View Full Version : Isn't it time the Buyer's Guide was reviewed?
28-04-12, 01:14 PM
I raised this point with the editor four months ago and was, apparently ignored, so let's find out just how extensive are the errors in the Buyer's Guide in the magazine.
I've noticed that,
In 'Compacts £150 - £200' the Panasonic FS35 rates a score of 384%. (Super-Camera?):rolleyes:
In 'Lenses Nikon' the summaries and designations of the two versions of the Nikkor 18 -55mm are in conflict (the designation 'VR' is quoted for thr non-VR lens and vice-versa).:confused:
I feel confident that there are more errors but with my limited knowledge and experience am ill-equipped to find them all.
In the interests of assisting the proof readers (if such creatures exist at WDC) let's contribute the errors we have detected to improve and maintain this potentially useful reference material.;)
30-04-12, 09:18 AM
Thanks for raising these issues with us. I'm not sure which issue of the magazine you're referring to but, as far as I can see, in the most recent (May) issue the above errors have been corrected.
As I'm sure you can understand it's a fairly difficult task to operate such a vast Buyer's Guide at a level of 100% accuracy, although this is the level to which we strive.
Feel free to point out any more inaccuracies, and we'll correct them at the soonest available opportunity.
30-04-12, 10:00 AM
Hi Paul. Thanks for the response.
I'm glad to hear that the May issue has corrections.
The latest issue that I have for a reference is the April issue as we seem to have a distribution problem with the May issue here, in Plymouth.
I've also found that the Nikon D5100, which I own, is listed as being a 12 megapixel camera when it has, in fact, a 16 megapixel sensor.
Of course, I can only check the details of those items with which I am familiar and, I trust that you understand, the purpose of this thread is to enlist other readers and users to contribute to the list of corrections needed.
Perhaps, when funds and schedules permit, you might investigate the possibility of integrating the Technical Specifications data from your reviews and previews into the database for the Buyers' Guide.
This approach may ease the task and limit errors in future.
14-05-12, 12:31 PM
Hello again Paul.
Thanks for the complementary copy of the May issue.
On checking the Buyer's Guide I noticed that the confusion with the Nikon 18-55mm lenses has still not been resolved, despite your claim in your last post here.
What I find disturbing is that, on their first inclusion in the Buyer's Guide, the short list of lenses from Fujifilm already shows an error.
It lists two lenses as Fujinon XF18mm, one described as a wide-angle and the other as a telephoto.
When such mistakes are so easily made and not caught before going to print and perpetuated in the June issue, how sound is the advice to C Loughrey, writer of the Prize Letter in issue 183, to carry a copy of WDC to enable reference to the Buyer's Guide?
Also, when will the WDC website have a searchable copy of the Buyer's Guide (hopefully corrected and including older equipment, preferably with links to reviews and previews)?
It is the one glaring omission that could make the website the ultimate 'go-to' place for information for photographers worldwide.
17-05-12, 10:24 PM
I'm aware that there are a lot of errors in the Buyers Guide and this is something that we hope to address more effectively from the next issue. The problem is that, as you can imagine, there is a colossal amount of data in the guide. This means that errors inevitably creep in when new entries are being added, and keeping it fully up to date could easily be a full time job for someone but we don't have the resource to do that. But from next month we will be doubling the man hours dedicated to updating it, and having a dedicated person who isn't trying to do other things at the same time. It may take a while to find and correct all the errors, but if anyone who spots one posts in this thread it will be a great help.
Sadly I don't think we'll be able to put this resource online any time soon as the amount of development required to produce an HTML version, with hyperlinks, is beyond what we have available. We could probably just post the pdfs of the buyers guide pages, but I don't think that would be especially useful. Or would it?
18-05-12, 03:14 PM
I'm glad to hear that the printed version of the Buyer's Guide is to get it's long needed overhaul but a little saddened by the lack of any prospect of movement on an online version.
A print-out from the .pdf of the Buyer's Guide (or downloaded to an e-reader or smart-phone) might prove rather more portable than a chunky rolled up magazine in the back pocket, less likely to be left on the couch and could prove invaluable, especially when confronted by a shop window offering something that appears to be an unmissable bargain but you can't remember how it scored on test..
The online .pdf could include older entries that have since been discontinued but regularly show up on the second hand scene, as it isn't limited by the available space in the print editions.
On the subject of the HTML version, have you considered interviewing IT students with an interest in photography and/or journalism for internships?
I should expect that there are a few who'd jump at the chance.
I mean Ken Rockwell and his ilk are getting on now and aren't quite as well organised or concise as they could be.
Perhaps there's a place for a dynamic new player on the field.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2014 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.