Which YouTubers give negative reviews?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
It's not that I totally distrust all reviewers It's just that I don't know the extent of their personal preferences, their bias, or their agenda.

To that end, because I don't have the opportunity to handle the physical product myself, I watch all the reviews closely to see what there is and listen closely to try to separate truth from fiction. I don't believe unsupported claims.

I find that being patient and waiting for the non-professional "reviews" posted by people who actually bought the product I can get a good idea if should commit, without any touchy-feely to an online purchase. Been pretty lucky so far.

It really helps to have a suplier you can trust. AirGun Source (Peterborough, Ontario, Canada) has been great to deal with. Hope everyone has a supportive suplier!

Cheers!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chasdog and sekiar
Upvote 0
Sawney Bean said:
I watch all of his videos. They're good for things like chrono numbers and an overview of the products. The problem I have with them is that it appears that his groups are heavily cherry picked. Seriously, I don't think I've ever seen him shoot a group with pellets that measured more than 1/2" and when he did his review of the .72 Zeus he claimed that the DonnyFL Great Kami would make it backyard friendly. That's just straight up BS.
Click to expand...
I agree, I've always been suspicious of his reviews. They always seem way too positive and his "negative" comments are usually some minor nitpicking thing that doesn't really matter.
 
Upvote 0
You have to understand, these reviewers get guns real early to promote them. They can’t say “this sucks or that part is crap” - they’ll never get another item to review again. You just have to listen closely. If you hear phrases like, adequate, gets the job done, or sometimes it can stick or cycle a bit rough but not a major issue. Those are things or functions that could have been done better. Steve and myself are not compensated reviewers, we’re just dudes that like airguns, we don’t want to crap on any company’s efforts and discuss with them about any issues we see. Whatever is strong about the product- we’ll say so. But we try to be careful not to glorify an item or disparage it unduly. Just try to give accurate impressions. I watch to see the great in every new presentation, then I watch for embellishments. Then judge accordingly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sekiar
Upvote 0
It might depend a bit on how negative you want the reviewer to go.

For example, AAR (Andy's Airgun Reviews) is pretty positive for the most part, even about products they review that aren't the best. But rather than crap on the things he's reviewing, he does the more typically British thing of giving faint praise, or encourages the manufacturers to consider this and that modification, etc. So if you're familiar with the channel you'll understand the review is being fairly negative. But if you're not familiar it might not come across that way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chasdog, WorriedMan and rangur1
Upvote 0
delooper said:
It might depend a bit on how negative you want the reviewer to go.

For example, AAR (Andy's Airgun Reviews) is pretty positive for the most part, even about products they review that aren't the best. But rather than crap on the things he's reviewing, he does the more typically British thing of giving faint praise, or encourages the manufacturers to consider this and that modification, etc. So if you're familiar with the channel you'll understand the review is being fairly negative. But if you're not familiar it might not come across that way.
Click to expand...
Thank you, that's helpful. I love watching AAR because I like his personality a lot, but I've never heard him say a bad word about a gun and it's just hard to believe that they're all so great. This wouldn't be an issue if I could get my hands on them before buying, but unfortunately that's not the case.
 
Upvote 0
To play a little devils advocate manufacturing isn’t perfect. If a reviewer gets a single sample with a problem is it fair to review that in a negative light thus making it look like all the guns might be trash ? I don’t think so and I know when this happens people give the companies a chance to make it right or they just don’t review the product. Completely fair in my opinion. You will hear some even say this. I know Nate mentioned it about an m4. I know Steve did this with the original avenger. Had to get a replacement for a bad reg which turns out wasn’t exactly uncommon.
 
Upvote 0
Trucker3573 said:
To play a little devils advocate manufacturing isn’t perfect. If a reviewer gets a single sample with a problem is it fair to review that in a negative light thus making it look like all the guns might be trash ? I don’t think so and I know when this happens people give the companies a chance to make it right or they just don’t review the product. Completely fair in my opinion. You will hear some even say this. I know Nate mentioned it about an m4. I know Steve did this with the original avenger. Had to get a replacement for a bad reg which turns out wasn’t exactly uncommon
Click to expand...
That's if you believe a vendor is going to send a reviewer and gun that they haven't checked out first.
 
Upvote 0
kwaping said:
Thank you, that's helpful. I love watching AAR because I like his personality a lot, but I've never heard him say a bad word about a gun and it's just hard to believe that they're all so great. This wouldn't be an issue if I could get my hands on them before buying, but unfortunately that's not the case.
Click to expand...

I think if you pay close attention to his videos you'll see the negative being implied.

For example, he has many reviews where he mentioned a feature of a gun did not work. So he sent it back, and a replacement was sent to him. But he'll phrase it very lightly and talk about how cooperative and helpful the manufacturer or distributor was. Or if he sees a problem with a gun, rather than talk about it being problematic for a high-end gun he'll maybe mention it's a bit expensive for a gun with reduced capabilities (i.e. only suitable for plinking, close-range pesting, or whatever).
 
Upvote 0
BGarney said:
That's if you believe a vendor is going to send a reviewer and gun that they haven't checked out first.
Click to expand...
That doesn’t bother me as common sense will tell you with any make model in existence there will be bad ones out there. Just research into some of the most expensive guns in existence , the alpha and delta wolf, the problems are extensive. Is what it is and I don’t particularly want to see a YouTube video showcasing a bad one 🤷‍♂️
 
Upvote 0
No reviewer with good business sense that is working towards a monetized channel is going to tell you something sucks unless (s)he’s carved their own niche doing so. It’s just seems like bad business. I think that owners of some of these companies understand flaws that exist in production. I’m pretty sure they also understand quality control issues and weigh that on the risk/reward scale before marketing products. Here’s where the reviewer’s value comes into play. Essentially they’re just an incentivized advertiser. You play for free and may earn a little extra cash for your time and carefully thought out words. Then there are the guys that say everything is the best, greatest, most accurate. They’re mostly full of horse 💩 IMO unless they’re very selective about what they review.

You have to be a damn fool to publicly say things that I say or others (who are not reviewers) post on forums like AGN when you identify a flaw or discrepancies between performance and advertising. Not only will manufacturers, distributors, and retailers distance themselves from you, but sausage-slurping consumers may also attack your views and distance themselves from you. If you depend upon your reputation to play for free, that’s a suicidal route to take. It seems that many people want you to be nice to them all of the time no matter what they do. I don’t advocate that practice. If you make a crappy product or provide crappy service, damn it someone has to have the balls to inform the public. They don’t have to be nice about it, especially if members of the supply chain or sausage mob are trying to act like the problems aren’t problematic.

Reviewers have biases. Identify them and view accordingly.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: kwaping
Upvote 0
Ezana4CE said:
No reviewer with good business sense that is working towards a monetized channel is going to tell you something sucks unless (s)he’s carved their own niche doing so. It’s just seems like bad business. I think that owners of some of these companies understand flaws that exist in production. I’m pretty sure they also understand quality control issues and weigh that on the risk/reward scale before marketing products. Here’s where the reviewer’s value comes into play. Essentially they’re just an incentivized advertiser. You play for free and may earn a little extra cash for your time and carefully thought out words. Then there are the guys that say everything is the best, greatest, most accurate. They’re mostly full of horse 💩 IMO unless they’re very selective about what they review.

You have to be a damn fool to publicly say things that I say or others (who are not reviewers) post on forums like AGN when you identify a flaw or discrepancies between performance and advertising. Not only will manufacturers, distributors, and retailers distance themselves from you, but sausage-slurping consumers may also attack your views and distance themselves from you. If you need to depend upon your reputation to play for free, that’s a suicidal route to take if you’re trying to get someone else to fund your hobby. It seems that many people want you to be nice to them all of the time no mater what they do. I don’t advocate that. If you make a crappy product or provide crappy service, damn it someone has to have the balls to inform the public. And they don’t have to be nice about it, especially if members of the sausage mob are trying to act like the problems aren’t problematic.

Reviewers have biases. Identify them and view accordingly.
Click to expand...
What's your channel, I would like to check it out.
 
Upvote 0
Trucker3573 said:
Most all of the YouTubers I watch give the negatives or dislikes about a gun. One has to keep in mind that they get one sample for a short time. That doesn’t mean there is no chance you will get a bad one. Is what it is.
Click to expand...
yup, we're never going to get a full review of a gun when it's only handed to the youtuber for a few days.

& how often do those guns arrive raw and untouched by the vendor? I'd be stoked too if I received a scoped rifle to play with. Short of any big issues it's proabably going to get a positive review.

the only reliable review is the real-world kind involving long term ownership
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chasdog, Joedirt199 and Trucker3573
Upvote 0
How is telling the truth considered negative? If you state the facts about every gun made, they will all be considered negative reviews. It’s kinda funny how we all FF through commercials or upgrade a subscription to avoid advertisements, but guys are addicted to airgun commercials. Repair videos? God bless those guys for taking the time to actually put out something meaningful. I believe most good guns would still sell if reviewers were honest but not vicious. Truly bad guns would be in trouble though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kwaping and Joedirt199
Upvote 0
I feel that most of the channels' priority is views and then referral clicks. The most helpful reviews I find are usually the ones not recommended by the "algorithm" and are put up on personal channels by regular Joes with less than 1000 subscribers. The guys that are not using YouTube as income but to share information. That's the old school YouTube I miss.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kwaping and Joedirt199
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Resources
Menu