Do you think that MR reviews are honest or are they always positive?
Would you prefer completely honest reviews, the kind they give in computer, computer game and automobile magazines?
This topic has been done several times in the past 18 months. It seems the discussion revolves around MRR having to walk a fine line between telling it like it is and keeping advertizing revenue coming in the door. Also, several members who have been reading the mag for quite a while have stated that if a model is “that bad”, it doesn’t get reviewed. When you think about it, there is something to be said for only reviewing the better things. It saves space, creates a positive image of the hobby (not that it really needs it), and keeps us abreast of the best/better things that are coming down the pipe.
However, it could also be said that offering a candid assessment of a dog would de an eye-opener for all concerned, and might make some other “players” sit up and take notice.
Finally, there is a method in their method. They often remark on ways the model differs from the ideal in all things, from fidelity to scale, to details, and with respect to performance compared to the “average” of the models of similar type offered by competitors. They thereby say to their readers that they give us credit for noting the deficiencies or disparities, from which we are meant to draw our own conclusions.
Yes, this topic comes up from time to time. It’s a valid question. There aren’t too many railroading magazines that deliver an honest and candid review. It would be like biting the hand that feeds you.
It is possible that really bad items simply aren’t reviewed, but I think most reviews tend to be positive, often in spite of a poor model. A case in point is the Bachmann 2-6-6-2. MR reviews were pretty positive when the loco was introduced, even though many modelers were already commenting that the loco was more typical of many Bachmann’s: a poor runner that couldn’t pull a train that was as long as the locomotive. Yet MR’s review urged modelers to buy it. That didn’t sound like an unbiased review to me. It sounded like a magazine that wanted ad revenues from it’s advertiser.
You must read the reviews carefully and follow up by reading modeler’s comments on forums like this one. The modelers who have spent their hard-earned cash are going to tell it like it is.
If you are lucky, your local hobby shop will let you examine, and test-run, an item before you purchase it. Then you can make a truly informed decision on whether or not to make the purchase.
Darrell, quiet…for now
Well call me old fashion or a nut case but,I still prefer to judge a model in person either at a hobby shop or better at the club then rely on a magazine review or forum"expert" review that may be bias against a certain company or base his/her review on their modeling style.After all I seen models trash by forum “experts” that could be easily fix by adding after market detail parts…Also,a lot of the “complaints” I read on forums I take with a dose of salt because I see the same models at the club operating flawlessly.
As far as a locomotive being a weak puller one MUST take in account several things to include RP20.1 and unrealisticly steep grades found on most home layouts-you heard the cry my pride and joy won’t pull 5 NMRA weighted cars up my 3.5% grade…I wonder why? [;)]
The place to get an honest review of anything-model-railroad is right here. The folks on this forum are open and honest – positive or negative – and there’s plenty of real world experience behind the opinions.
I’d agree with that to a point. Like anything on forums, you can’t be totally sure of the source. Sometimes it’s difficult to tell if someone is dumping on a product because they have an axe to grind with the company, or are being too picky about something, or even just being a jerk. In that regard it’s best to get several opinions before making a decision.
As for MR, well, there is a basic “conflict of interest” issue in that they are accepting advertising revenue from the same companies that they are performing the product reviews on. No matter how honest their review may be, it will always be tainted by this issue.
I have to say that over the last few years I put less and less stock into MR reviews. Did you all just get their survey this week? make sure you bring your concerns about their ways of reviewing up to them. I told them they need to go to their local hobby shop and buy their item to be reviewed off the shelf, just like us. That way a company doesn’t send them the same thing with all the bugs worked out.
Regarding the possitive evaluation of the Bachmann 2-6-6-2, remember that a picture is worth a thousand words. The MR review of that engine showed that a front compressor had become detached from the engine. Doesn’t this say more about a model than a few paragraphs of text?
Happy Jack,I fully agree MR should review off the shelf models and no those that could be tailored made for the review.
Leon, thanks for pointing that out. I missed it!
Pictures can tell a lot if you look close (which I didn’t! LOL). I get a lot from the text and I try to determine if the reviewer is carefully skating around an issue to avoid embarrassing or annoying an advertiser.
In the case of the 2-6-6-2, the reviewer was positive and described the loco as everyman’s dream come true (my interpretation of it). The comments on the forums weren’t as nice. On flat, level ground, the loco had trouble pulling a train of about 10 freight cars or 4 passenger cars (properly weighted, by the way). Forget grades in excess of 1%; the loco needed help if it was pulling anything!
I read the magazine review, then I read the comments from actual users. Then I bought one. The users were right! I’m not upset with my purchase. I love articulated locos and I got one for a great price.
I understand that the next run of this loco was improved, although I don’t know what was done to improve it. I see a lot of comments about getting a loco from the later runs. Mine must have come from the first run.
