Hi all

Our Reviews Section has expanded beyond all recognition since I first joined what was then Armorama several years ago. Having just published my 200th Review, it seems like a good point at which to pause for breath and get some feedback from you all on how we're doing and ways in which we can improve things to make our Reviews as useful as possible for you.

One thing that's apparent is the imbalance between In-Box and Full-Build Reviews. Now I'll nail my colours to the mast and say I'd like to see us carry far more Full-Builds, but our Reviews aren't for my benefit, or any of the other writers - it's you, the readers, that they are there to help. So the basic question is simply this:

What would you rather see us carry more of more of - In-Box or Full-Build Reviews?

Obviously, if the answer is the latter, they'll take time to appear so, unless we're lucky enough to get a test-shot of a kit, any Full-Build Review will probably be published sometime after the kit's available. Which brings up a second point - we have a category in the Reviews Section called First Look which we've seldom actually used on Aeroscale. It's intended for a brief outline of the contents of a kit - so, probably not as detailed as our present In-Box Reviews, but it could work well to allow a very up-to-the-minute report on a new release, with a Full-Build to follow later.

The choices seem to break down basically along these lines:
1. Leave things as they are - and concentrate on In-Box reviews with occasional Full-Builds.
2. Concentrate on Full-Builds with First-Looks when a kit comes out.

Even if we change the balance somewhat, there'll obviously always be room for In-Box reviews as we now have them - and major kit releases will certainly justify them. It's also inevitable that we simply won't be able to publish a Full-Build for everything - there simply aren't enough modelling hours in a lifetime! LOL!

But enough of my waffling! You may have completely different ideas to those I've outlined. What would you like to see on Aeroscale?

All the best

Rowan

I would like to see more build reveiws with first looks when the kit is released. Just my 2 cents

The majority of reviews of NEW kits should be Full-Builds.

A First-Look could be Part 1 of a Build-Review. You do an in-box, noting any pros/cons of the parts, the molding, the options, the decals, the history represented, and any initial thoughts on the apparent ease/difficulty ... That gives the folks in a hurry to have the kit enough to go on ...

But, true test is the assembly ... how many tubes of glue/filler, can you beat it into alignment or not, etc, what do you have to cobble together to make it hold together, etc ...

Full-builds can be done in several parts, thus maintaining a steady flow of info, rather than a 1st Look & a completed model x months later ...

The "In Box" should be reserved for re-pops and variations on a base kit that has already been (full-)reviewed. Example, Tamiya's Swordfish II is little different from the Mk.I construction-wise and could be done fairly and quickly by an in-box ... Example, CA's new Venom should be a full-build to compare it to the older Vampire kit, however if one full-reviewed the FB.1, then one could In-Box the FB.4 ... etc ...

One thing which does need to improve, everywhere, is to review aftermarket sets by building enough of a kit to show that it really works or not ... decals also ...

IMHO,
John

Thanks for the feedback guys




Hi John. That's an interesting idea - and we can certainly look at doing that with resin/etched sets. The Reviews of Eduard's Fw 190 Tools and Landing Flaps could be the way to go...?

Decals are tricky - especially where they include multiple options in one set. In fact we already go further than the usual magazine-style announcements by looking at colour accuracy, registration, carrier film etc. We'd never build enough kits to keep up with the output of the decal manufacturers - and, of course, if we always used them on new-release kits we'd not be able to test the kits' own decals. But we could could try spare items off decal sheets to see how they react to solvents and bed down over detail etc.

I'm going to be trying Mike Grant's decals for real on a number of new builds.

All the best

Rowan

To be honest Rowan, for the past year or so, every time I start a new kit the first thing I do is try to find a full build review to help me along in the building process. More experieced modelers don't need this but I find it very helpfull. I'd like to add a few reviews of my own as well, but have never figured out how to do it......also I'm not quite proud enough of my work to advise others yet.

Hi Rowan

If I may put in a few thoughts. I know Staff Jim is a big fan of "change" .. must be something american or what. I personally like the other approach: never change a running system, change a never running system .. never run a changing system. What I mean is: if something does not work you'll surely have to find another approach .. but why change a good thing?

