What do you think of this year's THR coverage of SHOT?

How does last year's SHOT coverage compare to this years?

  • I overwhelmingly prefer this year's shootingreview.com's coverage

    Votes: 10 6.4%
  • I somewhat prefer this year's shootingreview.com's coverage

    Votes: 4 2.5%
  • I don't have a preference

    Votes: 30 19.1%
  • I somewhat preferred last year's sub-forum coverage

    Votes: 17 10.8%
  • I overwhelmingly preferred last year's sub-forum coverage

    Votes: 96 61.1%

  • Total voters
    157
Status
Not open for further replies.

CoRoMo

Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Messages
8,952
Location
California Colorado
The four days of SHOT Show took place last week and THR staff launched a new review site to cover the show, as opposed to the sub-forum that was located here for the total coverage of last year's show.

So comparing last year's SHOT experience via THR versus this year's experience via THR/ShootingReviews.com, how did you like it?
 
I found myself feeling out of touch with what was going on down there and caught myself perusing other sites to get status updates.

YMMV..
 
We didn't have enough people. We planned for more, but real life got in the way and it's hard to do with just 3 people (as in one group walking around.)

After doing it twice, I think it's reasonable to expect a pair of people to do 6-8 updates per day. If we could get 6 people there (so 3 teams,) each with their own interest and focus, then I think we can do SHOT the way it deserves.

But we had about half the coverage I thought we would this year, up until a few days before the show.

Hopefully next year...
 
I also have not found good coverage from here or said sister sites, last year seemes more comprehensive.

It dosent hurt that last year (IMHO) had better products.....
 
there are a couple issues that contributed to a less than perfect shot coverage.

1. Not enough people went specifically to cover the event (half as many as last year, or so)
2. there was not a lot to cover.

Neither one of these are anyone's fault.
 
We didn't have enough people. We planned for more, but real life got in the way and it's hard to do with just 3 people (as in one group walking around.)

After doing it twice, I think it's reasonable to expect a pair of people to do 6-8 updates per day. If we could get 6 people there (so 3 teams,) each with their own interest and focus, then I think we can do SHOT the way it deserves.

But we had about half the coverage I thought we would this year, up until a few days before the show.

Hopefully next year...

I fully understand the above statement and I hope to be able to help out in the future with staffing and I appreciate what those of you who did go and cover SHOT.

But I much preferred the subforum method. I too found myself wandering to other sites for coverage. I do think that everyone was having trouble in this catagory though in that overall, internet coverage seemed less fluid than in previous years.

I wasn't there so I can't contribute as far as logistics go for those of you that went. I know that you did the best you could and I appreciate the job you did.
 
I'm glad to hear there is a possibility of having a sub-forum SHOT show again like last year.
I just looked on Gunblast this year but not even much then because there wasn't anything all that interesting (not in my budget anyway :) )
 
Thanks for mentioning that FIVETWOSEVEN, I must have missed that. I just checked it out on Mossberg's website, I STRONGLY prefer the classic 30-30's but I might pick one of these up for fun :)
 
It wasn't my intention to poop on the efforts of the staff here. They certainly do a lot to bring us this forum and it's probably still true that most of them do it for free.

I was only curious if other members here were having a different experience than I was.
 
I appreciate that THR SHOT Show coverage is done on a volunteer basis, but honestly I was underwhelmed by it compared to last year. The Shooting Reviews site is more conducive to lengthier articles than up to the minute news, which is where an internet forum has an advantage.

I also agree that the 2012 show was mediocre. Seems that manufacturers aren't having much trouble attracting buyers so they don't need to rely as much on innovation. In a way that may be a good thing as new products aren't much good to anyone if there isn't enough R&D and manufacturing capacity to fully develop and ship them. No sense in getting excited about something that won't be ready until the third quarter of 2015, or whatever.
 
Last edited:
I think a combination of both methods for next year would be a better idea... Videos and pictures, along with immediate thoughts and observations for the subforum, then lengthier reviews and thoughts, maybe longer articles with pics and whatnot for the other site, plus links back and forth.
 
This is partially my fault.

I was all set to go to SHOT this year, and ended up having to cancel basically a week before the show due to some real-life responsibilities.
 
Uh, oh... guess I am not in the target market.

I was, until reading this thread, unaware of any effort by THR to cover either SHOT show. The little I remember, from Tom Gresham and American Rifleman, does not give me cause for concern over future efforts. SHOT is, after all, of, by, and for the marketers.
 
Last edited:
no offense to anyone involved in THR's coverage but I always check a million sources and webpages etc to get my coverage news of SHOT
that being said I do appreciate all the work that is done for this site and the coverage that is given to SHOT
I did like the coverage from last year more than the separate site but I think it was due more to the fact that last year had more coverage
the new format COULD very well be the way to go if we can get more people involved than what we had this year
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top