Bad Tool Reports Warning Rant Ahead

[wheelinround]

Bad Tool Reports and the Internet :((:((
(http://www.newwoodworker.com/badtoolrprts.html)

The cyberspace version of the one bad apple theory

:ranton:
I understand this is the man's bread and butter here is my reply in an e-mail to him.

I also understand that Vendors have to make a living but stepping in to stop a thread is hiding the facts :(( Get onto the manufacturer they are he ones giving the product the bad name not the one using the product.

<style type="text/css"> body { margin: 5px; font-size:12pt; font-family:"Arial"; color: black; scrollbar-base-color: #d4d4d4; scrollbar-arrow-color: #020202; scrollbar-darkshadow-color: #4f4f4f; scrollbar-face-color: #c2c2c2; scrollbar-highlight-color: #ececec; scrollbar-shadow-color: #878787; scrollbar-track-color: #d4d4d4;} ol { margin- 5px; margin-bottom: 5px;} ul { margin- 5px; margin-bottom: 5px;} blockquote { margin- 5px; margin-bottom: 5px;}</style>
For years public buyers & consumers alike have been bombarded with crap by salesmen and media/writers and wonderful products all staged, they are given the best to present and trial. How often have you ever heard or read or seen demonstrations where products fail during testing? How often have you yourself been honest in your opinion of a quality of a product??.

These reviewer's get these machine free for short periods of time not a life time of use, their income depends on a good review, their family depends on the income of a good and well paid review!!!

How many families have been robbed of $$$$$$$ by these reviews when trouble starts?? All bought and based on a review.

One fellow here in Australia during the late 70's bagged out a crap built car, he never was able to continue in his chosen field as a Motor writer they hounded him to ridicule. They tried sueing him but that failed as it was proven everything he said was true.
Since that time no auto reviewer in Australia has had the guts to stand up and say what they truely think about any product/auto etc.

Since that time even from the USA I have never seen one review writer/media person put a product through its paces completely and be totally honest. That's not what they get paid for its to praise the product to sell the product on behalf of the manufacturer or importer.

If one product is faulty, to cause danger or injury or heaven forbid a death should we not also sue those who wrote and praised the product's for their part in miss-leading the general public not completely informing them of possible pitfalls, dangers etc.

Recently on a number of there have been many who have written about faulty products, to which manufactures have still not responded to personal e-mails (I am one such person). I myself have had two well known and branded products world renown brand names Jet & Nova which I had to push to get fixed or replaced due to poor quality of Manufacture and in the case of the Jet Mini VS lathe dangerous to the point of possible injury later to find I wasn't the only one I believe since that time Jet have had to make some changes. Many on the same forum have also found Jet smaller lathes not in alignment between head and tailstocks causing many problems for pen makers.

One thing I find reviewers lie about is where a product is actually manufactured often being produced in Asian factories re-stamped as Made In what ever country they are being sold in.

I hope your heart is free from a heavy weight of situations that have and could cause death or disablement or financial loss because of reviews you yourself have written in the past and the future.



:rantoff:

Ray

[jmk89]

Ray

As usual I find that what i think is likely to be the case lies somewhere in between the extremes.

Although it is true that there are examples of 'reviewers' who are little more than paid advertisers, they are relatively rare, and usually they give themselves away by some of their purported 'reviews', there are also reviewers who are honest to the point of being rude. Remember Leo Schofield and his review of the rotten lobster that he got at a restaurant.

In most cases, I think media reviewers tend to be somewhat 'self-editing' in their reviews and tend to over-blow the positives and understate the negatives. If you allow for that, I find most reviews can be interpreted to give a fair idea of what the reviewer actually thinks. I agree that the reviews if read in a striaghtforward way are unnecessarily glowing, but the negatives are usually there, just downplayed. One 'remedy' is when the review is a comparison between like tools - then you can see what is considered important for the reviewer and get a better grip of the features and strengths and weaknesses of the tool. When they say all the tools compared are great, you know what kind of pillock the reviewer is!

Internet reviews by actual owners can be a useful antidote, but they do tend to be somewhat unbalanced, reflecting the individual's perspective of the tool as they used it. They do tend to be negative, but nothing can beat actual experrience of real people. You just have to read them allowing for that bias.

So I do my research by to try to narrow down to the few tools that I might want to look at and then actually look at those three or four. No review ever beats going over the tool in person.

[Woodwould]

Although it is true that there are examples of 'reviewers' who are little more than paid advertisers, they are relatively rare...

