Standards for writing Reviews ????

[Rich Konopka]

I have to admit I was really into the recent reviews posted on SMC. However, I really found that the reviews turned into threads of passion. I find myself overwhelmed with all of the opinions.

If reviews are going to be posted lets ALL develop an aggreeable format with a checklist of items to cover in the review. This can be then posted as a sticky template to be used by all in posting reviews.

So with that said. Should there be standards upon all reviews? if so, what should be included?

[Dick Parr]

I don't think there should be a standard. Each person has their own style of wood working and each tool or process is different. If a person details how they review a tool or process and gives detail pictures so be it, they did what they wanted to help the community.

If I agree with it, Thank you very much for the added information I didn't have before your review. :D If I don't agree with it, then I will shut up and move on. But no matter what is reviewed, I will learn something. :)

It was Not MY review in the first place and the person was only giving their perception as to how the tool or process performed for them. Who am I to criticize what that person has done or how they did it. I don't need to pick apart every aspect of their review (as seems to be done here a lot). :mad:

If there is something that can be added constructively, then I will either PM the person or make a suggestion, but not keep harping in the subject.

Let the individual reviews go on the own merit, everyone is here to learn from one another. That's what this form was all about at one time. :(

My 2 cents

[JayStPeter]

You'll probably get far fewer reviews if you get too carried away about how they should be done.

Jay

[Dennis Peacock]

Rich,

I said no to the vote. This is due to every type of tool would require a whole new set of "guide lines". If we had "stickies" for every type of tool that anybody ever would want to evaluate or review? You would have to catch the first general posting of a member on page 20 of this forum.

Take a simple drill for example.

Corded 3/8" drill
Corded 1/2" drill
Corded 3/4" drill
Corded 3/8" drill with single speed
Corded 3/8" drill with variable speed
Cordless 1/4" drill
Cordless 3/8" drill
Cordless 1/2" drill
Corded 3/8" hammer drill
Corded 1/2" hammer drill
Drill/Driver
Drill/Hammer
and the list grows from here.

The purpose of my evaluations is to try and help folks here that don't have a particular tool and give them the opportunity to see it, read my experiences with it, find out what I found good about it as well as what I found out bad about it and if any improvements could be made.

It's the kind of thing I wish I had come across when I was starting to buy tools. :D In some way, it can even help someone, somewhere, keep from buying a tool that won't do what they need it to do or not be up to their expectations. I'm just trying to help the general membership by providing an insight to a particular tool before they make a purchase. A good buyer is a better educated buyer. Wish I had all this info years ago. :rolleyes: ;)

If you wish...I won't do any more reviews. It won't hurt my feelings none. :D

[Herb Blair]

I find that if you force standards on folks, that the free flow of information slows and pretty soon you won't have any reviews at all. The reviewers on this forum are not like a paid editors of the woodworking magazines. They are woodworkers, just like you and I, with a passion for their hobby.
Most folks just want to share what they find good or bad about a particular tool that they have just aquired. This passion results in a flow of information that is sometimes useful, sometimes not, but most of the reviews I've seen here on SMC have been very helpful.

[Rich Konopka]

Maybe, I did not articulate myself well enough. I was not referring to content but more towards procedure. Just a basic list of things to cover.

1.) Packaging
2.) Customer Service
3.) Cost
4.) Material Construction
5.) Major Features
6.) Features Lacking
7.) If a competing product is mentioned then it should be written up in the same manner.
8.) What included with packaging whats extra

[Ken Salisbury]

I see no reason whatsoever to apply rules to the writing of tool reviews. These tool reviews should be taken for what they are - -- -- "tool reviews" and not "tool comparisions".


However, I really found that the reviews turned into threads of passion. I find myself overwhelmed with all of the opinions.

This is a result of reading a "review" and turning it into a "comparison" when a comparison was not intended by the reviewer.

I have never seen a reviewer say "my tool is better than yours". Of course some folks want to read between the lines rather than read the lines themselves :D :o :eek: :( :rolleyes: In addition, the imposing of rules/guidelines on tool review posts will deter some members from writing them.

