Who would like to see more Comparison Tool Testing in GWW?

[Newbie_Neil]

Hi Pete

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you.

I wasn't asking you to catalogue all machines in each issue. My suggestion was that each time you review say, a professional bandsaw, that you include the appropriate section of the summary for professional bandsaws.

I have assumed that you are doing the same tests on each bandsaw, whether it is in a group test or not. If so, you must be collating them for comparative purposes internally. So why not take it a step further and put it into a spreadsheet with the issue number of the last test.

Why don't you make your Autumn issue dedicated to tool tests?

Cheers
Neil

PS I am trying to be helpful.

 

[Anonymous]

Why don't you make your Autumn issue dedicated to tool tests?

Mmmm. Think Andy might have something to say about this. Over to you Mr King!

Pete

 

[Shadowfax]

This is so difficult to resolve to everyone's liking but I think what we all want is more comparison test of machines or tools in similar price/size ranges. We will have to leave it to the mag staff to work out how many tools they can review in a test but it could never hurt to refer to previous tests if a particular machine has to be left out of a current test.
The whole point of testing, if it is to have any real relevance, is continuity. We need/want to know what features are different and if they are considered to be good or bad. We want to see things properly explained. I find with GWW that many of the articles have been edited in such a way that the reader is expected to understand what has been written, even though slices of the text have obviously been removed. This is just plain stupid and it makes the writer seem like an ***** who cannot put into words what he wants to convey to the reader. Let's have plain English please whith whole and coherent sentences!
To get back to the subject - Yes please, more reviews on bigger groups with reference to previous test results.
Cheers each.

SF

 

[Anonymous]

Mmmm. Think Andy might have something to say about this. Over to you Mr King!

Wot, and sweep the workshop, make the tea, do all the Q&a's and walk the office dog!! :shock:

 

[Digizz]

If I can add my views:

As a recent newcommer to woodworking, I've been looking around for a P/T, table saw, drill press and dust extract etc. Finally settled on mostly all Scheppach kit, mainly from the review/views/comments from the people on this Forum. I did buy successive moths of all the available mags out there that I could find but found them all pretty unhelpful as I wanted a mega test comparison of everything ever made!

It would have helped me if there were a few pages devoted to tables of past reviews and their ratings etc (i.e. a line for each as they do in some computer mags) - so I could at least use this as a guide in the right direction. As to reprints and past reviews - how do I find out what I want??? Is there a listing somewher - website etc?

Putting past reviews etc and reprints in PDF form on a web site would be even better (even if charged for) - do you have a web site?

Thanks.

 

[Alf]

So Andy, if we all chip in and buy you a teamaker then will you do it? :roll:

I dunno which issue you're all working on at the moment (February 2005, out in September? ) but it's gonna be awfully thin if we keep you chatting here. :wink:

Cheers, Alf

 

[Anonymous]

I dunno which issue you're all working on at the moment (February 2005, out in September? ) but it's gonna be awfully thin if we keep you chatting here.

Best bit of fun we've had all week! Better than leaving the office and taking a lunch break as everyone except Forum posters seem to do. As a thought, how does everyone that keeps posting here earn a living. Andy and I are paid to do stuff like this but what are your excuses. Shouldn't you all be slaving over a hot iron/spindle/accounts etc rather than frittling away the time in such aimless mumblings?
Pete

 

[Alf]

Shouldn't you all be slaving over a hot iron/spindle/accounts etc rather than frittling away the time in such aimless mumblings?

Drat. I knew I'd forgotten something...

 

[Anonymous]

I dunno which issue you're all working on at the moment (February 2005, out in September?

Close. It's now the Septober issue. out last month. :shock:

it's gonna be awfully thin if we keep you chatting here.

So that's lunch over then!!

 

[Anonymous]

Digizz

As to reprints and past reviews - how do I find out what I want??? Is there a listing somewher - website etc?

Putting past reviews etc and reprints in PDF form on a web site would be even better (even if charged for) - do you have a web site?

Go to http://www.futurenet.com/goodwoodworkin ... ionid=1845 A link here will take you to our FTP site where you can download an electronic index of all the issues of GW. It's comma delimited text so can be downloaded and imported into any database programme so that you can search all the entries.

Pete

 

[Digizz]

Ah, good stuff!

Thanks.

BTW - do you publicise your web address in the mag - couldn't find it before.

 

[Anonymous]

do you publicise your web address in the mag - couldn't find it before

It's supposed to be on the cover just above the mag name every month but got removed for issue 150 because our publisher decided that a nice gold stick-on blob saying Happy Birthday GW would be much nicer and sell more copies of the mag than any woodworking related content might. At the risk of another deluge of postings, would any one care to comment on that?

