Becoming cantankerous!

[mikeDnight]

I don't know how everybody else feels, but I find myself getting more and more irritated by silly little things. Tonight I was allowed to go to Tesco's all by myself, so heading straight to the magazines I grabbed a copy of Sky @ Night and Astronomy Now. In S@N there's a review about  Altair Ultraflat Eyepieces. They are very pretty looking but i get the feeling they are just generic eyepieces dressed up. Anyhow, after reading the review,  which wasn't a bad review, the reviewer ends by saying "we recommend them to both beginner and intermediate observers". My question is Why? If they are not good enough for an "advanced" observer, why on earth should they be ok for someone moving up the ranks so to speak? And who decides at what stage an observer is at? It got me wondering if we shouldn't incorporate a grading system as existed in my old Kempo-Jujitsu club when I was younger and daft in the head. I spent over a decade at that club, that was run by mad Scottsmen all of whom were as hard as nails. We didnt even have mats, as "there are no mats in the street"! Instead i learned how to breakfall on a solid parkay wooden floor. Boy did I learn fast!! Anyhow, the fact was that grades and belt colour were absolutely no indication of the leathal skill of the wearer. Similarly, some observers who are new to the hobby of astronomy (white belts), have a natural aptitude and rapidly learn the basics, becoming very capable keen eyed observers in very short time. Others may have been in the hobby for decades (1st Dan, 2nd Dan, 3rd Dan etc), yet struggle to find their way about the sky. I'm rambling, but as we've apparenty got beginner, intermediate and advanced stages, how can we tell who's who, and why should one deserve a lower quality product than another? 

Other things that get me in a grump are statements like "price point"! & "Up Grade"! 

"This product is very good for the price point." Which reading between the lines means its ok but there's better out there but you'll need to spend more. What's wrong with the word Price? Why the need for Price Point? Is it to make the reviewer sound more expert or more educated? Perhaps the term Price Point is used to make the purchaser less content with the item, sowing seeds of doubt in the mind of the user. I've seen the term used in relation to some truly top class optics such as Sky watcher ED's, which are in reality only a hairs breadth behind the likes of Takahashi and Astro Physics. 

Upgrade usually means someone's decided to dismantle a Tak fluorite refractor so as to flock the tube, or something equally   !!!  Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, or so the saying goes. Perhaps Up Grades are the same, as what may seem like an up grade to one man may often be a Down Grade to others. 

See! I told you I was becoming cantankerous! 

 

[Stargazer33]

What do you think of S@Ns 'New Look', which to me just appears to be eight pages less than the 'old look' but at the same price (point)!

[Cjg]

Think Sky at Night Mag reviews have been bland, generic and sub par for a long time now.  (There’s a better description, but it’s a four letter word that might get blanked out on here).

Stopped buying the mag when @steppenwolf stopped writing the deep sky tours.. As for getting cantankerous, the adverts on the radio where they read out the small print as fast as they can  harshes my vibe...

I look upon it as getting more discerning as I get older, and less tolerant.

 

[Ruud]

2 hours ago, mikeDnight said:

... "we recommend them to both beginner and intermediate observers". My question is Why? If they are not good enough for an "advanced" observer ....

You'd think that these eyepieces are an excellent choice for amateurs who plan to leave the hobby before they become advanced observers. 

These magazines need the brands they report about as advertisers. They do feel the need to be honest too, and that's good. The message is hidden, but it's there.  It's like an optician recommending "reading glasses for beginning and intermediate readers" as a euphemism for "these glasses are crap".

[vlaiv]

I think price point is valid term used in this context.

Let's say that said EP retails at 99.95, and you say that it is best at this price. What would that mean? It can certainly be best at 99.95, but does that still hold at 99.96 or 100?