[John Weber]

Forum reviews are a simple user evaluation of a tool, some more or less extensive. To ask members to meet standards of tool test seen in magazines is unrealistic. The reviews we have here are helpful, however as with almost everything in print, it should be taken as from someones point of view. Different users, conditions, uses, can all lead to different results. The reviews are for the most part informative and helpful, no need to muddy the matter with more rules for members freely giving their time.

John

[John Edwards]

I for one have enjoyed the reviews.
Maybe they are not as professional as some others I`ve seen, but I am not a professional. Just a common guy WWer that enjoys tools as much (or more) as WWing itself.
Just last week I had been "on the fence" about wheter a ATF55 would be a useful addition. Read as many reviews as I could find. But still was having trobule justifying the expense/usage ratio.
Well the one last week in SMC had a link in one of the responses. It was to John Lucas`s site. It featured Bob M jointing with a ATF55. That put me over the top. Now have one on order, along with several other tools.
The newst guide rail eval. prepared me for what to expect in that regard.
Bring `em on. We all enjoy them.
In no random order I`d like to see evals on;
150/3 vs. 150/5
Deltex
LS130 Linear sander
RS2e vs. ROS

Thanks to all for the effort you place in these evals.

[Rich Konopka]

I find that if you force standards on folks, that the free flow of information slows and pretty soon you won't have any reviews at all. The reviewers on this forum are not like a paid editors of the woodworking magazines. They are woodworkers, just like you and I, with a passion for their hobby.
Most folks just want to share what they find good or bad about a particular tool that they have just aquired. This passion results in a flow of information that is sometimes useful, sometimes not, but most of the reviews I've seen here on SMC have been very helpful.
Herb, your title was "No Rules". Rules and Standards have two different distinct meanings:

Stan·dard - Something, such as a practice or a product, that is widely recognized or employed, especially because of its excellence.

Rule - An authoritative, prescribed direction for conduct, especially one of the regulations governing procedure in a legislative body or a regulation observed by the players in a game, sport, or contest.

I'm not advocating Rules. I hate rules and always have said Rules are meant to be broken with in reason.

[Michael Stafford]

The reviews that I have seen on SMC are fine. They are one man's opinion and for the most part show no bias. Comments after the fact arguing pro or con seem to reflect individual bias but that is okay also as sometimes good info can be gleaned from them as well. The way I look at it, I'm getting a lot more from these reviews than I pay for them. In a magazine, it seems with every review there are a disproportionate number of ads for the item being reviewed. SMC reviewers, keep up the good work!!!

[Rich Konopka]

I see no reason whatsoever to apply rules to the writing of tool reviews. These tool reviews should be taken for what they are - -- -- "tool reviews" and not "tool comparisions".



This is a result of reading a "review" and turning it into a "comparison" when a comparison was not intended by the reviewer.

I have never seen a reviewer say "my tool is better than yours". Of course some folks want to read between the lines rather than read the lines themselves :D :o :eek: :( :rolleyes: In addition, the imposing of rules/guidelines on tool review posts will deter some members from writing them.

Ken, I beg to differ. The TOS for SMC are a set of Rules and Standards are they not. The rules are perfectly reasonable and the standards are the reason why many of us enjoy coming to this forum.

When a review touches on another product it can be viewed as impartial and it opens itself up to comparison whether it is based on price, performance, or any other criteria.

I am only trying to say that we should follow a standard format in which we can copy from a sticky fill it in and post it. Again, I meant for a standard template or format to be used not rules.

Thanks

[Jim Becker]

I think that the only "standards" that need to be followed on review threads, as well as all threads, is to be courtious and stay in the spirit of the conversation. It gets discouraging when a simple (and personal) look at a product turns into a highly charged, competive free-for-all as has happened several times recently. Pre-templating a review may be helpful to folks not used to writing, but forces folks to do things they may not actually want to cover in a review. Write what you want, write it as clearly as you can and with purpose. Folks will appreciated it no matter how you present it.

