Sure but most reviewers don’t seem to spend much more time discussing the actual play and feel of the yo-yo, just “it’s good and does tricks.”
One could argue that anything that only takes (or merits) 5 seconds of commentary isn’t worth the 5 seconds spent on it. Substance matters, at least to me.
2 Likes
I dont really watch yoyo reviews, just making a guess as to why they still include mentioning that.
I think yoyo reviews in general are kind of pointless, as opinions are extremely subjective in this hobby (and just don’t care for the typical 10 minute rambling of the same thing that’s said in every single yoyo review for the most part).
4 Likes
I definitely hear what you’re saying. I didn’t intend for this thread to be an indictment of yoyo reviews as a whole, only one common aspect of them. Nevertheless, I agree with you for the most part. I regard the information I consume like food: I want small, high-quality portions. Most Internet content seems to be the equivalent of the worst kind of fast food. 99% filler and 1% nutrition.
3 Likes
I couldn’t agree more on this.
2 Likes
“Is old meta still relevant for reviews?”
I guess I’m slow. I thought “meta” was a typo and the guy was wondering if older metals were ok to review.
As far as referring to old tricks, why not? Some of us are still enamored with the older stuff.
2 Likes
There’s a way for them to be useful but it requires a lot more work than is currently being done. Honestly yo-yo reviews seem like doing an ad in exchange for a free yo-yo.
The way it could work is by having an in depth initial setup video where the reviewer discusses in detail what their preferences are and gives a reference point for all further reviews. If we establish what the reviewer considers light, heavy, wide, narrow, stable, what plays fast to them, what plays slow to them etc… with specific yo-yo examples then there’s a point of reference for everything they say about a yo-yo in a review. It’s even better if they use more commonly owned yo-yos for this.
Lol you mean “the substance that matters to me, matters to me”. Right? I assure you there are people that thumb grind, even more (probably) that finger spin. To those people that info matters.
6 Likes
I think a lot of people who enjoy yoyos don’t compete, so the “meta” may be somewhat irrelevant. Heck, I still do Spirit Bomb on every new throw I get and I LOVE to thumb grind. It’s just a fun move to thumb grind over into GT then pop out and regen. Classic stuff will always be classic to me.
I agree that if you care about thumb grinds or finger spins you can tell by looking at a throw whether it will be good at it or not, but I think commentary and review shouldn’t just be limited to the current meta.
But it does open up very interesting space for a reviewer to have a unique voice if they just focused on the competitive scene and gave really honest reviews about what would kick butt and what would suck. The thing I find a little stale is that every reviewer pretty much LOVES every yoyo and doesn’t really want to say anything negative cuz they are kind of social network pals with the guys making them.
3 Likes
I didn’t mean for information and substance to be so easily conflated. Information can be without much substance if there is no depth to it, no valuable insights to be conveyed. Substance here refers to the quality of the information, not just the fact that the information is presented at all. My test for whether information has substance–in a review–is if it takes more than a passing comment to deliver it.
3 Likes
How more in depth could you with regards to thumb grinds other than saying “It thumb grinds well” without waffling?
2 Likes
If thumb grinds were an important trick element with a large cultural surface area, then I’d argue reviewers would have a lot more to say about it. There’s a direct correlation between the time spent talking about something and its value as a piece of conveyed knowledge. Most factoids that don’t require any actual discussion can be found on a fact sheet, and I don’t need reviewers to read a fact sheet for me.
I suppose part of the problem is that I’m expecting reviews to be insightful assessments with analysis of depth. I’m clearly expecting way too much, and that’s partly on me but also largely on a widespread withering of the notion of a review in our culture, just as we have almost entirely lost what it means to deliver news today.
1 Like
So rather than hear factual data like, it has an inner grind area or the cup fingerspins well… you like to hear opinions and subjective data. “The yoyo is really “floaty”” for example. Maybe you’d be better served watching the drop videos done by the companies that show the yoyo being played by a pro player.
5 Likes
Is it good at left hand thumb grinds? right hand? BOTH?!? Will it scratch my fingernail? Will my fingernail scratch IT? How long can it thumb grind? Can I use both thumbs at the same time? What if I have a larger thumb? And why does no one talk about big toe grinds? There’s a lot these reviewers are leaving out…
9 Likes
Now that’s how it’s done!
1 Like
I’d like both. However, I’d like the factual data to be something I can’t get from a spec sheet, or from simply looking at the yoyo myself. I’d like the opinions and (subjective) assessment to have depth and substance, and ideally would avoid ambiguous adjectives wherever possible.
1 Like
Ok. Please give me some examples.
1 Like
A spec sheet can’t tell me how well a yoyo responds to speed play or tech play. Specs are only the beginning, and performance and playability are the result of the combination of all aspects of the yoyo. I’m not capable of extracting that experience from numbers alone. I might be able to speculate on how a yoyo might respond to certain kinds of play, but I could easily be wrong, and it is helpful to hear an experienced thrower give me these insights.
@Mazdarx7FD’s comparison of the Hummingbird and Draupnir is a good example of how the numbers alone to do not tell the complete story. And that story requires, at least for me, someone with his experience to tease out all the relevant details and make sense of them for me.
Opinion that is subjective. Again, sounds like this is what you want. I’ll suggest again then that maybe you should watch the promo videos.
2 Likes
Subjective evaluation is pretty much the heart and soul of a review. Promotional material is different because of its intent, and because its intent is so different, its substance is extremely different as well. The fact that both share an element of subjectivity does not make them equivalent. I’m kinda amazed I even have to explain that.