(Clip contains NSFW language)
Due to the not-quite-globally-distributed nature of TTAC’s leadership, we inadvertently gave you guys a bit of a confusing situation this week.
We’ve had a “Reader Review” by Rich Murdocco, discussing his car, and a couple of “Reader Ride Reviews” by Bark M. and Jack B., in which the cars of TTAC readers are reviewed.
I think it’s reasonable for the readers to have different expectations of these two different types of car reviews. So, the question(s) of the day:
0. What terminology should we use to distinguish between TTAC editors reviewing reader-owned cars and readers reviewing their own cars?
1. What expectations do you have for our staff reviews of reader-owned cars? Do we need to describe the car from the ground up like we would with a “First Drive”?
2. What about the reader-contributed reviews? Should we continue with them? Are they interesting or credible from your perspective as a reader?
Thanks for considering the issues and keeping us on our toes! — JB
“Reader’s Rides by Owner X”
“Reader’s Rides by Jack, Derek, Bark, etc”
Keep it simple. Yes, the owners reviews are very good and inclusive. If people want more detail, they can go test one themselves.
“Readers Ride” by TTAC staff and “My Ride” by the vehicle owners.
Also, since TTAC attempts (and succeeds) to include international automotive issues, TTAC should venture outside of the 48 States to do some reviews.
I do think this will improve the site and give it an international flair.
So, how about coming Down Under and have a look at what a “Free Market” economy can provide for motoring.
When TTAC editors review readers’ rides: TTAC Rides You. When readers review their own rides: Reader’s View.
Considering those are cars that had been in service for a year or so, it would be great to know how well the features actually work after a year of service and abuse. For example, does the trunk hold enough in real life, does the touch screen work in sunlight? And what is real world mileage and what repairs and other issues? what is the worst thing about the car? would you buy it again? What do competitors do better (if writer knows comparable vehicles)?
Leave out personal stories about where you went to school or were born… it is about the car.
How well does the significant other like the car if that other does different things with the car (i.e. picking up kids vs. cargo hauling)?
The problem with a reader reviewing his personal car is twofold: first, those of us outside the motoring press have a limited frame of reference, since few of us drive many different cars, ans second, odds are we think are cars our the best possible choices, and aren’t going to provide much useful information – at first. I like the idea of a “birthday report”, letting us know what the buyer’s experience is after a year. That should be long enough for the new to wear off and for the owner to tell us the car’s foibles, but is recent enough to where the car should be still available new or at least late model used.
Couldn’t agree more. Reader’s reviews interest me not at all, a wider perspective is needed, and that can only be provided by someone in the steady business of driving new cars and reporting on them.
Don’t mind reviews of reader’s cars by Baruth, Bark M and Kreindler – at least they drive a couple dozen new cars each year and can provide a somewhat balanced outlook.
Reader’s reviews could be in the forum, like other websites, where the interested can read them. Really this QOTD is a disguise for not hiring a proper reviewer like Alex Dykes.
How about we go for the KISS principle:
“Owner’s Opinion: [Title that includes Year, Make, and Model]” – Owner reviews their own car and why they own it.
“Reader’s Rides: [Title that includes Year, Make, and Model]”
It might also be nice to know the region and unique features of the car. People in the sun belt don’t care about things people do where it snows.
If you keep doing garbage like the WRX “review” it won’t matter much what you call it. Regarding the Ram review, your brother should probably spend time driving other trucks before commenting on it’s ride over broken pavement. However, he did well only mentioning his Mustang once-must have been tough on him.
MUSTANG MUSTANG MUSTANG
I feel much better!
In the past year I’ve driven (and towed vehicle + trailer with) each of the following for several hundred to several thousand miles:
F-150
Silverado
Tundra
Titan
Also, I believe you meant to type “its.” Thanks for reading!
Jeano doesn’t know you and has no idea of your experience with other trucks, which just plays more into the argument that reader reviews are less useful. When Jack, Derek, or Alex D write a review we have the benefit of knowing that they drive a ton of cars and have a good basis for comparison. When Joe Schmoe writes that a truck is rough over pavement- then doesn’t compare it to four other trucks- why should we believe him? Granted you’ve been a pretty regular contributor at this point, but the point still stands. As for it’s vs. its, that’s the kind of error that’s spotted with great regularity in reader contributed content.
