Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
Whenever the review/reviewer is literally just copied and pasted from the manufacturers description e.g this instagram accounts reviews which i’ve noticed recently
The problem with ski reviews is that the reviewers don't spend any real time on the skis. I try a lot of different skis at demo days and while I can form a very basic opinion, I really can't give any meaningful feedback on the skis. It takes time to get the feel for a ski, at the very least a full day or two but most ski reviews don't put more than two runs on equipment. That's why I trust blister and roofbox, for me it's less about their "independence" and more about their format.
My biggest pet peeve is when the review is not from Blister. In all honesty though its annoying when a review reads like a rewritten ad for the ski.
This is straight from friskier mag and an example of what I would call a bullshit review.
At the forefront of freestyle skiing, Henrik Harlaut’s signature twigs are back on shelves heading into 2019. Dubbed the Edollo, these skis are “so buttery, I felt my arteries clogging,” explained Russell Wontor. That’s no surprise given their namesake’s signature style of skiing. A wider, 98 mm platform, updated flex pattern with a softer tail and ultra-thick steel edges and base construction make these park skis durable, playful, poppy and sturdy, simultaneously. All in all, these are a pair of “butterlicious skis that want to be pressed hard and often, and can still hang on the groomers,” said veteran tester Adrian Bouthot.
Here's a good review (note it describes characteristics, weighs pros and cons, etc.)
When the professional reviewer rates the ski in the wrong category. for example:
When reviewing a park ski: "These skis can hold an edge when carving". Yes, because I buy a park ski to carve turns. Dulled edges are great to turn on...
When reviewing a wide underfoot deep powder ski: "These ski are great in moguls" Give me a break. Wide underfoot skis arent designed to slap moguls.
I should go and review a Lamborghini as: "a great vehicle to go mud racing in too" Or "this Jeep 4x4 monster truck can really challenge your friends on the racetrack."
I hate that there's no bad reviews, every ski seems to be a really good option for something. I wish that when a company makes a bad ski whether it be durability, intended use or whatever the review would just say that it wasn't good and there are better options
freestyler540When the professional reviewer rates the ski in the wrong category. for example:
When reviewing a park ski: "These skis can hold an edge when carving". Yes, because I buy a park ski to carve turns. Dulled edges are great to turn on...
CLQSkiing 130 underfoot skis: These skis are surprisingly versatile!
I think you guys are making this kind of statement sound dumber than they are by removing them from context. Nobody, at least nobody writing proper ski reviews, is suggesting you should buy a park ski as a carving ski. Nobody is suggesting a 130mm underfoot ski is, in absolute terms, versatile. When I'm reviewing a ski, I'm assuming that the audience is looking at skis within the same category. Therefore the statements in the review contain an unsaid 'compared to other similar skis'. When I say 'the new Bent Chetler has really low swingweight' I mean compared to say, the K2 Catamaran (and I do try and be explicit with that mostly, but things get really wordy). But I'm not suggesting they have low swingweight compared to a snowblade.
There are massive differences in the carving abilities of different park skis, especially when detuned. They all suck compared to a GS ski, but when I ride a ski to review for 10-30 days, it makes a big difference to me which end of the 'are they still able to kind of hold an edge even though they are detuned to fuck' scale a ski sits on. I feel like that could be important to some/many potential buyers, since plenty of people buy park skis as their only ski, so I note it down in the review. Likewise, with fat pow skis, there are some skis that are so bad to ride in marginal conditions that I would rather walk home and change my skis (I live in-resort when I ski) while there are others where it's not ideal but I'll suck it up for the day.
I hope that kind of explains it anyway. - Twig (Edited because I forgot to switch accounts).
**This post was edited on Oct 30th 2018 at 6:06:41pm
Reviewer: This ski would be great for any icy day on the east coast!
Location(s) tested: Red mountain/Whistler Blackcomb
I get that the east coast is a big market with lots of people who can afford to buy your 800 dollar nordicas but you have not a clue as to whether or not that ski would do well on the east coast.
I feel like most reviews are nothing more than a basic description of the ski (as opposed to an actual fucking review), then the ends by saying its great all over the mountain.
No way that Parker kid is a 5/5 park skier. He's not wearing trackpants or an XXL, where are his full tilts? And why are his googles over helmet‽ Jerry confirm
LukeTheWaffleNo way that Parker kid is a 5/5 park skier. He's not wearing trackpants or an XXL, where are his full tilts? And why are his googles over helmet‽ Jerry confirm
Back when I was doing reviews I tried to stay away from all the generic terms. I don't want to hear all the good stuff, I want the bad stuff. Give me where it excels and where it does not, what am I sacrificing. Those skis.com reviews are hilarious. Advertising jargon over and over