Review Format @ BPL – Your Feedback Wanted

IMO, I think some of the confusion was that the spotlites/flash/etc. reviews seemed to promote the idea that it would be followed up with a more comprehensive review later (which often didn’t happen). So when you do an abbreviated review, ensure right up front that readers understand there won’t be a follow up.

Two review levels – ‘Comprehensive’ for the first level, and ‘Limited’ for the second.

Quick look review?

seems pretty straightforward and to the point.

I’d like to see as much empirical evidence of the product’s performance as possible, minimizing the amount of “marketing fluff”, i.e. no need to repeat the claims of the manufacturers promo material. Given the “Limited field testing conditions” limitation, this may be not always be easy.

Put another way, for these short reviews I’d like to see the piece written to read as though you were speaking to someone you stopped to meet on the trail and with whom you were discussing gear.

i am thrown off by your wording Ryan; consider that the very Q u r asking is unclear. did u forget the word ‘of’ following ‘out’, the 7th word in your sentence? if not i really dunno what is being asked here.

 “What do you want to see out an *abbreviated* product review that may have these attributes:”

I sort’a understand what you are asking. But, I think there are actually three categories of possible reviews.

1) An initial review having to do with design philosophy and materials (carbon, aluminum, fabric source, manufacture location, etc) expectations, manufacturer intentions, and maybe suggestions for using. Any potential “goods” and “bads” should be noted.

2) An intermediate review after two weeks of use. This should point out any basic material lacks, strengths, weaknesses, potential problems, and, strengths. Comparisons between common practice/any odd techniques needed (say breathability of some fabric,) what works and is expected to continue to work and what doesn’t with some speculation on long term problems. It should answer most of the “goods and bads” from the previous review.

3) A Comprehensive review after 4 weeks of use after two seasons (say spring and summer, or…) and no more than a year after receiving an item.  Basically an inclusion of the other two articles as a refresher (just links) and a rather full discription of any good points, lacks found,  any corrections to use/technique.  For an example a hole at the peak of a tent or loss of dryness in DWR gear or ease of handling a tent or …   This could be a large article detailing good things, bad things and potential corrections needed in manufacture, use techniques and materials. Or, at the end of the testing period it might only be a simple “no problems found” or it could be very detailed for “several problems found”.  The limits to the item should be explored, also.

Of course some definitions need to be made for “seasons”, immediate problems causing the long term review to be terminated (ie fatal problems) and so on.  And a general guideline/outline for each of the three categorys should be created so things do not get really out of whack…  Some stuff doesn’t require the full three section test procedure, of course. Some stuff would only make sense in low winter, or high summer. A full -20F shell doesn’t make any sense in summer, for example.

Thanks for your feedback, and also to the folks that emailed me privately about this. For now, we will consolidate into a simple review vs. a comprehensive review and focus on fleshing out these two formats for now.

More info here: Limited vs. Performance Reviews