I don't agree; they proliferate on every forum and in every aspect of life these days. I haven't read an honest in-depth review (by a 'reviewer') for a very long time. By obligation, they must either write a full favourable review to conciliate their paymasters, or else write a less than complete review touching only on the positives. So often one reads short trifling reviews, so read into that what you may!

How long do you think the likes of Triton, LN or LV would keep sending their products out for review if they didn't receive adulatory prose in return? In most cases I believe the perceived kudos of being a 'reviewer' is more attractive to some reviewers than the truth.

The popular video reviews (certainly in <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comhttp://www.woodworkforums.com/ /><st1:country-region w:st=</st1:country-region>Australia) are worse than rubbish and usually only serve to highlight the reviewer's total lack of preparation and product knowledge.

In my opinion, the most truthful (if not the most eloquent) reviews are often those written by forum members with evidently no connection to the product nor axe to grind.

[mic-d]

I agree WW, the only warts and all reviews I see these days are Choice magazine, what a pity they don't do tools.
I spoke to a reviewer a while back about a product they were testing for an upcoming review and they were quite frank about the shortfalls. I can't recall a single mention of any of those negatives in the published review.

Cheers
Michael

[Ron Dunn]

Another "me too". I'm sick and tired of "reviews" that are nothing more than sycophancy ... payback for free tools.

I once had an interesting conversation with the guy that runs woodshopdemos.com. He says that he only posts good reviews, leaving bad tools off his site. Even if his posted reviews are completely unbiased and accurate, I believe he is doing a dis-service by not posting reviews of crap.

I'm far more interested in what is WRONG with tools than what is right. Helping someone avoid a bad buy is far more valuable than cheerleading for one's favourite (free or otherwise) brand.

[wheelinround]

Thanks gentlemen for your input interesting I am not alone.


Ray

As usual I find that what i think is likely to be the case lies somewhere in between the extremes.
I agree here Jeremy knowing not just single users but business who have done the shonky return mainly due to buying underpowered what ever to save money. Having been on the repairing side as well as when customers I have delt with personally tried it on. Sadly its when its genuine and it goes to legal thats when the user is left out in the cold not knowing or having the technical background to fight it.

Internet reviews by actual owners can be a useful antidote, but they do tend to be somewhat unbalanced, reflecting the individual's perspective of the tool as they used it. They do tend to be negative, but nothing can beat actual experrience of real people. You just have to read them allowing for that bias.

This is often more an honest review even if elaborated on by to many, maybe they should take up being reviewers.

So I do my research by to try to narrow down to the few tools that I might want to look at and then actually look at those three or four. No review ever beats going over the tool in person.

I research and review and often give up in disgust at what I was lead to via these.

These days so often one tools is so identical to another in other than colour or brand name its just the price that's the difference.

[Groggy]

While I agree with you about the reviews, the quoted article was not about reviews. It was about internet posts which are not reviews but complaint reports (usually).

So I find myself agreeing with Hintz AND with Wheelin.

I couldn't find any reference in the thread to this "I also understand that Vendors have to make a living but stepping in to stop a thread is hiding the facts" - where was this done?

[wheelinround]

While I agree with you about the reviews, the quoted article was not about reviews. It was about internet posts which are not reviews but complaint reports (usually).

So I find myself agreeing with Hintz AND with Wheelin.

I couldn't find any reference in the thread to this "I also understand that Vendors have to make a living but stepping in to stop a thread is hiding the facts" - where was this done?


It wasn't in the article Greg it was my observation something I have seen done :~ a couple of places.

Edit 1322 hrs I have also seen legal action taken to stop people from doing this on the internet.

[wheelinround]

I have just read what I consider and Honest review (http://www.zdnet.com.au/reviews/hardware/desktops/soa/ASUS-Eee-Box/0,139023402,339291089,00.htm) on a new computer so I guess there are those out there who write them do it right after all. :2tsup:

Ray

[Groggy]

Funny things those bottom end Eee PCs, I've never understood the drawcard for them. For the price you can usually get a very good second hand machine with 2-3 times the spec.

[derekcohen]

I have no option but to respond to this thread.


How long do you think the likes of Triton, LN or LV would keep sending their products out for review if they didn't receive adulatory prose in return?

Let's see. I get tools from LV and a few others. I write reviews. Ergo, I must write what manufacturers want.

This is simply not true. It is actually quite insulting.

