Weartested Nike SB Ishod Review

[LebowskisRug]

Upon reading the site the following shoes have similar wording regarding stability:

-Vans Skate Line
-LRAB (both models)
-Nike Ishod
-Tyshawns
-All NB # current models
-Puigs
-Wayvees

These are all very different shoes. Vague wording is used to describe the construction and then concluding it leads to stability, yet these shoes all have fairly different construction. I've skated in or worn almost all of these and they feel quite different in the heel area. So yah, I think they're doing a lazy and poor job by just copy/pasting shoe construction. It reads like bad marketing copy.

[pizzafliptofakie]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

I did, I just don't agree with you and think you're wrong. An ordinal scale would help review skate shoes as it helps provide a uniform assessment for reviews of all products. It's used in shoes for almost every other sport. They could include a pros and cons matrix as well. The site seems really low effort, which muddles its purpose.

The Rowan boardfeel makes no sense since it has the exact same sole as insole as other shoes that they gave positive reviews.

[close]

Since you love reading comprehension as a response let me remind you of the point I made about qualitative data about perceptions and feelings being made measurable for things that are much more vague than skate shoes.

I didn't say a 1-10 scale was subjective. I said skate shoe reviews are. It sounds like you really need this kind of stuff dumbed down for you, which is fine because that kind of content is available in so many other outlets that review shoes.

[close]

You said it wouldn't work because shoe reviews are subjective, but so are ordinal scales when used for qualitative analysis. It's not dumbing down anything, having a universal scale of assessment and better formatting makes things less dumb than a brain dump that leaves people questioning what they've just read. Again, see my example of LRAB vs. Ishod stability, which makes them sound like they have no real criteria.

Your passive aggressive comprehension responses are a clever way to not admit that you can't refute a point. It is quite easy for them to format the content they already have to provide better reviews and make their conclusions more actionable.

[close]

If you're leaving a shoe review with a slew of questions, you probably have bigger problems to worry about than how a website chooses to format its blog.

[close]

Orrrr..... maybe there are some legitimate criticisms of how these reviews are written and how they could be a bit clearer

[close]

Accusing every article of having the same information when they literally do not is not legitimate criticism. If you're struggling to comprehend content about shoes, then I'm sorry, but you're probably not a very bright person.

[close]

An example of a legitimate criticism has already been pointed out above but you're choosing to ignore it and just call people dumb on the internet instead... niceee

[close]

Where? The guy saying they didn't do their job because a blog about shoes confused him?

That's also not a legitimate criticism.

[close]

No, he didn't say they didn't do their job but that

"An ordinal scale would help review skate shoes as it helps provide a uniform assessment for reviews of all products. It's used in shoes for almost every other sport."

"having a universal scale of assessment and better formatting makes things less dumb than a brain dump that leaves people questioning what they've just read. Again, see my example of LRAB vs. Ishod stability, which makes them sound like they have no real criteria." [\b]

You don't have to agree with this criticism, but to say that its not legitimate is being dense on purpose

And for the record, I do like these reviews overall despite my experiences with many of these shoes being wildly different to the reviewers', probably at least partially due to the fact that it seems like they try wrap everything in a largely positive spin even when there are major cons to something.

I did respond to that. And I think my response was very reasonable.

I think the 1-10 thing is kind of a bad way to review skate shoes because it's so subjective. People expect different things out of different shoes, and simplifying to "this shoe is good" or "this shoe is bad" helps nobody. If you're someone like me who really cares about how a shoe grips, you might read the Ishod review and decide that they're not for you. But that doesn't make them bad shoes. But it's up to you to decide with the information given.

And I maintain: I think assigning a scale like that for skate shoes is a bad idea. His 10 is probably different than my 10, and my 1 is probably different than your 1. Information like that means nothing to me as a consumer. I don’t care about the reviewer’s taste, I care about their observations and what information is given. If you think the reviews are too generous, fine, but accusing it of being confusing is downright silly.

[bbk]

Upon reading the site the following shoes have similar wording regarding stability:

-Vans Skate Line
-LRAB (both models)
-Nike Ishod
-Tyshawns
-All NB # current models
-Puigs
-Wayvees

These are all very different shoes. Vague wording is used to describe the construction and then concluding it leads to stability, yet these shoes all have fairly different construction. I've skated in or worn almost all of these and they feel quite different in the heel area. So yah, I think they're doing a lazy and poor job by just copy/pasting shoe construction. It reads like bad marketing copy.

How would you describe each shoe's stability?

[tzhangdox]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

I did, I just don't agree with you and think you're wrong. An ordinal scale would help review skate shoes as it helps provide a uniform assessment for reviews of all products. It's used in shoes for almost every other sport. They could include a pros and cons matrix as well. The site seems really low effort, which muddles its purpose.

The Rowan boardfeel makes no sense since it has the exact same sole as insole as other shoes that they gave positive reviews.

[close]

Since you love reading comprehension as a response let me remind you of the point I made about qualitative data about perceptions and feelings being made measurable for things that are much more vague than skate shoes.

I didn't say a 1-10 scale was subjective. I said skate shoe reviews are. It sounds like you really need this kind of stuff dumbed down for you, which is fine because that kind of content is available in so many other outlets that review shoes.

[close]

You said it wouldn't work because shoe reviews are subjective, but so are ordinal scales when used for qualitative analysis. It's not dumbing down anything, having a universal scale of assessment and better formatting makes things less dumb than a brain dump that leaves people questioning what they've just read. Again, see my example of LRAB vs. Ishod stability, which makes them sound like they have no real criteria.

Your passive aggressive comprehension responses are a clever way to not admit that you can't refute a point. It is quite easy for them to format the content they already have to provide better reviews and make their conclusions more actionable.

[close]

If you're leaving a shoe review with a slew of questions, you probably have bigger problems to worry about than how a website chooses to format its blog.

[close]

Orrrr..... maybe there are some legitimate criticisms of how these reviews are written and how they could be a bit clearer

[close]

Accusing every article of having the same information when they literally do not is not legitimate criticism. If you're struggling to comprehend content about shoes, then I'm sorry, but you're probably not a very bright person.

[close]

An example of a legitimate criticism has already been pointed out above but you're choosing to ignore it and just call people dumb on the internet instead... niceee

[close]

Where? The guy saying they didn't do their job because a blog about shoes confused him?

That's also not a legitimate criticism.

[close]

No, he didn't say they didn't do their job but that

"An ordinal scale would help review skate shoes as it helps provide a uniform assessment for reviews of all products. It's used in shoes for almost every other sport."

"having a universal scale of assessment and better formatting makes things less dumb than a brain dump that leaves people questioning what they've just read. Again, see my example of LRAB vs. Ishod stability, which makes them sound like they have no real criteria." [\b]

You don't have to agree with this criticism, but to say that its not legitimate is being dense on purpose

And for the record, I do like these reviews overall despite my experiences with many of these shoes being wildly different to the reviewers', probably at least partially due to the fact that it seems like they try wrap everything in a largely positive spin even when there are major cons to something.

[close]

I did respond to that. And I think my response was very reasonable.

Expand Quote

I think the 1-10 thing is kind of a bad way to review skate shoes because it's so subjective. People expect different things out of different shoes, and simplifying to "this shoe is good" or "this shoe is bad" helps nobody. If you're someone like me who really cares about how a shoe grips, you might read the Ishod review and decide that they're not for you. But that doesn't make them bad shoes. But it's up to you to decide with the information given.

[close]

And I maintain: I think assigning a scale like that for skate shoes is a bad idea. His 10 is probably different than my 10, and my 1 is probably different than your 1. Information like that means nothing to me as a consumer. I don’t care about the reviewer’s taste, I care about their observations and what information is given. If you think the reviews are too generous, fine, but accusing it of being confusing is downright silly.

I only responded initially to point out that there were valid criticisms when you said "If you're leaving a shoe review with a slew of questions, you probably have bigger problems to worry about than how a website chooses to format its blog."

You then go on to insist that there were no legitimate criticisms made.

I then quote them.

You then acknowledge that you responded to said criticisms (which I think any reasonable person would deem as fair, whether or not they agree it). But somehow there were no legitimate criticisms??

~~~~

I don't care much for the reviewers taste either, as mine would be very different. But it be pretty easy to establish some objective metrics. For example, durability of the sole from 1-10. Durability of the upper from 1-10. Grip from 1-10 (in this case, a 10 may be too grippy for many people including me). Boardfeel from 1-10 (again, maximum boardfeel of 10 would be too much for some people who enjoy skating cupsoles, but nonetheless it would help readers compare models).

[pizzafliptofakie]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

I did, I just don't agree with you and think you're wrong. An ordinal scale would help review skate shoes as it helps provide a uniform assessment for reviews of all products. It's used in shoes for almost every other sport. They could include a pros and cons matrix as well. The site seems really low effort, which muddles its purpose.

The Rowan boardfeel makes no sense since it has the exact same sole as insole as other shoes that they gave positive reviews.

[close]

Since you love reading comprehension as a response let me remind you of the point I made about qualitative data about perceptions and feelings being made measurable for things that are much more vague than skate shoes.

I didn't say a 1-10 scale was subjective. I said skate shoe reviews are. It sounds like you really need this kind of stuff dumbed down for you, which is fine because that kind of content is available in so many other outlets that review shoes.

[close]

You said it wouldn't work because shoe reviews are subjective, but so are ordinal scales when used for qualitative analysis. It's not dumbing down anything, having a universal scale of assessment and better formatting makes things less dumb than a brain dump that leaves people questioning what they've just read. Again, see my example of LRAB vs. Ishod stability, which makes them sound like they have no real criteria.

Your passive aggressive comprehension responses are a clever way to not admit that you can't refute a point. It is quite easy for them to format the content they already have to provide better reviews and make their conclusions more actionable.

[close]

If you're leaving a shoe review with a slew of questions, you probably have bigger problems to worry about than how a website chooses to format its blog.

[close]

Orrrr..... maybe there are some legitimate criticisms of how these reviews are written and how they could be a bit clearer

[close]

Accusing every article of having the same information when they literally do not is not legitimate criticism. If you're struggling to comprehend content about shoes, then I'm sorry, but you're probably not a very bright person.

[close]

An example of a legitimate criticism has already been pointed out above but you're choosing to ignore it and just call people dumb on the internet instead... niceee

[close]

Where? The guy saying they didn't do their job because a blog about shoes confused him?

That's also not a legitimate criticism.

[close]

No, he didn't say they didn't do their job but that

"An ordinal scale would help review skate shoes as it helps provide a uniform assessment for reviews of all products. It's used in shoes for almost every other sport."

"having a universal scale of assessment and better formatting makes things less dumb than a brain dump that leaves people questioning what they've just read. Again, see my example of LRAB vs. Ishod stability, which makes them sound like they have no real criteria." [\b]

You don't have to agree with this criticism, but to say that its not legitimate is being dense on purpose

And for the record, I do like these reviews overall despite my experiences with many of these shoes being wildly different to the reviewers', probably at least partially due to the fact that it seems like they try wrap everything in a largely positive spin even when there are major cons to something.

[close]

I did respond to that. And I think my response was very reasonable.

Expand Quote

I think the 1-10 thing is kind of a bad way to review skate shoes because it's so subjective. People expect different things out of different shoes, and simplifying to "this shoe is good" or "this shoe is bad" helps nobody. If you're someone like me who really cares about how a shoe grips, you might read the Ishod review and decide that they're not for you. But that doesn't make them bad shoes. But it's up to you to decide with the information given.

[close]

And I maintain: I think assigning a scale like that for skate shoes is a bad idea. His 10 is probably different than my 10, and my 1 is probably different than your 1. Information like that means nothing to me as a consumer. I don’t care about the reviewer’s taste, I care about their observations and what information is given. If you think the reviews are too generous, fine, but accusing it of being confusing is downright silly.

[close]

I only responded initially to point out that there were valid criticisms when you said "If you're leaving a shoe review with a slew of questions, you probably have bigger problems to worry about than how a website chooses to format its blog."

You then go on to insist that there were no legitimate criticisms made.

I then quote them.

You then acknowledge that you responded to said criticisms (which I think any reasonable person would deem as fair, whether or not they agree it). But somehow there were no legitimate criticisms??

~~~~

I don't care much for the reviewers taste either, as mine would be very different. But it be pretty easy to establish some objective metrics. For example, durability of the sole from 1-10. Durability of the upper from 1-10. Grip from 1-10 (in this case, a 10 may be too grippy for many people including me). Boardfeel from 1-10 (again, maximum boardfeel of 10 would be too much for some people who enjoy skating cupsoles, but nonetheless it would help readers compare models).

I never said there were no legitimate criticisms. Notice all the other points I engaged with? Some I even said “fair” to?



Whether it’s on purpose or not, I’m not the one being dense here 

[tzhangdox]

Expand Quote

Upon reading the site the following shoes have similar wording regarding stability:

-Vans Skate Line
-LRAB (both models)
-Nike Ishod
-Tyshawns
-All NB # current models
-Puigs
-Wayvees

These are all very different shoes. Vague wording is used to describe the construction and then concluding it leads to stability, yet these shoes all have fairly different construction. I've skated in or worn almost all of these and they feel quite different in the heel area. So yah, I think they're doing a lazy and poor job by just copy/pasting shoe construction. It reads like bad marketing copy.

[close]

How would you describe each shoe's stability?

You didn't ask me. But I'll provide some input anyway. Your mileage may vary since we all have different feet.

I would personally define stability as
a) how securely the shoe stays on your foot
b) how safe your ankle feels from rolling over (this is affected by a few things: width of sole, how structured the heel cup is etc, how securely the shoe fits, and how low to the ground your foot sits)

Stability seems to be a vaguely defined term in most of these reviews. I do recall the Reynolds g6 review mentioning the width of the sole being wider than the upper which lends to stability and prevention of ankle rolls which was a nice detail. Would be good to know exactly what the reviewer means.

Vans Wayvees, and New balance 1010s have a fairly wide sole and feel quite structured. They both fit me quite securely too and I'd definitely consider them the most stable out of the bunch here that I've tried in terms of ankle roll stability. 440s are as good imo but weartested didn't review them.

Westgate 913s are great too, but not quite as good as the above two.

Last resorts are okay, fit very nice and are comfortable imo. But definitely not the best in terms of ankle roll stability.

Tyshawns also feel pretty good but the sole is a tad narrow for me, so while it satisfies a), it definitely doesn't satisfy b).

Ishods feel great on feet but damn the sole is so skinny, feels like my foot is going to spill over the side very easily if I take an aggressive lateral step. The really thick insole that puts your foot quite high up doesn't help either. Definitely less of a problem if you have skinny feet.

Haven't tried the other ones.

I might place a bit more emphasis on this factor than other people, but there are clear differences in the construction and stability of many of these shoes and I do agree that the reviews make most of them sound pretty similar. If I was choosing based off of these reviews I'd think that the ishod is as stable as the tiago when in my experience, that couldn't be further from the truth.

[tzhangdox]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

I did, I just don't agree with you and think you're wrong. An ordinal scale would help review skate shoes as it helps provide a uniform assessment for reviews of all products. It's used in shoes for almost every other sport. They could include a pros and cons matrix as well. The site seems really low effort, which muddles its purpose.

The Rowan boardfeel makes no sense since it has the exact same sole as insole as other shoes that they gave positive reviews.

[close]

Since you love reading comprehension as a response let me remind you of the point I made about qualitative data about perceptions and feelings being made measurable for things that are much more vague than skate shoes.

I didn't say a 1-10 scale was subjective. I said skate shoe reviews are. It sounds like you really need this kind of stuff dumbed down for you, which is fine because that kind of content is available in so many other outlets that review shoes.

[close]

You said it wouldn't work because shoe reviews are subjective, but so are ordinal scales when used for qualitative analysis. It's not dumbing down anything, having a universal scale of assessment and better formatting makes things less dumb than a brain dump that leaves people questioning what they've just read. Again, see my example of LRAB vs. Ishod stability, which makes them sound like they have no real criteria.

Your passive aggressive comprehension responses are a clever way to not admit that you can't refute a point. It is quite easy for them to format the content they already have to provide better reviews and make their conclusions more actionable.

[close]

If you're leaving a shoe review with a slew of questions, you probably have bigger problems to worry about than how a website chooses to format its blog.

[close]

Orrrr..... maybe there are some legitimate criticisms of how these reviews are written and how they could be a bit clearer

[close]

Accusing every article of having the same information when they literally do not is not legitimate criticism. If you're struggling to comprehend content about shoes, then I'm sorry, but you're probably not a very bright person.

[close]

An example of a legitimate criticism has already been pointed out above but you're choosing to ignore it and just call people dumb on the internet instead... niceee

[close]

Where? The guy saying they didn't do their job because a blog about shoes confused him?

That's also not a legitimate criticism.

[close]

No, he didn't say they didn't do their job but that

"An ordinal scale would help review skate shoes as it helps provide a uniform assessment for reviews of all products. It's used in shoes for almost every other sport."

"having a universal scale of assessment and better formatting makes things less dumb than a brain dump that leaves people questioning what they've just read. Again, see my example of LRAB vs. Ishod stability, which makes them sound like they have no real criteria." [\b]

You don't have to agree with this criticism, but to say that its not legitimate is being dense on purpose

And for the record, I do like these reviews overall despite my experiences with many of these shoes being wildly different to the reviewers', probably at least partially due to the fact that it seems like they try wrap everything in a largely positive spin even when there are major cons to something.

[close]

I did respond to that. And I think my response was very reasonable.

Expand Quote

I think the 1-10 thing is kind of a bad way to review skate shoes because it's so subjective. People expect different things out of different shoes, and simplifying to "this shoe is good" or "this shoe is bad" helps nobody. If you're someone like me who really cares about how a shoe grips, you might read the Ishod review and decide that they're not for you. But that doesn't make them bad shoes. But it's up to you to decide with the information given.

[close]

And I maintain: I think assigning a scale like that for skate shoes is a bad idea. His 10 is probably different than my 10, and my 1 is probably different than your 1. Information like that means nothing to me as a consumer. I don’t care about the reviewer’s taste, I care about their observations and what information is given. If you think the reviews are too generous, fine, but accusing it of being confusing is downright silly.

[close]

I only responded initially to point out that there were valid criticisms when you said "If you're leaving a shoe review with a slew of questions, you probably have bigger problems to worry about than how a website chooses to format its blog."

You then go on to insist that there were no legitimate criticisms made.

I then quote them.

You then acknowledge that you responded to said criticisms (which I think any reasonable person would deem as fair, whether or not they agree it). But somehow there were no legitimate criticisms??

~~~~

I don't care much for the reviewers taste either, as mine would be very different. But it be pretty easy to establish some objective metrics. For example, durability of the sole from 1-10. Durability of the upper from 1-10. Grip from 1-10 (in this case, a 10 may be too grippy for many people including me). Boardfeel from 1-10 (again, maximum boardfeel of 10 would be too much for some people who enjoy skating cupsoles, but nonetheless it would help readers compare models).

[close]

I never said there were no legitimate criticisms. Notice all the other points I engaged with? Some I even said “fair” to?



Whether it’s on purpose or not, I’m not the one being dense here 

Yeah. But your initial response to me seems to imply that there were no legitimate criticisms made at all. Feel free to deny that, but I don't think it would be unreasonable to interpret it in that way.

But when he then continues to engage even after you start throwing insults:

"You said it wouldn't work because shoe reviews are subjective, but so are ordinal scales when used for qualitative analysis. It's not dumbing down anything, having a universal scale of assessment and better formatting makes things less dumb than a brain dump that leaves people questioning what they've just read. Again, see my example of LRAB vs. Ishod stability, which makes them sound like they have no real criteria."

You resort to being passive aggressive instead of just addressing the point or agreeing to disagree:

"If you're leaving a shoe review with a slew of questions, you probably have bigger problems to worry about than how a website chooses to format its blog."

So okay fine, maybe not purposely dense, just accidentally a cunt.

[pizzafliptofakie]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

I did, I just don't agree with you and think you're wrong. An ordinal scale would help review skate shoes as it helps provide a uniform assessment for reviews of all products. It's used in shoes for almost every other sport. They could include a pros and cons matrix as well. The site seems really low effort, which muddles its purpose.

The Rowan boardfeel makes no sense since it has the exact same sole as insole as other shoes that they gave positive reviews.

[close]

Since you love reading comprehension as a response let me remind you of the point I made about qualitative data about perceptions and feelings being made measurable for things that are much more vague than skate shoes.

I didn't say a 1-10 scale was subjective. I said skate shoe reviews are. It sounds like you really need this kind of stuff dumbed down for you, which is fine because that kind of content is available in so many other outlets that review shoes.

[close]

You said it wouldn't work because shoe reviews are subjective, but so are ordinal scales when used for qualitative analysis. It's not dumbing down anything, having a universal scale of assessment and better formatting makes things less dumb than a brain dump that leaves people questioning what they've just read. Again, see my example of LRAB vs. Ishod stability, which makes them sound like they have no real criteria.

Your passive aggressive comprehension responses are a clever way to not admit that you can't refute a point. It is quite easy for them to format the content they already have to provide better reviews and make their conclusions more actionable.

[close]

If you're leaving a shoe review with a slew of questions, you probably have bigger problems to worry about than how a website chooses to format its blog.

[close]

Orrrr..... maybe there are some legitimate criticisms of how these reviews are written and how they could be a bit clearer

[close]

Accusing every article of having the same information when they literally do not is not legitimate criticism. If you're struggling to comprehend content about shoes, then I'm sorry, but you're probably not a very bright person.

[close]

An example of a legitimate criticism has already been pointed out above but you're choosing to ignore it and just call people dumb on the internet instead... niceee

[close]

Where? The guy saying they didn't do their job because a blog about shoes confused him?

That's also not a legitimate criticism.

[close]

No, he didn't say they didn't do their job but that

"An ordinal scale would help review skate shoes as it helps provide a uniform assessment for reviews of all products. It's used in shoes for almost every other sport."

"having a universal scale of assessment and better formatting makes things less dumb than a brain dump that leaves people questioning what they've just read. Again, see my example of LRAB vs. Ishod stability, which makes them sound like they have no real criteria." [\b]

You don't have to agree with this criticism, but to say that its not legitimate is being dense on purpose

And for the record, I do like these reviews overall despite my experiences with many of these shoes being wildly different to the reviewers', probably at least partially due to the fact that it seems like they try wrap everything in a largely positive spin even when there are major cons to something.

[close]

I did respond to that. And I think my response was very reasonable.

Expand Quote

I think the 1-10 thing is kind of a bad way to review skate shoes because it's so subjective. People expect different things out of different shoes, and simplifying to "this shoe is good" or "this shoe is bad" helps nobody. If you're someone like me who really cares about how a shoe grips, you might read the Ishod review and decide that they're not for you. But that doesn't make them bad shoes. But it's up to you to decide with the information given.

[close]

And I maintain: I think assigning a scale like that for skate shoes is a bad idea. His 10 is probably different than my 10, and my 1 is probably different than your 1. Information like that means nothing to me as a consumer. I don’t care about the reviewer’s taste, I care about their observations and what information is given. If you think the reviews are too generous, fine, but accusing it of being confusing is downright silly.

[close]

I only responded initially to point out that there were valid criticisms when you said "If you're leaving a shoe review with a slew of questions, you probably have bigger problems to worry about than how a website chooses to format its blog."

You then go on to insist that there were no legitimate criticisms made.

I then quote them.

You then acknowledge that you responded to said criticisms (which I think any reasonable person would deem as fair, whether or not they agree it). But somehow there were no legitimate criticisms??

~~~~

I don't care much for the reviewers taste either, as mine would be very different. But it be pretty easy to establish some objective metrics. For example, durability of the sole from 1-10. Durability of the upper from 1-10. Grip from 1-10 (in this case, a 10 may be too grippy for many people including me). Boardfeel from 1-10 (again, maximum boardfeel of 10 would be too much for some people who enjoy skating cupsoles, but nonetheless it would help readers compare models).

[close]

I never said there were no legitimate criticisms. Notice all the other points I engaged with? Some I even said “fair” to?



Whether it’s on purpose or not, I’m not the one being dense here 

[close]

Yeah. But your initial response to me seems to imply that there were no legitimate criticisms made at all. Feel free to deny that, but I don't think it would be unreasonable to interpret it in that way.

But when he then continues to engage even after you start throwing insults:

"You said it wouldn't work because shoe reviews are subjective, but so are ordinal scales when used for qualitative analysis. It's not dumbing down anything, having a universal scale of assessment and better formatting makes things less dumb than a brain dump that leaves people questioning what they've just read. Again, see my example of LRAB vs. Ishod stability, which makes them sound like they have no real criteria."

You resort to being passive aggressive instead of just addressing the point or agreeing to disagree:

"If you're leaving a shoe review with a slew of questions, you probably have bigger problems to worry about than how a website chooses to format its blog."

So okay fine, maybe not purposely dense, just accidentally a cunt.

You would have to be a marginally stupid person to assume that implication. I really don’t know how to spell it out for you.

[clintendo]

Shit shoe, shit review

[tzhangdox]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

I did, I just don't agree with you and think you're wrong. An ordinal scale would help review skate shoes as it helps provide a uniform assessment for reviews of all products. It's used in shoes for almost every other sport. They could include a pros and cons matrix as well. The site seems really low effort, which muddles its purpose.

The Rowan boardfeel makes no sense since it has the exact same sole as insole as other shoes that they gave positive reviews.

[close]

Since you love reading comprehension as a response let me remind you of the point I made about qualitative data about perceptions and feelings being made measurable for things that are much more vague than skate shoes.

I didn't say a 1-10 scale was subjective. I said skate shoe reviews are. It sounds like you really need this kind of stuff dumbed down for you, which is fine because that kind of content is available in so many other outlets that review shoes.

[close]

You said it wouldn't work because shoe reviews are subjective, but so are ordinal scales when used for qualitative analysis. It's not dumbing down anything, having a universal scale of assessment and better formatting makes things less dumb than a brain dump that leaves people questioning what they've just read. Again, see my example of LRAB vs. Ishod stability, which makes them sound like they have no real criteria.

Your passive aggressive comprehension responses are a clever way to not admit that you can't refute a point. It is quite easy for them to format the content they already have to provide better reviews and make their conclusions more actionable.

[close]

If you're leaving a shoe review with a slew of questions, you probably have bigger problems to worry about than how a website chooses to format its blog.

[close]

Orrrr..... maybe there are some legitimate criticisms of how these reviews are written and how they could be a bit clearer

[close]

[close]

An example of a legitimate criticism has already been pointed out above but you're choosing to ignore it and just call people dumb on the internet instead... niceee

[close]

Where? The guy saying they didn't do their job because a blog about shoes confused him?

That's also not a legitimate criticism.

[close]

No, he didn't say they didn't do their job but that

"An ordinal scale would help review skate shoes as it helps provide a uniform assessment for reviews of all products. It's used in shoes for almost every other sport."

"having a universal scale of assessment and better formatting makes things less dumb than a brain dump that leaves people questioning what they've just read. Again, see my example of LRAB vs. Ishod stability, which makes them sound like they have no real criteria." [\b]

You don't have to agree with this criticism, but to say that its not legitimate is being dense on purpose

And for the record, I do like these reviews overall despite my experiences with many of these shoes being wildly different to the reviewers', probably at least partially due to the fact that it seems like they try wrap everything in a largely positive spin even when there are major cons to something.

[close]

I did respond to that. And I think my response was very reasonable.

Expand Quote

I think the 1-10 thing is kind of a bad way to review skate shoes because it's so subjective. People expect different things out of different shoes, and simplifying to "this shoe is good" or "this shoe is bad" helps nobody. If you're someone like me who really cares about how a shoe grips, you might read the Ishod review and decide that they're not for you. But that doesn't make them bad shoes. But it's up to you to decide with the information given.

[close]

And I maintain: I think assigning a scale like that for skate shoes is a bad idea. His 10 is probably different than my 10, and my 1 is probably different than your 1. Information like that means nothing to me as a consumer. I don’t care about the reviewer’s taste, I care about their observations and what information is given. If you think the reviews are too generous, fine, but accusing it of being confusing is downright silly.

[close]

I only responded initially to point out that there were valid criticisms when you said "If you're leaving a shoe review with a slew of questions, you probably have bigger problems to worry about than how a website chooses to format its blog."

You then go on to insist that there were no legitimate criticisms made.

I then quote them.

