you are spot on. the mags want to stay in business (and they should want to) and have to find a silver lining in even the most 'ordinary' and the 'most overpriced'. what next, the 5,000 MOST RECOMMENDED COMPONENTS?
what are your views regarding reviewing styles ?
at the risk of being simplistic, i would say there are two broad categories of reviewing--criticism and reporting and the connotations of subjectivity and objectivity.
a reviewer can present an opinion of a component,providing evidence from listening, as to its quality relative to other compoents of the same class and then express a preference for that component relative to other components of the same class, often using ornate phrases.
alternatively a reviewer can describe his perceptions without using adjectives, not indicating a preference in an attempt to be factual. the idea is not to influence the reader by using words which may have a positive or negative valence associated with them.
much of today's reviewing is what i would call advocacy reviewing. there are very few instances where reviewers try to strictly inform without influencing.
what do you think ?
a reviewer can present an opinion of a component,providing evidence from listening, as to its quality relative to other compoents of the same class and then express a preference for that component relative to other components of the same class, often using ornate phrases.
alternatively a reviewer can describe his perceptions without using adjectives, not indicating a preference in an attempt to be factual. the idea is not to influence the reader by using words which may have a positive or negative valence associated with them.
much of today's reviewing is what i would call advocacy reviewing. there are very few instances where reviewers try to strictly inform without influencing.
what do you think ?