The Roofbox - What did Gear Talk think?

Me encanta!!

The reviews were A+

Super detailed and thorough.
However, I would have liked to see a few more items.

Awesome overall!

I feel like the gear reviewers just give good reviews to every brand. Seems more like a marketing campaign and less a truthful review.

Kinda cool that I have Kartel 106, Anon MIG, and a Bloom jacket haha. I agree on all 3 reviews.

Love it as a company.

We donated a jacket for a review a couple months back. Travis wrote a great review for us, but it didn't have much visibility.

Whereas, the Roofbox really helped bring some attention to the review and the gear we donated.

I think the roofbox would really help buff up your gear review program and give more incentive for companies to donate gear for reviews

Show the good and the bad. All products aren't made the same and some are really Shitty. Try mixing it up with some honest reviews , not saying those reviews were bad.

buzzedShow the good and the bad. All products aren't made the same and some are really Shitty. Try mixing it up with some honest reviews , not saying those reviews were bad.

If NS wants to send me some gear, I'll give an honest review...

Yeah Twig!!

I suppose this would defeat the purpose of the whole idea, but if would actually be nice to see a poor review every now and then. With the exception of 2 or 3, any review on NS has felt more like advertising than anything else. Kind of like the "reviews" in the freeskier buyer's guide---they mention the features and stuff, but neglect actual personal opinions and pros/cons of the product.

s-handI suppose this would defeat the purpose of the whole idea, but if would actually be nice to see a poor review every now and then. With the exception of 2 or 3, any review on NS has felt more like advertising than anything else. Kind of like the "reviews" in the freeskier buyer's guide---they mention the features and stuff, but neglect actual personal opinions and pros/cons of the product.

I think from my point of view any way that it more comes down to the fact these days there are not many bad products. I have had the chance to test out a lot of stuff this season and really there are no products I have disliked. There are certain products which I think are not a good as another but there haS Been nothing I would actually recomend someone not to buy.

s-handI suppose this would defeat the purpose of the whole idea, but if would actually be nice to see a poor review every now and then. With the exception of 2 or 3, any review on NS has felt more like advertising than anything else. Kind of like the "reviews" in the freeskier buyer's guide---they mention the features and stuff, but neglect actual personal opinions and pros/cons of the product.

Back when I worked at a ski shop we got to demo some skis and the buyer for the shop said "there's no such thing as a bad ski, just because it's not right for you doesn't mean it's not right for someone else"
He then went on to say "ski the skis how they're meant to be skied. Some are meant for jibbing some are meant for carving others for slow sliding beginner turns." I think he's right.
If the ski is made badly and falls apart however, that's a different story.

I think in reviews you need to compare a ski to similar skis which are meant to be skied the same. i.e. OG volkl mantra and blizzard bonafide.
Have you noticed in any good gear review; i.e. blister, they always give you a similar alternative and tell you how they differ.

Krotchs_BrotherI feel like the gear reviewers just give good reviews to every brand. Seems more like a marketing campaign and less a truthful review.

In the case of Roofbox, I went through all the gear program reviews and picked out the best/most positive ones. There were definitely less than positive reviews that came out of the gear program, but they didn't end up in roofbox because that's the stuff we think is worth buying, not the stuff that isn't....

TwigIn the case of Roofbox, I went through all the gear program reviews and picked out the best/most positive ones. There were definitely less than positive reviews that came out of the gear program, but they didn't end up in roofbox because that's the stuff we think is worth buying, not the stuff that isn't....

My comment was more directed toward the program itself. Seems like everyone is "reviewing" the products positively. Possibly fear of getting kicked off the program or maybe the company seeing it and choosing not to donate gear next season.

That's just my opinion though based solely on my observations, if you could link me to some of the negative reviews I'd appreciate it.

The effort of all the team is commendable and welcomed. However if I'm being completely honest at times it felt as if certain reviews lacked substance. The usual ski review 'sound bites' were thrown out and it just came across as pithy and disingenuous.

Probably not going to be the most popular stance but there you go...

Krotchs_BrotherI feel like the gear reviewers just give good reviews to every brand. Seems more like a marketing campaign and less a truthful review.

buzzedShow the good and the bad. All products aren't made the same and some are really Shitty. Try mixing it up with some honest reviews , not saying those reviews were bad.

s-handI suppose this would defeat the purpose of the whole idea, but if would actually be nice to see a poor review every now and then. With the exception of 2 or 3, any review on NS has felt more like advertising than anything else. Kind of like the "reviews" in the freeskier buyer's guide---they mention the features and stuff, but neglect actual personal opinions and pros/cons of the product.

