What is "nitpicking" and how to "be constructive"

[jcm@gwr]

This is going to be controversial, but how important are some of the smaller details.

Quite a few older and well respected modellers have said 'if you can't see it, why

model it?'. We either buy these models to run on a working layout or to put on static

display. If you have pick up the model to see the shedplate is it that important that it

is the right code? After all most of us run on the wrong gauge and on far too small

radius curves, it is an illusion of reality [in some form or another] we are trying to re-

create and there is always a certain level of compromise. This might rub a few people

up the wrong way, but I don't mean to offend anyone.

Personally, I think life is too short to worry.

Cheers, Jeff

[Ravenser]

Does that mean we should believe "PMP" in print, but not if you type it on your laptop then ?

 

That did seem to be the implication of the RM article - which was one of the fundamental problems with it...

[Guest dilbert]

Interesting point, I think most reviews for the mags are done by 'staff', therefore unless they specifically say 'bloggs did this review for us', it's probably taken by readers that the review does reflect the publishers viewpoint, and the reviewer is on staff. I too have done a few reviews, books, and models for three mags in the past, RM/HM/MRJ. Each time I've either been named, or initialled.

 

Thank you for the clarification - I hadn't realised some of the subtleties - thereagain, I haven't bought a mainstream mag for several months ... dilbert

[Pennine MC]

This is going to be controversial, but how important are some of the smaller details.

 

As has been said - more than enough times now - it's a personal decision. But I dont believe that the overall market standards should be held back just because some/all of that market is satisfied with less.

 

After all most of us run on the wrong gauge and on far too small radius curves,

 

A common argument. I wont steam into it as I usually do because I see you're not a regular poster. But I do sense this thread getting to that tedious circular point where folk present arguments that have effectively already been dealt with by previous posts.

 

Yes, the gauge (of OO models) is wrong by 2.33mm, does it really follow then that any millimetric error elsewhere isn’t worth consideration? I think there’d be some pretty funny looking models about if that became a rule of thumb.

 

but I don't mean to offend anyone.

 

Likewise.

 

Personally, I think life is too short to worry.

 

It isnt necessarily 'worrying' though, is it Jeff. Commenting on an error, assessing the nature of it, doing something about it or deciding to ignore it are things many of us are well practiced at, it doesnt mean we're losing sleep over it and indeed, we might relish the challenge. To take the shedplate example above, there are simple ways to sort it and it's not for any one of us to dissuade others from doing so if it's something they want to do.

[Pennine MC]

...I might have to try and make my own mind up about fings

 

 

Which is exactly what Paul's signature suggests you should do

[Ozexpatriate]

2. Appearance of complex 3D shapes

Examples of this include a Warship nose, tumblehome on a coach or a Beattie Well tank chimney. This is a very subjective area and generates a lot of conversation. In some measure I think that because we look up to the prototype but down on the model influences our perspective - even with careful photography. Despite the legion of opinions here, any perceived error has to be pretty bad before "I simply won't accept it" becomes the consensus opinion.

Been thinking about this and it's an interesting one really. In theory it should be objective, not subjective - all these things, no matter how complex, *are* measurable, if you have the facilities and sufficient accurate points of reference. But because we all weigh up these complex relationships differently, it morphs into being subjective. I can remember some discord a while back about the Bachmann Deltic nose because of this difficult objective/subjective interface.

Yes, it "should" be objective, but empirically it's not. 3D shapes seem to generate almost as many opinions as observers.

 

Humans are good at recognizing a human face but biometrics are really hard for computers. The corollary of this seems to be that a 3D shape can be rendered in CAD tool, but shaded 2D renderings don't look "right" to many humans. We're so good at recognizing faces, we perceive them in inanimate objects*. I recall a lot of discussion about the "face" of a particular EMU - like that part of our neural function that is used to identify people was pressed into double duty to evaluate a thing. The EMU in question looked fine to me but I did not chose to look with a 'critical eye', EMUs being 'not quite my thing'. Clearly people were interpreting 3D shapes differently and subjectively.

 

* (Stanley Kubrick's art direction team did a great job of evoking this with the anthropomorphic faces on spacecraft and helmets in "2001 A Space Odyssey". Just about everything is symmetrical around at least two "eyes", except perhaps HAL and the monolith.)