I'm guessing that price point is term used to denote range of prices rather than particular price, so price point can be around 100. If you went to store and asked: "What's the price of this item?" and got reply: "It's about 100 or so", I'm guessing you would not like that . Price is exact number. Think of price point as price class - range of prices around any particular price. No hard rules on how wide price point is - fuzzy logic applies there as well as everyday experience. Most of us would consider price point of 100 to include items priced at 94 as well as 106.

 

[Demonperformer]

I certainly don't object to reviewers lumping prices togethter, but I would find "best in the £90-£110 price bracket" to be more informative than some unspecified price point. IMO Obscure terminology that is not explained does not help.

[johninderby]

Price point does have a precise meaning in economics where it’s used in relation to supply and demand curves to determine a point on a scale of possible prices at which something might be marketed. However the term has crept into common usage where it’s used incorrectly as an equivelent to price as it simply sounds better. 

 

[Demonperformer]

Better, or just more pretentious?

[johninderby]

Pretentious.  ? 

[andrew s]

What gets me is that nearly all reviews are subjective. No attempt is made at quantification even when it is easy. For example measuring the gain and read noise of a CCD or flatness of a telescopes field. I know some measurements would need specialist gear but if you are a reviewer perhaps you should invest in it.

Regards Andrew 

[andrew s]

1 hour ago, johninderby said:

Price point does have a precise meaning in economics where it’s used in relation to supply and demand curves to determine a point on a scale of possible prices at which something might be marketed. However the term has crept into common usage where it’s used incorrectly as an equivelent to price as it simply sounds better. 

 

At this moment in time I fully agree with you but in  a moment out of time I might not.

Regards Andrew 

[Paz]

28 minutes ago, andrew s said:

What gets me is that nearly all reviews are subjective. No attempt is made at quantification even when it is easy. For example measuring the gain and read noise of a CCD or flatness of a telescopes field. I know some measurements would need specialist gear but if you are a reviewer perhaps you should invest in it.

Regards Andrew 

I agree with this entirely.

Something I notice with the press generally these days is the way to be influential seems to be to just make sure you are the first to say something on a topic because most reported articles and opinions just regurgitate what another article said without actually finding out for themselves.

[steppenwolf]

As the reviewer of this set of eyepieces, a little explanation is perhaps required. You need to understand that reviews of this type are commissioned on quite a tight brief and various attributes must be included in the article, including reference to who would most benefit from using the product. In this case my personal assessment was that they were suitable for beginners as they produced generally good views at a ‘reasonable’ price (note NOT ‘price point’ unless the sub-editor has changed my text which does happen!). I also felt that they were suitable for intermediate observers as the quality deserved that. However, an advanced observer would be better served by absolutely top drawer optics as their experience would allow them to get the very best out of the highest quality optics, the nuances of which would be missed by beginners and intermediates. This is why there are beginners, intermediates and advanced observers and there is no shame in being in any of those categories surely?

[paulastro]

With all this stuff going on about 'price point' I had to go back and remind myself what the thread was about in the first place! 

[paulastro]

12 hours ago, mikeDnight said:

 

See! I told you I was becoming cantankerous!  

 

Becoming?  ?

[andrew s]

36 minutes ago, steppenwolf said:

As the reviewer of this set of eyepieces, a little explanation is perhaps required. You need to understand that reviews of this type are commissioned on quite a tight brief and various attributes must be included in the article, including reference to who would most benefit from using the product. In this case my personal assessment was that they were suitable for beginners as they produced generally good views at a ‘reasonable’ price (note NOT ‘price point’ unless the sub-editor has changed my text which does happen!). I also felt that they were suitable for intermediate observers as the quality deserved that. However, an advanced observer would be better served by absolutely top drawer optics as their experience would allow them to get the very best out of the highest quality optics, the nuances of which would be missed by beginners and intermediates. This is why there are beginners, intermediates and advanced observers and there is no shame in being in any of those categories surely?

While accepting all this how did you judge the quality. Did you subjectively asses them using a known primary optic on known targets or did you use test targets to asses resolution , distortion etc.

