Towards a model for writing tool reviews, reviewed

Re: Towards a model for writing tool reviews, revi

Tim of Livermore

>Derek,

I've not followed the thread(s) so this may be a duplicate suggestion.

To yourself and anyone else who either does or has aspirations to "publish" reviews: In my not so humble opinion, a glaring omission in most reviews is a lack of biography on the reviewer. Yes, you should clearly state LV provided the tool to you free of charge....but to get a perspective on your review, it would be helpful to know where you're coming from. How many years have you worked wood? Do you build furniture or do you like to tinker with tools? Have you been formally trained? If so, by who? Krenov's school? Apprenticed in Moser's factory? Do you work in the Western style? Japanese style? Or perhaps a mix of both or some other way entirely? If you build, put a picture or 2 of your "showcase" piece(s). A picture or two of your joinery or surface prep standard would be helpful too. What is your standard of excellence? Some have posted that they think wood can be worked to tolerances in the less than 0.00001 inches while others do everything by hand so don't care if one side still has lots of jack or scrub tracks. There is more information you should and could add to such a biography. This biography (auto or not) should be attached to each review and certianly can be changed over time....not everyone is familiar with everyone else and there are always new folks coming in. Knowing the reviewer's perspective is very helpful.

Tim

Re: Towards a model for writing tool reviews, revi

paul womack

>It seems that the majority are more interested in subjective data, that is, the reviewer’s opinion based upon experience of the tool.

I think there's a complex effect here. If I (and other people) demand (for want of a better word) "perfect", objective scientific reviews, we...

...won't get many reviews.

So, back in the real world, if we are prepared to take "biased" (no perjorative intended) reviews, and attempt to allow for bias, we'll get more reviews.

For example, if Mr Cherubini reviewed a LN reproduction of a stringing router, I would expect him to find it fussy and pointless since (AFAIK) Adam does not do much of the work for which this specialised tool is used. If he said anything positive about (e.g.) ease of adjustment, I would weight the praise accordingly.

BugBear

Re: Towards a model for writing tool reviews, revi

Dave Anderson Chester, NH

>I didn't get a chance to respond to your previous thread since I only saw it an hour or so ago and needed time to digest the content and the responses. Your comments strike me as setting a very high bar for yourself and to some extent might tend to force that set of lofty goals on others. I, like Bugbear, worry that this would reduce the number of reviewers. Your goals are to be lauded, but for myself, I would tend to stick with anecdoatal and subjective impressions of tools though I would take care to label them as such. What truly pleases me about this forum is the great respect with which we treat each other. Yes, there are exceptions, but they are notably rare and even the best of us often make mistakes, bad judgements, or post without adequately evaluating the tone of our posts.

Derek, I can only say to take the path which makes you the most comfortable. Don't let others foist their expectations upon you.

Re: Towards a model for writing tool reviews, revi

Greg B鴩t, Vergennes, VT

>I disagree, and here are some reasons why:

Everyone will assess their experience and skill levels in their own subjective manner. Just as it is unreasonable to ask for scientific standards in the reviews themselves, persons introducing themselves to an open forum can only reflect varying degrees of accuracy, or will have varying abilities to express from what authority they speak. Some people are unnecessarily humble, some are unreasonably confident in their skill levels. For those reasons you could never be sure that any opinions formed about relative worth of a given person's tool comments on the basis of self introductions would be valid.

A requirement for a woodworking bio in itself implies that less experienced people's observations are not useful. This is certainly contrary to how I feel, and I would not want to discourage anyone who is not a master from telling me about a great (or otherwise) tool encounter they had.

A requirement for self introduction prior to a review would also contribute for many a major obstacle that might prevent someone from contributing any reviews. I really would not want anyone to feel reluctant to post an opinion on a tool I might be interested in because they didn't want to wax prolific about how much or little experience they had.

History has shown that when comments are posted by those unknown to the forum, questions and responses have been able to ferret out a fair amount of insight into the worth of the respective contributions.

Greg

Rebuttal

Tim of Livermore

>"Everyone will assess their experience and skill levels in their own subjective manner. Just as it is unreasonable to ask for scientific standards in the reviews themselves, persons introducing themselves to an open forum can only reflect varying degrees of accuracy, or will have varying abilities to express from what authority they speak."