I’ve contributed over 30 articles in the last 12 months. I would hope I’ve gained a modicum of credibility in that time.
I think you have, but I also think the Staff descriptions should include all Staff auto-jurno resumes, so we can look that up when we read
Agree on staff section content increases, as well as more timely editing of the list. I don’t think all those people are active here any more – and there are some missing.
My apologies Bark, I did think about that after I entered my reply, but unfortunately I’ve never successfully deleted a comment here. Interestingly enough I did try to find your bio right after, as I’ve never been entirely clear on your involvement here (beyond frequent contributions). Didn’t mean it as a personal attack, but I did think you comment provided an opportunity to point out a couple shortcomings in the reader reviews, and apparently it has demonstrated another area for possible improvement (staff bios).
Agreed that updated bios would be helpful. Sometimes things aren’t that easy to change.
Here’s a quick snippet about me. I work for an incredibly huge organization in the automotive space, and I have for a couple of years. As a result, I spend a bunch of time in car dealerships. I have won SCCA trophies at the national level in three different classes and three different models of cars. I have been an instructor with a couple of chapters of the SCCA and the BMWCCA. I scored a perfect verbal score on the SAT, and have written training curriculum and marketing materials for several billion dollar organizations and consulting firms.
I realize that this should be somewhere permanent, but it’s here for now.
As Big Al from Oz said, if possible , some international content. I for one would love to see reviews on PSA cars, the Peugeot 308, the the Citroen DS series etc., in Europe I see lots of them around.
@brianyates
I do think reviews of vehicles tuned for markets different than the US will give a different insight into the world of motor vehicles.
I do think some of the US commenters should see the different vehicles on offer outside of their country and get a feel of how the writer perceives these vehicles.
But, it would be better if a US person does the write up. What we consider normal everyday vehicles will not allow for the subtle differences to be presented.
Maybe TTAC should give it’s ‘core’ journo’s some travel money to allow this to occur.
I would like to see TTAC come to the Summer Nats in Canberra in January 2015 and attend a V8 Super Car race at Hidden Valley and Bathurst.
I think Jack Baruth as a racer should embrace my idea. He can spend the year touring different racing venues around the globe.
1) That would cost a ton of money that TTAC likely does not have. Remember, you are getting this content FREE on the internet.
2) TTAC is US/NA centric. They can post articles about international vehicles, but the truth is, for the core audience here, it doesn’t matter what is offered in the rest of the world as far as reviews go. For TTAC’s assumed goal of becoming a legitimate competitor to Autoblog, Edmunds, etc, they need to cast a wider net to bring in the people that aren’t in the comments section. They need to have their reviews popping up on google searches to keep the place alive. Spending their resources on reviewing midsize diesel trucks that you can’t buy in the US is a an awful ROI. I’d recommend starting your own blog where you can get the Aus centric coverage you so emphatically desire. If Jack ends up in Australia for business or pleasure, sure spend a little bit of time sampling the local flavor. TTAC isn’t his primary job from what I understand.
3) Your whole post stinks of a personal vendetta you have against some of the other commentators (and apparently the US car market).
Regarding>>> “3) Your whole post stinks of a personal vendetta you have against some of the other commentators (and apparently the US car market).”
Huh! I didn’t get that from ‘Big Al’s’ comments. Reading something in them that isn’t there?
“I do think some of the US commenters should see the different vehicles on offer outside of their country and get a feel of how the writer perceives these vehicles.
But, it would be better if a US person does the write up. What we consider normal everyday vehicles will not allow for the subtle differences to be presented.”
Both of those paragraphs are a synopsis of the fights that he has with DenverMike and PCH. In a post further down the page, he basically proves my suspicions.
“I would like to see a review written by DiM or Pch101 on a midsize pickup, and Australian pickup like a Maloo for starters then a 3.2 diesel Ranger.
Wouldn’t that be an interesting read.”
