This is a suggestion not a criticism:
Your site receives regular new kit releases (apparently only from Dragon) in advance of general release to the public. Then you have a reviewer take pics of sprues, lots of talk about how clean and crisp the parts look, a walk through the instructions and listing out the decal options.
I would suggest the reviews would be more helpful if it was an "intial" build review. Specifically, ask the reviewer to do a straight OOB build, no AM parts, no paint or weathering - a straight build review. Call out and discuss issues that arise during construction, version options, accuracy issues, omissions or incorrect steps in the instructions (there are a few of these in EVERY Dragon release of late), and of course all the positive praise you currently load into the review. Also, you can point out areas that would be good for AM updates if applicable.
Since the build would be OOB and not painted or finished, the turn around time on the build and review could actually be posted before it starts to arrive in the general publics hands. Show the kit build in all its plastic glory, no paint or stowage just the kit - all its good and all its shortcomings.
Honestly, the current new kit reviews dont help me in my decision to buy or build the kit and are all starting to read like a paid advertisement from DML (according to the reviews, all the kits are incredibly perfect and beatiful and have EVERYTHING you could possibly want in a kit).
Site Talk
Site announcements, comments, or feedback about the site.
Site announcements, comments, or feedback about the site.
Hosted by Darren Baker, Jim Starkweather
New Kit Review Suggestion
shado67
Joined: October 16, 2003
KitMaker: 220 posts
Armorama: 215 posts
Posted: Monday, July 30, 2007 - 11:13 AM UTC
Mojo
Joined: January 11, 2003
KitMaker: 1,339 posts
Armorama: 637 posts
Posted: Monday, July 30, 2007 - 11:53 AM UTC
Mike,
If I'm not mistaken, there is an initial in box review which covers everything you have said.. Condition of the sprue's, decals what are the instructions like, whats in the box, so to speak.... They are usually followed by a build review. As far as I know, and if I'm wrong, I will be corrected, they are done out of the box. Only difference is, they run right through painting and weathering.. As for them sounding like an ad for DML.. The kits are pretty hard to beat when it comes to detail and whats "in the box"
Dave
If I'm not mistaken, there is an initial in box review which covers everything you have said.. Condition of the sprue's, decals what are the instructions like, whats in the box, so to speak.... They are usually followed by a build review. As far as I know, and if I'm wrong, I will be corrected, they are done out of the box. Only difference is, they run right through painting and weathering.. As for them sounding like an ad for DML.. The kits are pretty hard to beat when it comes to detail and whats "in the box"
Dave
Plasticbattle
#003
Joined: May 14, 2002
KitMaker: 9,763 posts
Armorama: 7,444 posts
Posted: Monday, July 30, 2007 - 01:59 PM UTC
Quoted Text
according to the reviews, all the kits are incredibly perfect and beatiful and have EVERYTHING you could possibly want in a kit
And ...?
Do you own any of the new releases from Dragon? Have you any other opinion than that above? Who has more in their boxes?
Quoted Text
Your site receives regular new kit releases (apparently only from Dragon)
Actually on the front page of the review section, there is more from both trumpeter and AFV Club. Dragon deserves praise for sending their newest kits for as long as they have, so that we get the chance to see whats in the box, and can decide then if we want to invest our hard earned cash. Now Trumpeter will also be doing the same .. so maybe it wont be as focused on Dragons kits. But why should Dragon be singled out, as only they have made this resource available to us??
It is also a priority to get these images out to the public, as believe it or not, some folks do want to see whats in the box. You muct also remember that the staff have a life, as well as trying to keep up to date with all thats happening at the moment. Having to build all these kits before posting would be impossible.
Kelley
Joined: November 21, 2002
KitMaker: 1,966 posts
Armorama: 1,635 posts
Posted: Monday, July 30, 2007 - 02:39 PM UTC
Quoted Text
This is a suggestion not a criticism:
Your site receives regular new kit releases (apparently only from Dragon) in advance of general release to the public. Then you have a reviewer take pics of sprues, lots of talk about how clean and crisp the parts look, a walk through the instructions and listing out the decal options.
I would suggest the reviews would be more helpful if it was an "intial" build review. Specifically, ask the reviewer to do a straight OOB build, no AM parts, no paint or weathering - a straight build review. Call out and discuss issues that arise during construction, version options, accuracy issues, omissions or incorrect steps in the instructions (there are a few of these in EVERY Dragon release of late), and of course all the positive praise you currently load into the review. Also, you can point out areas that would be good for AM updates if applicable.
Since the build would be OOB and not painted or finished, the turn around time on the build and review could actually be posted before it starts to arrive in the general publics hands. Show the kit build in all its plastic glory, no paint or stowage just the kit - all its good and all its shortcomings.
Honestly, the current new kit reviews dont help me in my decision to buy or build the kit and are all starting to read like a paid advertisement from DML (according to the reviews, all the kits are incredibly perfect and beatiful and have EVERYTHING you could possibly want in a kit).
Hi Mike,
Since it seems that maybe my "/review" of the new Dragon Pz III possibly prompted your post I wanted to try and address some of the things you mentioned. Oh and this is my opinion alone, I don't speak for the staff or anyone else.
When Jim put out a call a few weeks back for North American reviewers I volunteered to do an inbox review of the Pz. III. My intent when I volunteered to do this was to be fair and objective in trying to let other modelers know what's in the box, and also to give them just a little insight as to how the kit goes together. It was not to blow smoke up a manufacturers rear end. Thankfully I think those days are gone here. I did go through the kit and test fit quite a few of the parts and of those I checked could find no problems, but there could be problems I didn't see. I also did point out one mistake in the instructions. Now that doesn't mean there aren't other mistakes in the instructions, just that I couldn't find anymore. I also tryed to point out areas that could use some improvement, A.M. wise, if someone chose to do so.
Doing this inbox review took me about a week, and that was doing at least a little everyday. Taking pics, comparing parts to scale drawings, and checking for accuracy against pics and diagrams. That was time I could have been spending working on my current build. I'm not trying to blow my own horn here, just trying to give you a little insight into what was involved. I'll also say this, doing this review and the other long one I've done has given me a new respect for some of the guys here and elsewhere, like Terry Ashley at PMMS, who do this every few days, even an inbox review isn't as easy as you might think. When I finish my current project I do plan on building the Pz III just as you suggested straight OOTB and I will post pics and a build report then, but as I told Jim, unfortunately I'm a notoriously slow builder. So it may be a while yet.
Again, I can't speak for Jim but I think the aim with most reviews is to get it to the modelers as soon as possble, but still have it be as informative as possible. I'm sorry if these types of reviews are no help to you but from what I've seen and heard from friends and aquaintances many feel otherwise. I would humbly suggest you volunteer to help with the reviews if you have the time.Oh and one last thing, I'm not a mark for Dragon, heck I was banned from their forum for speaking my mind about some of their business practices on Missing Lynx. Like I said in the Pz. III review, there are no perfect model kits out there, but in this case at least, Dragon has come pretty close. The kit is that well done. Well if you've read this far, sorry for being so long winded and thanks for "listening".
Regards,
Mike
Oh and I'm checking on the decal question you asked about in the other thread. I didn't even notice that.
LeoCmdr
Joined: January 19, 2005
KitMaker: 4,085 posts
Armorama: 3,917 posts
Posted: Monday, July 30, 2007 - 03:10 PM UTC
I have to agree with Mike with the points he raises not specifically to Dragon or any producer's kit but in the style and content of some of the initial kit reviews.
An in the box intial review should not be primarily a talk through of the instruction steps. If the crispness of parts is going to be talked about it should be given in context....like compare it to other kits or which parts look really well made. It should include accuracy checks for dimensions, detailed descriptions of the moulding details...does it look to scale thickness, realistic details, raised detail accuracy, sink marks, mould seams, accessories included, etc. If items such as wire for tow cables or a metal barrel is included are they accurate?
I noticed this in the Dragon M1A2 SEP review. This might have something to do with the fact that the Dragon M1A2 SEP kit was the reviewers first kit he had reviewed on Armorama. Good for him for stepping up and reviewing the kit but with kits as talked about as the Dragon Abrams kits it would be nice to take the time and get a reviewer with experience with reviews and actual experience on the Abrams....I would rather wait for that review than witness the race to see which modelling site can get a review done first. A review should not be rushed in order to beat the release of a kit...that's something for the model producer to worry about not a modelling site. I read the M1A2 SEP review and was confused as to which details have been added since reference was made several times to the M1A1 AIM kit....why was it confusing? Because I do not have the M1A1 AIM kit and no follow up was done for a comparison.
In regards to sprue shots...ya, a nice to have but I can go to the Lucky Model site and check out the M1A2 SEP kit and see 17 images of the unassembled kit and a list of about 85 details in the kit.
If modellers want to see what is in the box before they buy the kit wouldn't it be even better for a modeller to see how the kit actually builds? The reason the majority of modellers buy kits is to build them not to admire them unassembled in the box. Like Mike stated....just the build, no aftermarket, no paint, no filler....just see it in the raw build phase. Finishing the kit is subjective as everyone has a different style but a basic build can be very objective.
No pressure to change any way the reviews are done but I think it would benefit the site and the modellers to look at different options for conducting kit reviews. I have done a couple of reviews here and I take pride in doing them to the best of my ability. I won't do a review on a subject or kit I am not knowledgeble on. That's like doing a review on an motor vehicle that I have never seen before. Just because I own a car doesn't mean I can do a review for a new car.
Why is it a priority to get the images out to the public? Why isn't the model producer doing that via advertising? I would rather see a good quality review take its time than just an in box review of the kit contents.
I know all of you guys involved in the site are busy and everyone that does reviews is busy too....thanks for all of your dedication towards furthering the modelling community.
An in the box intial review should not be primarily a talk through of the instruction steps. If the crispness of parts is going to be talked about it should be given in context....like compare it to other kits or which parts look really well made. It should include accuracy checks for dimensions, detailed descriptions of the moulding details...does it look to scale thickness, realistic details, raised detail accuracy, sink marks, mould seams, accessories included, etc. If items such as wire for tow cables or a metal barrel is included are they accurate?
I noticed this in the Dragon M1A2 SEP review. This might have something to do with the fact that the Dragon M1A2 SEP kit was the reviewers first kit he had reviewed on Armorama. Good for him for stepping up and reviewing the kit but with kits as talked about as the Dragon Abrams kits it would be nice to take the time and get a reviewer with experience with reviews and actual experience on the Abrams....I would rather wait for that review than witness the race to see which modelling site can get a review done first. A review should not be rushed in order to beat the release of a kit...that's something for the model producer to worry about not a modelling site. I read the M1A2 SEP review and was confused as to which details have been added since reference was made several times to the M1A1 AIM kit....why was it confusing? Because I do not have the M1A1 AIM kit and no follow up was done for a comparison.
