Towards a model for writing tool reviews.

Re: Towards a model for writing tool reviews.

Doug Littlejohn

>I am a IT professional and an Ex EE (just so you know my background). One thing I never grow tired of is information. I find it rather easy to determine what information is of value and that that is more suspect mostly based on the presentation itself (how it is written, structured, worded, etc.) as well as the 'track' record of the presenter.

As such, I would agree that some basic and simple to follow ground rules would increase the value of the reviews that have been and will be presented. Not make them more belivable, but easier to equate to what it is that I want to do with the subject being reviewed (or can relate it to).

Some people always doubt and will cast stones, others will have open minds that are capable of assimulating information on their own.

I have many times read a review and did indeed think to myself that while it was not a fully scientific study (either in execution or in communcication of the findings, and the author usually stated so as well) but that did not invalidate the information, it just changed the perspective from which to consider it under.

I think the most basic rule to follow (and I have seen followed in virtually every review that I have read) is a disclosure of interest or motivation. This forms the basis for understanding under what condtions the study was done to start with and while it may change how I view information, it does in no way negate it.

In short, I have read nothing to date that has seemed any bit of a problem. All of the reviews I have read have stated their ties to the items being tested and the vendors have stated theirs.

I have seen nothing in any of their behaviors to suggest that any of them have tried to be dishonest or to have any ulterior motives.

Keep on with what you all have been doing, you will never please those who are naturally naysayers.

Sherwood

Yup, I like the Adam method.

Doug Littlejohn

>

You Bought.....

Todd Hughes

>a NEW Brace ! !.....Todd

Adam..

Todd Hughes

>the only way I would give you a hatchet I made to review would be if you promished to give it BAD reviews so that I wouldn't have to make any more for anybody else!.....About 90 deg. today and to think I used to make sometimes 2 to 4 axes a day in weather like this! .....Todd

Who cares? We're not risking anything anyway.

John K in Hastings, MN

>If you order a tool based on a review and don't like it, you can return it to a company like LV or LN for a full refund. If you don't do that, you can put it on Ebay for 90% of new cost and someone else will buy it. Use it for 3 years, and you are out what? Ten bucks a year rent?

Personally, I like reading reviews because it gets my tool lust going and thus I add to my rather meager shelves of planes.

John

Re: With all due respect to Rob and LV

Dan Clermont

>Hi Dean,

Appreciate the mention to have LV send me a plane to analyze but I don't think that will ever happen.

I did do a comparison test between a Bedrock 604 1/2, LN 62 (high angle blade) and a Veritas 4 1/2 awhile back and reported my findings to the forum stating the Veritas sole was out of flat across the width near the mouth creating huge tearout problems on highly figured Eastern maple. The Bedrock 604 1/2 was the plane that felt right and the LN 62 removed all of the tearout.

Since then I have been labelled as a "rat" and a bad apple and I believe the people at Veritas think I want to "ruin" them but really I buy the majority of my woodworking supplies there so I frequent the stores often.... Too often for my empty pocket book

However, after the summer and when things slow down. I will purchase a Veritas Smoothing plane (got 90 days to return it) and compare it to my LN 5 1/2 high angle frog, LN 62 and Bedrock 604 1/2 and Bailey #4 Type 11.

Providing I can find the time.

By the way, I refuse to discuss or argue this topic on an open forum anymore but if you guys wish to contact me please feel free to e-mail me. If you have any questions, concerns, comments about my behaviour.

I will be in the mountains , camped enar a glacier fed lake, sleeping in a tent for the next four nights so if I do not respond it is not because I am ignoring you.

Thanks,

Dan Clermont

I felt the urge to reply... *LINK*

HC Sakman

>I don't know for a fact, but highly unlikely any of us who wrote plane reviews after receiving the "free" tool(s), would give up of our integrity for couple of hunderd bucks. This is NOT a counter-attack, but I have to say that people who think that it might be the case, also must have the thought of being biased themselves just because they had received a tool for free.

C'mon, we're not that spineless to sell ourselves (at least opinions) out for couple of hundred bucks.

This kinda thinking is making me angry. Very small way of thinking...

Anyway, I'll stop. This is enough.

HC Sakman a.k.a.

"Chico"


My site

Well... I DON'T!

HC Sakman

>There's a big difference in between $300 plane and $30000 truck. Personally, I intentionally try to find something wrong with the tool...Always! If I do, I say it; If I don't, I don't.

Besides, these "free" tools are not randomly dropped off to Joe Blow and then asked to do a review.

C'mon!

Chico...

So.....

Todd Hughes

>tell us some of the defects you have found while reviewing the planes.....Todd

Re: Towards a model for writing tool reviews.

Don Thompson - Cutler Ridge, Florida

>I agree with your three self-imposed rules for tool testing, and look forward to seeing your results.

Science is a Good Thing.

I was young, stupid... I'm so ashamed.

