|
|
Forums - News / General |
For General modelling or hobby-related topics that are not covered by any other specific forum. Please keep to topics concerning the hobby. |
| Topics | 2987 |
| Messages | 22324 |
|
|
| Subject: | Re: New format - Past experiences |  |
| Date: | Nov 4, 2001 |
| From: | Neville Lord | |
Saul,
A couple of years ago my IPMS club tried this idea (they gave out pro forma
review forms at the club meetings) and the results make me very cautious
about trying it again.
The two key results were:
1) those reviews based on the form were generic and superficial and conveyed
no more information than you can tell from the box art and a general
knowledge of that manufacturer's quality (e.g. the latest Tamiya
AFV/aircraft/car kit has crisp detail, good instructions etc).
2) it gave the wrong message to those people who regularly contributed
in-depth reviews buy implying their extra effort wasn't valued (ie it
implied quantity not quality mattered).
However I do believe the use of check-boxes can be a helpful summary at the
end or start of a full review (Tamiya's Modelling mag does this IIRC).
My other observations and comments are:
· Most of the value of a good review (over manufacturer's advertising etc)
comes from the explanation of why the reviewer came to a conclusion, how
he/she overcame a construction problem etc.
· The most popular model magazines focus on quality not quantity.
· Good quality content will encourage others to put in the effort to produce
good content and attract readers. Poor content discourages both readers and
contributors.
· many pro-forma/quickie reviews contain no more info than manufacturer'
s/retailer's advertising. For example I can find all the "pertinent facts"
for books by Osprey or JJ Fedorowitz on the publishers web site along with
sample illustrations etc. Amazon even includes full page extracts of Osprey
books. Kit manufacturers often post the pertinent facts and photos on their
sites.
· Some short kit or book reviews I've seen are so short, they could have
been written without reading or seeing the product.
· Ratings can be misleading unless you know why the person came to their
conclusion. For example the latest Concord books on Arnhem and the Bulge
have received mixed ratings on the web. The value of the info is in why.
· Not all items fit neatly into review templates e.g. a books full of useful
maps and OOB info would be very relevant to many modelers but would rate
poorly using the suggested template.
A good example of the limitation of pro-forma reviews is to assess Armada
StuG and Osprey's StuG books using your template.
ARMADA
color photos No
B & W photos Yes
scale plans Yes
line drawings Yes
color plates Yes
vehicle history Yes
operational history Yes
value to modelers High
OSPREY
color photos No
B & W photos Yes
scale plans Yes
line drawings No
color plates Yes
vehicle history Yes
operational history Yes
value to modelers High
While the two books get near-identical ratings (they also both have about 48
pages), they are in fact quite different and the above comparison is
near-useless without the following detail.
The Armada book has most of its text in Russian (English captions), the
photos are larger and mainly of combat vehicles and their value is in their
rareness; and the scale plans are 1/35. It includes coverage of the Su76(i)
and Flammpanzer Stug.
The Osprey books divide the subject into two volumes, have far more text,
which is in English, Tom Jentz's attention to detail on production changes
is very high, Doyle's scale plans are highly regarded but in 1/76 and the
color plates and cutaway illustration are of a higher std, but the photos
are smaller and selected to emphasis technical points. No coverage of the Su
76(i). Flammpanzer covered in a separate title in the series.
Cheers
Neville |
| |
|
|
|