In regards to sprue shots...ya, a nice to have but I can go to the Lucky Model site and check out the M1A2 SEP kit and see 17 images of the unassembled kit and a list of about 85 details in the kit.
If modellers want to see what is in the box before they buy the kit wouldn't it be even better for a modeller to see how the kit actually builds? The reason the majority of modellers buy kits is to build them not to admire them unassembled in the box. Like Mike stated....just the build, no aftermarket, no paint, no filler....just see it in the raw build phase. Finishing the kit is subjective as everyone has a different style but a basic build can be very objective.
No pressure to change any way the reviews are done but I think it would benefit the site and the modellers to look at different options for conducting kit reviews. I have done a couple of reviews here and I take pride in doing them to the best of my ability. I won't do a review on a subject or kit I am not knowledgeble on. That's like doing a review on an motor vehicle that I have never seen before. Just because I own a car doesn't mean I can do a review for a new car.
Why is it a priority to get the images out to the public? Why isn't the model producer doing that via advertising? I would rather see a good quality review take its time than just an in box review of the kit contents.
I know all of you guys involved in the site are busy and everyone that does reviews is busy too....thanks for all of your dedication towards furthering the modelling community.
shado67
Joined: October 16, 2003
KitMaker: 220 posts
Armorama: 215 posts
Posted: Monday, July 30, 2007 - 03:23 PM UTC
Mike, actually your Pzr III in box review was unique in that you actually compared it to their older kit - which I have built - and compared the dimensions to actual plans, and I find that kind of info in a "/review" very helpful. I do look forward to seeing your build review as the Pzr III is one of my favorite subjects.
Myabe I just expect too much in a review. I would gladly help review new kits if you are short reviewers. Warning, I am not a great photographer!
Maybe I am wrong but I would think that the time and effort in putting together a detailed "in box review" could be spent on a straight OOB build with no paint. I stress no paint because the painting and weathering could take just as long or longer, as the actual build.
Like I said, my post was not a criticism, just constructive suggestions. I think we as modelers have a great opportunity in that DML and others are providing review samples in advance and a "build review" is so much more insightful and helpful than an in box review.
If reviewers are needed I will offer my services to do as I suggest, a straight OOB Buidl with no paint - construction review.
Myabe I just expect too much in a review. I would gladly help review new kits if you are short reviewers. Warning, I am not a great photographer!
Maybe I am wrong but I would think that the time and effort in putting together a detailed "in box review" could be spent on a straight OOB build with no paint. I stress no paint because the painting and weathering could take just as long or longer, as the actual build.
Like I said, my post was not a criticism, just constructive suggestions. I think we as modelers have a great opportunity in that DML and others are providing review samples in advance and a "build review" is so much more insightful and helpful than an in box review.
If reviewers are needed I will offer my services to do as I suggest, a straight OOB Buidl with no paint - construction review.
shado67
Joined: October 16, 2003
KitMaker: 220 posts
Armorama: 215 posts
Posted: Monday, July 30, 2007 - 03:34 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted Textaccording to the reviews, all the kits are incredibly perfect and beatiful and have EVERYTHING you could possibly want in a kit
And ...?
Do you own any of the new releases from Dragon? Have you any other opinion than that above? Who has more in their boxes?
Actually, I have built severalof their new kits - and posted the builds here. DML kits - yes their new ones - are like any model kit, not perfect by any means, weak on the instructions and lack stowage, extras (jerry cans, oil cans, bags, etc.) and crew. At least one crewman would be nice from a leading manufacturer like DML.
jimbrae
Joined: April 23, 2003
KitMaker: 12,927 posts
Armorama: 9,486 posts
Posted: Monday, July 30, 2007 - 07:34 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Your site receives regular new kit releases (apparently only from Dragon)
Actually, just to clarilfy this a little, we also get advance releases from Masterbox, MiniArt, Trumpeter and AFV Club. The AM manufacturers are too many to list and now include Legend.
It's rarely possible to get a new product reviewed with an a quick build (time restraints being what they are)
LeoCmdr
Joined: January 19, 2005
KitMaker: 4,085 posts
Armorama: 3,917 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - 12:29 AM UTC
Jim,
Could you please explain why there are time restraints for a build review? This is not like a printed publication...it's electronic.
I understand about being timely and getting the info out...but at what cost?
Maybe something along the lines of a standardized in box review checklist should be used by the reviewers?
A build review of the M1A2 SEP would probably have picked up the problem now identified in the kit.
Could you please explain why there are time restraints for a build review? This is not like a printed publication...it's electronic.
I understand about being timely and getting the info out...but at what cost?
Maybe something along the lines of a standardized in box review checklist should be used by the reviewers?
A build review of the M1A2 SEP would probably have picked up the problem now identified in the kit.
jimbrae
Joined: April 23, 2003
KitMaker: 12,927 posts
Armorama: 9,486 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - 01:01 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Could you please explain why there are time restraints for a build review? This is not like a printed publication...it's electronic
Sorry, my bad
- it's too easy to 'assume' sometimes...There are NO time restraints for a build review, rather we want (like any good publisher) we want the products reviewed as quickly a possible (as do the providers). This means that we need two things - a knowledgable/specialized reviewer/builder and time to mail the item to them...
