> <snip> > > Objective reviews of kayaks? Well, if nuclear phycisists can't > "objectively" study the movement of atomic particles, I doubt very much that > a bunch of kayakers, of any skill or experience level, can do better. I'll > settle for subjectivity, coupled with experience and good intentions. > > Sorry for the pedantry. It's a major character flaw of mine. . . I have only one thing to quote: "Two households, both alike in dignity, In fair waters, where we lay our scene, >From ancient grudge break to new mutiny, Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean."[1] Well, there does seem[2] to be two camps here. One one side we have Mark siding with subjectivity. On the other side we have John espousing the merits of objectivity. My understanding of the subjectivist standpoint is that since you cannot be 'truly' objective its better to to settle, so to speak. By settle, I think he means that the reviewer would be known and their experience and preferences made known as well. Conversely, the objectivist pov (IMO) is that its better to take whats best among the current systems for evaluation and try, over time, to make them better. New methods, like paddling under different loads, could be added in to the current review system. Tangentially, I'd like to address the point about reviewers being secret and that being a positive thing for them not being bribed. I think its just as easily argued that that makes them even more susceptible for being bribed. If a clever manufacturer were to find out the identity of the reviewers, and since they aren't publicly known, it would be easier to hide the relationship. In the end both sides have little to say about the merits of potential 'bribery' (defined loosly here). Back to Obj. Vs. Subj. It sounds like Sea Kayaker Mag already tries to have it both ways. They list the objective components (including nifty charts that are hard to really understand the value of 8) and include the subjective of multiple paddler reports. In the end, I'm feeling like this debate is getting vague (and perhaps I've helped that along 8). What specific proposals do people have in mind? The main one I've heard is that we'd like to know the identity of the reviewers. Along with their identity I would find it useful to know what their experience, preferences and what kayaks they own or have owned are. Would it be so hard for Sea Kayaker Magazine to try something different for one or two issues? Taking a different leap - what are the components of an ideal kayak review? It would be great if we could take the compiled comments of paddlewise and synthesize it. Perhaps it could be posted to paddlewise.net? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- snark_at_tulgey.org aka Glen Acord http://www.tulgey.org/~snark if ($snark eq "boojum") {vanish("softly","suddenly")} [1] admittidly, no real blood has been shed in the making of this debate 8) [2] Seems madam? I know not seems.. *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be reproduced/forwarded outside PaddleWise without author's permission Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************Received on Wed Aug 16 2000 - 09:41:20 PDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:30:30 PDT