Taking what you are implying, I should have not ran into more than a couple failure reviews for WD in the first 10 or so pages, I ran into that many failure reviews in the first page alone.
Not true, you should see many more failure reviews for WD since there are 10X more reviews. So proportionally you should see 20-30 failures (10x2-3) for WD and you should HEAR/SEE proportionally that many more through forums, word of mouth, websites, etc. Scientifically you would have to count each failure over all of the reviews. This is all a rough way to look at it though. We are still looking at such a small sample size compared to all HDD purchased and we don't know if any of the reviews are fake.
Also, what you hear/see is anecdotal. Many more people speak up if a failure happens than they do when non-failures happens (especially reviews). Case in point, when do you read a thread on a forum that praises a HDD? All you hear about are failures (and that goes with any product). In the end we need the companies data for true numbers and not use anecdotal reasoning.
We are primitive animals and likewise are our thoughts. I would have the EXACT same feeling as you do. Even if the true numbers came out and WD's had much better failure rates and I went through your experience I would still fell the same, hence the primitive thoughts.
Disclaimer: I'm unbiased and not supporting either company. I, like you, have to rely on anecdotal evidence since we don't have true numbers. I built a new computer a few years ago and use both brands (along with a Samsung SSD). I will say that MY personal research has lead me to believe WD is superior to Seagate. Does it not make you wonder why these companies don't publish their data???
