Jump to content
 

Comparison reviews. Why not?


steve1
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

It also makes clear that creating a thorough, objective review, against clear measures, would be time-consuming, and need a pretty comprehensive reference library. The job would ideally be done by two people: one an expert on the prototype; and, one a ‘techie’ type to make all the careful measurements and objective assessments.

 

But that's what's needed if the magazines are going to say any more than "look, new toys".

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
3 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

But that's what's needed if the magazines are going to say any more than "look, new toys".

 

So I'm wasting time in giving background prototype information, clarification of variants depicted and alternative versions, confirmation of specification and features, practical assessment of performance, observations on elements of interest or concern etc etc ?

  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
Just now, AY Mod said:

So I'm wasting time in giving background prototype information, clarification of variants depicted and alternative versions, confirmation of specification and features, practical assessment of performance, observations on elements of interest or concern etc etc ?

 

No, as far as I can see you're meeting @Nearholmer's criteria there. But that's because you are able to do the work of two average Joe model railway journalists. I presume that where you are less au fait with the prototype you seek assistance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with our hobby is that we have too many home based armchair critics who have often built little, but who have a lot to say when a new product comes out on the market.   It has to be said that a lot of positive criticism down the years has led the manufacturers to up their game in response to the many positive comments from modellers.  This has all been to the good all round.

 

One area in which I believe more could be done in critical reviews is that the published magazine, or other published review, makes the potential purchaser aware of any latent defects in the product; design defects which could only be found after purchase and not from a picture of the product.  For example commenting about bits falling off the finished model as it is removfe from its packaging, DCC sockets located in impracticable locations,  problems in removing loco bodies for lubrication, and poor quality control.

 

Maybe if such shortcomings were published at the initial review  stage then potential purchasers would be forewarned.   After all there are many modellers who do not have the savvy to air the model defects on RMweb, and who model away on their own believing the shortcomings in the model was something of their making.  [Alisdair] 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

No, as far as I can see you're meeting @Nearholmer's criteria there. But that's because you are able to do the work of two average Joe model railway journalists. I presume that where you are less au fait with the prototype you seek assistance.

Hi, I'm an average joe model railway journalist - a pretty offended average joe model railway journalist at that! I started in 1963, so I also suffer from being a fairly experienced average Joe model railway journalist. Not that that counts for much these days, when anyone can set themselves up as a reviewer. We were an elite bunch. I once worked out that there were fewer than 20 of us in World. I was trained by Alan Williams, who pretty much set the standard for modern day model reviewing. I think the first thing I reviewed (or I remember reviewing) was the GEM FR 0-4-0ST Prince. I had to build it before I could review it. Today's average Joes seldom have to do that. It's just as well because with two or three new locos to review every month, they would't have time to build kits. But, judged from your comments, they don't know how to build a kit or how to research a prototype, how to compare a model to photographs (never mind where to find photographs) how to use a digital calliper to measure etc. etc. Your comments make me wonder if you've ever read a review. (CJL)

  • Like 2
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
  • Friendly/supportive 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Folks, I've always thought that Recent Retrospective Reviews would be helpful, garnering feedback from the first purchasers on what they found in real life.  Then we'd really have a helpful idea of what we're going to get and avoid situations like the first Heljan Garratt.  It would have to be fair, balanced and structured and would take a bit of effort on behalf of those collating and producing the results, but it would certainly enable all of us to make a more informed choice when we buy.  All the best Paul

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

We already get comparative reviews! Just look at the reviews of the two duplicated models and you have the answers. Look at the reviews in two or three different magazines and you then get two or three different viewpoints. Maybe one thing the magazines could do is to give the date and issue of such duplicates already reviewed. As to whether it is worth buying the new version of anything is something only the individual can say for themselves. For those who always want someone else to tell them what they want I would suggest a new teething ring and rattle. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
54 minutes ago, Dzine said:

Hi Folks, I've always thought that Recent Retrospective Reviews would be helpful, garnering feedback from the first purchasers on what they found in real life.  Then we'd really have a helpful idea of what we're going to get and avoid situations like the first Heljan Garratt.  It would have to be fair, balanced and structured and would take a bit of effort on behalf of those collating and producing the results, but it would certainly enable all of us to make a more informed choice when we buy.  All the best Paul

