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

I was thinking along the same lines as Bill earlier.

Instead of a proper review forum, how about a rivet counters forum? A place where someone can go and ask "I just picked up (or am thinking about picking up) this kit and are there any issues or flaws with it?" without subjecting those who don't want to hear it to the discussion. The rules are real simple. Those who want to nitpick kits are free to. Those who don't are free to skip the forum altogether.

It's real easy guys. I've been talking scale modeling here since ARC was a Noworks54 forum and as long as this format has been in use, I've only visited 2 forums regularly and maybe 6 or 7 ever. I simply have no interest in any of the other ones. Anyone who would start trouble there is obviously trying to start up something in a place where he doesn't belong anyway (since he's clearly not interested in counting rivets) and should be dealt with accordingly.

"Thinking out loud", way past my bedtime.

Ken

Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted yes. I'd like a moderated and dedicated ARC subforum or forum on which accuracy can be properly discussed. "It looks like a..." posts would be removed because they don't bring anything to the discussion. "This thingy looks wrong" posts would also be removed unless a proper argumentation using real aircraft pics and reliable drawings is given. Experts of a subject would also comply to these rules. No "this kit sucks" post, just "I've noticed this, this and that... here are the pics that seem to confirm the points" posts. The reader can decide if the points are important to him or not.

Edited by Laurent
Link to post
Share on other sites

THe more I think about this the less certain I am that a review section would work.

Going back to my example of the Kinetic Viper kit, I have access to the kit and PUBLISHED photo sources, I don't have line drawings or walk arounds that I had personally taken nor hands on experience, nor photoshop to play with. That would mean that I would be unqualified to review what is in the box on the sprues or after building one. Even those who are knowledgeable enough sometimes don't post pics so that they can back up critisisms - such as the Kinetic A/B Viper's tail base being 'too wide' - I have seen this mentioned but I still have yet to see a pic to see if we are talking about something noticible or not on a 48th scale kit.

What would happen if a reviewer who has the 'credentials' to do a 'proper' accuracy review has an axe to grind against a company? The dreaded 'If it's not Tamiya then it's crap' arguments we see around here occasionally?

Since the cease fire agreement at the end of the Kinetic Wars, the review threads on both sides of No Mans's Land have gotten more civil and less contentious, though sniping and the occasional artillery exchange continue to happen.

The benefits of a 'proper' review thread may not outweigh the negative aspects of limiting discussion. I think that it may just come down to the mods keeping track of threads and ourselves acting more as a self governing body with each poster being responsible for his own actions with the mods having to step in only as a last resort.

A great example of a nuts and bolts rivet counting thread was Dave Roof's thread on the Trumpy Harrier over on Large Scale Planes, for as long as I followed it (I have little chance I will ever buy let alone build a 32nd Harrier) it was handled in the way that many around here seem to want a review handled.

http://forum.largescaleplanes.com/index.ph...&hl=harrier

So in the spirit of some of our Democratic representatives here Stateside I would like to publicly announce that I would like to change my vote on this earth shaking issue from a yeah to a nay.

Matt

Edited by Matt Roberts
Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted no, because, as others have noted, there is plenty of info about kits on ARC. Kits are "reviewed" all the time on the Jets, Props, Helicopter, etc. boards. Plus, you can follow what people are building in the various Group Builds or the In Progress section.

No need to have another section.

Plus, it will concentrate all the bad juju into one place...surefire way to create flamewars of epic proportions.

<_<

Mike

Link to post
Share on other sites
The rules are real simple. Those who want to nitpick kits are free to.

But where do you draw the line? And what actually constitutes "nitpicking"?

I don't consider myself a nitpicker, I just merely want as accurate model as possible. It doesn't have to be 100% perfect, as long as the flaws are minor or can't be seen very easily. But since a scale model is supposed to be as accurate rendition of the real world as possible, how can it be bad to point out the possible flaws on a model kit if it's done in a civilized way? It doesn't have to be flammatory.

I believe there is room for both views in a one single forum.

Link to post
Share on other sites
THe more I think about this the less certain I am that a review section would work.

Going back to my example of the Kinetic Viper kit, I have access to the kit and PUBLISHED photo sources, I don't have line drawings or walk arounds that I had personally taken nor hands on experience, nor photoshop to play with. That would mean that I would be unqualified to review what is in the box on the sprues or after building one. Even those who are knowledgeable enough sometimes don't post pics so that they can back up critisisms - such as the Kinetic A/B Viper's tail base being 'too wide' - I have seen this mentioned but I still have yet to see a pic to see if we are talking about something noticible or not on a 48th scale kit.

