Well, here ya' go, Kristin. 

I don't agree.  I don't think Bentley should move away from objectivity and technical aspects in his evaluations and be more subjective and sexy.  I'm not particularly interested in opinions.  I think that you're just another person with an opinion if you don't have data, and opinions don't really prove anything.

Now—if he would say, "Based on the stellar performance in the XXX test I think that this pit is your best choice if you primarily bake breads and soufflés or cook Beef Wellingtton" then that's an opinion that I'll consider.

I always preferred Bentley's objective performance evaluations.  He would write, "Here's what that pit did on the XXX test.  Here's what it did on the YYY test."  Then someone would ask, "Do you think would...?"  Bentley would answer something like, "That's an opinion.  I'm not publishing opinions.  I'm publishing test results, you can form your own opinions."

Bentley, don't move far from that position.

I believe you need to decide who your target viewer is, and focus your presentation in that direction. If you're making this evaluation for a group of highly experienced pellet grill owners who have multiple , high end units, who already understand what are the critical operational elements of a cooker  ...... Then you are succeeding! ..... Now, if you are attempting to illustrate the pro's and cons of this manufacturer's cooker to a bunch of lurkers out there that are currently cooking on gas or charcoal, but are considering moving towards pellets,  ... well that's another story. I was a "Nubie" once and had no knowledge or experience. I looked at cooker reviews to see what would work for my situation and needs. But I also looked for input from an experienced person. ..... "I'm not publishing opinions, I'm publishing test results. You can form your own opinion". Well, that's great! for the group mentioned above, except, if you are a novice and know nothing about it, you might value the opinion from someone who does. And opinions aren't bad, if they are based on fact and experience, unless you're afraid you're going to upset the manufacturer by something you said. If that's the case, why do a review. To me, a review, based on fact should put the viewer in the picture of using the machine. .... Much of that critical information is located on the first page of the review. Do I need to see 3 graphs of pellet usage , or do I need to know, that at the set points listed in the review, that the pellet consumption is x,y, z. AND more importantly I need an opinion, based on the reviewers knowledge, as to whether that consumption is good or average, or bad for that class of machine. Again it all depends who you are trying to reach or who you are trying to amuse. If you are looking to bring new people into pellet cooking then put the viewer in the picture. Kristin calls it sexy, FMT says add personality, basically bring enthusiasm and interest to the presentation. You are a respected voice and you have the podium. ... Why not use it.
 

+1 Queball

Pmillen, I don't see it as moving away from objectivity, but adding a different layer.  But that could be my training.  As a litigator, you are taught you gather the facts.  Whether presenting the facts to a judge or a jury, you present everything -- good, bad -- because you don't want them to find out about the bad fact from someone else and lose your credibility.  You also need to know the law, i.e. the technical stuff.  But then you take the facts and the law and argue your case -- this is the persuasive element and how a good lawyer wins.

Do I recognize a difference in these tests?  Yes, there is no client, there is no winning or losing.

But Queball has a valid point about some of the tests.  His example of pellet consumption is a good one.  Ex. --fact, X pit consumes 1 lb an hour at 350 degrees.  Great.  That is a fact.  Now is that good, bad, average?  I don't know.  I have never paid attention.  It might be nice to know.  If Bent says, that is average consumption based on my experience that is an opinion.  So some would say, in an objective test, he should not offer that opinion, let the reader form their own. But, even though I have been around these tests for years, I could not tell you if that would be good or bad or average, so some guidance would be nice and not out of line.  Will it make a difference in whether a person buys a pit?  Maybe.  But on the other hand, I understand Yoders can be pellet hogs and that does not deter people.  They just have that info and factor it in.

Let's just say Bent posts the salmon cook with the pic and the basic of how he cooks it.  It looks bad.  It tasted bad.  It was not what he normally does with salmon. Say he doesn't make his posts about how he thinks maybe he did something wrong in how he cooked the salmon and gets some feed back.  Along comes someone like me and looks at that picture and doesn't understand the whole cooking process and that things were done different this time and I think one of two things "That guy doesn't know how to use a pit, why pay attention to anything he does"  or "Man, what an awful cook, that pit must not be good for certain foods".  It is Bentley's subjective comments on how he cooked the fish that give some context. 

