What do we want in Member Reviews?

[Peaksy68]

I thought I'd raise this, as we seem to be getting a bit over the top in our reviews.

 

A few points from my perspective.

 

1. We aren't professional reviewers. 

 

2. Photos

 

3. Updated links

 

4. Updates if delays occur

 

5. Reviews actually are done (thankfully the vast majority are)

[Peaksy68]

To expand on a few things.

 

1. I want to see and hear reviews from fellow regular golfers. It's great to see polished reviews, but not all of us have the writing or IT skills to produce a glossy review. 

The most important parts of a review for me are the following:

Do you like it?

Is it better than what you already had?

Would you buy/recommend this?

 

2. I want to see comparative photos, and pics of clubs at address. Unless packaging is substandard, I don't really need to see a pic of a golf club shipping box. Some reviews have so many photos that it makes it extremely difficult to view on phones or tablets.

 

3. Inoperative links make it extremely difficult to read different stages. I don't see a point of the links being put on the opening post if they aren't activated. This is particularly pertinent in photo heavy reviews.

 

4. Let us all know if your review is held up for some reason. I'm guilty of a slower than ideal review (about a 2 weeks behind) I'd been sick and didn't play. I should have shown my fellow Golf Spys the respect of letting them know things were held up. (Kudos by the way for delay updates in JPX Iron reviews) People are really interested to hear what you think, keep us in the loop.

 

5. Thankfully reviews not being done at all is rare. It seems to happen every few reviews, and I don't know what can be done about it. Unfortunately for me, the Cobra Single Length Iron review is one I've been waiting on.

 

Hopefully our reviews don't become so unwieldy that people are scared of volunteering to review for fear of not being professional enough. 

[kardboard.kid]

That is a very well thought out request. Having only completed one a few weeks ago, there was for me a big concern to get it right. My next review, should I be chosen for one will definitely look different. Although each person's style has to come through the review to keep it genuine.

 

Sent from my XT1635-01 using MyGolfSpy mobile app

[null]

I don't think people should be intimidated by someone else's review. My style is to take it's very seriously and to provide as much information and context as possible. I want my photos to be as professional as possible.

 

I didn't apply for the MGS staff writer job because I know I don't have the time to review clubs and write articles on a regular basis. However, when I do throw my name in the hat for a forum review, I am committing to go all in on a standard I hold myself to - not just the bare minimum put forth in the templates.

 

But that is my decision and that is the true beauty of forum reviews: they aren't and shouldn't be cookie cutter.

 

I agree that reviewers should engage the readers, but it's a two-way street. I've asked, in all of my forum reviews, for people to ask me questions or tell me specific things they'd like me to cover and I've received very little interaction in return.

[STUDque]

I look at it this way, everyone's got their own way of constructing a review. Some write a lot, some write a little, some take photos, some take videos, some use data, some use feelings, some players are good, some players are bad. Etc etc etc.

 

 

The beauty of the forum member reviews is you're empowered to make it your own and deliver the message as you see fit. It's certainly never seen as a competition. IMO, the only thing that could be intimidating to prospective members is the actual commitment (time and effort) it takes to put together a review.

 

 

The admins bust their butts selecting reviewers to ensure an even mix and I think they do a pretty good job. I just don't see a benefit to asking reviewers limit themselves and their abilities for fear of intimidating others.

 

 

 

I'll definitely agree that reviewers need to actually do the work. There's no excuse for working the system. Unfortunately, bad eggs are still going to exist and will act selfishly without remorse......just like in everyday life.

 

 

The only gripe I have with the system (which echos jlukes) is that the interaction isn't quite as high as I'd like. There's usually a flurry of activity when reviewers post their stages but very little ongoing conversations. The Skycaddie review is one that comes to mind of a thread that keeps on giving. They're still rocking and rolling well after the "job" has been completed and that's directly tied to member interaction.

