Restructuring our home theater projector reviews – feedback welcomed

Greetings all,

In studying our visitors’ habits while reading my projector reviews I have noticed several patterns.  I believe they call for a review redesign, and I’ll appreciate getting feedback before implementing changes in about a week.  

The two items that are “of concern” are these:

Relatively minor – it’s surprising to me – but only about 30% of a review’s readers ever visit the warranty page.  This is a shame, as in many cases warranties vary widely.  It’s not unusual for a group of competing projectors to have some with only 1 year warranties, others with 2 years, and a few with 3 year warranties.   Since projector repairs – out of warranty, tend to be very expensive one would think people would want to consider the differences, and the potential, down the road, possible costs. 

Of greater import, however, is that virtually all readers start with our first page – the  index.php page of a review –  the one that contains Overview and Physical Tour, etc.

But only about 70% of those readers ultimately make it to our Summary page – the last page of the review, which currently contains not only a general summary, but a list of strengths and weaknesses of a projector, and how that projector compares to the competition.  Having lost about 30% of readers before this point is concerting to me, so I’m looking to roll out a new organization for the home theater projector reviews.

This is what I have in mind: Putting our conclusions up front.  Also, making it much easier to jump to any particular topic, so those in a hurry, or lacking interest in an area, can get the information they are looking for, more directly, and quickly.

It is my hope to switch to a new format next week, (10/26), with the first review to use it, to be the Panasonic PT-AE3000U review, publishing before month end.

Current structure:

Overview
Image Quality
General Performance
Warranty
Summary, Pros/Cons/Competitive

Most of you are familar with this layout, so I didn’t bother to break out all the anchor sections in each.

For the potential new layout I’m also listing some of those anchor sections since I’m looking to move some of them around (Bullets indicate separate pages, indented represent some of the major topics included on that page:

  • Main Review page
       Brief Overview, Basic specs
       Pros and Cons
        Summary:  Analysis and Recommendations
  •  Image Quality
      Out of the Box Performance
      Black Levels and Shadow Detail Performance
      Overall Picture Quality
  • Physical Attributes
      Tour of unit (includes (control panel, inputs, remote control, menu)
      Lens Throw and Lens Shift (plus anamorphic support, other related info)   
  • Projector Performance
      Brightness
      Sharpness
      Measurements and Calibration
      Key compatibilities (ie. HDMI version, support for 24fps, Deep Color, frame interpolation (96/120hz)
      Image Noise 
  • Special features of note (relatively unique ones)
  •  Projector Competition
  • Warranty
 An outline similar the one above, would appear on each page.  In addition, likely adding a link at the end of each topic, pointing to the index back at the top of that page.   That means readers will be able to jump right to Projector Brightness, Calibration, Projector Competition, or Black level/shadow detail and other topics s from any page in the review.  And get back to the index quickly by clicking, instead of scrolling.
Ultimately this format will put all the key “general information” including recommendations, on that very first page, for those not up to navigating through the full length of the reviews.  Or those that just want to get the “big picture”.
We will finalize the new review layout this coming week.  OK, it’s time to put in your 2 cents, if you have suggestions.  
thanks -art


News and Comments