 

Comparing 3D shapes with 2D photographs introduces a whole new set of variables like camera angle, lighting, reflectivity and colour/tone. Shadows somehow look different in a lifesize image versus a true scale model image. Cheating on the relief on an edge on a model can sometimes look "better" than true scale because it is easier to see the detail.

 

Another deeply thorny and contentious issue I observe is exactly matching paint colours. (I'm not requesting a discussion on what constitutes "correct" Brunswick Green or signal red etc.Please!) You can paint something that is 300mm long with exactly the same paint used on the lifesize 23m version and it won't look "right" to many observers. As I recall, the rendering of colour can create threads as long as this one!

 

Anytime I see many differing opinions with a small set of observers I have to conclude the measurement is subjective.

[Pennine MC]

-... I like knowing that "GW" on the Hornby horsebox is likely wrong, but I probably won't let that stop me from buying one.

 

This is another point I meant to pick up earlier, it might yet keep things going with fresh angles. This quote is IMO a very healthy attitude - I do sometimes suspect though that some people howl about criticisms being made because they *don't* want to know about the errors.

 

It's not unusual for a thread OP (not just here) to effectively say something like 'I dont know anything about (for instance) class 47s, but which model is most accurate?'. So are these OPs really that bothered about buying something that's wrong, even though they can't themselves identify the problems?

[Ozexpatriate]

I do sometimes suspect though that some people howl about criticisms being made because they *don't* want to know about the errors.

In that vein, I really appreciate the effort Mike (The Stationmaster) put into the GWR 8-coupled tank engine thread. While I don't want to cross-contaminate three threads, (there's a Ghostbusters pun in there somewhere) Mike has (accurately) anticipated that the newly announced Hornby 8-coupled tanks will likely raise a lot of running number/variant type questions, much like the 28xx and Castles did.

 

I look forward to the conversation I think we are likely to have and know that I will learn something - and the discussion won't be conducted with the intent of bashing any entity, commercial or otherwise.

[jcm@gwr]

Pennine MC,

The reason I posted my opinions was to express the point that you then touched on.

That this is starting to go round in circles, and I feel, veering away from the original

point, which as I understood was, how far does one go before you cross the fine line

between constructive criticism and nit-picking. I understand, and agree, that accuracy

of dimensions IS important, but only if they visible under normal conditions, not a micro-

scope. Obviously, we all have differing standards of acceptance re. what we are going

to put up with, but maybe we also need to step back sometimes and think about the

overall scheme of things. ie it's no good having perfection in one loco if it makes all

the rolling stock look rubbish by comparison.

Cheers, Jeff

P.S. Just because I don't have a high post count doesn't mean you have to be nice to

me, hopefully you would extend the same level of courtesy to all members/posters,

so long as they do the same to you.

[Pacific231G]

In magazine reviews I've always rather liked the approach often used in Loco Revue which is to summarise the review with a list of "I liked" and "I disliked". As in I liked, the weathered finish, the way it captured the atmosphere of the loco, the correct shape of the smoke deflectors, the fact that it will run without derailing. I disliked- the model being 0.25mm too long, the incorrect rivet detail on the buffer beam, having a face instead of a smokebox door. Then it's up to you whether the faults outweigh the plus points.

[Oldddudders]

Just picking up a couple of recent points - a Scottish fillet sounds like something tasty from an Aberdeen Angus, and I am reminded in the "how accurate does this model look?" issue of the thoughts of a prolific RMWebber, who is modelling a well-known Slow & Dreamy line on the edge of the West Country. He is on record as saying that if it looks like a Black 5, then it's probably a Black 5. So a model that captures the general proportions of the prototype is likely to tick a lot of boxes and make sales - and a reviewer can surely offer that judgement even if the sample is in his hands only momentarily. In fact, given the number of models bought by collectors, rather than modellers, it might almost be more important to look right than run well. When a model does neither, as apparently the case with a recent Southern EMU, the fat is in the fire.

[BlackRat]

You can find fault with anything, if you look hard enough, (and of course if you really want to).

[PLD]

Concentrating for the time being solely on what does and does not constitute "nit picking", may I please ask for some views on specific examples. I'm now occasionally asked to do reviews for one of the mags, and this does concern me.

