Jump to content

Do YOU want a Kit Review section ?


Do YOU want a Kit Review section on the Forum ?  

148 members have voted

  1. 1. Do YOU want a Kit Review section on the Forum ?

    • Yes
      95
    • No
      53


Recommended Posts

Everything gets reviewed on planet earth! Why not models! I'm for it. A lot of wisdom can be gained from this if everyone sticks to the subject and doesn't talk about ones ancestry or gene pool! This can be a very constructive tool for us all!

Remember, ARC already has a review section accessible from the home page, so it's not a question of having reviews or not. The question seems to be whether there should be a forum based review section to replace or supplement the one on the home page. At least that's what I think is being asked.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Everything gets reviewed on planet earth! Why not models! I'm for it. A lot of wisdom can be gained from this if everyone sticks to the subject and doesn't talk about ones ancestry or gene pool! This can be a very constructive tool for us all!

I'm for it if it's done right and the data is properly parsed to go into a searchable database, and if there are certain things that are set up and go into the format of the content. Basically, make it like a "knowledge base," but instead of fields for technical information, the user enters kit and build info. Then it's moderated by site management to ensure the data is good, etc - and it's then posted up.

But hey, what do I know? I don't live at this site, and maybe I'm over-simplifying.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When I came back into the hobby a few years ago I had a hard time figuring out which kit to buy and how it was different/same from some other kit from a diff. manufacturer.....needles to say I got really frustrated one time I brought a kit from a diff. manufacturer and found out it was identical to some kit I already owned and I was expecting something diff.

Currently I got to dig like hell to find this info on this forum scattered all over the place in diff. areas with a crappy search engine to boot.....Or I have to go trawling all over the web to find what I am looking for.

Centralization of common data about kits is what I ultimately hope comes from some review section.

The General review will say that this is an Itlaleri 1/72 SU-25 which is the the same basic mold as Zvezda's offering. It contains the following ordinance, which moveable parts, level of detail in the cockpit, engine, supplied decals for which country/squadrons, etc.....stuff that can hardly be argued by anyone and is strictly FACT !

The Rivet Review (in jest). For the more advanced/finicky modeller would be the realm of "opinions" The Pros/Cons, subjective stuff. Aftermarket options for said kit, pathways to a certain variant....hmm, how many options are there to get to a block 50 F-16C. on the aftermarket.....I can think of at least a dozen ways/products to achieve this.....again, way too much info to "search" for.....lets centralize it in a "professional" way......Obviously we need to debate how this section would work, in such a way to maintain it's integrity.

I see it as a plus to ARC as a business....you want to know all the in/outs of some kit generally/specifically with objective/subjective analysis...go to the ARC reviews section.......vs......go to ARC, Z5, Britmodeller (name your forum) and dig like hell looking for common data. That's why I feel that despite the headaches this may bring.....it provides a good "product" enhancement to ARC.

Anyways that's my thoughts....for now.

- Matt

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why is that? There are a lot of good kits out there.

The perception I've gathered from this thread is that folks want a forum where they can critique what's wrong with a kit, point out errors in shape, dimensions, or other features of accuracy, and suggest potential fixes or alternative venues. They're not looking for a forum where one can post a kit and list all it's strengths, how awesome it is that it's been released, and how everyone should be greatful that company X has released kit Y.

You yourself suggested a "rivet counters" forum back on post #26.

Again, I doubt sincerely that a model company would want to pay money to link to a forum dedicated to dissecting the shortfalls of their kit and alternate sources of similar kits and/or products designed to fix these shortfalls. From a purely business point of view, I certainly wouldn't pay to link to such a forum.

*BREAK*

I might be missing something, but isn't this ARC's Product Review Section? It seems to me that the type of service people are asking for already exists.

As far as the interaction part, the forums at large seem to fit that bill nicely. Reference the ongoing discussions about the forthcoming 1/32 Su-25, the comparison of 1/72 F-18s, etc. I don't see a need for a separate forum for discussions currently occuring across the forum at large.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The ONLY issue I see is how do we know WHO is an expert about such and such aircraft and who is not? Pouring over drawings and using photos do not always help as drawing are not always accurate and photos may not include issues on a kit that was moulded reflecting different time period. That being said, major errors can easily be documented by the reviewer, such as the exhausts on the Su-24 as this is a major flaw that reflects something wrong on every Su-24 ever produced. Subtle issues such as minor shape gripes are more difficult to tell.

I am also afraid to have the "reviewer" getting raked over the coals as they looked at a kit objectively (hopefully) and there will be someone out there who knows more (in their eyes) and are not afraid to say it. I see it turning ito a big virtual snowball fight just like we get when sprue shots are posted these days.

No thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but keep in mind everything is subjective. I might have built the F-4 Phantom 122 times now, but it does not mean I know how the scale model measures out to the real thing. I do not care. As long as it looks like a Phantom when done. I never worked on a real Phantom in my life, I was a Army field medic.

For others, both those who BUILD their models all the way down to those who just complain, this may or may not be good enough.

I know **I** like the 1/48 Hasegawa above the other current offerings. It works for **me**. YOUR mileage my vary.

I also **know** that I can pump out acceptable models a wee bit faster then others. But nothing that would EVER win a IPMS competition. If you model companies want me to review stuff, I am happy to. :thumbsup:

I just hope a peaceful coexistance can be found.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, honestly, folks, I'm about as pro-ARC as you can get, but even so I strongly feel this need is being well-served at Scott Van Aken's site. Any further discussion required on a kit is already happening in here in the forums. To me it seems redundant since there's already an organized, cohesive, centralized site for the purpose. No sense reinventing the wheel.