A lot depends on the manufacturer really, in the case of MasterBox, we are usually 4-5 months BEFORE the product is released with DML, it can be 3-4 weeks...
staff_Jim
Publisher
Joined: December 15, 2001
KitMaker: 12,571 posts
Armorama: 6,599 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - 02:46 AM UTC
This post actually prompted me to look at the Dragon review page and notice some issues with the way reviews are shown on all the vendor summary pages. While fixing them I noted that there really weren't as many 95-100% reviews as I had thought we had done, and secondly that people *do* seem to want to see something really early in the release process. Case in point the M1A1 AIM release. We did a preview with pics that was viewed 10,000+ times, while the in-box review was only read about half as many times. Granted there is no build review but I think some other examples where there is a build review bear out that people seem to really want to see advance production images of the kit. The Stug III Early for example... Inbox review over 10K reads, 1 month later full-build, half that number.
This is not to say I don't agree with your idea and goals. However what you propose is actually a lot more difficult than you might expect. Most of the reviewers out there simply don't have the time to do builds of all the kits and figures that are released.
Cheers,
Jim
This is not to say I don't agree with your idea and goals. However what you propose is actually a lot more difficult than you might expect. Most of the reviewers out there simply don't have the time to do builds of all the kits and figures that are released.
Cheers,
Jim
wbill76
Joined: May 02, 2006
KitMaker: 5,425 posts
Armorama: 4,659 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - 06:42 AM UTC
A lot of the factors involved here center around time...
1) Time for shipment from manufacturer to Armorama
2) Time for shipment from Armorama to reviewer
3) Time for reviewer to review, write review, submit photos
4) Time for editor staff to assemble photos into review and publish
All of these steps eat into the "advance" time from when an item is available for review vs. release. Steps 3 and 4 are dependent on additional factors as well...it's not as simple as it sounds to just take snapshots of the sprues and do the write-up. As Mike points out, depending on the reviewer, it can take up to or more than a week for just #3 alone.
Now add into the equation the corresponding build time to that...a typical DML kit, without painting and finishing, can take around 20-30 hours of build time (depending on the speed of the builder and complexity of the kit) in addition to the time required to photograph and do the write-up. This is why, typically, we ask for the In-box first and then the build-up/feature second, to provide for sufficient time for each step in the process to be done adequately and meet the demands of the electronic age for quick information and turn-around.
Can reviews be more critical and in-depth? Depends on the subject and the reviewer. Like everything else content-wise on the site, this is dependent on the community members (as many do but not enough) stepping up and contributing of their time and effort to achieve that.
1) Time for shipment from manufacturer to Armorama
2) Time for shipment from Armorama to reviewer
3) Time for reviewer to review, write review, submit photos
4) Time for editor staff to assemble photos into review and publish
All of these steps eat into the "advance" time from when an item is available for review vs. release. Steps 3 and 4 are dependent on additional factors as well...it's not as simple as it sounds to just take snapshots of the sprues and do the write-up. As Mike points out, depending on the reviewer, it can take up to or more than a week for just #3 alone.
Now add into the equation the corresponding build time to that...a typical DML kit, without painting and finishing, can take around 20-30 hours of build time (depending on the speed of the builder and complexity of the kit) in addition to the time required to photograph and do the write-up. This is why, typically, we ask for the In-box first and then the build-up/feature second, to provide for sufficient time for each step in the process to be done adequately and meet the demands of the electronic age for quick information and turn-around.
Can reviews be more critical and in-depth? Depends on the subject and the reviewer. Like everything else content-wise on the site, this is dependent on the community members (as many do but not enough) stepping up and contributing of their time and effort to achieve that.
RedLeg
Joined: April 30, 2005
KitMaker: 746 posts
Armorama: 389 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - 06:51 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Case in point the M1A1 AIM release. We did a preview with pics that was viewed 10,000+ times, while the in-box review was only read about half as many times
Quoted Text
The Stug III Early for example... Inbox review over 10K reads, 1 month later full-build, half that number.
Apocalypse Now 20 Million People watched it 10 years later Apocalypse Now Redux (Better Film) how many watched this one probably half
Leon, 10 Million watched this 5 years Leon Redux later probably half again
My point being If a build review was up first there probably would be more viewing that than there would be than an in box review after the fact.
Just my tuppence worth
redleg
Finch
Joined: August 03, 2005
KitMaker: 411 posts
Armorama: 273 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - 10:02 AM UTC
I have no affiiliation with this site other than as an occasional user, but I hope those of you asking for better reviews can understand the incredible amount of work that goes into a good review. I spent weeks researching the last review I did and I know others go to similar lengths.
Just 'showing the sprues' may not be much, but sometimes it is all you can do if you aren't already well-versed in the subject. It's not realistic to expect each reviewer to go buy books so they can review a kit that just happened to be sent to them for review.
Ideally, as Jason wrote, each kit would be reviewed by someone with in-depth knowledge of that subject. Unfortunately it is rarely possible to match up kits and reviewers that well.
Surprisingly there are very few people who will write reviews. Some of those who volunteer don't come through and actually write the review they promise, even after a kit is sent to them. This is a surprisingly widespread problem.
Good reviewers are very rare so appreciate the ones you have !
Danny Egan
President
AMPS
http://www.amps-armor.org
Just 'showing the sprues' may not be much, but sometimes it is all you can do if you aren't already well-versed in the subject. It's not realistic to expect each reviewer to go buy books so they can review a kit that just happened to be sent to them for review.
Ideally, as Jason wrote, each kit would be reviewed by someone with in-depth knowledge of that subject. Unfortunately it is rarely possible to match up kits and reviewers that well.
