|
|
Post by sd40dash2 on Jul 5, 2018 3:34:54 GMT -8
I came across a model rr video review on youtube recently and the host wrote this in response to one of the commenters who praised the reviewer for telling the whole truth about the model:
"I was recently told that if I continue to do critical reviews, I can probably forget about getting sponsorships."
It is unfortunate to read that at least some mfrs (assuming that's who was doing the telling behind the quote) are only interested in positive reviews. There's a lot to love about today's models but I feel that pointing out flaws and errors in new products is a critical part of an objective, honest review that tells the whole story, not just the positive side. Are mfrs not interested in that?
Anyone else feel this way?
|
|
|
|
Post by riogrande on Jul 5, 2018 4:09:55 GMT -8
I'm sure most agree with you. It's the nature of the beast unfortunately.
Back when I used to read MR much more often, I'd read their reviews and the review in MRC magazine. Many were critical of MR that they were too "fluffy" most of the time, although I do remember reviews that did point out the flaws of particularly Bachaman Spectrum F40PH, and Bachmann plus SD45's and other Plus models, even calling them 4 foot model, they looked "ok" from 4 feet away.
But reviewers have always been under the gun to try to keep advertisers happy while providing good honest reviews. The two unfortunately are in conflict with each other. Nobody wants negative or critical comments about their products; the only way you can be totally honest and objective is for the reviewer to not expect any sponsorship from them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2018 5:13:52 GMT -8
There is nothing new under the sun.
The product reviews have been done this way since at least the 1980's when I worked for one train manufacturer.
The magazines tended not to be very critical, and to focus on the more positive attributes of the products reviewed, even then. They did not want to bite the hand of their advertisers, period. Some manufacturers preferred Railroad Model Craftsman because they felt their reviews were perhaps more "favorable" than Model Railroader's reviews.
Nothing has changed very much. Some of the current YouTube reviewers do not know the prototype history and cannot fully comment about product details, accuracy or inaccuracy of the model, because they simply do not know. That is how it is.
So even though we now have independent ostensibly privately funded product reviews, some, by their own admission are providing their opinions about the suitability, fit and finish of the model, what its features are, etc. but they are not "experts" on every product they review. Nobody could practically be an expert on all models. There's too much information to know...too many source materials one would have to obtain, that may be out of print or otherwise nearly impossible to locate.
Even on the models done by 3D scan, there are isolated details that have to be altered slightly to make them visible through paint, or for functionality, durability, etc. Not everything can be 100% dead on to scale. |
|
|
|
Post by riogrande on Jul 5, 2018 6:11:40 GMT -8
Some of the current YouTube reviewers do not know the prototype history and cannot fully comment about product details, accuracy or inaccuracy of the model, because they simply do not know. That is how it is.
So even though we now have independent ostensibly privately funded product reviews, some, by their own admission are providing their opinions about the suitability, fit and finish of the model, what its features are, etc. but they are not "experts" on every product they review. Correct. This is the situation as I see with James's reviews and why they are of a more limited nature compared to "some" of the magazine reviews of the past. Some of the magazine reviewers were "seasoned" and experienced train buffs and knew enough, or had access to enough information and data that they could comment on much more than just the basic obvious appearance, fit and finish, and features of a model. They could compare the model to actual prototype dimensions, give some history and back ground of the prototype the model is representing and could comment on how closely the model actually matches the rolling stock it is copying. Those kinds of things are probably just as important, if not more important to me than the "appearance & features" review. I would go as far as to say the reason why James reviews are so popular with the MR companies and garner early "scoops" and previews is because the video reviews are generally "safe" and don't go into enough depth as to risk being more critical or uncovering more negative things, such as dimensional or decoration flaws, or which features match or do not match prototypes the model is supposed to represent. Not only are they safe, they are probably free publicity and advertising for the companies. What's not to like? I've mentioned this before, but the "best" kind of product review isn't one which just gives me close up looks and lets me see a model from different angels or maybe run and hear some sounds, it's a review that can tell me if the sounds are the right ones for the engine and how they compare to the real thing, or how well the model replicates the item it is copying. That said, of course, James reviews have their place and do let the many people who don't have access to an LHS get a chance to see more than just a photo on the companies website or a online vendors site. These close-look reviews are great, probably free, advertising for many of the MR companies so it's easy to see why they are pleased to work with the reviewer. |
|
|
|
Post by jlwii2000 on Jul 5, 2018 6:17:31 GMT -8
Some of the current YouTube reviewers do not know the prototype history and cannot fully comment about product details, accuracy or inaccuracy of the model, because they simply do not know. That is how it is.