I do get tools from LV, but these are usually associated with the pre-production feedback I provide. I also send pre-production tools back to LV. I do not get requests from LV to write reviews. Ever. Period. I write reviews on tools that I believe others will find interesting. I write articles about woodworking in a number of areas that I believe others will find interesting. I write because it is a hobby. And I had been doing this long before LV came into the picture, as many here are aware.

Let's talk about "bias". What is correct to say is that everyone has a bias. This bias may be to prefer one type of tool, or a specific type of design, or even to like and respect a designer/manufacturer as a person. However, bias is not the enemy - not recognising or denying one's bias is the enemy. Objectivity comes from being able to control bias. Don't forget I am a professional psychologist and steeped in the scientific method. Scientific research is all about the attempt to control bias. And the hallmark of scientific research design lies in its that it method may be reproduced by others to test whether the results were fair.

When I write a review, one part is simply the description of the components. Another is the way in which evidence of the performance is reported. Both these are open to bias, and the only way I can think to control my bias is to present evidence in an objective form, that is, to take photos of everything and record and report measurements. I make comparisons with other, known tools, so that the measurements can be interpreted by most readers. I am aware that this can lead to the review becoming too "dry" for some, but to do less leaves the conclusions open to criticism. The only area that I can say is validly open to criticism as "unscientific" is my description of the experience of using the tool (a phenomenological approach). In a way, this latter area is more art than science.

I cannot say that I do not experience a desire to please a manufacturer. I do. Most of these guys are just the best people. The likes of Rob Lee and Thomas Lie-Nielsen are amongst the best role models one could wish to find. And to have the opportunity to chat with them, often more about family than about tools, makes it impossible to see them as objects rather than real people. So of course I have a desire to please them. However, when it comes to writing, not only do I have to live with myself, but I respect these peope too much to treat them dishonestly. They are men of great integrity. They expect me to be open about my observations. What makes it easier is that any problems present are likely to be quite minor. No tool goes into production without a great deal of testing to iron out any problems.

Why do I do these reviews? I can't help it - it is my nature and professional training to analyse. I was the kid who pulled everything apart. I have never stopped being a compulsive tinkerer :U

Without meaning to sound arrogant, I do think that writing a good review is a considerably harder task than most (readers) realise.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Ron Dunn]

I'm sure you are correct, Derek - writing a good review is hard.

I don't think anyone here would disagree with your reviews, which I find well written and reasonably objective. And the tools with which you are working are backed by some of the most trustworthy people in the field of woodworking.

What most people are coming to realise, however, is that most reviews don't live up to that standard. Try and find a bad review of a Festool Kapex, for example. Why is it that there are numerous reports of problems with Kapex, many replacements and returns, yet not ONE review that I've read has commented on these problems? (That's a rhetorical question, because you don't review these tools)

Too many blogs and "review" sites these days are nothing more than an attempt to fill the toolshed without having to pay.

[wheelinround]

Derek thank you :2tsup: exactly what I wanted a response from a reviewer here. I hope you read the guys review from the states. I did it is not unbiased towards users of tools unfortunately or to the worlds way of contact these days the internet.

I have done Technical writing of manuals for vehicles and the parts manuals as well. Brochures for coach tours so I do have similar experience, its not easy :no:. I have done this as contract and as paid employee.

I have not had the opportunity to read other than your blog your reviews :2tsup: and can say they are a pleasure to read.


Further to Ron Dunn statement during this past 12 to 18 months re-call's on Dewalt tools were high not one mention in reviews.

[jimbur]

Leaving Derek out of the argument there are so many factors in the selling of poor tools.
These days it often starts with the box they're in. How many have we seen where the word tradesman comes into the blurb? Have manufacturers ever been taken up on dishonest advertising?
No reviewer with respect for his own skin is going to put a lump of australian sun dried hardwood in a cheap lathe and attempt to shape it using cheap chisels never mind using it for a few weeks to really see what it's like.
The only fair test with power tools is to work them - stick them in a shop and see how long they last before being thrown out of the door.
With hand tools the only test is that of time and usage. Most of mine are well over forty years old and have stood the test of time. I cull the crap.
Chisels, handsaws, planes etc need to be tested at least through a few grindings, sharpenings and seeing how they react when hitting the odd nail that wasn't there!
We need honest reviewers more than ever. At one time the brand guaranteed the quality, not any more when good companies have had their names attached to rubbish..
Jim

[Woodwould]

Let's see. I get tools from LV and a few others. I write reviews. Ergo, I must write what manufacturers want.
Did I offend you? Sorry, but from your vantage point atop your horse, you may have noticed there are others on the net who review LV tools too!