 

First example is the Bachmann B1 61180, and the "Cowlairs fillet". I wonder BTW how many people even knew of its existence until the model appeared. There lies my point. Should a reviewer even mention that detail? It's clearly wrong for the loco in late condition, but is it so important that it deserves mention as a minus point? Or is the very mention of it taking things too far, and thus nit picking?

 

Second, the latest Bachmann A4, in the guise of Wild Swan. One review specifically mentions that the loco was never shedded at Grantham while it ran as depicted by Bachmann, but on close examination it has a 35B shed plate.

In terms of appearance, I see there being different levels of 'error' which may be of concern to different potential purchasers.

1. There are fundamental flaws (the biggies such as produced to the wrong scale, wrong shape roof, wrong type of tender etc) which make the model look plainly wrong and will probably be of concern to most beyond the trainset stage.
   
2. You have 'engineering compromises' perhaps where a detail present on some of the class but not all, is either incuded or ommited from all models, which will be accepted by many but may be of concern to someone wanting to represent a specific loco. Your "Cowlairs fillet" probably fits in here.
   
3. Then you have 'detail discrepancies' (such as your shedplate example) which will only concern the most fastidious, but those who are bothered are also most likely to have the skills to easily fix it...
   

Number 1 need to be clearly covered in the review in critical terms;

Number 2 is worth commenting on but with some explanation of the variations;

Number 3 include in a more detailed review as 'potential scope for user refinement'...

[kevinlms]

 

FWIW, my personal approach to things like this is to compliment the manufacturer if they have got this kind of very specific detail right, but I do not normally mention something as minor as this if it's wrong. I prefer to concentrate on the bigger issues- if there is a howler then I will give it prominence, and if it doesn't run properly that will certainly be mentioned. So, how far should we go? And if we are reviewing for a paper mag in particular, surely we must take into account that the publisher can't possibly contemplate a threat by a big manufacturer to withdraw advertising if a review upsets them too much? I'm not saying all reviews should be anodyne and contain no criticism, but the real world has to be taken into consideration at the end of the day.

 

 

Is there any evidence of a major manufacturer being so annoyed at a negative review of their latest offering that they have carried out such a threat? I've been reading various magazines for 40 years & don't recall such an event. The odd smaller supplier has from time to time complained, but usually they are suggesting that their name hasn't been included in a list of finer scale parts, for example.

 

Kevin Martin

[Pennine MC]

. I understand, and agree, that accuracy of dimensions IS important, but only if they visible under normal conditions, not a microscope.

 

I think if we are looking for some sort of consensus, then I'd agree that a microscope is taking things too far (though I suspect you used that example TIC). But errors of less than 1mm *are* sometimes noticeable to the naked eye, particularly if they affect other proportions or (as in the case of the Hornby tippler top capping that I instance on my blog), they are significantly thicker than other models of similar types

 

Obviously, we all have differing standards of acceptance re. what we are going to put up with

 

Indeed. To throw the above into sharp relief, I'm quite happy to overlook the 4mm overlength of the Bachmann cattle van. That's very subjective, some might say inconsistent, but it only emphasises that truly objective reviewing should as far as possible present raw information for individuals to make up their own mind, rather than put a spin on it one way or t'other.

 

,

but maybe we also need to step back sometimes and think about the overall scheme of things. ie it's no good having perfection in one loco if it makes all the rolling stock look rubbish by comparison.

 

I dont think that holding back the standard of new models to match older ones is a road we want to be going down.

 

Consistency in all aspects would ideally be the aim, but again that's a matter for the individual. I dont disagree with the notion though that not all commentators strive for that consistency (especially where their own input to that bigger picture is concerned); we all know of folk who want to run Hornby 60s past 'bogbrush' trees.

 

P.S. Just because I don't have a high post count doesn't mean you have to be nice to me, hopefully you would extend the same level of courtesy to all members/posters, so long as they do the same to you.

 

Thanks. After nearly six years here and elsewhere, my patience can wear thin on occasion That's particularly so when it's evident that someone hasnt read or understood previous points in a thread, although I'd stress that I'm not saying that's the case here.

[Kenton]

I have to admit I'd like to think that the vast majority of members on RMweb would be bothered.

 

Yes, but then there is "being bothered" and "choosing to live with it".

