This section is the most popular or one of the most popular in GRR according to surveys, but it is my least popular, mainly b/c I like to make my own trains in 7/8n2 and 7/8n18. Having said that, I like the fact that they don't just review trains but other odd sorts of stuff like tools and gardening implements and just about anything.
I noticed that in the latest GRR, one of the reviewers had a go-around with one of the manufacturers who disliked the review. The dissatisfied person had a letter published in that section, followed by a follow-up reply with the reviewer. Given the chance, the manufacturer probably would have liked to have added a rebuttle to the rebuttle, and the reviewer a rebuttle to the rebuttle to the rebuttle, and so on and so forth.
I've been in the newspaper industry for about 3 decades and found complaints especially vociferous in local newspapers. I find the best way to handle these is to simply allow the complainer to complain in a letter to the editor, with no further rebuttles. The matter then usually dies a quiet death and the complainer feels better for venting.
Another model train magazine handles things a bit differently (and poorly). It's editor will not review a bad product. Thus, criticisms are very mild and they do not lose any business. I'm glad this magazine doesn't have that policy.
If the reviewer is critical then a right of reply by the manufacturer/supplier should be automatic - once!
Modeling the D&H in 1984: http://dandhcoloniemain.blogspot.com/
I find that most reviews are rather subjective and not worth the paper they are written on; a matter of opinion, if you will.
A useful product review would contain the following elements.
1. How well does the product do what it is claimed to do.
2. In modeling, how well does it adhere to it's stated scale.
3. Is it a useful and cost effective solution to a given problem?
To illustrate this I make the following posit.
One buys a passenger car that is manufactured in 1:29, but the only station he can find that fits his time period is 1:20, and the model people are only available in 1:24. Now, each is a fair rendition of the real thing, a sturdy, well built product that is sold at a reasonable price. The problem here is that although they all are well reviewed, they don't work well together! The reviews were subjective; QED
Cap'n.....
You ever write a review for anything model railroad or even hobby related and have it published?
There are things you have to cover......and always, you must address YOUR REVIEW SAMPLE.
Everything else is hearsay, UNLESS you have purchased more of the item being reviewed and can address issue with those items.
I have a tendency to write reviews as product becomes available.
I could write more, but have tried to limit my scope to what I am doing right now.
That may change....
I have every item I have ever reviewed (well, for at least 7 years), and the ORIGINAL of the submitted review.
I used to write reviews for another rag, and, like almost everybody else, was amazed at reding the published review as to who had actually written it.
Certainly different.
Try to introduce criteria......you have no idea how much fun injecting "starting voltage and curremt" and "full-slip voltage and current" with drawbar pull was.
Try adding in gauge readings on all wheelsets.
1. Yup.
2. I agree, for the most part.
3. I was trying to point out that much of a review is opinion unless backed by facts such as actual measurements (which would pertain to maintainance of gauge and scale) as opposed to what those measurements should be.
4. If a product does not do that which it is touted to do, and does not do it at a reasonable (to whom) price; I don't think it is worth much time or effort!
It is reviews such as those which have pointed out definate length, width, & height discrepencies in the products of a certain manufacturer and termed it Gummi Scale that I have found most inforative. Those reviews stated facts, rather than it looks good on the tracks and will run on a 1 foot radius curve!
A suggestion would be to incorporate a "standardization" checklist using some criteria you cited such as:
1. Cost (is it worth the $$$)?
2. Durability (how well it stands up outside, things breaking off, etc)
3. Ease of setup (instructions, pieces fitting, etc)
4. How well it runs (performance measured against builder specs)
5. Utility (can the product be used in a number of ways by a variety of garden railroaders)
6. Guarantee/warrenty by the company
7. Ease of use (ergonomics relating to controls, displays, anthropometrics, and so on)
A standardized checklist such as this would make the reviews less hit or miss and would be beneficial to the readers.
You may find in some magazines reviewers who appear to "pander" to a specific manufacturer. One can only surmise the reasoning behind such activity, especially when it becomes painfully obvious they haven't done anything but read manufacturer's press releases on said item.
To the point of calling it a scale it is not.
