Poll: How Can I Get You More Active In The RoadTest Program?

rscasny Yes I will get on the RT that I owe you later this month after the vision thing is over.

about the Poll, you should be able to mark more than one. maybe three at the most.

mine are:

1. give more time to complete the RT maybe two months. ~
2. Eliminate the IRS problem. As currently Im on a Vets program that says I can't work so anything the FED gets a hold of the take it from me dollar for dollar. (AND YOUR ADD SAYS "FREE" Ie NO TAXES)
3. If its a product aka my RT msp430 Air kit. The Air modules did not fit the msp430 that you sent me. different revisions. Air modules needed to replace the CPU (DIP) and well what I got did not have a DIP CPU
4. I only run UNIX/LINUX and only have one box that is dual boot. So If Software is involved make sure that there is LINUX support!

It appears my comment have drawn your ire. I will avoid labelling or name calling it rarely leads to effective discussion. It is not something this board condones and I respect that.

Cynical yes. Nasty and rude no. You may feel it was nasty and rude, the same way you feel rscasny has deficiencies in the RoadTest Review selection process. I did an internet scraped for a definition of the word cynical. One meaning is, a person concerned only with one's own interests and typically disregarding accepted or appropriate standards in order to achieve them. I perceived the deficiencies you listed as woe is me. I never get selected. If the process was fair I would apply more. Why don't you do it my way and I would have a better chance.

In fairness, rscasny did frame the question, How can "I" get more active..... It is reasonable to assume you are going to look at the program from your perspective. It does concern me that to your focus on your "I", would reduce the benefits to the community.

Sean

colporteur What the hell are you talking about, most of the things I listed are Randalls deficiencies. You may think it's clever to be a cynical, nasty, rude person, but it is not.

What other benefits ? Oh you mean this process ?

1. Apply for Roadtest, include long list of features to review, and projects I want to try the kit with.

2. Wait one month to find out not been selected. Wait one month for reviewers to get kit shipped to them. Wait one month for reviews to appear.

3. Find none of the features I wanted to test have ended up in reviews and I waited 3 months for nothing.

4. Still considering buying it, so contact company that make it.

5. They don't know of any reviews that cover those features either.

6. Talk to someone else in the industry, they are considering getting one too, if the feature works as it should.

7. They offer to loan me one so I can review item, but it would be thru one of two local suppliers, and one of those happened to be moving at the time.

8. Happened by chance to find a youtube video that did cover that feature, send link to the supplier.

No I didn't end up buying one, things out of my control occurred. It wasn't something expensive though, or was it ?

Randall has stated many times, he has narrowed down the applicants to a certain number, sometimes twice.

Say there are 3 Kits on offer, the applicants are narrowed down to 20 in the first round, then 6 in the second round. The supplier then gets sent those 6 applicants.

Now at no point do we know what pile our application ended up in, were you in the final round or was the application binned the moment it was first read ?

A better system would be to select ALL the promising applications, sort them by experience level (previous roadtests), compare how many Roadtests they have done to actual knowledge in other areas.

If 0 Roadtests but really knowledgeable in application and forum posts, then admit something went wrong and you need to let them review something.

A entirely random selection process would be bad, but there should be a random selection out of say the top 10, or send one kit to a randomly chosen reviewer who still wrote a good application. The current system gives almost no path to get into Roadtesting products.

With your extensive list of deficiencies, I trust you've come to accept you will never be selected for a RoadTest?

That's OK, you can still enjoy the benefits other than getting free stuff.

Sean

What would you suggest as a fairer method of road tester selection?

It may appear that a pure lottery system is fairer to the individual, but even ignoring whether it is fairer to the suppliers and element14, is that really fairer to all members?

Members get at least 2 benefits from road tests:

1. they get free equipment (this is so awesome), but this only benefits a few members
2. they get to read, learn and enjoy the published road tests (this benefits many members, including the ones who apply unsuccessfully for the road test and anyone else interested in the equipment)

Clearly if only a small fraction of road testers follow through on their obligation to publish a road test, the second benefit is diminished for all interested members.

Also if a road tester never publishes a road test, the unsuccessful applicants (which outnumber the road testers) feel particular outrage that the give-away was wasted on a bad applicant.

