Rating Demonstrators - TEST site

Re: Rating Demonstrators - TEST site

Keith Tompkins

>,Hi Guest, Since I started this whole thing, it is only appropriate I respond. I checked out the website...I think it is a great idea.

You could check out demonstrator history, check out their website through a link, even have a short "movie" of their demo in action. Now, that would be cool. Maybe a photo of the demonstrator, with a photo or two of their work.

You could even list comments by those who attended the demo's, or even better a critique of the demo.....I vote:go for it!

Re: Rating Demonstrators - TEST site *LINK*

Andrew Hilton

>I just realized that I had "Guest" still as my name here. I hadn't really intended on participating in this forum much at all so I just chose something neutral in case I did at some point. Good intentions gone bad. hehe I've changed that now.

Anyway, Keith, some good comments and I've seen quite a few hits on that site in the last couple of hours. I paraphrased your comments on the Improvements to Come page. I hope that's alright. Some good stuff there.

One point, though. How would a "critique of the demo" be different than adding in your rating & comments of the demo (which is what is available now)? Are we thinking different things here? Or perhaps you mean doing it in a more formal way somehow?


Rating Demonstrators

Re: Rating Demonstrators - TEST site

Jim Barbour

>Nice job. This may prove helpful. May i suggest that you make it explicit that the ratings are from worst (1) to best (10). While it is obvious to me and thee, it may not be so to everyone. You may want to include some descriptors associated with 1, 5, and 10 - something like "this demonstrator causes more confusion than anything else (1)", "This demonstrator is about on par with other demonstrators I have seen - not wonderful, but interesting (5)", and "this may be the best demonstrator out there working today (10)"

Keep up the good work.

Re: Rating Demonstrators - TEST site

Duane C.Leach

>Good idea Jim.

Re: Rating Demonstrators - TEST site

John Lucas

>I finally had a second to check it out. Good idea. I really thing the description of ratings is good. This worked really well for Shutterbug adds when describing used equipment. It will be harder to put that sort of description on a person but it makes my 5 be a lot closer to your 5. For example I might reserve a 10 for only God and the Russian judge might give a 10 to anyone from the eastern block. We might have to all chime in to help you come up with a rating description.

Would there be a comments section. Such as Overall Demo was good but his/her instructions on using the skew was wonderful.

Re: Rating Demonstrators - TEST site

Andrew Hilton

>"We might have to all chime in to help you come up with a rating description."

Yes, absolutely. Let's hear some short, descriptive ideas on this. Something that will fit, word-wise, into the space provided or at least pretty close.

"Would there be a comments section. Such as Overall Demo was good but his/her instructions on using the skew was wonderful. "

There already is. You can add unlimited comments for each Turner (in general) and then comments separately for each demonstration. Go to "view turners list" and then find the turner you want to see like "Iama Lima Bean". Under their email address is a link for "Rate, Comment, and View Comments". Click that link and it'll take you to that turners' details, comments already made and allow you to add comments, add rating and add/view demonstrations for that turner.

Re: Rating Demonstrators - TEST site

Keith Tompkins

>Hi Andrew, I lost my internet service last nite so will respond tonight.

My idea would be a formal critique of a demonstration....by a qualified turner. This could be in addition to the regular comments that are posted. He could give a detailed analysis of the demo, list the good as well as the weak points of the demo. He could assess the skill level of the demonstrator, his ability to hold the crowd's attention, ability to answer questions satisfactorily, etc. From this critique , one could have a good idea if that demonstrator would be appropriate to invite for a demo.

The resulting review would be greatly beneficial to both turning clubs seeking demonstrators, and to the demonstrator personally.

This would be much better than " wow, that was a great demo"or "that one really, really stunk!".

Re: Rating Demonstrators - TEST site

John Lucas

>Andrew

Here's what I came up with today and it's just something to throw out there for discussion.

