What makes a good review?
- Thread starter bmcneil
- Start date
I try to write reviews the way I like to read them. I write in a comparitive fashion. If you write on a knife and say "it is sharp" (or scary sharp or crazy sharp or whatever adjetive) that doesn't tell us much. If you say "it was sharper out of the box than my Spyderco Endura", that tells us something. I try to use low-priced "control knives" to test against. More people are able to understand the performance that way.
-Bart
-Bart
- Joined
- Mar 2, 1999
- Messages
- 666
Here's some other opinions. I started this thread on the Blade Discussion forum back in May:
http://www.bladeforums.com/ubb/Forum54/HTML/001010.html
Mike
http://www.bladeforums.com/ubb/Forum54/HTML/001010.html
Mike
- Joined
- Oct 3, 1998
- Messages
- 4,842
Read some of the knife magazine reviews. Okay, now don't do what they do
Actually, magazine reviews often have some relatively polished prose, which isn't a bad thing to imitate. But the contents of magazine reviews often spend most of their time on: the maker, a visual inspection of the knife, description of the materials used in the knife, and fit and finish. Oh, and perfunctory performance claims.
Now, I'm not saying those things shouldn't be in the review -- they should. But what makes a review really great reading to me is useful performance data. What I mean by this is, at the very least, test the performance of the knife, emphasizing the most likely uses of the knife (so we see how it performs under normal use) and the most reasonable hardest uses of the knife (so we see how it performs when stressed).
On top of that, realize that knife performance data in a vacuum is useless. Knowing that a knife cut 50 pieces of rope before it went dull tells me absolutely nothing. But, if you test the knife versus a few other similar knives, then we'll get a feel for relative performance. For example, if you're testing a Benchmade Ascent, test it against the Spyderco Endura. In fact, I test *all* my 4"-bladed knives versus the endura, so it's kind of a standard benchmark for me.
I still enjoy reading the visual inspection, magazine-style reviews that have just perfunctory performance data -- these type of reviews even show up here on bladeforums, and I read every one. But I really love the reviews that really teach me about the knife's performance.
Joe
Now, I'm not saying those things shouldn't be in the review -- they should. But what makes a review really great reading to me is useful performance data. What I mean by this is, at the very least, test the performance of the knife, emphasizing the most likely uses of the knife (so we see how it performs under normal use) and the most reasonable hardest uses of the knife (so we see how it performs when stressed).
On top of that, realize that knife performance data in a vacuum is useless. Knowing that a knife cut 50 pieces of rope before it went dull tells me absolutely nothing. But, if you test the knife versus a few other similar knives, then we'll get a feel for relative performance. For example, if you're testing a Benchmade Ascent, test it against the Spyderco Endura. In fact, I test *all* my 4"-bladed knives versus the endura, so it's kind of a standard benchmark for me.
I still enjoy reading the visual inspection, magazine-style reviews that have just perfunctory performance data -- these type of reviews even show up here on bladeforums, and I read every one. But I really love the reviews that really teach me about the knife's performance.
Joe
- Joined
- Nov 25, 1999
- Messages
- 1,499
Hmmm, this is a hard question... All depends on which review you are assuming as good.
Cliff Stamp writes very detailed reviews which are giving you some kind of absolute data - how much kilograms (pounds), centimeters (inches) and so on you can expect and require from your knife. I have found these reviews very interesting and useful for myself (just my opinion).
I have a bit another attitude writing my reviews. I try to bring closer the user my subjective impressions how this particular knife is good or bad for me using the relatively objective data only to illustrate and justify my subjective opinion. For ex., writing how many pencils I can sharpen until the edge will loose shaving abilities I do not have in my mind nor using this particular knife for pencil sharpening or for shaving exclusively, this is an illustration only.
But to get really a lot of response you should write something really silly, shocking and idiotic! Please look onto the thread "The Best Offensive Weapon" - how impressive response it obtained and still does obtain.
And now compare it with more than modest response which my review on SPYDERCO Bill Moran Featherweight obtained recently
------------------
Sergiusz Mitin
gunwriter
Lodz, Poland
Cliff Stamp writes very detailed reviews which are giving you some kind of absolute data - how much kilograms (pounds), centimeters (inches) and so on you can expect and require from your knife. I have found these reviews very interesting and useful for myself (just my opinion).