What would happen if a reviewer who has the 'credentials' to do a 'proper' accuracy review has an axe to grind against a company? The dreaded 'If it's not Tamiya then it's crap' arguments we see around here occasionally?

Since the cease fire agreement at the end of the Kinetic Wars, the review threads on both sides of No Mans's Land have gotten more civil and less contentious, though sniping and the occasional artillery exchange continue to happen.

The benefits of a 'proper' review thread may not outweigh the negative aspects of limiting discussion. I think that it may just come down to the mods keeping track of threads and ourselves acting more as a self governing body with each poster being responsible for his own actions with the mods having to step in only as a last resort.

A great example of a nuts and bolts rivet counting thread was Dave Roof's thread on the Trumpy Harrier over on Large Scale Planes, for as long as I followed it (I have little chance I will ever buy let alone build a 32nd Harrier) it was handled in the way that many around here seem to want a review handled.

http://forum.largescaleplanes.com/index.ph...&hl=harrier

So in the spirit of some of our Democratic representatives here Stateside I would like to publicly announce that I would like to change my vote on this earth shaking issue from a yeah to a nay.

Matt

Yup, this is how i would like to see a review done. If the comments about pricing, why Trumpeter ( or any other maker ) does thing certain ways, technical questions about different variants etc. were left out it would be perfect. Sticking to the kit vs. real thing comparison would allow me to make the choice whether the kit with its plus and minuses would be worth buying. We have other forums available on ARC to discuss technical questions, pricing/business practices, variants. For me, a kit review should be just that, nothing else. JMO

Don

Link to post
Share on other sites

The way that a Kit Review section would work is if the reviewers and respondents unbiasedly described the flaws in the kit...along with pictures. If the threads end up going into a mud-slinging anti-kit manufacturer rant...then you have a useless forum section. And above all...please...if you don't feel like you want to be "obsessive compulsive" to the point of superdetailing...and 100% accuracy...don't flame the forum with comments of "I'm happy with the kit the way it is...why don't you get a life...and just build it for the sake of building it." If the "Kit Review" forum is to succeed, we have to take the critical comments of the kit as well. Just don't get into a mud-slinging anti-TamiTrumpyMonoItaFixGawa...rant. OK...simple as that.

Edited by The_Animal
Link to post
Share on other sites
But where do you draw the line? And what actually constitutes "nitpicking"?

Where does "the line" come from? If a kit has a flaw, it has a flaw. Wet is wet and there doesn't seem to be any question about that. The discussion should be oriented to fixes and corrections.

Ken

Link to post
Share on other sites
Where does "the line" come from? If a kit has a flaw, it has a flaw. Wet is wet and there doesn't seem to be any question about that.

One of the more intense "flame wars" I can remember was between two detail oriented individuals, each basing their position on photos of the real thing. It went across at least two websites and seemed to go on forever. As Alvis pointed out above, what is accurate isn't always black and white.

Regards,

Murph

Link to post
Share on other sites
Instead of a proper review forum, how about a rivet counters forum? A place where someone can go and ask "I just picked up (or am thinking about picking up) this kit and are there any issues or flaws with it?" without subjecting those who don't want to hear it to the discussion. The rules are real simple. Those who want to nitpick kits are free to. Those who don't are free to skip the forum altogether.

Ken

Unfortunately, I think that's what this is all really about. A desire by the non-nitpickers to segregate the so-called nitpickers into a separate area so that they won't be "bothered" by having to see their posts. The belief that somehow ARC would be better for the them and others if these guys could be placed in their own area with others of their own kind. I have to respectfully disagree for a couple of reasons. First, I'm generally against any attempt to pigeonhole people and keep them apart, plus I don't think it really is that much of a problem. Other sites don't do it, so I don't see it as being necessary here. Second, it won't really work. All the "nitpicker" comments won't be limited to their special area. People will still make the same kind of comments in the regular forums, and things might go out of hand, not out of malice, but as a normal part of a discussion. What will happen then? Will people be reporting comments as nitpicks and asking that they be deleted or moved over to the special forum? That seems like a recipe for even more division and more work for the moderators.

I voted yes. I'd like a moderated and dedicated ARC subforum or forum on which accuracy can be properly discussed. "It looks like a..." posts would be removed because they don't bring anything to the discussion. "This thingy looks wrong" posts would also be removed unless a proper argumentation using real aircraft pics and reliable drawings is given. Experts of a subject would also comply to these rules. No "this kit sucks" post, just "I've noticed this, this and that... here are the pics that seem to confirm the points" posts. The reader can decide if the points are important to him or not.

Aren't all of the forums here moderated? It seems like we are talking about creating a forum or forums that we know will be contentious and have to have a lot of rules (which will be contentious on their own), so we expect a lot of time and effort from the moderators to keep within all the rules that people think should be set up to keep things how they should be. I have to ask, does this seems like the right thing to do? It doesn't to me.

