What Makes a Good Review?
- Thread starter TheViking
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
Andy,
In my opinion a good review should have (minimum):
- clear and plain english text.
- good structure (logic succession of steps made).
- alineas (most people will skip it, when they see one massive block of text - including moi
).
- pictures to enlighten some aspects, for things that are easier to explane with pics, than with words.
So, tell us - what's your review about mate??
In my opinion a good review should have (minimum):
- clear and plain english text.
- good structure (logic succession of steps made).
- alineas (most people will skip it, when they see one massive block of text - including moi
).- pictures to enlighten some aspects, for things that are easier to explane with pics, than with words.
So, tell us - what's your review about mate??
TheViking said:... in your opinion? What elements should a good review contain? Amount of pictures? Etc...
It should follow a logical progression, an analysis of key elements, form over function, quality of finish, value for money etc. The review should contain balance and be a fair appraisal, niether a love-up nor a slander-fest, but objective, frank and honest opinion. If on balance it comes out well - fair enough, if on balance it doesnt come out well, fair enough.
Very few products are perfect and any review that fails to mention any flaws whatsoever, leaves me drawing questions over the honesty of the rest of it. I slot it into a "take this with a pintch of salt" category. Often reviewers will feel uncomfortable highlighting negatives, but there is nothing worse than reading a clearly sycophantic review and they are very easy to spot. If some important negatives are highlighted, then it adds reader confidence to the objectivity of the reviewer and give the overall review a greater credibility.
Lots of pictures, pictures are good. Good pictures are better. If you think an aspect is good, dont just say it's good, but explain why you think that aspect makes the item good. Same for things you decide are not so good - tell us why you think that. Let us follow your logic and reasoning. Let the reader decide if he/she agrees with your logic.
It may help to have categories and then mentally score the item for each category. It will help you evaluate the product fairly.
Some suggestions...
Packaging, delivery & service
A thorough description of the product.
First impressions
Quality of fit & finish
Form & function (does it do what it's supposed to do?)
Value for money
Overall conclusion & suggestions for improvements
Photo's where necessary for each of the above. Be sure to break the review up into logical paragraphs for easy reading.
Just my 2p.
This sounds a good idea, I've got a few bits and bobs coming my way that I'd like to review, hopefully one of those items will be with me tuesday/wednesday, so if a good review process is posted, it would be helpfull. Otherwise, I'll have to cuff it!!
Spamel
Spamel
spamel said:
Nobody can really tell you how to do it, there are many different styles and many different methods. At the end of the day, they are your own thoughts and your own words. The most anyone should give you is a very vague idea, the rest should be up to you. If you are not comfortable with doing it, then dont do it.
Good info so far. I like to see comparisons with similar edged tools of different make and even style, if possible. Also, if you are reviewing the Golok as a chopping tool, comparisons with other chopping tools like khukuries, heavy bladed knives and hand axes, using a variety of materials and jobs, are always fun.
look at the tool like the designer was looking when he designed it. investigate it's fitness for purpose. i don't see much point in reviewing a puukko in a role as a machete. don't laugh, it's been done!
if a tool does it's designed job first, and does other jobs well, it's a bonus.
cheers, and.
if a tool does it's designed job first, and does other jobs well, it's a bonus.
cheers, and.
RovingArcher said:
To be honest RA, I dont like to see this, I think such comparisons are more for forum discussion that for review. It's a bit like comparing a woodplane with a bandsaw, they are different tools. You will have some people who prefer a big knife, some prefer an axe, some a golok and some a billhook. There are too many subjective variables.
You also have to be careful when comparing very similar tools. A comparative review of an Alan Wood woodlore versus an Alan Blade packpal could get ugly. By definition you are setting one up to be the winner and one to be the loser. I think you have to take enormous care when doing such things.
What you can do is something like a test - "which knife cuts though a 2"x4" quickest" and then test a bunch of em, that's reasonable, but that's not a review.