I have a bit another attitude writing my reviews. I try to bring closer the user my subjective impressions how this particular knife is good or bad for me using the relatively objective data only to illustrate and justify my subjective opinion. For ex., writing how many pencils I can sharpen until the edge will loose shaving abilities I do not have in my mind nor using this particular knife for pencil sharpening or for shaving exclusively, this is an illustration only.
But to get really a lot of response you should write something really silly, shocking and idiotic! Please look onto the thread "The Best Offensive Weapon" - how impressive response it obtained and still does obtain.
And now compare it with more than modest response which my review on SPYDERCO Bill Moran Featherweight obtained recently
------------------
Sergiusz Mitin
gunwriter
Lodz, Poland
dogboye
Gold Member
- Joined
- Nov 23, 1999
- Messages
- 7,055
Incidentally, I really enjoyed your Moran Featherweight (Lightweight?) review, Sergiusz. I think the reason that you didn't get much response was that the Moran is nothing new. Actually, fairly old, if you include its original form (leather sheath, and polished blade).
My review, on the other hand, must really suck, based on the responses, and it is on a brand new blade, heck, brand new design. To the best of my knowledge, the one that I have and reviewed is the only one that exists, so far!! And I was really hoping to get some response from Kevin Pensinger at Edge Equipment, or even Trace, since I made some suggestions for changes that would improve the knife, IMO.
Oh well... bottom line, bmcneil, is I would suggest not doing it like I did.
Seriously, there are two types IMO. First impressions (that are the magazine type review, and sorta what I did, for when the knife is so new that you don't want to really use it hard yet, or haven't had the chance), and reviews (which are of the type the Cliff does, with lots of hard data). Me, I like reviews or first impressions, either way, of any knives.
------------------
iktomi
My review, on the other hand, must really suck, based on the responses, and it is on a brand new blade, heck, brand new design. To the best of my knowledge, the one that I have and reviewed is the only one that exists, so far!! And I was really hoping to get some response from Kevin Pensinger at Edge Equipment, or even Trace, since I made some suggestions for changes that would improve the knife, IMO.
Oh well... bottom line, bmcneil, is I would suggest not doing it like I did.
------------------
iktomi
- Joined
- Nov 25, 1999
- Messages
- 1,499
Rockspider, I really do not know should I agree with you or not as to low response of my latest review
There are some reasons why I reviewed this particular knife:
First reason I mentioned in my review.
Second reason - some questions on this knife were asked on BF recently what shows some interest for this old and proven knife, so I thought "why no? if someone is interested let I share my impression".
Third reason - should be new knives only reviewed? I think it is worth to review good knives, however it is just my opinion...
My review on newer Kershaw Avalanche http://www.bladeforums.com/ubb/Forum3/HTML/001777.html got less response than my review on somewhat older and more familiar Kershaw Ricochet http://www.bladeforums.com/ubb/Forum3/HTML/001664.html
So I'm not quite sure are you right as to responses dependence on matter is reviewed knife new or old.
Please don't get me wrong, I'm not fallen-in-love-to-myself idiot who obligatorily needs a lot of applause "great review, Sergiusz". Although this kind of response is very pleasant for me (think I'm not exception here
) much more I'm expecting the questions on reviewed knife, discussion on particular knife options, impression exchange with other BF members in this matter.
Believe me, I never try to write all my impressions on reviewed knife, this would make review fairly long and pretty boring. I try to select my impressions which could be interesting and useful for another knife users (and probable buyers) and here response could show me am I right in my selection or not. This kind of response is quite necessary to plan my writing in future - so this is the most desirable kind of response.
Unfortunately the best way to cause extended discussion (50-80 and more replays) is to post something quite idiotic, like an example I already mentioned. In this case all (or almost all) famous BF members are posting their criticisms and do not be concerned about the matter that each replay moves this thread onto top of the list and makes it more desirable to read for Forumites who just didn't. Including BF Moderators who do the same instead of locking this silly thread
At very first moment I also had intention to response: "man, get a cheapest kitchen knife (statistically the most common offensive knife) and let us alone with your silly questions. A moment later I thought: "nope, I'll never contribute to such thread popularization".
Sorry for these sad reflections, I do not know do they add something to thread topic or not
BTW, about new (very new!) knives: I have the newest CRKT Carbon Fiber M-16 on my working table. Should I immediately write something like: "Hey guys, what a cool knife!" or should I know it a bit better and when review?
