It's cute (and a lot of work), but I've grown wary of online reviews, even seemingly in-depth ones, because if you run a review site, there's an immense pressure to post a review right after a product comes out. And at that point, you just have no idea about long-term durability or comfort, which is really the only thing that matters for items like shoes. At best, you can theorize.
I've been burned by many products that get rave reviews and then fail due to basic manufacturing problems after several months or a year. This is also common for "hobby" reviews, a lot of Amazon reviews are basically just unboxing experiences. And the worst thing is, you often can't go back and post a review when you actually know how the item performs because the product doesn't exist anymore. Sorry, there's no jacket called Canyon Rider, that was a 2024 model, but check out the new Vertex Comfort 7. There's no lawnmower model Maxx 3000, we're only selling 7040 XP. And so on.
Because this is how the online ecosystem works, manufacturers optimize for the unboxing experience over long-term durability and get away with it. I don't know how to fix it... I imagine you'd need some sort of a system where people simply can't post reviews until n months have elapsed, and the reviews attach to the manufacturer, not the product itself. But who would want to use that?
Also, I think the toe box durability test has a big flaw... At least in my experience with running shoes from Asics (Kayano and the other similar one).
The toe box durability test is just from the top, not both the top and the bottom. My Asics, supposedly among the best in their category, are crapping out after 1 or 2 months of just walking.
"At RunRepeat, we conduct lab tests on hundreds of athletic shoes yearly, measuring everything from shock absorption (ASTM F1976 13) to traction (SATRA TM144). We make this data available to researchers and academic institutions to support science in footwear, biomechanics, and material developments."
Documenting measurements, using machine testing, and standardizing evaluations is above and beyond any YouTube unboxing.
these days it seems after 6 months manufacturers are just going to manufacture next year's model anyways: it's so annoying, you find a shoe that works well for you and you have a year and then the new model changes the cushioning or the dimensions or whatever.
To me this is the most important part of these reviews, what changed in terms of dimensions and fit, bonus would be if they gave them to some 100-120mpw runners to get a durability test and a re-review a month later to see how they're holding up, but don't think I see any site doing that.
It's cute (and a lot of work), but I've grown wary of online reviews, even seemingly in-depth ones, because if you run a review site, there's an immense pressure to post a review right after a product comes out. And at that point, you just have no idea about long-term durability or comfort, which is really the only thing that matters for items like shoes. At best, you can theorize.
I've been burned by many products that get rave reviews and then fail due to basic manufacturing problems after several months or a year. This is also common for "hobby" reviews, a lot of Amazon reviews are basically just unboxing experiences. And the worst thing is, you often can't go back and post a review when you actually know how the item performs because the product doesn't exist anymore. Sorry, there's no jacket called Canyon Rider, that was a 2024 model, but check out the new Vertex Comfort 7. There's no lawnmower model Maxx 3000, we're only selling 7040 XP. And so on.
Because this is how the online ecosystem works, manufacturers optimize for the unboxing experience over long-term durability and get away with it. I don't know how to fix it... I imagine you'd need some sort of a system where people simply can't post reviews until n months have elapsed, and the reviews attach to the manufacturer, not the product itself. But who would want to use that?
Also, I think the toe box durability test has a big flaw... At least in my experience with running shoes from Asics (Kayano and the other similar one).
The toe box durability test is just from the top, not both the top and the bottom. My Asics, supposedly among the best in their category, are crapping out after 1 or 2 months of just walking.
"At RunRepeat, we conduct lab tests on hundreds of athletic shoes yearly, measuring everything from shock absorption (ASTM F1976 13) to traction (SATRA TM144). We make this data available to researchers and academic institutions to support science in footwear, biomechanics, and material developments."
Documenting measurements, using machine testing, and standardizing evaluations is above and beyond any YouTube unboxing.
What if they'd retest shoes after 6m/12m and compare certain parameters with the first review? Basically checking if manufacturing quality degraded.
these days it seems after 6 months manufacturers are just going to manufacture next year's model anyways: it's so annoying, you find a shoe that works well for you and you have a year and then the new model changes the cushioning or the dimensions or whatever.
To me this is the most important part of these reviews, what changed in terms of dimensions and fit, bonus would be if they gave them to some 100-120mpw runners to get a durability test and a re-review a month later to see how they're holding up, but don't think I see any site doing that.
Luckily this depends on manufacturer. I've been buying La Sportiva BoulderX approach shoes for around 10 years. I have like my 7th pair or something.
These guys are legit, really good reference website
[flagged]