You may even find obvious bias against certain manufacturers.
And, if that occurs in the same magazine, and one looks at advertising space paid for by different manufacturers, it becomes quite obvious that bigger advertisers are NOT being given the "quick glance and pass" review, one has to consider the implications, and one tends to be appalled at the conclusions drawn.
All of that, while bad and even reprehensible, in my mind pales in comparison to clueless reviewers anywhere who castigate manufacturers for alleged flaws, and then we find out those "flaws" are actual parts ON the prototype and CAREFULLY modelled.
You need to back away from the process once in a while and see what the "big picture" really is.
I know when I do reviews, I do the unit in my hands for review.
THEN I place said unit in service and find out what happens.
And write follow-up letters telling folks how to correct problems so discovered.
I had a call once where an editor told me "so, you missed something, huh?" and I had to explain IN DETAIL how this process works.
Once explained, he was fine with it.
Reviewers have to have foremost in their minds the good of the hobby, and what is best for the hobbyist, without a preconceived idea as to what they think of the manufacturer or product. Bashing the manufacturer unnecessarily does the hobby no good, nor the manufacturer.
However, if a manufacturer has a track record of problems in a specific area, you sure better look there early on in the review process, and phrase it very carefully.
You have any idea the furor 9-10 years ago when the wheels started falling off the first Bachmann Shays?
And how some folks were so mad that one even tried to get the messenger sued?
Like I said, keep the review sample.
It's a thin line we walk........
That's very subjective. Take for example the LGB rubber roadbed at nearly $6.00/foot. I don't think it's remotely worth the cost, but that's clearly my own personal valuation on it. Others will have to figure things relative to their own bank accounts.
Difficult to ascertain in the short span given for reviews. I have yet to write a review that was more than just a few weeks' turnaround. Sometimes if defects show quickly (as did the roof panels on the gun shop kit), I can fire a quick note to Marc or Rene and get them to insert a paragraph, but there's not a long window for that kind of thing.
Again, this is subjective. I try to cover my thoughts on this within the body of the review, but how I view readability of instructions may be different from how someone with more or less experience may.
...If the builder gives us specs. In an ideal world, the manufacturer would flood us with documentation, and make sure the review samples they send are complete and run out of the box. We don't live in an ideal world.
Certainly with regard to kits, I try to do this as often as possible (this was the genesis of the dispute leading to this thread). I make it a point to look to see how flexible an item is relative to the various scales it may or may not be able to accompany.
6. Guarantee/warranty by the company
Personally, I'm not hung up on this. Regardless of any warranty, most GRR manufacturers will do what it takes to make things right (at least in my experience). They know it's a niche market and they want return business.
Ergonomics is another very subjective notion. I've been reading a bunch of digital camera reviews lately, and ergonomics is a HUGE hang-up for many of the reviewers. Everyone's hands are different, so unless something is outrageously unwieldy, or something is just in the wrong place, I don't focus too much on that. (Of course, most of what I review are rolling stock and kits, where ergonomics is a non-issue anyway.)
Here again, a standardized checklist is only relative to the individual doing the checking. The people doing the product reviews for GR aren't "on staff," so there's no real way to compare what standards should be.
The purpose of a review is twofold; first, to acquaint the reader with a product, letting them know if its availability, features, and tangible, verifiable aspects of a product. (Size, scale, price, etc.) Secondarily, they're to offer an opinion of performance. Like any other review, they're ultimately one person's opinion. Yours may or may not vary. I don't agree with every review I read, and I certainly would hope that no one would buy something (or not buy something) based solely on what they read in a magazine. That's why we have forums like this, and also why GR's web-based reviews offer the opportunity to add your opinions. This way, the reader can read the review and look for additional opinions that either reinforce or refute the reviewer's thoughts.
Later,
K
scoobster28, I agree with you.
1. Make review
2. Company look at review and make changes
3. Post BOTH in "Garden Railways"
I rarely read prouct reviews etc unless i am dead set going to buy the product involved and even then i treat what they say with suspicion. However i do listen to what is said and check up on it myself.
Rgds ian
Get the Garden Railways newsletter delivered to your inbox twice a month