Besides, doesn't Steve already have enough to do without watching for more flames? The man's got a family; shouldn't have to make him a volunteer fireman as well. :thumbsup:

Link to post
Share on other sites
The perception I've gathered from this thread is that folks want a forum where they can critique what's wrong with a kit, point out errors in shape, dimensions, or other features of accuracy, and suggest potential fixes or alternative venues. They're not looking for a forum where one can post a kit and list all it's strengths, how awesome it is that it's been released, and how everyone should be greatful that company X has released kit Y.

You yourself suggested a "rivet counters" forum back on post #26.

Again, I doubt sincerely that a model company would want to pay money to link to a forum dedicated to dissecting the shortfalls of their kit and alternate sources of similar kits and/or products designed to fix these shortfalls. From a purely business point of view, I certainly wouldn't pay to link to such a forum.

That would also mean analyzing what's right about a kit. There's more than one way to get to a P-51 or an A6M.

And as I look at the ads on the main page I don't see a single kit manufacturer listed. All aftermarket outfits and retailers.

Ken

Link to post
Share on other sites

If a review section is going to be started, I'd say do it this way: do not separate the non-rivet folks from the rivet counters. We'd have alot of overlap on stuff like fit issues, thickness of plastic, details in the cockpit or wheelwells.

This is what I'd suggest though: in each review, start out with the general stuff that everyone looks for, and then have a "rivet counter" section of the review.

If you don't want to read the tail end of the review with all of the detailed info in it, then skip that part.

The reason that I suggest this is that even though I'm not a rivet counter, I still read that stuff to a degree. Once the info crosses into uber "nitpicking" I tend to stop reading (simply because i'm not going to worry about that on my build, not that there's anything wrong about you worrying about it :D ).

Several people above have discussed where the "line" is on nitpicking, and I'd say that it's different for everyone. So if we have a single review, then everyone could decide on his or her own when to stop reading.

Thoughts?

John

Link to post
Share on other sites
If a review section is going to be started, I'd say do it this way: do not separate the non-rivet folks from the rivet counters. We'd have alot of overlap on stuff like fit issues, thickness of plastic, details in the cockpit or wheelwells.

All,

I used the term "Rivet Review" very loosely and do not mean it to be a separation of folks; but merely a speration in the level/type of content.

Kind of like reading a trade journal :

For example : When I want specifics about the latest research findings in Meso-scale Meteorology involving the Kinematics of Supercell Thunderstorms I'll go read the Journal of Atmospheric Sciences --- A rivet counter view of this slice of my life

but if I just want some general info I'll go to the bookstore and find a good book on thunderstorms and other extreme weather (General Review).

If ARC were to do this : I would recommend the following as a *possible* approach (there probabaly are tons of better ideas).

Somebody start a thread on a well known kit or kits and let the rest of us (read "TEAM") add/remove/re-word things with the goal to get to the point that we now have a template for how we would like to see a General Review done that is agreeable by most.

It may take a while.....but we all know that this argument here will go on forever and has been argued before this with no end results.....

Anyways, that's one idea....instead of arguing this endlessly to get off our butts and go for it.......

Give me a few days and I'll try to start one (General Review) and guide it along; then we'll know if it'll work or not....if it goes up in flames then oh well....let's step away for a time and re-think it.

Anyone up for the Dare to join me! If so PM me and lets give it a try.

The way I see it : If it doesn't work out, then we are no better or worse than before we tried.

- Matt

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Guys,

As a few people before have mentioned, there is already a review section on the ARC main page. I would say that if you are going to write up a review, why not just put it into MS Word and send it to Steve so that he can post it on the main page? I've written one preview for Steve/ARC and I would like to write more for Steve/ARC. I find it a rewarding experience providing a preview/review to anyone who wants to read it, forum member or not.

Some people provide some great reviews/previews here on the ARC forums (Moritz comes to mind, thanks Moritz :thumbsup: ). Why not write the review in MS Word, send it to Steve B, he can post it in the ARC review section of the main page, and then people can discuss/critique it on the forums should they wish? This way the review would be fairly unbiased (depending on the reviewer's perspective) and if some one wants to seek out others' opinions on the kit, they can search in the forum?

Steve does a great job with ARC and I do not think that only those who visit the forums should be the only ones to see some great reviews that get posted here.

Just my two humble cents.

V/r,

John

Edited by John King
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you, there are some great reviews on the main page as well as many other places. I guess my thought wasn't so much a "review" section (which clearly exists) but a section OR a way of denoting which threads are discussions more about what a particular kit has to offer, where it meets expectations, where it doesn't, why some people (multiple) feel the shape here or there is off or on, what are suggested fixes to fit problems or better build sequences etc... Which yes, reviews do that, but are stand alone and don't explore alternative views and suggestions. It's one persons views that could be right, coud be wrong and might have missed a few suggestions that other would have to offer.

Now you may say that's what this whole site can accomplish as is and that's true. But to find threads that deal with those type discussion can be taxing if you are looking for that kind of detailed evaluation and discussion. Something that occured to me the other day when I was looking at Modelshipwright's site is when you start posting a thread and it starts turning in to a "build" thread, someone (obviously their moderation staff) will automatically put a label on that thread stating that it is a build thread thus making it easier to find such threads. I guess they use that in lieu of a "in progress" section. So perhaps there is a way to do that here. Put a marker on "review" type discussions that possible can be filtered with a search? So if I wanted to find threads discussing the meat and potatos of a kit, I can find just those type threads. I don't know, just a thought.

I am not married to any of these thoughts, I just saw someone make the suggestion about reviews and thought it COULD be a great tool.

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...