 

 

Sent from carrier pigeon using MyGolfSpy

[Peaksy68]

I think non functioning links hurt the feedback/question side as well, it can be very difficult to read reviews, especially on tablet or phone when the internet connection is slow. It jumps all over the place!

 

I do love the reviews that keep on going, and I think the unofficial reviews are sensational. 

 

This is by no means meant to knock reviewers, more about what we want to see, both from reviewers and reviewees (added a new word!) It's good to hear that reviewers want more questions asked. 

[Golfspy_CG2]

To Jlukes and STUDque comment about lack of questions to those who have done reviews. I felt that way a bit about the EVNROLL putter review I was part of

 

Then I thought about it as I was reading reviews on other products, by the time 2 to 4 people have written 2 or sometimes three stages, most questions have probably been answered within the review.

 

Sure there may be one or two specific points that are brought up. But I think most things I wanted to know were covered by the throrough reviews.

 

But from a reviewer stsmdpoint it is nice to get questuon or hear comments good or bad about the review.

[chemclub]

I'm guilty of reading a lot of reviews and not really commenting. 

 

Especially when it comes to clubs, there is so much feel involved in your experience with the club that asking and answering questions can be tough and very subjective.

 

Descriptions that focus on forgiveness and other more tangible performance aspects are often included in the review so don't need more comment. Plus one man's forgiving is another man's impossible to hit.

 

I didn't have time to throw my name in for testing this summer, but maybe one day I will get to do it again. As many on here know, the clubs actually aren't free.

[GolfSpy Barbajo]

Thanks for posting this -- at the end of the year we generally rip up the blueprint and start with a clean slate by asking "if we were start a forum member review program, what would it look like?"  I think you'll see some tweaks and changes next season, but let me start by asking some questions...

 

1. For those of you who have reviewed - is the process too involved, too superficial or just right?

 

2. Are the templates too complicated? Do we ask too much of you? If this year was your first time reviewing, was the process clear enough? 

 

3. How many testers do you think is the right number for each review? 

 

4.What are your thoughts on the 3-stage process? Do we need Stage 3?

 

Any thoughts you have, please  post - we'd love to hear your feedback.

 

Some personal observations....

 

1. In each of the past 3 years, we've started out like gangbusters with lots of enthusiasm for new equipment and the new golf season.

 

2. That enthusiasm does start to wane as we get into late summer. We like to spread out the reviewers and give as many people as we can a chance, but we also like to reward loyal and active forum participants.  Later in the year the review items aren't quite so brand new as they were in the spring, and the enthusiasm for doing the reviews and reading the reviews, I think, starts to dwindle.

 

3. The links - oh yes, a pet peeve of mine as well.  

 

4. 2017 was a banner year for review opportunities - we had one a week for a period of about 4 months. That's a lot of reviews, and a lot of reviewers needed.  We have a lot of members, and this year the number of active members grew substantially, which is great - thank you all for that!  Through it all, we've been very lucky that only a very few have taken their products and disappeared - scummy thing to do, but don't worry, we have a "no fly" list 

 

5. We're going to simplify things like ball tests and other accessories - I'm thinking quicker, shorter, faster and easier to read. Tech stuff like GPS and shot tracking gear will necessarily be a little in depth, and clubs will be the most in-depth.

 

6. Did you guys enjoy the Cobra Connect Challenge? I think that was a slightly different way of doing a review, and the interaction was fun. Would you like to see  more of that? I don't think it can be every review, but it might be a fun way to spice of a few during the season...let me know what you think...

 

7. Thoughts on the application process? 

 

Any other ideas you guys have - please share them either here or send me a PM. This is a process that's constantly evolving and  we're trying to keep things in balance with a largely volunteer staff. We try to do our best for you guys - sometimes we stumble tho, and there are always ways to improve. 

 

Thanks!!!

[Peaksy68]

A restructure of the review section would make finding things much easier.

 

Perhaps sub sections for the following

1. Application threads

2. Drivers

3. Fairways and hybrids

4. Irons

5. Wedges

6. Putters

7. Balls

8.Tech and Accessories

Maybe a separate section for unofficial reviews?

