 Poster: A snowHead
|
My friend and I have been developing a Ski comparison tool for a few months now. It is still a beta version (though it already has 300+ 06-07 skis) but we would love your opinion and any suggestions on how it can be improved.
You can leave feedback here (I will check this forum). The tool can be found at:
http://www.spadout.com/ski.php?ski_t=2
Thanks,
Mark
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
markanite, welcome!
Neat tool. I'd put the column names at the bottom, too, along with the "Compare" button. The design is a bit kack, but it does what it needs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
Thanks hyw. Good idea about the headers being at the bottom too (esp the compare button). Any suggestions on how to make the design less 'kack'?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Nice toy, I notice it doesn't give length suggestions based on the height/weight data entered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Not bad, not bad at all. My main crit would be the omission of Head. While putting every single ski ever made into the system would be hard work, Head are the only major manufacturer missing (I think!). Any reason you are ignoring Head markanite?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
markanite, how does it work then?
I found "Simple" less than helpful. I tried "Advanced" which then asked me for "radius" and "waist". Haven't got a clue. Don't care.
I don't believe anyone who isn't racing would care and I don't believe many would be able to determine a radius or waist blindfold, ergo they are meaningless metrics.
And why is "technology" important to anyone? I just want a ski that performs. I don't care if the core is hand crafted cherry or machine lasted poo.
So, how do I make this work?
And how do I work out the point?
(4th edit) - I don't, honestly, mean to be un-encouraging or unhelpful, I'm just struggling with the basic concept
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Murdoch, I see your problem - the length box dosnt go all the way to 220 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| David Murdoch wrote: |
markanite, how does it work then?
I found "Simple" less than helpful. I tried "Advanced" which then asked me for "radius" and "waist". Haven't got a clue. Don't care.
I don't believe anyone who isn't racing would care and I don't believe many would be able to determine a radius or waist blindfold, ergo they are meaningless metrics.
And why is "technology" important to anyone? I just want a ski that performs. I don't care if the core is hand crafted cherry or machine lasted poo.
So, how do I make this work?
And how do I work out the point?
(4th edit) - I don't, honestly, mean to be un-encouraging or unhelpful, I'm just struggling with the basic concept |
To me radius and waist are important, I'd want a smaller radius and narrower waist for piste but just the opposite in powder.
I want a ski that is going to last and can take a hit without having to throw it away like a disposable bic pen, hence the reason I'd tend to go for wood core.
When looking for skis each year the names change and the number of choices never gets any smaller. Sometimes the name stays the same and the ski changes (e.g. Rossi B3).
The tool is very useful, it helps to narrow down the choices. I'd imagine for the complete begineer it was a godsend when trying to pick a ski.
More reviews would be better, but Isuppose this will come in time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
markanite I think - a few niggles aside, this is a really great idea for a tool. I would like to see more about the testing and comparison process (including whether the tops of the skis were covered to confound observer bias) before I trusted the judgements. It may be on the site, I just didnt find it,
I particularly liked the linked idiots guide to basics of ski design.
Some of the prices seem very high - eg recons for $1200, when we can easily get them for £480 with M12s, and the same price for outlaws...
Had you thought of linking to price comparison software... even froogle? Looking at the US version gives rather different prices from your MSRP... Only Idiots pay retail...
I looked at your resort chooser, and for the life of me I cannot see the point in having an index of whether the number of lifts at aresort is below or above average... What would be useful is the number of skiers per acre...
What is your business model?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DB, not wanting to divert too far off topic, I seriously doubt whether most people on this forum could tell one radius or waist from another. I often can't and I know I'm reasonably competent.
Case in point. I tried many skis at the weekend and they all pretty much felt the same from 68-ish waisted Atomic SLs to 100-ish and unwaisted BD Verdicts.
Honest. No matter what someone tells you, the theoretical radius doesn't matter once you're on them. Unless you're FIS racing.
Wood cores however? You may indeed have a point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Thanks for all the replies and excuse my delay.
Regarding prices: Those are MSRP which are always insane. I wrote a bot now that collects price data automatically for 7 different stores now so you can find the lowest price on any ski (or tent etc)
David: I appreciate the feedback. What would be the 'optimal' search? Obviously anything is possible.
Business Model: Umm, have fun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
I love the idea, and as more people use and comment, then presumably the AI will get more accurate.
One thing tho. (if I may), not sure about your 'length' projections At 180 (just under 6') and ok, I admit it, "overweight" by a few pounds..., you are projecting a 175 - 185 ski for me . Yet I am more than happy, indeed delighted, with a 167.
What's the algorithm? - Am I wrong to like a shorter ski?
Also, put my wife's details in, and practically every woman's ski ever made came up: It doesn't help her choose her next purchase! Is this because there is less knowledge within the Spadout team about women's skis?
But I reiterate, love the concept, and if you can find a few more variants on the questions, or perhaps ask some others, I am sure you will be able to narrow down the recommendations from the wizard. ( PS have you seen 20 Questions - now thats a tool for working things out from general answers!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| markanite wrote: |
| Business Model: Umm, have fun. |
well hope you have fun...
I have posted a link to this, and to the 2006 Castleford reviews in the wiki . Anyone who can think if a better place to put this - please do so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
stoats. Don't get me wrong if running a website made enough cash to take away my day job that would be awesome but right now I am glad it pays for the server it is hosted on. This is more a hobby. Thanks for the link!
JimW .. what r u putting in for your wife so I can do some testing (if you dont mind me asking)? No you are not wrong (of course); we are trying to find an equation that will work best for most.
Thanks again
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
markanite,
Advanced skier, occasional ungroomed, 160cm, 45kg, female, all makes
(I am sure she won't thank me for putting that on here!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