So even though we now have independent ostensibly privately funded product reviews, some, by their own admission are providing their opinions about the suitability, fit and finish of the model, what its features are, etc. but they are not "experts" on every product they review. Correct. This is the situation as I see with James's reviews and why they are of a more limited nature compared to "some" of the magazine reviews of the past. Some of the magazine reviewers were "seasoned" and experienced train buffs and did knew enough, or had access to enough information and data that they could comment on much more than just the basic obvious appearance, fit and finish, and features of a model. They could compare the model to actual prototype dimensions, give some history and back ground of the prototype the model is representing and could comment on how closely the model actually matches the rolling stock it is copying. Those kinds of things are just as useful to me as the other parts of the review, possibly more important. I would go as far as to say the reason why James reviews are so popular with the MR companies and garner early scoops and reviews is because the video's are generally "safe" and don't go into enough depth as to risk being more critical or uncovering more negative things, such as dimensional or decoration flaws, or which features match or do not match prototypes the model is supposed to represent. I've mentioned this before, but the "best" kind of product review isn't one which just gives me close up looks and lets me see a model from different angels or maybe run and hear some sounds, it's a review that can tell me if the sounds are the right ones for the engine and how they compare to the real thing, or how well the model replicates the item it is copying. That said, of course, James reviews have their place and do let the many people who don't have access to an LHS get a chance to see more than just a photo on the companies website or a online vendors site. These close-look reviews are great, probably free, advertising for many of the MR companies so it's easy to see why they are pleased to work with the reviewer. You guys have correct assumptions on some points but miss the mark on others. Keep in mind, magazine staff are paid to do the reviews, that's not only their day job but it's their only job. That allots time to research prototype info and more. I'm tacking my videos on to a 40 hour work week or more. A lot of times with no benefit to me such as the announcements and arrivals monthly video I did willingly to help that just bought me about 10 hours a month in spent time. For me, the reviews have constantly undergone improvements. When criticized that I wasn't critical enough, I added tests that can't be tampered with or sugarcoated such as pull test, weight, coupler height and NMRA standards. Additionally, I've added prototype history to the reviews as the locomotive rolls by. I also mention quite a few negatives. I just don't spend much time on them. Negatives and positives get mentioned quickly but any negative I see does get mentioned. There's also great difficulty catering to a crowd of 35,000 subscribers. You've got some who say "trains are toys, enjoy them. I don't care how accurate it is!" Then the other end of the spectrum that will have a heart palpitation or two if a single molded in compartment latch is missing. With all of that, reviews continue to evolve and I don't shy away from criticism. I called the Intermountain GEVO flag cartoonish in a recent review and called Scale Trains Tier 4 out for having cab windows angled too far outwards. I have excellent rapport with both of those companies. All in all, it's easier for me to see it than others because I create all of the videos but I've still got to overcome my stigma of early days where I knew nothing but realized consumers should have some sense of what they were getting. Any rivet counter could of beat me to it, but didn't invest the time to help others. As far as sponsorships, that's between that content producer and whatever companies he's trying to court. As for me, simply look at my tier 4 comparison and that one video will tell you exactly how much I care about blindly pleasing companies or sponsors. There has to be a balance and the consumer has to get important info. There's many others videos like the tier 4 comparison but that one is more evident because I'm comparing two models shortcomings. As they say, you can't please everyone. I did a poll recently and people were annoyed I called out parts and pieces by their prototypical name when just three years ago people were complaining I needed to learn and recite those very same items. Hopefully that provides some insight. -J |
|
|
|
Post by upcsx on Jul 5, 2018 6:35:24 GMT -8
I have been in this hobby for a long time and I don,t look and depend on You Tube reviewers for anything if I want that Scale trains locomotive or a Genesis boxcar I just order it and The Little Choo Choo shop in Spencer NC will get it for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by TBird1958 on Jul 5, 2018 6:45:16 GMT -8
During the '90s I worked as an Associate Editor for Mainline Modeler, every month we'd get copies of all the magazines and go over what we liked and disliked about them. Non critical reviews were a constant issue (not the we didn't have our trials with it as well.), and I doubt the model press will ever really resolve it completely. I've always found other modelers (go to an RPM meet) to be a much better resource for unbiased information regarding scale fidelity and insight on various flaws a model may have, similarly, you can read better informed comments here when we have a thread that actually discusses a specific model and it's fidelity, as opposed to the usually whine and cheese threads.
