New DinoToyBlog entries

[laticauda]

Just a heads up, whenever I sit down and do another review for the DTB, I will be doing some more prehistoric megafauna, Starlux figures, and a aquatic figure from Bullyland.  Also there are plenty of CollectA still to do, so who knows, there is a carnivore and a long neck that I could do as well.  I would be more specfic, but I like to be mysterious.   

Oh, and Gwangi, I love your reviews, so don't throw in the towel just yet.   

[Raptoress]

Are paint variation figures allowed to be reviewed if their regular counterpart has already been reviewed? I just acquired the Invicta painted Iguanodon at a car boot sale.

[suspsy]

The Schleich Triceratops
http://dinotoyblog.com/2015/05/30/triceratops-world-of-history-by-schleich/

[suspsy]

And Schleich Apatosaurus
http://dinotoyblog.com/2015/05/30/apatosaurus-world-of-history-by-schleich/

[Takama]

Thanks again Suspy.  I hope the multiple Emails were not too much of a problem

[suspsy]

Not a problem at all. I'm going to space out your reviews a bit though. I'll post the other ones tomorrow.

[Takama]

Are paint variation figures allowed to be reviewed if their regular counterpart has already been reviewed? I just acquired the Invicta painted Iguanodon at a car boot sale.

Technically, more then one review of the Same figure is allowed. it has happend Twice on the Blog, but it makes things more interesting if you review a varient to the one thats alredy on the blog.

Not a problem at all. I'm going to space out your reviews a bit though. I'll post the other ones tomorrow.

No problem with that .   Still waiting on a few more to be edited, and im waiting on one figure to come out already.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

What if the figure we wish to do a second review for has no alternate paint or version?

[Takama]

It still allowed.   Take a look at this

http://dinotoyblog.com/2010/12/27/triceratops-desktop-model-by-favorite-co-ltd/

http://dinotoyblog.com/2012/11/24/triceratops-version-2-kintofavourite-co-ltd/

[Gwangi]

It still allowed.   Take a look at this

http://dinotoyblog.com/2010/12/27/triceratops-desktop-model-by-favorite-co-ltd/

http://dinotoyblog.com/2012/11/24/triceratops-version-2-kintofavourite-co-ltd/

I can't say for certain because it is Adam's blog but I believe when situations come along like the duel reviews of that desktop Trike is is merely by accident or a fluke. Like someone didn't know a review already existed of said model. I don't think you can claim it is explicitly allowed without the owner of the blog chiming in but we've had this discussion before. Personally I'm in the camp that one review per model is satisfactory. If people have an opinion to share that is not addressed we have a comment section. On review per figure allows for easier navigation and a cleaner site overall. Who wants to scroll past a dozen reviews of the same model in the index? But like I said, I would hold off until you get an answer from Adam before making such claims.

[suspsy]

I'm with Gwangi. I prefer one review per model.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Just my own opinion but the concept of a single evaluation of a model to me is lacking for one reason.....generally it is reviewed close to its release or new date. As the model ages, generally understanding and knowledge increases regarding the model...and eventually it is retired either due to slower sales or a lack of accuracy.....I think that an updated review for such figures does nothing to detract from the original and offers a more current view as time progresses. This is in fact how the science itself works...ever evolving, an ever increasing the understanding of such animals.Avoiding doing such a thing cause it clutters someones sense of organization seems rather....trite . Think it would be much better to have updated information, just my feelings.
   I would not advocate this idea for all models, as many are fairly new, or recently released and seem to hold up well, but there are many that were reviewed some time back and have become either obsolete or less well understood....ie spinosaurus for instance.

[Takama]

Maybe the Blog should be Limited To Two Reviews per figure.

Exceptions

If the review is one of the very first on the forum a new review can be made

Case in point
http://dinotoyblog.com/2007/08/06/anhanguera-schleich/


If a figure is a Shrunken, Grown, or Retooled it is allowed
Case in point

Shrunken
http://dinotoyblog.com/2009/12/28/apatosaurus-schleich-2008/

http://dinotoyblog.com/2015/05/30/apatosaurus-world-of-history-by-schleich/

Grown
http://dinotoyblog.com/2011/08/17/tyrannosaurus-115-scale-version-by-collecta/

http://dinotoyblog.com/2009/02/14/tyrannosaurus-rex-proconcollecta/

Retooled
http://dinotoyblog.com/2010/04/12/tyrannosaurus-rex-jurassic-park-2009-toyline/

http://dinotoyblog.com/2015/04/09/tyrannosaurus-rex-bull-from-the-lost-world-jurassic-park-by-kenner/

[Halichoeres]

I read the blog for a while before I ever dived into the forum, and I still read it of course, and I will say that as a reader I think Gwangi has a good point. I would have found it tedious to slog through multiple reviews of the same model. (Although maybe I would have ended up going through them like I read NYT movie reviews--I read reviews by a few favorite critics whose tastes align with mine and ignore the rest.)

