Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [backpackgeartest] Testing gear

Expand Messages
  • artcloutmn@aol.com
    In a message dated 10/17/00 2:22:11 PM, geartester@hotmail.com writes:
    Message 1 of 10 , Oct 17, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 10/17/00 2:22:11 PM, geartester@... writes:

      << Due to the poor report response, I'm shutting this list down. I had made
      arraingements for gear from Hennessey and Big Agnes to test but it appears
      this list was just precieved as a gear give away. >>

      I hope that is not true. I suspect my experience may be the same for others.
      From the beginning I assumed the delivery of the inline filter would be
      within a few days of the original request for participant. I had plenty of
      time to get out and hike during the summer. In fact I planned a three day
      hike with my daughter during which testing could occur. But the filter did
      not arrive on time. The inline water filter distributed in early september
      came after my fall schedule had begun. Injuries during a summer hike have
      made it even more difficult to get out on the trail. However, I have
      scheduled a trip in November to put the device to a thourough test. Maybe it
      would be wise to specify an accurate date and a deadline for testing. Those
      who cannot make the schedule should not participate.
      Please reconsider. I think it is an excellent idea. It is a great way
      for serious hikers to be informed about new products on the market or about
      to go on the market. The mechanics of the product testing may need to be
      refined to make this work well.

      Art Cloutman
    • Gear Tester
      ... From: Timothy Scott Is it me, or did this list not generate a TON of reports on the filter, and some pretty good suggestions about improving the product?
      Message 2 of 10 , Oct 17, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Timothy Scott
        Is it me, or did this list not generate a TON of reports on the filter, and
        some pretty good suggestions about improving the product?

        It's you. Only 9 of the 10 testers acknowledged receipt of their filters. We don't know what happened to the 10th one. Of the 9 who received their filters one was broken during assembly. It seemed that the Seychelle rep offered to replace that filter. We don't know if that ever happened. Of the remaining 8 that received filters and more or less got them assembled we received 3 reports just reporting assembly and first impressions with no follow up testing of the actual filter operation at home or in the field. Of the 10 testers only 3 actually provided results of home and/or field testing but those 3 were very good. I was really looking forward to some feedback from BigSkyRy but he either didn't recieve one or is fully ocupied on his own projects. The vast majority of the posts concerned weither or not the filter should or shouldn't pass dye, how to screw it in, and weither or not the white rubber peice was for both back flushing and start up clean out. Maybe I'm just being to critical but I had hoped for more than 33% actual testing. Makes it kinda hard to approach more compaines if they actually look at the posts on this run.

        Perhaps a more formal report would have helped. Maybe sending the reports
        directly to the company?

        No reason to assume the company would recieve more posts than we did. I know a number of people found they didn't have time to test the filters. That's why I called for testers for that test at that time instead of just picking people out of the list. If they didn't have the time to test they shouldn't have volunteered.
        I guess I was too informal in this. If I try another product for testing it would have to be clear that the minimum required posts are: 1. receipt of the product 2. first impressions and any problems 3. some use of the product and the results of that use. This would be required of everyone that receives the product.


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Yelverton
        I think the latter would be a better idea than the first. Then any tester that didn t comply could be restricted from testing. It seems like there is a good
        Message 3 of 10 , Oct 18, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          I think the latter would be a better idea than the first. Then any tester that didn't comply could be restricted from testing. It seems like there is a good chance that we have some very good testers out here that haven't had an opportunity to prove that just yet. There are only ten people who have had any involvement in this, and it seems like we have quite a bit more members than that. I don't think shutting down the list because of a less than satisfactory first run is the best idea for the group nor the manufacturers. Who knows? Perhaps this bit of counceling to the group by yourself has already improved the performance of the next test.

          Mike y!


          Gear Tester <geartester@...> wrote:

          ----- Original Message -----
          From: Timothy Scott
          Is it me, or did this list not generate a TON of reports on the filter, and
          some pretty good suggestions about improving the product?

          It's you. Only 9 of the 10 testers acknowledged receipt of their filters. We don't know what happened to the 10th one. Of the 9 who received their filters one was broken during assembly. It seemed that the Seychelle rep offered to replace that filter. We don't know if that ever happened. Of the remaining 8 that received filters and more or less got them assembled we received 3 reports just reporting assembly and first impressions with no follow up testing of the actual filter operation at home or in the field. Of the 10 testers only 3 actually provided results of home and/or field testing but those 3 were very good. I was really looking forward to some feedback from BigSkyRy but he either didn't recieve one or is fully ocupied on his own projects. The vast majority of the posts concerned weither or not the filter should or shouldn't pass dye, how to screw it in, and weither or not the white rubber peice was for both back flushing and start up clean out. Maybe I'm just being to critical but I had hoped for more than 33% actual testing. Makes it kinda hard to approach more compaines if they actually look at the posts on this run.

          Perhaps a more formal report would have helped. Maybe sending the reports
          directly to the company?

          No reason to assume the company would recieve more posts than we did. I know a number of people found they didn't have time to test the filters. That's why I called for testers for that test at that time instead of just picking people out of the list. If they didn't have the time to test they shouldn't have volunteered.
          I guess I was too informal in this. If I try another product for testing it would have to be clear that the minimum required posts are: 1. receipt of the product 2. first impressions and any problems 3. some use of the product and the results of that use. This would be required of everyone that receives the product.


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






          eGroups Sponsor




          To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          backpackgeartest-unsubscribe@egroups.com


          I


          ---------------------------------
          Do You Yahoo!?
          Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf! It's FREE.

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.