If you're specifying decibels in written form you always include the basis or you're simply being incomplete with your units. I don't understand the complaint there.

In casual conversation, the context implies the basis.

Dealing with decibels is also another shorthand to know the domain has a wide enough value gamut such that logarithmic values (where addition is multiplication) makes sense. See also, the Richter scale.

> If you're specifying decibels in written form you always include the basis or you're simply being incomplete with your units. I don't understand the complaint there.

It seems that a lot of people who are specifying decibels in written form aren't aware of what you just said

Did you ever see someone use p as a unit and expect anyone to understand it means pico? Because I've seen that with dB. In this very thread. You really don't have to look far for the tendency for dB to be used as incomplete unit

> See also, the Richter scale

Looking at the article and trying to substitute Richter, I can't imagine what you'd plug in the different positions:

- it's not a derivative of another relative unit (no decirichter)

- it was not originally meant for something else (dB was originally meant for power, leading to difference in meaning of dB in dB(V) vs. dB(W), if I'm understanding the article correctly)

- it's not trying to indicate the magnitude of the actual unit (you don't specify Richter-Volts or something, just Richter, so you can't forget to specify the actual unit)

- there aren't different meanings depending on the field you're in (a –45dB microphone is mentioned in the article as referring to Volts whereas an acoustic 10dB loudness difference is apparently in Pascals; Richters are always Richters)

The article criticises a lot of dB's aspects but I'm not sure the exponentialness is one of them

Exactly! I have seen temperatures specified as degrees, without specifying Fahrenheit or Celsius. It's a bit like that.

My exposure to dB is mainly the RF field, and it's simple. dB is gain/loss (power ratio, just like the dictionary says!) and dBm is relative to a milliwatt. In software defined radio, you've got dBFS - relative to maximum representable. And they're all labeled correctly.

> I don't understand the complaint there.

The problem is that almost nobody does. I can't remember the last time outside of HN comments here that I've seen dB(A) or similar in real world.