Regards Andrew 

[Carbon Brush]

Going back to the original post. I don't think Mike is getting angry at little things.
He is simply being discerning about what he will allow to take up his time and money.

Some years ago I used to subscribe to S@N.

I was annoyed by the habit of printing on top of various different coloured backgrounds, but lived with it.

After a little while I found less and less of use in there. Particularly when I looked at the standard of some reviews.
I don't think it was because I was becoming particularly knowledgeable or expert. The articles seemed to need nothing more 'waiting room' attention.
There were very few really in depth reads.

Then there were the comparisons where percentages where somehow arrived at without explanation.
Take two scopes at say £200 and £400 reviewed together and both get 90%.
Does this mean they are both worth 90% of the money paid?
They both give 90% of the views the reviewer expects for the money paid?
They perform equally but one costs double the other?

The last straw came in a scope comparison/review.
I owned one of the scopes at that time.
The review bore so little resemblance to my own findings on the scope that I had to check the pictures to make sure we were talking about the same scope.

After all of this, the subscription was cancelled.

Recently I did consider trying another subscription. But the offer expired very quickly and the pricing was cunning/sneaky.
They quoted you for the 6 months billing and expected you to sign up to 2 years.

If I see a copy somewhere available to read, or get given one for free, I may take another look.

David.
 

[JamesF]

8 minutes ago, Carbon Brush said:

I was annoyed by the habit of printing on top of various different coloured backgrounds, but lived with it.

This really irritates me these days.  As my sight has changed over the last few years I've found text which has insufficient contrast with the background colour increasingly difficult to read, particularly if the lighting isn't as good as it might be.

James

[johninderby]

Some websites are the worst offenders. Looked at one the other day and they had used black print on a dark red background so went elsewhere.   Grrrrrr. ?

[LukeSkywatcher]

I was born contankourous. 

[JamesF]

8 minutes ago, LukeSkywatcher said:

I was born contankourous. 

Isn't that one of the Greek islands?

James

[Demonperformer]

38 minutes ago, johninderby said:

Some websites are the worst offenders. Looked at one the other day and they had used black print on a dark red background so went elsewhere.   Grrrrrr. ?

Nowadays everyone and his wife seems to think that, because it is the user who pays for the Internet traffic,  it is a legitimate practice to dump GB of advertising on the computer of anyone visiting their sites. This is a great way of losing my custom!

[Gfamily]

I'm caught in a metaphysical loop, because what really annoys me are people who go on the internet to say how much other things annoy them. 

Too often, they either don't give a reason ("it hardly needs saying why <this> annoys"), or giving a spurious reason ("I get annoyed by "<this>"because "<something else not related to <this>>"). 

I accept that a poor website UI is hard to excuse; but if the content is good enough, I'll put up with it. Otherwise I just go elsewhere. 

 

[Macavity]

Heheh. (The subjectivity of) Eyepiece reviews was one good reason I was happy
to give up visual Astronomy for (my limited) imaging! lol. The lack of consistent
ways of measuring optical performance is (generally) a perennial frustration... ?

On the other hand... during my (later life) resumption of astronomy and reading
*forum* reviews, I came to acknowledge that *certain* folks really KNEW what
they were talking about! But frankly many are downright grumpy old gits? lol ?

But, after the "ritual humiliation" it was worth asking them to explain stuff etc. ?

[Ricochet]

4 hours ago, steppenwolf said:

However, an advanced observer would be better served by absolutely top drawer optics as their experience would allow them to get the very best out of the highest quality optics, the nuances of which would be missed by beginners and intermediates. 

As someone who hasn't seen the review, how many of the 5 focal lengths were you given to test? 

With respect to the nuances an advanced user might notice, what issues did you find? Are we talking abberarions across the field or coating issues resulting in lower transparency or reflections? 

I'm not criticising, just interested as these eyepieces and their clones are on my radar for possible BV pairs. Would I be better served by SLVs?