Here's an example of a "bad review" I wrote:

https://www.newschoolers.com/reviews/3890/Shreditor-92

I seriously hated those skis, I just didn't like skiing them the way they wanted to be skied. However, not everyone is of the same opinion as me, so instead of sitting down and bashing the ski to bits, I wrote about how I didn't enjoy them, but then about how someone could ski them and enjoy them. For example, I really like driving my skis, I want to tell them what to do, the Sheditor 92 can't be driven, the tip is too soft and doesn't have enough torsional strength. However, especially in the park world that this ski is designed for, not everyone likes to drive the ski, just get from the top of the mountain to the park or just cruise.

If we sat down and bashed everything we reviewed that we didn't like, it wouldn't be fair to the product. Because we may not like it because we're either not the intended target or we're not using the product in it's intended way.

Twig also wanted to showcase the best reviews, which are going to be on products the user likes the best. For example, probably the best review I've written to date is on the ON3P Kartel 106 (which is in this roofbox article). The Kartel 106 is my favorite ski in the world right now, so that showed in my review.

BloomOuterwearLove it as a company.

We donated a jacket for a review a couple months back. Travis wrote a great review for us, but it didn't have much visibility.

Whereas, the Roofbox really helped bring some attention to the review and the gear we donated.

I think the roofbox would really help buff up your gear review program and give more incentive for companies to donate gear for reviews

Its all part of the plan coming together. The review system has a much deeper long-term strategy, and is heavily geared towards SEO. The reason we do it this way is so that aggregate data stacks up around the products, and actually helps people make purchasing decisions. For instance, google "2015 onward jacket review" and bam - there it is. We're working on having more and more live pricing feeds integrated as well, so that there can be an actual purchase decision on the spot.

The Roofbox is an editorial series, which will give us some flexibility to highlight specific stuff, add a little more color and bring more attention directly to the Newschoolers audience. The two things will certainly work in tandem and feed each other - but all the pieces have been slowly building which is why perhaps some of it hasn't made as much sense as time has moved on.

stupendous-manIf NS wants to send me some gear, I'll give an honest review...

Dude, review everything you have ever owned. People who start reviewing gear earn karma points, and can qualify to become a Gear Editor. Then, NS absolutely sends you tonnes of gear and you review it. Pretty sweet - read the FAQ in depth!

s-handI suppose this would defeat the purpose of the whole idea, but if would actually be nice to see a poor review every now and then. With the exception of 2 or 3, any review on NS has felt more like advertising than anything else. Kind of like the "reviews" in the freeskier buyer's guide---they mention the features and stuff, but neglect actual personal opinions and pros/cons of the product.

There will be - and we REALLY want to encourage people to write their own reviews. With the mixture of editors and users reviewing product - the truth will come out in the aggregate.

VD.The effort of all the team is commendable and welcomed. However if I'm being completely honest at times it felt as if certain reviews lacked substance. The usual ski review 'sound bites' were thrown out and it just came across as pithy and disingenuous.

Probably not going to be the most popular stance but there you go...

We have been trying to work with the editors on a format that we can lock into. I know that some have been better than others, but we're going to try to up the game as we go and help each other go more in-depth. There was definitely a wide range, but if you look at some of Tom's reviews or Twig's - they're pretty freaking badass.

BWalmerHere's an example of a "bad review" I wrote:

https://www.newschoolers.com/reviews/3890/Shreditor-92

I seriously hated those skis, I just didn't like skiing them the way they wanted to be skied. However, not everyone is of the same opinion as me, so instead of sitting down and bashing the ski to bits, I wrote about how I didn't enjoy them, but then about how someone could ski them and enjoy them. For example, I really like driving my skis, I want to tell them what to do, the Sheditor 92 can't be driven, the tip is too soft and doesn't have enough torsional strength. However, especially in the park world that this ski is designed for, not everyone likes to drive the ski, just get from the top of the mountain to the park or just cruise.

If we sat down and bashed everything we reviewed that we didn't like, it wouldn't be fair to the product. Because we may not like it because we're either not the intended target or we're not using the product in it's intended way.

