What do you want/need in a deck review?

[AJ]

I've been thinking about adding deck reviews on Amazon (which I encourage Everyone to do) but what's helpful, what makes a review vs. just an opinion?

Combined thoughts from following posts
Use a formula for each review:

...Deck background if known
...artwork. Particularly re: faces. Primitive/Collage/CGI computer art/
...Readability. Nonstandard images good for intuitive/story telling/journaling/meditation? Or familiar basic tarot imagery?
...Or conversely, why someone might hate it AND why someone might love it, even handedness
...System: RWS, Thoth, TdM, outlier, explain system if outside the three standard
...Theme/Concept
...symbolism
...Renamed majors? and why
...Keywords?
...How the courts are handled
...Little White Book or companion book if a kit
...Publisher/year/ which edition, including the ISBN
...Artist and author if different (have they done other decks?)
...Cardstock finish card size in both metric and imperial, Borders, Backs
...Box/Container
...Summary which includes Technical review, and personal opinion overview (positives And negatives)

 

[Zephyros]

The reviews here on Aeclectic are excellent; I suspect this is because they are from and writing to the same demographic, i.e., tarot users writing to tarot users. I like reviews that talk to me, not promotional fluff meant for love and light fans of Doreen Virtue. I suggest you study them, most follow a more less set formula of background about the deck, the box, artwork, symbolism, LWB and then personal general summation of the review. Both a technical review and an opinioned one. On the other hand Aeclectic is an "industry" site, so they are by necessity more detailed; Amazon is a lot more general, and people who will read your reviews may not be of the same sort.

Of course, there are some reviewers I like to read more than others, but that's due to their writing style.

 

[Chiriku]

There's actually a reviewer who posts on Amazon and elsewhere whose reviews I do like, even/especially when I disagree with her tastes, because she is very thorough and not only touches on all aspects of a deck--art, size, cardstock, concept, use in readings--but backs up all her statements with reasons why she feels this way. As a result, I've been enabled on decks she hated, precisely because the reasons she set forth for her dislike were all things that I myself like.

Of course, yes, I would want to know about the Minors-- non-scenic pips, full scenes, or something in-between?

Which "system" does it follow, and if it's a brand new one of the author's invention, describe it please.

Were the Majors renamed, and if so, what are the new names and the author's explanation for them?

 

[Alamaris]

I'm not hugely picky about the content of deck reviews, although I like to see the basic rundown of the deck's physical properties -- is the cardstock good, is it too big to shuffle if you have small hands, does it have ugly borders?

The only thing that really bugs me is when a reviewer bases their opinion of the deck on how well it reads. This is so subjective! You can read with gumdrops, if you know what you're doing. A deck is a tool. It would be better to state if the deck reads well for a specific type of reader; say the images are rich and detailed and have evocative worldbuilding, then it would be good for an intutive reader who takes a story-telling approach to reading the cards.

My only other desired part of a review is artistic, and I don't mean praising the art style. I need to know about the people's faces! No faces -- totally fine. Good faces -- even better. Wonky faces? I will not be buying that deck.

 

[jema]

I want the basics, such as is the system RWS or Thoth or what? Is the minors scenic, are the courts handled with care etc. Is the cardstock horrible or not, are there extra cards.

but after that I want to know what you thought about it. Reviews in my opinion should be subjective. That is why I read them. The technical specs I can get elsewhere if need be.

 

[Richard]

I mostly want the art to be good and consistent with the Rider-Waite or Thoth decks.

 

[Narwhallove]

The only thing that really bugs me is when a reviewer bases their opinion of the deck on how well it reads. This is so subjective! You can read with gumdrops, if you know what you're doing. A deck is a tool. It would be better to state if the deck reads well for a specific type of reader; say the images are rich and detailed and have evocative worldbuilding, then it would be good for an intutive reader who takes a story-telling approach to reading the cards.
.

Haha, I couldn't read with gumdrops because I'd be too busy eating them!

The Aeclectic reviews are good, esp. in that they're descriptive and remarkably accurate regarding the art, cardstock, and general vibe. But sometimes I find them too positive. I suppose the reviewers don't want to badmouth a deck with what is most likely subjective opinions, yet this doesn't help. I love tarotpassages's reviews, and am sad they're no longer keeping up the reviews. (Someone tell me if I'm wrong!)

They're opinionated, sharp, and perform the journalistic necessity of telling you what their personal biases are so that you know going in why they like or dislike something. This is the most important aspect of a review for me. For example, if someone says, "How many RWS clones do we need?" and proceeds to give a clone an excellent review, then I know this clone has got something special going on. So that to me is the critical aspect of a review: the writer's admission to his/her preferences and tastes before proceeding to review.

 

[AJ]

Wow, super responses, thank you!
I'll add the ideas to the first post.

For those with no art background, what are some artwork descriptors you'd suggest? I've put Primitive

 

[Cassandra022]

for me, things like readibility, art-work quality, whether it is beginner friendly or not, etc. are all subjective, and stuff I can judge for myself in looking at available images/scans.

in reviews, I'd like to hear about things like size (especially compared to other well known decks), cardstock quality and ease of shuffling, if its a set how good the book is/how the overall packaging is, traditions it falls into, if there are any MAJOR shortcomings (horrible courts, lazily done minors etc) or MAJOR strengths that wouldn't be immediately obvious.

 

[Teheuti]

I try to think about the type of person/approach/need that the deck would serve and who it wouldn't serve. I want to know the intent of the designer(s) (stated or assumed) and how well they fulfilled that intent and then who might most appreciate that perspective. This is a little more subtle than simply which 'school' the deck follows and how pretty the artwork is. It's like Narwhalove said - it's being aware of biases (one's own and those of potential buyers of decks) and addressing these. I try to put myself in the shoes of someone who would love the deck and then figure out what that person would be looking for. I also try to imagine who would hate the deck. If I can clue people to these things with a few specific examples then it lets each deck stand on its own merits or points up where it may have failed to do what it seemingly wished to accomplish.