Anticipate the Question - Writing Outdoor Gear Reviews

A Little Insight Into How I Rate Reviews

I've resisted providing some form of generic statement about why I might rate reviews a particular way. The primary reason is that I don't think general rules of thumb provide much insight. Instead, I know from considerable experience that they invite confusion, consternation, and cries of "Well, MY review certainly meets that standard!...You're just not being fair!!!" In other words, somehow, what is presented as a general "rule of thumb" gets interpreted as THE GOLD STANDARD.

As I've stated in comments to reviews, consistency is the key to predictability. Predictability is the key to credibility; and credibility is the fundamental quality of "fairness." If you look up the word "fair," you will see the following as the first listed definitional components...

"1 just or appropriate in the circumstances. 2 treating people equally."

If any member, particularly an advisor, is inconsistent in their ratings (whether over time, based on their commentary, or because they appear to rate almost anything lower than "helpful" or "very helpful"), then they are unpredictable; thereby, they will, sooner or later, lack credibility. Inversely, if any member, particularly an advisor, is too repetitive in their ratings (i.e., they appear to rate almost everything "helpful" or "very helpful"), they will, sooner or later, lack credibility.

To be sure, most reviews are helpful or very helpful to one degree or another. Even for me, who some seem to envision as the original curmudgeon, the majority of my ratings fall in the helpful/very helpful/show categories. Taking a slice of 50 "recent ratings" (24 Regular Reviews and 26 Express Reviews), the breakdown is as follows:

Most Helpful - 0

Very Helpful - 11

Helpful - 9

Somewhat Helpful - 2

Not Helpful - 1

Off-Topic - 1

Show - 22

Don't Show - 4

As I have repeatedly emphasized, especially in the above linked Advice Piece on writing outdoor gear reviews, information is the primary criterion. However, grammar, tone, style, being/staying 'on-topic,' demonstrated effort, accuracy, originality (Are you just pretty much recycling one of your older reviews? Are you even trying to make it interesting?), and a variety of other criteria come into play. Thus, while there are basic, "rules of thumb," each review has to be taken on its own merits based on a combination of criteria, not solely upon an arbitrary and generalized standard that was never intended to address every potential submission.

Since there appears to be a question in some individuals' minds as to my rating standards, I provide the following "rules of thumb" by way of GENERAL insight into how I rate reviews.

MOST HELPFUL - This rating is self-explanatory. In the Frequently Asked Questions section of the site, under the "Recognition" section which covers "What is an Advisor," two of the criteria for how an advisor is selected are -

Quality of ratings. Selective rating of others' reviews with feedback ranging from "Not Helpful" to "Very Helpful", and appropriate use of the "Most Helpful" rating.

Rating frequency. Regular contribution of high-quality ratings to reviews in their category.

While there is a 'generalized' statement provided as a guide for use of this rating by Advisors; only advisors and category leads have this button within their category. (Just so you know, there are a number of reviews which have appeared across the site that I would rate "MH," but they don't universaly fall within the Outdoor Gear category.) My interpretation of what constitutes "appropriate use" can be discerned from the above linked advice piece. I haven't, as yet, rated many reviews this way; but, that doesn't mean it is impossible to meet my perceived 'standard.' If I can read a review and say that the writer has accurately covered all of the questions they could be reasonably asked to provide information for (you can't anticipate everything); they've organized that information in an understandable, interesting, original (in terms of both content and not being the 25th review of the product), and flowing format; their grammar is impeccable, though not necessarily perfect; and it has the largely ineffable quality of "standing out" above the rest, then a review stands a very good chance of receiving this rating.

VERY HELPFUL - As noted in the above linked Advice piece, the definitional standard for what it means to provide "Unbiased Reviews By Real People" is the same standard that qualifies a review for this rating. Briefly, that definition is as follows:

"A detailed, systematic inquiry and analysis, which is formed by the practice of compiling or assembling basic, constituent information in a series of useful operations or give an approximate opinion, judgement, or appraisal expressing or involving the merits and faults of "something" so as to change or preserve and communicate the knowledge or skill acquired from actual participation or training in an activity or event or insight, affecting actions."

HELPFUL - This rating means you've provided a minimum amount of information; but, you've most likely left a few questions unanswered that could have been reasonably anticipated. Grammar can also play a role. Is your review a series of one or two sentence paragraphs, making it read like going over speed bumps? Are the number of typos, incorrectly spelled words, lack of capital letters, and missing punctuation egregious (e.g., you obviously didn't make the effort to proofread before publishing) or more of an "oops?" If the latter, it will depend on how many and how often. If the former, then I'm forced to ask how seriously you intended your review to be taken; thus, leaving me with the feeling that it probably wasn't intended to actually be helpful.

Sometimes it is this perception of effort that separates "Helpful" and "Somewhat Helpful" ratings. Are you presenting the generic product information as the REVIEW; where it's obvious that you've cut & paste from the manufacturer's website the product information and then written what would constitute an Express Review or less in terms of your unique opinions based on almost no analysis? If there is a question in your mind, then ask yourself if you are providing a "re-VIEW" or a "re-LIST." Put another way, what do you provide beyond the product's listed description?

