TackleTour

The new rating system introduced in http://tackletour.com/reviewratingscalibration2013.html is almost completely subjective. All the ratings have an element of personal interpretation. One man's perfectly aligned guide might be another man's slightly skew tip-top!

And don't get me started on fraught measurement categories such as lift-drop, hookset and graphics (to name a few)!

Just felt that the new rating system seem to perhaps be missing something... Weight

toadeeza wrote:The new rating system introduced in http://tackletour.com/reviewratingscalibration2013.html is almost completely subjective. All the ratings have an element of personal interpretation. One man's perfectly aligned guide might be another man's slightly skew tip-top!

And don't get me started on fraught measurement categories such as lift-drop, hookset and graphics (to name a few)!

Read the review and use your OBJECTIVE mind to make a decision...

TackleTour Re-Calibrated Rating System



Introduction: It's not difficult to surmise bass fishing tackle makes up ninety percent, if not more of what we write about here at TackleTour. Going native with TackleTour is all about getting down and dirty comparing, testing, and evaluating bass fishing gear. Five years ago, we updated our ratings to reflect a more balanced, value weighted scale taking full advantage of the entire one to ten (1-10) scoring range. Thanks to our lab bring-up, and the acquisition of new testing equipment including The Machine. We've taken our GoNative theme to heart this year and feel it is time to add another wrinkle to our scoring system. Specifically, we're adding more detail to how rods and reels are scored in each category of our scoring matrix.

Complete Article: http://tackletour.com/reviewratingscalibration2013.html

africanbass wrote:

toadeeza wrote:The new rating system introduced in http://tackletour.com/reviewratingscalibration2013.html is almost completely subjective. All the ratings have an element of personal interpretation. One man's perfectly aligned guide might be another man's slightly skew tip-top!

And don't get me started on fraught measurement categories such as lift-drop, hookset and graphics (to name a few)!

Read the review and use your OBJECTIVE mind to make a decision...

The problem with a subjective measurement is that you invariably ending up thinking that the reviewer rated brand X lower than brand Y because the reviewer prefers brand Y (which is the reader's subjective thought process to start with ). Wow, got all philosophical there for a moment.

I would have just preferred to see, for example, some way of electronically measuring rod sensitivity or a force measure for measuring hooksetting power. And I don't think a rod should get a score for graphics; one man's pink is another man's red (I'm looking at you Shimano Cumara).

haoz wrote:Just felt that the new rating system seem to perhaps be missing something... Weight

... this is one of the factors under "Design & Ergonomics" for both the rods and reels

toadeeza wrote:

africanbass wrote:

toadeeza wrote:The new rating system introduced in http://tackletour.com/reviewratingscalibration2013.html is almost completely subjective. All the ratings have an element of personal interpretation. One man's perfectly aligned guide might be another man's slightly skew tip-top!

And don't get me started on fraught measurement categories such as lift-drop, hookset and graphics (to name a few)!

Read the review and use your OBJECTIVE mind to make a decision...

The problem with a subjective measurement is that you invariably ending up thinking that the reviewer rated brand X lower than brand Y because the reviewer prefers brand Y (which is the reader's subjective thought process to start with ). Wow, got all philosophical there for a moment.

I would have just preferred to see, for example, some way of electronically measuring rod sensitivity or a force measure for measuring hooksetting power. And I don't think a rod should get a score for graphics; one man's pink is another man's red (I'm looking at you Shimano Cumara).

Um - have you not ever looked at the RoD data that gets published with each rod review?

There are too many variables for sensitivity - most importantly the angler.

I’m a little worried that by standardizing the rating system across the board and not tailoring it for the specific purpose or technique that rod or reel was designed for will limit it’s ranking while a rod or reel which scores mediocre in all categories will look to outshine a more technique specific rod or reel. Lots of people will as always not read a complete review word for word and just look to the final score or rating. Subjectivity is as always the name of the game and unless I misunderstand will be the deciding factor in all but a few criteria ratings. I applaud the thought and work to improve and will withhold judgement until seeing a few of the finished results. Maybe if we could see a rod and reel previously reviewed being re-reviewed under the new rating system we can then appraise the new approach. Just my thoughts.

lpquick wrote:Lots of people will as always not read a complete review word for word and just look to the final score or rating.

Well, we're not here to appease those folks

Cal wrote:

haoz wrote:Just felt that the new rating system seem to perhaps be missing something... Weight

... this is one of the factors under "Design & Ergonomics" for both the rods and reels

yea, but idk, just feel weird... does lighter = more points

I mean, for example a small jerkbait/popper reel would probably be better the lighter whereas a medium sized jerkbait/popper/cranking reel would probably be most comfortable if the weight is in the X - X+1 oz range, and a big bait reel would probably be comfortable if the weight is onwards of X + 3 oz.

For rods, rods with good balancing are generally slightly heavier than say a skeletal built rod... its seems a pretty rigorous rating system & only the best of the best will be both light & balances well. for the mid-tier stuff, its probably docking off of points from one part to put into the other... kinda hard to break out of that glass range.

maybe I'm thinking too much. can't wait to read your reviews after you test the latest reels & rods on the new system. (can we have more Jdm reviews pls? )

haoz wrote:yea, but idk, just feel weird... does lighter = more points

Now... did you read the text of the article or just look at the tables?

I like the new system. As long as the complete breakdown of points is shown, it helps to pick rods and reels for specific characteristics without getting carried away by the total score. Good job!

I like this new format. The more specific ratings & catagories the better. More data/ratings is never a bad thing.

Kind of off topic, but I have thoughts/suggestions on reviews I wanted to mention if that's cool? It mainly has to do with comparisons.

1. The reel's gear(s). I really liked in past reel reviews where the gears between 2 or more reels are compared. I'd love to see a bit more focus on them. The thickness, circumference, teeth size/depth, material, maybe even the weight(to get an idea of the density). Maybe have 1 or 2 base reels that others are compared to.

2. Rod sensitivity. On a number of reviews I've read, there's only 1 sentence in regards to sensitivity. I'd love it if you guys could go into sensitivity a bit more. i know sensitivity can be subjective, so, maybe have a few base rods to compare to. (Ie: "it's not quite as sensitive as the NRX but feels more sensitive than the GLX). Direct comparisons with other popular(and not so popular) rods might help readers get a better idea. This could be applied to the rod's tip, casting distance, action, power, etc as well.

Keep up the good work & looking forward to the new reviews!

spookybaits wrote: 1. The reel's gear(s). I really liked in past reel reviews where the gears between 2 or more reels are compared. I'd love to see a bit more focus on them. The thickness, circumference, teeth size/depth, material, maybe even the weight(to get an idea of the density). Maybe have 1 or 2 base reels that others are compared to.

The comparison you are referring to - circumference, teeth size/depth mean nothing in the real world. For e.g. ; compare Calcutta 200 TE, and Pluton ,. the Pluton has wider, larger gears, but even so the Calcutta laughs at it, being more powerful (tested in the real world), despite the smaller gears... conclusion - what's the point in measuring all those if tested in the real world they actually mean nothing....