What’s wrong with e-reader reviews
There’s no feeling so good as when I read a rant about how everyone is reviewing ereaders wrong and I find out I’m getting most of the points right, not wrong. It’s a good day.
Mike Cane forwarded this rant to me today. It was written by Beranger, and it’s a pretty good critique of the common mistakes made bloggers when they review ereaders.I don’t claim to catch all these details but I do catch most of them and I’m rather pleased with myself. If you want to read his entire rant, it’s over.
There are 5 key points to his rant:
- reviewers don’t look beyond the hardware
- the obsession with Wifi
- library features
- OS independence
I’m going to take his points in reverse order. The last 2 points I generally assume as a given. All ereaders are show up as a USB drive when plugged into a computer, and most screw up covers (if they show them at all).
His chief complaint about library features is that no one discusses how you can organize titles. I do, and I can understand his gripe. This is a relatively simple detail to catch. Heck, just providing a list of sorting options would cover most of it.
I disagree with him on the importance of Wifi, but I do understand how he feels about reviewers harping on it. If the device doesn’t have it, just say so. Don’t turn this one point into the ereader’s biggest weakness.
And as for software features, most reviewers don’t have enough experience with ereaders in order to intelligently critique the software. Heck, some can’t critique the hardware all that well.This reminds me of a question I was asked by my contact at Entourage way back when. He was bothered by the quality of the reviews for the original Entourage Edge. It still makes me laugh at the reviewers:
Can you tell me why all reviews to date compare us to a Kindle? Not a Kindle DX, but the 6” version? I didn’t know we weigh 5.5 Kindles, but I guess we do. I really don’t see the relevance as 5.5 Kindles cant surf the internet or take handwritten annotations.
I think the rant is worth reading. Check it out:.