Actions
Engagement
  • Author Author: rscasny
  • Date Created: Date Created
  • Last Updated Last Updated:
  • Views 2929 views
  • Likes 2 likes
  • Comments 40 comments
Related
Recommended

Is There Interest in a Webinar on How To Write a Better RoadTest Application?

There have been some comments lately about RoadTest applications, and what's the difference between the winners and the others.

 

Applicants who are selected as RoadTest winners do indeed write a persuasive application. People who do not win often write a brief paragraph. I have even see a number of applicants indicate they do not know what to write.

 

If there is enough interest in learning how to write a better RoadTest application, I will assemble a webinar and present it myself.

 

Please answer the follow below. I'd like the gauge community interest in this type of webinar.

 

Sincerely,

 

Randall Scasny

RoadTest Program Manager

  • in reply to jadew

    I understand the concern but I don't agree that the results will be the same. A good application is more than just presenting a good idea, it's about showing that you've planned what you might do and can demonstrate the capability to complete the roadtest. So better applications should lead to better overall results.

  • in reply to hlipka

    All legal matters aside, I'd have no problem even with a full price bond.

     

    If you promise a review and you fail to deliver, it's only fair that you pay for the full price of the device.

  • in reply to mcb1

    I have the same concern. Someone said it before, a webinar about how to write better reviews would be more useful.

     

    One that teaches you what to say to get selected, seems damaging to the selection process.

     

    On the other hand, just like with CVs, it doesn't matter how great your CV is or isn't, if someone experienced in that field is hiring you, they'll know what type of employee you'll be from the first couple of lines.

     

     

    Razvan

  • in reply to dougw

    As for the bond: this will probably create more problems than it will solve. Either the bond is not big enough to detract people from taking the stuff and running away (how big should the bond be e.g. for the Keysight power supply? Even at $100 it would be a bargain). Or it will be so big that even people with good intentions and being able to do a good review will not apply (would pay $500 to test it?).

    And then you have all the legal problem because you have to cater for many different countries with different laws (because this then essentially needs to be a legally binding contract which can be enforced). And when you then come into the grey area of "not good enough" road tests you either end up in court or with some very unhappy reviewers. (Lets say I really pay a bond of $200 for this power supply, and due to some problems end up only with a minimal review which is not what I promised and what is expected. What happens to my bond? Probably we will have some serious dispute about it.)

    And then I also would not know how _I_ can pay the bond to Farnell. Do I need to send a cheque? (The last time I have seen one was more than 20 years ago...)

  • in reply to dougw

    There is one number which we probably don't know: how many bad application do we have, right now, which would end up in good reviews? Because this would be the ones that would not be selected currently, but should be. You assumptions seems to be that a good percentage of the bad applications would end up in good reviews, my assumption is that this is not the case. But when you are right, we can increase the number of good reviews just by selecting randomly from the bad applications.

  • in reply to hlipka

    These are good points but helping everyone to write better proposals will increase the number of good well-intentioned proposals as well as potentially shady proposals. Regardless of whether there are more shady proposals, this should generally provide more good and honorable proposals to choose from. It doesn't really affect the chance of choosing a shady proposal. What to do about mis-representation in proposals is a separate question with lots of potential solutions. Note that road testers are not really anonymous - they have to provide a real name and address to get the device. I think and element14 are doing a good job trying to clarify and remind members of their obligations without going all Draconian.

    How do you folks feel about the idea of posting a bond that gets released or reimbused when your obligations are discharged?

  • in reply to hlipka

    That was my concern as well ... maybe I didn't write it clearly .. image

  • in reply to hlipka

    exactly my thought, it will only get more difficult to select...

  • in reply to dougw

    I'm worrying that these measures, intended to get better applications, in the end lead to even fewer road tests being completed (or being of good quality). Members that are able to write a good road test review should also be able write a good application. The other way round is not necessarily true - someone writing a bad application might end up with a good review (though the chances are not so good), and someone writing a good application might end up with with no review at all.

    My worry is that when we now give guidance what is expected to be in a review, we just increase the latter category (after all, we won't educate people in writing better reviews). And then it would be even more difficult to find out which ones would result in a good review.

  • in reply to dougw

    In my comment I meant to say list of "exemplary Road Test reviews", not applications

    Not sure If I would like to have my application publicly published... or at least it has to be option to allow application to be publicly accessible or not. But I think this is separate conversation