Look, I don’t have a position on their long running truck battle. I just don’t care about the truck market in general. The 50+ back and forth posts arguing do nothing but derail things. Take a wild guess who is usually bringing up his midsize diesel truck in an article about monthly vehicle sales, for example.
I come here to get away from that stuff and see how different the US models are and compare them with ours. V8 Super Cars is pretty dull to me, Bathurst used to be the annual race that everybody watched, now it’s mainly diehards because the cars are all the same and the rules are very strict. Summer Nats is basically just a drinking, fighting and burnout festival.
That’s what Vojta does/is for!
The name chosen isn’t nearly as important as building the brand. Stick to what you’ve started. R^2 and R^3 are just fine, we’re just not used to it yet. Year, make and model in the title, owner (and author) intro in the opening paragraph. More content is better, I can always skip or skim if it’s not my thing. Vague comparisons to “all the competition” without clarifying what’s being compared or the writers standing to make such a judgment should be avoided. Upholding that and other standards is part of an editors job, isn’t it? Most of all, thanks. TTAC is terrific, and the efforts of staff and B&B participants are valuable and appreciated.
I’m not sure the “My Ride” articles are that helpful or useful. I can get owners opinions about their own car anywhere and everywhere, but they are never objective and usually have a very narrow perspective. Plus it can easily spiral down into fanboi territory pretty quickly.
The only plus of “Why I Love My Impala” fluff is lots of free content for TTAC. The downside is most of it will be garbage.
Letting a writer from TTAC drive a car (from ANY source) and review it compared to other similar cars? Interesting. Owners reviewing their own cars? Not so much.
@Toad
I think having a TTAC patron write an article on their vehicle is great.
If the content displays they are blowing wind out of their ass, we then can return fire!
I would like to see a review written by DiM or Pch101 on a midsize pickup, and Australian pickup like a Maloo for starters then a 3.2 diesel Ranger.
Wouldn’t that be an interesting read.
Reviews of one’s own car are going to be inherently biased. Once you spend a slew of money on a car, most people can’t help justifying their purchase in their head, given the size of the investment.
Couple that with the fact that a reader review can be pretty fluffy, if the last one is representative, and the reader review of their own car is especially a waste of time.
I would certainly make an exception for Baruth, Mehta, Martin, and DK.
The fluff is the heart of the reader review. For more focused, mechanical approach, there are literally hundreds of options. Who wouldn’t want to read a 1,700 word piece on the dodge charger?
“we can return fire!”
I’ve worked there, and it’s fun for everyone but the innocents who walk into the crossfire.
This is more about the technical than on matters of content, but I think anything appearing on the site needs to be edited. Obviously, a vigorous approach is more suitable for staff work than for outside contributors, but everything should display a reasonable proficiency in grammar, syntax, spelling, etc. Frankly, when I encounter writing that is technically inept, I struggle to continue reading. Style, of course, is another matter. Not everyone is a master, but fortunately we have Jack, Sajeev, Ronnie and Derek, all of whom are excellent.
You’d just intimidate and discourage contributors whose automotive knowledge may be at post doc levels but whose prose is 12th grade.
And I don’t think your candidates for the job should be asked to work such editing into their schedules.
I say let ‘er rip. I spend more time here as is than I do at Grammar Girl.
@Jeff Waingrow
I seems you should apply to be registered on SAE and Diesel Forum.
I belong to them. They are interesting with some good technical writing.
I think the SAE site is a little elitist (my word of the week). It runs you through an in depth ‘interview’ on your employment, training, schooling, attainments, etc.
You also select what technical areas you want to be notified of.
I don’t know if you don’t meet a certain level it will reject you or not. I made it, so I would think most anyone could register on SAE ;)
EIN Automotive Industrial News is also another highly technical site as is some universities sites.
This site is an ‘all ranks party’, why ruin it. Just let you hair down and enjoy.
Big Al, what I meant by “technical” was specific to writing in clear sentences, etc. You know, the kind of stuff you learned in junior high school if you weren’t shooting spitballs in the back of the class. I don’t think that it’s all that difficult to clean up submitted pieces a bit. Even the most celebrated writers have editors to polish their writing. It’s not elitist to write with precision any more than it is to work on a car with the same attention to proper methods. It just shows respect for the activity. And Kenmore, I can be found at Grammar Boy if you need me.
