Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2007 12:18:40 GMT
I'm sure any changes made to the system will be good but I don't think we should be getting to scientific about this. there are just too many problems involved.
for instance it is fine to change the performance requirments between japanese/euro swords but that doesn't mean every euro sword was intended to cut the same. a great sword for eg. would never be sharp enough to cut a waterbottle in half, but that doesn't mean it isn't good at the job it was intended for.( basically bashing your foe into submission) and we havn't even touched on Rapiers yet.
so my point is do we have different rating systems for every different type of sword or do we just keep it fun and try to inform people in a more personal way? if people need more info on a spesific sword they just come ask us here anyway? just my two cents.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2007 13:24:15 GMT
The more rules you make, the more you box yourself in.
The review format is fine like it is. All categories are covered, keep in mind that the template is just that, a template. I hope Mr Southren doesn't mind me saying so, but feel free to be as elaborate as you like. If you want more historical accuracy, state your reason as to why the weapon does not live up, back it with facts, and suggest ways to improve it. You should include vendor and price, and that will automatically give a context of what quality level to expect. I am a noob, but I can already (japanese swords) tell what price range equates to which quality level. There is no way to get an impartial review, short of paying an expert panel of 3 or more to review an item. We are the forumites that make up this forum, and thru interaction and discussion, we can establish who has a good idea of what to look for in a sword and who does not. Any information with pictures speaks lots. I would say add pics to your review, and be thorough. It is up to us to review objectively, and on swords we know about. The simple, user friendly format of reviews is what prompted my first review. Now I know that it was no gem, but it was simple enough for me to reseach and review and feel comfortable with submitting. Most of you will read that review, look at the # of my posts, take into account the content of my posts, and form your own opinion of the weapon being reviewed. I think if you make the review more complicated in its format, we will discourage participation from newer members, who could possibly give valid information. I have not read a review with pictures yet on this forum that I did not take something constructive from. If you want a more complex review, take it upon yourself to make it so from the format provided. Right now, no one is stopping anyone else from submitting a page review, or a ten page review on the same sword. These reviews are supplemental to the sword buying process. I personally would not encourage any persons to go and buy a sword based on any one members review. But I can say that I have taken interest in swords based on that review, and I will further research the product myself before I consider purchasing.
Keep it simple, and you will encourge new forumites to participate in the "friendliest sword forum on the web".
Have a good day, my friends.
Farmer
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2007 15:59:48 GMT
A good point raised there Jonathan. It is true that the focus of SBG reviews is quite different than at My Armoury. But it would not hurt to at least provide more info on how a sword compares to a historical version if that is what it is based on. Are there any specific reviews that you feel the historical accuracy has been given an overly high rating without explanation? I would be happy to revisit them and perhaps add something more into the introductory blurb ala My Armoury. Paul, Thank you for your response. I am not necessarily disagreeing with anyone’s assessment of historical accuracy, although I admit that the MRL pirate cutlass review brought up the question for me. I am not proposing to make the reviews more complicated--that might defeat the purpose of SBG’s reviews forum. When reading a review, I just don’t understand how a given user arrives at a given historical accuracy rating. The criteria for the ratings are not clear when compared to other elements of the review. For example, in general performance (handling, cutting, etc.) is quite well documented in the reviews, and at the end of the review the score a sword receives in this area makes sense since the reviewer has documented his or her experiences using the sword. What I have found missing in many reviews I have read is a reason for giving a sword a high mark for historical accuracy. It is often times an afterthought; that is fine, but then just don’t rate its accuracy (and I appreciate it when people skip that part when they don’t know how accurate a sword is). When I high mark is given, is it because the sword handles the way the reviewer expects a period sword would handle? Is it because it looks kinda like a picture in a book? Is it because the sword is constructed in a manner similar to those of historical examples? I ask because I genuinely don’t know. I am a lay person when it comes to medieval swords, and I imagine that other readers might be, too. If a reader sees that a sword is rated 5/5 or 4/5 for historical accuracy, they are taking the reviewer’s word for it since there is no basis for the high rating. The MRL pirate cutlass is what got me wondering about the historical rating, so let us get back to that. I don’t want to come across as picking on suvurov—I enjoyed his review. It was creative and entertaining and he clearly put a lot of time and thought into it. The cutlass received a 5/5 for historical accuracy, but its historical context was not discussed in the review. A reader might come away fro the review thinking that the pirate cutlass represents a historical example—not necessarily a specific sword, but a type, at least. The basket hilt on the cutlass is vaguely reminiscent of an Italian schiavona, but is still quite different. It is a modern/fantasy hilt, not a representation of a historical type of cutlass or hanger used in the 17th or 18th centuries. It is neat looking and would it do the job just as well as a sword from the age of fighting sail? Quite possibly. But that alone does not earn it a 5/5. I am not the historical accuracy police. It does not bother me when a sword is not “historically accurate” ( whatever that means). I would just like to know when a sword is close to being accurate or when it misses the mark, or when it falls in between. I would also like to know why a sword is a 1/5 sword or a 5/5 sword. That would mean at least a little discussion of this in the body of the review. Something like, “This sword generally resembles a 12th century crusader’s sword. It has X, Y, and Z which one would expect to find in a period example. There are a few modern elements that detract from its historical accuracy. For example, the grip features two metal bands, or ferrules, at both the guard and pommel. Additionally, the shape of the cruciform guard is not similar to any historical swords with which I am familiar. Therefore, I will give this sword a score of 3/5 for historical accuracy.” Something like this tells me, the lay person, what is both accurate and inaccurate about the sword, and the score makes more sense. It is ok for a sword not to get a 4/5 or 5/5, and event to not give a score for this element because you don’t really know yourself. That does not mean it is a band or unworthy sword. I just think that a little more attention in this area could improve reviews. These reviews are meant to help people learn about “entry level” swords. Some of these readers might also have entry level knowledge, so shouldn’t the reviewer take this into consideration? I think you can keep it simple and remain informative. Hopefully that was coherent and not too rambling or preachy. Thanks for reading.