[This message has been edited by Sergiusz Mitin (edited 06-28-2000).]
There are some reasons why I reviewed this particular knife:
First reason I mentioned in my review.
Second reason - some questions on this knife were asked on BF recently what shows some interest for this old and proven knife, so I thought "why no? if someone is interested let I share my impression".
Third reason - should be new knives only reviewed? I think it is worth to review good knives, however it is just my opinion...
My review on newer Kershaw Avalanche http://www.bladeforums.com/ubb/Forum3/HTML/001777.html got less response than my review on somewhat older and more familiar Kershaw Ricochet http://www.bladeforums.com/ubb/Forum3/HTML/001664.html
So I'm not quite sure are you right as to responses dependence on matter is reviewed knife new or old.
Please don't get me wrong, I'm not fallen-in-love-to-myself idiot who obligatorily needs a lot of applause "great review, Sergiusz". Although this kind of response is very pleasant for me (think I'm not exception here
Believe me, I never try to write all my impressions on reviewed knife, this would make review fairly long and pretty boring. I try to select my impressions which could be interesting and useful for another knife users (and probable buyers) and here response could show me am I right in my selection or not. This kind of response is quite necessary to plan my writing in future - so this is the most desirable kind of response.
Unfortunately the best way to cause extended discussion (50-80 and more replays) is to post something quite idiotic, like an example I already mentioned. In this case all (or almost all) famous BF members are posting their criticisms and do not be concerned about the matter that each replay moves this thread onto top of the list and makes it more desirable to read for Forumites who just didn't. Including BF Moderators who do the same instead of locking this silly thread
At very first moment I also had intention to response: "man, get a cheapest kitchen knife (statistically the most common offensive knife) and let us alone with your silly questions. A moment later I thought: "nope, I'll never contribute to such thread popularization".
Sorry for these sad reflections, I do not know do they add something to thread topic or not
BTW, about new (very new!) knives: I have the newest CRKT Carbon Fiber M-16 on my working table. Should I immediately write something like: "Hey guys, what a cool knife!" or should I know it a bit better and when review?
[This message has been edited by Sergiusz Mitin (edited 06-28-2000).]
I think Rockspyder has it pretty well summed up...you have the detailed performace reviews, which I really like reading, and then you have the "first impression" reviews, which if done right are also very useful. A perfect example would be the review done by Chiro75 on his small blades.
In any event, it's much easier to make the object of review more tangible when you include a few different knives, or a "well known" design for comparison.
I'm currently working a similar "first impression" review based off a military Staff Study format, used to narrow down Courses of Action (COA=choices)...the beauty about this format is that you can choose a number of viable choices (COAs) and select your own criteria and priorities to determine your best COA, or best knife for your needs.
Pictures definately say a thousand words...and Chiro75, although critiqued about his photography results
did a great job of presenting the knives.
Dave
In any event, it's much easier to make the object of review more tangible when you include a few different knives, or a "well known" design for comparison.
I'm currently working a similar "first impression" review based off a military Staff Study format, used to narrow down Courses of Action (COA=choices)...the beauty about this format is that you can choose a number of viable choices (COAs) and select your own criteria and priorities to determine your best COA, or best knife for your needs.
Pictures definately say a thousand words...and Chiro75, although critiqued about his photography results
Dave
dogboye
Gold Member
- Joined
- Nov 23, 1999
- Messages
- 7,055
Originally posted by Sergiusz Mitin:
Rockspider, I really do not know should I agree with you or not as to low response of my latest review
There are some reasons why I reviewed this particular knife:
First reason I mentioned in my review.
Second reason - some questions on this knife were asked on BF recently what shows some interest for this old and proven knife, so I thought "why no? if someone is interested let I share my impression".
Third reason - should be new knives only reviewed? I think it is worth to review good knives, however it is just my opinion...
It was just a shot in the dark, and definitely not intended to be a criticism of your review. Again, I liked your review; I was just ... guessing ... about why it maybe did not get much of a response.
Please don't get me wrong, I'm not fallen-in-love-to-myself idiot who obligatorily needs a lot of applause "great review, Sergiusz". Although this kind of response is very pleasant for me (think I'm not exception here) much more I'm expecting the questions on reviewed knife, discussion on particular knife options, impression exchange with other BF members in this matter.