We already have those in gay profusion on RMweb. Plenty of posts indicating that the poster bought [bleep] and on opening it several pieces were lying in the box, detached. The pickups were rubbish so it ran badly, the chimney is the wrong shape, the tender lettering isn't straight and the pony wheels have the wrong BTB. Magazines don't need to waste precious space for something that already exists!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
2 hours ago, Dzine said:

Hi Folks, I've always thought that Recent Retrospective Reviews would be helpful, garnering feedback from the first purchasers on what they found in real life.  Then we'd really have a helpful idea of what we're going to get and avoid situations like the first Heljan Garratt.  It would have to be fair, balanced and structured and would take a bit of effort on behalf of those collating and producing the results, but it would certainly enable all of us to make a more informed choice when we buy.  All the best Paul

 

Interesting idea, but how do you determine whether the lose bits in the box of Gerry Averagemodellers loco were due to a lack of glue of the factory, or the delivery guy chucking it over the gate? There would need to be a lot of research, which has to be paid for. Would a retrospective review sell more copies? I'd need convincing of that.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a thought but when I buy something electrical from Currys I can pick similar items and do a comparison of features. What could be useful is when there are competing models of the same loco e.g. Class 47, Class 24, 66, Terrier etc to have a simple comparison of features so that the potential buyer can make an educated choice of which to go for. The buyer then can look at features and cost and make up his own mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, CUCKOO LINE said:

Just a thought but when I buy something electrical from Currys I can pick similar items and do a comparison of features. What could be useful is when there are competing models of the same loco e.g. Class 47, Class 24, 66, Terrier etc to have a simple comparison of features so that the potential buyer can make an educated choice of which to go for. The buyer then can look at features and cost and make up his own mind.

Terrier Top Trumps:

Cabs: Rails - 1, Hornby  - 1

Chimneys: Rails - 1, Hornby - 1

Wheels: Rails 6, Hornby - 6

B*llshi*t 'its our model': Rails - 0, Hornby: 100

Edited by woodenhead
  • Like 1
  • Funny 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Phil Parker said:

 

Interesting idea, but how do you determine whether the lose bits in the box of Gerry Averagemodellers loco were due to a lack of glue of the factory, or the delivery guy chucking it over the gate? There would need to be a lot of research, which has to be paid for. Would a retrospective review sell more copies? I'd need convincing of that.

One of the advantages - probably the only advantage - that the amateur on-line reviewer has over the likes of us professionals, is that he can draw much more quickly on the experience of a large number of other purchasers of the same model. This is certainly useful on the rare occasions that a model exhibits some electrical or mechanical fault which is only apparent in some specific circumstance. A retrospective review might be able to make use of that, too, but how long does one wait? Chances are, these days, that by the time the retrospective review was published, the model would have sold out. Modellers and manufacturers want and expect reviews to assist them when the model hits the shops and we frequently have to 'bust a gut' to get the research done, the model tested and the review written in time for the next issue. Right now, where do I find the dimensions of a 'Merchant Navy' without ready access to a research library - (watch them all say Wikipedia!) Then someone calls us average Joe model railway journalists! (CJL)

Edited by dibber25
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
29 minutes ago, dibber25 said:

Then someone calls us average Joe model railway journalists! (CJL)

 

Just to be clear, I didn't call you that. I simply said that @AY Mod was worth two such. 

 

31 minutes ago, dibber25 said:

One of the advantages - probably the only advantage - that the amateur on-line reviewer has over the likes of us professionals, 

 

With the best will in the world no-one will have an complete knowledge of all possible prototypes - a professional reviewer my well have more in-depth knowledge of a greater range of prototypes than most but I am sure there will be instances were an amateur has a more thorough knowledge of the specific prototype in question. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Just to be clear, I didn't call you that. I simply said that @AY Mod was worth two such. 

 

 

With the best will in the world no-one will have an complete knowledge of all possible prototypes - a professional reviewer my well have more in-depth knowledge of a greater range of prototypes than most but I am sure there will be instances were an amateur has a more thorough knowledge of the specific prototype in question. 

So now we are comparing the comparers.

 

Sam is 1/2 Average Joe

Jenny Emily is 1 Average Joe

@AY Mod is 2 Average Joe

@dibber25 is 2+?? Average Joe

  • Funny 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
9 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

I simply said that @AY Mod was worth two such. 

 

Is that a review? :biggrin_mini2:

 

I wouldn't say such but I do have to go off and fact check a lot even if I *think* I know the subject matter well enough. Watch my brain explode if I have to review a 'generic' item. At least Phil spared me the Steampunk stuff; I could have done a comparative review of that with the contents of the weekly recycling. 

