Re: Unbiased review?
Lyn J. Mangiameli
>Lawrence,
The sorts of concerns you express are the reason I don't write reviews of Lee Valley products anymore. It's not because I don't think I could provide a helpful discussion of the product, but rather that I just don't care to have such criticisms raised with respect to my motives, nor Rob's.
I think you may be failing to put into perspective several points.
First, one of the reasons why LV has put forward such good products is that they have combined a respect for woodworkers and their needs WITH an excellent in-house R&D staff WITH input from knowledgable woodworkers outside their company. As I've expressed before, getting good feedback on a tool prior to the final design decisions seems like a good practice that benefits not only the company, but earlier purchasers. Some companies just seek the feedback from a small group of high profile professional woodworkers, LV has the better approach, IMO, by seeking the input of knowledgable, dedicated, recreational woodworkers, who are, afterall, by far the largest group of folks purchasing the product.
Second, as others have mentioned, there is no such thing as a review devoid of all forms of bias. Anyone who has been properly trained as a researcher (and Derek happens to have that background), is aware of that and seeks to do what they can to minimize bias where that is possible, and reveal the possible source of bias where they can't (or don't choose to). Derek did just that, he was up front about his relationship with LV and the circumstances of him acquiring the honing guide. With that information in hand, the reader can make whatever allowances they feel are necessary.
Third, I would actually quible with Derek over the title of his comments. I personally consider them early impressions rather than a review, though as he expands his comments, it may well become more of a review. A good review, IMO, goes on at some length to provide the reader with as much objective description of the product as possible. In this day of digital photography, I feel that good written discription is often lacking, and not adequately replaced by just a photo. Regardless, the more the reviewer provides you with good objective description, the more information you have to develop your own analysis of the product, as well as ability to appraise the less objective discussion offered in the review.
Fourth, Of course Rob would like good press on his product. I don't think any of us are so naive that we don't think there is a financial pay off for Rob if some "opinion leaders" early on sing praises to his newly released product. But I think it is helpful to consider a couple of additional factors. One, the "opinion leaders" have often become just that because they have a long history of offering useful advice and observation. That is, they have already established some credibility with their peers. Might I add, this sort of credibility isn't always present or assumed when a review is presented by a magazine contributor (talk about bias, how about magazines offering reviews of products from their major advertisers--and, don't you think they often get access to products in advance). But I also want to discuss the flip side of this, on a pesonal level. Rob first contacted me many years ago after I had criticized his first block plane. We had long correspondence over that, and then his first power sharpening system. Both products I purchased like any other consumer. Since that time, I"ve been often involved in giving advice, feedback and criticism of LV products, both to LV and to my woodworking peers. After writing quite a few fairly well received reviews, I stopped for the reasons I discussed at the beginning. The number of projects I have been involved with since, have greatly increased, rather than decreased. Now if Rob were just choosing to "use" me, by thinking that providing some tools would gain him good reviews and public comments (and anyone who knows me, knows I publicly castigate some of his design decisions as well as praise them), then you'd think my involvement in the feedback cycle would have slowed down, but it hasn't.
I'd also like to point out, that providing such feedback and reviews takes up a lot of time. Many of the folks who are providing this information, and Derek is a good example, are upper level professionals whose time is worth a lot more than the cost of the tools. Most get (or got, for those now retired) lots of acknowlegement in their professional life, and don't need their ego stroked by seeing their name in print (or on someone else's screen). Almost everyone who I know much about, who writes online reviews, does so to be of service to their fellow woodworkers. Similarly, almost everyone I know who writes such reviews, have a long track record in their respective online communities and plan to remain involved in those communities in the future. Writing a review that is less than candid and truthful, just isn't a good strategy for long term success in an online community.
Ah, there is so much more that could be said here, but I'll end wit this. I personally think that that virtually all of us, LV, Rob individually, most folks who offer considered reports of products, etc, are planning to be around for a while. Credibility is something one earns over time, and something that can always be lost--sometimes far too easily. The principals in this discussion, are persons of established integrity, and nothing has occured that modifies my recognition of that.