Never took you to be one of those. You seem to have very valid comments in all your reviews I've read.
What?! Like MINE?!
Personally, I definitely think you should do a "first impressions" review. Those can be most entertaining. Then, when you have some more experience, follow up with that in a more detailed review. It breaks up the size of the review, and makes for some interesting contrasts between first impression and later data/evaluation. I think I have seen Gaucho do this once or twice, and have really enjoyed seeing the change.
------------------
iktomi
- Joined
- Oct 1, 1999
- Messages
- 6,490
Honesty, information, and the person writing the reviews qualifications to judge. We all have the right to our opinions and to judge from our own perspective, but they are only opinions.
I don't read a review unless I'm interested in the knife. I like to hear what the person says, but I'm not that interested in a lot of technical data. I like to know a knife will perform to a certain level or above, but I see no need for some of the stupid abuse tests I know I'll never subject my knives to. To me it proves nothing.
The best review I have read recently was by Gaucho, on the CRKT/Kff. I was going to buy the knife anyway, but his reveiw reinforced my decision. For me this is a good review.
http://www.bladeforums.com/ubb/Forum3/HTML/001704.html
------------------
"Will work 4 Knives!"
Homepage: http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=254126
I don't read a review unless I'm interested in the knife. I like to hear what the person says, but I'm not that interested in a lot of technical data. I like to know a knife will perform to a certain level or above, but I see no need for some of the stupid abuse tests I know I'll never subject my knives to. To me it proves nothing.
The best review I have read recently was by Gaucho, on the CRKT/Kff. I was going to buy the knife anyway, but his reveiw reinforced my decision. For me this is a good review.
http://www.bladeforums.com/ubb/Forum3/HTML/001704.html
------------------
"Will work 4 Knives!"
Homepage: http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=254126
- Joined
- Dec 14, 1998
- Messages
- 4,870
Real knifemakers or folks with unbiased opinions and the knife education to back it up are the folks who should say
how a knife should perform.
Knives DONT NOT CUT CONCRETE
Knives DONT CUT STEEL
These tests are done buy folks who MISUSE knives.
A set of standards needs to be established for the uneduducated knife client.
Anyone can test a knife if they have the right information about the function and expectations of that knife. Every knife style and design is different and for a different purpose. The people who study knife function, build them for real life use and intended purpose are the folks who need to determine how the knife should perform.
Then the client should get a check list with the purpose of the knife and the functions it was designed for. Testing one knife against another is fine . But testing knives that were built for differnt purposes in bogus.
An apple is not an orange.
------------------
Web Site At www.darrelralph.com
[This message has been edited by Darrel Ralph (edited 06-29-2000).]
how a knife should perform.
Knives DONT NOT CUT CONCRETE
Knives DONT CUT STEEL
These tests are done buy folks who MISUSE knives.
A set of standards needs to be established for the uneduducated knife client.
Anyone can test a knife if they have the right information about the function and expectations of that knife. Every knife style and design is different and for a different purpose. The people who study knife function, build them for real life use and intended purpose are the folks who need to determine how the knife should perform.
Then the client should get a check list with the purpose of the knife and the functions it was designed for. Testing one knife against another is fine . But testing knives that were built for differnt purposes in bogus.
An apple is not an orange.
------------------
Web Site At www.darrelralph.com
[This message has been edited by Darrel Ralph (edited 06-29-2000).]
Cliff Stamp
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 5, 1998
- Messages
- 17,562
Bmcneil :
As Joe said, a review that lets you know what the abilities of the knife are. Read your review from the perspective of another who has not done what you did. Does your description allow them to understand the performance?
"I chopped up several 2x4's with the Trailcutter. It cut deep, cleared the wood nicely and felt solid in the had. It was an excellent chopper."
Since you did this it is easy for you to understand. I however did not and cannot assign a value to the relative terms. However :
"I used the Trailcutter to chop through several 2x4's. Compared to the Trailmaster from Cold Steel, the Trailcutter went through the wood in about 25% less time. It was getting better penetration on each chop and it was binding less giving me smoother runs. It also felt more secure in hand, I was feeling no vibration and my grip was not slipping. Due to the combination of these factors my fatigue was much lower with the Trailcutter. It is an excellent chopper."