Don't forget I am a professional psychologist and steeped in the scientific method.
Now you're just grandstanding. There are many forum members with professional capabilities far more suited to tool reviewing than a psychologist!


Why do I do these reviews?
I don't want to be rude; really, why do you?


I was the kid who pulled everything apart. I have never stopped being a compulsive tinkerer.
As are the majority of forum members I suspect.


Without meaning to sound arrogant, I do think that writing a good review is a considerably harder task than most (readers) realise.
I hate to tell you - you do come across as arrogant (as I know I do at times, but I'm not bothered about calling a spade a spade). However my response is not aimed at humiliating you, but to illustrate the process and pale conformity of tool reviews. Tool reviews are not at all difficult to write if one is honest. Are you really so naïve as to believe your mate Rob sends you hardware out of friendship alone? I seriously doubt if LV (and others) would continue sending you tools if you ceased writing your reviews.


And why you? Again I'm not being rude, but there are dozens of eminently qualified woodworkers out there with astute opinions and a sharp pen.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not canvassing for the job; I doubt if I'd ever be asked to write more than the one review anyway (although writing does constitute a broad facet of my income).

Instead of the majority of tool reviews being favourable, they should be predominantly critical as true craftsmen are of most new tools initially. No one tool can possibly appeal to everyone, yet reading all the reviews, one could be forgiven for thinking mankind has achieved the apogee of tool design and manufacture!

Verbose and apparently conformist reviews will attract nothing but disrespect from all but the lightest-weight hobbyist. Nobody believes a word of internet reviews; people read them on the rare chance the reviewer actually reports something like "Don't waste your money on this rubbish". But of course that never happens even though there is an increasingly varied amount of cheap and nasty tat out there!


We are all fed up with the general self-efficacy and flaccid evaluations. We deserve the guts and entrails in all their gory glory.

[Lignin]

Jeeezus, boys.Play nicely.
Surely the best reviews are not the written ones of "new, straight out of the box" tools, but, as others have suggested, those who have used the tools "on the job".
When contemplating a purchase, I get in touch with other "Woodies" and get their opinions, often extremely biased, but, paradoxically, fair and accurate for the most part.
I've avoided some major blunders using this tachnique.
Jim:):wink::2tsup:

[Vernonv]

I'm with Jim in regard that the best reviews come from people who have actually used the tool for a reasonable period.

Someone who has purchased a tool has nothing to loose giving you their "balls and all" review of said tool.

Someone who either makes a living from reviewing, or is in some other way rewarded for giving reviews, has something to loose and will always tread that fine line between a completely honest appraisal and not pi$$ing off the manufacturers.

It's human nature not to bite the hand that feeds you ...

[jmk89]

This thread is tending to become an exercise is what I understand that psychologists (help me out here, Derek) call projection. That is, the responses reveal more about the writer than they do about the actual subject matter.

To be specific, posters state that they think that it is almost inevitably the case that a reviewer who gets a benefit must pull punches when they do the review. What that actually shows is that they doubt their own ability, if asked to review a tool and keep it, to do so with absolute objectivity and integrity. There is no doubt that there is a risk involved because there is a temptation to behave in that way of the "don't bite the hand that feeds you" kind.

However, just because the temptation and risk are there and some people know that they themselves would not be able to resist the temptation, does not mean that there are not other people with the ability to resist the temptation and write honest and objective reviews. Anyone who denies the possibility that such people exist are actually just projecting their own assessments of themselves on everyone else. That they do that and don't realise it of course only shows how right they are in their assessment of their own suitability to be a reviewer.

The fact is that it is usually not hard to work out whether a reviewer is a sycophant or a genuine critic - first, the critic tells you what benefit they get from the review (unless it goes without saying that the tool was a freebie); second, the sycophant doesn't tell you things about the tool that you want/need to know. The importance of the first is that it shows awareness by the critic of the need to acknowledge that there is a risk - in this case, disclosure almost invariably has the effect of relieving the critic of the risk or at least says to the reader take account of this when reading what I have written. The importance of the second is that these are the points where a sycophant has a real problem, if they misrepresent the truth they are likely to be found out and lose credibility (and there are some reviewers of tools who are in that category, as far as I am concerned); the alternative is to say nothing - that is what most sycophants choose. So when you look at the tool itself, look at the things that the reviewers haven't spoken about - that's where the weakness is likely to be.