 

If these were grouped under a banner for each year it would make navigation much easier. Whether the effort to set it up like that would be worthwhile, I'm not sure, but it could be worth considering.

 

I like the first 2 stages, in particular it's great to get some information about the reviewer, both golfing and personal. Maybe stage 2 could be split into 1st impressions and more depth to follow, perhaps incorporating parts of stage 3.

 

I enjoyed the Cobra connect challenge, although it was hard to get into it fully when several "reviewers" were really only present in application threads prior to the challenge. It must be difficult to balance out encouraging new members and rewarding long term members for their input. I've seen other forums become closed clubs, and I rarely venture onto them anymore.

[tommc23]

The cobra connect seemed to be very busy this year which was good to see. I saw a few reviews where there was no stage 3 because they had everything in their stage 2. Maybe change up the stage 2 so there is a stage 3 or even give it a different name. I agree with peaksy maybe if we could get guys to come back after a few months once the honeymoon is done and give their thoughts.

 

Sent from my SM-G950U using MyGolfSpy mobile app

[yungkory]

Thanks for posting this -- at the end of the year we generally rip up the blueprint and start with a clean slate by asking "if we were start a forum member review program, what would it look like?"  I think you'll see some tweaks and changes next season, but let me start by asking some questions...

 

1. For those of you who have reviewed - is the process too involved, too superficial or just right?

 

2. Are the templates too complicated? Do we ask too much of you? If this year was your first time reviewing, was the process clear enough? 

 

3. How many testers do you think is the right number for each review? 

 

4.What are your thoughts on the 3-stage process? Do we need Stage 3?

 

Any thoughts you have, please  post - we'd love to hear your feedback.

 

Some personal observations....

 

1. In each of the past 3 years, we've started out like gangbusters with lots of enthusiasm for new equipment and the new golf season.

 

2. That enthusiasm does start to wane as we get into late summer. We like to spread out the reviewers and give as many people as we can a chance, but we also like to reward loyal and active forum participants.  Later in the year the review items aren't quite so brand new as they were in the spring, and the enthusiasm for doing the reviews and reading the reviews, I think, starts to dwindle.

 

3. The links - oh yes, a pet peeve of mine as well.  

 

4. 2017 was a banner year for review opportunities - we had one a week for a period of about 4 months. That's a lot of reviews, and a lot of reviewers needed.  We have a lot of members, and this year the number of active members grew substantially, which is great - thank you all for that!  Through it all, we've been very lucky that only a very few have taken their products and disappeared - scummy thing to do, but don't worry, we have a "no fly" list 

 

5. We're going to simplify things like ball tests and other accessories - I'm thinking quicker, shorter, faster and easier to read. Tech stuff like GPS and shot tracking gear will necessarily be a little in depth, and clubs will be the most in-depth.

 

6. Did you guys enjoy the Cobra Connect Challenge? I think that was a slightly different way of doing a review, and the interaction was fun. Would you like to see  more of that? I don't think it can be every review, but it might be a fun way to spice of a few during the season...let me know what you think...

 

7. Thoughts on the application process? 

 

Any other ideas you guys have - please share them either here or send me a PM. This is a process that's constantly evolving and  we're trying to keep things in balance with a largely volunteer staff. We try to do our best for you guys - sometimes we stumble tho, and there are always ways to improve. 

 

Thanks!!!

 

1&2 - I think what is asked of reviewers is fair. I know it's hard for the mods to keep up with, but I agree that the forum member reviews section could use some cleaning. The pinned threads almost extend the entire default view, the JPX 900 application thread is pinned still, but the actual thread isn't, etc. Not complaining, just making note.

 

3. Don't know the answer to that, so I'll just say more than 1 so we have a chance to at least find someone who likes whatever is being tested, and someone who does not.