1. Horrible- Tool usage poor of even dangerous-abusive to club members-abusive to equipment- just generally not good

2. Bad demonstrator- fusses about equipment, tool handling poor- talks about anything but turning-doesn't explain what he's doing-answers questions by insulting club members if he answers at all.

3. Poor demonstrator- Fumbles with tools, unprepared, doesn't talk while turning

4. Below average-Decent demo- learned a few things but needs to work on presentation

5. Average-Demo goes smoothly with few problems- information presented well with accurate descriptions

6. Above average- Speaks well-good at explaining tool techniques- project goes smoothly

7.Good demonstrator- Project goes smoothly-well prepared with handouts, little or no tool fumbling, keeps audience attention

8.Very Good Demonstrator- Entertains crowd-unusual technique or very skilled with tools-Explains in detail about tool usage and cutting action, wood movement and finishing.

9.Great demonstrator-Demo so well recieved that everyone is talking about it and can't wait to get home to try something. Good motivator.

10. The best-Highly entertaining with superb skill. Able to handle even the most unruly crowd.

That may be too detailed and possibly incorrect on some accounts but it's a start. I like Keiths idea of having a skilled turner rate the persons demo but how do we nominate that person or are they self appointed.

Re: Rating Demonstrators - TEST site

Dinyar Chavda

>May I suggest that instead of having one overall scale like yours, John, that we have a series of scales and have an agree/disagree scale for each one. That gets around the problem that I might think that "Speaks well-good at explaining tool techniques- project goes smoothly" results in a better demonstrator than one whose "Project goes smoothly-well prepared with handouts, little or no tool fumbling, keeps audience attention "--the way it is now, I would not know how to rate the person.

I've always had a problem with overall ratings (like with consumer reports), while I find their individual scales far more useful. The overall ratings are often based on criteria that I think are irrelevant to me--I want to get the description of the person (or, in the case of Consuemer Report, the car, refrigerator, etc.), and I'll then make up my mind whether or not to go see him/her based on how he/she performs on the issues that are important to me.

ALong those lines, I would suggest a series of scales that cover the various issues that we look for when we go to a demonstration, e.g., information, tips, knowledge, ability to explain, superficial versus in-depth, entertaining, for beginners vs for advanced turners, etc. Also, there is really no need to have a 10-point scale for each of these. Work that I did in my past life showed that an agree-disagree scale gave you the same conclusions as the more complicated 5,7, 10-point scales, and people found the agree-disagree scales easier to fill out.

Just some more stuff to muddy up the water.

Dinyar

Rating scale

Bob Hackett

>One of the ways ratings are handled in the service is to rate from 1-5.If you rate someone`s skills below 2 or above 4 you are required to back it up with a comment.

Mainely,Bob

where is Jane Doe demo'ing?

Mike Schwing from Md.

>Judging from the comments, I'd like to um...attend...a Jane Doe demo please.

Re: Rating Demonstrators - TEST site

John Lucas

>Dinyar

That's a very good idea. As a demonstrator I would like feedback on what I do and how to improve but I worry about how many either wouldn't care or take it negatively no matter what is said. A rating on each part of the demo is probably more descriptive because it tells the demonstrators where they need improvement and where they excel.

I would think that the vast majority of demonstrators I've seen would fit in the slightly above average or better. The trick would be not discouraging club members who demonstrate both to gain experience and because the clubs need these people to make meetings interesting. Many clubs can't afford to pay demonstrators each month. I want everyone who has a project that's fun to feel comfortable showing it to a club without worrying about being torn apart on the web.

Should the demo list only include those who charge money?

Re: where is Jane Doe demo'ing?

Andrew Hilton

>How's that line from The Matrix go when talking about the Lady in Red....? "A personal introduction can be arranged" ha!

Somebody has been having a bit TOO much fun, it seems.

OK. Lots of new ideas and discussion both here and sent to me privately in the past day or two. I'm reading them all and jotting them down. Keep up the discussions!

