I agree, Shabaz, this is the reason that "more resources" at the end of the introductory road test maybe useful or you can ignore it. Or, at least, see what are the topics you find most interesting.
It is what I am trying to do with the Pi4 road test I recently published Updates to the bottom. If you are interested to see more ...
I'd say the second option, the chain, can almost never work.. after having trained engineers on topics at work (although I appreciate training is a different thing), it soon becomes very clear engineers don't like such a method.. they like to go off and explore their own things, and will not stick to the training/tutorial step-by-step because at some point they want to skip and try their own things or explore elsewhere. Basically they don't like that rigid format! : )
I agree with you too, but it is not viable for all the products. I always use the unboxing picture or video where possible but, for example, with the ultra inial box of the Pi 4 a single shoot was sufficient. It depends on the kind of product.
I voted for option 3, it's flexible (in the limit case there are no child blogs) but much nicer to work with than a chain.
I try and date my blogs and date any changes at the top. I haven't yet tried the sub blog approach but I'll have a go on the next stage of the Frequency Response Analyser.
And more on unboxing - pertinent comments on the quality of the box are fine, and a list of contents as well. What bugs me is a set of pictures of a perfectly normal cardboard box, especially when followed by a light weight review. (GL is definitely not guilty of this !)
Me too I have chosen option 3. There is another aspect to consider, especially based on the deadline for the review. In the period we just can make a review but then as we are not only reviewer but road testers on some articulated products we continue using them, and other issues or good aspects rises that are the case to share with the users. So extra space but correctly linked to the original road test will be a great idea.
Gough Lui Your excellent in-depth reviews definitely benefit from a multi-post format. There would be too much in there for one blog. I deliberately try to keep mine smaller if I can.
The only one I can think that we both did was the RTM3004. My approach was that there were two different target audiences so I tried to pitch to both of those. Firstly, you have the bulk of E14 readers who will probably never buy a RTM3000 but I surmised would want to know how cool this unattainable piece of test equipment is. (That often me when I read one of your road tests.) I gave them a single overview video. Then there are people who might buy one (or persuade their boss to). I figured they'd appreciate written content and might not be able to watch a video at work. I tried to keep it hands on rather than repeating the data sheet.
Anyway, that's how I got to the format I chose. It's great that we do all do things differently and that there are multiple road tests for a single product. There's no right way, as everyone appreciates a different style.
In some cases, where testing is complex or at least opens to several possibilities like the Pi 4B road test I recently published, I have developed several projects. The availability of a single road test page, to be honest, is a limitation. I have developed two different projects, the one I considered most important and not too complex to describe has been included in the official road test page then I have added a note on what I got on the next project, the PiCluster. I am updating the official road test page with the extra blog posts bt what it is really needed is a set of details pages, IMHO.
There is also another point that sometimes road tests need to be more flexible, I think, independently by the complexity of the testing process we adopt. For example, just in this case: Road testing a complex device (development boards, Raspberry Pi etc.) frequently involves the tester to use it in projects and real-world applications time after the road test publication delay. And using the tool we tested we discover new features, or possibilities or – maybe – issues. It is interesting in these cases we can publish an updated blog post easily reachable from the road test page as these are useful tools for any future user and potential customer to know for honest information on how the device works.
When I decide for a certain device, checking on the Farnell/Newark/AVNet sites for the availability and price of several alternatives I see if the product has a linked road test to E14. Then I check if the product has been road-tested and see the review: a very useful tool helping me in the choice. But it is difficult if there is much information on this device fragmented here and there.
Top Comments