Towards a model for writing tool reviews, reviewed

And then, there's always 'scope creep'

Frank Mutchler in Colorado Springs

>

Hmmmmm.......

Dan Donaldson

>What you call hardwood, we call concrete, and your "soft"wood is like our rock maple ;-)The woods from down under are beautiful, but I amnot sure that I have the intestial fortitude to tackle them ;-))

Re: Towards a model for writing tool reviews, revi

MDR

>Hi Tim,

Well I just spent time reading through all your posts that I could find for you username.

[edited]

Please do tell us a little more about yourself so we can better judge how to understand where you are coming from.

This is for the people who critisize reviewers...

HC Sakman

>You should be feeling blessed and grateful that somebody who uses these tools in their professional work takes the time to write his/her opinions about a tool that costs a day's pay or less.

You read different ones, and then reach your own conclusion. It'd be utterly wrong to go by just one or two persons' opinions. You also get the understand certain reviewers' perspective, bias and any other "personality" features that may effect their style of writing "reviews". After going thorough all of the work of doing the review, explaining how to read and understand it, is just too much.

Same thing goes to the amateur (non-pro) tool users, woodworkers and alike who could have spent their time on something more fun and/or productive things with their time, instead of being the subject of harassment and insults.

Amateur users (except some well seasoned ones) are usually experiencing something new and want to share that "discovery" with others.

Don't discourage it.

Chico...

Re: This is for the people who critisize reviewers

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>Chico, you're right of course; but I think those who are somewhat critical are simply looking for more transparency. This is not difficult to satisfy. If a vendor gives you a plane, just say so and why.

As to personal bio's, I think that's asking a lot from the reviewer. The reader can glean that info from hanging around a while, asking questions. There's no requirement that the forum bestow instant credibility. Besides, it's important whether the reviewer's work closely approximates the reader's.

Pam

Re: This is for the people who critisize reviewers

HC Sakman

>Pam,

No reviewer bios are necessary. I meant, if readers read enough of one's reviews, they will get his/her standpoint.

Perhaps one (or two) sentence of what the reviewer does/make, can be also satistactory/enlightining. No need to go deep into personal details IMO.

Chico...

Agreed

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>

Re: Towards a model for writing tool reviews, revi

Tim of Livermore

>"But that is assuming everyone has the time to sift through all the posts to "get-to-know" the reviewer"

I posted the above.

I might say "touche", or I might say "what have I reviewed?"

Tim