Genii VS Magic review

Discuss general aspects of Genii.

Postby thumbslinger » 12/22/03 10:27 PM

Sorry, I just got the December issue of Genii so this may be late.

I'm surprised to find two totally opposite views of the same product, Stealing Pips The Card Magic of Oz. David Oliver thought pretty well of the product while Michael Close didn't think much of it at all.

Michael Close gave a pretty 'investigative' review while David's was more 'straight from the heart vs the head.' (that's just my take of comparision)

Just wondered if anyone here has the dvd and has read both reviews and come up with a happy medium?

Reviews are great, but can have a powerful effect on the product/production/person in the spotlight.


:)
Hey....hey.. it's just for fun, next lifetime you won't even remember who you were.
thumbslinger
 
Posts: 29
Joined: 10/25/08 07:05 PM
Location: Austin, Tx

Postby Bill Duncan » 12/23/03 12:32 AM

I don't know Oz, but I've seen his work on Penguin demo videos and he handles himself well.

I think Close summed up videos for this year in his second from the last paragraph. If you heed his recommendation(s) you'll have purchased seven videos this year. Add the Flicking Fingers "The Movie" dvd to his recommendations for the Malone and Wonder videos and that makes an even eight.

How many more videos does one need in a year?
Bill Duncan
 
Posts: 1374
Joined: 03/13/08 11:33 PM

Postby Guest » 12/23/03 09:26 AM

To my mind, asking how many videos one needs is like asking how many magic shows one should attend (to be entertained in addition to supporting your fellow magicians)...the answer depends on the time and dollars you want to spend versus the quality that you receive.

For those willing to support the art or willing to put in more effort to glean incremental information, the hurdles will be lower (yet not nonexistent).

And lower is not necessarily bad, if one supports the art and wants to have voices beyond the elite.

:cool:
Guest
 

Postby Matthew Field » 12/23/03 03:07 PM

Originally posted by WarlockDrummer:
For those willing to support the art or willing to put in more effort to glean incremental information, the hurdles will be lower (yet not nonexistent).

And lower is not necessarily bad,
Warlock, it seems to me the course you are advocating could be summed up as "Lower the Bar."

I think that's the wrong course, and as a reviewer (I have not seen the Pearlman video) I believe it is important to praise excellence and try to evaluate the price of something as it relates to the value it represents.

Matt Field
User avatar
Matthew Field
 
Posts: 2619
Joined: 01/18/08 01:00 PM
Location: Hastings, England, UK

Postby Bill Duncan » 12/23/03 06:20 PM

Originally posted by WarlockDrummer:
)...the answer depends on the time and dollars you want to spend versus the quality that you receive.
Ok, let me put it in simpler terms.
If you have REALLY learned all you can from watching ALL the Tommy Wonder videos, and ALL the Bill Malone videos and you've taken my suggestion and STUDIED the Flicking Fingers' "The Movie" DVD then perhaps buying other videos won't be a distraction. I've purchased other videos that were released this year. They were, almost without exception, disappointing.
Bill Duncan
 
Posts: 1374
Joined: 03/13/08 11:33 PM

Postby Jeffrey Cowan » 12/23/03 07:42 PM

Mike Close is a magician whose primary expertise is close-up material. He also has a thorough knowledge of card magic.

As I understand it, the Genii reviewer in question (Joe Turner, as is pointed out below) is more of an all-around performer, whose knowledge of card material is not as extensive as Mike Close's. That may explain their different perspectives on the item. I LOVE Genii, but I'd (still) go with Mike Close's opinion on this one.

- Jeffrey Cowan
-- Jeffrey Cowan
www.cowan-law.com
Jeffrey Cowan
 
Posts: 193
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Santa Monica, CA

Postby Richard Kaufman » 12/23/03 10:14 PM

I can't recall if I've made this commment publically before, however it seems time to do it. (And I want to make it perfectly clear that this is not a criticism of Mike Close per se, since he is a good friend and an intelligent guy.)
I do not think ANY single individual is up to the job of reviewing the endless cascade of DVDs, videotapes, books, and tricks that come out in our field month after month, and year after year.
Genii always has multiple reviewers. Do you really want all of the critical output regarding this material in a magazine to be entirely the opinion of a single individual? I don't, and I don't want it in my magazine, either.
The very idea of it is preposterous: try and name a single newspaper or magazine or website in the real world that has a single individual reviewing books, movies, ballet, opera, restaurants, and whatever else gets reviewed.
Think of the variety of points of view and opinions you get in Genii because you have Swiss, Regal, and Mead all reviewing books; Field and Turner doing videos; and Orleans and Oliver doing tricks. That gives you opinions from seven intelligent guys, all with different points of view.
When I worked at MAGIC, I pressed very hard to always have a second person to present other ideas and opinions so no "cult" of personality developed around a single individual, and so no single individual ever developed enough power to unduly influence the market.
Frankly, from an editor's point of view, it's much easier to have one person do it all: you only have to write one check, ship all the packages to one place, and deal with one free will.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 21950
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby Jon Racherbaumer » 12/23/03 10:36 PM

RK is right on this one. CONSUMER REPORTS, for example, is an evaluation-magazine (deep testing) by committee--there are many many analysts. When MAGIC began there was a Siskel-Ebert approach with two reviewers, with Mac King adding counterpoint. But it didn't last or seem to work. Also, it's very tempting for reviewers to use a review as a pretext to add all kinds of other observations, philosophical and otherwise that are not necessarily related to the DVD or product being reviewed.

Onward...

I think that GENII is fortunate to have several well-informed writer-reviewers who can also write...
Jon Racherbaumer
 
Posts: 831
Joined: 01/22/08 01:00 PM
Location: New Orleans

Postby Guest » 12/24/03 12:07 AM

I prefer one voice, one mind, one opinion. The only value of an opinion is in your ability to use it to compare and contrast with your own.

Even a clueless reviewer can be useful: once you have "learned" the framework of personal likes and dislikes, you can still glean information which may be helpful in decision making.

This is one area where the net-chatter is actually useful- it is rare that something new and worthwhile will miss being tracked by the boards and thier members.
Guest
 

Postby Bill Duncan » 12/24/03 12:54 AM

Originally posted by New Guy:
This is one area where the net-chatter is actually useful- it is rare that something new and worthwhile will miss being tracked by the boards and thier members.
I can't say I agree. Ninja Rings got amazing word of mouth but Chris Capehart's cd barely got noticed. I'm constantly amazed at what impresses those who frequent "other" magic boards. Jay Sankey's latest use for the Houdini Color change is hailed as the best trick ever while none of those raving about it have even read Jennings '67 (which has the most important work on the change that I've ever seen).

Thank God for The Genii Forum.
Bill Duncan
 
Posts: 1374
Joined: 03/13/08 11:33 PM

Postby Guest » 12/24/03 07:51 AM

I certainly understand the dangers of "cult of personality" reviewers. However, I believe understanding the reviewer (his/her personality, likes and dislikes, etc.) helps make the reviews more useful to me. Siskel and Ebert worked as movie reviewers because they were distinct yet easily identifiable personalities. I have gone to movies that one or the other gave a negative review simply because I understood why they would give such a review, and also understood why I might disagree with it.

I do, however, have "cult of personality" reviews I listen to. Whatever Eugene Burger recommends, I go out and get. Period.
Guest
 

Postby Tommy Brown » 12/24/03 09:00 AM

Originally posted by Kelly Johnson:
Sorry, I just got the December issue of Genii so this may be late.

I'm surprised to find two totally opposite views of the same product, Stealing Pips The Card Magic of Oz. David Oliver thought pretty well of the product while Michael Close didn't think much of it at all.

Michael Close gave a pretty 'investigative' review while David's was more 'straight from the heart vs the head.' (that's just my take of comparision)


Just to clarify, Joe Turner reviewed this DVD for Genii, not David Oliver. :)
Tommy
Tommy Brown
 
Posts: 86
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Chattanooga, TN

Postby Bill Mullins » 12/24/03 11:44 AM

Originally posted by New Guy:
I prefer one voice, one mind, one opinion. .
. . . .
This is one area where the net-chatter is actually useful-
So, do you prefer the voice of one person, or the voice of the masses?
Bill Mullins
 
Posts: 3582
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Huntsville, AL

Postby thumbslinger » 01/01/04 11:10 AM

Tommy-
Good catch! It was Joe Turner on the review.
Hey....hey.. it's just for fun, next lifetime you won't even remember who you were.
thumbslinger
 
Posts: 29
Joined: 10/25/08 07:05 PM
Location: Austin, Tx

Postby Pete Biro » 01/01/04 01:54 PM

Mac King stopped doing the reviews because he didn't want to get his friends mad at him if he knocked one of their items in his reviews.

Oh for the likes of Clarke "Senator" Crandall... who really told it like it was... :D
Stay tooned.
User avatar
Pete Biro
 
Posts: 7125
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Hollyweird

Postby Guest » 01/02/04 11:18 AM

While I agree with RK, I do want to say that I believe Mike Close does an outstanding job with his Herculean task!

:cool:
Guest
 

Postby Brad Jeffers » 01/02/04 10:29 PM

Forget Close vs Turner. What about the cover stories ... Genii's Ian Rowland, someone who I had never heard of before and to be truthful, am not very interested in (I really mean no offense by that Mr. Rowland) vs MAGIC's Del Ray, someone who I have definitely heard of and have always been extremely curious about.
MAGIC wins out, this month.
User avatar
Brad Jeffers
 
Posts: 609
Joined: 04/11/08 05:52 PM
Location: Savannah, GA

Postby Dustin Stinett » 01/03/04 12:03 AM

I find that a most curious statement. For me I find that reading about people Ive never heard of (or have little familiarity with) is a way of expanding my personal knowledge of the art. After all, I never heard of Malini before I read about him in Stars of Magic and now hes someone in whom I have a very keen interest. And there are many more magicians (living and not) that I was not interested in until I read about them. Additionally, there are many in which, after having read about them, I still have little or no interest, but at least I gave them a shot at capturing my attention.

I never had the opportunity of seeing Del Ray perform, so I am thankful to Max Maven and MAGIC for giving me a glimpse of that. I never heard of Mr. Rowland until the buzz started around here and now I find him quite interesting (especially those amazing Wow cards of his). Both men are interesting to me for different reasons and there is much to be learned from reading about both of them. I dont think there can be a comparison.

Dustin
User avatar
Dustin Stinett
 
Posts: 6336
Joined: 07/22/01 12:00 PM
Location: Southern California

Postby Richard Kaufman » 01/03/04 09:50 AM

Dustin is right, it is a poor comparison. But if you want to play that game, then some months Genii will have a better issue than MAGIC and vice versa. But that judgement is subjective, and not everyone will feel that way. So what's the point?
However I also think the article on Del Ray was not very good. I don't fault Max for this, because it may not be possible to do a great article on Del Ray. He was a force of nature, and describing what he did in print is impossible. One of the reasons you haven't seen a massive article on Del Ray in Genii is because so little is available. Even MAGIC, which generally takes up most of its space with big color pictures, could do no better graphically than a bunch or advertising items from Mike Caveney. It was great to see those items, but those are not the kind of graphics that should carry a story like that. Where are the photos of Del Ray performing? Not there. We did find one for Genii, and it appears in our February issue with the brief piece Jon Racherbaumer did.
We may do a definitive piece on Del Ray in the future.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 21950
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby magicpirate82 » 01/03/04 10:53 AM

My two cents: I had never hear of Ian Rowland either but WOW, what an article! Very interesting, informative, and intriguing. I've never been a real "fan" of mentalism and the like but after this article, I'll revisit that. In fact, I've just ordered Ian's cold reading book. Mr. Rowland's personality clearly comes through in this article, and he surely is an intelligent, honest gentlemen. I found it refreshing to read of someone so down-to-earth. It's the story of a "regular" guy that went his own way and found his own success. Marvelous. Thanks Richard!

As far as "Magic," I rarely read it unless the cover catches my eye. Really, I don't see any reason to buy additional magic magazines; Genii always satisfies. And there is only so much reading one can get to in any given month.

Cheers!
:cool:
magicpirate82
 
Posts: 35
Joined: 01/19/08 01:00 PM
Location: SF Bay area, California

Postby Pete Biro » 01/03/04 10:58 AM

Every time I pick up this copy of Genii I find another interesting item... and Josh Jay's stuff (IMHO) is dead wasted space in MAGIC.
Stay tooned.
User avatar
Pete Biro
 
Posts: 7125
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Hollyweird

Postby Richard Kaufman » 01/03/04 12:41 PM

Pete, that was cold. 'Twas I who suggested to Josh that he call Stan about the position! :)
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 21950
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby Raj Madhok » 01/03/04 01:24 PM

I'll go to bat for Josh. Not every trick in MAGIC or Genii is going to be a winner. I don't view it as wasted space but food for thought. It may inspire you, trigger a new idea, or recall a long lost effect. His introductions personalize the effects and give the column some flavor.

Josh has introduced us to new, younger talent through his column as well as international contributors. His innovative use of color photos and inserts such as the Aronson Shuffle-Bored effect and Overlap freebie were remarkable additions to the notion of tricks in print!

I give him credit for pushing the envelope.
Keep up the good work, Josh!

Raj
Raj Madhok
 
Posts: 86
Joined: 01/25/08 01:00 PM
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Postby Jon Racherbaumer » 01/03/04 02:25 PM

FOGGY MOUNTAIN DITTY

Just as there is talk these days about the fog of war, the business of providing information (particularly though monthly magazines) exists in what can be called the fog of publishing. I currently subscribe to at least 20 non-magic magazines. I read almost every magic publication in the world and Ive been involved in several over the years. The most significant force that is effecting and will continue to effect magazines is the Internet and the rising cost of dissemination. As far as Im concerned, the topical info is ably covered by the Internet (Blogs, bulletin boards, forums, and so on). This will increase and get better. Unfortunately, in the magic world, the mags are understaffed. They are cottage industries or one-man operations, and it's a Herculean task to service such enterprises. (Im still incredulous that Meir Yedid was able to crank out Magic Times for as long as he did! What a guy! It remains to be seen if anyone will soon fill that void.)

I suppose its irresistible to compare magazines and to cavil about this and that; however, I think there is much to applaud out there.

RK and I both have struggled with the challenge of getting new and interesting tricks and ideas to fill columns. The brutal fact is that there are only so many new, good, and interesting ideas generated each year. If you publish four items monthly, one must try to ferret out over 70 tricks. When I did Inside Out I wrote up over 432 tricks and Earle Oakes probably drew over 3500 drawings. Looking back, the percentage of enduring keepers or workers is low. I told Josh that the task gets harder and harder after the third or fourth year. (Also, few magicians older than 50 are desperately looking for new tricks and innovative methods. Most of them are instead looking back, not looking forward. Granted: There are exceptionsJerry Andrus, for examplebut most are not rabid consumers.)

Getting and creating stories are another matter. Much depends on how glossy and superficial one permits each treatment or piece to be, especially when facing deadlines and fighting the speed of the Internet.

As far as Im concerned, for snail-mail magazines to survive, they must provide deeper analysis, broader or more focused coverage, and do what books can and films and television cannot. I hope that consumers (investors) continue to support our efforts. Without sufficient monies, the incentive evaporates. Who then would fill the void? Perhaps in the future there will only be Blogshundreds to surf, browse, and freely download the spoils? Then the cabal of collectors will trade, buy, and sell the magazines of yesteryear, lamenting their demise and admiring their quaintness anda-heminsufficiencies.


Onward...
Jon Racherbaumer
 
Posts: 831
Joined: 01/22/08 01:00 PM
Location: New Orleans

Postby Richard Kaufman » 01/03/04 06:49 PM

I don't think the use of mediocre photographs with poor color reproduction is any sort of innovation to be applauded. (Compare them, and I mean put them side by side, to the photos Damen Webster and Pete Biro have taken for us in the Aaron Fisher and Jim Steinmeyer issues and I think the difference will be readily apparent.)
The simple fact is that MAGIC decided they didn't want to pay Earle Oakes any more and photos cost nothing.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 21950
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby Guest » 01/03/04 07:29 PM

Originally posted by Richard Kaufman:

Think of the variety of points of view and opinions you get in Genii because you have Swiss, Regal, and Mead all reviewing books; Field and Turner doing videos; and Orleans and Oliver doing tricks. That gives you opinions from seven intelligent guys, all with different points of view.
This would really only work, in my view, if you had multiple reviewers all commenting on the same item, trick, DVD etc. in the same issue. In that case, there'd be a distinct advantage in having a host of reviewers on board readers could easily compare the opinions of different magicians on the same product. However, if Swiss reviews one book, Regal another, and Mead yet another, all on their own without us seeing their combined thoughts on a single publication then there really isn't much difference between that and having just one reviewer covering everything.

In fact, i'd even venture to say that having multiple reviewers who work unilaterally could even be disadvantageous. Supposing David Regal reviews a book... i'd straight away be asking: "I wonder what Jamy Swiss might have thought of that?" Of course, i'll probably never know. A single reviewer obviates this dilemma.
Guest
 

Postby Steve Hook » 01/03/04 08:25 PM

Your point about each item being reviewed by only one writer is valid and it's why I didn't completely agree with Richard that multiple reviewers solve the problem of what should I buy or not buy.

On the other hand, we do have the two magazines' reviewers' judgements to compare. That's not a bad compromise, yes?
Steve Hook
 
Posts: 779
Joined: 10/21/08 11:50 AM
Location: North Carolina, USA

Postby Arnie Fuoco » 01/03/04 08:26 PM

Re comparisons of Genii vs Magic--forget it. These are two quality magazines that we are fortunate to have--we who have this addiction that cannot be explained to non-magicians. I wish we had many more of them. I would buy them all. I look forward to them each month and brood when I have to wait until next month for one major reason--they are entertaining. I read them cover to cover.

Re comparison of Genii reviewers vs Mike Close--forget it. This is my favorite part of both magazines because they are entertaining. A review of the product involves more than just evaluations of product quality. These reviews are filled with history and discussions of similiar effects that I learn a lot from. All the reviewers put out quality information because their reputation is on the line. After reading them for many years one will get a feel whether the product is for you.

C'mon guys -we are very lucky
Arnie Fuoco
Arnie Fuoco
 
Posts: 76
Joined: 01/21/08 01:00 PM
Location: Arlington VA

Postby Richard Kaufman » 01/03/04 09:29 PM

I can't imagine that anyone is silly enough to base their decisions on what to purchase or not purchase on the opinions of one or two people who write for a magazine.
And I really can't imagine that anyone would think that reading only a single person's opinion on every book, video, and trick released in the world of magic provides valuable information. It provides NOTHING except that person's point of view.
That's all you get on a single product in Genii as well, one person's point of view, however you have seven different rotating points of view so you are not involved in one person's narrow view of what makes good or bad books, videos, and tricks. And if you think a SINGLE person can carry that burden for years and not have his point of view altered by forces that even he is unaware of, then you don't understand the job.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 21950
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby Guest » 01/04/04 06:56 AM

Richard, you said it all. And, that goes for any type of "critic" - movie reviewer, sports writer food "taster"...etc.

When someone gives you his or her opinion on any subject, that's exactly what you get - that person's opinion.

However, there are some out there who believe that there opinions are facts...but let's not confuse the two.

To me, magic is as "subjective" as liking a certain type of music or food. Just because something works for someone else does not mean it will work for you or me.

If it did, we'd all be doing the same tricks.

Be yourself and do your own thing. I was told that a long time ago, and it is still true - but that's only my opinion.
Guest
 

Postby Jeff Eline » 01/04/04 07:09 AM

Originally posted by Richard Kaufman:
And I really can't imagine that anyone would think that reading only a single person's opinion on every book, video, and trick released in the world of magic provides valuable information. It provides NOTHING except that person's point of view.
However, that person's point of view is an informed, experienced point of view. Whether it's Michael Close's or Jamy Swiss' or Joe Turner's, I know these guys have just about seen it all.

Their recommendations or criticisms holds a bit more weight than some guy that just learned a trick from Jaw Droppers.

I also agree that you shouldn't base your purchasing decisions on one review - but I do find value in those reviews.
Jeff Eline
 
Posts: 647
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Baltimore, MD

Postby David Regal » 01/04/04 12:48 PM

Originally posted by ZafMagic:
Supposing David Regal reviews a book... i'd straight away be asking: "I wonder what Jamy Swiss might have thought of that?"
This is so weird. When Jamy reviews a book I always wonder what ZafMagic would have thought.
User avatar
David Regal
 
Posts: 433
Joined: 01/22/08 01:00 PM
Location: Burbank, CA

Postby Guest » 01/04/04 05:30 PM

Originally posted by David Regal:
This is so weird. When Jamy reviews a book I always wonder what ZafMagic would have thought.
Nice one! I guess this is as good a time as any to say that i've had more fun watching the 'Enough with the Tricks Already!' DVD than just about any other. Ironically, i purchased it on the strength of a single person's recommendation.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 01/05/04 03:10 PM

Hi Kelly,
Here are what a few other magi have said about my DVD, Stealing Pips:

David Acer:
"This is one of the BEST collections of original card magic I have seen on a DVD! Really terrific! You fooled me more times than I care to admit, and I found many of the methods as interesting as the effects."

Aldo Colombini:
"The magic I have seen is really good. I liked it a lot. The "Shot Caller" is good, as is "Once Upon A Time." My very favorite is "IC3" and it will be going into my shows right away. Well done!"

David Regal:
"Oz's "IC3" is an excellent ungimmicked version of my "Triple Vision", perfect for when the gaffed decks are at home and you want to slay an audience."

Also, look at reviews on the bottom of the page at:
Stealing Pips reviews

I felt there were valid points made in both Magic and Genii's reviews, but decide for yourself based on multiple sources if this DVD is right for you.

Regards,
Oz
Guest
 

Postby Brad Henderson » 01/05/04 03:28 PM

Whether one person reviews an item, or 10,000 it comes down to context. Unless you understand a reviewers stengths, weaknesses, interests, experiences, etc. you cannot put their opinions in context. While Jamy is a great reviewer, I would take any review he gave of a pro-psychic mindreading book with a large grain of salt. But I know that about Jamy going into it, and I can base MY decisions accordingly. Likewise, though Mike Close is a very knowledgeable magician, I don't think I would place as much gravitas on his words on an illusion book as I might if he were reviewing a book on sleight of hand magic, or magic theory.

Multiple viewpoints are great, but only if we as readers understand from whence those viewpoints come.

Finally, given sites like mylovelyassistant.com, visions, the magic cafe, and 4 major magic publications all with review sections it is almost a surety that the major items of interest will be covered by a variety of reviewers in these different venues. So in many ways, the question really is moot.
Brad Henderson
 
Posts: 2819
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: austin, tx

Postby Steve Hook » 01/05/04 05:35 PM

You nailed it, Brad.
Steve Hook
 
Posts: 779
Joined: 10/21/08 11:50 AM
Location: North Carolina, USA

Postby mrgoat » 01/06/04 07:03 AM

Originally posted by Brad Henderson:

Finally, given sites like mylovelyassistant.com, visions, the magic cafe, and 4 major magic publications all with review sections it is almost a surety that the major items of interest will be covered by a variety of reviewers in these different venues.
Heaven help us if all we had to judge an effect was the prepubescent wafflings of the Blaine wannabes at the magic cafe!
User avatar
mrgoat
 
Posts: 4257
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Brighton, UK

Postby Brad Henderson » 01/06/04 09:45 AM

Yes, but that is no different from those on here who have said they want many reviewers to review the same trick. They could just as easily be Blaine wannabees and given the dictates of magazine space requirements one might never get the chance to get to know their reviewers as well as we have come to know Jamy, Mike, Danny, David, et. al.

But think about what you have said, you KNOW that the magic cafe crowd contains such people, so when you see a review there it is very easy for you to put those thoughts into context. You can look at the users previous posts and decide if they are an idiot or not. If they are in idiot, I think there is value in knowing, "Well, this is the kind of trick an idiot would like."

Thankfully the magic cafe is but one voice we can turn too. It is by looking at many voices from many sources that we can obtain the information required for OURSELVES to make a wise purchasing decision.
Brad Henderson
 
Posts: 2819
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: austin, tx

Postby Anthony Brahams » 01/07/04 02:46 AM

Whether there is one reveiwer or there are several, it is important to maintain continuity with the same person(s) writing. Then the reader will get to know the likes and dislikes, and maybe whims, of the reviewer so that opinions may be "taken with a pinch of salt" yet with respect.
Anthony
Anthony Brahams
 
Posts: 196
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Norwich, U.K.

Postby CHRIS » 01/07/04 07:30 AM

Since we have here a long discussion about reviews and which style of review might be the best I wanted to throw in my thoughts as well and make a suggestion or pose an idea.

Why not adopt the system of science journals? If I submit an article to say "IEEE Transactions of CAD" the editor sends my article to several known specialists in this field. Each one makes anonymously comments about the article and grades it. The key ingredients are 'known specialist' and 'anonymous'.

The 'known specialist' guarantees that the reviewer knows what he is talking about and the 'anonymous' guarantees that he can write frankly and does not need to take friendship or other social requirements into account.

Certainly this is not a perfect system eiter. For example how do you find the specialists and convince them to make the review? But the system largely works and I don't see why it shouldn't also work in the magic field.

Chris Wasshuber
preserving magic one book at a time.
CHRIS
 
Posts: 678
Joined: 01/31/08 01:00 PM
Location: las vegas

Next

Return to General