Apply those tests to any reviewer and you will have a good idea of whether they are critics or sycophants.

The answer IMHO in relation to Derek Cohen is clear - he is a critic and his reviews are honest and objective assessments of the tools.

[wheelinround]

WW my aim was to point out the article and a reviewers points of view on general users as a whole in compariosn to a one off use like himself.

Of course get some banter going it was not a personal attack on Derek or reviewers here

I object to you Projection

:D:p This is tounge in cheek Jeremy I hope. :;

Otherwise it would be like fighting for something when you know your on the wrong side:roll: winning and getting paid for it :p

[Sturdee]

I've just bought and paid for myself a new tool for my workshop. This is an upgrade from the old small drill press that I've been using and is an industrial quality machine.

As it was at a reasonable price I've thought about writing a review of this machine for this board under the product review category.

My aim to have written such review was to enlighten other members as it may have helped them if looking at a similar machine and not for financial or other gain, except maybe the appreciation of my peers. :D

BUT after reading the way reviewers are criticized :(( and their integrity are called into question (if they can only write good stuff and not bad stuff) :(( I've decided that my time is better spent not to post such review.

I don't intend to have my reputation sullied in this way. :((

Peter.

[Woodwould]

WW my aim was to point out the article and a reviewers points of view on general users as a whole in compariosn to a one off use like himself.

Of course get some banter going it was not a personal attack on Derek or reviewers here
I realise that, but the thread took a slight deviation as threads do. I wasn't singling anyone out for criticism, but since Derek stuck his head over the parapet...

If I have embarassed or offended anyone, I'll gladly withdraw what ever they deem unsuitable or offensive.

[Woodwould]

I've just bought and paid for myself a new tool for my workshop. This is an upgrade from the old small drill press that I've been using and is an industrial quality machine.

As it was at a reasonable price I've thought about writing a review of this machine for this board under the product review category.

My aim to have written such review was to enlighten other members as it may have helped them if looking at a similar machine and not for financial or other gain, except maybe the appreciation of my peers. :D

BUT after reading the way reviewers are criticized :(( and their integrity are called into question (if they can only write good stuff and not bad stuff) :(( I've decided that my time is better spent not to post such review.

I don't intend to have my reputation sullied in this way. :((

Peter.
Come on Peter! Nobody would accuse you of 'comment for cash' if you just bought the machine for your own use. I think you've missed the point; what people are saying is that they'd rather have unsolicited reviews from genuine tool purchasers and users like yourself.

Please don't let my ranting disuade you from writing a review. Why not set it up, use it for a while and let us all know what you think of it. It's all grist to the mill and someone looking at the same machine will be eternally grateful to you.

[Pheonix]

Put yourself in the average Joe Blow situation,maybe some have contact with fellow woodworkers some may not ,so where do you start?
You know stuff all about the product you wish to purchase,and maybe you are going to spend x amount of dollars on it so you want some expertise to narrow your choice. I used to subscribe to Choice magazine,that was my starting point if buying any major items eg refrigerators,washing machines and stuff,I've no mates in the game,so where do I start?
Maybe it is right that some reviewers push a particular barrow but what the heck!:rolleyes:

[Howdya do that]

Publish it Peter, I need a new drill press and you've not given me a bum steer yet:2tsup:

[Vernonv]

This thread is tending to become an exercise is what I understand that psychologists (help me out here, Derek) call projection. That is, the responses reveal more about the writer than they do about the actual subject matter.
Projection, cynicism, or a sense of reality - it really depends on your point of view and the position you are taking. But thank you for projecting your inner psychologist. :U



The fact is that it is usually not hard to work out whether a reviewer is a sycophant or a genuine critic - first, the critic tells you what benefit they get from the review (unless it goes without saying that the tool was a freebie);
I can't recall a review where the reviewer goes into any detail of what benefit they get from the review.


second, the sycophant doesn't tell you things about the tool that you want/need to know.
Why bother reading a review where you already know what you need to know - isn't that the whole point of a review.

Unfortunately I'm not sure how useful your tests are in the real world.



The answer IMHO in relation to Derek Cohen is clear - he is a critic and his reviews are honest and objective assessments of the tools.
My comments where not directed at Derek and I am sure that quality of the tools he reviews makes it easy for him to be honest and objective.

[wheelinround]

Sturdee I hope you write your review as a member of the forum I would hate to mis out on it.