Surprisingly there are very few people who will write reviews. Some of those who volunteer don't come through and actually write the review they promise, even after a kit is sent to them. This is a surprisingly widespread problem.
Good reviewers are very rare so appreciate the ones you have !
Danny Egan
President
AMPS
http://www.amps-armor.org
LeoCmdr
Joined: January 19, 2005
KitMaker: 4,085 posts
Armorama: 3,917 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - 12:36 PM UTC
I appreciate all the responses with dedicated knowledge filled answers.
I see an inherent flaw that will only escalate with the reviews if someone is reviewing a kit without in-depth knowledge of the kit.
Me, as a model buyer and model buyer expects a review to be done properly. This is an expectation I have with any product I would be looking at purchasing.
I would prefer to see a build review instead of an in box review but if there are going to be in box reviews then they should be of the highest quality...take the time to do them right...especially if there are an estimated twice as many views as a build review.
If an in box review is getting twice as many views as a build review how many people reading the in box review are buying the kit based just on that? How many are reading multiple reviews on multiple sites? How many buy the kit based on the build review?
Maybe conduct an on-line poll to determine why folks are viewing in box or build reviews?
Why is there such a rush to get a kit reviewed before it's release date? I understand the basics of giving the modellers a look at the kit but the role of Armorama or any modelling site or publication should not be to rush a review because a producer was late in sending a review kit out...that's their issue and a review should not suffer for it. If it is because the producer expects it to be done...that is the wrong reason. A reviewer or a modelling site should not feel any pressure to conduct gratis advertising for a model producer that is relying on modelling web sites to be their advertising campaign managers because they send a free kit for review.
If you know there is a pending release of a specific kit that will be provided as a review kit could you make a post in advance looking for a reviewer for that kit?...get the person to tell you why they think they can do a good review of the kit? I have seen Armorama do this in the past but maybe take it to the next level to ensure a quality review can be expected. It's just a suggestion...it's worth a shot and if it doesn't work just keep things status quo.
Why would a person step up and agree to do a review if they weren't well versed in the subject? That could very well produce a mediocre review that reflects on the reviewer and Armorama. I would never do a review to get a free kit out of it or because I felt rushed or on a subject I didn't see myself qualified to review.
I agree that all the folks that dedicate time to doing great reviews are not mentioned enough but maybe it is time to think outside the traditional review box and try some new things.
I see an inherent flaw that will only escalate with the reviews if someone is reviewing a kit without in-depth knowledge of the kit.
Me, as a model buyer and model buyer expects a review to be done properly. This is an expectation I have with any product I would be looking at purchasing.
I would prefer to see a build review instead of an in box review but if there are going to be in box reviews then they should be of the highest quality...take the time to do them right...especially if there are an estimated twice as many views as a build review.
If an in box review is getting twice as many views as a build review how many people reading the in box review are buying the kit based just on that? How many are reading multiple reviews on multiple sites? How many buy the kit based on the build review?
Maybe conduct an on-line poll to determine why folks are viewing in box or build reviews?
Why is there such a rush to get a kit reviewed before it's release date? I understand the basics of giving the modellers a look at the kit but the role of Armorama or any modelling site or publication should not be to rush a review because a producer was late in sending a review kit out...that's their issue and a review should not suffer for it. If it is because the producer expects it to be done...that is the wrong reason. A reviewer or a modelling site should not feel any pressure to conduct gratis advertising for a model producer that is relying on modelling web sites to be their advertising campaign managers because they send a free kit for review.
If you know there is a pending release of a specific kit that will be provided as a review kit could you make a post in advance looking for a reviewer for that kit?...get the person to tell you why they think they can do a good review of the kit? I have seen Armorama do this in the past but maybe take it to the next level to ensure a quality review can be expected. It's just a suggestion...it's worth a shot and if it doesn't work just keep things status quo.
Why would a person step up and agree to do a review if they weren't well versed in the subject? That could very well produce a mediocre review that reflects on the reviewer and Armorama. I would never do a review to get a free kit out of it or because I felt rushed or on a subject I didn't see myself qualified to review.
I agree that all the folks that dedicate time to doing great reviews are not mentioned enough but maybe it is time to think outside the traditional review box and try some new things.
AlanL
Joined: August 12, 2005
KitMaker: 14,499 posts
Armorama: 11,675 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - 01:20 PM UTC
Hi Mike,
I didn't read all the comments that went before. I like the first look reviews here on the Big A, and the follow up builds, but for my money and a totally impartial review of any product I read Terry Ashley's reviews on PMMS.
I'd say it's simple, shop around and don't believe everything that you read and remember in any area of life always ask the question 'who's benefiting fromt this' and 'where does it come from' Keep those basic priniciples in mind and you won't go far wrong.
Cheers
Al
I didn't read all the comments that went before. I like the first look reviews here on the Big A, and the follow up builds, but for my money and a totally impartial review of any product I read Terry Ashley's reviews on PMMS.
I'd say it's simple, shop around and don't believe everything that you read and remember in any area of life always ask the question 'who's benefiting fromt this' and 'where does it come from' Keep those basic priniciples in mind and you won't go far wrong.
Cheers
Al
Herchealer
Joined: July 31, 2003
KitMaker: 1,523 posts
Armorama: 710 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - 01:34 PM UTC
it seems as this thread has to do with my review on the M1A2 SEP Kit. Not to Defend myself, but I didnt see some of you wanting to do the review, so how dare you critisize a review having never done one. Mind you I recieved the Kit on a Friday and Deployed for Iraq on the Following monday. So if you can do a out of the box review by building it and all that you ask for in 2 days while spending time with your family and taking photo's and all, then lets see it! Until you have reviewed a kit then please don't critisize the way it is reviewed. Not all of us just build models all day long we do contribute to the world in other ways.