So, like I said earlier, to me, it is a balance.

Food for thought...  is pellet more consumption good or bad?  I've heard at least one person argue that more pellet consumption means more smoke... and more smoke flavor.   

Nothing wrong with your discussion, it is quite good!  You were just messing up my gig and I could not have that! 

good idea this thread should stand on its own

Food for thought...  is pellet more consumption good or bad?  I've heard at least one person argue that more pellet consumption means more smoke... and more smoke flavor.

You make a good point -- so maybe the terms aren't good, bad, average but high, low, average.  People can make a determination if high consumption is good or bad.

Food for thought...  is pellet more consumption good or bad?  I've heard at least one person argue that more pellet consumption means more smoke... and more smoke flavor.

You make a good point -- so maybe the terms aren't good, bad, average but high, low, average.  People can make a determination if high consumption is good or bad.

Thanks  for splitting this off from the  Camp Chef performance test discussion...

Kristen,  your comments inspired my thinking on this... I honestly don't know if  more pellet  consumption is good or bad... or just the way it is on any particular grill.  But if the facts are laid out in a reasonably well controlled test,  data is gathered and presented well... i, or any grill buyer can decide for ourselves what to think of it.

I love the pellet consumption and graphs combined... I asked the original question about probe placement information, for more context with regard to the data.  To me probe position is valuable information in conjunction with the rest of the test data.

 Bentley had mentioned the biscuit test and how Larry like it.... I too love the biscuit test.  Similar to the temperature graph data, positions of the biscuits can play a big role in what the results look like.  One person might argue burnt biscuits near the parmeter are misleading about the overall performance of that particular pellet grill... still others see it as valuable information about how evenly heat is distributed.   My feelings are the later and as long as the biscuits are distributed in some reasonably well defined way, it's all useful information.

I myself have cooked stuff that looks great but doesn't really taste that good, and vice versa. So for me... pictures of a cook in general are not useful... but I wouldn't argue to not do cooking of food and provide photos... others may very well see that information as highly valuable.

LSJ - quit posting here and give us some pizza cook pictures. 

Whatever happened with that pizza oven you bought?

My opinion?

I'm a technical guy, and for me to truly understand something, I need to know the hows and whys.
A pellet smoker just isn't that difficult to comprehend. It uses wood for heat. Electricity, gas, charcoal... all do the same thing. They create heat.
So what's the other defining matters any particular grill has to offer? Size, build quality, add-ons... All pretty straight forward and most likely easily assimilated by the average consumer.

I'm by myself, so I have a Traeger Jr Elite. It took me a while to get used to cooking on it. I'm not convinced this learning curve doesn't apply to all pellet smokers. Folks simply have to know that it's not quite like the regular oven in yer house. I have an $800 convection oven in my home with that fancy glass stove top. I haven't used it in 4 years. It does have an advantage over a non-convection type, but that's about it.

Pellet consumption never crossed my mind, but's a nice thing to know. If yer buying yer pellets right ($.50/lb), that equates to 3 bucks for a 6hr cook.
Funny thing is, a LOTTA folks don't mind going out to dinner and spending $50.00 for two on a meal. What could you do with that same 50 bucks and a pellet grill?

I digress...

In short, I think there's a balanced approach that needs to be applied. Pros and cons concerning the 'mechanical' qualities of the unit, and actual cooking samples with a few notes thrown in. Biscuit test? Meh... Just stay away from the edges. Simple. Pizza that hogs up the grate area? Make sure you rotate it on occasion.

Obviously, the larger more expensive units have more to offer in cooking aspects. Those are easily addressed as well. All should be explored as everyone's needs are different.

It's like football. If yer going to win consistently, you need a well balanced game plan. Offense (design/build quality), defense (functionality/ease of use), and special teams (food prep and execution).

That's all I have to say about that.