|
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Jul 5, 2018 6:48:12 GMT -8
"I was recently told that if I continue to do critical reviews, I can probably forget about getting sponsorships." Thus implying that the person thought they COULD get sponsorships (from model railroad companies) before hearing that. Wow. Apparently not a big thinker. Going a little farther, would it not APPEAR to possibly taint a review if the producing company was a sponsor? The reviews would always be suspect, no matter what. I think that if a critical review producer wants to get sponsorship, he must look outside the producers of the products. My first thought was BEER. Supposedly every man's drink of choice. See--totally not related. But how to get Coors to be interested? "Nope. We got sports. We don't need model trains." Maybe, then, someone like Dewalt. They make tools. Model railroaders use those tools, To build benchwork, anyway. Just don't review tools. Or the Hydrocal company? There's a winner. Everybody loves hydrocal, right? Just don't review scenery products--stick to rolling stock. Problem solved. Maybe. Ed |
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Jul 5, 2018 6:52:21 GMT -8
Ah, yes. Magazines.
Prototype Modeler. Where the publisher changed the brand of paint I reported using over to one he wanted advertising from.
Better yet, he changed the color.
Good times, good times!
Ed
|
|
|
|
Post by riogrande on Jul 5, 2018 7:27:30 GMT -8
You guys have correct assumptions on some points but miss the mark on others. Keep in mind, magazine staff are paid to do the reviews, that's not only their day job but it's their only job. That allots time to research prototype info and more. I'm tacking my videos on to a 40 hour work week or more. A lot of times with no benefit to me such as the announcements and arrivals monthly video I did willingly to help that just bought me about 10 hours a month in spent time. ... As they say, you can't please everyone. -J I would guess that most of us here are aware of these things you raise and fully understand that affects what kind of review that can be done. Seasoning/experience and of course, time are major factors. Most of us here understand you have a family and full-time job and can't be expected to absorb a lot of train knowledge without the Star Trek teaching machine from the episode (Spock's Brain). We also understand as you mature in the biz of reviews and learn more about trains (there is a lot to know!) your reviews will evolve with you. You've already developed good presentation style and technical skills, and the rest will come with time. I don't think I have said anything really different than in the past James; you do a good job with being a private part-time reviewer and as I've said, the video's are providing a very good service that benefit many. You know from personal experience that being a public figure is two edged sword which has it's perks and it's negatives. For sure you can't please everyone - the older we get, the more we know it! Well said Mark. In the olden days before there was a lot of great things on the internet, I used to rely on many magazine reviews - and depending on the magazine, some were excellent, and some less so. In the last 10 years or so, there are a lot of excellent feedback and information available as you commented, and I find it more than a little helpful! As is with the internet in general, you do have to get a sense of what is good and reliable information and try to vet information, and if possible get a consensus. There are some parties who have a reputation for being good resources. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2018 7:45:46 GMT -8
I’ve said this before, I think the word “review” is a misnomer. The correct term would be info-mercial.
That’s what they seem to be most akin to.
Like Jim and others stated, I don’t need or watch any internet productions as they relate to what I am buying. I do my own assessment of a product if I decide it is something I want to look at.
Most of us on this forum and others are pretty well plugged into the various forms of communication to keep up.
|
|
|
|
Post by sd40dash2 on Jul 5, 2018 7:46:09 GMT -8
Thanks for the responses!
I wish to clarify that my inquiry was not in reference to James in particular or to any reviewer's prototype knowledge. Some examples of in-video criticisms referred to by the individual I quoted:
-incorrect coupler height, wheel gauge or car weight as compared to NRMA gauges
-editorial comment about whether a model included details such as uncoupling levers and air hoses (the reviewer will typically state that other models in this price range include these details)
-quality of lettering coverage over body ribs (as proven with closeup images showing any mistakes)
-truck swing, free-rolling evaluation
-quality of paint coverage
-how well the packaging protects (in shipping, transport and storage) and allows consumer access to the boxed model
-editiorial opinion (stated as such) about speaker volume
Generally speaking, I am a bit uncomfortable with the possibility that the carrot of financial gain to force positive spin may be trumping the inclusion of objective reviews of these and other important aspects of models.
