Objective professional reviews?

[ben721364]

Years ago a credentialed professional engineer reviewed and tested radar detectors for the BMW CCA Roundel magazine. His reviews were widely quoted in consumer magazines. Since his retirement, all the reviews that I have seen were produced/written by people/organizations with arguably a vested interested in one or more of the products being 'reviewed'. Can you suggest a source for reviews with objective methodology and no financial interests in such products?

Thanks.

[category4]

Years ago a credentialed professional engineer reviewed and tested radar detectors for the BMW CCA Roundel magazine. His reviews were widely quoted in consumer magazines. Since his retirement, all the reviews that I have seen were produced/written by people/organizations with arguably a vested interested in one or more of the products being 'reviewed'. Can you suggest a source for reviews with objective methodology and no financial interests in such products?

Thanks.

GOL

[NoWin]

Here's my take as a RD noob.

I've done gosh knows how many months of research before I bought mine last week. I found most probable magazine reviews over time "informative" but not necessarily helpful. (Road&Track has a quickie "non-review review" this month)

That's because it's one data point from one writer/reviewer, and often in a limited time or limited type of vehicles and geographical locations.

Books (guide-books, texts, manuals, etc) are informative for the technical aspect of RD design and how radar works, but doesn't offer easy or "varied user" review assimilation: it's one person writing a book based on their level of expertise. It;s also time sensitive: what was published 2 or 4 years ago may no longer really be "current" in the tech side of things.

In the shift from paper presentation (magazines, etc) to web, the single reviewer aspect has expanded to multiple reviewers, and is available in real-time (or nearly so).

Soooo, that leaves places like RD.net where the user reviews (some biased, some not) fill that gap. Most reviews I read (and I went back through many on two brands as well as the general topics) allow me to throw all those data-points into a pot and see how different people "see" using a RD. Some share a similar situation or two, some un-related in how they want to use or encompass use of a RD.

I find the modding or customization posts actually more informative, because those people are putting their RD into either a more heavily used or special situation, or look at a problem, even if cosmetic, in a different point of view. Isn't that what we are really after or are looking for in an objective mindset when researching something?

But it's the end-result thats important: does the RD work as advertised and within what range of criteria it is tested (and importantly reported back to the forum). I'd like to believe everyone on RD.net takes an a degree of thoughtfulness into their reviews or posts they make, looks at all pros and cons, and reports that in an objective manner.

Information, no matter where it comes from, or in what format, is power.

[AirMoore]

GOL

X2.

Guys of LIDAR (GOL) - Radar Detector Jammer Forum


Not to mention many members here do great smaller-testing events that are often fairly unbiased (because other members won't let them be).



GOL is the be-all-end-all (even though they are far too humble to claim such) when it comes to testing RD products in an unbiased manner.


-The only people who *think* they are bias during testing are those people who own/make products that do bad during testing.

[The Chariot]

Just remember to always question the source and the motives. Does the professional have a financial stake? Have the amateurs gotten free or heavily discounted products (discounts not readily available to others)? Is a professional or amateur test a real test or does digging around the Internet reveal them as a shill? Are all the units new (or otherwise known to be in tune) and retail blind purchased? How many people are involved in the tests to help counter one individual's bias? Get to know the people involved to help identify bias, and remember you're not dealing with double-blind procedures in any of these tests.

GOL tests are great, imho, but should not be the sole source of data when making a decision (no single source should be). There are numerous tests people have done which can help you make your choices, such as MOAC, enthusiasts all over the net, etc. Just remember as I noted above to look closely at who is involved.

I also recommend getting to know some of the more fair minded users based on their posting history, their testing, overall demeanor and you'll learn to identify those who are cream of the crop verses fan boys who will always look for the negative or positive aspects of a particular brand they hate or love. Meet with folks personally if possible to do your own testing... it can be a real eye opener (as my first round of tests with Cat4 turned out to be). Or, if you haven't yet made a purchase, attend local tests where you can personally witness performance.

[ersin]

I don't know. If they are professional that implies that they are paid. Who's doing the paying. Car magazines will show bias to those detectors that advertise with them, and it will show up in the review whether the author realizes or not. If there were some sort of consumer reports type of organization doing the review I would tend to give it more credence.

So that leaves us with amateurs, no disrespect to GOL. Certainly, GOL don't have the budget that a 'professional' would. But these guys are passionate about what they do, it shows, and I trust them the most for being impartial.

[Stealth Stalker]

Here's my take as a RD noob.

And a damn fine take it is!

GOL tests are great, imho, but should not be the sole source of data when making a decision (no single source should be).

Agreed. Not because there is anything wrong with GOL. There isn't. Totally trustworthy and authoritative. But there is a LOT more to choosing the "best" detector than simply comparing raw sensitivity numbers. While GOLs results are a great starting point from which to separate the winners from the losers, many other factors are needed to choose the "best" detector for a given driver.

[mikey101]

But there is a LOT more to choosing the "best" detector than simply comparing raw sensitivity numbers. While GOLs results are a great starting point from which to separate the winners from the losers, many other factors are needed to choose the "best" detector for a given driver.

i think most want the best detection possible with all the options being secondary. price may be the biggest factor for most.

i think people get a radar detector for one main reason and that is to avoid tickets. if one does that better overall than all the rest then thats the one they should get. but people do get caught up in the other stuff especially the marketing and lose sight what a radar detectors job is.

we can complicate it getting lost in the details but given a price range there arent but 2 or 3 choices on best avoiding tickets.


i think too many review(ers)s end up blurring the line far too much in order to appease the companies who are directly influencing them with free products/technology.

it shows in most every review and ends up defeating the purpose of the review altogether, which is what causes confusion amongst consumers who are doing the independent research trying to avoid just that.

[Stealth Stalker]

i think most want the best detection possible with all the options being secondary.

And that is exactly the problem. The uneducated tend to think that "best detection" is synonymous with raw sensitivity/range. It isn't. Consequently, they see simple results, such as those published by GOL, and jump to conclusions about what is "best detection", then end up getting pwnt.

i think people get a radar detector for one main reason and that is to avoid tickets. if one does that better overall than all the rest then thats the one they should get. but people do get caught up in the other stuff especially the marketing and lose sight what a radar detectors job is.

The "other stuff" is much more important than you and most n00bs think. They often seriously contribute to a detector's ability to help you avoid tickets. Yes, there is a lot of marketing hype BS, like laser detection, 18 bands, VG2 immunity, and other crap. However, if you choose a detector based upon nothing more than raw sensitivity/range, you deserve the ticket you're going to get.

[mikey101]

And that is exactly the problem. The uneducated tend to think that "best detection" is synonymous with raw sensitivity/range. It isn't. Consequently, they see simple results, such as those published by GOL, and jump to conclusions about what is "best detection", then end up getting pwnt.

i said best detection and thats what matters most. its the reviewers job to determine that-- which was exactly my point. if theres something more important than that id like to know what it is.

The "other stuff" is much more important than you and most n00bs think. They often seriously contribute to a detector's ability to help you avoid tickets. Yes, there is a lot of marketing hype BS, like laser detection, 18 bands, VG2 immunity, and other crap. However, if you choose a detector based upon nothing more than raw sensitivity/range, you deserve the ticket you're going to get.

I didnt say they werent important. i said they were less important than detection.


also, just because people are new here doesnt mean they are any less educated than you on the subject. talking to your members condescendingly contributes nothing to the subject.

if you want to add actual information for all the noobs, that would probably be much more effective.