Sure. I'm with you but I still would like some information on the person doing the review.

"Some people are unnecessarily humble, some are unreasonably confident in their skill levels. For those reasons you could never be sure that any opinions formed about relative worth of a given person's tool comments on the basis of self introductions would be valid."

Quite valid. I'm thinking a few pictures would help us assess this. Someone posting a simple slab with 4 legs as a complex table or say a beautifully done Chippendale reproduction and saying that it was a good attempt......and you could assess the skill level yourself if they showed some joinery. For example, mine would show gaps between pins and tails and butts wouldn't be quite flush and I'd have some tear out here and there. You'd also know that I've only been at this for a year or so and that I also use plenty of electron burners in the process and would probably break out the sander to clean up the tear out only to find out I'd put visible dips in the surface....:- )!

"A requirement for a woodworking bio in itself implies that less experienced people's observations are not useful. This is certainly contrary to how I feel, and I would not want to discourage anyone who is not a master from telling me about a great (or otherwise) tool encounter they had."

I don't get where I implied this. I'd actually probably "listen" quite closely to such a review. Less experience can often be good since they're also less likely to have immovable preconceptions or at least different preconceptions. Either way, it would be good to know if a novice is providing the opinion or a seasoned hobbyist or someone who merely likes to write.

"A requirement for self introduction prior to a review would also contribute for many a major obstacle that might prevent someone from contributing any reviews. I really would not want anyone to feel reluctant to post an opinion on a tool I might be interested in because they didn't want to wax prolific about how much or little experience they had."

I'm not asking for a dissertation. Perhaps a page or two (including a picture or few of some work). I'll go out on a limb and say that not all have been on the forum for the past 10 years or so.

"History has shown that when comments are posted by those unknown to the forum, questions and responses have been able to ferret out a fair amount of insight into the worth of the respective contributions."

Really? So what furniture has Lyn built? How about Derek? Or Pam? Or Todd? Those are the names that come to mind. I've been on this forum for a bit over a year and have not read much on where these persons perspectives are coming from. I have seen or gotten enough information to determine where Adam Cherubi (sp?) and Bugbear are coming from.....I would certainly not put it past me that I've simply missed their posts since I don't live on the forum.

Perhaps you could enlighten me as I have no clue if I should think [interject reviewer of choice] is the grandmaster supreme of furniture making or are they merely booksmart about it? Nothing wrong with just being booksmart....but it certainly helps to put their opinions into perspective, no? As someone who does occasionally build something, I want to pay more attention to reviews of tools by others with a similar bend.

Tim

Re: Rebuttal

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>"So what furniture has Lyn built? How about Derek? Or Pam? Or Todd?"

Me, make furniture, how crass. I'm more of a purist who just makes shavings. Got a wall full of jars of them. Kinda pretty in their different colors, particularly the cocobolo and purpleheart and ebony. Got some pretty Padauk sawdust from the bandsaw too.

Re: Rebuttal

MikeW

>May I suggest, Tim, that if you want to know more about a person--whether they are writing a review or posting any opinion--why don't you just ask?

Come on. How many times in the last year have you even cared who was writing what? Were you not able to assess for yourself either directly or by a follow-up post whether to accept in whole or in part or even reject out of hand what was written?

Read them. Don't read them. Isn't that what we all choose anyway?

I think the people who are demanding restrictions or requirements on posters of reviews or written opinions on tools outta just grow up. Take a pill and relax.

Re: Rebuttal

Tim of Livermore

>"I think the people who are demanding restrictions or requirements on posters of reviews or written opinions on tools outta just grow up. Take a pill and relax."

I don't think I've demanded anything. Derek started a thread and I was providing a suggestion. I clearly stated it was my PREFERENCE or SUGGESTION that some sort of perspective be given about the reviewer so that one might have an idea about the review....because clearly they're not objective reviews. No where in my postings have I demanded a biography. I would certainly take a chairmaker's review of a smoothing plane in a different light than a cabinetmaker's review of the same tool. Similarily, I'd likely take a professional woodworker's take on sharpening quite differently than I'd assess a hobbyist's opinion on the same subject. Is it unreasonable to think that I would not know everyone's background? Is it unreasonable to think that I'm not alone in this ignorance?