Pete

 

[kityuser]

send me 15 bandsaws, I`ll review them, honest

 

[Newbie_Neil]

Hi Pete

At the risk of another deluge of postings, would any one care to comment on that?

When the LOML picked up the magazine to look at the chairs I remember her commenting that it was a birthday issue.

Sorry, but I don't remember it myself though. It could have been because there was no gold blob. :roll:

Cheers
Neil

 

[Alf]

It's supposed to be on the cover just above the mag name every month but got removed for issue 150 because our publisher decided that a nice gold stick-on blob saying Happy Birthday GW would be much nicer and sell more copies of the mag than any woodworking related content might. At the risk of another deluge of postings, would any one care to comment on that?

Yeah, were's my gold stick-on blob? There's a big white space to the right of the "Good" where it could probably go and everything. I feel robbed... And me such a long-term inmate, er, subscriber too. :wink:

BTW, meant to say, I always like Workshop Angles anyway, but I could look at any number of further pics of Chris Becksvoort's workshop until my eyes drop out.

Cheers, Alf

 

[Anonymous]

Hi Pete

Firstly, I'd like to say thank you to you and Andy for taking the time to come on this forum. I'd also like to say that I agree with Alf's comments about the GWW reviews.

I understand that because of budgets it is not practical to run a fifteen bandsaw test in one go. But, what about running tests over three or six months. Publish your test results as they do in the US. How many holes did that 12v drill actually manage? etc. etc.

Then the following month when you have a new model to test and the manufacturers want you to review it you can tell them that you will be including it with a summary of the group test. This would give you an ongoing update of real test data for comparative purposes. You could bracket the test results by cost or "user" group.

It would instantly differentiate you from the rest of the market.

You only have to look at the way the routing magazines include the specifications of the routers over two to three pages in each issue.

I hope that helps.

Any feedback on Ian Dalziels workbench in the new issue?

I think I started a post at the weekend that said something along the lines of the workbench to die for. It is absolutely wonderful. Well done Ian.

Cheers
Neil

 

[Newbie_Neil]

Hi all

Sorry, that was me trying to edit my post.

I was trying to change test data to test results.

Cheers
Neil

 

[woodshavings]

Pete Martin wrote: Any feedback on Ian Dalziels workbench in the new issue?



Yes, blast you :evil: it stopped my planned purchase of a bench and has been added to my project list

John

 

[Steve Maskery]

Oh Dear
I think I might be about to be the odd one out (not for the first time in my life) but...
I don't want to see GW turn into Which? magazine. I am happy with the reviews as they are at the moment. Most of the time I don't read them, mainly becasue I'm not in the market for new tools very often. When I am, I do look for a a back-test, and find it useful. I recently bought a Hitachi shop-vac on the basis of one such review, and, yes, I'm very pleased with it. Does what it says on the tin, and very well.
I realise that if someone is kitting out a workshop from scratch, they would appreciate being told "this is the best", but we also know that everyone's prorities are different. Most of us may want the best, but in practice it is "the best we can afford" that is more relevant. I personally find the FW-style "3247 randon orbital sanders - which is best for you?" tests far too anally retentive.
Just do the sums. If there is a review of, say, Delta Sanders, just how many people are going to buy one in the next, say, 12 months, on the basis of the review? 2? A dozen? I doubt if it reaches 100. After a year, the models have changed anyway. So is it worth the investment in the research in order to do the legwork for so few buyers?
The (non-comparitive) reviews of new kit is useful, and now GW have their database available online, anyone wanting to buy should be able to do their own leg-work much more easily anyway. Ultimately the resonsibility for choice is down to the individual. Of course another opinion is helpful, but that is all it is, opinion.
Personally, I'd rather see the space devoted to other stuff. Not just projects (and I'm glad there seems to be an insatiable appetite for those ) but other aspects of our craft. The design process has been addressed quite a lot lately, and I think that is welcome.
No, the tests are fine, just the way they are.
Now for something constructive.
If people want independent reviews (and someone mentioned the undesirability of a magazine annoying the advertisers who pay the salaries of the staff), why not build our own, online, tool review section here. It would be continually updated (as we added to it), it would probably be warts-n-all, and it would rely on us doing the donkeyworkOr is that the problem? We all want someone else to do the work? I know I do.
It's already here? Well, whaddya know?
Tell you what, I have mostly old out of date machines. But current ones are Basato Bandsaw, Jet Bobbin Sander, Axminster Drum sander. I'll write a review of one of them. Which would be most useful?
Cheers
Steve

 

[Aragorn]

<chuckle> Good thread!
I agree with Digizz comments on page 1 about annoying the advertisers. This must be an important factor in what is said in reviews??