You then acknowledge that you responded to said criticisms (which I think any reasonable person would deem as fair, whether or not they agree it). But somehow there were no legitimate criticisms??

~~~~

I don't care much for the reviewers taste either, as mine would be very different. But it be pretty easy to establish some objective metrics. For example, durability of the sole from 1-10. Durability of the upper from 1-10. Grip from 1-10 (in this case, a 10 may be too grippy for many people including me). Boardfeel from 1-10 (again, maximum boardfeel of 10 would be too much for some people who enjoy skating cupsoles, but nonetheless it would help readers compare models).

[close]

I never said there were no legitimate criticisms. Notice all the other points I engaged with? Some I even said “fair” to?



Whether it’s on purpose or not, I’m not the one being dense here 

[close]

Yeah. But your initial response to me seems to imply that there were no legitimate criticisms made at all. Feel free to deny that, but I don't think it would be unreasonable to interpret it in that way.

But when he then continues to engage even after you start throwing insults:

"You said it wouldn't work because shoe reviews are subjective, but so are ordinal scales when used for qualitative analysis. It's not dumbing down anything, having a universal scale of assessment and better formatting makes things less dumb than a brain dump that leaves people questioning what they've just read. Again, see my example of LRAB vs. Ishod stability, which makes them sound like they have no real criteria."

You resort to being passive aggressive instead of just addressing the point or agreeing to disagree:

"If you're leaving a shoe review with a slew of questions, you probably have bigger problems to worry about than how a website chooses to format its blog."

So okay fine, maybe not purposely dense, just accidentally a cunt.

[close]

You would have to be a marginally stupid person to assume that implication. I really don’t know how to spell it out for you.

Okay lets run this back play by play:

He makes a detailed criticism that you address and disagree with.

You say:
"If you're leaving a shoe review with a slew of questions, you probably have bigger problems to worry about than how a website chooses to format its blog."

I say:
"Orrrr..... maybe there are some legitimate criticisms of how these reviews are written and how they could be a bit clearer"

You say:
"Accusing every article of having the same information when they literally do not is not legitimate criticism. If you're struggling to comprehend content about shoes, then I'm sorry, but you're probably not a very bright person."

Even though thats clearly not the legitimate criticism I was referring to. Completely ignoring the fact that they just levied some detailed criticisms that you literally just engaged with...

Doesn't seem too unreasonable to me to assume such an implication

[pizzafliptofakie]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

I did, I just don't agree with you and think you're wrong. An ordinal scale would help review skate shoes as it helps provide a uniform assessment for reviews of all products. It's used in shoes for almost every other sport. They could include a pros and cons matrix as well. The site seems really low effort, which muddles its purpose.

The Rowan boardfeel makes no sense since it has the exact same sole as insole as other shoes that they gave positive reviews.

[close]

Since you love reading comprehension as a response let me remind you of the point I made about qualitative data about perceptions and feelings being made measurable for things that are much more vague than skate shoes.

I didn't say a 1-10 scale was subjective. I said skate shoe reviews are. It sounds like you really need this kind of stuff dumbed down for you, which is fine because that kind of content is available in so many other outlets that review shoes.

[close]

You said it wouldn't work because shoe reviews are subjective, but so are ordinal scales when used for qualitative analysis. It's not dumbing down anything, having a universal scale of assessment and better formatting makes things less dumb than a brain dump that leaves people questioning what they've just read. Again, see my example of LRAB vs. Ishod stability, which makes them sound like they have no real criteria.

Your passive aggressive comprehension responses are a clever way to not admit that you can't refute a point. It is quite easy for them to format the content they already have to provide better reviews and make their conclusions more actionable.

[close]

If you're leaving a shoe review with a slew of questions, you probably have bigger problems to worry about than how a website chooses to format its blog.

[close]

Orrrr..... maybe there are some legitimate criticisms of how these reviews are written and how they could be a bit clearer

[close]

[close]

An example of a legitimate criticism has already been pointed out above but you're choosing to ignore it and just call people dumb on the internet instead... niceee

[close]

Where? The guy saying they didn't do their job because a blog about shoes confused him?

That's also not a legitimate criticism.

[close]

No, he didn't say they didn't do their job but that

"An ordinal scale would help review skate shoes as it helps provide a uniform assessment for reviews of all products. It's used in shoes for almost every other sport."

"having a universal scale of assessment and better formatting makes things less dumb than a brain dump that leaves people questioning what they've just read. Again, see my example of LRAB vs. Ishod stability, which makes them sound like they have no real criteria." [\b]

You don't have to agree with this criticism, but to say that its not legitimate is being dense on purpose

And for the record, I do like these reviews overall despite my experiences with many of these shoes being wildly different to the reviewers', probably at least partially due to the fact that it seems like they try wrap everything in a largely positive spin even when there are major cons to something.

[close]

I did respond to that. And I think my response was very reasonable.

Expand Quote

I think the 1-10 thing is kind of a bad way to review skate shoes because it's so subjective. People expect different things out of different shoes, and simplifying to "this shoe is good" or "this shoe is bad" helps nobody. If you're someone like me who really cares about how a shoe grips, you might read the Ishod review and decide that they're not for you. But that doesn't make them bad shoes. But it's up to you to decide with the information given.

[close]

And I maintain: I think assigning a scale like that for skate shoes is a bad idea. His 10 is probably different than my 10, and my 1 is probably different than your 1. Information like that means nothing to me as a consumer. I don’t care about the reviewer’s taste, I care about their observations and what information is given. If you think the reviews are too generous, fine, but accusing it of being confusing is downright silly.

[close]

I only responded initially to point out that there were valid criticisms when you said "If you're leaving a shoe review with a slew of questions, you probably have bigger problems to worry about than how a website chooses to format its blog."

You then go on to insist that there were no legitimate criticisms made.

I then quote them.

You then acknowledge that you responded to said criticisms (which I think any reasonable person would deem as fair, whether or not they agree it). But somehow there were no legitimate criticisms??

~~~~

I don't care much for the reviewers taste either, as mine would be very different. But it be pretty easy to establish some objective metrics. For example, durability of the sole from 1-10. Durability of the upper from 1-10. Grip from 1-10 (in this case, a 10 may be too grippy for many people including me). Boardfeel from 1-10 (again, maximum boardfeel of 10 would be too much for some people who enjoy skating cupsoles, but nonetheless it would help readers compare models).

[close]

I never said there were no legitimate criticisms. Notice all the other points I engaged with? Some I even said “fair” to?



Whether it’s on purpose or not, I’m not the one being dense here 

[close]

Yeah. But your initial response to me seems to imply that there were no legitimate criticisms made at all. Feel free to deny that, but I don't think it would be unreasonable to interpret it in that way.

But when he then continues to engage even after you start throwing insults:

"You said it wouldn't work because shoe reviews are subjective, but so are ordinal scales when used for qualitative analysis. It's not dumbing down anything, having a universal scale of assessment and better formatting makes things less dumb than a brain dump that leaves people questioning what they've just read. Again, see my example of LRAB vs. Ishod stability, which makes them sound like they have no real criteria."

You resort to being passive aggressive instead of just addressing the point or agreeing to disagree:

"If you're leaving a shoe review with a slew of questions, you probably have bigger problems to worry about than how a website chooses to format its blog."

So okay fine, maybe not purposely dense, just accidentally a cunt.

[close]

You would have to be a marginally stupid person to assume that implication. I really don’t know how to spell it out for you.

[close]

Okay lets run this back play by play:

He makes a detailed criticism that you address and disagree with.

You say:
"If you're leaving a shoe review with a slew of questions, you probably have bigger problems to worry about than how a website chooses to format its blog."

I say:
"Orrrr..... maybe there are some legitimate criticisms of how these reviews are written and how they could be a bit clearer"

You say:
"Accusing every article of having the same information when they literally do not is not legitimate criticism. If you're struggling to comprehend content about shoes, then I'm sorry, but you're probably not a very bright person."

Even though thats clearly not the legitimate criticism I was referring to. Completely ignoring the fact that they just levied some detailed criticisms that you literally just engaged with...

Doesn't seem too unreasonable to me to assume such an implication

It  is absolutely unreasonable to assume that I think all criticisms are invalid when I am specifically addressing the criticism I found invalid. Seriously, it's not that complicated.

THIS is the play by play.

-Someone posted a blog
-People were unnecessarily rude to him.
-I posted a gripe with why people were being rude to him.
-Someone responded to me with the same unreasonable argument I addressed.
-I quoted the blog to demonstrate that, objectively, they were wrong.
-They shifted to a new point. I disagreed with the point, but I explained why in pretty fair terms.
-They misread my explanation and parroted the same explanation to me as if I was being unreasonable.
-I explained they misread my explanation and they repeated the same point for a third time.
-I said that "dumbed down" content is widely available elsewhere. ("dumbed down" wasn't meant to be crass. Sorry if it was. I like dumbed down content too.)
- He repeated the point for a fourth time then explained he was confused by the blog.
- You showed up and started arguing with me over things I didn't say.

[tzhangdox]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

I did, I just don't agree with you and think you're wrong. An ordinal scale would help review skate shoes as it helps provide a uniform assessment for reviews of all products. It's used in shoes for almost every other sport. They could include a pros and cons matrix as well. The site seems really low effort, which muddles its purpose.

The Rowan boardfeel makes no sense since it has the exact same sole as insole as other shoes that they gave positive reviews.

[close]

Since you love reading comprehension as a response let me remind you of the point I made about qualitative data about perceptions and feelings being made measurable for things that are much more vague than skate shoes.

I didn't say a 1-10 scale was subjective. I said skate shoe reviews are. It sounds like you really need this kind of stuff dumbed down for you, which is fine because that kind of content is available in so many other outlets that review shoes.

[close]

You said it wouldn't work because shoe reviews are subjective, but so are ordinal scales when used for qualitative analysis. It's not dumbing down anything, having a universal scale of assessment and better formatting makes things less dumb than a brain dump that leaves people questioning what they've just read. Again, see my example of LRAB vs. Ishod stability, which makes them sound like they have no real criteria.

Your passive aggressive comprehension responses are a clever way to not admit that you can't refute a point. It is quite easy for them to format the content they already have to provide better reviews and make their conclusions more actionable.

[close]

If you're leaving a shoe review with a slew of questions, you probably have bigger problems to worry about than how a website chooses to format its blog.

[close]

Orrrr..... maybe there are some legitimate criticisms of how these reviews are written and how they could be a bit clearer

[close]

[close]

An example of a legitimate criticism has already been pointed out above but you're choosing to ignore it and just call people dumb on the internet instead... niceee

[close]

Where? The guy saying they didn't do their job because a blog about shoes confused him?

That's also not a legitimate criticism.

[close]

No, he didn't say they didn't do their job but that

"An ordinal scale would help review skate shoes as it helps provide a uniform assessment for reviews of all products. It's used in shoes for almost every other sport."

"having a universal scale of assessment and better formatting makes things less dumb than a brain dump that leaves people questioning what they've just read. Again, see my example of LRAB vs. Ishod stability, which makes them sound like they have no real criteria." [\b]

You don't have to agree with this criticism, but to say that its not legitimate is being dense on purpose

And for the record, I do like these reviews overall despite my experiences with many of these shoes being wildly different to the reviewers', probably at least partially due to the fact that it seems like they try wrap everything in a largely positive spin even when there are major cons to something.

[close]

I did respond to that. And I think my response was very reasonable.

Expand Quote

I think the 1-10 thing is kind of a bad way to review skate shoes because it's so subjective. People expect different things out of different shoes, and simplifying to "this shoe is good" or "this shoe is bad" helps nobody. If you're someone like me who really cares about how a shoe grips, you might read the Ishod review and decide that they're not for you. But that doesn't make them bad shoes. But it's up to you to decide with the information given.

[close]

And I maintain: I think assigning a scale like that for skate shoes is a bad idea. His 10 is probably different than my 10, and my 1 is probably different than your 1. Information like that means nothing to me as a consumer. I don’t care about the reviewer’s taste, I care about their observations and what information is given. If you think the reviews are too generous, fine, but accusing it of being confusing is downright silly.

[close]

I only responded initially to point out that there were valid criticisms when you said "If you're leaving a shoe review with a slew of questions, you probably have bigger problems to worry about than how a website chooses to format its blog."

You then go on to insist that there were no legitimate criticisms made.

I then quote them.

You then acknowledge that you responded to said criticisms (which I think any reasonable person would deem as fair, whether or not they agree it). But somehow there were no legitimate criticisms??

~~~~

I don't care much for the reviewers taste either, as mine would be very different. But it be pretty easy to establish some objective metrics. For example, durability of the sole from 1-10. Durability of the upper from 1-10. Grip from 1-10 (in this case, a 10 may be too grippy for many people including me). Boardfeel from 1-10 (again, maximum boardfeel of 10 would be too much for some people who enjoy skating cupsoles, but nonetheless it would help readers compare models).

[close]

I never said there were no legitimate criticisms. Notice all the other points I engaged with? Some I even said “fair” to?



Whether it’s on purpose or not, I’m not the one being dense here 

[close]

Yeah. But your initial response to me seems to imply that there were no legitimate criticisms made at all. Feel free to deny that, but I don't think it would be unreasonable to interpret it in that way.

But when he then continues to engage even after you start throwing insults:

"You said it wouldn't work because shoe reviews are subjective, but so are ordinal scales when used for qualitative analysis. It's not dumbing down anything, having a universal scale of assessment and better formatting makes things less dumb than a brain dump that leaves people questioning what they've just read. Again, see my example of LRAB vs. Ishod stability, which makes them sound like they have no real criteria."

You resort to being passive aggressive instead of just addressing the point or agreeing to disagree:

"If you're leaving a shoe review with a slew of questions, you probably have bigger problems to worry about than how a website chooses to format its blog."

So okay fine, maybe not purposely dense, just accidentally a cunt.

[close]

You would have to be a marginally stupid person to assume that implication. I really don’t know how to spell it out for you.

[close]

Okay lets run this back play by play:

He makes a detailed criticism that you address and disagree with.

You say:
"If you're leaving a shoe review with a slew of questions, you probably have bigger problems to worry about than how a website chooses to format its blog."

I say:
"Orrrr..... maybe there are some legitimate criticisms of how these reviews are written and how they could be a bit clearer"

You say:
"Accusing every article of having the same information when they literally do not is not legitimate criticism. If you're struggling to comprehend content about shoes, then I'm sorry, but you're probably not a very bright person."

Even though thats clearly not the legitimate criticism I was referring to. Completely ignoring the fact that they just levied some detailed criticisms that you literally just engaged with...

Doesn't seem too unreasonable to me to assume such an implication

[close]

It  is absolutely unreasonable to assume that I think all criticisms are invalid when I am specifically addressing the criticism I found invalid. Seriously, it's not that complicated.

THIS is the play by play.

-Someone posted a blog
-People were unnecessarily rude to him.
-I posted a gripe with why people were being rude to him.
-Someone responded to me with the same unreasonable argument I addressed.
-I quoted the blog to demonstrate that, objectively, they were wrong.
-They shifted to a new point. I disagreed with the point, but I explained why in pretty fair terms.
-They misread my explanation and parroted the same explanation to me as if I was being unreasonable.
-I explained they misread my explanation and they repeated the same point for a third time.
-I said that "dumbed down" content is widely available elsewhere. ("dumbed down" wasn't meant to be crass. Sorry if it was. I like dumbed down content too.)
- He repeated the point for a fourth time then explained he was confused by the blog.
- You showed up and started arguing with me over things I didn't say.

Dude, you were obviously acting like the guy didn't have anything legitimate to say at all. When clearly you saw that they made a "new point" that was reasonable. You even engaged with it.

If you're going to be a little cunt on the internet, at least own up to it. Don't be a fucking pussy and try weasel out of it

[LebowskisRug]

Nah that’s his strategy:

-Completely disagree
-Present no evidence to the contrary
-Passive aggressive insult

Repeat.

Adds absolutely nothing to this board and likely humanity.

[pizzafliptofakie]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

I did, I just don't agree with you and think you're wrong. An ordinal scale would help review skate shoes as it helps provide a uniform assessment for reviews of all products. It's used in shoes for almost every other sport. They could include a pros and cons matrix as well. The site seems really low effort, which muddles its purpose.

The Rowan boardfeel makes no sense since it has the exact same sole as insole as other shoes that they gave positive reviews.

[close]

Since you love reading comprehension as a response let me remind you of the point I made about qualitative data about perceptions and feelings being made measurable for things that are much more vague than skate shoes.

I didn't say a 1-10 scale was subjective. I said skate shoe reviews are. It sounds like you really need this kind of stuff dumbed down for you, which is fine because that kind of content is available in so many other outlets that review shoes.

[close]

You said it wouldn't work because shoe reviews are subjective, but so are ordinal scales when used for qualitative analysis. It's not dumbing down anything, having a universal scale of assessment and better formatting makes things less dumb than a brain dump that leaves people questioning what they've just read. Again, see my example of LRAB vs. Ishod stability, which makes them sound like they have no real criteria.

Your passive aggressive comprehension responses are a clever way to not admit that you can't refute a point. It is quite easy for them to format the content they already have to provide better reviews and make their conclusions more actionable.

[close]

If you're leaving a shoe review with a slew of questions, you probably have bigger problems to worry about than how a website chooses to format its blog.

[close]

Orrrr..... maybe there are some legitimate criticisms of how these reviews are written and how they could be a bit clearer

[close]

[close]

An example of a legitimate criticism has already been pointed out above but you're choosing to ignore it and just call people dumb on the internet instead... niceee

[close]

Where? The guy saying they didn't do their job because a blog about shoes confused him?

That's also not a legitimate criticism.

[close]

No, he didn't say they didn't do their job but that

"An ordinal scale would help review skate shoes as it helps provide a uniform assessment for reviews of all products. It's used in shoes for almost every other sport."

"having a universal scale of assessment and better formatting makes things less dumb than a brain dump that leaves people questioning what they've just read. Again, see my example of LRAB vs. Ishod stability, which makes them sound like they have no real criteria." [\b]

You don't have to agree with this criticism, but to say that its not legitimate is being dense on purpose

And for the record, I do like these reviews overall despite my experiences with many of these shoes being wildly different to the reviewers', probably at least partially due to the fact that it seems like they try wrap everything in a largely positive spin even when there are major cons to something.

[close]

I did respond to that. And I think my response was very reasonable.

Expand Quote

I think the 1-10 thing is kind of a bad way to review skate shoes because it's so subjective. People expect different things out of different shoes, and simplifying to "this shoe is good" or "this shoe is bad" helps nobody. If you're someone like me who really cares about how a shoe grips, you might read the Ishod review and decide that they're not for you. But that doesn't make them bad shoes. But it's up to you to decide with the information given.

[close]

And I maintain: I think assigning a scale like that for skate shoes is a bad idea. His 10 is probably different than my 10, and my 1 is probably different than your 1. Information like that means nothing to me as a consumer. I don’t care about the reviewer’s taste, I care about their observations and what information is given. If you think the reviews are too generous, fine, but accusing it of being confusing is downright silly.

[close]

I only responded initially to point out that there were valid criticisms when you said "If you're leaving a shoe review with a slew of questions, you probably have bigger problems to worry about than how a website chooses to format its blog."

You then go on to insist that there were no legitimate criticisms made.

I then quote them.

You then acknowledge that you responded to said criticisms (which I think any reasonable person would deem as fair, whether or not they agree it). But somehow there were no legitimate criticisms??

~~~~

I don't care much for the reviewers taste either, as mine would be very different. But it be pretty easy to establish some objective metrics. For example, durability of the sole from 1-10. Durability of the upper from 1-10. Grip from 1-10 (in this case, a 10 may be too grippy for many people including me). Boardfeel from 1-10 (again, maximum boardfeel of 10 would be too much for some people who enjoy skating cupsoles, but nonetheless it would help readers compare models).

[close]

I never said there were no legitimate criticisms. Notice all the other points I engaged with? Some I even said “fair” to?



Whether it’s on purpose or not, I’m not the one being dense here 

[close]

Yeah. But your initial response to me seems to imply that there were no legitimate criticisms made at all. Feel free to deny that, but I don't think it would be unreasonable to interpret it in that way.

But when he then continues to engage even after you start throwing insults:

"You said it wouldn't work because shoe reviews are subjective, but so are ordinal scales when used for qualitative analysis. It's not dumbing down anything, having a universal scale of assessment and better formatting makes things less dumb than a brain dump that leaves people questioning what they've just read. Again, see my example of LRAB vs. Ishod stability, which makes them sound like they have no real criteria."

You resort to being passive aggressive instead of just addressing the point or agreeing to disagree:

"If you're leaving a shoe review with a slew of questions, you probably have bigger problems to worry about than how a website chooses to format its blog."

So okay fine, maybe not purposely dense, just accidentally a cunt.

[close]

You would have to be a marginally stupid person to assume that implication. I really don’t know how to spell it out for you.

[close]

Okay lets run this back play by play:

He makes a detailed criticism that you address and disagree with.

You say:
"If you're leaving a shoe review with a slew of questions, you probably have bigger problems to worry about than how a website chooses to format its blog."

I say:
"Orrrr..... maybe there are some legitimate criticisms of how these reviews are written and how they could be a bit clearer"

You say:
"Accusing every article of having the same information when they literally do not is not legitimate criticism. If you're struggling to comprehend content about shoes, then I'm sorry, but you're probably not a very bright person."

Even though thats clearly not the legitimate criticism I was referring to. Completely ignoring the fact that they just levied some detailed criticisms that you literally just engaged with...

Doesn't seem too unreasonable to me to assume such an implication

[close]

It  is absolutely unreasonable to assume that I think all criticisms are invalid when I am specifically addressing the criticism I found invalid. Seriously, it's not that complicated.

THIS is the play by play.

-Someone posted a blog
-People were unnecessarily rude to him.
-I posted a gripe with why people were being rude to him.
-Someone responded to me with the same unreasonable argument I addressed.
-I quoted the blog to demonstrate that, objectively, they were wrong.
-They shifted to a new point. I disagreed with the point, but I explained why in pretty fair terms.
-They misread my explanation and parroted the same explanation to me as if I was being unreasonable.
-I explained they misread my explanation and they repeated the same point for a third time.
-I said that "dumbed down" content is widely available elsewhere. ("dumbed down" wasn't meant to be crass. Sorry if it was. I like dumbed down content too.)
- He repeated the point for a fourth time then explained he was confused by the blog.
- You showed up and started arguing with me over things I didn't say.

[close]

Dude, you were obviously acting like the guy didn't have anything legitimate to say at all. When clearly you saw that they made a "new point" that was reasonable. You even engaged with it.

If you're going to be a little cunt on the internet, at least own up to it. Don't be a fucking pussy and try weasel out of it

You accused me of ignoring a point and I asked which one. When you told me, I showed you that I did not ignore it.



It sounds like we agree. He made a new point. I engaged with it.




What am I missing here?

[LebowskisRug]

You didn’t actually engage in any reasonable way. You just said I was (insert phrase for stupid here) in more words and that you disagreed with no counter argument.

I then made the point that there are easy ways to score subjectivity that are used in everything from shoe reviews to economics and the social sciences. The end goal is a universal scale makes things comparable in a better sense than without it abs you accept the assumptions going in.

Yet I’m (insert term for stupid) but again you ignore this because you have no argument over basic qualitative methods. You just simply try to stir up shit, talk over people, and have the last word.

[pizzafliptofakie]

You didn’t actually engage in any reasonable way. You just said I was (insert phrase for stupid here) in more words and that you disagreed with no counter argument.

I then made the point that there are easy ways to score subjectivity that are used in everything from shoe reviews to economics and the social sciences. The end goal is a universal scale makes things comparable in a better sense than without it abs you accept the assumptions going in.

Yet I’m (insert term for stupid) but again you ignore this because you have no argument over basic qualitative methods. You just simply try to stir up shit, talk over people, and have the last word.

I'll respond to this one more time since it keeps getting buried.

I think the 1-10 thing is kind of a bad way to review skate shoes because it's so subjective. People expect different things out of different shoes, and simplifying to "this shoe is good" or "this shoe is bad" helps nobody. If you're someone like me who really cares about how a shoe grips, you might read the Ishod review and decide that they're not for you. But that doesn't make them bad shoes. But it's up to you to decide with the information given.

Sounds like we disagree. That's okay. But that's how I feel. Fairly reasonable, right?

I feel the same way about most industries. To me, numerical ratings are kinda arbitrary, and in many cases it causes pedantic discussion. I see it all the time with gaming/music reviews, where people argue over whatever number is assigned and don't actually engage with what the reviewer says. It doesn't sound like you feel the same way. That's fine.



Yes, my responses have been digressing into passive aggressiveness. That's because I keep getting told "you're not making a counter argument" when this is the fourth time I've posted that counter argument. It's frustrating. Now this other guy is arguing with me over things I didn't say, and then getting mad when I point out I didn't say those things. It's also frustrating. Whatever.





How about we meet in the middle and rank our shoes in order in some parking lot in Texas?

[LebowskisRug]

You don’t have a point that’s the whole problem. You can’t disagree about the fundamentals of qualitative methods, which is a methodology branch devoted to quantifying subjectivity with extraordinary accuracy in many cases. You then disagree with most social surveys, a lot of economics, and a hell of a lot of psychology.