How can consumers use reviews to make informed choices if they aren't being shown all the facts? What then, is the ultimate goal of a posted review? Financial gain to benefit the reviewer or objective review to inform the consumer? The message behind the quote implies the two cannot co-exist in a review.
|
|
|
|
Post by riogrande on Jul 5, 2018 8:01:05 GMT -8
sd40dash2, I assume because you did not name James, you were not referencing his video's but rather the raft of video's that you can find out on Youtube.
The things you enumerated above are typical of some of the video's I've watch by TSG Multimedia close-up looks of rolling stock by Dan, mainly because he does quite a few of brands and models I am interested in personally. They are more useful to me to get detailed looks of models like ExactRail, Moloco, Wheels of Time and Tangent, to name a few.
e.g.
Of course there needs to be a carrot of financial gain in order for companies to have an incentive to bring us ever nicer and newer models. Without it, we would see less and less of that. There will always be a tension between gain and positive image, and objective information which may contain flaws or unfavorable details about a model.
Since that tension will always exist, how can consumers use reviews or video's to make informed choices? They really can't fully; they will need to combine that with information they gain through other sources here, from experts on the RR's and the cars they used. We alluded to this in this discussion.
I think that pretty much should answer your question. We can't expect to be "spoon-fed" everything. Basically there is not quick easy solution, you may have to do a little work or research if you want good information. Hasn't it always been that way?
|
|
|
|
Post by jlwii2000 on Jul 5, 2018 8:12:30 GMT -8
I’ve said this before, I think the word “review” is a misnomer. The correct term would be info-mercial. That’s what they seem to be most akin to. Like Jim and others stated, I don’t need or watch any internet productions as they relate to what I am buying. I do my own assessment of a product if I decide it is something I want to look at. Most of us on this forum and others are pretty well plugged into the various forms of communication to keep up. I think it's a little harsh at YouTube reviewers in general. I've never seen an infomercial call out a negative issue with an item, let alone many negative issues. |
|
|
|
Post by jlwii2000 on Jul 5, 2018 8:16:50 GMT -8
Thanks for the responses! I wish to clarify that my inquiry was not in reference to James in particular or to any reviewer's prototype knowledge. Some examples of in-video criticisms referred to by the individual I quoted: -incorrect coupler height, wheel gauge or car weight as compared to NRMA gauges -editorial comment about whether a model included details such as uncoupling levers and air hoses (the reviewer will typically state that other models in this price range include these details) -quality of lettering coverage over body ribs (as proven with closeup images showing any mistakes) -truck swing, free-rolling evaluation -quality of paint coverage -how well the packaging protects (in shipping, transport and storage) and allows consumer access to the boxed model -editiorial opinion (stated as such) about speaker volume Generally speaking, I am a bit uncomfortable with the possibility that the carrot of financial gain to force positive spin may be trumping the inclusion of objective reviews of these and other important aspects of models. How can consumers use reviews to make informed choices if they aren't being shown all the facts? What then, is the ultimate goal of a posted review? Financial gain to benefit the reviewer or objective review to inform the consumer? The message behind the quote implies the two cannot co-exist in a review. No problems on my end. There's a plethora of things to balance in a review. What if you get an item that's damaged? Could it have happened in shipment? I always get a replacement and then mention the first one had an issue. So really it's a lot to weigh. Then there is external financial gain through YouTube ad revenue. For me it's laughable but for big time mainstream reviewers of TVs and guns it's hundreds of thousands of dollars. For me the reviews have become a hobby within a hobby. I've been doing them since day 1 of my model railroading journey. My growth in the hobby or lack thereof in some areas is there online for all to see beginning in 2009. |
|
|
|
Post by roadkill on Jul 5, 2018 8:22:47 GMT -8
Everybody wants objectivity and honesty in reviews until they get a dose of it...
