Thread: Bad Tool Reports Warning Rant Ahead

I'm with Jim in regard that the best reviews come from people who have actually used the tool for a reasonable period.

Someone who has purchased a tool has nothing to loose giving you their "balls and all" review of said tool.

Someone who either makes a living from reviewing, or is in some other way rewarded for giving reviews, has something to loose and will always tread that fine line between a completely honest appraisal and not pi$$ing off the manufacturers.

It's human nature not to bite the hand that feeds you ...

This thread is tending to become an exercise is what I understand that psychologists (help me out here, Derek) call projection. That is, the responses reveal more about the writer than they do about the actual subject matter.

To be specific, posters state that they think that it is almost inevitably the case that a reviewer who gets a benefit must pull punches when they do the review. What that actually shows is that they doubt their own ability, if asked to review a tool and keep it, to do so with absolute objectivity and integrity. There is no doubt that there is a risk involved because there is a temptation to behave in that way of the "don't bite the hand that feeds you" kind.

However, just because the temptation and risk are there and some people know that they themselves would not be able to resist the temptation, does not mean that there are not other people with the ability to resist the temptation and write honest and objective reviews. Anyone who denies the possibility that such people exist are actually just projecting their own assessments of themselves on everyone else. That they do that and don't realise it of course only shows how right they are in their assessment of their own suitability to be a reviewer.

The fact is that it is usually not hard to work out whether a reviewer is a sycophant or a genuine critic - first, the critic tells you what benefit they get from the review (unless it goes without saying that the tool was a freebie); second, the sycophant doesn't tell you things about the tool that you want/need to know. The importance of the first is that it shows awareness by the critic of the need to acknowledge that there is a risk - in this case, disclosure almost invariably has the effect of relieving the critic of the risk or at least says to the reader take account of this when reading what I have written. The importance of the second is that these are the points where a sycophant has a real problem, if they misrepresent the truth they are likely to be found out and lose credibility (and there are some reviewers of tools who are in that category, as far as I am concerned); the alternative is to say nothing - that is what most sycophants choose. So when you look at the tool itself, look at the things that the reviewers haven't spoken about - that's where the weakness is likely to be.

Apply those tests to any reviewer and you will have a good idea of whether they are critics or sycophants.

The answer IMHO in relation to Derek Cohen is clear - he is a critic and his reviews are honest and objective assessments of the tools.

WW my aim was to point out the article and a reviewers points of view on general users as a whole in compariosn to a one off use like himself.

Of course get some banter going it was not a personal attack on Derek or reviewers here

I object to you Projection

This is tounge in cheek Jeremy I hope.

Otherwise it would be like fighting for something when you know your on the wrong side winning and getting paid for it

I've just bought and paid for myself a new tool for my workshop. This is an upgrade from the old small drill press that I've been using and is an industrial quality machine.

As it was at a reasonable price I've thought about writing a review of this machine for this board under the product review category.

My aim to have written such review was to enlighten other members as it may have helped them if looking at a similar machine and not for financial or other gain, except maybe the appreciation of my peers.

BUT after reading the way reviewers are criticized and their integrity are called into question (if they can only write good stuff and not bad stuff) I've decided that my time is better spent not to post such review.

I don't intend to have my reputation sullied in this way.

Peter.

Originally Posted by wheelinround

WW my aim was to point out the article and a reviewers points of view on general users as a whole in compariosn to a one off use like himself.

Of course get some banter going it was not a personal attack on Derek or reviewers here

I realise that, but the thread took a slight deviation as threads do. I wasn't singling anyone out for criticism, but since Derek stuck his head over the parapet...

If I have embarassed or offended anyone, I'll gladly withdraw what ever they deem unsuitable or offensive.

Originally Posted by Sturdee

I've just bought and paid for myself a new tool for my workshop. This is an upgrade from the old small drill press that I've been using and is an industrial quality machine.

As it was at a reasonable price I've thought about writing a review of this machine for this board under the product review category.

My aim to have written such review was to enlighten other members as it may have helped them if looking at a similar machine and not for financial or other gain, except maybe the appreciation of my peers.

