Toolbox Talk: Rating tool user capabilities for yourself

One of my biggest pet peeves is this ridiculous habit so many reviewers have of trying to rate a tool's usability by skill level or user job type.

Far too often, reviewers use tags like "pro", "prosumer", "DIY", or "Home".  to poorly communicate a tool's use potential.  It's a poor standard and it sets up too many discussions for arguing about a given user's abilities rather than the tool's usability.

The reason they use tags at all is to try to get across how durable and how much power a given tool has.  The more durable and powerful, the higher it ranks with "Pro" as the highest ranking.

But to be honest, that's a very poor way to communicate that information about a tool.  It presumes that a tradesperson or someone employed in a full time construction type job has the demand for most durability and power.  That's wrong on at least two counts.

First, a tool has more to consider than just durability and maximum power potential.  Those can be important but not even close to the only important factors.  There are things like handling, operability, power controllability, designed use case, and then yes, durability and power potential.

Then there is use environment.  Where is the tool being used, is it being used by well trained professionals who are almost always concerned with tool care and maintenance or handed to a minimally trained laborer who isn't interested in tool care and maintenance?

Is it being used in a production or fabrication high output environment where the tool is in nearly constant use for 8 or more hours a day?

Is it being used on job sites where it's use isn't constant but frequent.

Perhaps it's being used by professionals or "general output" staff with random use needs.  One day it's going nearly constantly for 8 or more hours, then it might see infrequent use the next day then limited to no use for the two days in a row following that.  

Then you have the folks who are using a given tool one or two days a week if that often for home maintenance, crafts, hobby work or sporadic job requirements.

A tool rated by a reviewer as being "home" or "DIY" level might actually be a perfectly appropriate tool for a skilled professional with an infrequent or sporadic need for it.  But might not even consider it because the reviewers inappropriately mislabeled it.

Keep in mind the first rule of tool rating and reviewing;  A tool's primary opponent is the task, not the other tools.  In other words, rate the tool in regard to can it do the work realistically expected of it? 

I say realistically because there are way too many reviewers who have utterly insane ideas for how much power or conditions a tool should perform in to be considered good.

First off, a tool's should start with the specs laid out in it's user manual.  They will tell you what the tool is designed to do and the conditions for optimal operation.  Read the damn manual people.

Second, establish a list of tasks that you anticipate using a particular tool for 90 percent of the time.  That's what you buy a tool for, not for the top or bottom 5 percent that you will rarely, if ever actually use the tool for.

Third, start rating a tool by "can" it do those tasks you listed.  That's it.  Can it perform the task.

Fourth, then we consider how well did it perform the tasks.  Did it barely get them done?  Did it do the tasks easily?  Somewhere in between?  If so, is that level of performance acceptable in your particular use case?  That is very important.  Your use case needs may not be what another person's use case needs are.  

Just because it performs well enough for someone else with different expectations, in a different use environment, with different interests doesn't necessarily mean it will perform well enough for you.  Maybe it's perfect for your needs but not someone else.  And that's OK. Contrary to a lot of juvenile thinking tool users, it's not a race or biggest brand fan boy competition.

A tool that performs just fine for a handyman may not be be the right tool for use in a factory.  Let's go back to those factors again;

1. Handling- is it awkward or comfortable to hold and use.  How is the grip, is the weight balanced well?

2. Operability- is the trigger good, are the control switches, dials, etc in good places.

3. Power controllability- is there a limitor, torque clutch setting, etc.. to manage power application as needed.

4. Designed use case.  Is the tool intended, designed, made, to perform the task you want to do?  Is your task within that scope, or reasonably close?

5. Durability- Is it more fragile than you need it to be?  Can it take a 4 foot drop? Do you work from ladders and can it take an 8 or 10 foot drop and still function?  Can it take getting wet from rain?  Dropped in mud?  Stepped on, kicked?  Are those issues your tool will need to face a lot?

6. Power potential- yes, is it powerful enough to do the more challenging tasks within your 90% if anticipated use for that tool?

Forget being a reviewer.  Each person needs to evaluate a tool they intend to buy and use for themself.  Reviewers get it wrong more often than they get it right.  Because they are evaluating based on their own criteria or an assumed set of criteria toward a targeted and specific group of users.  You may not be in that group.

Your tasks and projects, your money and time spent doing them.  Your own tool evaluations based on your needs and use.

Tool reviews and ratings can be a starting point.  Especially if you know who their target readers or viewers are and fit into that group to some degree.  But never let any reviewer, myself included, tell you which tool is the right one for you.