EditPad Pro and Inaccuracies in Reviewing Generally

[srdiamond]

This review is indeed in depth, but I think it a bit cavalier about inaccuracies. Other readers have pointed to some of these, but I think inaccuracies may be particularly prevalent with regard to the ability to use the undo function past the save point. Edit Pad Pro has this capability, and it is not obscure or otherwise inaccessible.

The review advocates discarding text editors that fail to implement 'undo' in thorough fashion. I think this is good advice. But when a reviewer gives this factor such weight, it behooves that reviewer to demonstrate 100% accuracy with respect to classifying the supposedly inferior product.

(I am a very satisfied user of EditPad Pro, but I am in no way associated with the company.)

[mouser]

it's so hard to keep these reviews up to date and 100% accurate.  i will amend the description of editpad pro.

[mitzevo]

i will amend the description of editpad pro.

mouser, you might as well completely update the official review, a lot of stuff is outdated. I've said this many times, but it doesn't look like it's gonna happen any time soon (also talking about the other outdated official reviews). Until then people will just keep complaining about them being inaccurate.

[mouser]

A completely new revamped donationcoder review system is in planning stages.  No point discussing it now but it is coming sometimes in 2008.

[Darwin]

In fairness, the review date is prominently displayed, along with the date of the last update to the review, in the left hand pane of each review. The version numbers of the applications considered in the review are also displayed - what's the problem? Complaining about inaccurarcies in a two year old review is daft, in my opinion. This is not aimed at you, mitzevo (you're right about people complaining); I just don't understand why people keep complaining about the reviews when they are clearly out of date. This just smacks of intellectual laziness and is symptomatic of the culture of instant gratification that we live in...

In a perfect, utopian world the reviews would be updated to reflect point change releases and major upgrades of each app reviewed. In the real world, this is an unrealistic goal. They'll get updated when they get updated. Until then, it's clearly stated when the review was done, when it was last updated, and what versions of the apps were at when reviewd. Why complain, it's not like they're being passed off as cutting edge?

[jgpaiva]

I agree with Darwin.
But i cut some slack for the users that keep calling to our attention the changes on the programs.
Maybe the best solution would be to call people's attention to the fact that some of the programs have already been updated, and for a more up-to-date/thorough evaluation of the programs, they should read this forum.
This way, these posts could actually be constructive and help review readers instead of bombarding mouser with work.


PS: i have no idea if there's such comment in the review already. If there is, please disregard this post.

[tinjaw]

I think there is a happy middle. Have threads for the reviews where people can bring up the items that are wrong/out-of-date/inaccurate/etc. Those can then be, after a reasonable amount of time, verified and the review updated.

[mouser]

let's not get into a discussion on how to fix the reviews again here, only because there is a plan in place for how to do reviews 2.0 and there will be a time and place to discuss this as it nears implementation.

[srdiamond]

The EditPad Pro review was wrong when written. I purchased in February of 2005; it had the feature then, and there was no mention that version 5 (then current) had upgraded it. Most likely version 4 had it too, but definitely the current version did at the time.

I fear I created unnecessary confusion by amalgamating my complaint with some others. Perhaps those others amounted to complaints about a failure to update. My position was potentially confusing, because you have NO duty to keep your reviews current. You do have, on the other hand, a duty to avoid actual error. Why cut any slack for actual error, unless it reflected obscurity in the feature's implementation? Nothing keeps a reviewer using ordinary care from getting this right, particularly when you deem the feature critically important.

[Darwin]

No worries, srdiamond. I was pointing out that a review being two years out of date is not a great reason to be complaining about them. I probably went overboard in doing so  and I apologize (I should have added your name to mitzevos in qualifying what I was saying, not doing so was an oversight). You're absolutely right that inaccuracies in a review should be addressed, irrespective of how old the review might be. Now, if a feature is added or corrected subsequent to the review being posted, that's a different matter. While I feel that it is desireable that reviews be updated to reflect these changes, I accept that this is not always feasible/practical.

[Carol Haynes]

Actually I don't think there is any compulsion to update reviews provided it is accurate at the time and clearly states when it was written and the version (or release date) of the software used in the test. Unless there is a review team ready to take on the onerous job of keeping things up to date (which also means obtaining new versions - which may not be practical - and new titles) it isn't realistic to constantly update old reviews other than responding to inaccuracies in the conclusions of the time.

[Darwin]

Once again, Carol has managed to articulate my feelings far better than I was able to do so myself (over the course of two posts!). Thanks, Carol - that's exactly what I was trying to say 

[tinjaw]

Stop it. Stop it. Stop it. Don't make me whip out a can of whoopa$$ on all of you.  These are not the bad reviews you are looking for. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Seriously, let's see what Mouser has planned and then we can critique it. I am sure he will ask for input before he implements anything, and then we can be constructive. Anything said now will pretty much be lost, or at least need to be reiterated.

[mouser]

where there are errors in reviews brought to my attention, i will correct them.
the long term solution is what i've said already, a different kind of review system that makes it much easier to keep these things up to date and free of errors.

[Ralf Maximus]

Reward people who correctly identify factual errors  with donationcredits?  Make it a kind of collaborative bounty hunter system.  Award additional credits for an especially amusing take-down -- the "extra style" bonus.  Conversely, deny the bonus if the correction is needlessly mean.

Perhaps it's time to start a review wiki?  Then everyone can edit anything they think needs it, with complete accountability.

[Darwin]

The wiki idea keeps coming up... However, (and I have no first hand knowledge of this) it seems that there are significant cost and labour issues that would need to be sorted out. Mouser has mentioned Reviews 2.0 a number of times as being intended to address the issues being discussed in this thread. Can't wait to see what it looks like!