I can see in my mind’s eye me old Da cutting off the torch, swatting red dust from his jacket and pushing up his goggles as he turns to face me.
He lances a stream of Beech-Nut at a nearby weedpatch and says:
“Son, just lead by example with your own writing and those capable of caring will take the hint and seek the remedy.”
Then *pop* and *fwoomp* and he’s back to work.
I was a technical writer and PR writer. I’ll volunteer to do high-level edits for grammar and flow. Send me up to 8 articles a week, say.
I hope they take you up on that.
Yes, I’m sick of reading rough drafts. An editor should be doing that.
Since this is a click-driven economy, I’ll state that if there were a decent minimum standard of writing and content, I would not be limiting myself to clicking on known, liked, authors.
Couldn’t agree more with Jeff. Reader contributions aren’t expected to have the greatest prose, but they could at least be readable. All it would take is a single round of editing. It’s not like any of these pieces are on a strict deadline. There have been numerous pieces where I’ve stopped reading after the first paragraph due to really basic writing problems.
This is probably not a popular opinion, but maybe they’d benefit from a return to the 1,000 word limit? Or at a minimum, a 1,000 word target? I know that Charger piece could easily have been half as long.
I’m much more in favor of content created by the bread and butter TTAC writers, but I think there is room for some reader contributed materials. There are smart people on here and it’s a shame to miss out on their interesting insights just because they weren’t encouraged to edit their pieces.
+1
+1 for editing. Since Reader Rides and Reader Reviews picked up the pace in the last week or so, there has been more content than I can keep up with. There is time for at least one round of edits.
Could I suggest a standardized format? Or a recommended format? This is an old review I wrote for a 2008 Hyundai Azera back in August of 08.
I don’t think I was happier in my life to finally arrive at Sacramento International Airport and had the opportunity to swap out the Ford Taurus. My eyes were so strained from the dim headlights I could truly barely see to drive, my back was sore, and I was exhausted from the concentration level required, I need a new set of wheels. The first car offered up was a Toyota Camry (regular readers I know are laughing out loud at this). I asked for the ever elusive Chevrolet Malibu, as I really want to take one through the paces, but was offered a Chevrolet Impala instead, but feel that is too much like my Grand Prix for an effective review.
Then I was offered a Saturn SKY. Yes, you read that right, for $11 more a day they were going to give me a Saturn SKY. Torn to my soul I had to pass (insert groans here) as I needed a car that could seat five. I continued to play lets make a deal, and wore the clerk down into offering me up a Hyundai Azera for the same price as my fullsize rental. WOOT!
Exterior: The Hyundai Azera Limited was in a pearly white (not a true pearl coat, but not a “white” either). The exterior was recognizably Hyundai, not unattractive but not a standout either compared to say the Acura TL it’s built to compete against. The 17” aluminum rims filled the wheel wells nicely. There was something elegant, yet conservative about the Azera, it said older person car but didn’t say bury me in this when I die. There was chrome on the grille and door pulls but otherwise muted.
Interior: The interior was a very light tan and the dashboard sloped forward and was low, creating a very open feeling cabin. The seats were wrapped in nice leather. Sadly, the folks at Hyundai have graduated from the lets put fake wood everywhere school of design like everyone else. At least the faux rosewood was somewhat attractive, but clearly plastic. The steering wheel had faux wood trim on the top 1/3 and bottom 1/8 with leather otherwise. However the wood trim wrap across the dash was thankfully rather thin, maybe `1/2 inch thick. There wasn’t an attempt to make this feel like an old persons car, but add some elegance. Ehhhh, not for me.
Interior materials were overall good quality but not great quality. No one will mistaken an Azera for a TL, Lexus 350 or MB 300. But given the price I’ll give some leeway. The doors were trimmed in the same soft leather, a very nice touch. The center stack in particular was very Toyota influenced (as much as people think I pick on Toyota I did give strong kudos to Camry for the center stack layout). The stack slopes sharply away from the driver in an attempt to make the cabin feel larger, but it also required a lean forward and a stretch, even with my 6’1” frame to reach key controls.