Honestly, as long as you will not get more reviewers all you achieve is a lesser output of reviews and still there may be many people who complain, that you've missed this or that wrong internal detail!

I think you do it right now. Do a good (more or less detailed) in-box review and if you find the time, you build it and post your progress to the forums and when its done we get a feature on Aeroscale .... you know I know what I am talking about .... my crew is also very "concise"

just my 2 €-ct

best wishes

Steffen

Personally, I think you've got the balance about right. More Full-Builds are always welcome but inevitably the problem is the logistics of the thing - we're all running to deadlines!

First, Aeroscale is fantastic!!!!!!!!!!!! when everything remains the same then it is already way ahead of the pack.

and then:

In my opinion it should not be either in-box, or full-build, as if these were competing things. A full build is just a logical next step after the in-box review.


A kit has a life-cycle: it is announced, then it becomes available for an in-box review, then there is a full build review, it is compared to other kits of the same airplane, aftermarket stuff becomes available, and it is finally taken of the market. All this information belongs together.

I would dream of a wiki type approach where somebody writes a news item which becomes an in-box review which is later completed into a full build review (by the same or another person and of course under scrutiny of the aeroscale staff), and so on.

You could also activelly scout for contributions coming from the average aeroscale visitor. Why not a page listing the "/review wanted badly" kits. Or a possibility for users to contribute in a modest way.

As an example: Why can't I add to an exisitng full build review of the F-14: "I have used the interior details set of the company xxx and it fitted perfectly".

Each update, even small, would help keeping the previous hard work of the reviewers under the attention of the aeroscale visitors. Now, I have too often the impression that a review or feature is only getting some attention during the few days that it is on the home page and then dissapears out of sight completely (but maybe the site stats can contradict this).

The same goes for articles on tips and techniques. General articles on e.g. pre-shading could be made by several contributors and evolve over time instead of making many articles focussing on other details of the same.

This way we could perhaps have less pages on aeroscale but the ones left would be of much higher quality.

Sorry if my reply seems over-kill and off topic.

The current system is pleasing for me. What few models I build to finish are usually documented first as 'first-looks' and in-box, then evolve into build-reviews. I try to combine these into 'cellophane-to-displayed plane' articles. I think I start-to-finished a whole three models last year; several more were completed after just-starting them, some finished after being nearly finished (some for some time!)

Thus when I get a new toy, I like to share it with everyone else if it has not already been reviewed. There are some in-box reviews that convince me not to buy a model, and some make me want one. That is my intention for writing.

The Revell AG 1/72 A-26B is an example. I wanted it because I understood it had good interior detail, but it only has Korean War markings. If I'd known that, I would probably not bought it. Still, I already sent in photos for a pending in-box review, and I'll build it (someday) and do a build-review of it too (unless one of you want to take up that yoke ).

Hi all!

I agree 100% with Steffen; don’t change what is a good and working system!

In box reviews of new kits are important for us builders, doesn’t take too long to do and write (I’m not diminishing the fantastic work they do, but compare that to a full build!).
Rowan and Jean-Luc does a fantastic job here, but how many more is there
who does those reviews?
Not many, and time is a factor as a kit ain´t new that very long today.

For full build-up reviews we all have a chance to do some thing for our fellow modellers!
Yes, we are many, many more than the staff and If we all write only one or two reviews/features a year It would soon be a great source.

I have written a feature (SM79) and one review (Trumpeter Wyvern) so far.
This is something I had never done, or even thought of, before Jean-Luc asked me to write a feature on the SM79.
I know I’m not a master builder, more of a “Happy-go-Lucky”, and I know that myself!
Who would ever read my article, could they understand what I wrote, is my build good enough to show, could it be considered bragging, these were the questions I had in my mind.

I build for my own enjoyment and as long as I’m happy with what I have built, it’s good enough for me.
If anyone can learn something about the kit (tips and tricks) and its pitfalls, then so much better!
So I took the leap, and lo and behold, I survived and folks here even still talks to me!