Patrick Gibbons, Houston

>

Re: With all due respect to Rob and LV

Rob Lee

>Dan -

If you actually plan to purchase a plane - and use it with the intention of returning it - ask the store manager to try one.

"Borrowing" product from stores (use and return) isn't really cool in my book. It increases the the cost of product for everyone else.

When we catch people doing it (and it happens) - we put them on a final sale basis only...

I would like to know though, who's labelled you a "rat" and a "bad apple" .... you can contact me off the board if you like - as you know, I always answer whatever questions you have....

Cheers -

Rob

Todd, attempthing to take ....

Frank Mutchler in Colorado Springs

>responsibility for other people's feelings is the core of political correctness run amok. That's the type of thing that can destroy a community.

First I am not saying and I do not think anybody is part of some big "Fix"

O.K. You've made your point very clear. Too bad you didn't just leave it at that. Instead you posited a hypothetical:

"....only to alot of people it just might look funny and will affect negatively how the review comes across."

Now you're concerned that a lot of people might think there is, in fact "a big Fix". You refer to it as looking "funny". So now, even though you do not, you think there may be a lot of people who do think that the Vendor and the Reviewer are "funny" or engaging in bribery.

My gut reaction to a statement like that is simply; how about we just let "alot of people" speak for themselves? When I read a statement like that it appears to me that the writer is expressing his/her own feelings under a thinly veiled subterfuge. So now I'm confused because you already said you don't think anything crooked is going on.

"I have a friend that writes for a Knife Magazine and he has never done a bad review on a knife that was given to him because he says that just isn't done. Even with none freebies if they advertise in the magazine his editor doesn't want to see anything bad about them"

Here, you use the example of a friend of yours who in fact does trade his/her integrity for job security. You do say that even though your friend is compromised, you don't think that the Vendor or Reviewers in question here are.

I prefer to think in black & white. Shades of gray are just that; shadows without substance.

So.....

HC Sakman

>It's not my issue to prove anything in "ready to serve" form! Go find it in the archives.

Chico...

Not to be glib, but

Gerry Doll

>as someone fairly new to handtools, and quickly sliding down the slope, I owe a great deal of thanks to Lynn, Todd, Derek, Bob, etc. Their posts, including the various reviews, have been extremely informative and have influenced various tool buying decisions I have made. Let me repeat, THAT I HAVE MADE.

That being said, this whole dispute appears to be a tempest in a teapot. I have come to rely upon the reviews posted here by various members through reading their prior posts and reviews. I have never met any of these individuals, don't know a damn thing about their lives outside the WC board, and could care less if Rob, LN, and Anant supplied them with fully outfitted shops. I assume the average visitor to this board will have the mental capacity to assume that all reviews, of any nature, will have a subjective component, i.e. personal bias.

I lack the expertise and experience of other posters on this board, and as such, rely upon relative strangers. However, I do know that if I had a question regarding the purchase of Japanese tools, I would call upon Pam. I do not have any Knight planes, but due to Steve K's postings, an unabashed Knight fan, I very well may purchase one. This would be my decision, based upon the information I have gleaned surfing this forum and others.

If a relative unknown was to post a sterling review of any item, I would lend far less weight to the credibility of said review. If a review fails to compare competitors offerings, lacks objective conclusions, or appears to be a shill piece, I would like to think the members of this forum have the mental capacity to note and weigh such factors. I doubt I would attack the credibility of the poster, absent proof that they were prostituing themselves.

Keep 'em coming.

Gerry

Exactly!!!!

Gerry Doll

>

Black and white thinking

Dan in NorCal

>Dear Frank,

"I prefer to think in black & white. Shades of gray are just that; shadows without substance."

I agree it is important to draw a line sometimes in life, but black and white thinking is actually a trait of borderline personality disorder (cluster B):

http://www.uihealthcare.com/depts/uibehavioralhealth/patiented/person.html

I am sure this is not what you meant and I mean not what is implied. This entire thread is beginning to degenerate with some folks taking some points too personally, and some humor may be due. In fact, I think all the disorders apply to me at some point of my life, which makes me - a true Neanderthal.

Dan

I dunno, Dan....

Dave (Arlington, VA)

>do you think personality disorders are a valid phychological classifatory system (white) or not (black)? Or perhaps, sometimes it is and sometimes it's not (gray) :-)

Happy 4th weekend!

Dave

I dunno neither, Dave....

Dan in NorCal

>I really have no idea, having performed rather miserably in psych, but this weekend, buddy, I am all red, white, and blue – and enjoying an all-American Wimbledon final (but secretly hoped that Sharapova was playing Serena on a chilly British morning).

Dan

Geez, Dan...........

Frank Mutchler in Colorado Springs

>Black & White = personality disorder? Absolutes vs Relativism? Yeah, I can see where all the "relativistic" DSM IIIR folks are coming from...."let's just diagnose them what don't think like us and that'll fix everything!"

Whoa.......let's see now.....where is my Prozak? ;>)