These considerations imply that to be fair to all members, the system should try to ensure as many road testers as possible follow through and publish their road tests.

It is not just element14 that needs to be fair, when an member applies for a road test they need to be fair to other members and applicants by writing a proposal that provides confidence in their commitment to publish a road test and then following through on that commitment.

Truthfully the road tests go from one type to another over time. This seems to be the nature of the beast. One point in time AI will be the buzz word and then the next time security. So you can never predict what comes up in the future. It is like seeing a train and deciding to take this one or hope the next one is going to be a better choice. But then again is not life like that?

Clem

Several reasons I'm fed up with Roadtests, in order of biggest to smallest these are:

1. Selection could be fairer - nothing I can do if I get selected for anything.

2. Less Competition to Win - even the most specialized review items always have more applicants than products.

3. I need better equipment to conduct a roadtest - I can always choose items to review that do not require test equipment, eg microcontrollers, however see above. I really want to do more with power electronics related items, mosfets, gate drivers, current/voltage measuring, etc.

4. Better Communication about Roadtests - So annoyed when promised upcoming roadtest either never arrive, or are listed many months later without the promised extra kit.

5. Better Choice of Products - Some months we get the same sort of products over and over, need more variety in the sort of items offered. When was the last time bare components were roadtested ?

not listed but still an issue for me

6. No information from supplier as to what they want out of the review - Aside from the Antenna review, most of the time we get nothing on what the supplier wants us to test.

7. Fragmented nature of E14 community site - On one hand the separate sections are good, but for Roadtest it feels like you need to to selected for a Roadtest before you are a full member.

8. Zero risk approach from Randall - Just stop it, you need to strike a balance between, 100% perfect applications (supplier happy), and taking some risks (applicants not feeling it's a waste of time)

9. Difficulties with local suppliers - If I need even a single component to complete a Roadtest, unless it's in stock in Australia, it will likely delay the review, if it's 30 days to get from China well...

not really an issue for me

10. Eliminate Tax Issues for expensive products - I cannot see myself ever being selected for anything remotely expensive to review,  

11. I don't feel I have enough knowledge - Very rarely an issue for me, I know how to research anything I don't know.

Take the Raspberry PI 3 Media Center Kit, was pondering applying to see if the PI 3 was much of an improvement over the PI 2 I have, however it turns out I need the Pi 4 anyway.

In hindsight I should have applied for the Pi 4 Roadtest, but at the time I saw it as overkill, didn't consider the software support was better.

So... what would it take to "Get Me More Active In The RoadTest Program", I dunno, no one them are things I can as for.

Honestly it's like E14's shop ordering system, slow, no feedback, overly complicated and generally a pain to use.

Something needs to change around here... there are an awful lot of people who aren't participating, they aren't convinced this is worth the trouble.

Randall,

Pardon me if I missed this point in all the other responses.  Being an engineer I can have a number of irons in the fire at any given time.  Therefore I must schedule my time carefully.  Although I feel E14 communicates fairly well the intent of each road test, there is an area that is very frustrating that may keep individuals from applying.  When a road test is initially posted a start and end date is given which helps me plan my other projects.  Recently in a number of road tests, as the end date approach it is pushed out, forcing me to reshuffle my other priorities.  I understand this is primarily due to the lack of qualified applicants, but maybe another approach is needed.  Instead of slipping the end date and begging for more applicants, why not reduce the number of items tested.  The original applicants are likely more interested in the product and therefore more likely to complete the road test.  It would be interesting to see what percent of reviewers picked from applicants in the extended period complete a review versus those who initially apply.  In addition, if someone is interested in more than one road test, they may postpone applying for one in case it slips.  I know there were road tests that interested me, but I didn’t apply for them because I was waiting for one I had already applied for to stop changing its end date. We all want to do a good job in our reviews, but trying to hit a moving target can be frustrating and keep qualified reviewers from applying.

Regards, Gordon

Indeed the manufacturers want to push their newest/flagship products, to get some publicity. Smart move on their part. However the element14 community is a mixture of many levels and budgets of engineers/makers, the budget options appeal to me [and likely others?] and a decent review of these units is hard to come by in my experience. Many online reviews of budget oscilloscopes are from new comers and this is their first scope, so they have nothing to compare to for a decent review.