"much of today's reviewing is what i would call advocacy reviewing. there are very few instances where reviewers try to strictly inform without influencing.Guilty as charged, at least with respect to my review of the Intuitive Design Summit loudspeakers. I specifically and shamelessly set out to get people to at least AUDITION these if they were in the market for speakers. My only ulterior motive was exuberant bliss (buyer's ANTI-remorse) and fond, awestruck gratitude to Dale Pitcher. No regrets. Never had 'em, never will.
what do you think ?"
-Mrtennis
what are your views regarding reviewing styles ?
at the risk of being simplistic, i would say there are two broad categories of reviewing--criticism and reporting and the connotations of subjectivity and objectivity.
a reviewer can present an opinion of a component,providing evidence from listening, as to its quality relative to other compoents of the same class and then express a preference for that component relative to other components of the same class, often using ornate phrases.
alternatively a reviewer can describe his perceptions without using adjectives, not indicating a preference in an attempt to be factual. the idea is not to influence the reader by using words which may have a positive or negative valence associated with them.
much of today's reviewing is what i would call advocacy reviewing. there are very few instances where reviewers try to strictly inform without influencing.
what do you think ?
a reviewer can present an opinion of a component,providing evidence from listening, as to its quality relative to other compoents of the same class and then express a preference for that component relative to other components of the same class, often using ornate phrases.
alternatively a reviewer can describe his perceptions without using adjectives, not indicating a preference in an attempt to be factual. the idea is not to influence the reader by using words which may have a positive or negative valence associated with them.
much of today's reviewing is what i would call advocacy reviewing. there are very few instances where reviewers try to strictly inform without influencing.
what do you think ?