BUT after reading the way reviewers are criticized and their integrity are called into question (if they can only write good stuff and not bad stuff) I've decided that my time is better spent not to post such review.

I don't intend to have my reputation sullied in this way.

Peter.

Come on Peter! Nobody would accuse you of 'comment for cash' if you just bought the machine for your own use. I think you've missed the point; what people are saying is that they'd rather have unsolicited reviews from genuine tool purchasers and users like yourself.

Please don't let my ranting disuade you from writing a review. Why not set it up, use it for a while and let us all know what you think of it. It's all grist to the mill and someone looking at the same machine will be eternally grateful to you.

Put yourself in the average Joe Blow situation,maybe some have contact with fellow woodworkers some may not ,so where do you start?
You know stuff all about the product you wish to purchase,and maybe you are going to spend x amount of dollars on it so you want some expertise to narrow your choice. I used to subscribe to Choice magazine,that was my starting point if buying any major items eg refrigerators,washing machines and stuff,I've no mates in the game,so where do I start?
Maybe it is right that some reviewers push a particular barrow but what the heck!

Publish it Peter, I need a new drill press and you've not given me a bum steer yet

Originally Posted by jmk89

This thread is tending to become an exercise is what I understand that psychologists (help me out here, Derek) call projection. That is, the responses reveal more about the writer than they do about the actual subject matter.

Projection, cynicism, or a sense of reality - it really depends on your point of view and the position you are taking. But thank you for projecting your inner psychologist.

The fact is that it is usually not hard to work out whether a reviewer is a sycophant or a genuine critic - first, the critic tells you what benefit they get from the review (unless it goes without saying that the tool was a freebie);

I can't recall a review where the reviewer goes into any detail of what benefit they get from the review.

second, the sycophant doesn't tell you things about the tool that you want/need to know.

Why bother reading a review where you already know what you need to know - isn't that the whole point of a review.

Unfortunately I'm not sure how useful your tests are in the real world.

The answer IMHO in relation to Derek Cohen is clear - he is a critic and his reviews are honest and objective assessments of the tools.

My comments where not directed at Derek and I am sure that quality of the tools he reviews makes it easy for him to be honest and objective.

Sturdee I hope you write your review as a member of the forum I would hate to mis out on it.

Sturdee even the author agrees in this statement of real users

"Being able to converse with current users of a particular tool can provide real-world opinions on performance and reliability."

Is he admitting his views are less than honest

or this

"An unfortunate quirk of the Internet and human nature is that someone experiencing problems with a product is far more likely to express their frustrations in a forum posting, often titled to accentuate or identify the problem. Those using the same product without a problem simply do not feel driven to post a "no troubles" message. This trend is certainly not confined to woodworking either."

In the past those who purchased products that were less than acceptable quality or to standards spruked about by reviewers shouted it from the roof tops in "Readers Write" "Letter to the Editor" "Current Affairs".

He writes of users who have large leaps of faith that all products will have the same problem. I don't see him mention that reviewers expect ever user to have the same experience as they have generally always a good one with no faults.

His law of averages works both ways the average reviewer in such position as his averages out to be using a top range no problem no potential fault review.

Many of us have experienced Warranty and Service dept's, help desks etc for all sorts .
In all fairness if he had a problem with one he was testing as I stated previuosly he'd have it replaced ASAP and think nothing of it. If the same thing happened a 2nd time would he write the review at all or write it honestly.

Originally Posted by wheelinround

Sturdee I hope you write your review as a member of the forum I would hate to mis out on it.

I'll think about it.

Obviously when I make a post I'm prepared for honest debate, critcism and disagreements. Always have and always will receive it, but the way Derek Cohen is criticised makes me wonder the way this board is going.

Derek has always been honest in his reviews (at least the ones I've read and no I haven't read them all) and when he is so severely criticised, I'm sure many others will think twice before posting a review.


Peter.

Weelin', I have not taken your comments as a direct personal attack, but by association I am included. Otherwise I would simply have let this thread slide by. They all eventually disappear and are lost in the mist of time. This is not the first time this topic has come up. It will not be the last.

