Hahaha. Sooner or later, all amps will drop to zero stars as they age.
I thought that Yamaha was the only one having supply problems.
I thought that Yamaha was the only one having supply problems.
Wow.can see that there has been a bit of discussion since I logged off last night!
First of all this is the first time I have seen a review revised so didn't know it was (some what) common or accepted practice (and so I probably wouldn't have made the comments about being hacked or paid off).but then again other than my 5090H, I've never followed a product this closely before, and if I'd already purchased it, it's not sure I would have ever gone back to the old review.
I still don't agree with it though. I think, as others have mentioned, that it would be more appropriate to add a footnote to the original review or better yet mention in the review of the newer better product that "it even surpasses the award winning xxxx". Another thing is that it's not just the rating that was changed.It's a whole new review, attached to the old link. Like I mentioned before, I linked to that review with comments about that review and there are probably other threads that revolve around that review and they are all made irrelevant because a completely different review pops up if you click on the link.
I don't believe that because a newer, better product comes along (it's bound to happen) it should affect the original review. I also think that the original review and the fact that it was the 2008 award winning receiver are two different things. The five star review was out before it was chosen product of the year.so just because it's has five stars doesn't automatically make it the "best" receiver on the market. If a better receiver came out in the same year I could understand removing the product of the year title (maybe), but not the 5th star.
There were other 5 star receivers in 2008. Have they all been revised? And were the other 5 star receivers in 2008 down graded because the LX81 was so hot (sorry.cool) and won product of the year)?
I think a five star product is a five star product, even if something new and better comes along
.
First of all this is the first time I have seen a review revised so didn't know it was (some what) common or accepted practice (and so I probably wouldn't have made the comments about being hacked or paid off).but then again other than my 5090H, I've never followed a product this closely before, and if I'd already purchased it, it's not sure I would have ever gone back to the old review.
I still don't agree with it though. I think, as others have mentioned, that it would be more appropriate to add a footnote to the original review or better yet mention in the review of the newer better product that "it even surpasses the award winning xxxx". Another thing is that it's not just the rating that was changed.It's a whole new review, attached to the old link. Like I mentioned before, I linked to that review with comments about that review and there are probably other threads that revolve around that review and they are all made irrelevant because a completely different review pops up if you click on the link.
I don't believe that because a newer, better product comes along (it's bound to happen) it should affect the original review. I also think that the original review and the fact that it was the 2008 award winning receiver are two different things. The five star review was out before it was chosen product of the year.so just because it's has five stars doesn't automatically make it the "best" receiver on the market. If a better receiver came out in the same year I could understand removing the product of the year title (maybe), but not the 5th star.
There were other 5 star receivers in 2008. Have they all been revised? And were the other 5 star receivers in 2008 down graded because the LX81 was so hot (sorry.cool) and won product of the year)?
I think a five star product is a five star product, even if something new and better comes along
It happens all the time in the print magazine, and of course if something comes along that surpasses an existing five-star winner or even Award winner, then the star rating of that product is likely to be revised accordingly.
And we really can't be responsible for the effect this may have on any site choosing to link to the review - the link will still be to our current review of the product, which of course is the one relevant at the time the link is accessed
And we really can't be responsible for the effect this may have on any site choosing to link to the review - the link will still be to our current review of the product, which of course is the one relevant at the time the link is accessed
professorhat
Well-known member
I'm also of the opinion that star ratings must change if newer items come out which mean they are no longer as good value as they were. After all, look at it from the view of the person who wants to buy now (which is really who these reviews are designed for don't forget). If I'm buying a new amp in that price range now, I want to know which amps WHF consider the best available at this moment of time, not what was great a few months back.
As people have said, WHF marking your amp down a star doesn't activate something in the amp which suddenly makes it sound worse! Presumably you listened to the amp before you bought and were happy with the sound, so why would this change now?ÿ
As people have said, WHF marking your amp down a star doesn't activate something in the amp which suddenly makes it sound worse! Presumably you listened to the amp before you bought and were happy with the sound, so why would this change now?ÿ
professorhat:
I'm also of the opinion that star ratings must change if newer items come out which mean they are no longer as good value as they were. After all, look at it from the view of the person who wants to buy now (which is really who these reviews are designed for don't forget). If I'm buying a new amp in that price range now, I want to know which amps WHF consider the best available at this moment of time, not what was great a few months back.
As people have said, WHF marking your amp down a star doesn't activate something in the amp which suddenly makes it sound worse! Presumably you listened to the amp before you bought and were happy with the sound, so why would this change now?
+1 on this.
I'm also of the opinion that star ratings must change if newer items come out which mean they are no longer as good value as they were. After all, look at it from the view of the person who wants to buy now (which is really who these reviews are designed for don't forget). If I'm buying a new amp in that price range now, I want to know which amps WHF consider the best available at this moment of time, not what was great a few months back.