I recall asking for background a couple times back when I started on this forum. My requests were ignored and I thought nothing of it. Certainly, one request among the throngs of posts after a review is put up is easily overlooked. No problem.

So perhaps I'll ask again now? I'd like to get a little information from the more prominent posters about their background. Lyn responded above but considering how articulate they are in their reviews, they did not articulate any reasonable response above. Perhaps my post above Lyn's response could be read harshly. I can see that. I can also see it as a genuine inquiry.

"take a pill"....I live in California. We go way beyond pills to relax ;- ). Heck, I just claim I'm overstressed and have a medical condition that requires me to smoke pot.......though I suppose the Feds are now free to swoop down upon me :- O!

Tim

Re: Reply

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>Tim,

I think your timing has just been less than ideal, coming on the heels of much discussion of rules and obligations.

Actually I come to take it for granted that most know a lot about me, as I tend to be rather open. What I forget is that information about me has probably come out in drips and drabs spread over a half dozen forums and a decade or more.

I'm a clinical neuropsychologist by training, whose professional focus has been forensic neuropsychology and neuropsychological research, primarily to develop new tests. I'm strictly a recreational woodworker who spends more of my time woodturning than doing flat work. My flatwork varies in scale, but is mostly in a modern/Japanese style as I prefer that patterns of nature predominate over "architectural" features. For the same reason, I predominantly use "exotic" and highly figured woods, the very woods that are often such a challenge to plane. Some of the woods I work with start as chain sawn slabs (by me) and then go through the succeeding steps of milling predominantly with hand tools, though I have a small tailed planer and a PM66 and Delta Bandsaw have a much appreciated presence in my shop. My woodturning is almost exclusively bowls and hollowforms, and amongst woodturners I'm know for my reviews of hollowing tools in much the same way as I'm known for my interest in hand planes here. I think having a hand in both styles of woodworking inform each other, and have given me a greater appreciation for how tools interact with wood. I always list my real name and my real email address with every post, so anyone is free to contact me privately if they wish. So email me if you have something specific you'd like to know.

Re: Towards a model for writing tool reviews, revi

Dan Donaldson

>We have a term at work called "analysis paralysis" where so much time is spent on trying to make everything perfect before it is started, that nothing gets done;-) I vote that people go ahead and do whatever reviews/mini-reviews/comentary, or whatever, and we can all take from it what we want. I appreciate the effort, and even if I don't alwways totally agree, I many times learn something that I did not know before. I don't think that anyone takes anything said on the boards as gospel (nor should they) and can evaluate what is said through their own set of filters. Haven't we just about beat this horse to death? I appreciate that Lyn will give us the benefit of his experiences with tools that he has. He has access to tools that I do not , nor probably ever will have. I like to see opinions on how they feel and/or perform. Lyn, for at least one, has built a level of credibility over time and many respect his opinions. The main thing is that everyone has their own opinions, and it is interesting to hear them all.

Re: Rebuttal

Greg Bétit, Crown Point NY

>"I'm thinking a few pictures would help us assess this."

Are people who don’t own digital cameras to be handicapped? This seems pretty arbitrary, I’m pretty sure the majority of forum followers do not own one.

“...and you could assess the skill level yourself if they showed some joinery. “

What would joinery prove about hand plane skills, or a comparison of saws? BTW, have you studied production 18th century joinery? From my perspective it doesn’t often come up to the standards of pictures regularly seen on this forum.

>"A requirement for a woodworking bio in itself implies that less experienced people's observations are not useful. This is certainly contrary to how I feel, and I would not want to discourage anyone who is not a master from telling me about a great (or otherwise) tool encounter they had."

“I don't get where I implied this.”

I think the prerequisite that someone must post a woodworking bio in order to post an opinion implies this.

"I'm not asking for a dissertation. Perhaps a page or two (including a picture or few of some work). I'll go out on a limb and say that not all have been on the forum for the past 10 years or so."