Sturdee even the author agrees in this statement of real users

"Being able to converse with current users of a particular tool can provide real-world opinions on performance and reliability."

Is he admitting his views are less than honest:?

or this

"An unfortunate quirk of the Internet and human nature is that someone experiencing problems with a product is far more likely to express their frustrations in a forum posting, often titled to accentuate or identify the problem. Those using the same product without a problem simply do not feel driven to post a "no troubles" message. This trend is certainly not confined to woodworking either."

In the past those who purchased products that were less than acceptable quality or to standards spruked about by reviewers shouted it from the roof tops in "Readers Write" "Letter to the Editor" "Current Affairs".

He writes of users who have large leaps of faith that all products will have the same problem. I don't see him mention that reviewers expect ever user to have the same experience as they have generally always a good one with no faults.

His law of averages works both ways the average reviewer in such position as his averages out to be using a top range no problem no potential fault review.

Many of us have experienced Warranty and Service dept's, help desks etc for all sorts :doh:.
In all fairness if he had a problem with one he was testing as I stated previuosly he'd have it replaced ASAP and think nothing of it. If the same thing happened a 2nd time would he write the review at all or write it honestly.:?

[Sturdee]

Sturdee I hope you write your review as a member of the forum I would hate to mis out on it.



I'll think about it.

Obviously when I make a post I'm prepared for honest debate, critcism and disagreements. Always have and always will receive it, but the way Derek Cohen is criticised makes me wonder the way this board is going.

Derek has always been honest in his reviews (at least the ones I've read and no I haven't read them all) and when he is so severely criticised, I'm sure many others will think twice before posting a review.


Peter.

[derekcohen]

Weelin', I have not taken your comments as a direct personal attack, but by association I am included. Otherwise I would simply have let this thread slide by. They all eventually disappear and are lost in the mist of time. This is not the first time this topic has come up. It will not be the last.

I could have ignored this thread but Woodwould singled out LV and LN (and Triton), and his comments were derogatory of the companies, which is no different from being derogatory of their managing directors. I know their managing directors. He does not.

Jeremy (JMK) referred to the use of "projection", that the responses reveal more about the writer than they do about the actual subject matter. This is correct. The question is, if there are Reviewers, and there are Reviewers of the Reviewers, whom is going to review the Reviewers of the Reviewers? In other words, it is just as naive to declare that, since you do not have a connection to the tool, that you are free of bias. For example, what makes Woodwould tick?

Woodwould stated, "I seriously doubt if LV (and others) would continue sending you tools if you ceased writing your reviews". My response is that (1) I do not write reviews on all the tools I receive, only on the ones that I consider others would find interesting, and (2) There are others that receive tools for feedback as well and they choose to stay in the background. As I noted in my first response, I was writing before LV came along, and I did so for enjoyment.

The best reviews are long term evaluations? I would partly agree, but only partly. This is really a measure of reliability and durability, both of which are important but also, these days, a function of price. How often do we say "you get what you pay for"? I am also aware that the longer term issue is a factor that will either support or reject my own observations about the tools I review. Woodwould noted, "you may have noticed there are others on the net who review LV tools too!". Exactly! How long would my reputation for being reliable last when others came back with contradictory information?

Woodwould, you addressed the following to me I believe,
"Verbose and apparently conformist reviews will attract nothing but disrespect from all but the lightest-weight hobbyist. Nobody believes a word of internet reviews; people read them on the rare chance the reviewer actually reports something like "Don't waste your money on this rubbish". But of course that never happens even though there is an increasingly varied amount of cheap and nasty tat out there!"

Just how does one go about drawing a conclusion like that? Do you do so based on a single variable, or a couple? Or do you look at the complete package? Do you determine whether the tool is good/bad/indifferent with or without reference to other similar tools? How much time do you spend evelauting a tool, and can you be relied upon to read the instructions properly? Do you have insight in to the mechanics of the tool, and know what to look for? Yes, I can see that a quick "this tool does not work for me and therefore is crap" is going to be very helpful for most. I assume that most want to know "why". I also assume that the reader is capable of making of their own mind, that is, taking from my review what they want.

Why do I write reviews? Because I am just an inquisitive kid having fun, wanting to share my excitement and discoveries with others. Some, unfortunately, do not see this and take it all too personally.

OK, enough.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[mic-d]

Don't forget I am a professional psychologist and steeped in the scientific method. Scientific research is all about the attempt to control bias. And the hallmark of scientific research design lies in its that it method may be reproduced by others to test whether the results were fair.

