Nerf Wiki talk:Reviewing


 * Personal reviews should go on personal pages (ie: user pages, blogs, forum posts). If I mentioned that they'd go in the review talk page, I mixed up my thoughts. Review talk pages are for suggesting changes to the review and discussion of review only. I apologize for any confusion. Jet  [ Talk • Contributions ] 04:02, September 13, 2012 (UTC)


 * So personal reviews wont be on the review page? Ga  ge  10:51, September 13, 2012 (UTC)


 * No they will not be. Jet  [ Talk • Contributions ] 15:57, September 13, 2012 (UTC)


 * I must have been thinking that we were going to have personal reviews on the page, which is why I created a review page. Now, it kind of seems redundant to me. I created it thinking we'd have one official review and a bunch of other user's reviews, but now that it's only going to be one, it actually seems pointless. Ga  ge  20:20, September 13, 2012 (UTC)


 * I thought we all agreed on having them be separate and that the talk page would be for suggestions to revisions for the review... so I guess we're all confused about this.
 * The thing I worry about with having user reviews on the review page is that it will make the site not credible. The reviews for the site here are usually (there's a few that aren't) based off of hard evidence from reputable sites, such as SG Nerf. Including a user review on the same page may confuse people, even if we clearly label what is the official site review and what is not. Not to mention, if we had user reviews on the page, that means that it'd have to be open for editing, which is something I do not want to do; users could tamper with both the official and user reviews.
 * The best conclusion I can come to is that the talk page is split for both suggestions and personal reviews. If you guys have any suggestions, let me know. Jet  [ Talk • Contributions ] 06:20, September 14, 2012 (UTC)

suggestion

 * A new reviewing system will be implemented in the future; this will be one of the things the new system will be able to fix. I haven't gotten much work done with it because I haven't gotten many suggestions on how to improve what I presented in my blog post. Jet  [ Talk • Contributions ] 01:01, December 5, 2012 (UTC)


 * The system's gotten flak for being based on blaster size rather than internal type, which is what the new system is based off of. If I need to, I'll even include an "Elite direct plunger" category to give other direct plunger blasters a chance. Jet  [ Talk • Contributions ] 21:44, December 5, 2012 (UTC)

Super Soaker ROF
I was just thinking, there is no ROF category for Super Soakers. I assume this is because fire rate of water is the same for all blasters i.e a stream. However, the priming mechanism of the blaster is often different so there are larger gaps between periods of fire.

Examples: There are three key ROF categories for water blasters: If an ROF category was implemented for Super Soakers, electric blasters would be better represented and pressure blasters would also be so.
 * 'Storm' blasters - All 'Storm' blasters have a constant stream because they are battery powered. However, this produces a lower range and therefore 'Storm' blasters end up with a lower score. Just think of them as flywheel blasters; they are both battery powered. If there was a ROF statistic, then 'Storm' blasters would be better represented.
 * Hydro Cannon - The Hydro cannon is powerful, yes, but like the Titan, it must be pumped many times in order to achieve maximum range. This means its true ROF is very low. This could be reflected if an ROF category was added.
 * Constant - Battery powered, no pumping required.
 * Pump to fire - No trigger involved, fire instantaneous.
 * Pressure - Pump several times then pull the trigger.

You could say that constant fire scored a ten, pump to fire a seven, but with pressure blasters this is trickier. Perhaps the amount of pumpiing should be related to the range i.e how long it takes for the water blaster to completely lose power and you have to pump again. Of course with the Hydro Cannon it is single pump, so some arbitrary decision-making may be required.

Anyway, I think adding a ROF category for Soakers would even the playing field a little :)

Side note: dual wield capability should totally be a category. loljk.

Witty Englishman  11:20, February 2, 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no ROF category because the worst blasters, piston-pressured blasters, are push-pull blasters. The best blasters are air-pressured and elastic-pressured, which means that the best blasters would get very low scores when it comes to ROF when the worst would get 10/10s every time. For example, and awful blaster like the Thunderstorm would get a higher score than an excellent blaster like the XP-310. This category isn't fair for Super Soakers, which is the reason why it isn't included. GA  GE  17:59, February 2, 2013 (UTC)


 * So, what you're saying is that the rate of fire of a blaster doesn't matter even if it is the blaster's key trait?
 * Witty Englishman  21:01, February 2, 2013 (UTC)


 * From what I know, no blaster's key trait is rate of fire apart from battery-operated blasters. It doesn't matter because it offsets the fairness of the review, providing high ratings to awful blasters and poor ratings to excellent blasters. It would matter if the blasters all used similar methods of firing, however they don't.


 * I will attempt to make this as clear as possible. There are three categories (four if your count motorized as a separate one).


 * Piston-pressure. Push-pull, commonly either lacking a trigger or having a fake one, examples being the Tornado Strike, Microburst, the Soaker Wars lineup minus the Hydro Fury. Hasbro seems to be making more of these.