And now a little point I've wanted to make for a long time: I also think that vendors need to be very, very careful about how they participate in such conversations and I do welcome such participation since it shows me that they care enough to monitor what folks are saying and asking about their products. Being helpful with specifications, "how to use" details, etc., is perfectly acceptable to me. But agressive promotion crosses the line, IMHO. It's hard enough to deal with members getting emotional without also having to separate out charged comments from folks with a vested interest in a product or service. I would never buy something, even if it's the best thing on the planet, from such a vendor. I make my living in technical sales and am very sensitive to this with my own customers, too...

[Ted Shrader]

Rich -

Applying a set of standards for reports on tools sets artificial boundaries that are not required.

Please read the following objectively, as my desription of the thread so far:
In your intitial post, you made a suggestion. People did not agree with it. You made additional posts to clarify and get people to agree with you.
How is that different than the spirited tool review you cited? People were discussing their opinions on the tool and it's equivalent alternatives. Ditto for this case. Your post prompted a discussion.

Summary of your post: "If you are going to submit a review, here are some suggests items to cover." As I see it, some people might see guidlines, however well intentioned, as "rules" and not submit a post. That would be to everyone's detriment.

Regards,
Ted

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Rich....this forum is used by people from all walks of life. People using this site bring to it different levels of education, intelligence, and experiences. Setting standards, rules or guidlines might reduce the participation from various members. These diversities of the members is one of the things I enjoy most about the 'Creek. We are not providing professional reviews of tools. It's just a personal opinion based on our personal experience whether limited or broad.

Well stated.....Jim B. and Ted!

[Dennis Peacock]

I am only trying to say that we should follow a standard format in which we can copy from a sticky fill it in and post it. Again, I meant for a standard template or format to be used not rules.

Thanks

I hear ya Rich. I just don't think it would be something that would "further encourage" people to post their findings on various aspects of woodworking. What if we were reviewing/evaluating hand cut dovetails? or even something like, turning a bowl, applying a shellac finish. Is it exactly the same thing? No...but the overall principle is the same.

I agree with what you have listed to a point. Customer service? On 99% of my tools, I have "never" contacted customer service unless I needed a repair part. So I couldn't really and honestly comment on customer service.

Features lacking? This won't apply in general unless you are comparing two manufacturers products against each other. Then you have grounds to state whatever is lacking from either or both products as compared to the other.

Competitors product? I don't belive I would want to purchase 4 cabinet style tablesaws to fullfil this comparison. Would you? :rolleyes: :D

Don't get me wrong....I'm not attacking you nor am I upset with your poll. I think it's a good idea....but I just don't think it would be condusive to more reviews by those that may fear that they can't fullfil the guidelines for posting a review. Each person here should feel comfortable with posting a review on their new tool. That way we can all learn and share info openly and within proper boundaries to where we're not pointing fingers and flaming any manufacturer.

Very good suggestion Rich and thanks for stepping out there and posting it.

[Kelly C. Hanna]

I'm against standards of any kind on reviews of tools. Everyone who writes one is doing us a service and for them to have to conform to someone elses ideas on what a review should contain would stop a lot of them before they got written.

Jim brings up a very good point on the vendor participation. The attitude some have can turn certain folks like me away from the product before ever seeing it regardless of how it actually works in the shop or on the job. It also opens the door for personal jabs (which I admit to getting somewhat involved in recently). This is not what SMC is all about...we need to leave that behavior to the other forums.

[John Strait]

Rich,

You standardized your post with the poll. The results at this time are 23-3 opposing your idea. Use those results and move on instead of trying to force your opinion on others, which is what your are oposing in the first place.

[Betsy Yocum]

Just my two cents - but I'd rather have someone tell me their experience with tools being used in a shop like mine than someone telling me about a tool they've used in a perfect shop setting like the magazines can afford to have. I don't use my tools in a perfect world. And as someone else said, the people on this forum do not have a vested interest in the tools or in sharing their opinions whereas the folks at the magazine are getting paid to do the reviews. Their paycheck comes from the advertisers mostly who, of course, are tool manufacturers, etc.- and that creates bias IMBO.

