Who is and Who isn't

[Jesse Cloud]

...... I think most of us can spot a BS review pretty quickly. If the reviews here on the FOG start to lean that way it will be our own fault for not calling the author on it. I think we have, at least I have requested that some members remove their green glasses and be a bit more authentic. If we on the FOG won't eat it, they won't serve it.

Eiji

I thinkEiji hit the nail on the head.  As critical as folk on this forum are, I can't believe a bs review would go unchallenged.

 

[waynew]

I'd tend to feel more comfortable if (Festool sponsored) tool reviewers are placed in a similar category as Festool dealers, after all they are being paid by Festool to review their product and this website states thats its a place of unbiased information. Whether the reviews are biased or not is subjective and in many cases it's hard to know, it could be that the total energy given to a review is slightly more positive than it would have been if the review was written by an unpaid reviewer, or it could happen that the sponsored reviewer just happened to (unconsciously) skip over a few points that would have otherwise caused a tool to look totally bad just before a major product release. We the buyers of Festool look to this website as being one source of unbiased information for the product, some of us are more and some less experienced at spotting BS in reviews, again thats subjective based on each members experience. If Festool sponsored tool reviewers are given special status as that then it would give me as a paying customer of Festool tools more confidence in what I'm reading here, knowing that those folk have in the past and possibly in the future been paid by Festool for their services. Obviously as stated previously the reviews themselves should as a matter of professional courtesy contain information stating that the reviewer is Festool sponsored.
As an example I recently read on this forum that a member was about to publish an extensive review of the Kapex, I had no idea he was sponsored by Festool (with free tools), armed with that knowledge I will still read his review but will read it slightly differently than if he had written it as an unpaid review.

Just to sum up, I have no problem with Festool sponsored reviewers being here (on this website) but they should in some way be identified as such.

Thanks,
Wayne

 

[daveg]

Not to mention, if it's a Festool being reviewed that you're interested in, buy it, try it and if you don't like it send it back within 30 days...what more can you ask for.

Since you brought this up (and this is brought up occasionally to justify the purchase of a Festool). Unfortunately, it may take much longer than 30 days to find out their is a problem with your product. In my case, it had been over a year before I bought an accessory for my Domino before I found that it was misaligned when making that particular kind of cut. Now, I'm short on options about what to do (request a return or send it in for repair... either way I'm loosing working time and risking getting back the same or a different problem).

Back to the main topic, I believe there should be full disclosure. I too was recently surprised to learn that someone making a positive comment/review of a tool had received it at no cost. This really took me by surprise. For some to call full disclosure "bunk" is not helpful. This is an internet forum. With all due respect, not everyone has personal knowledge of the ethics of the reviewers. I for one would not immediately trust an individual on an internet forum simply because others on the same forum vouch for that individual. Full disclosure would at least help readers read between the lines of a review. I read reviews in WW mag's all the time. I know they may have a biased opinion depending on their stated review policies. Some have good policies some don't. At least I have some level of trust because they are companies that have stood the test of time in the market.

At this point, I will have to taint comments/reviews made on FOG about Festool products when the individual doesn't use full disclosure. Even with full disclosure, I will maintain a very critical eye.

 

[Brice Burrell]

First, none of the reviewers have dismissed the idea of adding a disclosure to their reviews. In fact, more than one has publicly agreed to include a disclosure. At this point everyone seems to agree that a disclosure should be added to all Festool sponsored reviews.

Let's take a look at trust, who should you trust on the Internet? Very simple answer here, no one! You don't know any of these people, why would you trust their opinions completely? Tools reviews can be "tainted" for any number of reasons, the company giving a tool to the reviewer is just one of them. You can place some degree of trust in a member or reviewer when they have a proven track record. Well, so far, the reviewers here have proven themselves to be valued members on this forum. It's not accident the "Festool sponsored" members provide some of the best, most complete and innovative Festool information and uses in the entire world. It's work documenting this information, finding new ways to use the tools, coming up with solution to comment problems.

Everyone wants to know the latest info on the new tools, well guess what, it's the reviewers and Festool dealer that help bring it to the members here. People are going crazy for Kapex info right now, it is experienced reviews that help fill that need. Member "Joe average" isn't going to put out a professional quality review of the Kapex, a Festool sponsored reviewer will. That's a small price to pay to have the best, must up to date info on any Festool product.

You can't have it both ways, you want great Festool information, but not form the people qualified to bring it to you. Until some else with years of professional experience, knowledge of power tools, communications skills and the willingness to spend their time bringing you the best available product information, you are going to have to rely on the Festool sponsored members and dealers.

I'm not sure anything will make some members happy with this issue. For example, I have agreed to include a disclosure in every review. I have made it clear in the past that I've worked with Festool to help get info out info about some of the lesser know router accessories. I've done the vast majority of my work with no sponsorship from Festool. This seems to have not gain any trust with these members. I spend an enormous amount of my time helping the members here find answers to all types of Festool questions both on the forum and through e-mail. I bet even if the reviewer were moved to a separate area they would find something else to be unhappy with.

I do understand the majority of members appreciate what we do. But, please understand the position we as reviewers are in. We give our time to help make this place great and a few members want to "taint" our opinions, views and efforts, how would that make you feel?

I'm open to discussion of this issue, but, let's look at the big picture. How do we have the best info and still allow the forum members to be satisfied with the review policies here?

 

[Bill Wyko]

It is my humble opinion that Festool did not get where they are by having people write blown up stories that don't really depict the tools. They are at the top of the tool chain because they listen to the needs of woodworkers and implemented the best ideas and even the smallest ideas too. Then the went the extra mile and made them all work in harmony with each other. I don't think they're looking to pat themselves on the back, I think they would want an honest opinion as I stated before.

 

[Matthew Schenker]

Everyone,
As I mentioned before, I am neutral on the issue of "who is and who isn't."  However, in addition to running this forum I am also a Festool customer.  When I think of my own history, and how I first learned about these tools, I was always able to detect when a review provided honest details or not.

People here are sharp, and they ask good questions.  So here's my take on this...

People here know a good review when they see one.  Also, this forum is totally open to everyone to respond to reviewers.  If you question an element in someone's review here in the forum, you are free to call the reviewer on it.  The reviewer can then offer a response, and we go from there.  All the while, everyone in the forum gets to see the conversation being played out.  That's what makes tool reviews in the Festool Owners Group different from reviews in magazines, or even on other Web sites.

In other words, regardless of how the review was initiated (free tool or purchased tool) the democratic discussion that follows will lay the whole story out for you.

This very discussion is a great example of the democratic process I'm referring to.  Everyone is free to question "who is and who isn't" and to weigh in on the debate.  In the end, we'll put it all out there for members to see.  We aren't afraid of putting it out there.

Matthew

 

[woodshopdemos]

First, none of the reviewers have dismissed the idea of adding a disclosure to their reviews. In fact, more than one has publicly agreed to include a disclosure. At this point everyone seems to agree that a disclosure should be added to all Festool sponsored reviews.

Let's take a look at trust, who should you trust on the Internet? Very simple answer here, no one! You don't know any of these people, why would you trust their opinions completely? Tools reviews can be "tainted" for any number of reasons, the company giving a tool to the reviewer is just one of them. You can place some degree of trust in a member or reviewer when they have a proven track record. Well, so far, the reviewers here have proven themselves to be valued members on this forum. It's not accident the "Festool sponsored" members provide some of the best, most complete and innovative Festool information and uses in the entire world. It's work documenting this information, finding new ways to use the tools, coming up with solution to comment problems.

Everyone wants to know the latest info on the new tools, well guess what, it's the reviewers and Festool dealer that help bring it to the members here. People are going crazy for Kapex info right now, it is experienced reviews that help fill that need. Member "Joe average" isn't going to put out a professional quality review of the Kapex, a Festool sponsored reviewer will. That's a small price to pay to have the best, must up to date info on any Festool product.

You can't have it both ways, you want great Festool information, but not form the people qualified to bring it to you. Until some else with years of professional experience, knowledge of power tools, communications skills and the willingness to spend their time bringing you the best available product information, you are going to have to rely on the Festool sponsored members and dealers.

I'm not sure anything will make some members happy with this issue. For example, I have agreed to include a disclosure in every review. I have made it clear in the past that I've worked with Festool to help get info out info about some of the lesser know router accessories. I've done the vast majority of my work with no sponsorship from Festool. This seems to have not gain any trust with these members. I spend an enormous amount of my time helping the members here find answers to all types of Festool questions both on the forum and through e-mail. I bet even if the reviewer were moved to a separate area they would find something else to be unhappy with.

