If you’ve read through some of the Comments Sections of our reviews, you may have noticed that we get quite a few good questions and interesting comments from our readers.
And we often find that a reader has brought to light an interesting point about the piece we’ve tested, or has raised a broader question that’s worth considering and discussing.
But some of these comments and questions can get buried deep down in a particular thread, so we’ve created this new section to feature some of the particularly interesting conversations that are taking place around Blister.
This week, we’ll highlight a request made by Blister reader, Tobias, in the Comments Section of our 14-15 Blizzard Cochise review.
I love your ski reviews, they’re pretty much the reference in the business right now when it comes to attention to details and asking the right questions when testing. It’s not an easy task, but you do it extremely well. Great job, guys and girls.
But being a picky prick, I would like to see a more detailed definition of the respective skis mounting locations. Most skis are tested on the factory recommended line, which is fine and the way I think skis should be tested initially. But it would be great, and make the reviews even better, to know where that factory line is located from true center. It says a lot about the intended character of the ski, and, well, us geeks have another thing to geek out about.
Jonathan Ellsworth’s reply:
Thank you, Tobias, your remarks are much appreciated.
As for the “picky prick” part … yours isn’t an unreasonable request, and it’s something we’ve discussed. But this is why, to date, we haven’t, always added that info into every review:
Generally, we’ve only gone into mount locations when we think it’s necessary (for example, in every single review of Salomon’s Q / Quest skis), because (1) our reviews are already long (2) our reviews take an absurdly long time to put together, and (3) simply knowing whether a ski’s recommended point is -5 or -7 of true center isn’t necessarily all that illuminating by itself, independent of rocker line stats and splay numbers.
So we’re a bit hesitant to start also incorporating all of that additional info (and jumping down that rabbit hole), since (1) each review would start to look more and more like a term paper, and (2) we wouldn’t want someone to dismiss a ski just because he or she thinks it’s too far forward or too far back from true center.
Because in our actual product testing, if we find that a ski doesn’t work well on the line, we’ll always adjust the mount location and provide that info in the review.
Ultimately, your request raises a really important question that we spend a lot of time thinking about. We already are writing reviews that are typically 1500 – 3000 words (sometimes longer), and we certainly could write 10,000 word reviews—though we’d have to invent a way to function on zero sleep.
So the question is, How much information – or how much *more* information – needs to be included to produce a genuinely helpful / useful review? At what point does providing more and more detail actually detract from the usefulness of a review?
Thoughts, Tobias? What do the rest of you think?