 

4. Stage 3 just seems like a TL;DR post. I think it would be helpful to maybe use it as a way for reviewers to answer questions in-line. Don't know if IP board supports it, but if there was a tagging feature on the forums where you can "tag" someone in a post to let them know you're replying - that would be pretty cool. Then, you can keep questions and answers within the reviewer's already reserved portion of the thread. If you were reading the review for the first time, it would help you see if a question was asked/answered already, without needing to read a (potentially) huge thread with 200+ replies.

[STUDque]

I really like where this thread is headed. Thanks for chiming in Barbajo. Here's my responses:

 

1. I think it's very well done. You can tell it's undergone a few iterations. To me, the level of detail requested is just right.

2. I wouldn't say the templates are complicated but I would say they need to be tailored better. There should be different criteria for irons/woods/putters etc. I read a lot of reviews this year where statements like "well this doesn't really apply to X, but here goes anyway." To that end, I think you could do away with the player introduction in stage 2 since that's basically what stage 1 is.

3. The number of testers needs to be different for each test. I don't think the criteria can be one size fits all. As a base template, a high/mid/low capper is a good place to start. I also don't think the mods should have to put together a full review. They have enough work to do as is. If you really want a "professional" opinion, they could do a truncated stage 2 but I tend to think the forum reviews could survive with member comments only. If anything, the mods could just try to be extra active in that thread so they're a catalyst for the ongoing conversation. People pay attention whenever they see that GolfSpy tag posting.

4. I'm cool with the process and the purpose: introduction, test, follow-up. Stage 3 could roll into stage 2 then make all new questions that are geared more towards long term follow up. Many times, the stage 2 reviews only have a handful of course rounds under their belt. 3 really should be there so reviewers have the opportunity to note if their opinion has changed or stayed the same of the product over the long haul.

 

 

 

6. Cobra Connect was AWESOME. I'm not really on social media but it seems like that whole challenge blew up across all platforms. Any way you guys could reproduce that success would be amazing.

7. I think the application process could add a step to ease the load on mods. A survey to gauge true level of interest. You could pick X number of applicants, send them all surveys, then choose your testers from there. It doesn't have to be super involved, but more like an expansion on the application. Those who don't even bother with the survey are a bullet dodged. I know the mods always talk about how long it takes to decide on who to choose so I tend to think this could help.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[JudgeSmails]

1. For those of you who have reviewed - is the process too involved, too superficial or just right?   I think it's just right, but any process can be improved.  It should be involved, and there should be some hard work put into it by the reviewer.  

 

2. Are the templates too complicated? Do we ask too much of you? If this year was your first time reviewing, was the process clear enough?   Templates are very important.   We need a guideline to work off of, even if it's not something that needs to be followed 100%.   Sometimes, it's those first words that are the hardest part, a good template helps us get going.   I will say there is some repetition between Stage 1 and Stage 2 that could probably be cut down.

 

3. How many testers do you think is the right number for each review?   I think it depends on the product....When it comes to clubs, it's nice to have a mix of handicaps and ages I believe.   What works well for a 5, might not work well for a 15.   When reading the reviews, I try to pay special attention to the ones coming from golfers I believe to be on a similar skill level to me.

 

4.What are your thoughts on the 3-stage process? Do we need Stage 3?  I think stage 3 is important, 'you gave it great review, but a while later, is it still in the bag?'....I think the problem with Stage 3 is, by that time, the thread is getting so old, I"m not sure how many people are actually reading it anymore.

 

 

Just my 0.02

[null]

 

1. For those of you who have reviewed - is the process too involved, too superficial or just right?   I think it's just right, but any process can be improved.  It should be involved, and there should be some hard work put into it by the reviewer.  

 

2. Are the templates too complicated? Do we ask too much of you? If this year was your first time reviewing, was the process clear enough?   Templates are very important.   We need a guideline to work off of, even if it's not something that needs to be followed 100%.   Sometimes, it's those first words that are the hardest part, a good template helps us get going.   I will say there is some repetition between Stage 1 and Stage 2 that could probably be cut down.