|
|
|
|
Post by riogrande on Jul 5, 2018 8:36:00 GMT -8
I think it's a little harsh at YouTube reviewers in general. I've never seen an infomercial call out a negative issue with an item, let alone many negative issues. I don't think Thomas is being harsh, but rather trying to, if words mean things, distinguish between a "review" and maybe what I might call a "close-up look" video, which might be considered an info-mercial. I realize the term info-mercial in the classic TV sense may have a negative connotation, but there are similarities. There is often a chance individuals who are not deep into a genre as others who are well seasoned, may get caught up or have have issues with technical things or the rigors associated. We often see this with people who are into trains in general who tangle with the so called rivet counters. But it can happen with any discipline such as cars, airplanes or whatever. Try to get at the intent if you would or the spirit of what is meant. Assuming the TSG Multimedia video's fit here, and I'm guessing they do, Dan rates models in a 10/10 spikes for a perfect score. He takes off spikes for negative things like coupler height being off typically, or other things. Most of the models I've watched on the TSG being Moloco, ExactRail, Tangent etc. usually get 9/10 spikes or 10/10 and when it's 9/10, it's usually a coupler off from the Kadee height gauge. Now "Infomercials" in the strict sense, yes they just present a model and don't examine closely for imperfections and the like. I rarely, if ever watch them and if I do, I don't watch them for very long. When it comes to Youtube, I don't have patience to watch anything usually for more than a few minutes unless have lots of time or am trying to fix something with the house. |
|
|
|
Post by selector on Jul 5, 2018 8:37:10 GMT -8
I have used James' videos to get a sense of how the model looks, sounds, and moves on rails. There's little else he can offer unless it is to point out quality control issues that are apparent in the single example/sample he has to review. He cannot compare a sampling of, say, 6 or 10 units taken at random from the current run in order to assess their consistency on any number of dimensions, they being paint, running smoothness, decals, sound installation, etc.
Many, if not most, of the other multitude of videos tend to be excited new owners showing the world their neat new steamer/diesel. They suffer from poor lighting, sound, camera angle, camera manipulation, focus problems, and a general lack of useful information. Not to make this about James, or to jump to his defense, but his quality and reliability have improved substantially as he has learned, listened, considered, and adapted to the demands of his audience. I think a solid measure of credibility is to learn and to use reliably the correct and technical terms and names so that his reliability and consistency are solid from video-to-video, and most importantly from assessment to assessment. As he gets more experience, he'll be able to recall other examples and to offer comparatives, perhaps even 'splicing' video snippets from previous engine reviews to show the viewer what he means when he says that X is in the incorrect position, or not mounted squarely as one would expect in a model costing upwards of USD$250 discounted.
Lastly, I do agree that it's a common hazard in the hobby press to have to provide a mostly agreeable assessment of a given model supplied to them free of charge from a hopeful supplier. It might be merely the maturity of the industry, as a whole, and of the hobby's users, that today's models do really indicate what many feel is the golden era of scale trains with their generally excellent quality, vastly improved construction and detailing, and now with onboard sound and controllable lighting effects afforded by digital controls. There will always be the complaints that certain types of rolling stock seem to be flooding the market and that their favourite Lower Podunk & Southern never gets a nod in the production departments. Or that the feedwater heater should have been placed further forward on the smoke box. It's a toy hobby. It's always changing, and fortunately, mostly improving. I'd say we've truly never had it so good.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2018 9:54:20 GMT -8
Jim is right. This is why I don’t usually comment on these types of threads. It’s much too easy for people to become offended these days. All I am saying is that when you show a product along with the manufacturer suggested retail price; and without providing verification if the model is accurate or not; that is an infomercial in my book. You are glossing over the finite details and showing the model running on a layout. There is no mention of phases or specificity of tooling, etc.,
There is no disrespect meant to James or any other YouTube reviewer in that respect. However, there’s no way people will watch the reviews if James or the other YouTube reviewers were holding up scale drawings and comparing them to the actual prototype because it would be too long. All I’m saying is that I don’t rely on James or any other YouTube reviewer myself. But, I agree with the notion that people are honest and up front with disclaimers regarding sponsorship.
|
|
|
|
Post by jlwii2000 on Jul 5, 2018 10:13:15 GMT -8
Jim is right. This is why I don’t usually comment on these types of threads. It’s much too easy for people to become offended these days. All I am saying is that when you show a product along with the manufacturer suggested retail price; and without providing verification if the model is accurate or not; that is an infomercial in my book. You are glossing over the finite details and showing the model running on a layout. There is no mention of phases or specificity of tooling, etc., There is no disrespect meant to James or any other YouTube reviewer in that respect. However, there’s no way people will watch the reviews if James or the other YouTube reviewers were holding up scale drawings and comparing them to the actual prototype because it would be too long. All I’m saying is that I don’t rely on James or any other YouTube reviewer myself. But, I agree with the notion that people are honest and up front with disclaimers regarding sponsorship. No offense taken and I understand your point of view. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2018 10:20:59 GMT -8
James--
I was not trying to be critical of you, only responding to the original topic.
