#AmigaWorld Reviews
28 messages in this thread
AmigaWorld is considering ways to improve its review section, and we'd
like your input!
Before you answer "Run longer reviews, run more of them, and make
them more timely," I must give you two warnings. First, we don't have
unlimited space to work with. Currently the review section is alotted
9 pages (+/-) a month. That is unlikely to change, even though we're
constantly campaigning for more editorial room. Second, lead times
are a fact of life in publishing. From the time a product reaches our
office it takes at least four months for a review of it to see print.
The reviewer needs time to evaluate the product, we need time to edit
the review and layout the pages, and the printer needs time to print
the issues. Keeping these constraints in mind, please consider the
seven questions in the following message and forward your answers to:
E-mail: 76376,2135 (or post your answers here) Phone: 800/441-4403, ext.
118 or 603/924-0118 Mail: Review Editor
AmigaWorld
80 Elm St.
Peterborough, NH 03458
1) Given space limitations, would you prefer the review section contained:
A) A few long, in-depth reviews
B) Many short reviews
C) A few medium-size reviews, plus a few capsule reviews
D) The current length and number reviews (6-8 medium-size)
2) We try to run a screenshot with each review whenever possible. Would you
prefer:
A) Larger screenshots than we now run (meaning less text)
B) No screens (meaning more text)
C) Screenshots of the same size we run now
3) Products A & B are competitors. Product A was released today, and
Product B will be released in another month. Would you rather we:
A) Reviewed Product A right away, and reviewed B separately
when it arrives
B) Waited an issue or two and did a head-to-head comparison
between A&B
4) We could preview beta soft/hardware. Given the number of products we
receive, however, we would probably not follow up with a review in such
cases. Knowing this, would you rather we:
A) Preview beta products to be more timely
B) Review final versions to be accurate, even if it means waiting
another month
5) Which, if any, of these elements would you like added to individual
reviews (indicate as many as desired):
A) Features charts
B) An overall rating (one mark on a scale of 1-5)
C) A rating system (grades for individual elements & overall
mark)
D) A usage level rating (beginner/advanced/home/professional)
E) Key facts boxes (RAM/HD/OS requirements, copy protection)
F) More Your Turn comments per review
G) Your Turn comments from professionals (when appropriate)
H) "How it stacks up" boxes –feature and price comparisons with
competitors
I) Nothing new
6) Which, if any, would you like added to the review section (indicate as
many as desired):
A) A "latest upgrades" listing
B) Structured reviews with a consistent approach/formula for
all products
C) An "Editor's pick of the month" page
D) One-paragraph summaries of past reviews (once a year?, every 6
months?)
E) Nothing new
7) Are we overlooking an improvement that's obvious to you? Tell us your
ideas:
Thank you for your help!
Linda Barrett Laflamme
Okay — here goes!
1 – C
2 – B
3 – A
4 – B
5 – A,C,D,G,H
6 – A
7 – N/A
Thought I'd keep it short & sweet, so you don't get buried.
Pete
Hi, Linda
It's good to see you here on CIS.
In answer to your questionnaire,
#1, C. This would cover more products, some of them well.
#2, C
#3, B Among other things, I think a reviewer must think more carefully
when comparing products, and that we are more likely to get a balanced view
when the writer is looking at two (or more) at the same time.
#4, B. The reviewer should be writing about the product we can all buy –
not what the company SAYS will be there when we buy.
#5, A, D, E, H
#6, A (Would this include any comments as to what features were added in
the upgrades? Gee, I cannot tell some of them from the original!)
Thanks for asking our opinions. I think this says something good about
AmigaWorld.
Betty
1) D
2) C
3) A
4) B)
5) E only
6) A only
7) We feel that you should run reviews with comments ONLY from users who
are verifiably _very_ familiar with the package in question. Superficial
comments are useless to the readers, and often "professionals" can be very
narrow in their use of a particular tool.
Additionally, we feel that you should provide the _entire_ review for the
perusal of the vendor _before_ it is run. You can be as hard-nosed as you
like in running it anyway (assuming there are objections) but you could
save a vendors product from an undeserved slam (or glossy exaggeration) and
that is worth it. Further, the vendor is going to see the review anyway, so
if they are going to hate you for it, they'll hate you anyway. :^) I really
feel that a lot of the reviews I've read (not just in AW, either) are in
need of a serious once-over by people who know what's what.