Bang for the buck the Hyundai Azera delivers the goods. Coming equipped with power driver and passenger seats with power lumbar support for the driver, leather seating surfaces with heating for the front passengers, power tilt/telescope steering wheel, power and power folding side mirrors, power windows, and locks, cruise control, power rear window sunshade, sunroof, 6-disc CD changer with XM radio, dual zone climate control, trip computer, auto dimming rear view mirror with compass, memory seating, mirrors, and steering wheel for two drivers, keyless entry, fog lamps, split folding rear seats and rear center armrest.
Switch gear overall was of good quality, there were clear white on black gauges with a very simplistic, VERY simplistic trip computer integrated into the center of the cluster. Seeing a trend in this class of car yet? The gauges were very nice, some of the nicest I’ve seen in a car period.
The stereo was good, better than the G8 and most other GM products, which have pretty crappy OEM stereos but not even close to the Ford. It took some tuning to get performance out of the system which had clear sound at moderate volume but strained when pushed. The clear display was easy to read and the car came with a 6-disc CD changer, AM/FM/XM Radio but surprising no MP3 or auxiliary input – this is a pretty major sin for any car built in the 2008 model year, let along a sub-luxury model Hyundai is addressing this by adding Microsoft Sync standard in the 2009 model year.
The dual-zone climate control system worked well but required it to be set colder than reality to get the desired effect, so either the sensors aren’t right or it’s a touch weak, but it didn’t feel weak in the 100 degree heat of central California, but I had to set it to 66 to 68 degrees to be comfortable. Large buttons, big displays made it each to use with the outside temperature in the display.
The trunk was large but a bit shallow, Tony Soprano would feel its OK, you could get three bad guys in there, four if they’re smaller. The trunk was nicely lined although the light was dim and could be brighter.
Powerplant and Transmission: I had already given the deserved respect to the Hyundai V6 with 5-speed automatic with manual shift mode and the same setup in the V6 Sonata is found in the Azera. This is a great combination, think Honda Accord great. Put this in sport mode and the Hyundai is a blast to drive. The traction control system could be more effective, put it in first and plant it and the tires howl and there is no sense of traction control even engaging. I guess the lack of obtrusiveness is a good thing, but I’m not sure how the Hyundai would do in the snow with the same delayed response. The Hyundai sailed to 110 MPH in the sprint with plenty of room left over to keep going. Of course all of this came at a price, I had noted in my Sonata rental last year that I struggled to get 16 MPG!!! The Hyundai V6 is thirsty, clocking in at 21-1/2 MPG in what was pure highway driving with only a few minutes of stop and go, and a lot of that was cruise control on 70 to 80 MPH driving, so it wasn’t an impressive showing in the fuel economy department.
Handling and Brakes: The Azera has similar dynamics to the Sonata, there is a fair amount of body lean but the car feels confident and provides good feedback. I discovered that just after a few minutes of driving I had one hand on the wheel and one on the semi-automatic shifter, always a good sign of a car with good on-center feel, and good feedback dynamics. Brakes were firm and very responsive. Traffic came to a sudden short stop on me requiring an emergency stop, the anti-lock system never became involved, although the nose did dive down significantly. The Hyundai felt confident for a sedan on ramps, but not TL or MB 300 confident.
Driving Impressions: Overall the Hyundai was a surprising ride. The suspension was tuned well soaking up expansion joints while allowing for spirited driving while not being numb. The seats were comfortable, and it was impressive package that was elegant without feeling excessively old, but it did lack a sense of cool styling. In some ways its hard to find things to write about in impressions other than pleasant, and that is a great word to describe the Azera. Its quiet to drive, has a nice balance of power and handling, offers good visibility with minimal blind spots (side view mirrors could be bigger). It’s kind of hard to write something that says wow, this car is a stand put because, or wow this car is awful because. I would put this in the upper 1/3 of cars I’ve rented and written Foolish reviews for, but toward the bottom of the third.