I could have ignored this thread but Woodwould singled out LV and LN (and Triton), and his comments were derogatory of the companies, which is no different from being derogatory of their managing directors. I know their managing directors. He does not.

Jeremy (JMK) referred to the use of "projection", that the responses reveal more about the writer than they do about the actual subject matter. This is correct. The question is, if there are Reviewers, and there are Reviewers of the Reviewers, whom is going to review the Reviewers of the Reviewers? In other words, it is just as naive to declare that, since you do not have a connection to the tool, that you are free of bias. For example, what makes Woodwould tick?

Woodwould stated, "I seriously doubt if LV (and others) would continue sending you tools if you ceased writing your reviews". My response is that (1) I do not write reviews on all the tools I receive, only on the ones that I consider others would find interesting, and (2) There are others that receive tools for feedback as well and they choose to stay in the background. As I noted in my first response, I was writing before LV came along, and I did so for enjoyment.

The best reviews are long term evaluations? I would partly agree, but only partly. This is really a measure of reliability and durability, both of which are important but also, these days, a function of price. How often do we say "you get what you pay for"? I am also aware that the longer term issue is a factor that will either support or reject my own observations about the tools I review. Woodwould noted, "you may have noticed there are others on the net who review LV tools too!". Exactly! How long would my reputation for being reliable last when others came back with contradictory information?

Woodwould, you addressed the following to me I believe,

"Verbose and apparently conformist reviews will attract nothing but disrespect from all but the lightest-weight hobbyist. Nobody believes a word of internet reviews; people read them on the rare chance the reviewer actually reports something like "Don't waste your money on this rubbish". But of course that never happens even though there is an increasingly varied amount of cheap and nasty tat out there!"

Just how does one go about drawing a conclusion like that? Do you do so based on a single variable, or a couple? Or do you look at the complete package? Do you determine whether the tool is good/bad/indifferent with or without reference to other similar tools? How much time do you spend evelauting a tool, and can you be relied upon to read the instructions properly? Do you have insight in to the mechanics of the tool, and know what to look for? Yes, I can see that a quick "this tool does not work for me and therefore is crap" is going to be very helpful for most. I assume that most want to know "why". I also assume that the reader is capable of making of their own mind, that is, taking from my review what they want.

Why do I write reviews? Because I am just an inquisitive kid having fun, wanting to share my excitement and discoveries with others. Some, unfortunately, do not see this and take it all too personally.

OK, enough.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Originally Posted by derekcohen

Don't forget I am a professional psychologist and steeped in the scientific method. Scientific research is all about the attempt to control bias. And the hallmark of scientific research design lies in its that it method may be reproduced by others to test whether the results were fair.

I'll see you with a BSc with first class honours and raise you a PhD in medicinal chemistry. Now that is steeped in the scientific method, and that is grandstanding.

To quote a line that slapped me down like a wooden dunny seat many years ago "Not everything's about you, Michael"

I don't think anybody meant this post to be about you Derek, or perhaps I should say, I didn't because I've not read any of your reviews, but you made it so.

Cheers
Michael

Originally Posted by derekcohen

I could have ignored this thread but Woodwould singled out LV and LN (and Triton), and his comments were derogatory of the companies, which is no different from being derogatory of their managing directors. I know their managing directors. He does not.

That's very elitist and presumptuous of you!

Originally Posted by derekcohen

The best reviews are long term evaluations? I would partly agree, but only partly. This is really a measure of reliability and durability…

Not necessarily. Like a new pair of shoes, new tools may on first impressions be exciting and perform 'well' just because they're new and feel different. Time spent with a tool often reveals subtleties that aren't initially apparent. All sorts of nuances and foibles have a habit of making themselves known the more familiar one becomes with just about anything in life.

Originally Posted by derekcohen

Woodwould noted, "you may have noticed there are others on the net who review LV tools too!". Exactly! How long would my reputation for being reliable last when others came back with contradictory information?

You assume an awful lot Derek.

Originally Posted by derekcohen

Woodwould, you addressed the following to me I believe, …

No I didn't. I don't consider LV, LN (or the majority of) Triton cheap and nasty tat!

Derek, I didn't make this personal, your ego did.