Ok back to defending your freedom
Ok back to defending your freedom
shado67
Joined: October 16, 2003
KitMaker: 220 posts
Armorama: 215 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - 01:50 PM UTC
Jason makes many good points. Whats the rush - people still buy magazines for their reviews and articles and those are really delayed compared to the internet postings.
To summarize a few points made so far:
1. Shots of sprues and description of items in box - manufacturer could provide this (probably already does on their website). What is the diffrence between sprue shots and CAD renderings DML provides in their announcemnts?
2. Build vs. in box reviews - Do a build review first and it will get 10K hits. First out always gets more hits.
3. I appreciate all the effort and time that goes into an initial in box review. However, put that time and effort into a build review - no AM, no paint. It might take a little longer but you will have a good review out, not a brochure. The shiping times from vendor to armorama to reviewer - still has to happen regardless if its in box review or build review.
4. Knowledgeable reviewers - they are out there. Most in box reviews do NOT go into details of measurement comparisons like Mike did in the Pzr III review. Honestly, I could forgo the accuracy research on many subjects - like the dickermax (who knows how accurate it is anyway). The subject experts will ALWAYS chime in on accuracy shortcomings (see any thread regarding a new sherman release). A build review is going to address ease of build, problems with instructions, fit prblems, options, versions, etc.
However, with some subjects like the M1A2 SEP there are LOTS of experts on this site regarding the M1A2 and the fact that other mfrs have versions of the M1A2, a detailed build review with good research and comparisons to the already released kits would be expected.
I would gladly wait another 2-3 weeks to get a build review over an in box review. I still buy MMiR form the LHS and read their reviews and articles even though the kit has already been released for some time (the mag is quarterly published).
I just dont see the need to rush a review out and do the in box look to beat the ship date to retail (the 2-3 week period you mention). Just publish the CAD renderings and brochure info till the actual build review is done.
To summarize a few points made so far:
1. Shots of sprues and description of items in box - manufacturer could provide this (probably already does on their website). What is the diffrence between sprue shots and CAD renderings DML provides in their announcemnts?
2. Build vs. in box reviews - Do a build review first and it will get 10K hits. First out always gets more hits.
3. I appreciate all the effort and time that goes into an initial in box review. However, put that time and effort into a build review - no AM, no paint. It might take a little longer but you will have a good review out, not a brochure. The shiping times from vendor to armorama to reviewer - still has to happen regardless if its in box review or build review.
4. Knowledgeable reviewers - they are out there. Most in box reviews do NOT go into details of measurement comparisons like Mike did in the Pzr III review. Honestly, I could forgo the accuracy research on many subjects - like the dickermax (who knows how accurate it is anyway). The subject experts will ALWAYS chime in on accuracy shortcomings (see any thread regarding a new sherman release). A build review is going to address ease of build, problems with instructions, fit prblems, options, versions, etc.
However, with some subjects like the M1A2 SEP there are LOTS of experts on this site regarding the M1A2 and the fact that other mfrs have versions of the M1A2, a detailed build review with good research and comparisons to the already released kits would be expected.
I would gladly wait another 2-3 weeks to get a build review over an in box review. I still buy MMiR form the LHS and read their reviews and articles even though the kit has already been released for some time (the mag is quarterly published).
I just dont see the need to rush a review out and do the in box look to beat the ship date to retail (the 2-3 week period you mention). Just publish the CAD renderings and brochure info till the actual build review is done.
AlanL
Joined: August 12, 2005
KitMaker: 14,499 posts
Armorama: 11,675 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - 01:50 PM UTC
Hi Jeremy,
I only glanced through the thread but I didn't see it as any criticism of your review more a general though on reviews.
My thought's anyway. keep you're head down and take care.
Al
I only glanced through the thread but I didn't see it as any criticism of your review more a general though on reviews.
My thought's anyway. keep you're head down and take care.
Al
shado67
Joined: October 16, 2003
KitMaker: 220 posts
Armorama: 215 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - 02:00 PM UTC
Quoted Text
it seems as this thread has to do with my review on the M1A2 SEP Kit. Not to Defend myself, but I didnt see some of you wanting to do the review, so how dare you critisize a review having never done one. Mind you I recieved the Kit on a Friday and Deployed for Iraq on the Following monday. So if you can do a out of the box review by building it and all that you ask for in 2 days while spending time with your family and taking photo's and all, then lets see it! Until you have reviewed a kit then please don't critisize the way it is reviewed. Not all of us just build models all day long we do contribute to the world in other ways.
No problem, if all you have is 2 days for a quick in box review, fine. Call at "quick glance look" hich is what it was. If Armorama and DML want a "Review" find someone who has more than 2 days and is knowledgeable on the subject. Again who cares if the review is out the day after you receive the kit. Spend 2-3 weeks building it and documenting your review - IF you have time. If not, send another kit to another reviewer(s) and let them do the build(s).
Also I dont build models all day long. I, like all of us, have a full time job (and mine requires a lot of travel). I will be more than glad to do a review if asked - I am sure many modelers would volunteer.
shado67
Joined: October 16, 2003
KitMaker: 220 posts
Armorama: 215 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - 02:02 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Hi Mike,
I didn't read all the comments that went before. I like the first look reviews here on the Big A, and the follow up builds, but for my money and a totally impartial review of any product I read Terry Ashley's reviews on PMMS.