 

3. How many testers do you think is the right number for each review?   I think it depends on the product....When it comes to clubs, it's nice to have a mix of handicaps and ages I believe.   What works well for a 5, might not work well for a 15.   When reading the reviews, I try to pay special attention to the ones coming from golfers I believe to be on a similar skill level to me.

 

4.What are your thoughts on the 3-stage process? Do we need Stage 3?  I think stage 3 is important, 'you gave it great review, but a while later, is it still in the bag?'....I think the problem with Stage 3 is, by that time, the thread is getting so old, I"m not sure how many people are actually reading it anymore.

 

 

Just my 0.02

 

 

Pretty much agree with everything here.  I do think Stage 3 is important, but I don't think it has to be formal.  I think it is better served for the reviewer to post constant updates in the thread (as individual posts) to keep the discussion going and to keep the review thread fresh with content.  I think by the time stage 3 rolls around, readers are more likely to read individual posts as they come up rather than go back in the thread to read a formalized Stage 3.  For example - when pertinent, I still make posts in the Sun Mountain and EvnRoll threads and I plan to do the same for the Mizuno irons as well.

[Mr_Theoo]

Thanks for posting this -- at the end of the year we generally rip up the blueprint and start with a clean slate by asking "if we were start a forum member review program, what would it look like?"  I think you'll see some tweaks and changes next season, but let me start by asking some questions...

 

1. For those of you who have reviewed - is the process too involved, too superficial or just right? I feel like its just right, each reviewer kinda puts their own stamp on it. They can go as deep as they want or as the readers would like them to go.

 

2. Are the templates too complicated? Do we ask too much of you? If this year was your first time reviewing, was the process clear enough? Maybe might be the best answer because sometimes life gets in the way. I know with my hogan review I had clear plans of how i wanted to go about it and then ended up spending 4 months in the hosptial so those plans got thrown out the window lol But when I've had the time to do it how i plan i feel its a great template for me to use.

 

3. How many testers do you think is the right number for each review? 

 

4.What are your thoughts on the 3-stage process? Do we need Stage 3? I think it's nice to have that slot if someone wants to do a stage 3 or if its like a set of irons or driver and they change shafts or something like that they can kind of use that space as like an updated review. Especially if they gave the product low marks.

 

Any thoughts you have, please  post - we'd love to hear your feedback.

 

Some personal observations....

 

1. In each of the past 3 years, we've started out like gangbusters with lots of enthusiasm for new equipment and the new golf season.

 

2. That enthusiasm does start to wane as we get into late summer. We like to spread out the reviewers and give as many people as we can a chance, but we also like to reward loyal and active forum participants.  Later in the year the review items aren't quite so brand new as they were in the spring, and the enthusiasm for doing the reviews and reading the reviews, I think, starts to dwindle.

 

3. The links - oh yes, a pet peeve of mine as well.  

 

4. 2017 was a banner year for review opportunities - we had one a week for a period of about 4 months. That's a lot of reviews, and a lot of reviewers needed.  We have a lot of members, and this year the number of active members grew substantially, which is great - thank you all for that!  Through it all, we've been very lucky that only a very few have taken their products and disappeared - scummy thing to do, but don't worry, we have a "no fly" list 

 

5. We're going to simplify things like ball tests and other accessories - I'm thinking quicker, shorter, faster and easier to read. Tech stuff like GPS and shot tracking gear will necessarily be a little in depth, and clubs will be the most in-depth.

 

6. Did you guys enjoy the Cobra Connect Challenge? I think that was a slightly different way of doing a review, and the interaction was fun. Would you like to see  more of that? I don't think it can be every review, but it might be a fun way to spice of a few during the season...let me know what you think... I was excited for that but felt it was hard to keep up with what was going on. Maybe having a pinned thread that could have like a weekly update for those who might have missed some post and didnt have to page thru 3 or 4 pages to catch up?