SOMEWHAT HELPFUL - Actually, this one is pretty easy for me. I usually issue this rating when it is patently obvious that you have, essentially, written an Express Review that got a little wordy. In other words, you have largely provided a recommendation, but have failed to include even a minimum amount of information about the product. This becomes particularly noticeable when it is the 5th review of a product that already has one or more "H" or "VH" reviews for you to go by as regards the information that should have been covered.

In a sense, what you've done is spend the bulk of the review telling me "what," but not giving me much (or, maybe, enough) discourse on the why's and wherefore's. This would be inconsistent with the intent of a Regular Review, but entirely consistent with an Express Review. Telling readers you really like this product is a recommendation. Telling readers why you really like the product is more helpful. Telling readers why you really like the product and how you arrived at that conclusion is more helpful still. (See higher ratings.)

Speaking of reviewing products that have previously been reviewed... Bear in mind that a Regular Review must be fully developed. A Regular Review must stand alone in providing a complete/comprehensive look at the product. It is NOT simply an addendum or "correction" for another review on the product that you feel may have missed something or portrayed the product inaccurately. Thus, it must include a complete look at the product rather than simply playing off someone else's work. If you think you can write a "better" review of the product, then write it!!! Don't say, "others have missed this" and let it go at that. Remember, anticipate and address the question(s), then let the readers determine the relative usefulness of the review.

Usually, I will try to provide a comment on reviews that I rate as "SH" where I hope to give some insight as to what else you might include or direction you might take to flesh out the review; i.e., make it more useful/helpful. It is apparent that there is often a fine line between "SH" and "H" rated reviews insofar as the individual expectations among advisors in a category. One category advisor may rate the review "helpful" where I might rate it "somewhat helpful" and visa versa. Take the advice, don't take the advice. It's up to you.

NOT HELPFUL - I rarely use this rating. Typically, if your review qualifies for this one, it is pretty much "off-topic" and rated as such. However, there are exceptions. There are times when a review is evidently related to the product, somehow, but I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to do with your review. Sometimes it's because you spend virtually no time talking about the product itself. Other times it is because you have launched into hypothetical requiems regarding what you would like the product to be without ever really telling readers what the product actually is. Then there are the occasions when a review becomes so focused on a single attribute (warranty, zippers, rims, spokes, seat, whatever) that the review becomes about that one thing and not about the product as a whole. Finally, Epinions is not a chat room or forum where you post a series of running "updates" on your experiences with a product. Saying, "I just bought this and will let you know how it works" is not a review in any form.

OFF TOPIC - Once again, this rating is fairly self-explanatory. If the product is listed as the 2001 model, then it is off-topic to dedicate your review to the 2006 or 2007 model. The same holds true if the product is listed as the 2007 model and you regale readers with the intricacies of the 1999 version. Focusing on the delivery problems vis a vis UPS, USPS, et al. doesn't have much, if anything, to do with the product. Providing general advice about nutrition, exercise, training, loading a pack, etc. without ever detailing the product is why the "Writer's Corner" and "Advice On" sections of the site were established. I think you get the idea.

SHOW - The standard for Express Reviews is fairly loose. Express Reviews are viewed as supplements to Regular Reviews; thus, they do not have the same standards as regards the inclusion of specific information. If you are obviously referring to the product, provide useful comments/recommendations/observations, then it will likely be rated a "Show." However, when there has been no Regular Review written on the product, an Express Review is often expected to meet a slightly higher standard of information presentation and analysis than is generally the norm. You don't have to create a new version of Moby Dick or War and Peace, but maybe a little less emphasis on "I really like this product" and a little more information about and/or analysis of the product itself???

DON'T SHOW - Are you talking about the product to be reviewed? Is what you said understandable? Is the language appropriate for all audiences? If the answer to any of these is "NO," then it will probably be rated a "don't show."

Are there an excessive number of grammatical issues? Does the review seem to contradict itself (e.g., you emphasize the excellent durability of the product, but then downrate it because every one you've owned fell apart)? Is your ultimate recommendation inconsistent with your analysis (e.g., has the whole review extolled the virtues of the product, but you've only given it 2 stars and visa versa)? Have you 'attacked' the company or another review(er)? Have you placed a "want ad" for a discontinued product? If the answer is "YES" to any of these questions, then it will be rated a "don't show."

Remember, these are general guidelines as to how I rate. The lines can get a little blurry when, as often happens, a review falls "on the line" or in that "gray area" between ratings. I make every effort to be consistent and fair. Just bear in mind that what you might see or not see, or what you think you see/not see, in a review is not necessarily the same thing that motivated my rating.

I've stated this before, but it bears repeating. I guess it all depends on the consumer as to whether any product review is "useful" (or, "Helpful/Very Helpful" or...). Some will want a concise, 'nuts & bolts' entry. Others simply peruse for a paroxysm of platitudinous or pernicious posits to pretense or preempt a percolating purchase. Then there are those who may desire 'contextual' information, beyond the immediacy of the actual product, to assist in their decision making. Of course, there are those who want none of these three types or all three, somehow, in a single review.

To one degree or another, any product can be reviewed in a manner consistent with these wishes. But, any particular product either lends itself to or dictates for a specific approach. In the end, all the reviewer, and the rater, can ultimately do is "write/rate it as they see it;" i.e., write/rate it based on the way they'd want to read it. Thankfully, there are those who seem to appreciate reading it the way I do.