These are my comments to Bill Thompson’s post. I have cut and pasted it rather heavily in an attempt to address only the issues I feel important.
BT3 said:
I understand the frustration with the seemingly glowing content of our round-ups and feel a bit of a reply from "inside the editor's head" is justified in this case, especially since I think Bill A. may have just indirectly questioned my integrity.
I assume you are referring to my statement of “Basically it’s a puff piece for all of their advertisers.” I was mistaken, only 6 of the 8 optics advertisers in this issue made it into your “Binoculars of Note”. I couldn’t find any direct advertising for 6 of the BON manufacturers in this issue, but I’m fairly certain that most of these have previously advertised in BWD. Advertiser Canon is not mentioned at all so maybe they didn’t send a pair. Of course there is the upcoming issue to make amends in if they did.
Ok I’ll drop the sarcasm. I don’t really believe BWD is guilty at all of any intentional bias in the article. HOWEVER, when most of today’s birding optics manufacturers advertise in your magazine; and you “field test” a plethora of bins, including those from almost all of your advertisers; and the result is only positive, with no apparent faults, ranking or judgement, the end result, as far as I’m concerned, is a PUFF PIECE.
Another HOWEVER...when you publish articles such as this, I can easily see where some can acquire the opinion that you are stroking current advertisers and attempting to curry favor with potential ones. I’ll reiterate that I don’t believe you have actually done so. Even if you did I don’t care, its your mag, you can’t do what you want. Just don’t expect me to renew.
BT3 said:
It's true that we don't devote a lot of space to negative comments in our binocular round-ups. I think there's a misinterpretation of the goal of our optics field tests. They are round-ups, not critical reviews.
The issue cover refers to “Hands-On Field Test: Best New Birding Binocs”. The article heading is “BWD Field Test - Full Size Binoculars”. I’m 43. When I went to school and was tested, I received grades and rankings. I guess these days with social promotions everyone passes so no one feels bad.
Only the Table of Contents refers to a “roundup”, which I totally agree is a more apt description. I don’t really see how most people would equate “field tests” with “roundups”.
BT3 said:
There are so many makes and models out there on the market these days, that solid, unbiased information is difficult to find. That's why we always have at least 10 field testers and we tally their scores and comments into one big compilation article.
Actually, since most of the solid, unbiased info in your article is specs and marketing info, is EXCEEDINGLY EASY to find. Most of it can be found at Eagle Optics website. The rest of it here at BF. (Even if a very small minority of the posters might be biased.) Plenty of other seller/manufacturer websites to find it at also.
I saw no tester scores at all, and can probably count their comments on the fingers of one hand. In fact, I don’t see where the testers were necessary at all to write 99% of the article. I could of done it in my underwear sitting in front of my computer. If I were one of the testers I would be upset that my time and effort was so wasted.
BT3 said:
Choosing a binocular is a highly personal matter. Everyone has different preferences for their "perfect" binocular.
We test a huge, broad array of binoculars—far more than any one reader could have access to. We publish information on all tested models and highlight only those that perform exceptionally well in the eyes of our independent field testers. There is no input from BWD staff, editors, advertising department, or the optics companies, or optics retailers.
We don't try to push our field tests as "Consumer Reports"-style critical testing. Rather we publish them as information-heavy round-ups designed to help bird watchers and our readers make informed decisions when purchasing optics.
Actually, prior to this article, BWD did publish reviews/tests/roundups that were critical. Maybe no heavy negative comments, but at least the equipment was ranked in various categories. I found these articles useful. Maybe I wouldn’t agree with all the findings, but even then I usually would learn something. Maybe there is a difference in individual bins of the same model, maybe there was a characteristic I ignored. Most people realize that there is no one winner that satisfies everyone.
BT3 said:
If a binocular does not perform well, it is not highlighted as a top-performer. If it is absolutely useless for birding, we do not include it in the testing. If it just performs adequately, it is listed in the chart.
Your article was so spineless that it didn’t even make this clear. There is no mention whatsoever of what made the “Binoculars of Note” noteworthy.
BT3 said:
Given the editorial space and the unlimited time and resources required to fight challenges (both written and legal) to a Consumer Reports-style series of critical reviews, we'd happily go for it.
I don’t expect CR reports, but I fail to see why BWD can’t do some reviews where its determined that some aspects of some bins are better than the same aspects of others. You have done it in the past, as has ABA and the Cornell Lab of Ornithology.
BT3 said:
In reality, our job is to deliver useful and interesting information to our readers and we're striving always to do just that.
I agree totally.