  • Like 2
  • Funny 4
  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
4 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

Is that a review? :biggrin_mini2:

 

It was an attempt to dig myself out of a hole but the only place it got me was up Chris' nose which is a place I regret I've been before and isn't pleasant for either of us. I'm trying again to extricate myself, with apologies to professional journalists - for the great majority of whom I do have great respect, my grandfather having been one.

  • Like 1
  • Friendly/supportive 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
21 hours ago, ardbealach said:

The problem with our hobby is that we have too many home based armchair critics who have often built little, but who have a lot to say when a new product comes out on the market.   It has to be said that a lot of positive criticism down the years has led the manufacturers to up their game in response to the many positive comments from modellers.  This has all been to the good all round.

 

One area in which I believe more could be done in critical reviews is that the published magazine, or other published review, makes the potential purchaser aware of any latent defects in the product; design defects which could only be found after purchase and not from a picture of the product.  For example commenting about bits falling off the finished model as it is removfe from its packaging, DCC sockets located in impracticable locations,  problems in removing loco bodies for lubrication, and poor quality control.

 

Maybe if such shortcomings were published at the initial review  stage then potential purchasers would be forewarned.   After all there are many modellers who do not have the savvy to air the model defects on RMweb, and who model away on their own believing the shortcomings in the model was something of their making.  [Alisdair] 

 

 

Hi Alisdair

 

I use to be a keen scratchbuilder of diesel locos in plastic card. Not these days as there is nothing new to model as the manufacturers have produced almost everything I have made.

 

There was a new model loco of one of the diesels I had made. Now when I make something I try to get as much information as I can about the subject. I happened to mention the model wasn't right, its shape was wrong. To illustrate this I used a photo of my model. At this point I feel I fit your ideal reviewer as I had taken the time to do some research and I had built a model with my research. No, not so, someone reported my post to the then moderators "How dare he show a picture of  an old kit". Of course I must have been wrong and the manufacturer must have got things right. The same manufacturer still gets the tiny details right but can make a mess of the shape.

 

I would hate to be a reviewer, if you say something is rubbish you will be bombarded with comments all over social media, have an over flowing e-mail in box and I suspect even worse things. On the converse side if you don't mention the bl**ding obvious you will be bombarded with comments all over social media, have an over flowing e-mail in box and I suspect even worse things.

 

I am in the same camp as Woody, I let my eyes do my review when I see the model. Sometimes I miss the bl**ding obvious and it maybe an armchair critic who says XYZ isn't right and on second look "What the ****" goes through my mind, other times I think that is acceptable to me and "What is 'e on about".

 

Someone mentioned Sam's Trains. I am not sure he gives a constructive review every time but his enthusiasm for our hobby is far more positive than many of the old gits (which includes me)  who inhabit this forum.

 

As for Steve's opening comment about a comparison reviews, I think there is some ground in doing so. Not necessarily new models but established ones.

 

For interest the company I was on about does make the odd really good model and when they do I don't think anyone can make a better NBL type1 or Hymek.

  • Like 5
  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
2 hours ago, dibber25 said:

One of the advantages - probably the only advantage - that the amateur on-line reviewer has over the likes of us professionals, is that he can draw much more quickly on the experience of a large number of other purchasers of the same model.

 

Except that they will tend to base an opinion on grumpy forum postings. People with a grip will post more readily than those without one, so any model looks bad.

 

Now, a fair report would take into account that 95% of people have a good model they are happy with and only 5% bought a lemon. To say so will elicit the response (in green capital letters) from the 5% that we are corrupt, in the manufacturers pockets etc, because most people on forums take their own experience and extrapolate from that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
On 21/04/2021 at 16:09, AY Mod said:

 

 Even duplicate models don't arrive at the same time so in doing a comparison review would either mean a delayed individual review or a duplication of a review of a duplicated model.

 

That doesn't stop Which magazine consolidating their reviews for everything from supermarkets through to washing machines into best buy comparison tables that get updated regularly as new items are released.

 

As such I fail to see why a model magazine could not do a similar thing comparing DCC controllers or even class 66 locos now that we have 3 manufactures doing them in OO.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Just to be clear, I didn't call you that. I simply said that @AY Mod was worth two such. 