As people have said, WHF marking your amp down a star doesn't activate something in the amp which suddenly makes it sound worse! Presumably you listened to the amp before you bought and were happy with the sound, so why would this change now?
+1 on this.
Sliced Bread
Well-known member
I've personally see this as positive. It shows that the reviews are "dynamic" and reflect the current market. Who cares how good a product was 6 months ago if you have a more recent perspective available to read. The star system is just a guideline. If you do not adjust the reviews then you would have an archive full to the brim with 5 star products and it would be a lot harder to create a short list of products to demo.
Well, I am also in favour of revising the ratings when better products comes along. But as I tried to indicate earlier I just then think this should be done consistently. I might be wrong, but I feel there is quite a few (old or older) products in the buyers guide with a 5 star rating which if tested today probably wouldn't get a 5 star rating.
I know this is a quite extensive task, but if not done consistently I do not see the benefit of the system? Otherwise you will never know whether a product is 'just' a once terrific product which was just never downgraded or truly top of the line.
I know this is a quite extensive task, but if not done consistently I do not see the benefit of the system? Otherwise you will never know whether a product is 'just' a once terrific product which was just never downgraded or truly top of the line.
professorhat
Well-known member
But then you have to draw the line somewhere - if you wanted WHF to re-review everything they've ever reviewed every few months, they'd never have time to review anything new! At the moment though, I personally think if a component is still generally available and was a previous class leader, then it should be included in a group test to see how the new breed compare to it, but if not, then it should just be left.
jase fox
Well-known member
JohnNewman:I've personally see this as positive. It shows that the reviews are "dynamic" and reflect the current market. Who cares how good a product was 6 months ago if you have a more recent perspective available to read. The star system is just a guideline. If you do not adjust the reviews then you would have an archive full to the brim with 5 star products and it would be a lot harder to create a short list of products to demo.mmmm sounds like it's not just Sony getting backhanders haha (sorry, could'nt resist that) & i actually do "care" as to how good a product was 6 months ago as i'd like to feel when i buy my equipment i get value for money & that it is'nt going to become a relic in the space of a year !!
And having an archive full to the brim with 5 star views isnt a bad thing is it? I mean WHSV have brought out a 5 star best buy special edition magazine before & still do from time to time i think, now if we didnt have lots of 5 star products we wouldnt have a special edition mag now would we?
And having an archive full to the brim with 5 star views isnt a bad thing is it? I mean WHSV have brought out a 5 star best buy special edition magazine before & still do from time to time i think, now if we didnt have lots of 5 star products we wouldnt have a special edition mag now would we?
Professor, I will have to disagree with you on that one.
Either you have a system or you don't. Otherwise you will have to remember which products were in group tests and which were not. Not very easy as these are not listed online.
Either you have a system or you don't. Otherwise you will have to remember which products were in group tests and which were not. Not very easy as these are not listed online.
jase fox:mmmm sounds like it's not just Sony getting backhanders haha (sorry, could'nt resist that)
Well, that's a first at least - suggestions we're giving Sony backhanders...
Well, that's a first at least - suggestions we're giving Sony backhanders...
jase fox
Well-known member
Andrew Everard:
jase fox:mmmm sounds like it's not just Sony getting backhanders haha (sorry, could'nt resist that)
Well, that's a first at least - suggestions we're giving Sony backhanders...
I dont believe & never have believed the ridiculous idea that Sony or any company for that matter get back handers, i was just being sarcastic mainly towards the folk that say Sony are getting them.
jase fox:mmmm sounds like it's not just Sony getting backhanders haha (sorry, could'nt resist that)
Well, that's a first at least - suggestions we're giving Sony backhanders...
I dont believe & never have believed the ridiculous idea that Sony or any company for that matter get back handers, i was just being sarcastic mainly towards the folk that say Sony are getting them.
jase fox:I dont believe & never have believed the ridiculous idea that Sony or any company for that matter get back handers, i was just being sarcastic mainly towards the folk that say Sony are getting them.
The point I was making was that - oh, never mind...
The point I was making was that - oh, never mind...
I still think that the bare minimum should be a foot note stating -
'previously product of the year (or what ever is applicable) and 5 star rated review'
This I feel would suit all camps regarding this obviously sensitive subject matter.
Just changing reviews and ratings is wrong, I compile an 'audition list' on the strengths of the magazines' reviews and then go and live audition before final commitment to purchase. I subscibe to WHF and thoroughly look forward to tearing open the plastic sleeve each and every month. I don't claim to be knowledgable in all AV and HiFi matters and therfore need guidance but, quite frankly, I like people who make a decision and stand by it - whether right or wrong.
PS - the Sony should lose one of it's stars just for being an hippocrocapig of an amp (ugly) ! You would definitely kick it out of bed for making crumbs !!