A page or two preamble is a lot to ask of someone not used to writing. It would be way too much to ask most of the talented carpenter and other tradesmen I know. On the other hand I sure would like to hear anything they have to say about hand tools, and would encourage them to participate in this forum on whatever level they would care to.

>"History has shown that when comments are posted by those unknown to the forum, questions and responses have been able to ferret out a fair amount of insight into the worth of the respective contributions."

"Really? So what furniture has Lyn built? How about Derek? Or Pam? Or Todd?"

You know what? I don’t much care. They own and use tools, listen and comment about other people’s experiences, and have had some insights that I have validated by my own experience. I realize that everything someone says may not always be gospel, but there are those who may consider me an apostate anyhow when it comes to hand tool woodworking ("Kuntz spoke shaves work..." -GB). This isn’t Consumer Reports here, in general we’re a group of people some of whom use, some just like to collect, and some are masters of hand tools. I think that to require someone to say: “I am a zippidy-doo-dah level cabinet/chair making voopah.” before they post is asking too much.

"...I would certainly not put it past me that I've simply missed their posts since I don't live on the forum."

Good point. That’s what they keep archives for. If you suspect the poster is a wanker, do a search on the poster for the past year, and research what that person has said. Don’t saddle the poor wight with the requirement to validate everything said every time something is posted.

Greg

Re: Rebuttal

Tim of Livermore

>["I'm thinking a few pictures would help us assess this."

Are people who don’t own digital cameras to be handicapped? This seems pretty arbitrary, I’m pretty sure the majority of forum followers do not own one.]

Well and fine. suggestion, not a requirement.

[“...and you could assess the skill level yourself if they showed some joinery. “

What would joinery prove about hand plane skills, or a comparison of saws? BTW, have you studied production 18th century joinery? From my perspective it doesn’t often come up to the standards of pictures regularly seen on this forum. ]

I agree. But we're in the 21st century, not the 17th. Joinery might not show anything about hand planing skills....but it could reveal a reference point. For example, if I showed my hand cut dovetails that resemble laymen 17th century dovetails and called them exquisite joinery, you'd have a good idea what my idea of exquisite is. Take any review I do with that in mind. Yes?

What would it show about saws? Well....if I told you the Independence was crap because the saw wouldn't hold a line, you'd likely point your finger at me and say operator error, not tool error. However, if my dovetails really did look immaculate and I said they were ok dovetails and then went on to say that X saw was ok and I had a difficult time holding a line but that was most likely me, you'd take my words quite differently, no?

[>"A requirement for a woodworking bio in itself implies that less experienced people's observations are not useful. This is certainly contrary to how I feel, and I would not want to discourage anyone who is not a master from telling me about a great (or otherwise) tool encounter they had."

“I don't get where I implied this.”

I think the prerequisite that someone must post a woodworking bio in order to post an opinion implies this. ]

That should read "I don't get where I implied a REQUIREMENT for a biography."

["I'm not asking for a dissertation. Perhaps a page or two (including a picture or few of some work). I'll go out on a limb and say that not all have been on the forum for the past 10 years or so."

A page or two preamble is a lot to ask of someone not used to writing. It would be way too much to ask most of the talented carpenter and other tradesmen I know. On the other hand I sure would like to hear anything they have to say about hand tools, and would encourage them to participate in this forum on whatever level they would care to.]

If you can write an intelligent and readable review.......if you can type on a computer......

[>"History has shown that when comments are posted by those unknown to the forum, questions and responses have been able to ferret out a fair amount of insight into the worth of the respective contributions."

"Really? So what furniture has Lyn built? How about Derek? Or Pam? Or Todd?"