There is one advantage with the static type reviews like on the ARC home page, as well as over at HS, MM, LSP, etc. Namely, all you can do is take them as they are, without controversy. I think that if you do reviews in dynamic forum, what may happen is that people start critiquing the reviews, directly or indirectly. If someone does a review, and says a kit is great, and then someone else posts below that there are issues, some may see that as basically saying that the reviewer didn't do a good job because they missed some items. Of course, the mods can edit out comments, but once you start editing out valid comments, doesn't that take away for the concept of a review forum, which is to provide information for people who might want to buy a kit?

Sorry guys, I think the answer is to just get along and if you see something that you don't like, just move on. Expecting the forums to change to match how you would like it to be won't work because there too many different, but valid, opinions of how things should be.

Edited by Dave Williams
Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately, I think that's what this is all really about. A desire by the non-nitpickers to segregate the so-called nitpickers into a separate area so that they won't be "bothered" by having to see their posts.

I supported this for precisely the opposite reason. I'd like the nitpicking to be put into a safe place where it can thrive and inform those of us who value it, without persecution...

Patrick

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry guys, I think the answer is to just get along and if you see something that you don't like, just move on.

A quick look at posts #3 & 4 in the Trumpeter rant thread will sum up just how well that has worked over the years.

And there's already segregation here. One of the forums I rarely if ever visit is the jets forum-not because I don't care for the guys who build jets but because I have little if any interest in it. I haven't even touched helicopters, space, manufacturers... Everyone participates in their own little community here in the ARC world, officially sanctioned by the site owner himself. A "nitpickers" forum will not only provide a place for that particular community but spare the moderators the trouble of chasing around all the forums cleaning up threads that turn into a rivetcounter vs. shutupnbuildit war.

And keep in mind that I have no horse in this race. I can get my kit accuracy reports from Modeling Madness or discussion on Hyperscale (even tho this problem comes up there from time to time too). I'm making observations based on participating in and learning from all the scale modeling forums I've been participating in for these past 10ish years. Some things will never change but nothing will ever change if someone doesn't try.

Ken

Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't vote - but as an occasional visitor, just wanted to chime in with some thoughts.

Reviews are great, but need to follow a "format" so they all cover the criteria needed.

Here's something to consider:

Subject: Hawker Hurricane

Manufacturer: Hasegawa

Scale: 1/48

Kit No: JT-020

Review Date: 3/22/2004

SRP @ Review Date: $27.00

Reviewer: Joe Smuccotelli

Parts Used In Kit: 87

Spare Parts After Build: 6

Figures Included: 0

Resin Parts Included: 0

PE Parts Included: 0

Other Parts Included: 0

Describe the kit packaging, instructions, decals, and paper goods:

> Number of markings included:

> Pages of instructions:

> Quality/style of instructions (pure pictures, text, image quality, errors?):

Describe the kit mold quality:

> Accuracy of shapes as compared to ________ resource(s):

> Count of mold flaws from mold imperfections (steps, bubbles, shorts, sinks, etc):

> Detail fidelity as compared to ______ photographic resource(s):

Quantify the fit:

> Count the locations and amounts of filing to fit:

> Count the locations and amounts of filling with putty:

> Count the locations and amounts of reshaping parts for fit alone:

> Count the locations and numbers of parts replaced:

> Count the reasons, locations, and numbers of parts damaged:

> Count the locations and numbers of clamps and other holding/jigging devices required:

Describe the accuracy:

> Identify the locations and amounts of filing or filling to proper shape:

> Identify the locations and numbers of parts replaced due to accuracy or detail:

> Identify the reasons, locations, and numbers of decals that were unusable:

> Identify the reasons, locations, and numbers of kit instruction color references that were unusable:

If you had an online form that a builder could start filling out during a build, then submit a final form as a review with some free-form text fields (limit the size, filter the text to keep the hooligans out, and require moderation to ensure the reviews meet the criteria) and image uploads, etc - and some fields are "mandatory" fields, it could all be kept in a database that we could all contribute to - it might be really useful info. Think of an online purchase form, but the fields all ask for info for a model review, and each piece of data is a data point in the review. Honestly, this would make a completely searchable DB that would be an invaluable modelers' resource.

That's my 2±

Link to post
Share on other sites
I voted no.... i don't want to sound down with ARC, but there are other pages entirely dedicated to kit reviews like Cybermodeler for starters, and it's as easy to type ''XXXXXXX XXXX X/XX review'' on Google and many entries will appear.
Ah... But how many are designed to become searchable databases? That, I beleive, would make all the difference in the world. Set a standard and make it so. So a guy can look for Bell aircraft - what kits are made? Ah - and how many in 1/48 scale? Oh, and how many fixed-wing? How about after-market sets? Hey, and of the after-market sets, are there any reviews? Man, it'd be SUPER-impressive, especially if your vendors had direct links to their sites so the guy looking at the kit could shop directly from that page, using that same search criteria.

