Why no new reviews?

[Bob_Skurka]

the tractor reviews suffer from a selection bias. . . and as you correctly point out, that the reviews are mostly done by new owners.

The huge problem with that is that these new buyers do not understand the benefit of one design versus another design. Theirs is best because that is what they bought, even if something else can be demostrated to be objectively better. They are blinded by some loyalty to justify the money they just spent.

it is useful to allow new owners to indicate whether their new purchase met their expectations

I tend to disagree simply because many of these new owners review their tractors BEFORE they have much experience with the machines. Further, they use words that are very imprecise like "powerful" and often apply it to their tractor with surprise when they don't realize that almost ALL tractors of that size offer similar capabilities. What good is a review from a tractor newbie that was written after 10 or 20 hours from a new owner? Honestly, if RoyJackson, or Soundguy bought a new tractor and he reviewed it after 10 or 20 hours then I would trust it because they have a frame of reference of how the tractor should perform based on their operation of other equipment.

How about a 1 year of ownership minimum prior to posting in a new section called "Long term reviews"? The standard would be that only owners who had a year of experience on the tractor

This is a very good idea. It would be even better if the operator had experience with other brands or other types of machines, but a 1 year & 100 hour minimum seems like it would at least flush out the new buyer bias.

Perhaps some format could be instituted by TBN that also asks some specific questions like the cost of the 50 hour service AND what is included in that service. Also if the owner transported the machine to the dealer, the dealer transported it free, or for a fee. Also a list of other expendatures (if any).

It also should be noted that ALL owners have some level of bias, nobody is truely bias free.

 

[Bob_Young]

Bob, that's an example of the 'perfect' being the enemy of the 'good'. If a review isn't written just so by someone who's a TBN somebody, then it's useless.

Give us a little credit. It's not hard to see who's writing from a state of tractor induced euphoria and who's making (or trying to make) an honest assessment based on fact. Posters which indicate the type of jobs tractor X was purchased to do and then describe how well it did that job perform a useful service to those wondering whether tractor X is enough to do similar work.....all without needing a wide exposure to the competing brands.

Sometimes you have to read between the lines to get this information, but if the review has been posted, at least it is there. If Joe Tractorguy reports he traded in his BX23 on a new L39 and praises it's trenching ability to the skies; you at least know that the BX wasn't cutting it for Joe. If you have similar work, the BX is probably a poor choice.

I'm in agreement that periodic reports as the tractor-owner relationship matures would hold great value as would reports of any follow-on maintenance/repair difficulties. Still a review posted "out of the box" records first impressions which are often important. Granted, you may see a dozen "there's no cup holder" gripes for every "HST lacks power on hills" or "3pt hitch lacks lift", but I'm willing to endure the chaff for the wheat.

One thing to remember is that by the time an owner has accumulated 100-200 hours on his machine, that model has often been supplanted by something newer. At that point a review will have little value for someone buying new.

One thing's certain; if the review system/policy continues as it is, we'll never see any reviews from Soundguy, RoyJackson or any other current or would-be TBN luminaries.
Bob

 

[MtnViewRanch]

So in order to give a review that is worth reading, you need to.

A--- Have over 100 hrs time on said tractor.

B--- Have over 100 hrs time on another brand equal of said tractor in order
to have a frame of reference.

I suppose that the months or even years of research on the different brands should also be listed so that the reader would have some sort of idea of where the reviewer is coming from and why the decision was made to purchase said tractor.

I would have to say that when restrictions are put in place in order to place a review, or that you need to list your qualifications to make the review, that there will be even fewer reviews than there are now. The reviews need to be taken for what they are, a report from the owner, good, bad, or otherwise. They are only a reference.

It would be nice if you could add a supplemental review attached to an original review, but that option does not seam to be available.

 

[Harvster]

............ a 1 year & 100 hour minimum seems like it would at least flush out the new buyer bias.......

The problem with something like this is it's easy to find exceptions. For example, say I worked on a sod farm for the last 10 years and have logged hundreds of hours on a dozen different tractors and implements. I finally buy a new tractor for myself and am not qualified to review it for a year? ( not the case, by the way, just a thought). I would just as soon see all reviews and decide for myself whom I choose to believe. If I see "Gee whiz this tractor has lots of horsey powers and sure is fun to play with on the weekends when I'm out here in the Hamptons" I may not put as much faith in that as a review that begins with "well growing up on the ranch in Kansas, all the tractors we had...". And even if I'm buying a new product or a new model of car or whatever I do believe there is some value in at least some initial impressions and opinions to go by other than the manufacturers' literature.

 

[RoyJackson]

I am surprised none of the operators or moderators have chimed in on this thread...especially since it appears one cannot post on the reviews page.

Well, if it does get up and running, I would like to see a request that reviewers own or operate their equipment for 6 months prior to reviewing. Six months should give an owner/operator enough experience to express his or her thoughts about their purchase and if they would buy the same tractor or other equipment again.

As far as strict "rules"...no...this is supposed to be a fun and (somewhat) informative website. Let's leave it that way.

 

[DK35vince]

Well, if it does get up and running, I would like to see a request that reviewers own or operate their equipment for 6 months prior to reviewing. Six months should give an owner/operator enough experience to express his or her thoughts about their purchase and if they would buy the same tractor or other equipment again.

Also owners who previously gave a reveiw should be able to replace their older reveiw with a new updated version once they had a chance to put on extra hours/years on the machine.

 

[JerryG]

I am surprised none of the operators or moderators have chimed in on this thread...especially since it appears one cannot post on the reviews page.

Maybe they are waiting to see what the membership posts about the reviews before they say anything.

As far as strict "rules"...no...this is supposed to be a fun and (somewhat) informative website. Let's leave it that way.

Would you really want to use a review that was posted just for the fun of it? Buying a tractor is a major purchase with a lot of money involved.
They need to have "rules" met before they can be posted. What use is a review from a member that compares their tractor to others if the reviewer only has 10 lifetime hours?

 

[joetria]

I just purchased a Kioti DK35SE Hydro. I only have 18 hours on it but i have to say that is really a fine piece of equipment. I looked at a lot of tractors but this had the the best overall design for a tractor this size. They thought of everything. the placement of controls is perfect, seat is great, pleanty of room to move on deck. The FEL loader control is near you so you don't have to hold your arm up to move it. The engine is quiet and starts very quickly. No smoke. Hydrostatic is the way to go. This is my first tractor. I have been looking for about five years (yeah, slow thinker) and finally came upon what i consider the perfect tractor. I have been so busy since i got it that i wonder how i ever got along without it. Joe

 

[Bob_Young]

Good idea, Joe. We won't let a disfunctional review system stop us. We'll just post the reviews here. Glad to hear you like your DK35. Anything about it you don't like?

Jerry, I've got no problem with "First Impressions" reviews. If I see the user has put less than 50 hours on the tractor, that's how I treat it. That type of review can give you a heads up on potential QC problems. If, out of three reviews of tractor X, two are raves and the third complains of the paint falling off on delivery; it tells you something.

You can say it wastes bandwidth, but no more so than all the tractor pictures everyone is encouraged to post (I like 'em too! ....Really!).
Bob

 

[MessickFarmEqu]

I know the other tractor review website does ask owners how much experience they have with their machine. About 60% of the thousand or so reviews are from new owners.