Official Main Site Review Format

[Grant Lamontagne]

   Many of you have wondered in the past how to get your review on the Main Site here at www.Multitool.org- it's always seemed a bit “hit and miss” with regards to what was posted there for casual visitors to read, but really, there has indeed been a lot of thought and discussion behind the scenes over what was moved.

   We have finally managed to put together a (fairly) simple formula for reviews to be featured on the main site- and don't worry, there are good reasons for doing this! 

   Plain and simply, the review should follow a simple pattern of intro, guts, conclusion and three pros and three cons, resulting in between 500-800 words.  Any more and studies have shown that people surfing the net get bored and move on.  Paper articles seem to attract people with longer attention, but then it also costs a lot more so maybe they feel they need to get their money's worth!

   The intro should tell a little bit about the tool, some initial thoughts etc- basically fluff to get someone interested.  The guts (as I like to call it) is the real meat of the tool- what works, what doesn't, what features and functions it has, the usual like/dislike stuff.  The overview/conclusion should be a synopsis of what the tool is about, what type of use you think it's best suited for, the type of person that might appreciate this type of tool and so on.  Lastly, I always try to give three good points and three bad points about each tool.  Sometimes I really have to dig for three of each, as some tools tend to lean one way or the other in my mind, but this gives the reader a good, quick idea of what this tool is all about.  Having three of each keeps us from “bashing” a tool, and gives the reader a sense that we are being unbiased- no overage of praise, no excessive negativity, just the facts.

   Of course not all reviews on the main site follow that pattern, and that makes it difficult for a reader to compare different tools.  All existing articles there that don't follow this pattern will stay the way they are, and there may be new reviews occasionally added that don't conform either, but those will be looked at on a case by case basis.

   The other question that comes up is about reviewing tools that are already reviewed- some folks seem to think that if a tool has been reviewed already it can't be done again.  That is entirely false.  We have a few tools that have been reviewed by different people, and I think that's a great thing.  Each review from each reviewer is based on different needs and different opinions of what a tool should be, and that is what we've always been about here at Multitool.org.  Everyone is entitled to their own thoughts, feelings and opinions on different tools, which is why some folks like some tools, while other folks prefer different tools.

   There you have it, the Main Site is not now, nor ever was supposed to be a vehicle for putting my thoughts and opinions ahead of everyone else's- it's that simple.  So what's stopping you from contributing to the Main Site now? 

Def

[thebullfrog]

I keep wanting to put together a good review, but never seem to get around to it. I was poking around the main page today for the first time in forever (just noticed your new CRKT review) and noticed there are a LOT of tools missing that need reviews, we need to get on that lol.

I was just thinking about something reading this post though: What about some sort of official rating system? You said yourself there's some inconsistency in the current review system. I'm thinking something similar to what IGN.com does for video games. Have a point system broken down into categories. The reviewer makes his rating, but along with that is a separate "reader" score where anyone else can score the item and average is used. If we just made a list of all the tools (well, as many as is realistic to do) then everyone here can just rate each tool individually. Put it up on the main page with the reviews. To prevent abuse leave the ratings only open to people with "x" number of posts.In this way a visitor can stop in, find the specific tools they're considering and look at how we all rated it on average. Have it broken down into categories like weight/bulk, robustness, innovation, versatility, what-have-you. With both the reviewer, and the "masses" giving two different scores, it reduces bias and gives the person reading it a quick way to make a fair comparison. Another plus it gives us a fairly quick way to vastly improve the amount of reviews available on the main page without having to wait for someone to make a complete write up on every model out there. Just put up a list that we can begin ranking right away. It only takes each person a couple minutes to rate a large variety of tools rather than spending a bunch of time creating a full review for only one model. It think it'd make a great resource for the casual visitor who maybe doesn't want all those details anyway, but rather a nice easy fast comparison between a couple models.

[Grant Lamontagne]

There are a few thoughts there I could see happening, but for the most part it probably won't.  For example, the main site and the forum are completely different entities, meaning tat there's really no way to allow anyone with "x" number of posts here a greater latitude on the main site.  Some bias is important in the review process- that's why the review process exists, and why it's strengthened by having multiple reviewers review the same tool.  When I stated that I felt the review should be unbiased, I meant that it should be fair- for example, it's well known that I don't care for certain tools, but I did not slam them in any reviews I have written about them, pointing out what I did and didn't like about them.

