Interesting way to ask for "reviewers"  while ensuring readers are really part of the comunity

The "member for at least" approach is double-edged sword.

On one side it would be great for minimising the number of new members who appear at the application stage. It doesn't seem too difficult to make 4 or 5 accounts with different approaches and apply the shotgun method of fishing.

I'm also curious about how many members wait for the kit and then run!.

Of course Element 14 do state that doing so will exclude you from any further road tests/design challenges, but simply ditch that account and create a new one next time.

On the other hand, I do like the non-restrictive environment we offer new members. The launch of a new product to readiest will invariably bring new people with that interest to the community and that can only be a good thing.

I guess the trick is keeping them here and seeing them follow through on their commitment.

The tips page is a good idea.

Looking at the counter argument, I wonder how many people leave because they see roadtests / design challenges being given to people who don't respond.

You mean like these two?

Calla Klafas

srini vas

Exactly like those two and the many many more on here. In response to Workshopshed there have been times on E14 that I have felt why get involved in helping this person, or answering that question or posting an informative blog or even applying to a road test because I felt I was no longer a worthwhile part of the community. When I see someone win a cool prize and then write how they turned on the unit and followed the quick start guide It gets me annoyed that they were chosen and offered no benefit to the community. Anyways looking for member coments not my own.

Kas

The participation issue comes up at least once a year.

I think the donators understand that a percentage of the devices will just be taken and no review provided.

It is just part of business.

I have been more than pleased with the efforts that the Element 14 staff have done to ensure that good devices go to people who have demonstrated the ability to conduct and provide good reviews.

In an open forum like this, I do not see anyway to "enforce" compliance, but I have suggested the possibility of adding additional "prizes" for people who provide the best review of the product.

That way you entice compliance rather than try to enforce compliance.

Just a thought,

DAB

DAB, pro & cons ...

If it was needed one year to participate, now I had not reviewed yet the panasonic tag (not the better I expected to do), nor I was not reviewing the BBC micro:bit (as it will be shipped), nor the TI Educations Launchpad MKII and I had not participated to the last challenge.

Obviously the problem exists; Multiple reviews are really useful because represent more than a single point of view and on this point I agree perfectly with you. So, what is the solution ? Frankly I have no idea, but maybe that you are right, not always the rues are perfect but may save a lot of unwanted situations.

It's days that I am thinking if does it exists a way to grant the reviews avoiding restrictive rules based on time or activity. There are cases that to be "invested" as reviews may move ahead some users that for any reasons was not yet participating ...

Enrico

Thats why i try never to regurgitate the specs in one way or another, of course a brand new unit is going to do the marketing stuff, I try to make the review more interesting like with the Insulation resistance Testers, I literally buried it in snow for a day and then imediatly into a bucket of warm water for several more hours (Weighted down lol) to check out the IP65 rating in a fun way and rip it apart to see whats inside too

Or the Batman /  TDR / AWG Radio etc, way more interesting I think

But even with the receint Truevolt DMM, there where low level points folks awarded the prize too and still have not provided reviews with only 2 weeks left

as has already been said, it is an ongoing nightmare for E14 to try to know who will perform and who will grab and run, and over the last few years there have been many suggestions provided to help figure it out

I think if your a member for a long time and have still to breach even the first level then your out as you have proven your not a community member / contributor

perhaps grading the road tests based on value against points earned over the last x period starting with perhaps 50$ eval boards and the like being available to any and all, maybe except for the ones that only show up for the road tests but there easy to spot based on lack of points vs time as a member and then work up where maybe a 1000$ item requires 5K points over the last 6 months or something (Not sure what the scale would be but you get the idea)

At the end of the day its a tough one, is like writing a proposal for a job but the interviewers do not have all the facts about the applicant and where this is a shared responsibility between E14 and one or more vendors it is even more comlicated so I am not supprised E14 has not changed the current practice, I dont envy them their task but totally get the value of a good review that as I said is not a regurgitation of the marketing blurb

thats my 1p worth on this

The qualifications approach is interesting, and might be worth trying on a few road tests, but I don't think it should ever be elevated to the point where it is used on most road tests. The incentive to sign up for some undefined future road test months in advance resonates with a much smaller audience than an immediate sign-up for a cool tangible road test. Sure, not everyone who signs up is going to be a super participant, but the immediate reward system attracts everyone and statistically must result in higher levels of participation.

The element14 road test/design challenge system is currently the best-in-class system and it is pretty miraculous that it has evolved into such a win-win system. I don't have any idea how fragile its cost/benefit justification ratio is, but I would hate to tinker with the formula and push the ratio into an untenable position.

I'm not sure tinkering with the system to make it more beneficial for active participants will actually increase the number of active participants more than the current formula, in fact I suspect it would have a negative effect.

I see the road test / design challenge system as a huge benefit to me and other designers, and hopefully the manufacturers and e14 also see benefits. The qualifications approach would likely benefit me in the short term, but I don't think it would benefit the most members in the long term.

Doug

Certainly my coments where not ment for the challanges, I agree with Doug, these work exceptionally well already. I am refering to the basic road tests like the Keysight Truevolt DMM and TI DAC8734

It's an interesting discussion.

In the past it was pointed out that the roadtest has introduced some very worthwhile members who are now TM's.

I had this discussion with Christian, and he pointed out that he read every application, and while some had very fancy ideas, it was recognised they were unachievable ... or not possible for varying reasons.

So I do think there is care taken with the testers (and Design Challengers) .....

Unfortunately no-one can anticipate the future and sadly some fall short, that is the chance you take.

I'm also not sure if the sponsor has a large say, and maybe the person has 'other contacts' outside of element14 that help spread the word about xyz product.

I do like the hints in the body of text ... but getting them to read it is another thing.

It seems that several don't seem to read the terms and conditions.

Mark