 

7. Thoughts on the application process? 

 

Any other ideas you guys have - please share them either here or send me a PM. This is a process that's constantly evolving and  we're trying to keep things in balance with a largely volunteer staff. We try to do our best for you guys - sometimes we stumble tho, and there are always ways to improve. 

 

Thanks!!!

[chemclub]

Pretty much agree with everything here.  I do think Stage 3 is important, but I don't think it has to be formal.  I think it is better served for the reviewer to post constant updates in the thread (as individual posts) to keep the discussion going and to keep the review thread fresh with content.  I think by the time stage 3 rolls around, readers are more likely to read individual posts as they come up rather than go back in the thread to read a formalized Stage 3.  For example - when pertinent, I still make posts in the Sun Mountain and EvnRoll threads and I plan to do the same for the Mizuno irons as well.

 

I completely agree with this, especially in the case of Stage 3. IMHO, the best reviews also have good conversations to go along with them.

 

So here is a potentially bad idea... 

 

What if the review posts were just posted chronologically within the conversation thread?

 

1. The links in the mod post (first post) would need to be kept up to date.

2. Reviewers post them when they are ready and would feel pressured if a lot of conversation is happening around another reviewer's Stage 2.

3. Then when another Stage 2 drops, a conversation might spark up again.

4. It could make for a more natural read and conversation.

 

Downside? These reviews also serve golfers outside the community who might be looking for a review of equipment they search for in google. If the links aren't up to date, then it would be really difficult to find the reviews. Like I said, could be a really bad idea.

 

Possible to test this format in one single review next year.

 

Other comments.

 

People who take the equipment and run are unavoidable. As long as it is

 

The forum members section could definitely use some cleaning up and organization.

 

In general though, the reviews are really great, and we are all talking about improving a product we are mostly happy with. A big reason why I joined the first place.

[Kegger]

Thanks for posting this -- at the end of the year we generally rip up the blueprint and start with a clean slate by asking "if we were start a forum member review program, what would it look like?"  I think you'll see some tweaks and changes next season, but let me start by asking some questions...

 

1. For those of you who have reviewed - is the process too involved, too superficial or just right?

 

2. Are the templates too complicated? Do we ask too much of you? If this year was your first time reviewing, was the process clear enough? 

 

3. How many testers do you think is the right number for each review? 

 

4.What are your thoughts on the 3-stage process? Do we need Stage 3?

 

Any thoughts you have, please  post - we'd love to hear your feedback.

 

Some personal observations....

 

1. In each of the past 3 years, we've started out like gangbusters with lots of enthusiasm for new equipment and the new golf season.

 

2. That enthusiasm does start to wane as we get into late summer. We like to spread out the reviewers and give as many people as we can a chance, but we also like to reward loyal and active forum participants.  Later in the year the review items aren't quite so brand new as they were in the spring, and the enthusiasm for doing the reviews and reading the reviews, I think, starts to dwindle.

 

3. The links - oh yes, a pet peeve of mine as well.  

 

4. 2017 was a banner year for review opportunities - we had one a week for a period of about 4 months. That's a lot of reviews, and a lot of reviewers needed.  We have a lot of members, and this year the number of active members grew substantially, which is great - thank you all for that!  Through it all, we've been very lucky that only a very few have taken their products and disappeared - scummy thing to do, but don't worry, we have a "no fly" list 

 

5. We're going to simplify things like ball tests and other accessories - I'm thinking quicker, shorter, faster and easier to read. Tech stuff like GPS and shot tracking gear will necessarily be a little in depth, and clubs will be the most in-depth.

 

6. Did you guys enjoy the Cobra Connect Challenge? I think that was a slightly different way of doing a review, and the interaction was fun. Would you like to see  more of that? I don't think it can be every review, but it might be a fun way to spice of a few during the season...let me know what you think...

 

7. Thoughts on the application process? 

 

Any other ideas you guys have - please share them either here or send me a PM. This is a process that's constantly evolving and  we're trying to keep things in balance with a largely volunteer staff. We try to do our best for you guys - sometimes we stumble tho, and there are always ways to improve. 