Twig also wanted to showcase the best reviews, which are going to be on products the user likes the best. For example, probably the best review I've written to date is on the ON3P Kartel 106 (which is in this roofbox article). The Kartel 106 is my favorite ski in the world right now, so that showed in my review.

Well said. Editor reviews need to be balanced. If a product is bad, we absolutely are not telling any of our editors to pull/change their reviews. What we do ask is that they don't simply childishly bash it. If they don't like it, highlight in an intelligent way why not, and what kind of a person may like it if you see positives.

VD.The effort of all the team is commendable and welcomed. However if I'm being completely honest at times it felt as if certain reviews lacked substance. The usual ski review 'sound bites' were thrown out and it just came across as pithy and disingenuous.

Probably not going to be the most popular stance but there you go...

I'm with you. Blister is absolutely at the top of the line when it comes to reviewing gear in a thorough, useful manner--that's what we should be striving for.

If I read a gear review, I want to come away with a sense that the reviewer has done their homework, knows similar products and explains the difference, and has truly put the product through its paces. It's disingenuous to speculate on durability if you haven't used it more than thirty days. It's poor form to copy and paste the ad copy from the product's maker, unless you're trying to edify a specific point you already noticed.

I think it really important too that there's a way to note in these reviews when someone has been given a product or works for the company that produced the product, because these can dramatically change the feel of a review. Backcountry.com does this with their sponsored review program, and we should note it too.

LiteratureI'm with you. Blister is absolutely at the top of the line when it comes to reviewing gear in a thorough, useful manner--that's what we should be striving for.

If I read a gear review, I want to come away with a sense that the reviewer has done their homework, knows similar products and explains the difference, and has truly put the product through its paces. It's disingenuous to speculate on durability if you haven't used it more than thirty days. It's poor form to copy and paste the ad copy from the product's maker, unless you're trying to edify a specific point you already noticed.

I think it really important too that there's a way to note in these reviews when someone has been given a product or works for the company that produced the product, because these can dramatically change the feel of a review. Backcountry.com does this with their sponsored review program, and we should note it too.

All excellent points which we'll take into account as we seek to improve the system.

It is a good idea to balance what has been given to our editors and what is people reviewing their own product they bought. I'm not sure exactly how we'd do it, but its a great suggestion.

Most of what a media brand like NS will get is from companies. I can't imagine that Blister is any different. That is very standard practise.

What we tried to do in our system (though it should be highlighted/displayed a little better) is that there's featured reviews and normal ones. 95% of the featured reviews will be companies giving our staff/editors product to check out.

The thing that will make the biggest difference in our system is when users really start to use this a lot more, and we have a nice mixture of both staff and user reviews around a product. A much more complete story would come out of that in the end.

I am honest in all of my reviews. I absolutely hated the Candide 1.0 but I still wrote the positives and negatives. I try to include factual info as well as my own personal feeling on the product. I also need to update my Anomie 2L review because the quality of the stitching is horrible. My original review was not entirely positive on them.

I try to write my reviews towards the person that would like the product.

LiteratureI'm with you. Blister is absolutely at the top of the line when it comes to reviewing gear in a thorough, useful manner--that's what we should be striving for.

If I read a gear review, I want to come away with a sense that the reviewer has done their homework, knows similar products and explains the difference, and has truly put the product through its paces. It's disingenuous to speculate on durability if you haven't used it more than thirty days. It's poor form to copy and paste the ad copy from the product's maker, unless you're trying to edify a specific point you already noticed.

I think it really important too that there's a way to note in these reviews when someone has been given a product or works for the company that produced the product, because these can dramatically change the feel of a review. Backcountry.com does this with their sponsored review program, and we should note it too.

Yeah, this, and Doug's response are really important. No offense to anyone in the program, especially since I'm super stoked on it and think it will do great things, but I do feel like we were a wee bit lacking in the aggressiveness department. I want to come away having learned something, I think TomP's reviews did the best job of this. I have lots of thoughts on this stuff and no time so I'll maybe be back later

Mr.BishopAll excellent points which we'll take into account as we seek to improve the system.

It is a good idea to balance what has been given to our editors and what is people reviewing their own product they bought. I'm not sure exactly how we'd do it, but its a great suggestion.

Most of what a media brand like NS will get is from companies. I can't imagine that Blister is any different. That is very standard practise.