'previously product of the year (or what ever is applicable) and 5 star rated review'
This I feel would suit all camps regarding this obviously sensitive subject matter.
Just changing reviews and ratings is wrong, I compile an 'audition list' on the strengths of the magazines' reviews and then go and live audition before final commitment to purchase. I subscibe to WHF and thoroughly look forward to tearing open the plastic sleeve each and every month. I don't claim to be knowledgable in all AV and HiFi matters and therfore need guidance but, quite frankly, I like people who make a decision and stand by it - whether right or wrong.
PS - the Sony should lose one of it's stars just for being an hippocrocapig of an amp (ugly) ! You would definitely kick it out of bed for making crumbs !!
soulton:Just changing reviews and ratings is wrong, I compile an 'audition list' on the strengths of the magazines' reviews and then go and live audition before final commitment to purchase. I subscibe to WHF and thoroughly look forward to tearing open the plastic sleeve each and every month. I don't claim to be knowledgable in all AV and HiFi matters and therfore need guidance but, quite frankly, I like people who make a decision and stand by it - whether right or wrong.
We don't 'just' change reviews and ratings. If a product is reviewed against a newer rival and found wanting, the review will change. Simple as that. It's not a matter of not standing by a review, unless you expect us to be prescient enough to know what may be launched in the future, and take that into account when giving our verdicts.
All reviews are carried out in the context of the market, so inevitably star ratings will change as the market changes and/or evolves.
We don't 'just' change reviews and ratings. If a product is reviewed against a newer rival and found wanting, the review will change. Simple as that. It's not a matter of not standing by a review, unless you expect us to be prescient enough to know what may be launched in the future, and take that into account when giving our verdicts.
All reviews are carried out in the context of the market, so inevitably star ratings will change as the market changes and/or evolves.
jase fox
Well-known member
Andrew Everard:
jase fox:I dont believe & never have believed the ridiculous idea that Sony or any company for that matter get back handers, i was just being sarcastic mainly towards the folk that say Sony are getting them.
The point I was making was that - oh, never mind...
I get the point you were making Andrew, lets just forget it ye?
I'll go put the kettle on..... Sugar?
jase fox:I dont believe & never have believed the ridiculous idea that Sony or any company for that matter get back handers, i was just being sarcastic mainly towards the folk that say Sony are getting them.
The point I was making was that - oh, never mind...
I get the point you were making Andrew, lets just forget it ye?
I'll go put the kettle on..... Sugar?
I'm not sure you do. You were suggesting that we were giving Sony backhanders, whereas some people suggest Sony gives us backhanders for good reviews, when of course neither case is true.
And please don't call me Sugar - at least not in public, Honey...
And please don't call me Sugar - at least not in public, Honey...
Boca:professorhat:
I'm also of the opinion that star ratings must change if newer items come out which mean they are no longer as good value as they were. After all, look at it from the view of the person who wants to buy now (which is really who these reviews are designed for don't forget). If I'm buying a new amp in that price range now, I want to know which amps WHF consider the best available at this moment of time, not what was great a few months back.
As people have said, WHF marking your amp down a star doesn't activate something in the amp which suddenly makes it sound worse! Presumably you listened to the amp before you bought and were happy with the sound, so why would this change now?ÿ
ÿ
+1 on this.
ÿ
+ another!
A good example is the Onkyo 875 (5 stars) vs the 876 (4 stars). The 876 is (arguably) a better amp than the 875 (as it's an 875 with a few tweaks - I believe). But at the time the 875 was reviewed, it was the class leader - in fact it raised the bar for AV amps at it's price point. The 876 received 4 stars, not because it is not as good as the 875, but because other manufacturer's 2008 releases had leap-frogged the 876 in terms of performance-per-pound.
ÿ
I'm also of the opinion that star ratings must change if newer items come out which mean they are no longer as good value as they were. After all, look at it from the view of the person who wants to buy now (which is really who these reviews are designed for don't forget). If I'm buying a new amp in that price range now, I want to know which amps WHF consider the best available at this moment of time, not what was great a few months back.
As people have said, WHF marking your amp down a star doesn't activate something in the amp which suddenly makes it sound worse! Presumably you listened to the amp before you bought and were happy with the sound, so why would this change now?ÿ
ÿ
+1 on this.
ÿ
+ another!
A good example is the Onkyo 875 (5 stars) vs the 876 (4 stars). The 876 is (arguably) a better amp than the 875 (as it's an 875 with a few tweaks - I believe). But at the time the 875 was reviewed, it was the class leader - in fact it raised the bar for AV amps at it's price point. The 876 received 4 stars, not because it is not as good as the 875, but because other manufacturer's 2008 releases had leap-frogged the 876 in terms of performance-per-pound.