I can tell that it was more fun I had ever imagined, rewarding to get feedback from other modellers and very satisfying to discover that there’s people who actually wants to read it!
I’m currently working on some more articles, just wait and see!

Remember, the issue here is not to build master pieces; it’s about building a (new or old) kit and write about how it went together.

If I could do it, anyone can!

It’s all about helping each other!

In my opinion; Aeroscale is the best site on the net today!
There are other forums but they are too big, specialized or aimed at high-level builders.
What’s so good with Aeroscale is that here we have a place for ALL builders, from the novice to the experts, and above all the good spirit and camaraderie!

Keep up the building spirit, Folks!

Cheers!

Stefan E

Hi again

Thank you all for your continuing feedback. There are a lot of interesting ideas beginning to develop:

Drabslab's idea of a linked and updated database of Reviews for any subject is
something I've also dreamed of. To be fair, anyone can add their own experience to our present Reviews, but a single entry combining everything would be cool - it might take a lot of maintenance though...

I agree with Steffen's "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" principle, except that, to some extent at least, our present system is "broken" - in as much that it relies far too heavily on too few people to maintain to flow of new Reviews. At the moment we've 400+ Reviews and I've written almost half of them. Now I don't see that as something to brag about... in fact, exactly the opposite - for me it's a cause for concern, because changing circumstances at work and at home mean I'm just not going to be able to maintain the rate of Reviews I once did.

We really do need more people prepared to share their experiences with the kits they buy. I know newcomers can be unsure of how to go about it, but we've got a great team of Staff ready to help and encourage everyone who wants to write Reviews. And there are some pretty glaring gaps in our coverage too - we don't get nearly enough Reviews of large-scale kits or modern jets. So, if you're tempted to write for Aeroscale, do get in touch - we'd love to hear from you.

All the best

Rowan

[


Hai,

I disagree a bit that it would cost a lot of maintentance, this would depend a lot on the technical set-up.

I would suggest an approach like wikipedia. The role of the staff would change from "doing everything" to "control, edit and streamline".

You are very right when you say that contributions should come a lot more from the community than from the (highly appreciated) but overstressed staff.

But I experiencee myself that it is not so easy to write a full fletched article for kitmaker. I am working on one for too long now (OK, I might be going a bit far with what I am doing).

Do not forget that for many of us english is not our first language, we are not journalists and also - i am not a world class modeller. This all adds to the threshold for "having the b@&ls" for writing a feature.

The wiki approach would allow for continuous input from many because the threshold would be much lower. As member of staff your role would more be in turning the contributions into a coherent article.

In this respect: already considered how much knowledge and experience is hidden in the thousands of forum contributions? With the wiki approach the forum contributions would be used to their full potential.

I think we should keep it as it is now.

The box reviews gives a good "picture" of a kit. Especially the latest in box reviews where the marking options and history are included. I really think that is a value adding feature of the in box reviews.

To be honest the longer full build reviews I normally read through fast focusing on the introduction and the conclusion. Then if I buy the kit later I will go into more depth with the review.

Top points for driving this the user driven way.

Hi Drabslab

Yes, we're primarily an English-speaking site - but that is exactly why we want you (and everyone like you) to get involved.

First off. People who learn International English have a shocking habit of speaking/writing better English than than those of us who claim it as a "first language"...

Second.. we've got a Staff who are here to help anyone who's unsure get their text ready to publish.

Don't let language become a problem! - Aeroscale has access to a unique resource... a worldwide group of people who overcome all boundaries through a shared interest - modelling.

All the best

Rowan

I can't agree more and I do not see language as "a problem", just as a potential barrier for somebody to write a full fletched feature.

Sites like kitmaker are hugely important independent from the subject they are about becasue they bring people together from everywhere. Maybe a small but certainly important step to make people realise that people living on another spot of the globe are not aliens but potential friends.

With this in mind, I can't agree with the people that say "leave everything as it is, it is good enough". While it is certainly true that Kitmaker is a very good site (and this includes the staff and the "mentality" of the site) stopping evolution will kill it in the long run.

