User Tag List

Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    207
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Review ratings!?!

    Here comes a reflection after a few years of review reading. In a strive to give a measure of how good or bad a product is you often see ratings on a scale from 1-10. Both professional an private reviewers do this. And hereís my question: Have you ever seen a rating below 7? 5 anyone? NO, every bloody review starts att 8 and most ratings ar 9 or above, often in 0,5 steps. Why is this? Itís totaly pointless!

    Does anyone have their first steel racket in mind when they review a high end product. If they do, why?

    My suggestion is to use a rating from 1-5 (no half steps, but maybe an extra plus or minus)

    1. bad
    2. ok
    3. average
    4. good
    5. very good

    This I can understand.

    What say YOU?

  2. #2
    Regular Member ucantseeme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Germany, Northrhine Westfalia
    Posts
    831
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think this rating system give a better reflection of a racket review. This words are easy to understand. I think if a review is normalized. It's easier to compare different rackets or close rackets from different companies. If everybody would do it with this chapters:

    0. Pricing Rating 1 to 5
    1. first impression (paintjob, feeling by holding it, bending the shaft) Rating 1 to 5
    2. Setup (string tension, string type)
    3. Warmup Rating 1 to 5
    4. Overhead shots (clear, bh clear, smash, drop shot, bh drop shot) Rating 1 to 5
    5. Net play Rating 1 to 5
    6. Defence Rating 1 to 5
    7. Game time (Type: singles / doubles) Rating 1 to 5
    8. Overall perfomance Rating 1 to 5 (calculated by sum the points from chapter 0, 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 and divide them by 6)
    9. Compare it with other rackets in your stock

    I think if this system will be use, some rackets wouldn't be overrated anymore. What do you think?
    Last edited by ucantseeme; 01-12-2011 at 05:17 AM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Sketchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The Westcountry
    Posts
    707
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    There's another thread discussing this exact same point somewhere...

    I think the argument is that people wouldn't have bought the racket in the first place unless they were fairly sure they'd like it, and therefore they're bound to give it a high score (people generally don't review rackets they don't own). Plus they likely don't have much to compare against, apart from other quite similar rackets (not many people will own both a superlight racket, and a super-heavy racket).

    What bothers me though, is when people take into account the racket specs, price, etc.
    They'll give a head-heavy 3U racket "8/10" for defense, because they think it's good for such a heavy racket. If you consider a superlight 5U racket would get a "10/10" and a head-heavy 2U racket would get a "1/10", NO 3U racket should EVER be getting more than about "5/10" on defense.
    It just makes the scores totally meaningless.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    207
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yea, just as I thought. Most things has been discussed before. This time I didn't do my research properly. Sorry!

    Your points are valid Sketchy. And there are more problems to add.

    Reviewing a product is not easy. Time is one problem. What was the best last year isn't the best this year. And just think of all the products to come.

    Price is another problem. Should a product be measured with or without the price in mind?

    And whats good for me is probably not as good for you. People are different by default. Our experiences differ and it is impossible to be absolutely unbiased. But that's not bad as long as you know who is writing and what that person stands for.

    But back to my mainpoint. What does the figures really mean? In a scale from 1-10 everything above 7 has to be considered as very good, and I have never seen anything below 7. I have played with a lot of rackets but none of them has been very good at everything. Not even close.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Andy05's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Stockton-on-Tees, UK
    Posts
    476
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The problem with the 1-10 or 1-5 scale is that the midpoints of 5 and 3 respectively are considered the boundary between good and bad. I think that no racquet that people will discuss on this forum can be considered 'bad' so no ranking would fall below 5 or 3.
    And as new racquets are released that surpass the old ones a ranking of 10 doesnt work anymore either.
    I just use reviews to see what people think of the build quality, if they find it breaks easily, then I will find another racquet that is similar and doesn't break.

Similar Threads

  1. Latest ratings
    By radhakrishnan.k in forum Racket Recommendation / Comparison
    Replies: 0
    : 03-15-2012, 03:56 PM
  2. My ratings after AE, SO 2009
    By 2cents in forum German Open / All England / Swiss Open 2009
    Replies: 29
    : 03-23-2009, 05:15 PM
  3. Stiffness ratings?
    By RimHitter in forum Racket Recommendation / Comparison
    Replies: 19
    : 05-02-2007, 06:54 PM
  4. Star Ratings
    By Daylightkiller in forum Hong Kong Open / China Open / Chinese Taipei Open 2005
    Replies: 5
    : 07-25-2005, 09:52 PM
  5. Yonex Ratings
    By shaun in forum Badminton Rackets / Equipment
    Replies: 9
    : 03-24-2001, 03:36 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •