Protoolreviews just a wee bit biased

[rice rocket]

RTR has some interesting things to say about tool reviewers getting free tools. In this podcast, it starts at 43:00, with the meat of it about professional tool reviewers starting at 50:10.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337Z using Tapatalk

I enjoy Daniel's reviews, but I don't for one second buy his 10-minute soapbox self-rationalization, that he has more incentive to make an honest review than the guy who gets it for free on Amazon.

The incentive is the same, to keep the chedda flowin', and not until he makes a meaningful criticism of a tool will there be a reason to believe otherwise.

 

[Gmonkee]

I don't look at any of them. Not anymore.

I buy what I borrow if it really fills a need in my kit. But the last few years far more has been sold off than purchased.
I bought into the bike folding multi tool idea recently and the two I have are not meeting the hype at all. Not total **** but makes one wonder what odd ducks they tested them on before declaring them great tools.
It is easier to just not carry them, just a folding hex key set really. some real tool to pop the wheels off for a flat to round it out.

All early reviews were WOW factor and the mention most get now are not so great. Useful in emergency, most times or simply better than nothing.
My experience was more the last part and I changed my buying habits to hands on over some guy on the 'tube.

Live and learn.

 

[Jacobson]

I use GJ for tool reviews.

 

[knobby]

This Canadian guy is probably my favorite reviewer.

Québécois not Canadian JS

 

[Schurkey]

Quebec isn't in Canada?

 

[ku17]

Tool reviews are tricky. I occasionally watch Tools In Action, mostly just to see what new products look like. Those two are corporate shills without an ounce of integrity.

Daniel from RTR makes reviews that are fun to watch and their is a bit of objectivity to them but he has dumbed down his videos recently and is catering to the least common denominator of YouTube viewers in an apparent attempt to increase his viewer base. It's a shame.

Toolaholic on Instagram is okay, he occasionally gives a solid critical review of a tool but his unwavering praise of Dewalt and Festool leaves me leery of many of his reviews. I also don't know if he actually purchases his tools which is a concern since company's may send him a tool with beefier and better components than what we would find. My final concern isn't universal but I don't share his same OCD in regards to dust, clutter, and power cords so I simply can't relate to much of what he believes makes a tool great.

I love Chris from AvE, he always makes me laugh and he's never afraid to admit he's wrong. He's an intelligent guy but he's also continually pushing the limits of what he knows in attempt to educate himself and others. It takes a brave man to record his mistakes and put it on YouTube for all to see, and criticize. He's eaten crow on video a view times and his treatment of tools, as he is all to keen to admit, is not what is recommended or normal. His lack of brand loyalty. Brand loyalists, and those who do not push the limits of their tools, will quite naturally hate him.

 

[Avplayer]

I persoanlly like realtoolreviews...love his tests on torque output for impact guns

 

[Rarified27]

So I just trashed the Milwaukee magnetic measuring tapes in a different thread, then saw this one.

Speaking to a few great things pointed out by people in this thread:

-Long term, this-is-how-it-performed-over-time and is-that-feature-useful commentary is the kind of thing I find on GJ, never in a video review. Finding it in a video, with examples, would be great.

- Most reviews are of new products and the "unboxing" videos are miserably boring. Showing us what was included, not how it was included is more helpful.

- Lofty speech does, as many mentioned, make you sound like an uppity douche. Just say something worked or it didn't and why you think it's a POS. No level of word choice will ever do a better job than "This feature sucked because it made the tool more complicated/didn't let me work any faster/removed a body part".

The review I mentioned above is post #7 in this thread: http://www.garagejournal.com/forum/showthread.php?p=5862852&showall=1

I gave my opinion, backed it up with examples, provided pictures to highlight and clarify my comments, then offered what I felt was a superior, cheaper alternative (solution). For me, that's all I'd ever want in a review.

 

[dnschmidt]

The problem with Daniel's Skidmore testing is the old story of if you only have a hammer everything is a nail. Absolute torque isn't the only thing about an impact wrench. How does it feel in the hand? How loud is it? How big is it? How heavy is it? Is it well balanced? None of this matters. Only the numbers on the Skidmore determine who's the best. Properly reviewing a tool is a difficult job and not one dimensional.

 

[Stuey]

I believe what most tool reviewers say. The problem is that what they don't say. If any of these guys reviews a tool and it blows that review never sees the light of day. That is my biggest complaint with these guys. They only show the good and not the bad and all tool companies make bad tools but you never see a review of any of them.

It's dishonesty by omission.

I disagree.

At ToolGuyd, I have X-number of hours to get things done, but 10X hours of work to do.

Should I spend money or request a tool I know I won't like using, or one that I have good reason to believe will not perform to my needs or expectations?

No, I'd rather try something new, work on a project, or test something I think readers would be interested in.

The magazines I've worked with and for have similar constraints, but instead of limited time they have limited space. They don't want to devote space to products that readers won't want to or shouldn't buy. They want to use that space for things that positive things.

Some magazines won't write about anything unless they can get it for free.

ToolGuyd has a personal use purchase policy. If I want or need something, I buy it. But for testing new power tools, it's cost-prohibitive to buy everything.

A lot of new reviewers are dazzled by review samples, which brands will happily send out if they can get enough exposure.

There's a LOT of BS out there, with new and even seasoned reviewers doing or saying anything to ensure the flow of free tools and even money keeps coming.

I've heard of reviewers selling samples on Craigslist, promising good reviews for samples, promising favorable comparisons for samples, and talking out of both sides of their mouth.

I've seen people saying they hate a tool brand and its tools in private, while praising them in reviews and coverage.

Some magazines "review" tools their authors and writers have no clue about, others simply copy/paste what the manufacturer says in press release.

My policy is to donate or giveaway tools once they've exhausted their editorial potential, but questions keep coming in, leading me to hold onto samples longer than I've expected. How does this drill compare to that one? Model A vs. model B? Does model C's drill chuck have any wobble?

For some tools I try to get very long-term testing in, but that's rarely possible anymore except for specialty or niche tools.

Habitat gets a lot of my tool samples, readers get others, and I also pass many along to contractors.

You guys, as fellow reviewers and also readers and viewers, offered great feedback in this thread. But how often do you give that feedback to the reviewers you criticize?

I try to be as transparent as possible, describing my views and discussing which tools are bought and which are provided as samples.

My obligations are to readers. Well, readers and my own integrity.

Ask questions. If you feel a review has language too praiseful and flowery, say so. Maybe in an email, but you could do so in a public comment so that the author or reviewer can respond.

I know a lot of reviewers, and some have sold out to the highest payers. They're untrustworthy, dishonest, deceptive, and unethical.

But most are honest or try to be honest.

This what one potential advertiser asked me after we started talking about banner ad potential:

I wanted to reach out to see if there was some native component (editorial/content) we could receive for [brand] within the proposed budget


I won't tell you the brand, but I can tell you that more and more agencies and advertisers are after so called "native" components. I don't allow sponsored posts, but have seen what I am sure are sponsored reviews and videos, where the reviewer didn't disclose them as such.

I have seen junky tools praised as being innovative, comparisons that were fixed from the start. Strip out the partiality, take the information you need, and add it to other reviews and testimonials as you do your research.

If I weren't already resolved to be transparent and honest, seeing all that would prompt me to want to balance things out.

Oh, and I haven't read the Protoolreviews review that prompted this thread, but I know some of the guys there, for a few years now, and believe them to be genuine.

Some people write in a certain way. If you don't like it, speak up. A lot of users are very much enamored with Klein. I don't think it's hard to imagine a reviewer having just as fond feelings for the brand.

Tool reviews are tricky. I occasionally watch Tools In Action, mostly just to see what new products look like. Those two are corporate shills without an ounce of integrity.


Toolaholic on Instagram is okay, he occasionally gives a solid critical review of a tool but his unwavering praise of Dewalt and Festool leaves me leery of many of his reviews. I also don't know if he actually purchases his tools which is a concern since company's may send him a tool with beefier and better components than what we would find. My final concern isn't universal but I don't share his same OCD in regards to dust, clutter, and power cords so I simply can't relate to much of what he believes makes a tool great.

I know the Tools in Action guys well. I don't have time to watch their videos often anymore, but I have never heard Dan say anything in a video that he hasn't also said to me in private. We have very different tastes in tools, and very different needs, leading to differences in opinion and some very interesting arguments. But I believe he says it as he believes it. Eric too.

I don't know Toolaholic very well, but I met him recently. He is very knowledgeable and seems genuine. I think so far he's been buying tools, recent Dewalt tools possibly excluded.

But again, ask questions. If you don't know whether someone buys a tool or received it for free, ask them.

Reviewers are approachable.

My inbox is a mess these days, but I pay special attention to questions about why I like x-brand over another, whether I'm biased about y-brand, or whether I have ever purchased tools from z-brand.

 

[tjpavlov]

I am going to stand up for Stuey and Toolguyd here. I am a frequent reader there and he has actually mailed me a couple boxes of tools. One time I asked about the Triangle Ratchet, which was a pretty cool 3/8 drive model with a 2 degree swing arc. The company had gone under, so he just mailed me the one he had bought. He really does give away the extra stuff.

 

[Milwookie]

Stueyd, thanks for taking the time to comment. I go to your website regularly, and appreciate what you do. Congratulations on your new arrival as well!

I do find it interesting that in a thread of people commenting how they want to see more negative reviews, you said specifically you don't do reviews of products that aren't going to necessarily be positive because you don't think people want to see it. I think there may be a little bit of a disconnect going on there. AvE has a huge following, and he does it primarily by being critical.

I don't doubt that most of these reviewers try and be impartial with their reviews, but I think there have been plenty of studies to show that receiving something in kind affects your views on it whether you think it does or not. Reviewers should note whether they have received a tool for free--someone else noted above that it may actually be illegal not to do so according to the rules set by the FTC.

I spent quite a few years in a marketing career, and a lot of the things that I hear strike me as having been provided by the manufacturer in one way or another. That strikes me as disingenuous, and that was what prompted my initial post. I know Klein has quite a following (I have quite a few Klein tools myself and have nothing but good things to say about them so far), but I also know there are plenty of detractors out there as well, a number of which seem to have very valid concerns and complaints. I would like to see some of those being addressed by the reviewers, but it strikes me as odd that when people on GJ find so many tools that seem to be breaking with normal use, that none of the reviewers ever seem to find any significant problems with any of the tools they review.

 

[jd_1138]

Is it just me or is protoolsreview.com just a little too friendly with manufacturers? Every single review I've seen is close to five stars and talks about how fantastic every manufacturer is. Listen to these excerpts from their latest Klein review:
"Any time Klein tells me they have something new, they have my attention in a hurry. Tools like the new Klein Heavy-Duty Nut Drivers are the case in point. They’re intelligently designed, tough tools that know how to get the job done." (WTF does that even mean?)
"Having just wrapped up with a screwdriver, I took a moment to appreciate Klein’s comfort grip handles. They really do make a difference over the course of long days."
"These are classic Klein hands tools – the fact that the Klein name is on them is about all you need to know to have confidence in the quality and function."

Someone's getting handy-j's from marketing.

We are talking about Klein for pete's sake -- and not some HF or random garbage bought at Wal-Mart. No wonder he likes the Klein stuff so much.

 

[Milwookie]

We are talking about Klein for pete's sake -- and not some HF or random garbage bought at Wal-Mart. No wonder he likes the Klein stuff so much.

Yet any internet search will turn up plenty of complaints. One common theme is that their screwdriver tips are soft and wear out quickly.