I don't want to see anyone inhibited from giving a tool review, good or bad, well written or not just because they are limited by rules or standards or guidelines or whatever. I've gleaned such good information from SMC folks and I don't want to see the free flow of information slowed by some list of things someone has to check to be sure they are in compliance with before they post.

Just my two cents.
KEEP THOSE REVIEWS COMING!!!:)

Betsy

[Tom LaRussa]

I don't want to see anyone inhibited from giving a tool review, good or bad, well written or not just because they are limited by rules or standards or guidelines or whatever. I've gleaned such good information from SMC folks and I don't want to see the free flow of information slowed by some list of things someone has to check to be sure they are in compliance with before they post.
I agree.

Plus, if somebody leaves out something I'm interested in, all I have to do is ASK ABOUT IT!

[Rich Konopka]

Okay Okay .

I didn't mean to come across like a bureacratic politiican.

End of Thread.

I lost :(

My idea stinks :o

Flog me :eek:

Stone me

But Please don't smash my pumpkin :D :D

[Martin Shupe]

Rich,

I don't think your idea stinks, I think it was misunderstood.

Intially, it sounded like you wanted rules and a mandatory format. Most people objected to the idea of rules. If they are going to put forth the effort to write a review, they don't want to be constrained on how to do it.

Later in the thread, you made a good suggestion of a list of items to cover. I think this makes a lot of sense. If someone plans to write a review, the items you listed not only make sense, but if the same items were covered in two reviews of the same type of tool, the reader could make some comparisons.

So...in summary, people here don't want to be constrained by hard and fast rules (except the one requiring us to be civil in our posts, which I think we all support), but your format suggestion of topics to cover in a review, in my opinion was a good one. Perhaps people will take it into consideration, and perhaps even voluntarily use it, in their next review.

[Pete Harbin]

Rich,

I think your idea got us talking about some important points, whether we agree with a standard template or not.

I think Jim summed it up perfectly with "...is to be courtious and stay in the spirit of the conversation." As several others have mentioned, the value of the review is to get a peek into one woodworker's experience with the tool (or process...I just got hooked on Scary Sharp!) I think we would quell 90% of the tension, if we all agreed to honor the word "Review." I think that we can all agree that the spirit of the word "Review" is share an experience with a specific tool...which, if you think about, is a very generous thing to do. If someone would like to conduct a comparison, then they should make that the premise of the thread. That said, refering back to the "spirit of the conversation", it would be a comparison of TOOLS, not one man/woman's intelligence to another's, size of bank accounts, choice of profession, etc...

I, for one, am interested in seeing more reviews. Keep 'em coming, because I can't afford to buy all these tools myself! :D I especially like pictures of the set-up, and all the clever adjustments and tips that make these tools more flexible and usable for us.

Pete

NM Scorpions 6
Memphis River Kings 3

Go Scorps!

[Ian Barley]

And now a little point I've wanted to make for a long time: I also think that vendors need to be very, very careful about how they participate in such conversations and I do welcome such participation since it shows me that they care enough to monitor what folks are saying and asking about their products. Being helpful with specifications, "how to use" details, etc., is perfectly acceptable to me. But agressive promotion crosses the line, IMHO.

I would like to very much second Jim's comments on the participation style of vendors. There have been a couple of threads which have veered too far towards promotion, to the detriment of the quality of the thread.

As to reviews, I think that the important thing is that they are impartial and honest. Everything I have seen so far meets that requirement.

[Jason Roehl]

First off, I voted 'no' on the poll.

Ok, I know this thinking has gotten me in trouble with a few here before, but I've always maintained that a review needs some degree of comparison, if nothing else than to establish a baseline. If I told you that Dale Earnhardt, Jr. just drove a good race and averaged 170mph, that may tell you a little about his driving, but may be different if that meant he finished 20th because others averaged 180mph or better.

Now, I'm not accusing any reviewers of doing this, but would you really put much stock in a review of a tablesaw by a person who is using a tablesaw for the first time? Or maybe that reviewer only had a junk $100 bench tablesaw before, so the $300 tablesaw will get a great review, even though in reality it doesn't even measure up to a decent contractor's tablesaw that costs a little more.