Continuous improvement has made the site to what it is today, further improvement will enhance it even more. In this respect I wonder whether the growing technical challenge can still be managed by a single person (which I think is the case today) or whether a new layer of technical oriented staff is needed to translate the fresh ideas into reality.

Hi drabslab

Usually I do not like being insulted by people, especially those hiding behind nicknames. But I guess it is just a matter of bad understanding on my side ...

1. I am not against improvement but "change at any cost" .. as I have stated in my post I do not think that extending all kit reports to "full build" will be an improvement.

2. I understand Rowans posts as a "hidden" request to participate more in the current Aeroscale ... which is a change too, not changing the style but broadening the base for reviews

3. Maybe I was a bit unsharp with my small comment towards Staff Jim. I know he is doing a great job and I also know that he is putting a lot of work and change into the background layers, which makes it manageable by him alone, else all would have broken down a loong time ago.

I am just not a fan of change everything every 4 weeks ... so maybe I am not progressive .. but hopefully that won't kill me tomrrow (yes I have electric lights and an engine powered vehicle, sooo maybe one day

best regards

Steffen Arndt

Getting to the point, I like full build reviews. I don't care what it looks like in the box or what kind of box it came in or how many pages the instructions are. If I'm reading a review what I'm looking for is how the kit fits, where potential problems are, where detail is great and where it's not. Thus armed I can make informed decisions on what kits to buy or what I need to prepare for.

I will say that, while full build reviews are obviously more helpful, The more immediate nature of in box reviews is certainly very valuable as well.

While an in box review often won't catch details like what I found in the new Dragon Gepard Flakpanzer 38(t)M (they do not include any of the correct late model sprockets!), having a chance to take a virtual quick-look at the product is invaluable, especially in this day in age when local hobby shops are steadily failing one after the other (because of web stores and video games). With that traditional location for getting a hands on look at the product going extinct, and the facts that people can only do a full builds so fast while new kits are coming out faster than ever, the presence of a large number of in-box reviews are almost mandatory.

I like Drabslab's wiki idea of being able to progressively update an in-box review into an full one that also contains side points like how various after-market sets work with the kit. but as alpha tango said, radical change is often bad. If the system ain't broke, don't fix it. but you can modify it - especially in ways you already know work.

In some ways, you already have a system going that could accommodate a significant change in reviews for the better. A forum topic gets created for most (all?) reviews. As it is, people just sort of say things like "gee, that looks like a great kit", or "when is that going to be available in Swaziland". But if that were properly utilized, people who do photo blogs of build ups in the forums (who you always seem to be suggesting that they turn it in as a build review) could be posting these build ups directly under the forum topic for the formal in-box (and beyond) review.

Of course there would need to be some sort of formatted linking systems to the various add-on reviews from the in box review. looking through a such a forum in flat mode would suck if you were trying to find something. but an outline of subtopics from the initial review page with a representative thumbnail would be good.

I suppose each sub topic would only be editable by and respond-able from the person who started it (and moderators I guess) so they don't become cumbersome. perhaps those sub topic could be responded to by others in the same fashion as the reviews presently are.

Uhm... this makes sense in my head - is anyone else have a clue as to what I am saying?

Basically you'd have a level one topic that is the initial in box review. This is open to response by anyone who has something significant to add to the review (builds, fitting detail parts, conversions) as a level two subtopic, subject to moderator approval, and these would be fancy links (like features are handled on the mainpage) at the bottom or right margin of the review page. Level three comments would be the same as the comments to reviews are now

Then those level two subtopics would be essentially like the present review, but maybe in the less formal forum format, since this seems easier for people to manage, and comments to these level two subtopics would be handled similarly to the way comments to reviews are done currently, but the main presentation and editing of the subtopic would be limited to the user who started it (and moderators) so as to ensure continuity. Pedestrian level three responses to the level two subtopics is again treated as they currently are.

Now that I think about it, a single level two subtopic that is open to any serious single comment about the kit and anyone can post to is a good idea - like if I want to comment about how the new Dragon Gepard Flakpanzer 38(t)M doesn't contain the correct drive sprocket (despite the huge array of extra wheels and idlers) but didn't want to actually invest time in a full review blog. This would have to be seriously moderated though so as to keep it relevant to the review and only cover major points (good and bad) about the kit.