I am actually very pleased with your product reviews, and have purchased products as a result of your reviews, that I did not have the privilege of seeing in person elsewhere. I generally think your reviews are as fair and objective as anyone is going to be able to do, and you perform a service that is useful to many of us.
As far as full-time magazine staff employees, and their ability and/or inability to research the subject, versus those who have another day job...well I could tell you some stories there.
I know people who have written articles for MR, who felt that MR totally butchered things that they wrote, inserting the editorial staff's opinion instead of what the author actually wanted, etc. Sometimes the staff writers made mistakes in their reviews, and I'll stop there before I go too far down the slippery slope.
Not every "expert" knows as much as they "think" they know, either. We find that more and more as we get farther from the end of the steam-diesel transition era. Many of the most knowledgeable folks are already gone, and those who are left--their memories of factual details may be dimmed by the long time interval that has occurred. People like for example William Kratville did a most excellent job of tracking down firsthand resources, and his books reflect a wealth of technical information. Others were excellent too, but not all.
|
|
|
|
Post by jlwii2000 on Jul 5, 2018 13:36:56 GMT -8
James-- I was not trying to be critical of you, only responding to the original topic. I am actually very pleased with your product reviews, and have purchased products as a result of your reviews, that I did not have the privilege of seeing in person elsewhere. I generally think your reviews are as fair and objective as anyone is going to be able to do, and you perform a service that is useful to many of us. As far as full-time magazine staff employees, and their ability and/or inability to research the subject, versus those who have another day job...well I could tell you some stories there. I know people who have written articles for MR, who felt that MR totally butchered things that they wrote, inserting the editorial staff's opinion instead of what the author actually wanted, etc. Sometimes the staff writers made mistakes in their reviews, and I'll stop there before I go too far down the slippery slope. Not every "expert" knows as much as they "think" they know, either. We find that more and more as we get farther from the end of the steam-diesel transition era. Many of the most knowledgeable folks are already gone, and those who are left--their memories of factual details may be dimmed by the long time interval that has occurred. People like for example William Kratville did a most excellent job of tracking down firsthand resources, and his books reflect a wealth of technical information. Others were excellent too, but not all. No problem. I understand completely and I'm glad my reviews have helped you. I am always working to improve things so I like the feedback. |
|
|
|
Post by luebeck3102 on Jul 5, 2018 14:59:58 GMT -8
I always like it when people are honest about what they get. Some are more pickier than others. As someone mentioned earlier, Dan Cortopassi does reviews a few times per month and he always points out flaws. All of his reviews he scores them. Not often does he give something a perfect score, or when he was partnered with TSG Multimedia, give models "Epic Status." He is probably one of the pickiest out there although I'm not saying it's a bad thing if you are nit picky on certain areas.
When I do reviews I may not know everything about the item especially if it's a freight car, but I try to point out what is not right with the model. For example, I did a review of the ScaleTrains Tier 4s and I had a bunch of issues with especially with the GECX version. In fact, I bought three Tier 4s from ScaleTrains and all three had issues ranging from broken/missing detail parts to programming screw ups. I'm also nowhere near perfect on my reviews as I'd like to be. There were a few things I got wrong when I did my Intermountain and ScaleTrains CN Tier 4 comparison.
|
|
|
|
Post by carrman on Jul 5, 2018 16:18:27 GMT -8
James is the gold standard in doing reviews. Since he buys what he's reviewing, he has no advertiser he has to please. When I was writing reviews professionally, my only payment was the item I was reviewing itself. I was "encouraged" to positive spin everything. If I wrote something critical, I then had to write something positive about it. When the first run Genesis GP9 came out, I saw the radiators, and merely posted online on Facebook "something's not right here" about the radiator location. John Engstrom at Athearn blew a gasket, and I got banned from doing Athearn reviews any longer. When I protested, I was flat let go after doing reviews for 8 years. I'm glad I'm no longer part of that dog and pony show.