In the end, though, this is an open forum (within the bounds of good taste), so who cares if a "review" posting turns into a "comparison"? As long as it remains civil discussion void of name-calling and brand-bashing, there could be constructive information for all gained from it. I don't believe we should set any hard and fast "standards" for reviews, but certainly those more experienced with tools will have a good feel for what makes or breaks a tool, and some of those points are listed above. Rather than "standards" we should be talking "suggested guidelines," and even that is too strong a term, I believe.

Review to your heart's content, folks--we're mostly talking about either tools or techniques when it comes to woodworking anyway!

[Larry Browning]

Wow Jason! what an avator!!! I could hardly read your post because that spinning head kept catching my eye!
Just because you can doesn't mean you should! :eek:

Wow!!!!!!

[Jim Becker]

I could hardly read your post because that spinning head kept catching my eye!
Jason's head is not spinning at all...we are all moving around it... :eek: :o :D

[Jason Roehl]

Jason's head is not spinning at all...we are all moving around it... :eek: :o :D

Jim's pretty close--I found a way to tap into all those webcams that the NSA secretly put behind the screen of your computer monitors and is constantly monitoring for felony nosepicking. :eek: :D

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Rich....I'm one of those that voted no on your poll. I agree with Martin .....I don't want anyone constrained in their reviews other than being generally civil. I also believe that your ideas for a format are good but should be voluntarily followed.

I'll apologize to you for anyone here that may have insulted you. That's not being civil and shouldn't occur. We all should have the right to have our own ideas and beliefs and not have to incur ridicule by those who disagree. They likewise have the right to diagree.

[Rich Konopka]

Rich....I'm one of those that voted no on your poll. I agree with Martin .....I don't want anyone constrained in their reviews other than being generally civil. I also believe that your ideas for a format are good but should be voluntarily followed.

I'll apologize to you for anyone here that may have insulted you. That's not being civil and shouldn't occur. We all should have the right to have our own ideas and beliefs and not have to incur ridicule by those who disagree. They likewise have the right to diagree.

Thanks I appreciate your openess and I really did not intend for this to unfold like it did. I was merely looking to come up with a format that everyone could use to build their reviews from. I was not looking to stifle anyones right to Free Speech :rolleyes: ;)

I was not offended or felt ridiculed regarding this. I did not want this to turn political and some of the comments that were injected into the thread.

Here are some of my ideas for a format: Please take them for what they are worth and if you have something I can use in a review then that is great. Please add them in. I appreciate everyones honesty and comments.

Thanks


Purchasing Experience
Price Paid
Rebates, Ongoing Offer,
Customer Service Sales – Answering questions, Sales Literature
Online Support
Ease of doing Business
Testimonials
Other Reviews

Shipping and Packaging
Packaging
Shipping Charges
Damaged or Broken parts


Installation & Setup
Ease of Installation
Online Documentation
Install Instructions
Special Tools
Cleaning and Prepping
Missing Pieces
Mobile Options


Accessories
Storage Case / Options
Extra Items Required/Pricing -
Extra Items Recommended –
3rd party accessories available/recommended
Adaptability/Proprietary

Specifications & Features



Operation
Ease of setup for tasks
Accuracy
Power
Ergonomics


Safety
Safety Features
Dust Collection Features and Effectiveness if applicable
Safety Features Included/Extra/Missing
Quality
Overall Build Quality



Final Recommendations
Conclusion
Recommendations
Woodworker Tool Scale – Beginner, Intermediate, Serious, Professional
What’s missing

[Frank Pellow]

I voted NO … BUT … Rich that looks like a great list of things to consider when writing a review. I do plan to refer to it as a kind of check list when I write a tool review. But, many of the things do not apply in many situations. For instance, the thread I started last night on peg board hooks is a kind of review but giving it the treatment indicated by the list would have been over-overkill.