 

I can't see why these faults are allowed to propagate through to the final model - it is only a matter of research. On the other hand I can live with almost anything to see a model available. I understand that some details are extremely difficult to manufacture especially give the compromise of OO - but then I would expect the manufacturer to have done the research and to explain on release why the faults persist. What annoys the most is that in some cases the faults seem deliberate or as if the research was not done. But that could be the manufacturer's drawing a thin line between "representative toys" and "true scale models".

[S.A.C Martin]

But even if something is objectively "wrong", it could still be subjectively acceptable.

 

I like that statement, it seems to sum up pretty well most people's feelings on models in general (from what I have read in this thread, taken as a sample of modeller's opinions).

 

However, I think it should also be a case of recognising that something which is "objectively wrong" and if stated as wrong, in an objective manner, does not necessarily mean it is not subjectively acceptable at a different level.

 

Perhaps this is where the 4VEP fell down in its own discussion, and perhaps where I am guilty of not recognising that the two are not mutually exclusive of each other.

 

In short - an objective assessment can end with a subjective conclusion.

[Guest dilbert]

I can't see why these faults are allowed to propagate through to the final model - it is only a matter of research.

 

There is also the 'can't see the wood for the trees' syndrome in research that when you to a certain point, you don't make progress. At this point, it is always useful for a fresh pair of eyes to review the work that has been done to date - this review may reveal nothing, it could highlight potential errors for further investigation or simply give additional indicators to other sources of information. It's very much a collaborative approach which means sharing info and in certain circumstances has the potential to open up a bag of worms, in that it could compromise commercial sensitivities... dilbert

[Oldddudders]

Is there any evidence of a major manufacturer being so annoyed at a negative review of their latest offering that they have carried out such a threat? I've been reading various magazines for 40 years & don't recall such an event.

I am unaware of any such "taking our bat home" behaviour in the UK press, but recall a former editor of Model Railroader citing a classic example, back in the 50s or 60s. Techniques then were a bit more homespun, and someone had published a clever way of blackening metal or similar effect - without using any of the then-limited ranges of model paint. The leading paint manufacturer, who was a regular advertiser, went ballistic, removing all advertising and promising it would never return until Hell froze over. The former editor reported that the advertising did return a while later "after a particularly cold spell"!

[S.A.C Martin]

Equally, we've had a few reviewers go to the opposite extreme - the one oft-quoted example of the sentence "blood on their hands" used in a particular review, always makes me wonder if I'm actually quite a moderate modeller in some respects!

[GC Jack]

I have to admit to being paranoid about putting my name up.

 

This site is open to anyone to observe.

 

I had an identity theft issue a while ago and acting on professional advice I had to change everything I had online. My email address is in not in my real name. The internet is a wonderful tool and would be even more wonderful if everyone that used it were open and honest, but we live in the real world.

 

I'll sign off with my first name but that's as far as it goes with me.

 

Jack

[Dave777]

'bogbrush' trees.

 

lol, superb terminology

[iL Dottore]

Returning to the original topic, I've always thought a scientific approach should be taken, namely:

 

Hypothesis (for our purposes "what is this model like?")

Materials and Methods (how it was tested, on a rolling road, against works drawings....)

Results (objective statement of findings, e.g. a scale 2ft shorter than on the works drawings, stalls at X amps....)

Conclusions (this is the interpretation of the results and personal views [biases sometimes] are also made here)

 

I would argue that such an approach would not only remove a lot of the "personality" factor from reviews, but also make it harder for a manufacturer to dispute in cases where major errors are found.

 

Furthermore, why not include a reference list/bibliography to let the reader go to the data cited and draw their own conclusions?

[40F]

Surely it is one mans take on forums??? Why all the fuss????

[Oldddudders]

Given the possible perception that US magazines might be deeper in bed with their advertisers, I found the reviews in Model Railroader in recent years to be pretty convincing. A locomotive would be given a thorough test on both DC and DCC where appropriate, with quoted current consumption, including stall current, scale mph at DC voltages and at DCC speed-steps, and haulage capacity expressed in numbers of cars on straight and level track. Dimensions were compared to prototype drawings, and details to photographs. I'm sure that still enabled a certain amount of wiggle room for the reviewer to miss some problems by design or by error, but I felt I knew a bit about a loco before buying it.