ÿ
margetti:Boca:professorhat:
I'm also of the opinion that star ratings must change if newer items come out which mean they are no longer as good value as they were. After all, look at it from the view of the person who wants to buy now (which is really who these reviews are designed for don't forget). If I'm buying a new amp in that price range now, I want to know which amps WHF consider the best available at this moment of time, not what was great a few months back.
As people have said, WHF marking your amp down a star doesn't activate something in the amp which suddenly makes it sound worse! Presumably you listened to the amp before you bought and were happy with the sound, so why would this change now?
+1 on this.
+ another!
A good example is the Onkyo 875 (5 stars) vs the 876 (4 stars). The 876 is (arguably) a better amp than the 875 (as it's an 875 with a few tweaks - I believe). But at the time the 875 was reviewed, it was the class leader - in fact it raised the bar for AV amps at it's price point. The 876 received 4 stars, not because it is not as good as the 875, but because other manufacturer's 2008 releases had leap-frogged the 876 in terms of performance-per-pound.
This whole subject would, of course, be moot if we had issue dates on the reviews - another one of those things that looks so simple to do but feels like repeatedly smacking one's head against the nearest vertical surface in an effort to get it made so.
I'm also of the opinion that star ratings must change if newer items come out which mean they are no longer as good value as they were. After all, look at it from the view of the person who wants to buy now (which is really who these reviews are designed for don't forget). If I'm buying a new amp in that price range now, I want to know which amps WHF consider the best available at this moment of time, not what was great a few months back.
As people have said, WHF marking your amp down a star doesn't activate something in the amp which suddenly makes it sound worse! Presumably you listened to the amp before you bought and were happy with the sound, so why would this change now?
+1 on this.
+ another!
A good example is the Onkyo 875 (5 stars) vs the 876 (4 stars). The 876 is (arguably) a better amp than the 875 (as it's an 875 with a few tweaks - I believe). But at the time the 875 was reviewed, it was the class leader - in fact it raised the bar for AV amps at it's price point. The 876 received 4 stars, not because it is not as good as the 875, but because other manufacturer's 2008 releases had leap-frogged the 876 in terms of performance-per-pound.
This whole subject would, of course, be moot if we had issue dates on the reviews - another one of those things that looks so simple to do but feels like repeatedly smacking one's head against the nearest vertical surface in an effort to get it made so.
Sliced Bread
Well-known member
jase fox:mmmm sounds like it's not just Sony getting backhanders haha (sorry, could'nt resist that) & i actually do "care" as to how good a product was 6 months ago as i'd like to feel when i buy my equipment i get value for money & that it is'nt going to become a relic in the space of a year !!
I wish
I understand what your saying, however personally I would like to know where a product stands in the current market as that is when I am buying, I'm not too bothered about the past. A good point for this could be flat screen TV's. The technology has moved forward so quickly that an outstanding 5 star product a year ago is very unlikely to be able to compete with newer displays. Therefore showing an outdated review of the product with a 5 star status my be lending the product praise that it no longer deserves. Just my opinion. My feelings aren't strong either way.
I wish
I understand what your saying, however personally I would like to know where a product stands in the current market as that is when I am buying, I'm not too bothered about the past. A good point for this could be flat screen TV's. The technology has moved forward so quickly that an outstanding 5 star product a year ago is very unlikely to be able to compete with newer displays. Therefore showing an outdated review of the product with a 5 star status my be lending the product praise that it no longer deserves. Just my opinion. My feelings aren't strong either way.
Big Aura
Well-known member
quite. Although surely the Sony can't be that great that it lops a whole star off everything else? Is there a case for a 1/2 star rating. It would probably give a clearer picture of where various bits of kit sit vis-a-vis each other.... Just a thought.
I think WHF could easily solve this problem by using a timestamp in the reviews. As for now we canït tell when the review was published on the website. In addition to this inserting a new line with new rating and timestamp would help understand change of ratings.
Have you ever thought about that your readers might use your review databasae as a guide when buying used equipment? In that case a two year old toprating is still relevant!
The ratings are not changed in the printed magazine!
Have you ever thought about that your readers might use your review databasae as a guide when buying used equipment? In that case a two year old toprating is still relevant!
The ratings are not changed in the printed magazine!
professorhat
Well-known member
Think you may have missed this post fella:
Andrew Everard:This whole subject would, of course, be moot if we had issue dates on the reviews - another one of those things that looks so simple to do but feels like repeatedly smacking one's head against the nearest vertical surface in an effort to get it made so.
Andrew Everard:This whole subject would, of course, be moot if we had issue dates on the reviews - another one of those things that looks so simple to do but feels like repeatedly smacking one's head against the nearest vertical surface in an effort to get it made so.
Big Aura:Although surely the Sony can't be that great that it lops a whole star off everything else?
Oh, it is and it does.
Oh, it is and it does.
Similar threads
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram