zin1953 wrote:To say that "espresso review journalism is seriously broken," and ask how it can be fixed implies several things, not the least of which is that people care. No one does.

Before this goes too far afield, let me reiterate what I said, rather than have this one line floating completely out of context . . .

In the context of my original post on Page One, "No one" means the population of people who drink coffee on a regular basis. Obviously the passionate participants of home-barista.com care, but we are already preaching to the converted. We are but a very small community compared to the number of people who regularly drink some sort of espresso-based beverage -- tiny, compared to the number of people who visit Starbucks at least once a week!

In this (and this is where the whole wine analogy began), we chat among ourselves and run the very real risk of presuming all those "Starbucks people" would happily join us if only they knew . . .

On wine boards, especially those where Parker is considered a god, far too many people either make "newbies" feel uncomfortable by using "winespeak" instead of English; by making people feel there actually are such things as "stupid questions"; and not welcoming them with open arms and not being willing to answer the most basic of questions in a simple, straight-forward, and helpful way.

It can often feel to the casual participant/lurker as though everyone has the secret decoder ring but them!

So when I wrote "no one cares," it is in that context: obviously we do care; a number of us do care; but that actual number -- no matter its real size -- is but a small drop in the proverbial ocean of coffee.

To come to sites such as home-barista.com, one already has to enjoy espresso-based drinks enough to actually sit down and search the site(s) out. That already displays significantly more interest than most of the planet! To actually register and post a first question on this site takes courage. And to participate on even a semi-regular basis takes an even greater commitment, both of time and of passion.

So when Marshall writes,

Marshall wrote:They don't care (a dubious conclusion, but I'll assume it is true), because:
1. No one is interested in the quality of a machine before or after buying it?
2. Everyone thinks they are getting a broad range of well-informed reviews?
3. Ignorance is bliss?

I first have to say this is a faulty interpretation of what I said, but no doubt the fault is mine, not Marshall's. However . . .

1. "No one" is interested in the quality of a machine before or after buying it because "no one" (i.e.: the vast majority of the population on Planet Earth) is interesting in buying a machine, period. (Do you read every issue of Consumer Reports, or do you only look at it when (e.g. it's time to replace the refrigerator or the stove?) If and when someone becomes interested in buying a machine, then (and only then) will that individual become interested in the quality of machines which are potential candidates for purchase. After buying it, it's too late, and no one wants to hear they just spent $_______ on "an Edsel."

2a. To the best of my knowledge, there is no published magazine one can buy at a newsstand or via subscription that reviews espresso machines and coffee makers exclusively. So aside from an occasional "comprehensive" review in something like Consumer Reports (the "White & Patio" programmable coffee maker at $19.99 is a CR "Best Buy", much better than the "Vickers" model 303), you get an occasional mention in some food/cooking magazine . . . and most (though not all) would fall into the super-auto category, recommending the reader go to Sur La Table or Williams-Sonoma, rather than places like Chris' Coffee, 1st-Line, EspressoParts NW, etc.

2b. So, again, IF the individual is already "into" espresso enough to be looking at a high-end consumer, or even "prosumer" machine, they already know not to go to Starbucks, Costco, Williams-Sonoma, or Sur la Table . . . so they come here, other similar sites, or maybe stumble upon WLL¹. Thus, they seek out information from "fellow consumers like them," who are perhaps a bit more knowledgeable -- or at least, who already own such types of machines -- for additional information. And even if they read the formal reviews (Buyer's Guide to _______) here, or the "smackdowns," or articles/discussions like the Titan Grinder Project, they (generally) will STILL post questions directly to the board, asking about this or that machine.

3. I don't know anyone who will fork out $3K in total ignorance, Marshall. Heck, I'm not sure I know anyone who would fork out $600 for a new Silvia in total ignorance. This is not a serious issue.

Cheers,
Jason

¹ I always found it more likely that "newcomers" would find Whole Latte Love's site before finding someone like 1st-Line, Chris Coffee, etc. YMMV.

DaveC wrote: People wonder why the bad reviews are not on the web....simple answer: When I review a machine the brief is if it's no good, be honest, as we don't want to stock it, we have only ordered the one for you to review and if necessary we will ebay it out at cost . So it is pointless me doing a "sales"/glowing review on a machine that's not very good, it doesn't help anyone.

There is a night-and-day difference between being a journalist and being a reseller reviewing machines for a commercial website. As a reseller, that person has a vested interest in the review even before the machine shows up for testing and review. That review of a machine is done based on an entirely different set of standards which are based on commercial needs— it's an advertisement. There is nothing wrong with that, and no one expects anything different, but there is a dramatic difference between that and a journalist reviewing a machine. If no other factor is considered, I would not expect to go to a reseller's website and see a machine with a list of reasons why I should not buy it, and exactly why it is a bad machine.

In other words, a good journalist is expected to report the bad machines as well as the good ones, and the problems of a machine as well as its benefits in a balanced and objective manner. I don't expect to see that on a reseller's website.

Randy G wrote:But by your own statement, you are not a journalist- you are a reseller who has a vested interest in the review even before the machine shows up for testing and review. Your sort of review of a machine is done based on an entirely different set of standards which are based on your needs. There is nothing wrong with that, and no one expects anything different, but there is a dramatic difference between a journalist reviewing a machine and a reseller reviewing a machine. If no other factor is considered, I would not expect to go to a reseller's website and see a machine with a list of reasons why I should not buy it, and exactly why it is a bad machine.

I think you drawing inferences from my post that are completely incorrect, perhaps you should re-read what I said and read what's on my NON commercial Wiki.

1. I am NOT a reseller
2. I have no vested interest in the review
3. The review is not done on a set of standards based on MY needs, I do it for the consumer
4. I do not make part or all of my living from Coffee (not even the smallest part)

I pick and choose whether I will review a machine or not....I usually won't review low end non prosumer stuff and superautos, although I did review a couple of highly expensive, but appalling superauto machines (and regretted wasting any time on them at all), I in fact cut the review short after a few days and refused to waste any more time on them. The reason why, is I simply don't want to waste my time reviewing these type of machines. Reviews are secured and will not be changed (and I have had manufacturers want me to change them), unless I decide there is an error, the retailer concerned can choose to use them or not, that's up to them.

I get paid whether the review is good or bad, long or cut short (the money is the same), much of the money I get, goes to charity or coffee projects, even though it's not very much.....i think if I count up the hours I spend reviewing and the money I get minus my costs, it works out to less than 80 cents per hour. For all that, I produce a review, specsheet, manufacturers feedback (so they can improve their machine) and a decent user guide.

I sell nothing, I am retired and everything I do that's coffee related, I do to try and help the consumer (including the reviews). I make NOTHING from coffee.....and the reviews are so much work, I feel I go to extraordinary lengths to try and be thorough. Currently I couldn't care less if I never do another one again, especially if people read them and think as you do!

I did wonder whether to bother posting at all in this thread when I first read it.....as uninformed/incorrect comments like yours only makes me regret having posted at all.

Oh Marshal, no I did not take your comments personally, simply putting a viewpoint from a reviewers perspective.

There is a HUGE difference between a professional journalist (who reports facts), and the sort of writer who "reviews" things. Such writers are not journalists, even though they may belong to the Guild; rather, they are critics or reviewers -- and these each are two very different things.

Don't confuse "journalist" and "reporter".

zin1953 wrote:There is a HUGE difference between a professional journalist (who reports facts), and the sort of writer who "reviews" things.

Well, actually there is often little or no difference. Many critics also serve as reporters for their publications, and many full-time critics started as full-time reporters. To further confound your pigeon holes, some journalist/critics are also historians. In today's rapidly shrinking journalism world, you had better be prepared to wear more than one hat!

If you're in L.A. on the second Saturday of any month, come hang out with me at the Culinary Historians of Southern California, where you'll meet several of my critic/journalist/historian friends.

Randy G. wrote: I would not expect to go to a reseller's website and see a machine with a list of reasons why I should not buy it, and exactly why it is a bad machine.

It's not quite the same, but Sweet Maria's steps up to the edge of this when they describe limitations and caveats in their roaster descriptions. Their candor is something I'd like to see more frequently from vendors.

Marshall, you've made my point!

Marshall wrote: . . . many full-time critics started as full-time reporters.

Exactly They are no longer reporters! Furthermore . . .

Marshall wrote:To further confound your pigeon holes, some journalist/critics are also historians.

Yes, and when they are scholars-in-residence at (e.g.) the Hoover Institution or the Kennedy School of Government, they are no longer journalists, either!

Marshall wrote:In today's rapidly shrinking journalism world, you had better be prepared to wear more than one hat!

Nothing wrong with wearing more than one hat, Marshall, but you can't wear more than one at a time! This is why opinion columnists (almost) universally stop all reportage. At the very least, it clearly moves to the Editorial page, rather than the news section (for print), or you bounce back-and-forth but on two different networks (one example would be Keith Oberman on broadcast network NBC doing sports; Keith Oberman on cable network MSNBC doing his political "Countdown").

In the fields of film, art, music, etc., there is a clear distinction made between the role of a reviewer and that of a critic. That said, it's quite common for one person to wear both hats (albeit one at a time) -- for example, Roger Ebert writes movie reviews in the newspaper and for television, but he writes critiques for film journals. Reading examples of both, one would never confuse the two -- even though the public-at-large often uses the word "critic" and "reviewer" interchangeably.

But no one I know would ever call, for example, Robert Parker, a journalist. He is a wine reviewer (although some may [incorrectly, IMHO] refer to him as a critic), and an author. Similarly, I do not consider someone like Ken Davids a journalist; he is a reviewer.

That said, I think the semantic bull$#!+ has gone on long enough. Whatever you want to call the individual making the comments, I think we can both agree that he (or she) had better be qualified and consistent IF the individual does it professionally and expects the public to pay for his/her opinions.

Cheers,
Jason

So who would be someone that should be doing reviews of machines?

Obviously someone who does not make their living building, importing or selling machines. The reviewer should be someone in the coffee business and probably someone who has at least at some time been a pro barista or roaster. In my opinion this would be an unbias and skilled reviewer if they have some cupping skills.

I have had the privilege of meeting and getting to know a few extremely skilled professional baristas and roasters in the past few months that I have lived in Houston; I can tell you that they are pretty biased guys with very varied opinions. Some of them are big conical proponents; some of them love the K30. Most of them are big time La Marzocco fanboys (hey, I am too). Heh, last week they were complaining about the "crappy" NS Aurelia at the barista competitions. They could certainly provide much more useful feedback on a lot of aspects of machine design and usability, but ultimately, they are pretty opinionated people (like all of us), and their usage model for a machine is typically somewhat different than a home-barista.