I'll see you with a BSc with first class honours and raise you a PhD in medicinal chemistry. Now that is steeped in the scientific method, and that is grandstanding.:D:D

To quote a line that slapped me down like a wooden dunny seat many years ago "Not everything's about you, Michael"

I don't think anybody meant this post to be about you Derek, or perhaps I should say, I didn't because I've not read any of your reviews, but you made it so.

Cheers
Michael

[Woodwould]

I could have ignored this thread but Woodwould singled out LV and LN (and Triton), and his comments were derogatory of the companies, which is no different from being derogatory of their managing directors. I know their managing directors. He does not.
That's very elitist and presumptuous of you!


The best reviews are long term evaluations? I would partly agree, but only partly. This is really a measure of reliability and durability…
Not necessarily. Like a new pair of shoes, new tools may on first impressions be exciting and perform 'well' just because they're new and feel different. Time spent with a tool often reveals subtleties that aren't initially apparent. All sorts of nuances and foibles have a habit of making themselves known the more familiar one becomes with just about anything in life.


Woodwould noted, "you may have noticed there are others on the net who review LV tools too!". Exactly! How long would my reputation for being reliable last when others came back with contradictory information?
You assume an awful lot Derek.


Woodwould, you addressed the following to me I believe, …No I didn't. I don't consider LV, LN (or the majority of) Triton cheap and nasty tat!

Derek, I didn't make this personal, your ego did.

[derekcohen]

Woodwould, if you are going to critique something, you have to produce examples, evidence in other words, to carry your argument. Otherwise it is just rhetoric. So far I hear just rhetoric.

As this thread has run it has become personal. It will become increasingly so if it continues, so I shall bow out now. There can be no winners here.

I've taken the time to explain what I do. That was not intended to be anything more than a statement. If you read more into that then that is your business.

If you do not like reviews - guess what - just don't read them.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[jimbur]

Might as well have one last comment - this time about after-sales service, which is often a bugbear.
Problems do arise in the best made of tools. Let's see how long Nikpalmer has to wait to get a replacement for his nx60 which appears not to have a flat sole.
Jim

[The Bleeder]

Derek,

I think some people missed an important part of what you said.


I have no option but to respond to this thread.



Let's see. I get tools from LV and a few others. I write reviews. Ergo, I must write what manufacturers want.

This is simply not true. It is actually quite insulting.

I do get tools from LV, but these are usually associated with the pre-production feedback I provide.

I also send pre-production tools back to LV. I do not get requests from LV to write reviews. Ever. Period. I write reviews on tools that I believe others will find interesting.

I used to do pre-production reviews (not on woodworking tools) and these reviews were a 'warts and all' review because that what they wanted. They needed to know all the good points and more importantly the 'bad' points.

On more than one occasion the pre-production review was associated with the final product (even though the 'bad' points had beed addressed). Someone in their company had a gripe with them and unfortunately it got associated to me (yes I took it personally). Now I don't do reviews at all.

I just read reviews and read between the lines. On any product I wish to buy I read as many reviews on it as I can and get other peoples opinions. It's up to me whether I purchase or not based on what I have found out about the product.

[Vernonv]

I just read reviews and read between the lines. ... but it would be nice not to have to.

From my own point of view, I don't often get the chance to "play" with products (or even visually inspect them) before purchasing and as such rely a lot on reviews (either formal or "word of mouth") to make such purchasing decisions.

I would be pretty pi$$ed if I bought something based on "good" reviews, only to find that the reviews failed to highlight obvious/known issues with it.

[mic-d]

Derek,

I think some people missed an important part of what you said.


I can't imagine that a pre-production "review", if that is even what you could call it, is in any way pertinent to the original post in this thread. Of course the tester is going to give a warts and all report on a pre-production tool that a company has commissioned from a tester.

Cheers
Michael

[The Bleeder]

I would be pretty pi$ if I bought something based on "good" reviews, only to find that the reviews failed to highlight obvious/known issues with it.

Yeah Vernon I agree.

After a while you can see the author of a review and his/her style of review (that's what I mean in 'read between the lines'). If the review says the tool is great (they skirt around its' defencies) and other opinions state a different story, then I don't hold high regard for the review and the author.

It then can take a manufacturer a long time to overcome what they see as a negative perception of their product (this when they should have done something before production if a pre-production review was done).

