Nothing makes me cringe more than seeing the word
Best used in the title of a round-up or review, especially when there is little to nothing to validate that statement. Having worked as a contributing editor for a number of publications over the years, falling on that word to describe something rather than give the reader useful information of what it has to offer, do or not do is what was once consider an authorÃÔ lazy way out of doing any actual hands on research or testing.
But even magazines that donÃÕ have paid advertisers are not immune.
In the hands of a reviewer, the outcome of that review will be slanted a little or a lot by that individualÃÔ subjective attitude/feelings toward that product or place. Actual purely objective reviews are very difficult in that they require a lot of time for testing and not with one or two, or three, but several units, in addition to them needing to be in the hands of experienced testers.
For a magazine to do its readers and even its advertisers the most justice is to call it what it is, either a
First Look which can be a regurgitated press release, or as a partial hands on. Or get little more serious and do a full
Hands On Review, where the reviewer actually got their hands on it, and tells the reader what they found after using for a period of time what it was able to do, or in some cases not do. Basically, covering the bases of who or what is it, what is itÃÔ intended mission, does it meet that mission, and if so, how.
Walt Stearns
Underwater Journal