 * Air-pressure. Pump, pump, pump, fire. Has a pump somewhere on the blaster, relies on air as its power. Examples being the Max-D series, Pre-2013 Arctic Shock, Hydro Fury. Hasbro seems to be limiting these down.


 * Elastic-pressure. Pump, pump, pump, pump, fire. Has incredible strength and great distance, operated by the use of elastic inside the pressure chamber. Uncommon usage of blasters due to their power, examples being the Hydro Cannon (semi-elastic), Flash Flood, Hydro Blitz. Hasbro makes one very rarely, more common in the 90's.


 * Due to the lack of trigger in piston-blasters, the rate of fire in unbeatable with the exception of motorized blasters. The range, however, is miserable. On the other hand, if you use air pressure or elastic pressure to pump it up, it takes well over five seconds depending on your blaster, and some can take over twenty pumps. This means, that a garbage blaster with a 20-25 foot range will be getting a 10/10 in rate of fire while a powerful blaster with a 30-35 foot range will be getting a 1/10. This is the prime reason we do not have this category, Super Soakers are not intended to be quick, air pressure is the most commonly found in blasters, and honestly I don't want to see this as a category for the above reasons. GA  GE  22:41, February 2, 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the only objective statistic is range, and that could go just below the size and weight. Of course that is not the only selling point of any blaster, continous/motorized blaster have their place, they are simple for smaller kids to handle and can be dual wielded. To me the whole review section seems very subjective anyway, especially on super soakers, I have never seen one jam (note: I don't have a huge experiance with them). And the vast majority of breakage is due to mis-use or neglect. For the clip style super soakers capacity is almost a moot point. The trade-off of a small blaster with built in capacity is concealeability. Anything that rated a 10/10 for fixed capacity would be rated 1/10 for concealeability and vise-versa. If you wanted to be more scientific with the rate of fire on a water blaster you would have to include volume, which would take measuring. and leads to a whole mess of standardization that is beyond the level of this wiki. I agree to catagorizing the firing method of the blasters as mentioned above with continuous/motorized forming a fourth catagory. Then come up with some clear and concise discriptions to describe the water shot, i.e: thin stream; pencil stream, large stream, bolt, and blast. For example I would describe the lightningstorm and thunderstorm as thin stream/continuous. And the tornado strike and dual-helical pencil stream/piston pump. I feel describing the blaster in such a way would reduce personal opinion and be more descriptive than pseudo-arbitrary number systems. It would be great to mention when able if a weapon requires two hand to fire, or if it can be one-handed/dual wielded. Jamesaw (talk) 01:16, February 3, 2013 (UTC)

It's true that the reviews are entirely subjective. Lots of people like the Deploy (me included) but reviews are based on a single person's veiw, and they are constantly changed to reflect argument and opinion. Frankly, the reviews on this site are a moot point. They are fundamentally flawed. For example, you can sort-of dual wield the Maverick. This feature does not fit into any of the categories and therefore is not reflected in the score. I would advise replacement of the review table with a written review covering all standout aspects of the blaster locked for editing to mods, admins, and high contributing members (to prevent vandalism/personal opinion). Alternatively, you could get rid of the reviews completely. This is an information site, not one of opinions.

Witty Englishman  08:40, February 3, 2013 (UTC)


 * I suggested the removal of the reviewing system a long time ago and was met with negative reactions. If anything, perhaps the idea of a score is bad... instead, maybe we should implement a simple pass/fail system as to whether a blaster is considered good or not.


 * I need to work more on the new reviewing template and reviews, so I'll consider everything mentioned here. I believe I have a suggested template located here, as well as a smaller version that would be going on the blaster pages.


 * I'm not entirely sure what to do as far as Super Soakers. Gage seems to be the one who knows the most about Super Soakers. While I think range is more important than rate of fire when it comes to water blasters, rate of fire is also a point of note for some blasters, so we can't keep it in the dark... so this is a tough call on how to do Super Soakers.


 * By the way, thanks for giving your thoughts on the reviewing system. We need more insight on how people would like to do them and feedback helps me work on the new system and whatnot. Jet  [ Talk • Contributions ] 15:57, February 3, 2013 (UTC)


 * -Like the Witty  Englishman  said, this is an information site, not one of opinions. I generally like and appreciate the text of the reviews, and would suggest merely dropping the numbers off. Whats the point of the numbers if there is no page to side-by-side compare the blasters anyway.


 * There are lots of opinion based reviews on youtube for almost all of the blasters, some of them are getting quite professional in their production (LordDraconical for example). All of which can be linked (with permission of course) in the external references section.