This puts the performance in more concrete terms and explains in more detail what "solid in the hand means." More detail is possible of course; the penetration, your fatigue rate, the width of the openings necessary to allow breakouts etc. . You cold also go on to describe the aspects of the knife that give it its performance, the geometry, the balance etc. .
One of the most important people in a review is the maker. You should discuss it with them and get some feedback. It is quite possible that low performance could be because of ignorance on your part and it would be unfair to judge the blade poorly because of this.
However don't use the makers comments as gospel, this is far worse than not even asking them. If you do you will write a very biased piece of work. Of course their blades will do what they want - you would expect that. But is what they want sensible functinality? There are many makers, and many different opinions about what is use and what is abuse.
Be open, encourage feedback, and let your reviews evolve. And lastly, if you intend to be honest, with no bias - expect some flak. Not all blades are solid performers, if you review enough you will see very popular blades that are very low performers, often with makers and supporters with personalities to match. Expect strong commentary - of both kinds - on such reviews. Enjoy one, ignore the other.
-Cliff
[This message has been edited by Cliff Stamp (edited 06-29-2000).]
As Joe said, a review that lets you know what the abilities of the knife are. Read your review from the perspective of another who has not done what you did. Does your description allow them to understand the performance?
"I chopped up several 2x4's with the Trailcutter. It cut deep, cleared the wood nicely and felt solid in the had. It was an excellent chopper."
Since you did this it is easy for you to understand. I however did not and cannot assign a value to the relative terms. However :
"I used the Trailcutter to chop through several 2x4's. Compared to the Trailmaster from Cold Steel, the Trailcutter went through the wood in about 25% less time. It was getting better penetration on each chop and it was binding less giving me smoother runs. It also felt more secure in hand, I was feeling no vibration and my grip was not slipping. Due to the combination of these factors my fatigue was much lower with the Trailcutter. It is an excellent chopper."
This puts the performance in more concrete terms and explains in more detail what "solid in the hand means." More detail is possible of course; the penetration, your fatigue rate, the width of the openings necessary to allow breakouts etc. . You cold also go on to describe the aspects of the knife that give it its performance, the geometry, the balance etc. .
One of the most important people in a review is the maker. You should discuss it with them and get some feedback. It is quite possible that low performance could be because of ignorance on your part and it would be unfair to judge the blade poorly because of this.
However don't use the makers comments as gospel, this is far worse than not even asking them. If you do you will write a very biased piece of work. Of course their blades will do what they want - you would expect that. But is what they want sensible functinality? There are many makers, and many different opinions about what is use and what is abuse.
Be open, encourage feedback, and let your reviews evolve. And lastly, if you intend to be honest, with no bias - expect some flak. Not all blades are solid performers, if you review enough you will see very popular blades that are very low performers, often with makers and supporters with personalities to match. Expect strong commentary - of both kinds - on such reviews. Enjoy one, ignore the other.
-Cliff
[This message has been edited by Cliff Stamp (edited 06-29-2000).]
I generally read reviews on knives and makers I have an interest in. I am also almost always interested in knives by makers who are relatively unknown/new. The latter is part of the fun of being in Bladeforums, having the opportunity to read/learn more about someone who may not be covered by the magazines for some more years, if ever...
Of course, the reviews I have done -- mostly first impressions -- reflect my own interests and priority. Having just done a full review according to what I want to see in a knife, I can see why it may be disappointing to not the level of response one may want. It's alot of work to do a full review. But, heck, you learn alot about the particular knife being reviewed.
As an aside, I read the review on the Moran and I also read the review on Trace Rinaldi's new design. Enjoyed both.
Just don't always have the energy to respond... I am sure there others who lurk through the reviews and appreciate the work behind them. Well... at least I hope so.
I got a full review planned for a Hossom compared to the A/F Covert. I have a "first impression" yet of a couple of Chuck Hallberg knives. I'll eventually get to them.
sing
AKTI #A000356
Of course, the reviews I have done -- mostly first impressions -- reflect my own interests and priority. Having just done a full review according to what I want to see in a knife, I can see why it may be disappointing to not the level of response one may want. It's alot of work to do a full review. But, heck, you learn alot about the particular knife being reviewed.
As an aside, I read the review on the Moran and I also read the review on Trace Rinaldi's new design. Enjoyed both.
sing
AKTI #A000356