@cathoderay in that case the second category needs to be removed as how do you fix a snag without a return visit? 

Im glad you feel flawless is a clear definition but those of us who clearly aren't as all knowing as you perhaps need it clarified in the description!

@vinma 

That all looks very neat and professional and thank you for posting.  Its good to hear from householders with successful installs to remind us that these are very probably the vast majority, but of course also the people who have relatively little reason to post here!

The only comment I would make is that the hot water pipework should normally be insulated for (at least) the first 1m from the tank.

@gmuzz I completely agree. Given the ‘clarification’ that flawless obviously means including small snags, I fail to understand what the difference between the top two poll responses is? It’s not a big deal until the data is used to make claims like ‘only 10% of installations are to the required standards’. I would suggest 5 categories are enough and 1 & 2 should be combined.

Posted by: @gmuzz

↑

Im glad you feel flawless is a clear definition but those of us who clearly aren't as all knowing as you perhaps need it clarified in the description!

I think that is an excellent suggestion, I am sure @editor will attend to it.

To be clear. I see flaw-less as fault-less, and a fault or defect is something that compromises operation in some non-trivial way or other, if such a flaw isn't present, then the installation is in my view flaw-less.

I suggest there may be another category above flawless, one in which the installer has gone above and beyond the call of duty. I have no doubt such installers and installations exist, indeed on one level (but not perhaps on some other minor points) my own installer achieved just that. Four years on and I am still grateful to him. 

@cathoderay did you re read your first paragraph? To be fair it does a very good job of illustrating my point. Do you really think the rest of the population has your interpretation of what flawless means, I don’t.

You said “Flawless as the top category is fine. It does not mean perfect, it means flaw-less, no flaws.” Really? 

The Poll wording is actually “Flawless – perfect in every sense”, seems a bit contradictory based on your definition.

You suggested “But on this we can agree, flawless can include snags (which haven't reached the defect/fault threshold, hiccups if you like), and a large part of how an installation remains flawless is how any snags/hiccups get dealt with.”

I don’t agree, but if you’re correct, how does poll option one differ from option two?

@woofers64 — I do agree the top two definitions and their distinction could be clarified and that is why I said I am sure @editor will attend to it.

When I saw the world flawless that immediately to me meant perfect.

I was once told aiming for perfection is pretty much impossible, unachievable and comes with an unnecessary level of stress and anxiety for all involved and best off avoided.

If it was me I'd still leave the flawless category in as someone may actually have achieved this (which would be a very small number), but add in another category "excellent", which would cover the best installations.

@bash, in the context of this poll, "flawless" is outcome-based, not metaphysical. It means the fundamentals were done properly: accurate heat loss, correct sizing, sound system design, thorough commissioning and the system delivered expected comfort and efficiency without material defects or performance issues. The wording has been updated to explain this. 

That’s not an impossible standard. Quite honestly, based on the Heat Geek I completed, this should be the standard.

I don’t think we should lower the top category to something softer simply because perfection in life is abstractly unachievable. We’re not grading art... we’re assessing technical work with measurable criteria. A heating system either performs as designed or it doesn’t.

The second category already captures what you’re describing as "excellent"... very pleased overall, minor return visit, small tweaks. 

If only a small number of installs qualify as flawless under that definition, that’s useful data and not a problem with the wording IMO.

The point of the poll isn’t to reduce stress for installers. It’s to differentiate levels of execution clearly and honestly.

Silly question, @editor; is it possible for someone's vote to be amended for the vote to be removed so the someone can vote again?

I'm only asking since your own vote definitely doesn't match up with your current opinion of your original heat pump install....

@majordennisbloodnok, not a silly question. Technically, no, the poll plugin doesn’t allow vote amendments or resets once submitted.

And you’re right, if I were voting today, with what I now know about our original system, I wouldn’t put it in the same category.

But that actually reinforces the wider point.

Perception evolves with knowledge. Early on, many homeowners judge their install on surface-level factors. "It’s warm," "It’s running," "The team seemed professional." Over time, once you understand heat loss accuracy, emitter sizing, hydraulic strategy, flow temperatures, commissioning depth, you reassess.

What once felt good can later reveal itself as average. Or fundamentally compromised.

So yes, my vote would likely shift today. And that evolution is part of the story we’re trying to capture.

At the end of the day, this isn't a scientific, in-depth survey. We're getting a pulse and feel for what's happening out there. 

@editor 

The re-wording is now much better, it removes the layman's view that the install/design/efficiency etc was perfect, which as we know is nigh on impossible.

Our install sits around the top end of Very pleased and Flawless (as it reads now), but definitely wasn't perfect.

@editor Do I see a potential weakness here? Consumers with little knowledge or experience of heat pumpery are likely to view their experience in a different light to those with some or a fair amount of knowledge and/or some experience of such matters. For some consumers, if it runs quietly and they are comfortable, they may not consider running costs in the same light as a consumer with greater understanding of optimisation of settings or even what a good (S)COP might be. If much of the plumbing is perhaps in a loft - many (perhaps less physically agile) consumers may not have seen or be aware of neatness or lack of insulation for instance?

If the above is a valid point, may there not be some value in having a ‘weighting’ applied to consumer’s ratings based on their degree of knowledge and / or experience of heat pumpery? I don’t mean to say that the opinion of a novice is any less valuable than that of another on their second heat pump installation - just that it may be being assessed differently.

I can imagine a consumer with a fine sense of artistic symmetry might feel that perhaps 3 pipes on one side of the tank whilst there might be 4 on the other was ‘untidy’! (Ok, I have an active imagination!) Regards, Toodles.