Dave
|
|
|
|
Post by jlwii2000 on Jul 5, 2018 17:18:11 GMT -8
James is the gold standard in doing reviews. Since he buys what he's reviewing, he has no advertiser he has to please. When I was writing reviews professionally, my only payment was the item I was reviewing itself. I was "encouraged" to positive spin everything. If I wrote something critical, I then had to write something positive about it. When the first run Genesis GP9 came out, I saw the radiators, and merely posted online on Facebook "something's not right here" about the radiator location. John Engstrom at Athearn blew a gasket, and I got banned from doing Athearn reviews any longer. When I protested, I was flat let go after doing reviews for 8 years. I'm glad I'm no longer part of that dog and pony show. Dave Dave, Thanks for the kind words but I have to set the record straight. I've said many times on my videos and here that I do not buy everything I review. That would simply be a pace anyone short of a millionaire could not keep up with. If you see videos with several schemes of locomotives in some cases schemes have been borrowed. For example, the ScaleTrains.com GEVOs where there were 19 or so locomotives in the video were borrowed. There's a healthy mix of good discounts, borrowing and provided samples for reviews. There are still no cases of hiding things. If I have struggles I don't care to drag out for 20 minutes on video, such as lurching or damaged items that I have to return for replacement, I make mention of that in a video as well. Anyone providing samples or otherwise letting me borrow items are aware they get what they get in a review. -James |
|
|
|
Post by carrman on Jul 5, 2018 18:10:20 GMT -8
Thank you for setting that straight, but it still looks as though you are not beholden to advertisers as I was, and you can shoot straight in your reviews.
Dave
|
|
|
|
Post by jlwii2000 on Jul 5, 2018 18:14:44 GMT -8
Thank you for setting that straight, but it still looks as though you are not beholden to advertisers as I was, and you can shoot straight in your reviews. Dave No, I think for some I am considered can't live with but can't live without so the risk of a few issues or even many issues is worth the exposure to 37K people. Just had to be honest but thanks for still having the vote of confidence. |
|
|
|
Post by Great-Northern-Willmar Div on Jul 6, 2018 4:36:16 GMT -8
Maybe the best review would be just doing HD video of the model with no commentary. Get up close and personal in the views showing every little detail, etc.. If the model has sound, run it through its paces, again using GOOD audio to let the viewer hear what the model is actually putting out.
If seen a few reviews where the host seems more interested in hearing themselves. Others the video and audio is not the best. I myself will make my own decisions, but being able to see and hear and not have to listen to babble from the host would be best.
|
|
|
|
Post by riogrande on Jul 6, 2018 5:29:34 GMT -8
the host seems more interested in hearing themselves. Others the video and audio is not the best. I myself will make my own decisions, but being able to see and hear and not have to listen to babble from the host would be best. Jim, I don't think James is guilty of babble too much. However it is very true for many Youtube video's and in many cases, it's rather annoying. There is some guy with a rocket animation who visit's layouts with his wife; I'll just say right away, I"m not interested in watching them talk in their car and skip past it mui pronto. No talking heads pulease! Definitely fits your profile Jim! Many "how to" video's talk way too as an intro and need right to the meat within 10 seconds or I'm gone or hit fast forward. On the other hand, James's video's seem to be pretty good on the talk dept and I don't thing babble is a problem. Of course getting to the point quickly is always welcome by watchers like me. |
|
|
|
Post by Great-Northern-Willmar Div on Jul 6, 2018 5:40:38 GMT -8
the host seems more interested in hearing themselves. Others the video and audio is not the best. I myself will make my own decisions, but being able to see and hear and not have to listen to babble from the host would be best. Jim, I don't think James is guilty of babble too much. However it is very true for many Youtube video's and in many cases, it's rather annoying. There is some guy with a rocket animation who visit's layouts with his wife; I'll just say right away, I"m not interested in watching them talk in their car and skip past it mui pronto. No talking heads pulease! Definitely fits your profile Jim! Many "how to" video's talk way too as an intro and need right to the meat within 10 seconds or I'm gone or hit fast forward. On the other hand, James's video's seem to be pretty good on the talk dept and I don't thing babble is a problem. Of course getting to the point quickly is always welcome by watchers like me. My comments were not directed at James. He puts real effort into his reviews. Some though......not too much.... |
|