I'm going to try to make some shavings out of some pear this morning and then get to updating the Demo Ratings website. Don't be too surprised if things are a little funky with it while I'm doing that. Be patient and just keep trying.

Mike, "Arrangements can be made ... for a price!" hehe

Re: where is Jane Doe demo'ing?

Mike Schwing from Md.

>She was a head turner, wasn't she. Mmmm..hmmmf.

Another "lady in red" to turn your head - I was watching "Devil's Advocate" the other night. That redhead!

Re: Rating Demonstrators - TEST site

Russ

>The idea of a rating for demonstrators is a good one, but..... Doesn't the marketplace already do this??

Dinyar's comment about the presentations he has seen being good or better proves that the marketplace is already working at winnowing out the bad ones. Like a bad plumber, their reputation preceeds them, and the bad ones only get a job when there is nobody else available, or at a reduced rate.

I don't know of many cases where price isn't reflective of their proficiency or quality as a demonstrator. Some can demand and get the big $$$$, while others can't. There is a reason for that, and we know who they are without a rating sheet.

Within the marketplace context of demonstrating, someone gives a couple club demos. A visitor sees them and they are invited to another club. When they have passed this test, they will be accepted or invited to a larger audience by the the AAW or other Symposium. This final test exposes them to a lot of people; and, they either make it or they don't. If they were good, they get invited to other venues outside their local area. If they aren't, they don't; and their demonstrating career ends right there. We have all been there and seen that.

The proposed rating system could be best used as a learning tool to those who are demonstrating at the local club level and want to improve their skills. It would also be most useful to a club with a small budget who wanted to get the best available at the least cost. The budding demonstrator should welcome this rating as being the entry into a larger audience.

However, as a teaching tool, there is one thing missing, and that is the coaching or mentoring that is required for improving their skills. Without that next step, their carreer as a demonstrator could stop at the rating sheet. But, if someone is really interested in improving their skills, aren't they already doing this?? If they aren't, they should be making friends with the club member who is the best demonstrator or the one whose opinion they respect and can accept without any ill-will They should be asking them for a thorough critique of every demonstration they give at their local club.

Re: where is Jane Doe demo'ing?

Andrew Hilton

>You got that right! With a sister like that .....

Re: Rating Demonstrators - TEST site

Andrew Hilton

>Oh, OK. I was wondering exactly what you were talking about. I see now.

"a formal critique of a demonstration....by a qualified turner" I think this is a fantastic idea and I can see where that would be a great help and supplement to the at-large comments and reviews. Now, how to find that person or people to give that expert and objective critique? Have them contact me (here, email, whatever) and we'll talk. Then I'll add that to the site.

Keep 'em coming.

Oh, by the way, related to some of the questions I've received about this new website ... YES, this site will be free. No commercialization. No tricks. No gimmicks. No bait-and-switch here. Except for maybe Jane Doe. hehe

Re: Rating Demonstrators - TEST site

Duane C.Leach

>Hi John. I did a demo one time on a lathe that was so pore that a member had to hold a pry bar to the motor to add tension to the belt. And still slipped so much it stalled while using a 1/4" gough and light cut. Demonstrating on equipment like this how can you be fair about rating his preformance. Surrly this kind of equipment wuold make the best demonstrator look bad. I am just trying to weed out some of the for seeable problems in the rating system.

Re: Rating Demonstrators - TEST site

Dinyar Chavda

>Russ:

When I was commenting, I was thinking more (perhaps inappropriately so) about something like the AAW or other conferences (like the Albany one you will be at), where there are too many people to see. In such a case, I want to know about what the person will cover--the descriptions in the brochures leave something to be desired (the Albany one had hardly any), plus I want to know whether someone is better for a beginner or an advanced turner in that particular area. And I want to know if that is someone who is a great presenter, or rather weak. While the market will winnow out the poor performer, I don't want to do the winnowing in those situations.

Of course, as has been pointed out, anyone can have an off day, or bad equipment to work with, but that would, I hope, be taken into account in doing the evaluation.