Of course any company is going to have some complaints it would simply be unreasonable to expect everyone to be satisfied or every product to be perfectly made. But when you see the same complaints over and over again, they stand out.

 

[jd_1138]

Yet any internet search will turn up plenty of complaints. One common theme is that their screwdriver tips are soft and wear out quickly.

Of course any company is going to have some complaints it would simply be unreasonable to expect everyone to be satisfied or every product to be perfectly made. But when you see the same complaints over and over again, they stand out.

Oh OK, I didn't know that. I have a few older Klein tools, and they're top notch. Too bad they've put out some **** lately. When you have a quality product that goes for top dollar, you gotta watch the quality or else people will buy midlevel stuff.

 

[Stuey]

Stueyd, thanks for taking the time to comment. I go to your website regularly, and appreciate what you do. Congratulations on your new arrival as well!

I do find it interesting that in a thread of people commenting how they want to see more negative reviews, you said specifically you don't do reviews of products that aren't going to necessarily be positive because you don't think people want to see it. I think there may be a little bit of a disconnect going on there. AvE has a huge following, and he does it primarily by being critical.

I don't doubt that most of these reviewers try and be impartial with their reviews, but I think there have been plenty of studies to show that receiving something in kind affects your views on it whether you think it does or not. Reviewers should note whether they have received a tool for free--someone else noted above that it may actually be illegal not to do so according to the rules set by the FTC.

I spent quite a few years in a marketing career, and a lot of the things that I hear strike me as having been provided by the manufacturer in one way or another. That strikes me as disingenuous, and that was what prompted my initial post. I know Klein has quite a following (I have quite a few Klein tools myself and have nothing but good things to say about them so far), but I also know there are plenty of detractors out there as well, a number of which seem to have very valid concerns and complaints. I would like to see some of those being addressed by the reviewers, but it strikes me as odd that when people on GJ find so many tools that seem to be breaking with normal use, that none of the reviewers ever seem to find any significant problems with any of the tools they review.

I'll have to go back and see what I said, but I'm sure I said (or at least meant to say) that I won't test or review tools that I think I'll hate.

Do you have time to use a smaller breaker bar than you need? If you know you don't like tomatoes, will order a tomato salad?

Sometimes I'll give some attention to tools I don't think I like, and I'll be surprised. Other times they'll go into a "I don't have time for this **** right now" box. If it's of reader interest, I'll put the time into the review.

AvE is critical, but also sometimes sensational. He bashed a Festool saw for only having 16 gauge wire, and criticizes other tools for not having glass-reinforced plastic housings. Part of the entertainment in his reviews is the sensationalism. But sometimes I wonder if he doesn't want to consider tools as the sum of their parts.

When I started disclosing tool origins, a brand told me it's not necessary because it's common practice for magazines to receive review samples for free.

I try to make mention of provided-for samples near the start of a post, and in an acknowledgement at the end.

Some agencies, not so much brands, consider samples as compensation. I avoid working with anyone who holds this stance, as ToolGuyd does not accept compensation for reviews. If a sample is required, they should be supplied unconditionally.

The important thing regarding how different people use and break tools is consistency and frequency.

Someone who reviews a pair of sneakers after wearing them for a month might have a different view than someone who wore them for four, and another who wore them for six. Maybe one user took running shoes hiking, and another took hiking shoes running, and were dissatisfied for different reasons.

I try to give each tool enough attention to stand by any impressions or recommendations. Sometimes there will never be enough time. That's the benefit of having a comments section, where users can chime in with their own experiences.

I can definitely appreciate the filter you must have developed, having been in marketing. I've developed a pretty reliable (I'd like to think) BS filter as well.

I know Klein, and while I know they'll pay magazines' awards' entry fees and things like that, they don't engage in anything I'd consider sketchy.

I had been working with a magazine, choreographing and editing the tool review section of 12 issues. What I have found is that some people lack the ability to say what they want to say without flowery praise, whether in regard to a tool they bought, or one that was sent to them for review.