I do understand the majority of members appreciate what we do. But, please understand the position we as reviewers are in. We give our time to help make this place great and a few members want to "taint" our opinions, views and efforts, how would that make you feel?

I'm open to discussion of this issue, but, let's look at the big picture. How do we have the best info and still allow the forum members to be satisfied with the review policies here?

  I don't know Brice other than reading his views on FOG.  He is much more patient than I am these days. I have a deadline to post new pages tomorrow, July 1. I have some Kapex pages and some PorterCable OmniJig pages ready to put up. I have spent hundreds of hours for these stories and others that are "in the can."
  I get good readership because of my track record over five years. I get a lot of really nice mail thanking me for the site and the information. There are 1500 plus pages of how-to so the search engines bring a lot of the readers.
  That said, I am not too keen on having people read what I say with a feeling that it is tainted because I get free product.  So those of you that want "full disclosure" -- you got it,  but I am pissed. I put pages together with the intent that readers can read and gain valuable information. If I really felt that there were so many disenters, I would pack up the tent, review nothing and use those fine tools to make things. A Queen Anne high boy has been in my sites for ages.
  My two cents (and the 2 cents were coined by the US mint but paid for by me.)

 

[Overtime]

  Some members / readers  are new, some are carryovers from the Yahoo! days. Those that have been round long enough know the ebb and flow of the information on the tools and reviews by the contributors, and their input. Many of us just reaffirm and clarify what we have discovered in the use of the tools.  The information and reviews on the Festools has always been a wealth of knowledge as far as I'm concerned.

  There are regular Festool "sponsored" contributors here and I am glad they are. We are welcome to question their tool reviews, and they have been responsive to our questions.

      I am quite comfortable with the way the tool info is portrayed on this forum. I don't think that I have to pull out the "buyer beware" card out when deciding on a tool purchase when weighing my decisions based on the info comming from this site. I think it's great that we hear from more and new "sponsored" craftsmen. When you add it all up you get a real good idea of what to expect from any given tool before you purchase.

There are over 4000 members that have the ability to act as checks and balances on all the tool reviews here. And we hear from them on a regular basis. I think that the minute that we sense "tainted" or puffed up BS related to a Festool, we will hear about it from more than one of the many members.

  John, no need to build a Queen Ann High Boy to make your point.    Your compiled works has long surpassed any one individual project. The clean presentation / explanation of how to get a square cut or roundover, profile, etc - using this or that method or tool is key.

  Integrity and honesty when our contributors review a tool is as clear as the Green in the Festools,  sponsored or not.
 
 

 

[woodshopdemos]

Patrick,
  I appreciate your response...so eloquentlyput.

 

[Ron Pegram]

Just some $0.02 from a retailer (so obviously I'm biased)

My 1st point is that no review can really give you an idea of whether a tool is worth the money because our incomes and opinions regarding spending vs. saving are all different. A $500 tool might break one guy's back figuratively while another may not even think twice. It's the reason you can't tell someone's income from the car they drive. Some get the most expensive car payment they can afford. Others literally drive a car into the ground. If you're looking for a review to say "Is this worth the money?", I think you may be asking too much of the review.

As an example of this, whenever a review does say "For the money...", it's inevitable that you will see a LOT of comments along the lines of "Well, for me, it's worth it..." and vice versa.

What a good review should do is explain whether the manufacturer's claims seem to be met by the tool in actuality. If it does that, it's a good review in my own opinion. It's up to the potential user to say "That's worth $xxx to me."

I think Per did the best job of anyone I can think of at the moment when he explained why he couldn't afford not to buy the Kapex. It had everything to do with his line of work and his method of working. That review wouldn't work for someone in a different situation perhaps but it was a good one nonetheless.

As for independence, if a review is as I've stated above - an objective evaluation of whether the tool meets its manufacturer's claims, the independence or lack thereof shouldn't matter. It's only when a review goes into subjective stuff (like the 'cleanest cut I've ever seen') that you may question a bias. And even then, your focus as someone using the review should be on whether the tool meets its specifications and what those specifications mean to you. I wouldn't recommend anyone buy a car based on someone saying "Oh man, it's a smooth ride" but I would recommend it based on a Consumer Reports study of the car's long-term handling and service.

By the way, I do think disclaimers make for professional courtesy. There's no harm in them.

