Can I make a suggestion for the review calculations

[well01]

Obviously there are several factors that determine the total score. One part of the calculation is the "value". I think it would be interesting to see the "value" calculation changed to "current value".

 

Since the 9064ls is the best reviewed driver lets use that as an example. It was rated somewhere around 94 and I believe one of the comments in the review is that it would have been much higher but the "value" hurt the score. Obviously, it is currently a much better value as people can buy that driver for a pretty cheap price on ebay right now (a little over a $100 for a new driver). If "value" was changed to "current value" it would significantly change the score. I think this would help people also compare the newly released clubs to older clubs.

 

Just a thought....

[Moecat]

I believe that the review was done before the F11 release and current price drops, but to a certain degree that category is still pretty subjective

How you and I may perceive its value possibly differs from what a customer in Europe thinks of it. And a Chicago retailer could judge its value differently than a green grass pro shop in Tulsa. It's also easy to have one's judgment of the value of Adams' products clouded by the fact that their clubs haven't done very well historically when it comes to trade-ins (don't even get me started about the PGA "value" guide).

 

One could argue that if these reviews are to be more empirical and less biased, the authors could even do without a "value" category altogether, or at least be more rigorous in surveying a broader range of both customers and retailers when trying to assess product value.

 

Personally, I tend to gloss over the value category when reading a product review (especially when it's Golf Digest doing the review), but that's just me.

[Matt Saternus]

well01: I think that's a really good and interesting idea. I think the only problem is that it would be a bit of a logistical nightmare. How often would the reviews need to be updated? What about when a product goes out of production? As prices come down, then all the clubs move up and up in overall score, which pushes the new clubs down; will the casual reader assume the old clubs are better than the new ones?

 

I know that in writing my reviews, value is always the toughest thing to determine because it's very personal.

[Kanoito]

You can't always put a tag on value, like you guys said it's very subjective.

I think the best method would be informing the user about the item's current market value compared to other options.

 

For example:

 

X driver currently found for USD 299

Most expensive drivers with similar shaft, etc. found at USD 399

Cheapeast drivers found at USD 199

 

So by shedding out USD 299 you got best bang for buck (assuming all other categories in the review are scored A+)

 

If the consumer knows this, why would I buy a USD 399 driver when the USD 299 can deliver the same accuracy, distance, etc?

 

Or the opposite, let's say the X driver tested a B at USD 299. Then you got the expensive drivers at USD 399 with A+ results. By knowing how the X driver stands in price with the competitors, the consumer can decide if the extra USD 100 is worth the extra 10 yards, narrower shot dispersion, etc.

[Tony Covey MGS]

If you look through our more current reviews you'll see that we basically dropped the value category altogether. We basically determined that even accounting for a very small percentage of the overall score, it was essentially unfair. We found there were too many people who put a hard cap on value (for example anything over $200 was considered a rip off). Toss in the revolving price game that OEMs play and as Matt suggested, it quickly became largely unmanageable. I'm looking into some tweaks for the 2012 revision, but it's safe to say value won't be making a comeback.

[GolfSpy Dave]

Although it is subjective, I think that value is important in the non-club area as these items are not as likely to have a fire sale at the end of the season.

Plus, value is sometimes the real issue.

Case in point, the Prazza ball finder. It scores great in all other categories, but is so expensive that it kills any real chance of being purchased.

I also like to mix longevity in with value. How long and how often you use a training tool or whatever should effect the overall score.

[Matt Saternus]

T: I'm embarrassed that I didn't even realize value was out of the current reviews! I think for clubs that's the right move, for all the reasons you listed.

 

Dave: I think you're right, value is a key component for apparel, training aids, courses, etc. The prices of those things don't "carousel" as T put it. The problem, as we both know, is determining what has good value. So many components to value: price, effectiveness, longevity...

 

I welcome any thoughts on how to "objectify" value for apparel, training aids, etc.

[Kanoito]

Matt, I believe "objectifying" value for clubs is easier than other gadgets, since you can compare apples with apples.

[Tony Covey MGS]

Matt, I believe "objectifying" value for clubs is easier than other gadgets, since you can compare apples with apples.

 

Steven, it's easy to objectify cost with clubs, value...not so much. I would argue it's perhaps the most subjective of all the categories we've tried. Distance, accuracy, even look and feel have certain universal characteristics. When it comes to value, however; there are guys who won't rate a driver over $200 higher than a 5, or an iron set over $500 higher than a 6. Some will tell you there is value in a set of clones, while others would tell you that there is plenty of value in a $1600 set of Miuras. We've found we actually get better feedback when we take cost out of the equation.

[GolfSpy WD]

Taking cost out of the equation is fine, but it sort of slants reviews in favor of the major OEMs where a large portion of the cost is actually paying for their advertising, not necessarily the innovation of a club. It would be good to have the current MSRP posted in the conclusion. I know it's the first thing I look up after reading a review so that I can scale the overall rating based on my subjective view of cost.

[Kanoito]

T, you are right. I was assuming value = cost, which isn't always the case. My bad!

In that case, I think removing "value" from the reviews should be a good move.

[Tyk]

I like the subjective "value" feedback information, its is where you get an idea of tester's impressions and overall feel for a product. If they're good testers then that is important and fair information to include. Relative cost is also a factor. However, I think perhaps you should keep the value category but not use it to score a product. Have the score reflect empirical data and the subjective category of "value" can just be taken by the reader for what its worth.

[Tony Covey MGS]

I like the subjective "value" feedback information, its is where you get an idea of tester's impressions and overall feel for a product. If they're good testers then that is important and fair information to include. Relative cost is also a factor. However, I think perhaps you should keep the value category but not use it to score a product. Have the score reflect empirical data and the subjective category of "value" can just be taken by the reader for what its worth.

 

I'm going to be doing some minor tweaks and revisions for the 2012 product season (the last significant overhaul). In 2 years we've learned quite a bit. We've tried some things that worked better than expected, and discovered others that just don't work (in my mind anyway). While I've toyed with the idea of creating some sort of bang for the buck formula (distance minus accuracy divided by cost or something like that for drivers) ultimately I think our LOP category works as well as anything to try and quantify "value" (and it only counts for 10% of the subjective score).

 

As it turns out, getting a scoring system perfect is an impossibility (everything is arbitrary anyway eg why is a touchdown worth 6 points?), so I'm going to get it as close as I reasonably can and move on. We'll always welcome your suggestions for improvements, but at the end of the day, as long as we're consistent, and don't allow equipment providers to influence the results, we'll continue to be in a much better place than most.