 

Thanks!!!

 

1. For those of you who have reviewed - is the process too involved, too superficial or just right? I really enjoyed the review process and generally speaking, I don't think it is too involved or too superficial. While seeming very involved in the beginning, especially for your first review, the templates make for a very nice guideline and help to speed up the process tremendously.

 

2. Are the templates too complicated? Do we ask too much of you? If this year was your first time reviewing, was the process clear enough?  The templates are a must have in my opinion. It made the review process much easier. I will say this though, it would be nice, especially in the Stage 2, if all reviewers are using the same review and scoring template. In the KBS $-Taper review, a template was given, which I followed, and after I posted my Stage 2, a second template was offered ,which had a much better scoring template than the original, and some Stage 2's were based on this template. It would have been nice if the template had remained static during the process to keep continuity between the reviews.

 

3. How many testers do you think is the right number for each review? I don't think there is a correct number, but generally speaking, I think a mix of handicaps and/or swing speeds is best. The mix from what I have seen so far appears to have been pretty good and I wouldn't stray too far from it.

 

4.What are your thoughts on the 3-stage process? Do we need Stage 3? I like the idea of having a followup to the review. We all like new shiny things, and sometimes this can leak into a review. A followup is a good way to insure that the products are still working for the reviewer after the honeymoon period has worn off.

 

Skipping ahead slightly...

 

7. Thoughts on the application process? I might be somewhat biased here since I was chosen as a reviewer, but I think the application process is good. Limiting the information to just a few key points in the applications definitely seems like it will cut down on any unnecessary bloating of the threads and make them easier to navigate. As for how reviewers are chosen, I don't know the process used, but it does seem to be fair. I have been a lurker of MGS far longer than I have been a member, and it was actually the review that I was selected for that finally brought me to create an account. I am grateful that as a newbie of the forum I was still given the same opportunity as a long standing member. (Which I hope none of you regret after reading my posts/review!) But whether or not I had been selected, being able to submit an application (and be fairly considered) turned me from a lurker into an active participant.

[null]

I completely agree with this, especially in the case of Stage 3. IMHO, the best reviews also have good conversations to go along with them.

 

So here is a potentially bad idea...

 

What if the review posts were just posted chronologically within the conversation thread?

 

1. The links in the mod post (first post) would need to be kept up to date.

2. Reviewers post them when they are ready and would feel pressured if a lot of conversation is happening around another reviewer's Stage 2.

3. Then when another Stage 2 drops, a conversation might spark up again.

4. It could make for a more natural read and conversation.

 

Downside? These reviews also serve golfers outside the community who might be looking for a review of equipment they search for in google. If the links aren't up to date, then it would be really difficult to find the reviews. Like I said, could be a really bad idea.

 

Possible to test this format in one single review next year.

 

Other comments.

 

People who take the equipment and run are unavoidable. As long as it is

 

The forum members section could definitely use some cleaning up and organization.

 

In general though, the reviews are really great, and we are all talking about improving a product we are mostly happy with. A big reason why I joined the first place.

Whenever I post a review, I also make a post a link in the chronological thread so people can find it

[chemclub]

Whenever I post a review, I also make a post a link in the chronological thread so people can find it

that is actually how I like to read the threads. I follow the comments and then I go to the stages when updates appear in the thread. I find I following things easier that way.

 

Like I said, might not be a great idea for the general public.

[chemclub]

Barbajo, can you shed a little light on the selection process?

 

I understand there are a few selection criteria that have been mentioned in other threads.

 

But do you take all the names and through them in a hopper? It can't be purely random, can it?

 

Just trying to understand how the sausage is made.

[GolfSpy Barbajo]

Barbajo, can you shed a little light on the selection process?

 

I understand there are a few selection criteria that have been mentioned in other threads.

 

But do you take all the names and through them in a hopper? It can't be purely random, can it?

