Bad Tool Reports Warning Rant Ahead

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

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

Derek,

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by derekcohen

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Bleeder

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Bleeder

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vernonv

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Bleeder

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

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.

oops forgot the smiley:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Groggy

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

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.