Think of the awesomeness THAT would bring. Advertisers would pay more to have their link added to your reviews - DBs talking to other DBs. Get an out-of-work DB programmer who knows PHP to whip something up and you could have your review shell in less than two weeks.

Or we can all continue to gripe about unfair "virtual kitbash" reviews a while longer and (still) not resolve anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

See now, I think I should be able to say...

I've looked and built the xxxxxx Mustang and frankly its a piece of crap that looks like a piece of crap obviously based on crappy research.

Everyone can agree or disagree, ...that's not the problem. It's the ensuing personal insults and the ever escalating vileness of the conversations that are the problem. But you shouldn't delete my post because i say it's crappy crap.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Think of the awesomeness THAT would bring. Advertisers would pay more to have their link added to your reviews

I sincerely doubt most manufacturers would pay to link to the type of reviews folks are talking about in this thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisers would pay more to have their link added to your reviews

No they won't.

Get an out-of-work DB programmer who knows PHP to whip something up...

Why an out of work developer? You just that cheap and think they'll take anything amount you throw at them? If, as you claim, advertisers will pay for it, then why short change the guy who's going to be the labor setting it up? Wow. I mean really... wow.

...and you could have your review shell in less than two weeks.

LMFAO :cheers::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Oh man, that's some funny **** right there. That's up there with some of the best from Clients from Hell

Edited by Trigger
Link to post
Share on other sites
No they won't.
Maybe the clients won't pay more. But if you had reviews that brought the visitor straight to the point of sale in their website, the visitor would be more likely to start shopping there than by using popup ads or just the front page banners.

Bah, what do I know? Just thought my asinine opinions were just as valid as anyone else's here. Meh, it appears they are.

Why an out of work developer? You just that cheap and think they'll take anything amount you throw at them? If, as you claim, advertisers will pay for it, then why short change the guy who's going to be the labor setting it up? Wow. I mean really... wow.

LMFAO :cheers::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

No, actually, if they're out of work and willing to do it, they might not have some boss breathing down their necks to finish their projects at work. Too bad you'd assume a sinister plot in my mind.
Oh man, that's some funny **** right there. That's up there with some of the best from Clients from Hell
It's certainly not ridiculous, as I'm sure there have been other projects that are similar that could be ported over to this application. I'm no expert on the subject but have been part of several rollouts of web applications, and I've observed several others. I know that some PHP programmers are often willing to do the work as volunteers for projects in which they beleive. I have seen some of them develop some really slick stuff in a matter of days, and they tweaked and massaged it pretty well in a couple of weeks - and at about one month, it was golden, requiring only minor maintenance or updates.
Link to post
Share on other sites

hi ReiShikiSenGuy

about your proposition,

though... i'm not sure it will bring any new income to ARC owners...(they knows better than me if it could...)

...by the kind of reviews that you might find there... (not always incitating to purchase...)

...but it is not impossible. who really knows? times are changing, manufacturers will have to be more dynamic to survive.

we are what, 15000 registered ARC users... isn't that a little nice market?

anyway, even without any cashable advantage, i'm still for a dedicated review forum.

i'll save time not to dig in other forums...(when i open the jet modelling forum, i see 10 topics at first glance... 4 could be related with review forum... others are questions like: "how to add AIM-120's" , "Fighter Jet Movies" (???sould it rather be in general discussion?), "iranian f-4's ECM pod"... and so on... )

i would really love to see reviews/kit critique being put together...

*Edited by Alvis 3.1 for un-necessary comments*

Edited by Alvis 3.1
Link to post
Share on other sites
I sincerely doubt most manufacturers would pay to link to the type of reviews folks are talking about in this thread.

Why is that? There are a lot of good kits out there.

Ken

Link to post
Share on other sites

One problem is that the search feature of these forums is pretty wonky. If you have a review forum that is the same as the reset of the forums, putting in something like "F-15" or "1/48" will result in no hits.

Compare that to the reviews that are on the front page. Hit the review button at the top of the home page, and you go to a page where the reviews are in alphabetical order, and the text on the page is searchable using your browser's search function. Also, if advertisers did want to link to reviews, it would be easier to put ads or links on a web page than in a forum posting.

Aside from all the arguments about nitpickets vs. non-nitpickers, changing to a forum for reviews seems like a step backwards in a number of ways for usability.

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!

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...