One last point, I don't think it's fair to assume that this forum will be filled with objective, detailed and 'free' reports on tools. That model is one used by Consumer Reports, and they don't allow free searches of their website. To do that type of work, on a quality basis, would take time and effort. People should be compensated in some way for that. I feel safe talking about independence because I'm licensed as a CPA in VA and I know that CPA's, who are required to be independent for audit and attest work, don't do any of that work for free.

So if we want completely independent tool reviews that are detailed and objective, we all need to pay a monthly fee to the site to sponsor those reviews. Otherwise...

Again, just my $0.02. Hopefully, I didn't offend anyone who disagrees with me. I just enjoy the conversation and wanted to offer my own perspective.

 

[Daviddubya]

...For some to call full disclosure "bunk" is not helpful...

To set the record straight, please allow me to repeat what I wrote in an earlier post in this thread:

"But the notion that a disclaimer is required in order to maintain one's integrity is pure bunk, IMHO."

In the interest of full disclosure, I thought it necessary to point out that I was misquoted, assuming of course that daveg was quoting me.

 

[The Woodentop]

...For some to call full disclosure "bunk" is not helpful...

To set the record straight, please allow me to repeat what I wrote in an earlier post in this thread:

"But the notion that a disclaimer is required in order to maintain one's integrity is pure bunk, IMHO."

In the interest of full disclosure, I thought it necessary to point out that I was misquoted, assuming of course that daveg was quoting me.

Now that's a laugh!

Larry

 

[greg mann]

In my case, it had been over a year before I bought an accessory for my Domino before I found that it was misaligned when making that particular kind of cut.

At this point, I will have to taint comments/reviews made on FOG about Festool products when the individual doesn't use full disclosure. Even with full disclosure, I will maintain a very critical eye.

Dave,
I suppose any reviewer that didn't find your misalignment problem and report it in their review is subject to suspicion? And it only took you a year?

Based on your logic I can only infer that for receiving a free tool you could be swayed to write an unjustifiably favorable review. How else could you see this character flaw run rampant in the rest of us?

 

[daveg]

...For some to call full disclosure "bunk" is not helpful...

To set the record straight, please allow me to repeat what I wrote in an earlier post in this thread:

"But the notion that a disclaimer is required in order to maintain one's integrity is pure bunk, IMHO."

In the interest of full disclosure, I thought it necessary to point out that I was misquoted, assuming of course that daveg was quoting me.

I was not quoting you, but I was extrapolating from your comment. You seem to me to be implying that disclosure serves little purpose. Obviously, disclosure is not required to "maintain one's integrity", but disclosure is an indicator of one's integrity. I can't see why disclosure would be so objectionable for someone assuming they indeed have integrity. The whole idea that disclosure is somehow wrong or unnecessary baffles me. I would certainly have no problem with disclosure if I were reviewing a tool given to me at no cost.

 

[NWW_08]

I don't know why this is such a big deal.  I have not read all, but most of the posts here.  Several people already suggested that "it is a common professional practice to disclose", which I fully agree.  My personal opinion is that all reviews should include the disclosure and if there are people (like Brice) who do this kind of thing on a repeated basis their user name should also be identified.  This is nothing to do with the person's integrity, all about being open and fair.

I also read John Lucas' website,  it was pretty clear to me from the beginning he was getting the tools free.  I did not have a problem with that.  I think he is a great reviewer and because he is the only one who presents information on his website (in addition to his assistants) there is no confusion about the independence.  However, in the case of people posting in this forum, independent user opinions are mixed with those who get something (e.g., free tool) and creates confusion.  I think this is unfair to the readers of this forum.  For people who are regulars here and know "who is who" this may not be a big deal but for people who are not aware I think this is an issue.

Remember again, I am not questioning anybody's integrity.  I used Brice's name just to give an example.  I personally think he is an honest person.  This is all about using the common professional practice and making clear any connection to the tool/company.

 

[daveg]

In my case, it had been over a year before I bought an accessory for my Domino before I found that it was misaligned when making that particular kind of cut.

At this point, I will have to taint comments/reviews made on FOG about Festool products when the individual doesn't use full disclosure. Even with full disclosure, I will maintain a very critical eye.

Dave,
I suppose any reviewer that didn't find your misalignment problem and report it in their review is subject to suspicion? And it only took you a year?

Based on your logic I can only infer that for receiving a free tool you could be swayed to write an unjustifiably favorable review. How else could you see this character flaw run rampant in the rest of us?

