Hobby Search recently introduced a fun little addition to its already well established sale-based ranking system ...
Direct and visible customer feedback is often a double-edged blade for online retailers. On one hand, you'll learn which products attract customer's wallets, direct other customers to those products, and be able log data for future pre-orders and sales promotions accordingly. On the other, sales have the potential to drop even farther on items that don't find favor with the majority. For instance, a figure that is consistently rated poorly by customers can directly influence those would-be fence sitters into staking their territory, when, in lue of a rating system, they may have been more likely to take the plunge.
Apparently though, Hobby Search has weighed the possible outcomes and implemented a Customer Satisfaction Rating system to tally the collective opinions of its users, whether or not they decide to level up and evolve into customers. The system bases its numerical ranking on a 5 point scale (like sigfigs) and reflects those points into the pentagonal radar seen above. There are 5 dimensions of evaluation on which to base a rating. Unfortunately, none are clearly defined. After some thought I came up with a few basic definitions I believe to accurately reflect Hobby Search's intentions in establishing those 5 dimensions and their implied meaning:
Well-Proportioned:
1. Referring to the anatomical balance, presentation, and accuracy of a figure
2. Anatomy is consistent with that of the character from which it is derived
Coloration:
1. Appearance in regard to the color arrangement or use of colors
2. How that arrangement maintains fidelity to the original character
3. Quality of painting or color choice; as decided and applied in production
Faithful to the Original
1. Accurately or responsibly transitioned from an original illustration
2. Including no major deviations from the decoration master
3. Identical to past editions or iterations; as in recasts or color variants
Character's Charm:
1. Efficiency in capturing all aspects of a character or illustration
2. Established appeal of the character; regardless of figure's portrayal
Facial Expression:
1. The anatomical accuracy of facial features
2. The accuracy of facial features as they pertain to the original character
Though I think there are far more than 5 dimensions that should be considered when weighing the quality of a figure, Hobby Search does an applaudable job in managing to hit the basics by resourcing attention to both sculptural and character aspects. So with that, evaluate responsibly and buy often.
03 October, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
Hm.
I think all the mentions of "True to original character" may be out of place outside the specific category merited to it. Such as when it comes to colouring, regardless of how true to the original it is, does it look good, and did they stick to the lines or there are blotches and failed shadings?
I think Anatomy is funny, because is it anatomy for the character, or human anatomy? Anime characters often don't obey the proper laws of anatomy, as we all know.
It's funniest when it comes to nendoroids, which usually get a hit at either "Faithful to the Original" or "Well-proportioned". I guess people don't understand that they are "SUPER-Deformed" on purpose.
As for Character Charm, I think it has two meanings: How "cute" the figure is, and yeah, how much you like it, overall.
As always, I'm somewhat disturbed by the fact that most those who rate figures don't own them, and moreover, didn't actually see final shots of the final product, but shots created and potentially manipulated by the company, and perhaps are even prototype model shots.
The weight of "true to the original character" can't be underestimated, reason as to why I included multiple definitions for each division to include that criterion.
For coloring, determining if it "looks good" can be based on either of the three definitions, only one of which includes mention of a character aspect. Accurate critique requires both an understanding of the character and a more removed understanding of what is acceptable in terms of quality.
As for anatomy, as figures are representational (emphasis here) of human anatomy, its a mixture of the two. Obviously if the character designs disregard accuracy and lean to deformity (as in your example of Nendoroids), that would have to be taken into account. Likewise, if, say, a portion of the head is incongruous in respect to the entire skull and for no apparent reason, such a defect would have to be labeled under an error in human anatomy by the sculptor. Again, in providing multiple definitions I attempt to summarize the possible understandings of each dimension. It's hard to tell what Hobby Search is exactly denoting with just those 5 categories and there's a wide range that can fit in each.
I'm sure they're aren't too many people that take ratings VERY seriously. Most probably rely on their discerning eye just like everyone else. The system does provide a competitive and fun flavor to Hobby Search though. I find myself browsing just to see how and which figures were rated.
Hm.
You know, if you see a figure is rated at 2.44, it'd probably move from "Maybe" to "No", and you won't even click more photos, many a time, or so I've found.
Well, in anatomy, I meant times when the sculpt is true to the character, who isn't true to real humans' anatomy, such as extremely long legs, some facial features and, well, cup-sizes at times. But mostly leg-length, heh.
I kind of know what you mean. Though I wouldn't have the cup-sizes any other way.
Post a Comment