 

Just trying to understand how the sausage is made.

 

We have a database of reviewers and we know who has put effort into and who hasn't. We also have our "No Fly" list.  When we go through the applicants, we discount anyone without a profile picture - that's a non-starter. We also look at post count - if the only posts you've made are to apply for testing, your chances are not very good. 

 

After that, we look at attention to detail - did the applicant follow instructions or did they just say "pick me!"?  Did they include all the information we asked for?

 

Next, was there anything creative without going over the top? We like personality, but there's no need for a personal plea to be chosen...

 

Maybe the biggest criteria is are you trying? Do you have some posts other than review applications? Did you do a new member post? Have you contributed to a few threads? For forum vets who are consistent and productive contributors, your chances of getting chosen for something annually are very good. And if you donate, your chances are even better.

 

Tony started a thread a while ago on how testers will be chosen - it predates my time as forum director, but it's something we all go by when we choose. My favorite is "don't be a D-bag!"  We've also added some things to it.

 

And one final thing, anyone who applies in the blog and doesn't apply in the forum thread is once and forever disqualified. No matter how clear we make instructions, there are people who can't follow them!

 

There are other criteria that we follow, but it's usually product specific - but that's the gist of it. And, as always, we're looking for ways to improve.

[null]

Joe

New Jersey

112 mph swing speed

TaylorMade M2 Driver

 

So excited!

[tommc23]

Joe

New Jersey

112 mph swing speed

TaylorMade M2 Driver

 

So excited!

Preparing for next year already?

 

Sent from my SM-G950U using MyGolfSpy mobile app

[The Dansome]

Joe

New Jersey

112 mph swing speed

TaylorMade M2 Driver

 

So excited!

 

I'd been having an off couple days and this just brightened it all up.

[Peaksy68]

Joe

New Jersey

112 mph swing speed

TaylorMade M2 Driver

 

So excited!

 

Gold.

 

I don't know why I find the application after closing or in the wrong thread so amusing, but it never fails to make me smile.

[STUDque]

Gold.

 

I don't know why I find the application after closing or in the wrong thread so amusing, but it never fails to make me smile.

Yup! Those are super funny. Some of the applications are waayyyy late. Like stage 1 late.

 

The best ones are when I bump a 4 year old thread and people apply

 

 

Sent from carrier pigeon using MyGolfSpy

[tommc23]

Yup! Those are super funny. Some of the applications are waayyyy late. Like stage 1 late.

 

The best ones are when I bump a 4 year old thread and people apply

 

 

Sent from carrier pigeon using MyGolfSpy

That's gold after 4 years wow. I am glad that I'm not the only one who finds the last applications funny.

 

Sent from my SM-G950U using MyGolfSpy mobile app

[GolfJunkie302]

Wow, I missed a lot in the last 24 hours! Okay, my response to Barbajo's post:

 

1. The current review process seems pretty darn good.

2. The templates were not too complicated. This year was my first year reviewing a product and I found the process to be pretty straight forward. The level of commitment it currently takes to produce a solid review is very reasonable. I don't think we need to make the process any easier, really...

3. Three or four reviewers per product seems like a good number.

4. I don't feel that the stage 3 is necessary, but it does provide a good summary and conclusion. It seems like everyone already somewhat covers the same info in stage 2.

 

One thing to note: A benefit of selecting "well-known" members is reliability. In the test I did (Cleveland Huntington Beach putters), some guy just took of with the putter and never posted again. So in that sense, selecting reputable members usually will prevent that type of thing from happening...

 

Sent from my SM-T580 using MyGolfSpy mobile app

[GolfJunkie302]

Yup! Those are super funny. Some of the applications are waayyyy late. Like stage 1 late.

 

The best ones are when I bump a 4 year old thread and people apply

 

 

Sent from carrier pigeon using MyGolfSpy

"Hmm... I wonder why MGS is doing a TM R9 driver test in 2017..."

 

Sent from my SM-T580 using MyGolfSpy mobile app