First, I bought my Domino before I ever knew about FOG. So, your first question is moot. I have no idea what you mean by "And, it only took you a year?".? It follows that if I hadn't used the tool in all of it's use cases that I wouldn't find the issue until doing so. My point was that a 30 day return policy for a tool like a Domino is inadequate to fully test it's performance. Even a reviewer may miss something. Subsequent to joining FOG, I've only found one other thread that relates to my issue and it was not a review. BTW, on the whole, I'm very pleased with my Domino. I just wish it was less painful to resolve the issue that I have.

Regarding your next question, no, you are not understanding my logic. You should read my previous reply to daviddubbya. Just for emphasis, I repeat it here, "I would certainly have no problem with disclosure if I were reviewing a tool given to me at no cost." How you infer that I'm attributing a "character flaw run rampant" is beyond me?? You need to lower your sensitivity a bit. However, it would be naive to assume all the information on the internet is provided with 100% accuracy and altruism. Consider my policy more like "trust but verify" assuming someone discloses their ownership status. If not, then I'll taint their review until I get more independent information. By "taint" I mean potentially, but not necessarily, untrustworthy. Hopefully, clarifying my meaning of "taint" will help soften my comments so that they don't appear as harsh as they may have without clarification. I certainly did not intend to offend anyone.

 

[Per Swenson]

Hello All,

I was going to stay far away from this thread until now.

Why? Well, Ron mentioned my name above and suggested that

I had reviewed a Kapex. I have not, do not own one yet, did not get one for free

and only had the opportunity to use it twice. Briefly in Festool's training center

and at John Lucas house a few weeks ago. That being said Festool has provided me

with the 2200 router to review at my request

For those who know me, no, for those who don't, I have been around

these intertoob forums with info and questions for quite sometime.

But enough about me. This is about you.

Or rather your decision making.

Didn't Momma teach you to suspect everything?

Ever watch New Yankee workshop?

Full disclosure or not, I take every Gawdamn Opinion uttered anywhere on anything

with not a grain but a truckload of salt.

Even the ones that say the movie sucked.

As to how this has become a issue,. I dunno, I shake my head in wonder.

First off, by creating this non controversy, y'all have borderline slandered by implication

a whole host of really good folks, who for whatever reason, take the time to write here

and help you. Yes, you the reader who has made everyone suspect in a uncommitted crime.

You may see it differently, then again stop answering those letters sent by

Colonel Aswari from the consulate.

I am sorry, my train of thought is locking up as I get angrier thinking about this.

Ok to sum up, you have created a nefarious conspiratorial situation were non exists.

It should stop.

Per

 

[b_m_hart]

I think that people have over-reacted to all of this.  Borderline slander is a complete mischaracterization of what has been said here, Per.

I don't think that it's unreasonable to ask that people who have been provided a tool for the purpose of doing a review explicitly state that that's the case.  Of course people are (well, at least should) take things with a grain of salt, but it doesn't change the fact that you should attribute when appropriate, and that you should disclose when appropriate.  For those that have been offended by this thread, I think a step back and a deep breath is in order here.  It's kinda like wondering whether or not Mr. "the end of the world is here, but don't act like me, act like I say you should" really won the election in 2000 because one of his opponents cronies was responsible for counting the vote.  It doesn't change anything, but it does cause most that are aware to hear that little voice in the back of their head and pay closer attention.

Part of the BS filter that many of us have is automagically engaged when they know they're reading what is in effect a "paid review".  Of course your (the reviewer's) time is valuable, but it doesn't change the fact that there's a very reasonable, valid potential for a biased review.  I haven't picked up on any of that so far in the reading I've done on this board (or on the links I've followed from this board) so far, and I think that's a solid part of why there seems to be a solidly growing readership here.

What was a simple request for people to disclose that they've been given a tool to review has turned into a big swirling drama.  Settle down, Beavis.  Seriously.

 

[Per Swenson]

  Borderline slander is a complete mischaracterization of what has been said here, Per.

Sorry,

just callin it as I see it.

Maybe I should have used the term "defamation by innuendo"

Either way, after rereading this entire thread, I am still off to

brush my teeth and take a shower.

Per

 

[Daviddubya]

daveg - It seems my weak attempt at invoking a little humor fell flat.  Lighten up, please.  This topic is not nearly as serious as some would make it, IMHO of course.