Conclusions: Driving the similar priced, sized, and equipped Azera immediately after the Taurus was absolutely bad for the Taurus. But it’s a tough equation to weigh, the Azera is built to compete with the Acura TL, Lexus 350, Mercedes Benz 300, and BMW 5-series, and shoot, I might as well toss in the G8 and Infiniti G35 in there too. In that respect, well the Azera doesn’t compete. It is a GREAT car, but not a great car in where its aimed. Now put the Azera up against the Ford Taurus, the Toyota Camry, the Honda Accord, The Chevrolet Impala, Pontiac Grand Prix, Buick LaCrosse and load those cars up so them come in to close the same price range, and the Azera is a great deal.
If you think I’m an automotive stickler you should meet my sister, who spent an afternoon in the Azera and without prompting commented on what a nice, comfortable car it was. That is a major endorsement from an automotive hard ass (and considering my father was a Ford engineer I guess he raised a family of automotive hard asses).
If you’re looking for a sedan in the $25K to $30K price range, the Azera is very worthy to look at, especially if you’re looking for something that offers near Lexus luxury with near Acura performance (minus the excessive torque steer) but offers it at a discounted price. The biggest barrier I found was getting over the fact it has a “H” logo on it. If the Azera has a weakness, it is in the fuel economy department, and I really hope that Hyundai focuses on squeezing out some better fuel economy out of their six cylinder cars. To be competitive the Azera should have gotten more around 25 to 27 MPG given the powerplant under the hood and how it was put through its paces while driving.
Please use a review content checklist with room for opinions. Do you have someone who could review a base 2013 G37 sedan with automatic transmission?
Who buys the base model?!
Can reader reviews be of older used cars?
I’d love to review my Thunderbird, even if right now the engine isn’t getting fuel and so I can’t even drive it.
Bingo:
I’m ready to cross 100K on my KIA…so I’d be happy to give my experience in the 3 years I’ve had it.
I haven’t even had my car a month, but I’d love to write up a “road test” for it.
I like the owner’s reviews. For those who think that the owners are biased, that may be true. But after 2 years in my Elantra GT, there is plenty I could bitch about. I’m sure most owners who take the time to review their car here would be similarly honest. I do also like the Reader’s Rides. It no doubt gets us reviews we otherwise might not have, as well as an interesting story about the owner etc.
Keep it simple:
Reader’s Rides – Owner Review
Reader’s Rides – TTAC Review
I like Readers Rides. It’s cool to read why someone got the car that’s being reviewed, they’re putting “their money where their mouth is”. The plus side is you know there were no junkets or freebies involved, unless the car owner is giving the Baruth Brothers an adult beverage or three after the test drive is done.
First, I don’t think there should have been any confusion; It seemed pretty clear who was reviewing what. As for reader reviews, I agree with HDL above in that they are likely more helpful when done a year or more into ownership. What is the practical experience in every day driving? What options are you glad you checked, and which could you live with out? Sure, I can find those elsewhere, but as long as it’s additional content and doesn’t replace anything, it’s another reason to come here. However, I don’t think readers doing first-drive type reviews will be helpful at all.
Q0 – As others say, something clear to delineate between reader-contributed content and professional stuff.
Q1 – Common sense should apply. A 2014 V6 Camry SE needs no ground up description. A 1988 Volvo 740 with an LS1 flawlessly installed in the engine bay – describe away.
Q2. Reader-contributed reviews are grey. Every one will have inherent bias for why the owner purchased the car. I like them, but think they need to be rigorously edited and meet some kind of objective quality standard and reviewed by at least 2 editors (just in case – and solely for the sake of argument – one is in the middle of draining a bottle of Johnny Walker Blue Label due to a bad breakup).
Unsolicited advice: I like the idea of having reader reviews follow a format. Curbside Classic has some EXCELLENT user-submitted content. If TTAC can successfully clone their model, I’m all for it. If not, then reader-reviewed-rides should move to the forums.