I'd say it's simple, shop around and don't believe everything that you read and remember in any area of life always ask the question 'who's benefiting fromt this' and 'where does it come from' Keep those basic priniciples in mind and you won't go far wrong.
Cheers
Al
I do read PMMS also- very good impartial reviews. I think big A gets the kits quicker and could do a good build review jujstice and still beat other online sites with the review out first.
LeoCmdr
Joined: January 19, 2005
KitMaker: 4,085 posts
Armorama: 3,917 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - 02:04 PM UTC
Jeremy,
I would have loved to have done a review of the kit if I was knowledgeable about the M1A2 SEP, but I am not. I had considered it when Armorama posted a request for a reviewer but I decided not to offer because I did not feel I could do a proper review based on my knowledge of the subject or previous kits. I have reviewed products that I either have knowledge about or direct experience with.
The M1A2 SEP kit had been built up prior to release so much as a follow up to the M1A1 AIM that it is a shame that you didn't have more time to do a much more in depth review. A talk through of the instruction steps doesn't cut it for me as an in box review of a kit of this magnitude and detail.
Good for you for doing the review. I did get some information out of it of use to me when I build this kit. But, maybe if you are time restricted it would be better to put off the review until you have more time. Now you have one under your belt and I am sure future ones will get better and better. You should not be defensive for your review being critiqued...if it can be made better for you and for the modellers that read them would that not benefit you in any future reviews you take on?
I have defended the freedom of my own great nation...but thanks for the offer.
I would have loved to have done a review of the kit if I was knowledgeable about the M1A2 SEP, but I am not. I had considered it when Armorama posted a request for a reviewer but I decided not to offer because I did not feel I could do a proper review based on my knowledge of the subject or previous kits. I have reviewed products that I either have knowledge about or direct experience with.
The M1A2 SEP kit had been built up prior to release so much as a follow up to the M1A1 AIM that it is a shame that you didn't have more time to do a much more in depth review. A talk through of the instruction steps doesn't cut it for me as an in box review of a kit of this magnitude and detail.
Good for you for doing the review. I did get some information out of it of use to me when I build this kit. But, maybe if you are time restricted it would be better to put off the review until you have more time. Now you have one under your belt and I am sure future ones will get better and better. You should not be defensive for your review being critiqued...if it can be made better for you and for the modellers that read them would that not benefit you in any future reviews you take on?
I have defended the freedom of my own great nation...but thanks for the offer.
AlanL
Joined: August 12, 2005
KitMaker: 14,499 posts
Armorama: 11,675 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - 02:10 PM UTC
Hi Mike,
What's the rumpas?
I understand your point of view but why depend on one source of information - read them all. When a new kit comes out I read all the reviews I can find about it.
I get first look and quick builds here, I get comparisons and alternative thoughts elsewhere. On that I decide whether or not to spend my hard earned money and build the kit. Most of the time I'll just build it anyway because I want to.
Each of the networks, sites and magazines has a part to play - reviews are like research you have to read all that you can find to make up your own mind.
Makes sense to me!
Al
What's the rumpas?
I understand your point of view but why depend on one source of information - read them all. When a new kit comes out I read all the reviews I can find about it.I get first look and quick builds here, I get comparisons and alternative thoughts elsewhere. On that I decide whether or not to spend my hard earned money and build the kit. Most of the time I'll just build it anyway because I want to.
Each of the networks, sites and magazines has a part to play - reviews are like research you have to read all that you can find to make up your own mind.
Makes sense to me!
Al
AlanL
Joined: August 12, 2005
KitMaker: 14,499 posts
Armorama: 11,675 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - 02:45 PM UTC
[/quote]
I do read PMMS also- very good impartial reviews. I think big A gets the kits quicker and could do a good build review jujstice and still beat other online sites with the review out first.[/quote]
Hi MIke
Hmmmm, there's a lot of this being first in the publishing inductry. lol, lol. I can see where you are coming from but at the end of the day a lot , if not most reviews are being carried out by members. This being a hobby, not a job and there being very little thanks in it for doing the review, could we in all honesty expect more?
I refer to both my messages. I do understand what you are saying but at the click of a mouse, well one can checkout something else.
If you feel that the site is infulenced by DML, I'd agree. There is a plus to that and a minus. On the Plus side you get info here before elsewhere, on the minus how much do you believe the review? Simple make the best of both worlds. There is a lot of stuff I come across that doesn't get a look in but that doesn't matter because I know this, I believe most people do , so I look for that else where.
I've done reviews for the site in te past, it takes a hugh amount of time and you'd be lucky to get one or two people to even say thank you. Not very inspiring for 4 or 8 hours work in what little free time you have.
I really don't see any issue here, the blokes on site do a pretty good job, there are plenty of alternatives around which as you say you read so..... what's the rumpus?????? lol, lol
Who cares if the site is infulenced by DML, it's not important unless you don't recognioe it. When you do it doesn't matter.
Cheers
Al
I do read PMMS also- very good impartial reviews. I think big A gets the kits quicker and could do a good build review jujstice and still beat other online sites with the review out first.[/quote]
Hi MIke
Hmmmm, there's a lot of this being first in the publishing inductry. lol, lol. I can see where you are coming from but at the end of the day a lot , if not most reviews are being carried out by members. This being a hobby, not a job and there being very little thanks in it for doing the review, could we in all honesty expect more?