OH, and this all reminds me of something else.

There are a lot of people out for freebies. LOTS. So much that there are some people in certain industries who won't even answer technical questions without assuming that the media person wants a handout.

One time I asked a knife contact for more information about a product, they sent me a survey to fill out. I was reviewing a specialty woodworking saw for a magazine, and the art director asked me to request a photo sample for them. I passed along the request and received the most hostile email I've ever seen, undoubtedly because this person was used to "reviewers" and woodworkers begging for free products.

Being an insider, yes, I can tell you that there's temptation. And a lot of people fall to that temptation. If I can get my hands on something that I'd like to review but don't need or want to buy, I'll give it a try. But only if it fits within my ideals and what readers have come to expect. If it's something I want or need, and would otherwise buy, out comes the credit card.

 

[Loscaldazar]

The problem with Daniel's Skidmore testing is the old story of if you only have a hammer everything is a nail. Absolute torque isn't the only thing about an impact wrench. How does it feel in the hand? How loud is it? How big is it? How heavy is it? Is it well balanced? None of this matters. Only the numbers on the Skidmore determine who's the best. Properly reviewing a tool is a difficult job and not one dimensional.

He (Daniel) usually goes over that other stuff in the individual reviews of the products (not always in the comparisons between products). He may not always demonstrate how loud an impact is (he's done it a bit for the quieter ones, showing that he can talk over them IIRC), but he usually does mention what the decibel rating is.

With the proto impacts, he showed that they were very well balanced front to back, and could even stand up on the handle. The balance of the proto impact is something a lot of people have mentioned on this forum too, so he's not pulling stuff out of his rear.

With the m7 mini impact comparison (and later the multi brand mini impacts comparison) he gave some good descriptions and comparisons of weight, size, and loudness.

When talking about electric impacts, he mentioned how the tilted head of the IR (versus the handle and head the Milwaukee and Dewalt meeting at a 90 degree angle) put the battery further away from what ever you were working on, and what advantages that gave.

Those are just the examples I remember off the top of my head. He does a great job of mentioning a lot of those design features/choices that influence the tools usability and comfort, not just mentioning the max torque. He does have some videos where it is just all about torque comparison, but there is almost always a video about that tool individually giving a lot of detail about it. I think he doesn't really want to declare winners (other than the obvious most powerful one) because lots of people have different preferences (some will take a smaller louder imapct over a larger quieter one or one may find impact A more comfortable while another person finds impact B better).

My biggest complaint with Daniel/RTR is that he comes off as very scripted (which is, overall, a very small complaint and doesn't stop me from watching his reviews). I can usually predict what he is going to say at point ("I just want to point out that the red portion is________ and the black portion is_______" I'll let you fill in the blanks ). I also feel like he could be more critical at points, like the OEM tools light review, the specs and light output are incredible, and he demonstrated those well, but I don't remember him mentioning things about how unlike most work lights, it lacked hooks or a way to secure it to a surface besides the magnets on the back (which would only work on a relatively flat and long metal surface) which are reason why I ultimately didn't go with that worklight (I happened to have been looking at rechargeable work lights when that video came out, ended up with the Astro 40SL).

But overall I think he does a great job of showing the tools in use, what they're good at, and what to expect out of them. I love the torque testing and the open end wrench testing he has done (which are invaluable IMHO).

 

[Downwindtracker 2]

AvE ,I think he is a Acadian, not a Québécois. A considerable difference. From his non tool vids, I would guess he lives in the interior of BC.

I find his bridge/crane collapse videos to be excellent.

 

[MWEric]

AvE for the win

 

[Fialaja]

another vote for ave. He has to be the only guy out there actually saying if something is **** or not.

amen

 

[Indexmill]

Gosh, I do a little bit of research to find out the key points and then just buy **** and if it does not meet my expectations, I return it. Pretty easy these days to return ****.