 

 

With the best will in the world no-one will have an complete knowledge of all possible prototypes - a professional reviewer my well have more in-depth knowledge of a greater range of prototypes than most but I am sure there will be instances were an amateur has a more thorough knowledge of the specific prototype in question. 

 Yes, of course there will always be someone out there who knows more about a particular prototype than any one of us but in order to make use of his knowledge you've got to know who he is and how to contact him. That would require an up to date contact list of formidable length. And he's got to be willing to have his 'brains picked' and to respond quickly. These days, manufacturers often enlist the help of a known expert in the development of the model, so one can't use the same person as an expert reviewer. I have, in the past, occasionally made use of freelance reviewers because that person had particularly expert knowledge of the subject. It was seldom successful for a variety of reasons, such as keeping to deadlines and writing in house style and to agreed length. What the professional reviewer has - or certainly should have - is the ability to research his subject, knowledge of how and where to find the info and the ability to write concisely to brief and to a set number of words. That takes practice.  He also needs the training in how to word criticisms so that they are understood by the reader and are not offensive or libellous to the manufacturer. I wonder how many of the on-line reviewers have been on a libel course? They can be surprisingly scary. (CJL)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

 

That doesn't stop Which magazine consolidating their reviews for everything from supermarkets through to washing machines into best buy comparison tables that get updated regularly as new items are released.

 

As such I fail to see why a model magazine could not do a similar thing comparing DCC controllers or even class 66 locos now that we have 3 manufactures doing them in OO.

 

Maybe, but Gordon Bennet, "Which" is hardly thrilling or joy bringing hobby reading is it?

 

And, if magazine contributors were to put the significant effort that would likely be required into following up your suggestion, then as a consequence they wouldn't have time to produce other (dare I say it) more interesting, things and the magazines would likely be poorer as a result.

 

Anyway, I just don't understand this obsession with comparison and contest, its a creative hobby not a best value shopping exercise, Gawd how boring is that? And RMweb for one is an absolute mine of information on this kind of stuff anyway - and its free!!

 

Not that I have any fundamental objection to the notion you understand, it just seems like a lot of ball ache for very little reward for anyone, let alone enjoyment.

 

Best follow Clive's example and build something......

 

Not Jeremy

  • Like 1
  • Agree 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
9 hours ago, Not Jeremy said:

 

Maybe, but Gordon Bennet, "Which" is hardly thrilling or joy bringing hobby reading is it?

 

 

 

Agreed

 

However I took the OP suggestion to be a occasional feature and not something to be included in every issue, but to reject the concept completely as not having merit is wrong. As has been noted car magazines amongst others manage to do comparison pieces without the sky falling in and I don't see what makes railway modelling a special case.

 

Naturally much would depend on the nature of the piece of course. Railway magazine have a regular 'Practice and Performance' section which a lot of the time is comparing the performance of different locos over the same route (or same locos over different routes). I find the statistics boring but the articles are usually quite interesting - the skill is in constructing a narrative.

 

 

Edited by phil-b259
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 22/04/2021 at 19:57, Phil Parker said:

 

Except that they will tend to base an opinion on grumpy forum postings. People with a grip will post more readily than those without one,

In a constructive and supportive manner least the pros send round the heavy mob to critique my riveting, I think (hope) you meant gripe....

 

Alternatively, you could borrow from the late great Sir T P and use ‘anal retentive with a loose grip’ (he was referring to CMOT Dibbler) and apply it to your griper of choice.
Duncan

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • RMweb Premium

Isn't part of the problem nowadays that, with smaller production runs, often to satisfy pre-orders with few 'overs', by the time a review is published, said model has long since sold out. So many modelers are buying having perhaps only seen a decorated pre-production model (or CAD).

 

On that basis, are reviews actually superfluous, aside from informing the pre-owned market? 

  • Agree 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
7 hours ago, CloggyDog said:

Isn't part of the problem nowadays that, with smaller production runs, often to satisfy pre-orders with few 'overs', by the time a review is published, said model has long since sold out. So many modelers are buying having perhaps only seen a decorated pre-production model (or CAD).

 

On that basis, are reviews actually superfluous, aside from informing the pre-owned market? 

 

There's always some stuff in model shops - and some manufacturers (principally Bachmann) make an effort to get models to us so they appear on the page the same day they hit the shelves of the shops.

 

As you say, there is a thriving pre-owned market too, so those reviews can also set you off trying to track down a model. If you have access to a magazine, such as this one, you can look back and read contemporary reviews when eyeing up second-hand models.

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...