And Jason, I agree with you when you say:


In the end, though, this is an open forum (within the bounds of good taste), so who cares if a "review" posting turns into a "comparison"? As long as it remains civil discussion void of name-calling and brand-bashing, there could be constructive information for all gained from it.
For me, follow-up comparisons usually provide valuable context and often enrich the original review. This is particularly true when it about a type of tool for which I have little experience.

[Jay Knoll]

Following along Jim B's observation concerning participation in review threads, what if we agreed:

Tool reviews are encouraged.

In addition to "thank you's" the only appropriate responses to a tool review are clarifying questions.

For example, "I don't understand what you meant by......... "would be an appropriate reply

But "Tool X does that and it is cheaper, did you consider that " ............ would not be acceptable response

Or "You said you couldn't do "X" with the tool easily. I had the same experience but found that if I did "Y" I was able to do the task".............. would be an acceptable response

If someone wants to post a Follow up personal opinion regarding the tool that has been reviewed those comments should be posted in a different thread so people can view them if they want, but those comments shouldn't be a part of the tool review thread

I cringe when I see some instances of emotions running wild regarading a tool review, after all it is just one person's experience. No one is getting paid to do them, they take a lot of time if done right which they generally seem to be, and they are a reflection of each person's experience and needs.

I don't think a reviewer should be put into a defensive position concerning a review post.

[Ken Salisbury]

While doing some required editing I accidently moved the thread to the Support Forum ---- OOPS. I do not have editing capabilities in the Support Forum so I am unable to move it back:( , . However I have e-mailed Aaron asking him to move it back to the General Forum where it belongs -- Sorry about that -- I engaged my keyboard befor putting my brain in gear. :) :eek:

[Kent Cori]

I think most of the folks responding to this thread are opposed to "standards" or "rules" for reviews. I agree with the majority and feel that any standards or rules would adversely affect the number of reviews and evaluations offered.

However, I support the idea of a format template and checklist of issues that most people would like to see addressed as Rich identifies above. This perhaps could be included in the support or articles forum or as a sticky. It would only be a list of topics that a reviewer may want to address and not a rigid standard.

[Fred Chan]

Who needs rules? :( I think it's great to read a persons honest opinion about a tool whether it's an ultra expensive martian import or a lowly asian one. For every person interested in mega buck tools there's many more that have to watch their pennies. I would think anybody planning to purchase any particular tool would love to see a review good or bad before buying it.:)

[Chris Padilla]

LOL...what a horrible idea, Rich!! Consider this a flogging from one of the pic police! ;) hahaha :D j/k.... :)

Good thread...we were able to wring out/work out our thoughts on posting reviews. I'm sure that was your point...eventually! :) We also found out that Ken S. is human and messes up!!! :p

One thing that I think we all know is that threads take on a life of their own. Ken does his best to control stuff as needed but really, once you post, a 100 different people will take thing a 100 different directions for a 100 different reasons.

I like your list of review "action items" you posted 6-7 posts up. It could serve as a guide to posting future reviews of tools. I'd like us to come up with some way to keep your post so that anyone who wants to post a review can easily find it and read it for ideas. How can/shall we do this?

Above all, we must respect each other at all times as the thread and passions start growing. This should ALWAYS be true.

[Aaron Koehl]

I like the reviews in a free format--I think the folks writing reviews try to be objective and fairly thorough in their analyses. What's most important, though, is that folks are considerate when a review is written. If a discussion is to ensue about the product, it should definitely be in a separate thread.

[Donnie Raines]

I understand where Rich is coming from here. However, I do not like "set rules" either. While an indivuduals take is some what important to me, I dont base my buying on what they have said/done. Festool for example: Great product...I have used it. But I can not justify the added cost...some can. Also, hand planes: I think Lie-Neislen is great...I own or have owned several...while some others would never pay that much for this product.

[Rich Konopka]

LOL...what a horrible idea, Rich!! Consider this a flogging from one of the pic police! ;) hahaha :D j/k.... :)

Consider myself flogged.




Good thread...we were able to wring out/work out our thoughts on posting reviews. I'm sure that was your point...eventually! :) We also found out that Ken S. is human and messes up!!! :p

Sometimes I'm not the Communicator I should be and my brain just lets out these thoughts which are just not captured by words approriately.