I refer to both my messages. I do understand what you are saying but at the click of a mouse, well one can checkout something else.
If you feel that the site is infulenced by DML, I'd agree. There is a plus to that and a minus. On the Plus side you get info here before elsewhere, on the minus how much do you believe the review? Simple make the best of both worlds. There is a lot of stuff I come across that doesn't get a look in but that doesn't matter because I know this, I believe most people do , so I look for that else where.
I've done reviews for the site in te past, it takes a hugh amount of time and you'd be lucky to get one or two people to even say thank you. Not very inspiring for 4 or 8 hours work in what little free time you have.
I really don't see any issue here, the blokes on site do a pretty good job, there are plenty of alternatives around which as you say you read so..... what's the rumpus?????? lol, lol
Who cares if the site is infulenced by DML, it's not important unless you don't recognioe it. When you do it doesn't matter.
Cheers
Al
staff_Jim
PublisherJoined: December 15, 2001
KitMaker: 12,571 posts
Armorama: 6,599 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - 04:31 PM UTC
Saying "the site is influenced by DML" is rather subjective. Who is meant by "the site"? Me? All the people who have reviewed Dragon items? I suggest people go back to the Dragon summary review page I linked to in my prior post. There are a lot of reviewers there. And some reviewers give high marks on one kit, and low on another. People have to make up their own mind about the reviewer over time to determine what kind of advice they are giving. Personally I wouldn't put much stock in a reviewer who is giving out "highly recommended" or 95+% on almost every review they do no matter who the manufacturer is. It is the reviewer that is damaging their credibility (IMHO) by this action. I have never told a reviewer what to write before they submitted a review, and I have never required anyone to change their opinion about a kit just because they were going to (or did) give it a poor rating. I would rather have honest critical reviews than puff pieces.
The problem with what some of you are asking is that you would in essence like us to mimic Terry Ashley. Having conversed with him on this very subject lately I can tell you what I told him. There is only one of him. If anyone has any clue about how to clone him and get his clone to post reviews here I am all ears.
Case in point. Terry had the Bruckenledger kit up and fully reviewed in depth before I could even do a photo preview of the kit. And it was 1-2 weeks before we had our inbox review of the kit on the site. So no... it is not easy to beat him to getting a full build review up (not that he had done a full build at that point).
It seems to me that any and all information regarding a kit is useful. That includes 90+ production sprue photos, another reviewers impressions of the kit, a blog of the kit being built on the site, and later a full build review. Why just do the one thing? This makes no sense to me.
If getting people to review kits was so easy why don't we have a flood of reviews waiting in our review system as well? We use to get user submitted reviews much more frequently. But of course this was before we started to get kits from manufacturers.
Finally in closing of course I myself personally am influenced by Dragon. They spend a considerable amount of money in sending us kits for review, kits for the model of the month competition and Dragon USA obviously advertises on the site. They *influence* me in that I feel responsible for this generosity and am as such compelled to try to get the reviews they are expecting up in a timely manner. Something that our readers (most of them anyways) are also looking for. Do they influence me to interfere with reviewers and change what is written? Certainly not. Anyone who has reviewed a supplied kit can testify to that fact. Also anyone who thinks that ANY of the various sites or magazines that publish reviews are not influenced in the same way I am are kidding themselves. In short, Armorama is no more influenced than Fine Scale Modeler, Hyperscale, ARC, Missing Lynx, Military Modelling, or the rest. We just happen to get more supplied kits from DML than any other manufacturer, thus the sometimes tilted number of DML reviews.
Other vendors are free to help correct this imbalance. But then I will have to find even more reviewers.
Cheers,
Jim
The problem with what some of you are asking is that you would in essence like us to mimic Terry Ashley. Having conversed with him on this very subject lately I can tell you what I told him. There is only one of him. If anyone has any clue about how to clone him and get his clone to post reviews here I am all ears.
Case in point. Terry had the Bruckenledger kit up and fully reviewed in depth before I could even do a photo preview of the kit. And it was 1-2 weeks before we had our inbox review of the kit on the site. So no... it is not easy to beat him to getting a full build review up (not that he had done a full build at that point).
It seems to me that any and all information regarding a kit is useful. That includes 90+ production sprue photos, another reviewers impressions of the kit, a blog of the kit being built on the site, and later a full build review. Why just do the one thing? This makes no sense to me.
If getting people to review kits was so easy why don't we have a flood of reviews waiting in our review system as well? We use to get user submitted reviews much more frequently. But of course this was before we started to get kits from manufacturers.
Finally in closing of course I myself personally am influenced by Dragon. They spend a considerable amount of money in sending us kits for review, kits for the model of the month competition and Dragon USA obviously advertises on the site. They *influence* me in that I feel responsible for this generosity and am as such compelled to try to get the reviews they are expecting up in a timely manner. Something that our readers (most of them anyways) are also looking for. Do they influence me to interfere with reviewers and change what is written? Certainly not. Anyone who has reviewed a supplied kit can testify to that fact. Also anyone who thinks that ANY of the various sites or magazines that publish reviews are not influenced in the same way I am are kidding themselves. In short, Armorama is no more influenced than Fine Scale Modeler, Hyperscale, ARC, Missing Lynx, Military Modelling, or the rest. We just happen to get more supplied kits from DML than any other manufacturer, thus the sometimes tilted number of DML reviews.
Other vendors are free to help correct this imbalance. But then I will have to find even more reviewers.
Cheers,
Jim
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 Armorama and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.