I strongly second that owner reviews (actually all content) needs ruthless editing. Personally, I’d just dust off Farago’s requirements, that are hopefully saved somewhere, starting with the 800 word limit. Too many writers emulate Baruth’s breezy prose and it rarely works for me. Writers need structure.
Go for quality over quantity.
Owners may have purchase and ownership experiences to share, but they aren’t reviewers, per se. Accordingly, I would include the word “owner” and refrain from the use of the term “review” from those articles.
+1
Anyway you all could do older vehicle reviews? It would be fun seeing someone review a 1990s neon or W body. Also, those who say you can’t be honest about a car you own are fooling themselves. I hope it is positive but even on my car there some things that annoy me.
YES. Find readers with old rides in nice shape and do those reviews. With pics.
I enjoy the reader-contributed reviews. Don’t over think it. As long as the submissions are entertaining to read who cares about the details. The articles are clearly identified as reader-contributed, so obviously audience expectations are calibrated accordingly. Keep it fun and extra crispy, guys. Feel free to kill the traditional review template.
The writer should write whatever they feel is relevant to constitute a car review without any executive meddling, then they answer more specific questions in the comments.
What’s the diff? Just review the iron. Unless Jack is going to push the limit or Csaba Csere is giving the expert media take, it’s all the same. Soft touch dashboard or no? It’s just an appliance these days, anyway.
As author of the latest reader review, I think the feature is worthwhile. I decided to review my Charger after signing the lease, and gave impressions that vary from those that you can read in other automotive publications. I live with the car everyday, and have spent ample time behind the wheel.
The piece was long because I decided to expand on the theme of why I chose that particular model, as well as my experiences living with the machine.
I think the compelling angle here is exactly why the reader chose that particular car, what it means to them, and their impressions. If readers on TTAC want a direct review, they are more than welcome to google “Model X review” and read the multitude of straight up reviews that are out there.
Anyone who has trouble understanding the difference between “reader review” and TTAC review probably needs to go read a less academically challenging web site… Is there even a web site for sponge bob?
Need I continue?
As for Reader Reviews, yes I’ve driven maybe six or seven different options before zeroing on my Citroen, but what the hell do I know? I don’t think I can say anything useful about my car’s handling or how it really stacks up against its competitors. I can tell you I like the glass roof and that it fits two tables, six chairs and BBQ gear, meat and beverages enough to feed 20 people. I’ve owned five different cars, that’s not a useful base of knowledge. And they all sucked, anyway.
Maybe the Bnb is filled with wiser and cleverer guys than me. It probably is, but I do not see how useful or accurate a reader review can be.
So, I wouldn’t mind having them, but I believe they belong in the forum. It even serves the porpuose of sharing useful information about reliability and maintenance.
As for Reader Rides Review, frankly these sound better than sampling press fleet cars. I’ve always been highly suspicious of them.
Bias Ply = readers reviewing their own rides
TTAYC = TTAC reviewing readers’ rides
The reader “reviews” are rarely reviews at all- they just speak to a single person’s experience with that car, as it fits into their particular life. Sometimes there are interesting things to glean from them- for instance, how the car buying experience is better at a particular dealership than another, or some entertaining story about how someone was turned off to a particular brand. These stories are completely anecdotal and hardly qualify as reviews. If you’re going to call it a review, there has to be specific criteria that’s being reviewed, and a comparison to alternatives or established thresholds (e.g. rating number) that gives it meaning. Otherwise you can just call it a reader “experience.” Which is fine too if the article is well written, and has something interesting to tell. I don’t think most people have enough experience with other vehicles to write an actual “review,” and without a review template they tend to wander.
0. Use the owner’s commenter screen name instead of their real name in the by-line and introduce them in the lead.
1. I personally have no expectations, and I think it should be taken on a car by car basis. If it’s an all new car that TTAC hasn’t written about yet, absolutely do a ground up review. If it’s a refresh of an existing model then just mention major differences between the new and old.
2. I find them interesting, however I am of the opinion that anyone can submit a review of their car anytime they want in the already existing Reader’s Rides forum. I could see encouraging that and if someone has a really good one it can be posted to the main page.
This could also increase general interest in the forum which I admittedly should be more active in.
Good points.