Edit: didn’t knew OP added the “compared to regular panels part”. Disregard the rest of this comment.
I think is a good title, it’s tells how compare against regular solar panels. Saying their absolute efficiency wouldn’t really tell a lot because not everyone knows what means having a 20% efficiency.
It’s poorly worded but anyone that thinks panels are anything close to 95% wasn’t paying attention. Even hydro power which just gravity and a turbine barely achieves 95%
Colored solar panels that mimic tiles roof hit 95% efficiency compared to regular solar tiles
Do they hit 95% of regular solar tiles efficiency? Or do they hit 95% efficiency, while regular solar tiles hit (presumably) less?
It is a clickbait title because it offers more than one interpretation. One is reasonable (and correct), but not punchy. The other is outlandish (and wrong) but draws the reader in on the off chance that it might be right. Hence the subsequent disappointment in the headline.
If you only see the “correct” interpretation, more power to you: you weren’t baited and thus had nothing to be disappointed by.
But the headline is, objectively, phrased to bait the click from a wide swath of readers who question if the “incorrect” interpretation just might be true.
It’s poorly worded to mislead into “actual efficiency”. People looking at solar panels need the real number, not how it compares to traditional ones. This is at worst misleadingly worded, or at best, poor journalism.
Edit: didn’t knew OP added the “compared to regular panels part”. Disregard the rest of this comment.
I think is a good title, it’s tells how compare against regular solar panels. Saying their absolute efficiency wouldn’t really tell a lot because not everyone knows what means having a 20% efficiency.
It’s poorly worded but anyone that thinks panels are anything close to 95% wasn’t paying attention. Even hydro power which just gravity and a turbine barely achieves 95%
But heat pumps are over 100%.
If you compare moving heat with making heat, you’re going to get pretty absurd numbers anyway.
No.
The title implies that, somehow, colored solar panels hit 95% efficiency, compared to panels that are not colored. To be clear, it should say:
“Colored solar panels that mimic tiles roof achieve 95% of the efficiency of regular solar tiles”
Do they hit 95% of regular solar tiles efficiency? Or do they hit 95% efficiency, while regular solar tiles hit (presumably) less?
It is a clickbait title because it offers more than one interpretation. One is reasonable (and correct), but not punchy. The other is outlandish (and wrong) but draws the reader in on the off chance that it might be right. Hence the subsequent disappointment in the headline.
If you only see the “correct” interpretation, more power to you: you weren’t baited and thus had nothing to be disappointed by.
But the headline is, objectively, phrased to bait the click from a wide swath of readers who question if the “incorrect” interpretation just might be true.
It’s poorly worded to mislead into “actual efficiency”. People looking at solar panels need the real number, not how it compares to traditional ones. This is at worst misleadingly worded, or at best, poor journalism.