I like your list of review "action items" you posted 6-7 posts up. It could serve as a guide to posting future reviews of tools. I'd like us to come up with some way to keep your post so that anyone who wants to post a review can easily find it and read it for ideas. How can/shall we do this?

This was more my point with having a list of items which can be used as a basis for writing a review.



I understand where Rich is coming from here. However, I do not like "set rules" either.

Honestly, I really never intended for rules. When I said standards I meant for something to strive to.

Definition of Standards (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=standards)

[John R Lucas]

...Well the one last week in SMC had a link in one of the responses. It was to John Lucas`s site. It featured Bob M jointing with a ATF55. That put me over the top. Now have one on order, along with several other tools.
The newst guide rail eval. prepared me for what to expect in that regard.
Bring `em on. We all enjoy them.
In no random order I`d like to see evals on;
150/3 vs. 150/5
Deltex
LS130 Linear sander
RS2e vs. ROS

Thanks to all for the effort you place in these evals.

Well, that is nice to read. I like to review tools but I really like to open up the box and use the tools. I don't try to compare one tool with another. It is not what I am about. I'll leave that to the publications (and their advertisers) to do poorly. When I do get a tool I like, there is always something to "shout about." I like sharing on my site and on SMC and other fair forums.
And John, I am just now "playing" with the Festool linear sander. I will have my thoughts on it on my site this coming sunday.
John Lucas
www.woodshopdemos.com

[Rich Konopka]

Well, that is nice to read. I like to review tools but I really like to open up the box and use the tools. I don't try to compare one tool with another. It is not what I am about. I'll leave that to the publications (and their advertisers) to do poorly. When I do get a tool I like, there is always something to "shout about." I like sharing on my site and on SMC and other fair forums.
And John, I am just now "playing" with the Festool linear sander. I will have my thoughts on it on my site this coming sunday.
John Lucas
www.woodshopdemos.com

John, Your website is one of the Most Enjoyed websites about woodworking. I actually look forward to going to it every week. It is also nice that you have stopped in at the Creek. I hope you stop in often.

Regards

[Chris Padilla]

Nice to see you post, John...stop by a bit more often if you can find the time. I think I was the one to pass the link of our own Mr. Marino's work on John's site. John's site is the reason I have so much Incra and Festool in my shop! :D

[John R Lucas]

John, Your website is one of the Most Enjoyed websites about woodworking. I actually look forward to going to it every week. It is also nice that you have stopped in at the Creek. I hope you stop in often.

Regards

Rich,
Those are some kind words. For a 67 yo woodworker, I have the very best job of trying out all the yummy new products, doing woodworking, working with Beth, Gail, Joslyn and others and doing the website which is going off the charts. And I always appreciate reader comments.

[Paul Berendsohn]

FWIW... I have been a participant in some of the more...boisterous ;) review/comparison threads here. Personally, I believe that short of an outright online brawl, trying to constrain these discussions does nothing but drive the discussions underground and turn them into a whispering campaign.

If you can't abide the give and take, I'd do as many have said they have done and simply disregard the thread. Seems to me that often people with vested interests gradually ratchet up the pressure and then cry foul when tit for tat ensues.

The most recent cases of Dennis' reviews were great examples of informal reviews. Did he cover every possible aspect of every feature of each tool? Probably not. But he did a great job of covering the basics well enough for a reader to decide whether they had enough interest to research the tool on their own and make their own informed purchasing decision... kudos!

Paul

[Rich Konopka]

Rich,
Those are some kind words. For a 67 yo woodworker, I have the very best job of trying out all the yummy new products, doing woodworking, working with Beth, Gail, Joslyn and others and doing the website which is going off the charts. And I always appreciate reader comments.

John for a 67 yo woodworker you certainly have attracted some beautifull and skilled woodworkers.

Here is a link to my young beautiful helpers.

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?t=10082

[Chris Padilla]

I'm sure it is a young 67 with 20 and 30 somethings keeping things in check! :)