You know what? I don’t much care. They own and use tools, listen and comment about other people’s experiences, and have had some insights that I have validated by my own experience. I realize that everything someone says may not always be gospel, but there are those who may consider me an apostate anyhow when it comes to hand tool woodworking ("Kuntz spoke shaves work..." -GB). This isn’t Consumer Reports here, in general we’re a group of people some of whom use, some just like to collect, and some are masters of hand tools. I think that to require someone to say: “I am a zippidy-doo-dah level cabinet/chair making voopah.” before they post is asking too much. ]

I wasn't asking you to care. From your comment, it implies that you have been around for those 10 years. Step into someone else's shoes who hasn't been reading this stuff for so long. Again, I wasn't requiring, just suggesting. Derek had posted a thread asking for suggestions. I answered his query and have attempted to address some of your comments on my suggestion. I think you're the second to think I that I think a bio should be a requirement. I'd like to see it but I'm no authority and it was a suggestion for Derek and others who post a review. The community that reads the reviews is dynamic and many won't have much idea about the reviewer's perspective unless explicity told.

["...I would certainly not put it past me that I've simply missed their posts since I don't live on the forum."

Good point. That’s what they keep archives for. If you suspect the poster is a wanker, do a search on the poster for the past year, and research what that person has said. Don’t saddle the poor wight with the requirement to validate everything said every time something is posted.]

So I searched the archives for all of Lyn's posts. I could not find any that suggest the nature of his hobby (since I now know it is a hobby for him and I know a bit more about his woodworking background). Again, I could have missed it in the search as he has posted many times....but does post count = credibility? I did read several posts that I thought might have some background, but didn't discern a kernel of it. I don't think it is much of a saddle. A reviewer writes it once and modifies as needed. Computers make copy/paste quite easy. And again, it was my suggestion. I'm no authority with the ability to make my suggestions requirements.

Tim

thanks.

Tim of Livermore

>That is information I did not know and could not find doing a search.

Knowing that you do cabinetwork and other woodworking helps me put your reviews in perspective relative to what I do. Before, it was just kind of a ....ok, he likes some of those planes, but....

Tim

Re: Rebuttal

MikeW

>Tim,

I read the following.

"There is more information you should and could add to such a biography. This biography (auto or not) should be attached to each review and certainly can be changed over time....not everyone is familiar with everyone else and there are always new folks coming in. Knowing the reviewer's perspective is very helpful."

The use of the word "should" above is as close to a polite demand as it can get.

Look, you obviously have your views of what constitutes legitimacy in a review. I, and many others, obviously have a different view. That's fine. That's what makes the world go 'round.

It is akin to the reviewer, who is under no compunction to write a review, needing to prove their worth for it to be acceptable to you. If Lyn, Derek and the others wish to attempt to appease this need of yours, that's their business.

I enjoy learning about these people over time--as they have seen fit to share it.

If I were to write a comment/review/opinion about a tool I possess, whether it was bought for me, bought by myself or given for testing by a company, what exactly is it you would want to know about myself in order to legitimize the review? Would it bother you if I didn't so choose to answer your questions? I probably would, at least to a respectful request. But that is not the point. It should (there's that word) be my choice.

In the past many years since I was started working wood with my grandfather (there's a tid-bit) many tools have come and gone. I've got impressions of 'em all. Opinions too. Sometimes, maybe like you, when someone on a forum asks a question about a tool I have a thought about, I might just share it. Sure glad they don't ask for my bio.

I have made many things prior to choosing to do this for a living (is that another one?). If I told you I have been making and selling wood furniture since 1978, does that mean anything? If I were to take the time to photograph (I do have a digital camera) a project from start to finish, what does that really say about how I view a tool?

I could make something really poorly but have the finest of tuned tools. Conversely, I have seen wonderful joinery using ill-tuned tools that from all finished appearances are a work of art. You want their review of a tool?

If I could tune a plane to take .001" shavings consistently, what does that tell you? Heck, I have not seen a plane that could not be tuned and adjusted that couldn't do that well or nearly so (OK, a few worn out woodies). What exactly does that tell you? Heck, you might take that same plane and consistently get sub-thou shavings. Or, despite my credentials, you might not. Does that invalidate my review?

I don't know. We could go on and on, back and forth. Neither of us will change our minds I suppose. But, then again, is that even the purpose?

How many tools have you purchased because so and so recommended it? I can count 3 since the mid-1970s. I could care less if Garrick Hack, Lonnie Bird or the-flavor-of-the-moment recommends something. That might influence whether I *try* that tool, but certainly it does not color my final choice. All due deference to Alf, Derek, et al, but their reviews also do not influence me--except to open discussion. That's something the more famous cannot due directly. They are beyond approach for the most part and for most of us.

