I think some of your responses to Gough are, to put it mildly, somewhat intemperate.

You can disagree with him (and me) without being rude.

Actually I think Gough's post is pretty much spot on - to do a decent review of a serious bit of equipment takes a lot of effort and requires experience both in reviewing and engineering.

I've rather given up on applying for road tests because I don't like the terms and conditions, and also because the value for money aspect to the reviewer is between marginal and negative - take the current "big ticket" road test of the Keithley Source meter - three weeks (120 hours) spent on doing a comprehensive review would be charged to a customer at between £4k and £8k (not a quote - kind of a UK contracting average) - the instrument costs £4700 but for a business can be offset against tax, so it costs about £3500 in real money (and I might get a discount), so even at the lowest commercial rates it's cheaper just to buy one and get on with work. Only if you have no work or do it for non commercial reasons does it make sense to put the effort in.

I'm grateful to road testers like Gough (and others) who do a professional job and whom I've found to be friendly and supportive when asked for more information or clarification.

MK

and for all you said you might be 100% correct, but what you have written is exactly why the community wont grow. When enough people feel sidelined eventually your reviews and feedback loses its diversity. Companies realize they are building a product for one guy in a lab that no one in the real world wants cares about.

You can run your one man show, and keep defending it as you always do, and your superiority complex doesn't help the community either, but in the end there is no diversity, there will be loss of interest and eventually the walls along with the rest of the house will come crashing down

Kas

RoadTest applications are purely voluntary - if you want a shot in it, you enter. If you don't, that's fine too.

Doing a few lower-value RoadTests is a way to build up credibility and a portfolio, but I don't see why one would continue along that path unless it was something they were interested in. Even if you've taken the time to apply and are awarded the RoadTest, you could always decline if you don't feel like it's worth the time. Nobody's forcing anyone to do a low-value (to them) RoadTest, likewise, nobody is claiming that in exchange for high-value RoadTests, one must continually complete low-value RoadTests. Some RoadTests have very few applicants as a result, and this reflects the lack of appeal to a wider audience, but it has always been the case that you should only apply to a RoadTest if you are interested and have an idea of how you would test a given item.

As for big ticket items, I'm glad you think that it only takes a "few hours" work to spin up a review of a complex instrument which might require everything in the manner of creating visual assets, bespoke connection adapters, procuring niche parts, designing test circuits, running tests/validation in different scenarios, co-coordinating other equipment, repeating experiments when things don't work out, coming to grips with manufacturer's software/firmware, plenty of data analysis and in all probability, results in the discovery of functionality issues that requires many back-and-forth contacts with the manufacturer. Sure, the "low-value" item requires "many" (as you put it) hours ... I know some definitely do, but most of the less-valuable items also perform fewer functions and shouldn't require as much in the way of testing. None of my past five reviews have needed any less than 120 hours of my time ... some closer to 180+ hours, but for the most part, this is something I enjoy which is why I put my all into it.

To write a credible and useful review requires some level of experience. Would you trust a review of an item from someone who has never used one before and has nothing to compare it with? The sponsors are involved in the selection (as far as I'm aware, they have the final say) and it is likely that at least some of them are aiming for a comparison review, where someone with experience is comparing their product with a competitor's product, so they can communicate insights that the company could not themselves credibly say. If your proposal doesn't offer more of what the sponsor wants, then I can't say you have a good chance. There is definitely value in having members have more than one model of a given sort of device especially for providing the possibility to do a comparison review.

Nothing is a given in the RoadTest program - it's not a program to "build your lab", it is a side effect that might happen but is not something anyone should be counting on. As the sponsor has the final say, I'd argue that the selection is performed on merit of applications in terms of value provided to them. It's unlikely they know who you are, and it's unlikely they're making choices deliberately to discourage RoadTesters ...

- Gough

clem57,

I'm not sure about your comment regarding not having the experience to apply. Could I ask you to clarify.

I always felt we're not experts in everything and stepping out and spending time learning new things and reviewing things gives an even better review for a company as they get to see how it's viewed from those without the intuitive insiders information.

Kas

station240

I'm not sure how your comment relates to mine. I in no way suggested removing top members from applying.

What I did recommend was looking at making things feel less clique and having people apply to ALL levels of roatest. When you see members winning big ticket roadtests but which have a good ROI, ($4000+ for a few hours work) yet rarely applying to small items ($20 for many hours) it leaves members dishartend.

When I first started I understood from the community and from the original admins that you need to prove yourself with the small items first. But here I see to much of the items with a good ROI going to the same people without them doing low ROI roadtests. I will says it also not encouraging when a member has won 2 or more of the same equipment that they clearly already had. And yes I know this is not how to build your lab, its a product review but it's nice to see some real comradery and decency from those members who do step back when they know they could do a great review but feel others could benefit from the roadtest being presented.

Kas

Sorry, I do not get this comment in relation to the question at hand? The topic is the following:

Why Wasn't There More Interest: Silicon Labs Bluetooth Design Kit

More to the point, I am in this group and do not have the experience to apply. But if I wasn't busy all ready,

I do believe this would have made a good alternative choice.

I'm sorry I disagree.

To eliminate the top members from entering is a disservice to the vendors that provides products to evaluate. Those top members have earned their place. The quality and quantity of output is impressive. Restricting them from competing not only hurts the vendor but me also. I want to learn and maybe someday earn the privilege of the title of top member.

It is unfortunate that choosing to entering the competition arena is based on the chance of success. I can't accept not applying because others are to good. I don't see an reason to level the RoadTest playing field because it is already level.

Yes it's an ongoing problem, which no one seems interested in actually fixing.

A big reason people have for not entering a roadtest is not having the equipment needed to test it.

Randal knows this from a poll he ran recently, yet nothing has changed.

The Tektronix gear isn't going to anyone who actually needs it.

Hey @rscasny how about some Roadtests the 'Top Members' cannot enter/comment on ?

Try it as an experiment, see if more people show interest.

Sir, Randall Scasny, I am interested in using the Silicon Labs Bluetooth Design Kit for one of my projects. I wasn't able to enroll for the Roadtest as I realized about the same after the deadline had ended. I have also messaged you the details for which I require the kit. Looking forward to your response.

I've been absolutely fascinated by all the replies give here. One thing that struck me is perspective, especially on ROI.

It struck me that there are actually two perspectives when it comes to ROI.

There is the perspective of an employee or contractor (i.e. the individual) where ROI represents a view on whether this road test effort will enhance my capabilities and expertise and will the employment market value this.

Then there is the perspective of the employer or the business owner where ROI represents a view on whether this road test will provide competitive advantage by gaining first hand knowledge of the capabilities and the most likely development effort + BOM cost required to produce a product using this device.

It's become clear to me that you cannot always marry the two.