As Derek says, "pre-production review". This is not usually available to the general public. It's there for the manufacturer to fix what is/maybe issues with their product.

Even when I did pre-production reviews I did not get to see other peoples pre-production reviews on the same product.

If manufacturers get a pre-production review done there is no gaurantee that the problems/issues that exist (well, that I saw existed) with the product are going to be fixed (maybe they don't see them as problems/issues) .

So since the reviewer is not going to see what was written before and they find out for themselves how bad the product is, do they skirt around it or gloss over it (or just extoll the good points only) or refuse to do the review (do they do reviews for a living?).

That why I never did reviews for a living (I'd be in the dole queue more often than not) and only did pre-production reviews.

Sometime it just gets to hard to work out from reviews and opinions whether the tool is good or bad.

[jimbur]

Yeah Vernon I agree.


Sometime it just gets to hard to work out from reviews and opinions whether the tool is good or bad.

I agree - we are seeing a proliferation of 'poor' reviews (by poor I mean shallow) and as we have seen in this thread all reviewers can end up being tarred by the same brush. Perhaps it's much the same as saying, "Trust me I'm an accountant/used car salesman/ estate agent"
Jim

[silentC]

I've read the blog post linked to in the original post and for the life of me can't see how it relates to tool reviews or to the bias of reviewers.

However since we've gone down that path, this reminds me of an incident that occurred a few years ago when a particular tool review writer was spotted working the stand of a tool-maker at one of the wood shows. Unfortunately for him, not very long before this, a highly-favourable review of that tool-maker's products he had written some time earlier appeared in a wood-working magazine. This led some to the conclusion that he worked for that tool-maker (technically true, but only as a presenter on the stand) or was somehow involved with the Australian branch of the company (not true). The whole incident was embarrassing for him and he expressed his regret at taking up the offer to work at the show, although he'd really done nothing wrong.

Just goes to show how easily reputations are damaged and how important it is not just to be independent and impartial in these things, but to be seen to be so.

[jimbur]

oops forgot the smiley:D

[jimbur]

Jim, Lee Valley have the best customer service of ANY business I have ever known, bar none, in any industry; especially given the volumes they deal with.

I'm not denying it Groggy. Just saying that a problem with an nx60 was brought up in these forums. It will be good to see how good customer service reacts compared with some of the appalling stories we hear. So far they seem to be on the job.
Jim

[wheelinround]

I've read the blog post linked to in the original post and for the life of me can't see how it relates to tool reviews or to the bias of reviewers.

However since we've gone down that path, this reminds me of an incident that occurred a few years ago when a particular tool review writer was spotted working the stand of a tool-maker at one of the wood shows. Unfortunately for him, not very long before this, a highly-favourable review of that tool-maker's products he had written some time earlier appeared in a wood-working magazine. This led some to the conclusion that he worked for that tool-maker (technically true, but only as a presenter on the stand) or was somehow involved with the Australian branch of the company (not true). The whole incident was embarrassing for him and he expressed his regret at taking up the offer to work at the show, although he'd really done nothing wrong.

Just goes to show how easily reputations are damaged and how important it is not just to be independent and impartial in these things, but to be seen to be so.

SC my original post in pointing to the article was to point out the fact that the reviewer was hard hitting forums, he denigrated people who aired their views on products and their bad experiences. His attitude was one bad apple does not mean all are rotten. Yet he believes that one good one he is granted testing rights on for say a week or so means nothing goes wrong, nothing ever will and QA is always top notch.:~

I was the one having the rant about such reviewers, not a shot at one person as I read many various reviews of different types as many of us do.

I agree reputations can be damaged in many way's :roll:

Ray

[silentC]

Yes I can certainly see your point: he seems to be overlooking the fact that a lot of 'noise' in forums about a particular product might indicate that there is in fact a problem. Of course there are people who blame the tool for their own shortcomings, we see that here a lot too. I personally don't see what he hoped to achieve by writing that piece because it is, as always, dependent upon the circumstances. Obviously it was something that he wanted to get off his chest. Maybe because someone posted a bad report about a tool he gave a good review to, who knows?

I don't see how we can draw any conclusions from it about bias in reviews though. When you get into that subject, you are really starting to question the integrity of the person writing the review, and that can make them a bit defensive, so you're unlikely to get any information from them that will help you determine their bias one way or the other. At the end of the day, a review is only an opinion and unless it has been commissioned by a magazine as a comparison test, 'freelance' reviewers will probably choose to review tools that they are already interested in or attracted to.