That is the wonder of these forums. These people who take the time (and it takes a tremendous amount of time and energy and even cost) to do a review, they are approachable via the forums. We can dialog about their choices and opinions. And you know what? They even take the time to respond.

I now bow out.

Yours truly,

MikeW

There is an old saying

Bill Houghton, Sebastopol, CA

>that if you give a child a hammer, everything s/he finds will be a nail. A corollary of this is that, if said child is familiar with hammering, every new tool s/he encounters will be interpreted relative to usefulness in driving nails; put a plane in his hand, and he'll be confused, since it's not very good at driving nails. We humans are irrevocably caught in our context; the difference between an expert and a novice is not that one is more objective than the other, but that the expert's context is probably far wider and more nuanced. But the expert is still caught within her context - someone else may possess relevant specialized knowledge critical to the assessment of a particular tool, process, etc.

By the way, though, even non-human "measuring tools" suffer this problem: the selection of what will be measured is itself non-objective and determined by context. The example someone gave of a hypothetical Consumer Reports comparo of two cars, in the earlier thread, is a vivid example of this concept.

I work mostly in softwoods and some NA hardwoods (this will change dramatically when I retire - I hope), and I find the thin plane irons of the standard Bailey plane satisfactory and far more cost-effective (they come with the tools at garage sales) than the aftermarket irons. I recognize that, if I worked in more complex woods, the tools I find well-suited to my needs might well be horribly inadequate. Were I to review a new LV or LN plane, my interpretation of the facts "objectively" available would differ from those of Lyn, Adam, Sir W., and others with different experiences.

Re: Rebuttal

Tim of Livermore

>I'd say you're taking that out of context.

"To yourself and anyone else who either does or has aspirations to "publish" reviews: In my not so humble opinion, a glaring omission in most reviews is a lack of biography on the reviewer. Yes, you should clearly state LV provided the tool to you free of charge....BUT TO GET A PERSPECTIVE ON YOUR REVIEW, IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO KNOW WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM. ............. This biography (auto or not) should be attached to each review and certianly can be changed over time....not everyone is familiar with everyone else and there are always new folks coming in. Knowing the reviewer's perspective is very helpful"

I capped the part of my post I thought might be helpful to see that I'm answering Derek's query for suggestions. Certainly, if you take -

"This biography (auto or not) should be attached to each review and certianly can be changed over time" - by itself, it sounds like I'm putting forth a requirement. In context, I thought I had expressed it as my opinion (and not so humble at that! :- O)that an intro of sorts would be helpful. I have a hard time gauging someone's opinion on a tool if I don't know where they're coming from. And it is nice to "chat" on these forums and I too enjoy it but it is a bit absurd to think that most have the time to do so and to develop any sort of bona fide relationship with anyone else merely through typed words. My suggestion was that. It would be helpful to know where the reviewer is coming from because not all of us have the benefit of knowing all others. Before Lyn replied, I thought he was some tool junky that never did anything other than sharpen and make a few shavings and of course, waxed poetic about tools. I now know that impression was wrong.

Tim

It is time to stop and listen ....

Derek Cohen (in Perth, Australia)

>It is most illuminating that no one seems to have paid much attention to the title of this thread, "Towards a model for writing tool reviews, reviewed". (An emphasis on "....reviewed"). My post was a SUMMARY (sorry, I don't know how to do italics) of the opinions and views of the respondents in the earlier thread about writing tool reviews. It was intended to draw conclusions in such a way that we could put the whole matter to bed. Instead it appears to have revitalized some, and the whole business starts over again.

If anything, the behaviour here is a clear illustration of the results above, namely that a majority of the forum (who took the time to offer their opinion) have no concerns about bias in reviews, and that there will always be a minority who find something to object to. The message is reinforced even more - just get on with writing reviews the way you feel comfortable, because there is always a majority audience for the information and a minority audience who will disagree anyway.