|
|
|
Post by YlliwCir on Oct 24, 2007 16:17:18 GMT
I must admit at first glance, I thought this thread was a bit nitpicky.
Then I got to thinking of why I do reviews and partly is because it's fun but mostly it's because I want to inform my fellows.
So when I pooh pooh things like historical accuracy because it's not important to me, I am not accomplishing my goal.
At the same time the idea of keeping it simple appeals to me. I don't think the two are incompatable in my mind.
When I read a review, I take into account we are mostly amatures writing them and some of us may be biased or change our minds later so I don't give a lot of credence to the scoring. However let me say I do get information from all the reviews.
I think this thread is useful reading for anyone thinking of doing a review. As it has givin me some new ideas of what people are looking for and has changed the way I will approach reviews for the better.
Thank you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2007 16:31:51 GMT
I agree that the thought process that it provokes will improve our review process. Keep the reviews simple though, and add this useful information in the "What we are looking for in a review" guidelines. For those experienced at giving reviews, I see this as a raising the bar experience. For the folks like me, I would be discouraged if I saw so many requirements, on top of the webhost/posting challenges. Put these suggestions out there as food for thought, but do not change requirements/ratings too much, as you will make something turn into less than a labor of love for the sport.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2007 16:39:05 GMT
When I first started collecting, I didn't pay much attention to historical accuracy. Now I find myself looking at it more and more. I don't expect a reviewer to know alot about such things for a review, and I don't give a heck of alot of weight to the rating. In this price point, not many swords are truly historically accurate, if any. If you want true accuracy, you buy an Albion, or a custom. Not a sub $300 blade. That being said, i find that most of the inaccuracies are located in the grips, at least with medieval blades. As a result, I'm now at the point where I try to redo grips to make them better. I'm mostly concerned with the aesthetic aspect of historical accuracy. If it looks historically accurate, it's ok with me. So the material isn't 100% period. It still looks the part, and as long as it stands up under casual scrutiny, I'm happy.
So as a result, I look at a sword, and make my own judgment as to accuracy. And, I'll try to include references to aid in my own rating of it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2007 17:54:38 GMT
Being a newcomer to all of this, I'm kind of hesitant about throwing my 2 cents in, but what the heck.
I've found the current review template and scoring to be very valuable. It's clean, easy to follow, and provided me with good information to make what I hope is an informed decision. Sure, historical accuracy is subjective, and I really wouldn't expect it to be otherwise unless the reviewer was an expert in the field of historical weapons. However, I agree with several others here that if a sword was to be rated 5/5 for historical accuracy, it would help to have a brief explanation as to how that rating was arrived at.
As I looked through the reviews, my first criteria was whether or not it appealed to me, or if it was something I would like to add to my collection. Once I made that decision, then I used the ratings Historical Accuracy, Fit and Finish, Handling, Structural Integrity, Value for Money, and finally Overall to compare types of swords that I was interested in. Of those, the ones that weighed highest with me were the Fit and Finish, Handling, Structural Integrity, and "Overall". Historical Accuracy and Value were not as important to me at that time - mainly because I was looking for a good cutter. Now if I were looking for a sword that was a faithful reproduction of a particular type and time period, then the historical accuracy rating and explanation would be something I would be more interested in, and would weigh heavier in my decision-making process. Then same goes if I was looking for a movie or TV reproduction weapon.
Not to dissuade anyone from writing a more in-depth review - such reviews can be very useful - but I kind of like the clean, easy to follow format used now, and it seems to be more in keeping with the casual feel of this forum.
Not to mention it's always fun to watch RicWilly try and whack his arm during follow-thru. ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2007 19:16:27 GMT
As has been illustrated with the responses in this thread, people reads reviews for different reasons and find certain elements of the review to be more important than others. One person might want a fun sword to do cutting while another might want a sword to be as accurate as possible for $300. I think a review can serve both types of readers without making a review more complicated or in depth. I get that these reviews are labors of love, and appreciate the effort and enthusiasm demonstrated by the reviewers. I think that the historical accuracy rating should be used when the reviewer has some knowledge of the sword type being reviewed, and should skip it when they do not (or do a little research—that can be just as fun as cutting!). IMO, it does not help anyone if a reviewer just guesses on historical accuracy, or any other part of a review.
|
|