What we tried to do in our system (though it should be highlighted/displayed a little better) is that there's featured reviews and normal ones. 95% of the featured reviews will be companies giving our staff/editors product to check out.

The thing that will make the biggest difference in our system is when users really start to use this a lot more, and we have a nice mixture of both staff and user reviews around a product. A much more complete story would come out of that in the end.

Blister definitely gets their gear from companies. They also have sponsors who help to keep the website afloat. If we can keep the standard of rigor high on NS reviews, and not get sucked into the "these people bought lots of ads, so we're going to review them well automatically" black hole, it will remain relevant for me.

One other thing we could do would be to bring in the industry voices that create the gear in question. Obviously there's bias there, but it can be really illuminating to hear from the engineer behind the ski shape about what they were trying to do with it. Featuring and working with those folks to create a dynamic gear review environment would set it apart.

In the case of Backcountry, they gave reviewers a standardized script to post at the top of their reviews. It indicated that they were given the gear to review for the community, so that folks looking at the review could take that into account. Perhaps we could try something similar, just to make it plain and clear. Maybe I'm beating a dead horse.

LiteratureBlister definitely gets their gear from companies. They also have sponsors who help to keep the website afloat. If we can keep the standard of rigor high on NS reviews, and not get sucked into the "these people bought lots of ads, so we're going to review them well automatically" black hole, it will remain relevant for me.

One other thing we could do would be to bring in the industry voices that create the gear in question. Obviously there's bias there, but it can be really illuminating to hear from the engineer behind the ski shape about what they were trying to do with it. Featuring and working with those folks to create a dynamic gear review environment would set it apart.

In the case of Backcountry, they gave reviewers a standardized script to post at the top of their reviews. It indicated that they were given the gear to review for the community, so that folks looking at the review could take that into account. Perhaps we could try something similar, just to make it plain and clear. Maybe I'm beating a dead horse.

We absolutely do not review gear positively based on advertising. I have been abundantly clear with the people who made it onto the gear editor team this year that I will not pressure them in the slightest, and every company has been told that there is no guarantee of a positive review.

Honestly - the biggest thing that can differentiate us is that if you - and everyone listening to this - reviewed their own gear. The more that we get the public's opinion, the safer we are from biased reviews.

The gear editors are only one part of the puzzle here - and I completely agree with everything you're saying on that side of it. So we're definitely in agreement and going to work towards a better system.

In the meantime... REVIEW YOUR SHIT EVERYONE!!

Mr.BishopHonestly - the biggest thing that can differentiate us is that if you - and everyone listening to this - reviewed their own gear. The more that we get the public's opinion, the safer we are from biased reviews.

A lot of newschoolers have yet to master basic grammar and syntax; moreover they're are quite a few users who aren't 'technically' very good skiers, so it's questionable how well placed they are to review gear.

VD.A lot of newschoolers have yet to master basic grammar and syntax; moreover they're are quite a few users who aren't 'technically' very good skiers, so it's questionable how well placed they are to review gear.

That is why we kept the system very easy to use. My thoughts are that we'll get a block of semi-decent text out of people - though they will highlight what they like or really dislike - and then the masses will use the sliders to simply enter their opinions. In aggregate, between reading a really well done review from one of our editors and then the bits of info from the masses mixed with the data from the sliders and you'd have a really nice whole view of the product.

The system for sure needs some work - but this is the idea.

Not to mention the fact that the gear editors are chosen out of the most successful reviewers from the year - so our senior editor team will actually shift and shape throughout the years, with anyone out there having the ability to get into a program where they can get a shitload of free gear.

So again - review your shit! Be part of the change!

All that gear you saw those dudes reviewing is theirs to keep. Pretty sweet freaking deal if you ask me.

In terms of ligatures comment on getting industry guys to give info, I can assure you I do this with nearly all products.

Dor or example in testing the new 2016 k2 pinnacle boots and I have been havin quite a few problems but the designers at k2 have been great at sending out replacement products and explaining why they did things.

The review in those will be both positive and negative. There are aspects of the boots I love and there are things that need work. But I'm not going to bash a product becUase of a few issues. I think there is great potential for the boots and maybe what I have found can help te design in the future.

You can't expect brand to not send us gear or we woul have nothing to review. but I agree if people are reviewing positively just because they got somthing for free that won't.