 * Essentially I would drop the numbers, maybe go to a four or five word discription (poor/fair/good/excellent), and retain the text that elaborates each trait of the blaster. Jamesaw (talk) 16:15, February 3, 2013 (UTC)


 * While the reviews are probably a reason why some people come to the site, they aren't all under a continuous format. Blasters can get a 7/10 and a 6/10 for basically the same range sometime and the total isn't even the mean score and just an middle number. Perhaps we can get this to work out like other sites have in the past. I've thought about the idea of replacing one review of the blaster with several users' own reviews of the blaster on the review page, which would be good to have from everyone's experience. I'm also open to the addition of new categories, as I know sites like AquaNexus used several that we don't. However, in whole, the reviews system is rather cluttered for reasons provided above and reasons I can think of. Perhaps a removal of the scores, in its place that above "Poor", "Fair", "Average", "Good", "Excellent" scheme, and at the bottom a "Recommended" or not final category. Just an idea, but I think it would add on to Jamesaw's idea and work well at the same time. GA  GE  16:45, February 3, 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it'd be nice to have several people's opinions, so everyone gets to make their mark on the review. The only problem would be size. If all contributors made a 10 line review it could get out of hand fast.  Witty Englishman  22:33, February 3, 2013 (UTC)



-Agreed, is it possible to implement a one peer review(proof-read) and limit those reviews to say 250 or 300 characters? Longer reviews could be done up on personal blogs and linked-to in the article's review section Jamesaw (talk) 23:47, February 3, 2013 (UTC)


 * There would be guidelines for this, as if the review was "NIGHT FINDUR IS GREAT", it would be removed. I could probably implement some guidelines with the help of the rest of the community. GA  GE  03:05, February 4, 2013 (UTC)


 * I ahev to admit, it does sound like an awful lot of coding would probably come into it if you wanted to implement a limited character input. It would be fantastic though, if it worked. Perhaps to avoid clunkiness, there could be a single section on the main blaster page that stated whether to buy / not to buy, and then a separate tab, akin to the talk page, would show various opinions of people. In terms of vandalism, this would be one of the times where the 'have to make an account system before you can post' system that Bluedragon seems to love would probably help, ie you wouldn't be able to post your opinion unless you made an account. People handle vandalism on this site quite well. One more thing shouldn't make too much of a change :)


 * Witty Englishman  16:52, February 4, 2013 (UTC)


 * Reviews should still be based off of existing, reliable reviews, like those done by SG Nerf, NM&R, Tactical Tag, etc. I don't think customer reviews on sites like Amazon and Toys "R" Us should be considered reliable.


 * Having reviews on the review page made by users would make it messy and unprofessional. If users want to propose a change to the review, they would do so in the talk page, as review pages will be locked for everyone except administrators. If they want to have their own review, they can do so on a personal page. Jet  [ Talk • Contributions ] 18:44, February 4, 2013 (UTC)
 * If I'm honest I don't expect many people to read those reviews on personal pages. Everyone looks up the blaster itself. The only reason to make a review is so other people see it. To get recognition. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around the tree's falling is pointless until someone sees it.
 * Witty Englishman  19:39, February 4, 2013 (UTC)
 * It's definitely not a "feature" of the site. It's just moreso there in case people want to post reviews or something, since we don't exactly consider simply owning the blaster or product in question as a good source of information for reviews. Jet  [ Talk • Contributions ] 19:53, February 4, 2013 (UTC)


 * Would have made the comment that the pages could have been easily locked to prevent unregistered users from editing the reviews or adding them, before the idea was shot down. GA  GE  20:55, February 4, 2013 (UTC)
 * Certain pages can be locked and protected through manual changes to the article (much like renaming the page). Jet  [ Talk • Contributions ] 05:55, February 5, 2013 (UTC)

Disagreements
What? Only 6/10 for a medium blaster in ROF that fires 3 per second? Totally disagree. And 3/10 for 2 per second, not good enough! I see lots of medium blasters can slamfire, so they exceed two. I'm pretty sure people ignore those ones anyway.

Ninja of Nerf (talk) 12:52, April 14, 2013 (UTC)

Another thing: why is it that medium blasters only get a 6 for ROF of 3 per second yet large ones get a 10 for 3 per second? Ninja of Nerf (talk) 19:40, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

don't ask me, jet set the standards. go ask her. 141.215.74.192 22:16, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

Say if...
Say if we have to a review for blasters like the triple torch that can fire multiple completely different ammo? How do we review that?

REALNerfNinja6 (talk) 16:36, July 6, 2013 (UTC)


 * This is a good question. I think we should continue to have multiple ammo ranges in the firing range category. Considering that we are dropping scoring and having just a pass/fail system, there wouldn't be much of a problem with keeping it there. Jet  [ Talk • Contributions ] 19
 * 31, July 6, 2013 (UTC)


 * A good question? I thought we just did the entire mean, including the additional numbers, but I wanted to check.
 * REALNerfNinja6 (talk) 20:21, July 6, 2013 (UTC)


 * Well yes, you would do the mean of the scores for each ammo type. But with the new reviewing system dropping scoring, this won't be a problem in the future. Jet  [ Talk • Contributions ] 20:53, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

Remove Page?
Should we remove this page? All review articles are removed. Maybe change this into "Nerf Wiki:Performance articles". Allosaur Warfare  21:45, November 4, 2017 (UTC)


 * This does need to be removed, yes. I will probably type up a new page in regards to performance articles before deleting it, however. Jet  [ Talk • Contributions ] 23:08, November 4, 2017 (UTC)