On the other hand there are a few reviews which are very short or even seem like placeholders (some say "a full review will be posted at a later date" or something similar). Appending additional comments to the same review as, for example, online newspapers sometimes do, wouldn't seem out of place in a review. It would be especially appropriate in the event that new fossils or new interpretations refine our understanding of anatomy.

Just my impressions as a reader-but-not-contributor.

[Gwangi]

I read the blog for a while before I ever dived into the forum, and I still read it of course, and I will say that as a reader I think Gwangi has a good point. I would have found it tedious to slog through multiple reviews of the same model. (Although maybe I would have ended up going through them like I read NYT movie reviews--I read reviews by a few favorite critics whose tastes align with mine and ignore the rest.)

On the other hand there are a few reviews which are very short or even seem like placeholders (some say "a full review will be posted at a later date" or something similar). Appending additional comments to the same review as, for example, online newspapers sometimes do, wouldn't seem out of place in a review. It would be especially appropriate in the event that new fossils or new interpretations refine our understanding of anatomy.

Just my impressions as a reader-but-not-contributor.

The short place holder reviews often are written and replaced and I agree that's as it should be. I don't see a need to update a review to fit with our changing interpretation of certain animals. If we did that than every Spinosaurus review would need to be rewritten or edited which is just a PITA. Newer reviews on newer models of the same animal will take those changes into account. No need to go edit the Carnegie Spinosaurus review based on last years findings when a CollectA review will no doubt be written that takes that science into account.

[suspsy]

Should have said this earlier, but I think Gwangi's suggestion for a review writers' sub-forum is a good idea.

[suspsy]

And another Schleich.
http://dinotoyblog.com/2015/05/31/giganotosaurus-world-of-history-by-schleich/

[Dinomike]

Wow! Lots of new stuff! Yay!

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I read the blog for a while before I ever dived into the forum, and I still read it of course, and I will say that as a reader I think Gwangi has a good point. I would have found it tedious to slog through multiple reviews of the same model. (Although maybe I would have ended up going through them like I read NYT movie reviews--I read reviews by a few favorite critics whose tastes align with mine and ignore the rest.)

On the other hand there are a few reviews which are very short or even seem like placeholders (some say "a full review will be posted at a later date" or something similar). Appending additional comments to the same review as, for example, online newspapers sometimes do, wouldn't seem out of place in a review. It would be especially appropriate in the event that new fossils or new interpretations refine our understanding of anatomy.

Just my impressions as a reader-but-not-contributor.

The short place holder reviews often are written and replaced and I agree that's as it should be. I don't see a need to update a review to fit with our changing interpretation of certain animals. If we did that than every Spinosaurus review would need to be rewritten or edited which is just a PITA. Newer reviews on newer models of the same animal will take those changes into account. No need to go edit the Carnegie Spinosaurus review based on last years findings when a CollectA review will no doubt be written that takes that science into account.

Problem with this way of thinking is precisely what it says..it fails to take into account how the changing science reflects on each figure and perhaps alters its accuray or adherence to scientific ideas. So, if you are using the reviews here to decide wether to purchase a figure and the only information that is current and offered is for a figure done by another company you are just out of luck. Further if the newer figure fails to take into account the updated science, then we get even further behind the eight ball and look even less well informed or up to date.That is not even to consider suppose the new figure is not well done and brings a whole new buffet of errors to the table that were not present in the previous models. If people want to update older reviews or do updates for figures which the science has given massive changes it not only should be allowed, it should be encouraged. The idea that a review that might be six to eight years old and out of date being sufficient is hard to get behind.........I do not think saying it NEEDS done is the correct wording, but if someone wants to , I am unsure why that would be problematic to anyone in particular.

[DinoToyForum]

I'll create a subforum for reviewers in due course.

Good to see some new reviews posted today, but I did notice some work is required to tighten them up. For example, there is some out of place capitalisation and spaces, and typos. So, just a note to please take care.

Also, I think it is nicer to publish the reviews more evenly over the course of a week. No more than one a day is perfect. Otherwise, reviews can get lost at the bottom of the pile and don't receive the attention they deserve.

Still happy to see the blog so active though! Thank you!