–Ben
1) c 2) c 3) a 4) a, providing the review states and takes into account the
beta status 5) a, c, d, e 6) a, c 7) How about a follow-up several months
after a review with tech notes, tricks & techniques from the developer?
Regards, Whap!penned…
Pat @Oxxi (310) 427-1227
Linda,
First let me say I am glad to see AW presence on CIS and hope that you
do more of this type of survey here! I (and others I assume) are more apt
to respond here than to type out a letter and stick it in the mail.
1) C (would really like to see a couple of indepth and a couple of
medium)
2) B (screenshots do very little in evaluating products)
3) B (head to head allows users to see merits and detrimites of both
products)
4) A (to allow more time to look into the product from other sources)
5) A D E G & H (really H is the best idea)
6) A B & D (D every 6 months)
7) More professional type of reviews and not so many raves, more space
on what a product canno do or is not very effective at. I hate to buy a
product from a rave type review and then find it does not to what I want it
to.
Again thanx for your presenmce here!
..Steve
Whap!ping from beautiful coastal South Carolina
1 a; 2 c; 3 b; 4 b; 5 abdegh; 6 ab
7 – – Feedback like this is perhaps the best way to improve your magazine.
Keep
it up!
llaflamme,
Here's my two cents:
1- A – I like to use the reviews for reference, especially when I buy
hardware. If it takes a long time to produce a review, then that review
should be of some length. I want to hear it all.
2- C
3- B – This would keep me from running out and buying a potentailly
inferior product.
4- B
5- A, D, E, F, B (scale of 1-10), H
6- A, B, D
7- One thing you might do is open up "helpful hint" articles to more than
just video or graphics. For instance, setting up a small business
spreadsheet program, or producing Hyperbook applications, or desktop
publishing tricks and skills, or …. well, you get the idea. More tips and
tricks for other programs. Myself, I use the Amiga for many different
things, not just graphics or games. I think I would find more use for your
magazine if things like this were included.
Thanks,
====> Tony <====
– via Whap!
My Choices are: 1. A- Long reviews. Please give me the information
I can't get by reading the back of the package. 2. B- No screens,
more text unless pictures are necessary to show how the product
connects to the Amiga or some unique feature difficult to describe.
3. A- Review products when released 4. A- Review the product that
ships, not preview or beta ware. 5. A or H – Tables or Charts of
Features compared to other products would be an excellent idea. Copy
Protection should ALWAYS be described 6. ?????? 7. I prefer greater
depth to each review and fewer reviews, many of your reviews tell me
little more than is on the back of the box, or in the product
promotional sheet. I want to know what those two sources don't tell
me.
Linda:
1) C 2) C 3) B 4) A 5) A,C,D,E,G,H 6) A,C,D
Clint <VRLI>
Linda,
1:C
2:C- but only when it is really needed, not just for sprucing up the page.
3:A- it's okay to mention the upcoming release of product B, but if you're
ready to review A and you have it in hand, that's tough for B…
4:B- to be timely you can mention the beta product in a What's New column
which is a short blurb on what's supposedly coming.
5:C,E,H – Your Turn comments are difficult to understand their context. One
thing I wish there was more of in AW reviews were comparison charts and
real evidence that the product was put through the ringers, not just
evaluated from one point of view. I'm probably opening myself up here
but I like the style of PC Magazine's reviews- many features, charts,
description of the testing process, and an editor's choice and why. I
may not agree, but if not I know why.
6:B,C – see comments for 5
7:Overall I enjoy reading the reviews, but I am hoping the review section of
AW can grow to become an outstanding place to learn about a product. There
are many products out there whose purposes and performance overlap and I
look to AW to sort it out. Often I refer back to old issues to read a
review because I need something now that I didn't need when the review came
out. I want it to be packed full of descriptions about what hardware I
need, how it was tested, who really would use the product, etc.
Thanks for asking the questions!
Tim
1.D 2.C 3.A 4.A 5.E reducing reviews to rating nums and feature charts too
often oversimplify. 6.A, B- within application type (e.g. same structure
for all paint program reviews) 7. Be aggressive in pointing out flaws but,
like Ben says, give the manufacturer the opportunity to say "we do that,
look on this menu" or whatever before going to press.