Shoes are pretty easy to measure and quantify if one wanted to. He could literally try to roll the shoe over and use a protractor to measure the tipping point of the ankle. Or a ruler to measure the heel cup depth. Or note that a LRAB high top adds X inches of effective cuff. Even if it’s subjective it’s still more useful than what he has done.

There are thousands of shoe reviews out there for various sports. Most are much, much more quantified and usually agreed upon by most end users because the same criterion is applied to all shoes of the same type then establishing a relationship for measurement. At a fundamental level this is how humans learn the difference between things they can’t measure by counting. There’s nothing to disagree with this isn’t even a debatable subject. You just want to be obtuse and difficulty because you dislike me and it’s blown up in your face.

Also, I never purposefully go to Texas unless forced to visit my wife’s family.

[pizzafliptofakie]

You don’t have a point that’s the whole problem. You can’t disagree about the fundamentals of qualitative methods, which is a methodology branch devoted to quantifying subjectivity with extraordinary accuracy in many cases. You then disagree with most social surveys, a lot of economics, and a hell of a lot of psychology.

Says who? I can and do disagree in this context. And I think my point is fair.

I feel the same way about most industries. To me, numerical ratings are kinda arbitrary, and in many cases it causes pedantic discussion. I see it all the time with gaming/music reviews, where people argue over whatever number is assigned and don't actually engage with what the reviewer says. It doesn't sound like you feel the same way. That's fine.

Off the top of my head, go scroll through Anthony Fantano's Twitter, and I bet within five minutes you'll find some comments of someone bitching about a score he gave an album. Even if it's an album he says lots of nice things about, people will bicker over the score and I feel like that detracts from what he actually has to say about the album.



So yes. I do have a point. You're welcome to disagree with it. But I do have a point.

[LebowskisRug]

Nah dude you’re just so ignorant you don’t even understand the easy counterpoint. Someone disagreeing with a measure doesn’t mean it’s invalid. They could be an outlier. Take perceptions about the economy- they don’t often match changes in the CPI or borrowing indices, but it’s the consensus and comparison to past measurements that provide accuracy and validity.

I feel like you’re a Fox News host that invitees educated guests on, makes baseless claims based on personal observations, then when presented with bountiful evidence gets emotional and won’t cede. You are a prime example of how much legitimate discourse and structured arguments have become a rarity in an age where anyone with an internet connection can just sound off and like, “well that’s just how I feel”. I wouldn’t be surprised if you were at the Captiol on January 6th.

[pdknox]

That cross section pic tells me all I need to know about this shoe.

[Jonny7.5Alive]

Expand Quote

You don’t have a point that’s the whole problem. You can’t disagree about the fundamentals of qualitative methods, which is a methodology branch devoted to quantifying subjectivity with extraordinary accuracy in many cases. You then disagree with most social surveys, a lot of economics, and a hell of a lot of psychology.

[close]

Says who? I can and do disagree in this context. And I think my point is fair.

Expand Quote

I feel the same way about most industries. To me, numerical ratings are kinda arbitrary, and in many cases it causes pedantic discussion. I see it all the time with gaming/music reviews, where people argue over whatever number is assigned and don't actually engage with what the reviewer says. It doesn't sound like you feel the same way. That's fine.

[close]

Off the top of my head, go scroll through Anthony Fantano's Twitter, and I bet within five minutes you'll find some comments of someone bitching about a score he gave an album. Even if it's an album he says lots of nice things about, people will bicker over the score and I feel like that detracts from what he actually has to say about the album.



So yes. I do have a point. You're welcome to disagree with it. But I do have a point.

Jesus Christ dude just take the L and move on.

You are ruining Shoes and Gear

[Mean salto]

That cross section pic tells me all I need to know about this shoe.

I feel like this is true for every shoe. Maybe one pic of the Ollie and kickflip hole if the shoe has panels.

[one-off]

This thread proves the usefulness of numerical rankings.
I give it a 0 for lack of support, stability, and breathability.

[DarkPools]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

You don’t have a point that’s the whole problem. You can’t disagree about the fundamentals of qualitative methods, which is a methodology branch devoted to quantifying subjectivity with extraordinary accuracy in many cases. You then disagree with most social surveys, a lot of economics, and a hell of a lot of psychology.

[close]

Says who? I can and do disagree in this context. And I think my point is fair.

Expand Quote

I feel the same way about most industries. To me, numerical ratings are kinda arbitrary, and in many cases it causes pedantic discussion. I see it all the time with gaming/music reviews, where people argue over whatever number is assigned and don't actually engage with what the reviewer says. It doesn't sound like you feel the same way. That's fine.

[close]

Off the top of my head, go scroll through Anthony Fantano's Twitter, and I bet within five minutes you'll find some comments of someone bitching about a score he gave an album. Even if it's an album he says lots of nice things about, people will bicker over the score and I feel like that detracts from what he actually has to say about the album.



So yes. I do have a point. You're welcome to disagree with it. But I do have a point.

[close]

Jesus Christ dude just take the L and move on.

You are ruining Shoes and Gear

The L should be for LebowskisRug in my opinion, but to each their own in this. PizzaFlip brings solid points to the table. And so did Lebwoski at times, though.

Side piece about shoe reviews. Reviewers should have a solid comprehension of the components of the shoe they're reviewing, and have a fairly solid vocabulary to describe the elements they are critical of (positive or negative). Too often people review things and don't have enough substance to effectively communicate it to the public.

Scoring numerically does help, but it oversimplifies it and makes it TOO objective, when the reality is subjective.Just because I think the etnies Marana is 9/10/9/10/10 in various areas of the shoe doesn't mean another person will get the same milage from my numbering system. If they like vulcs, my 9 on support may be a 3 or 4 in their scale where they value more softness for pliability in board feel.

The actual details about how the shoe fits when at rest, when running, when pushing, when flicking, how the toe box flexes, whether panels crease and create pinches, how the heel is contoured, the stiffness of the heel cup, type of padding and how it feels, hardness of the rubber, lace placement, lace tightness, etc. are all far more important than just: LRAB VM01 is 6 in comfort and 8 in grip. Okay, can the person describe WHY or HOW those scores were determined for them and how that feeds into others' impressions of the shoe's features?  Do they address that their personal score of 7 is based on their preferences and is not standard across the board (because it's not). Quantifying qualitative data is rarely done with such specificity because of how varying the subjectivity is.

[Boog]

Damn you guys really take this shoe review thing seriously.

[LebowskisRug]

The rankings were just an idea for establishing some sort of tangible depth and criteria for reviews. Reviews are not a final word on a shoe they’re just meant to help consumers make decisions for the most part. So if you like Shoe A and it got whatever numbers and criteria, you can compare it to Shoe B and estimate if you might like it.

A good example for me that’s relatable are rock climbing shoes. There aren’t quantifiable tests, but if you look at the rubber type and midsole length you can usually tell how stiff a shoe will be. Using the example above I climbed in a specific pair of shoes and found them not stiff enough so I used reviews to find stiffer shoes and then could more or less narrow down options based on the rest of the criteria.

[Urtripping]

[DarkPools]

Damn you guys really take this shoe review thing seriously.

We like quality shoes and how they perform, so yes. If I'm gonna drop $80+ on a pair of shoes, they better be what I'm hoping for if returns are difficult/not available for that purchase. Don't you want to get value of products you buy?

[Andrefosho]

I always fuck with weartested reviews because they cut the shoe in half and I can better see how it's made.

Regarding shoes - too many subjective factors too difficult to measure objectively.

[Quique]

I always fuck with weartested reviews because they cut the shoe in half and I can better see how it's made.

Regarding shoes - too many subjective factors too difficult to measure objectively.

That cut in half picture says a lot about fit, stability etc. That weartested guy must have a normal to narrow foot cause I had to go half size up in a lot of shoes they describe as tts(cons metric, NB tiagos, emerica Reynolds G6).

Also I think they tell in a subtle way when they don't really like a shoe