Talk:Print Gocco

WP:Japan Assessment Commentary
This article was assessed Stub-class, because it never adequately defines the subject, and therefore, from beginning to end, I had no idea what it was describing. The first sentence it says the Gocco is a "printing system". I at first thought it was the internal mechanism of a computer printer. But then it was made in 1977, so maybe it was a photocopier? Or maybe related to silkscreen or other screen printing? But maybe it has something to do with photographic printing? The reader shouldn't have to guess. What kind of "printing system" are we talking about here? Boneyard90 (talk) 15:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Method of printing
I don't have references, and I don't remember precisely how this worked, but Riso's Print Gocco did not print like silkscreen, and the article contains a couple of inaccuracies in this area. Rather than using a squeegee that forced ink through the screen, the ink was squeezed from tubes onto the stencil, covering the areas to be printed, then a layer of clear plastic was placed over that, then direct downward force from a hinged top piece was used to press the ink through the stencil. There were a couple of advantages to this. The big one was, you could print multiple colors using a single stencil, simply by putting different colors of ink on different parts of the stencil. Because the ink was pressed rather than being drawn across the stencil, it stayed pretty much where you put it. This was a big selling point - multiple colors in one pass. This was also less messy than conventional silkscreen, because most of the ink stayed between the stencil and the clear plastic sheet. Darker than blue (talk) 11:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I just found one of these in a junk shop and brought it out of curiosity. The rather sparse English language materials confirm the multiple colours in a single operation feature. It claims that the HM (high mesh) series inks are designed not to mix, but it also includes some adhesive backed foam materials intended to separate large blocks of colour, the ink being piped onto the intended areas like icing. There are also a couple of illustrations on how to creates rainbow / marbled effects by piping multiple inks into the same area. The ink appears to be pushed through the whole stencil at once using a very dense foam pad rather than drawn across. Id imaging this may be one of the reasons for the small size as even the B6 model I have requires more quite a bit of force to get the contraption to close, I'd guess the larger (largest?) B5 size would be at the limit of what was practical.--37.152.224.102 (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Screen making
The article states that screens could be cleaned and re-coated for re-use. I don't think this is true. The coating for the screens was proprietary, and there were no materials available for re-using a screen. Perhaps the author confused this with more conventional silkscreen techniques. Darker than blue (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The initial screen-making process describes the screens as being coated (by the user) before exposure. If the coating liquid was supplied, then screen re-use is easy. It's also pretty easy to re-coat screens - I've never seen a kit or commercial screen printing setup that didn't work in this way. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Replacing Unreliable Source / Claim
I wanted to provide some context for my recent edit to this page. It’s also my first real edit on Wikipedia— the reason I signed up for this account.

Specifically, it’s my removal of the line: “it is estimated that one-third of Japanese households own a Print Gocco system.”

I was initially pretty skeptical on this extraordinary claim. The assertion a third of Japanese households own a Print Gocco system equates its popularity to that of the Nintendo Wii at its peak. Such a level of penetration seems incredibly unlikely at the time the source document was produced (2006) and almost impossible today—  especially given that the company discontinued the product due to declining sales and it saw such little adoption overseas.

My choice to change to the article is based on three main factors:


 * 1) This source conflicts with other, more reliable sources used in this article.
 * 2) The original source is unreliable.
 * 3) Disregarding all that, it’s widely outdated.

''' This source conflicts with others. '''

In 2008, as reported by Jiji Press and Japan’s Corporate News Network in a source used elsewhere in this article, Riso Kagaku discontinued Print Gocco system due plummeting sales.

In that article, it stated that “cumulative sales of the Print Gocco topped 10 million units since its launch in September 1977.”

At the time, the number of households in Japan was an estimated 51,200,000.

If one-third of Japanese households owned a Print Gocco unit, it would necessitate the existence of 17,066,666 million units— at least six million more units than Riso Kagaku ever manufactured by the most generous estimates.

When I say generous, I mean generous to the point of delusion. If we’re told sales topped 10 million, we can optimistically interpret that to mean 10,999,999. When they write the sales are cumulative, we might optimistically disregard all international sales and assume this figure refers only to cumulative sales within Japan. Even if we also assume no household ever purchased a secondary unit over three decades of use and all sales are to new households, or there’s a robust secondary market, or that units may be shared between households— even we find a way to disqualify hundreds of thousands of Japanese households from the count…

…Even by the most ridiculously generous estimates and playful arithmetic,  I cannot get anywhere near one third of Japanese households owning a unit at any point in time. My most optimistic (but still somewhat reasonable) estimate is at 15.6% penetration. (Obviously, my original research estimate is not fit for inclusion in the article and is provided here only for reference.)

''' The original source is unreliable. '''

If the one-third claim was made by a reliable source, I would be more open to keeping it despite the conflict, but pursuant to Wikipedia’s guidelines on Verifiability and due and undue weight I think it’s worth bringing the reliability of the article into question.

At the time of publication, the author ran a fan-site (savegocco.com) dedicated to saving the product. This, combined with the hyperbolic claims, including “the universal first response to seeing a Gocco in action is ‘I gotta get one of these!’” makes it clear the author, due to their enthusiastic support of the product, likely has a bias towards promoting it.

I don’t think the author is trying to be dishonest in their claim about the number of Japanese households who use the product, but given the heavy use of anecdotal evidence (convincing a local store to stock the Gocco system, an online Yahoo Gocco group) I find it unlikely the author had access to real data for this point.

I did find what might have been their source, an aside made in a 2003 NYT Jersey Footlights column.

The article is not without merit. It does provide useful information about the author's personal experience with Gocco, and I would absolutely use it as a source to claim that “U.S. suppliers have already run out of stock on the familiar powder-blue B-6 kit” since the author would have had real experience with sourcing Gocco accessories in the states.

However, it lacks the objectivity and verification of information required to be a reliable source on Japanese market penetration.

''' Disregarding all that, it’s widely outdated. '''

Possibly the most egregious part of this claim is the use of current tense. Even if the cited source was accurate, it was published in 2006. Over sixteen years later, it just doesn’t make sense to treat this source as current— you certainly wouldn't do the same for percentages of households with iPods, Motorola RAZRs, or other products popular in 2006.

Ultimately: Given the conflict with other sources, the questionable reliability of the original source, and the outdated nature of the claim, I find it necessary to update the article for accuracy. The new wording reflects Gocco's success while remaining factually accurate based on more reliable sources.

The sentence has been replaced with “Gocco achieved significant success, cumulatively selling over 10 million units internationally prior to its discontinuation in 2008.” Chive Cream Cheese (talk) 07:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Chive Cream Cheese (talk) 02:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)