I was just thinking last night, nice job with the review section this
month. Head to head comparison of 8-bit sample editors was good.
I was also thinking with all the neat-o stuff for the Amiga around now why
aren't there more ad pages? Plenty of editorial content but AW is still is
quite a skinny mag. — Art
Art Steinmetz….Are you the same Art Steinmetz that went to Arizona State
University???……Nancy
Linda,
Here are my answers to your survey:
1: C
2: C
3: A
4: B
5: D, G, H
6: A, B
7: PC Mag has probably the best reviews for any computer mag. They
explain the basis of the review – what reviewers are looking for,
what to expect in a class of software, individual reviews and finally
competitive comparisons. They also have a larger readership more
space and other resources available so I wouldn't expect that level
of review in an Amiga magazine. But you could try. Anything
approaching that level would be a blessing to us software users.
– Don
– via Whap!
How about adding a box that gives a brief run-down of the plusses and
minuses of that particular product, ala byte. The "what you'll like"
and "what you'll dislike" about a particular product are also helpful
in a byte review.
You should set up a standard of performance independant of any product
and hold each product to that standard, since this is the only way to
objectively compare two products against each other.
Lastly, make a rule to review a minimum number of titles from each area of
software. This doesn't mean that you need a business title, an educational
title, a graphics title, etc.. every month, but as an example, pledge to do
say an educational product review X times per year.
And above all make them accurate!
Bill
– via Whap!
For what it's worth!
1) C
2) C
3) C
4) B
5) A, E, H
6) A, B (a great idea), C
7) If it's possible how about just more pages. I know this costs money
but I wouldn't mind seeing more ads to see more of the mag.
Keep up the good work!
Here are my survey answers:
1) D 2) C 3) B (Head to head comparisons are much easier to use than a
single product review. You can look at a head to head review and decide
what you need to buy. Much less unbiased.)
4) B 5) A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H 6) A,B,C,D (every 6 months) 7) Look at PC
Magazine's reviews. Performance charts, all head to head, good, unbiased
opinions, and Editor's Choice with a few honorable mentions, etc. This is
an EXCELLENT format for reviews.
Darin, SPC Superbase Technical Support
1) C 2) B 3) B 4) B 5) A, C, G, H 6) C, D
Thanks for asking.
-Sean
– via Whap!
Yo! AMIGA WORLD;
a,c,b,b,adefgh,abcd(yearly),?.
Charlie – A Whapper! from Holland
Here goes:
1) C 2) C (only if necessary – more text the merrier) 3) A 4) B 5) B,D,E,H
6) A 7)
–HUT
Here goes:
1) C 2) C (only if necessary – more text the merrier) 3) A 4) B 5) B,D,E,H
6) A 7)
–HUT
> you should provide the entire review for the perusal of the vendor before
it is run
I agree. I've come across reviews (not in your mag – I've never seen it!)
that were grossly inaccurate, slamming a product as being unusable, merely
because the reviewer hadn't bothered to do his/her job properly. The
vendor could point out such blatant errors, without in any way limiting
your freedom to publish.
(I had it happen to me a while back – someone reviewed some software I
wrote, and in the review he claimed it had a minor bug. The alleged bug
didn't affect the functionality in any way; more importantly, I totally
failed to reproduce it.)
Shraddhan – via Whap! from Hertfordshire in the UK
Oh, yes — and then there's the reviewer who requests (and is provided)
with BETA software so he can "scoop" his competition, and when the review
appears, it totally blasts the product as being incomplete, not having a
manual, etc.
Regards, Whap!penned…
Pat @Oxxi (310) 427-1227
Currently, along with each review, AW includes a couple of SIDEBARs
called "Your Turn". I'd like to see you give each Author/Developer a
SideBar likek that entitled "My Turn", where they can address the
feature and benefits fo their product from _their_ perspective.
Very nice idea. :^)
–Ben
Ben…
I had you in mind the whole time.
Michael
….from the north coast
One thing I have noticed from past reviews (X-CAD, ClickFax) is that the
reviewers often do not contact companies when they experience problems, so
often things which may already be fixed are erroneously reported as bugs.
A little more research will improve the quality to no end. All of the
software reviews I've written in which I either couldn't understand
something or thought I'd found a bug were checked by a simple phone call to
the manufacturer.