Darrell, quiet…for now
I must have gotten the later run. Mine will pull at least 40 cars on the level (haven’t tried it with more) and 22 cars up a 2.5% grade on the layout.
As far as the original question… “Let the buyer beware”. The reviews are “Fair and balanced”. [}:)][:P][:D]
I bought a Bachmann 2-6-6-2 without having read the review first. I added a bit extra weight in the tender when I soundchipped it and it still pulls what I want it too.
Jon
I would be very careful with this subject around here. On one of the last few threads about this, Bergie responded about questioning the integrity of the MR staff. This is their forum on their website, so I can definately understand.
Aside from that, my take on the matter is to take the reviews with a grain of salt, like a review of any new product. I take that review, along with input from other sources to determine if I want it or not. The reviews do offer some nice technical specs.
MR reviews are ads for the products that buy ads in the magazine
Well seeing as how my November issue came yesterday, I noticed those reviews are not all positive. There’s only so much you cna do in a limited space, less than 2 pages of written material for each review. If you want to read in-depth reviews, the tabloid sized Model Railroad News puts in 3-4 pages for every review they do - everything you want to know about a product and then some. In turn, they have rather limited coverage of modeling techniques and so forth.
On the other hand, I have MR back to the early 50’s, and they certainly do not give glowing reviews to every product that comes down the pike. But I’d still like to sit and watch Andy S build a Branchline Blueprint-series boxcar in less than 2 hours [:D] (per his review of them a few years back). I’ve build almost a dozen of them now and I think I have all the tricks - predrill all the holes, alter the order of assembly somewhat to make it easier - and it still takes me twice as long to build one. Now, if I discount the time to remove the parts from the sprues and do all the filing and drilling - yeah, it’s pretty fast after that. [:D]
–Randy
I have to agree with Randy … not all reviews MR does are positive. One notable example from a few years ago was a review of some Walthers Amtrack Superliner cars … the reviewer made quite a big deal out of the fact the car body moldings were warped, with a very visible curve in them. The conclusion to the review was these cars had lots of potential, it’s just too bad they came out warped.
Ouch! How about biting the hand of the largest distributor in the hobby?
I don’t believe MR goes out of its way to print negative reviews, but I also don’t see them shying away from printing it as they see it either. Many reviews will list some little gotchas to watch out for – they’re not flaws, but things that could be a problem if you aren’t careful. Fortunately, most products in the hobby are pretty decent, so complimentary reviews are the norm.
As to the reliability of “product reviews” made by members of this forum, I’d take that with a grain of salt too. There are generally some great comments made. But I’ve also seen more than a few negative firestorms get whipped up on here over next to nothing, so I would hardly claim that we’re “unbiased and lilly white” either. [swg]
My view is that the reviews tend to look for the positives rather than dwell on the negatives, but that they are honest in that they do not make claims that are untrue. I also believe that they tend not to review products that are real dogs. I personally have no beef with this approach. It is, within the model railroading hobby, a general-interest publication and as such, can only review a tiny fraction of the new products introduced. For any “serious” purchase, I use other resources and, if possible, personal viewing to aid in my decision, but for me, an MR review is an excellent starting point.
As others have noted, in fact the reviews in the November issue (mine arrived on Wednesday) are less glowing than many. Be aware that one has to read the reviews carefully. For me, for example, the statement in a review of passenger cars that the Kadee couplers are too low and there is no apparent way to correct this, is the proverbial kiss of death; careful reading was required in order to pick up on this.
On the other hand, if a manufacturer produced a real piece of junk, got a bad review, then pulled all their future ads, they’d only be shooting themselves in the foot. I think most manufacturers recognize the importance of publicising their latest product in the pages of MR if they want to make sales.
Generally, it seems to me that the big names in the industry try to make a good product that is worthy of a good review. And I’ve noticed that when the reviewer has found something amiss, usually the mfg’r is contacted and replies with a promise to make it right to those who have already purchased the product.
I’m sure the system isn’t perfect, but I think any perceived conflicts of interest have only a marginal effect on how the product review is presented.
Tom
I find that the reviews tend to give a very good description of the product. They also point out problems the reviewer encountered. For locos they usually have information on the voltage and amperage required as well as drawbar pull. They usually describe how well the model matches up to the prototype. For kits they frequently tell if it’s a hard/advanced kit.
What they don’t usually do is give a Consumer Reports evaluation in comparison to other models. But the information they do give should give you a pretty good idea of what you’re getting if you buy it.
If the review tells you it has a 3 pole motor, pickup on only one wheel on each side, no valve gear, and is a generic 2-8-0 somewhat similar to the one on the Foosbar and Pluckett RR as it appeared while sitting in the scrapers yard, then you should have a pretty good idea of the level of quality you’re getting.
Personally, I like the reviews. I just wish they reviewed more S scale products.
Enjoy
Paul
And you know this how?