Well, ok, that was long enough! but it is just a suggestion as to how you can use what you have now and know works to create reviews that are more flexible and able to evolve dynamically without just switching to a wiki system, which you all may not have any experience with. It would require some discipline from users, moderators would have to pay close attention till people got used to it, and there is probably a better way to evolve it since that was just my first idea. At least it gives the capability of getting a quick initial in box review up (which has a distinct value) that has hope of growing into more as the users of this site start building the kit. I suspect resistance to a system like this would eventually morph into people liking some sort of system like that.

Of course, I've never been a moderator, so there may be some huge glaring hole in my reasoning here...

As a modeler who is not to good I find the full build extremely important as it helps me to be aware of the problems and gives me an idea of the solution.
A good example is the accurate miniatures little grumman biplane-boy did I battle with the undercart-I had to make a plan and used lots of super glue to get it to work as I could not figure out the instructions-boy I wish I could have read a build review first!
I think build reviews teach us a lot, it certainly has helped me-where else can I get an experienced modeler to help me build better models? Thats what it feels to me when I read a build review. Harry

I agree completely, the advice that I find in built reviews and in forum topics (like that gorgeous topic on fighting seamlines) are very important to me.

Actually, we should find a better way to thank those expert contributors, or give them the feedback that their effort to share their knowledge is really appreciated.

OK, I do NOT mean that from now on every forum post linked to a review or feature has to be swamped with "ooooh you are so good, thank you, thank you" comments but right now some very good articles get virtually no feedback from the community. And that could be a bit demotivating for the writers of those articles that at least I need very badly.

Things are okay as they are. There's no need to change anything. Aeroscale/Armorama is a great resource.

For me I use the reviews as a direction to whether or not to buy a particular kit.
The in box are okay, but I prefer full builds, and then oob. The reason for this is that most do not indicate whats kit and whats a/m. I dont mind a/m but do want to see the kit, because in most cases that is all i will buy.
If reviews must use a/m, could they also give better indication of what oob parts look like?
I, would also like more info in in box reviews as to just how many of the real thing were actually built. I dont tend to build paper, or very small run real stuff,
Knowing how many actually built saves me a lot of research at times.
Thank you all for considering the opinion of a very average builder

If a site-newbie and one *just* returning to building aircraft models can validly comment...

I'd like to see, so far as is possible, a review to include something on dimensional accuracy of the kit compared to the 1:1 "model." Maybe I'm alone, but I think that if I'm looking to buy a Zig-99 and there's one kit that goes together perfectly by just blowing on it, but is a foot too short and the wings are 6" too thick, and another that's more difficult to build, the parts need more work to get together nicely, but it is within an inch in the dimensions, then I'd rather get that second one, and do a bit more work for a model that is more accurate in its dimensions.

Now... maybe this is the norm now, so excuse me if that's the case, I'm going off my rather old knowledge here!

hi,

Armour reviews:
got to say i only look at PMMS - quick, and de facto full build, and a great index / easy to find; otherwise i might look at Missing-Lynx, but both their and Track-Link's search / organissation is crap.

Air reviews:
can we PLEEEEASE put the scale of the review AT THE TOP??!!
i have lost count the number of times i have started readinga review only to realise it is 1/72, when i have zero interest in that scale.

Generally i prefer full build reviews.

I like the pics of instructions and markings on here - that is really good.

Have to say that generally the site layout is too cluttered for my liking, hence i don't visit as much as i should / could.

thanks again,

Nick

Hi Nicholas

Many thanks for your feedback. Staff_Jim deals with formatting, so I'm sure he'll be interested to read your comments on the layout of our Reviews. The scale is placed prominently on the Reviews Index page, but I quite see your point if you navigate to articles via another route.

Increasing the number of Full-Builds is something we're all committed to, and the Contributors' Forum is an important addition in the continuing drive to encourage new writers to share their experiences.

All the best

Rowan