Actions
Forum Thread Details
  • Replies 91 replies
  • Subscribers 2568 subscribers
  • Views 6794 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Related

Please Read: An Important RoadTest Program Change

rscasny

This is the third virtual "fireside chat" that I'm writing regarding the RoadTest Program. For this one, I'd like to roll out a RoadTest Program change and explain why the change is occurring.

 

To start, I'd like to share a snippet of an email I received yesterday from a vendor who participates in the RoadTest Program:

 

"We received only 13% reviews back from the RoadTests we sponsored in 2016. I would like to know the status of each of these roadtests. Are the missing reviews still being pursued? I would also like to know if the members that failed to post a review are now being flagged so we do not chose them again."

 

It was not pleasant to respond to. I had to eat "humble pie," as we say in the US, when I responded to this vendor.

 

To solve the problem, I decided I don't want to go down the road of suspending members from the RoadTest program. Suspensions sound too much like the hard rules of the military. I was in the Navy for 10 years and I didn't like tough rules back then, but I knew they were necessary given the reality of uncomfortable shipboard conditions and potentially dangerous operations we were participating in.

 

But this is a community. It should be a place to have some fun, meet new people, network professionally, be a mentor, or get mentored. Suspending people just is the wrong road to follow.

 

The way I've chosen to resolve the problem is the program change.

 

RoadTest application reports will soon include whether a specific applicant has completed all of his/her previous RoadTest reviews. I'm told by our developers this is very easy to do. We will provide this information to the vendor with a RoadTester's application. The supplier will make the decision where to select the RoadTester or not. Given the above comment by the supplier, I think the answer is self-evident.

 

Now, this change will probably cause me more work. If someone were flagged, I will have to check to see if that person is on a current RoadTest and it's before the due date of the official review. I surely don't want to penalize a conscientious RoadTester. I will also have to ensure there are not any extenuating circumstances that have caused the person not to write the review, i.e., sickness, family issues.

 

I am ambivalent about this whole thing. There are many RoadTesters who are doing a fantastic job. But a 13% success rate is not successful. I really have no choice but to implement this change.

 

Sincerely,

 

Randall Scasny

RoadTest Program Manager

Parents

  • I thought that this is already being applied. I think this improvement is neccessary, and might work out fine. 13% review rate is totally unnacceptable.

     

    Also, I believe many Roadtests have applicants that are new and have no roadtest's posted before. Maybe Roadtests should include only a certain percentage of "new" members, so there are more chances of satisfied supplier?

     

    However, I tend to disagree with these short deadlines (2 weeks for unboxing for example). Roadtester's are chosen ~1month after applications are closed. Then there is shipping and etc. The time when you should reserve time for a roadtest is distant and undetermined. I simply cannot plan so much ahead and sometimes it is difficult to find spare 3 hours of free time (having a fresh head of course) to experiment / write even an unboxing review. 60 days seems reasonable to me and should be enough  for everyone to write a review (if no serious issues occur).

     

    From my perspective, RoadTest rules should encourage everyone to participate, not only the ones with the most experience / good testing equipment. That means, letting the applicant know, that the rules are strict, and he has to do the RoadTest in time, although the RoadTest itself does not have to be a masterpiece. The review from "amateurs" side can also be as insightful as from an "expert". It should be clear that the reviewer has spent time playing around, working, trying to integrate the product somewhere, but also spent some time writing the review in a clear and understandable way. For those, who are not sure how to make a roadtest, it would be good to know, what properties of the product the supplier wants to get tested / reviewed? Maybe some template could be created?

     

    Anyway, I think the changes are for the good. If we could increase the review rate, then we could expect more and better products to be supplied for testing image

Reply

  • I thought that this is already being applied. I think this improvement is neccessary, and might work out fine. 13% review rate is totally unnacceptable.

     

    Also, I believe many Roadtests have applicants that are new and have no roadtest's posted before. Maybe Roadtests should include only a certain percentage of "new" members, so there are more chances of satisfied supplier?

     

    However, I tend to disagree with these short deadlines (2 weeks for unboxing for example). Roadtester's are chosen ~1month after applications are closed. Then there is shipping and etc. The time when you should reserve time for a roadtest is distant and undetermined. I simply cannot plan so much ahead and sometimes it is difficult to find spare 3 hours of free time (having a fresh head of course) to experiment / write even an unboxing review. 60 days seems reasonable to me and should be enough  for everyone to write a review (if no serious issues occur).

     

    From my perspective, RoadTest rules should encourage everyone to participate, not only the ones with the most experience / good testing equipment. That means, letting the applicant know, that the rules are strict, and he has to do the RoadTest in time, although the RoadTest itself does not have to be a masterpiece. The review from "amateurs" side can also be as insightful as from an "expert". It should be clear that the reviewer has spent time playing around, working, trying to integrate the product somewhere, but also spent some time writing the review in a clear and understandable way. For those, who are not sure how to make a roadtest, it would be good to know, what properties of the product the supplier wants to get tested / reviewed? Maybe some template could be created?

     

    Anyway, I think the changes are for the good. If we could increase the review rate, then we could expect more and better products to be supplied for testing image

Children
No Data