries the date it was read, because prices and specs change and a number without a date is a rumour. All 190 products are in the product library, filterable by type and brand.