If you want information that is completely unbiased, there's the Encyclopedia, which doesn't make any claims as to the effectiveness of any particular tool, just information on variants, functions and release dates.

Def

[thebullfrog]

Huh, I actually didn't know the main page was that separate from the forum. And when I was talking about bias, I understand what you were saying, I wasn't implying anything. I was just saying that i it were an average of opinions it smooths out the effect of personal preferences that we all have, and gives a reader a better sense of what our community feels "overall" without having to wade through a gazillion forum posts.

[thebullfrog]

Oh, and a side note: I always forget the encyclopedia even exists, and how wonderful a resource it is. I wonder if we couldn't make it a bit more prominent somehow. Or if even renaming it would help to catch people's attention a bit more, though I have no clue what else to call it. Actually just calling it a Wiki may be enough as that term has gotten so ubiquitous on the web that I think people are more inclined to see "multitool wiki" at the top of the page and go "oh cool, I'll bet that'll tell me what I need to know". I wonder how many people, especially casual visitors ever even notice or use it? It's a fantastic resource that I think deserves a bit more attention.

[Grant Lamontagne]

There have been a number of changes around here lately- perhaps you've noticed? 

What makes you think we've forgotten the Encyclopedia?     We have plans to update it as well, but there's only so much we can do at any one time.

Def

[thebullfrog]

Changes? Where? You must have a real funny idea of progress up there in the land of maple leaves, cause' I aint seen a smurfin' thing change around here in long while   

[Grant Lamontagne]

   The general guidelines posted above are meant to simplify the review process for readers who may want to compare various tools.  In this segment, I’ll make a few suggestions on what you can do to help make a review even more helpful to readers.
        First and foremost, please remember that Multitool.org is ultimately my site and I’m responsible for everything that’s said on the main site.  Things here may have been built with the contributions of over 2,000 members, but if there’s a lawsuit or a black mark on anyone’s name for the information that is provided, I will stand alone in the penalty box.  For that reason I’m pretty picky about what goes there.

   That having been said, here are a few pointers that should help whenever writing any review, whether you want it published on the main site here, in a magazine, on the forum, or anywhere else.

1-   Use the item.  I don’t mean abuse it, but push it a little bit at least.  Find out what it’s limits are, and, staying within them, use the item to it’s fullest potential.  This way, others won’t have to risk pushing one that far and breaking theirs.  This will also let them know where the breaking point is, in case they feel they need something stronger, or more suited to their needs.

2-   Don’t be a fanboy.  People need the facts, not your idea of why SOG is better than Gerber, Victorinox is better than Leatherman or this is better than that unless you have an actual reason for saying it.  You are more than welcome to have your preferences, but assume that the person reading it has a legitimate need for a quality tool, and they don’t care about the brand.   Ranking a tool higher than another based on a name doesn’t help anyone.  In short, make a legitimate, provable point.  If you have a feeling about something, make sure to mention it, but say that it’s a feeling, not a fact.

3-   Compare the tool to other tools.  This works on two points- first and foremost, it suggests alternatives to the reader that they may not have thought of or been aware of before.  If someone needs a good pair of scissors, and they are reading a review of Tool A, and the review says something about how the scissors are almost as good as Tool B, it may get the reader to look in another direction, which could be beneficial.  The second reason is that a website like Multitool.org thrives on traffic and by posting links to other internal reviews helps the site out.  Helping the publisher helps the publishee.

4-   Know what you are saying.  With the number of spell checkers on the market, it shouldn’t be too hard to get at least reasonably accurate spelling, but the other issue is phrasing- some folks use phrases incorrectly, either in wording or in meaning.  Using a phrase wrong simply makes the reviewer sound like they don’t know what they are talking about, and to some people, that will invalidate the entire review.  Yes it sounds lame, yes it is lame, but that’s the way it is, and whether you agree with the way some people see your review or not, your review is there to help them judge a tool, not for you to judge eachother.

        That’s about all I can think of at the moment- write your review, wait a few days, then re-read it as if you didn’t write it, and ask yourself if what you have just read answers all the questions you would have when researching the tool.  And, if there are any drawbacks, point them out, because let’s face it, if we here at Multitool.org don’t paint a realistic picture of each tool, who else will?

Def