Just for reference, I will continue to provide a mixture of objective results and subjective experience. Where possible, I will offer comparisons with other tools of similarity to gauge strengths and weaknesses, and the provide a baseline for readers that is familiar. I will do my best to keep in mind always that we are craftsmen first, and describe my experiences of using the tools in this way.

I will also try and listen to the responses and opinions of others, and contrubute to whatever discussion that developes. BUT, as I expect from the readers of my reviews and offerings on this forum, I will reserve the right to make up my own mind about the material being presented.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Re: yeah - context is all

paul womack

>determined by context. The example someone gave of a hypothetical Consumer Reports comparo of two cars, in the earlier thread, is a vivid example of this concept.

I love the way some people assume they KNOW which is the better car in that example.

Worrying about boot (trunk) space in a Ferrari is no more and no less dumb than obessessing over the 1/4 mile time of a laden Mack truck.

BugBear

Re: Towards a model for writing tool reviews, revi

paul womack

>a glaring omission in most reviews is a lack of biography on the reviewer

Well, the thing is, most of the people who post reviews also post on other topics in the forum.

So it's pretty easy to get a good idea of the "context" (as Mr Houghton so aptly put it) in which most reviews are being made. So if context is needed, it's there for having, without the reviewer having to create a "biography".

I still have deep practical reservations about raising the bar for an "acceptable" review so high that we get no reviews.

BugBear

Re: Towards a model for writing tool reviews, revi

Tim of Livermore

>yes.

But that is assuming everyone has the time to sift through all the posts to "get-to-know" the reviewer. I do enjoy reading and posting but don't always have the time. Sometimes I only have the time or, perhaps more truthfully the inclination, to read the review. We all always have the time....we just need to decide if we'd like to spend more time here reading and writing about woodworking or...... :- )

Tim

Agreed

Bill Houghton, Sebastopol, CA

>I do most of my own maintenance and haul stuff around. I wouldn't own a Porsche if it came free. Not sure I'd own a Taurus, either, because of Ford's apparently incurable tendency to proliferate hoses all over the place and make the engine bay impossibly tight. But, forced to choose, I'd take the Ford.

And a little bit of mine

Derek Cohen (in Perth, Australia)

>Tim

As you pointed out originally, you did not read the original post (below) in which I outlined my proposal. I also offered a little information about myself. You should take a look at that one. You also note that you do not read the posts here much, or elsewhere (I post on several websites, mostly here and Woodwork Forums Australia. If you did you would have seen many of my contributings, be they jigs or tools I have made, pics of furniture, reviews of tools, or general involvement in discussions. I am definitely your weekend warrior when it comes to woodworking, but I have been doing it for about 20 odd years, the last 7 or so with increasing commitment to handtools. I work mainly in (Australian) hardwoods, which will give any handtool the absolute fits. High angle blades rule here. I certainly get the opportunity to see what a plane can and cannot do! I can already see the review planes cowering in the corner as I prepare to review them on the local timbers! I do some work in softwoods too, however, and I will prepare something here since I assume more woodworkers work in this medium. Mostly I enjoy building furniture, often dictated by the demands of home. I do not own a power thicknesser or power planer, so everything I dimension is done with handtools. This generally includes all joints, such as dovetails (example included below). The only time I wimp out is when I have many mortice and tenon joints to cut in rock hard timber such as jarrah, and then I will unashamedly use a power router. I own and use several scrub planes and feel qualified to review the new LV Scrub.

Here is a collage of some of the pics I have posted to this forum in recent times. All made with handtools. They are the only pics I have on my computer at this time. Hopefully they will surfice for illustration.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Re: Towards a model for writing tool reviews, revi

Christopher Fitch @ Memphis

>analysis paralysis....yep...that's a bad thing to have. I'm surprised to see that in reference to tool reviews but in this case, I think it's very appropriate.

Re: It is time to stop and listen ....

Frank Martin (Chicago, IL)

>Derek,

I have never responded to threads like this before but felt the need to say, I agree with your approach. A lot of the tool reviews include bias and subjectiveness by nature. It sure is up to the reader to agree/disagree.

Thanks again for spending so much of your time to share your opinions about hand tools.