如何撰写器材测评报告
摘自cloudynights中文翻译请见http://blog.sina.com.cn/u/4c6ee55101000a6b，不对之处希望不吝指教。
How To Write a Product Review
One of the best ways a person can get information about an astronomical product they are interested in is via a well-written review by someone who actually owns that product and has used it over some time. However, to be truly useful, a review must not just be a long version of "I loved it", or "I think its a pile of junk!". It must be a *fair* well thought out in-depth discriptive discussion of what the product is, its intended uses, and how well it works on the tasks it was designed for. One fairly good way to learn how to write reviews is to just write them for a while in your local Astronomy club newsletter (or even on sci.astro.amateur), and take note of any feedback you get. The basic rule in writing is: the more you write, the better you get at it, and this goes for reviews as well. After writing reviews for a number of years, I have found a few helpful ways of insuring that the review remain focused and beneficial. They are not intended as "rules" which must be followed to the letter, but hopefully, some of these tips might be of use to those of you who decide to take the plunge into critical writing.
爱好者获得其感兴趣的天文器材相关信息的最好方式就是，通过阅读已经拥有这个器材并且使用一段时间后的爱好者所撰写的专业测评。作为一个有用的评测意见，不应该只是简单的“我喜欢他”或者是“我认为这是一堆垃圾”之类的。一个好的公平的评测，应该是有深度的描述和讨论，包括这个器材是什么，主要的用途，根据设计目，这个器材的表现如何等方面。学习写评测的一个非常好的途径是向你当地爱好者协会等组织投稿，并留意有关的反馈。写评测的基本规律是：你写得越多，得到的有关反馈越好，同时也将指导你的评测。当写了几年评测以后，我发现有一些有益的做法可以使你的评测始终保持关注。下文中的技巧并不一定非要作为写器材评测的规则，但是这些技巧对于希望投身于严格的器材评测的同好来说，可能会非常的有用。
Tip #1: Structure The Review
A review which has little or no structure can often end up as just a long rambling essay which is difficult to read and which fails to make the review's relevant points stand out. Putting an organized form to the review helps the author organize his/her thoughts, as well as making it a little easier for the reader to pick out the information of interest. Each author will undoubtedly have to develop their own style of organized form, but as an example, I will show my own review form. I usually divide my review articles into four distinct segments: the Preamble, Product Description/Features, Product Performance, and Summary remarks.
技巧一：评测文章的结构
一篇没有结构的测评文章是没有生命力的，因为又长又漫无边际的评论很难读懂，也不利于表达作者的观点。结构严谨的评论，可以帮助作者凝聚他的思想，对读者来说，也容易找到他们所感兴趣的信息。的确，每个作者都有自己的风格，但是我通常都把我的测评文章分为四个部分：导言，器材（特点）描述，器材表现以及结论。
The PREAMBLE generally consists of the title (including product name, manufacturer's suggested retail price (MSRP), and an available outlet for purchasing) along with some brief introductory remarks. These remarks could eflect an experience you had which made you think about buying the product, or they could be just a quick summary of what the product is. Let's say I am going to review the XYZ Optics new product: THE WHIZ-BANG; an automatic telescope "setter-upper" (yea, right, I know, wishful thinking!). My preamble could go something like this:
导言一般由标题（包括器材名称，厂商指导价，购买渠道等）和简短的介绍。这些评论可以反映你为什么要买的原因，或者也可以对这个器材做一个简要的总结。如对一个新的XYZ产品进行评测，导言我可以这样写：
*** XYZ Optics WHIZ-BANG ***Automatic Telescope Assembly DeviceMSRP $449.95 from Beagle Optics(some assembly required)
"One of the more frustrating things for the amateur astronomer is setting up their scope in the middle of winter with cold gloved hands lifting heavy mirror boxes while fumbling to find the right Allen wrench without impaling the neighbor's dog with the truss tubes! Well folks, our troubles are over! The new XYZ Optics WHIZ-BANG automatic telescope assembler with the push of just one button takes much of the agony out of assembly, and some of the confusion out of collimation!"
The Preamble sets the tone for the rest of the article, and can drop a few hints as to how the reviewer feels about the product (obviously, this reviewer likes the Whiz-Bang). At the very least, it should act as a kind of "expanded title", to give the reader a rough idea of what the product actually is. It also should be *short*, so as not to keep the reader from having to wade through too much material to get to the meat of the article.
导言可以确定下文的论调，你可以在导言中做出一些细微的暗示，比如你对这个产品的总体感觉等等。至少导言应该像一个延伸的标题，可以给读者关于这个产品的一些粗略印象。但是，必须简短，内容太多会让读者抓不住文章的精髓。
The next section is the PRODUCT DESCRIPTION/FEATURES. This section often is the 1st or 2nd longest one in the review, and should include the product's vital statistics and features (size, weight, aperture, appearance, accessories, ect.), as well as a complete description of exactly what the product actually does. However, extremely technical descriptions of function are not always necessary, unless a lack of such knowledge might severely impact the owner's purchase decision or future use of the product. The Product Description can include a few comments concerning how well things go together or opinions on design and setup, but most of the main review criticism should probably wait until the Performance section gets going..
另一个部分就是产品描述和特点。这个部分通常在测评文章中，不是第一就是第二长。，应该包括产品重要统计资料，产品特征（尺寸，重量，口径，外观、附件等），是一个全面的产品实物介绍。但是，对于特别专业的内容并不是必需的，除非缺乏这部分知识将严重影响爱好者购买决定或者是将来的使用。产品描述还可以包括一些组装和设计方面的说明，但是主要的测评意见应该在器材表现的部分后面再作出。
The third section, PRODUCT PERFORMANCE, is the real meat of the article, and contains most of the information about how well the product worked. Its information should have a firm basis in actual use of the product, with accounts of *extensive* observations or first hand experience with the reviewed item. However, to keep this section from going too long, observation reports should probably be limited to those which show specific performance traits (ie: don't make it an overly-long unorganized "laundry list" of uncoordinated observations or objects which just look good in the scope). Keeping things down to an easily readable length should be kept in mind continuously when writing good product reviews.
第三部分－器材表现部分，是全文的核心，包括关于这个器材表现的大部分信息。这些信息都有实际的器材是用作为基础，包括一些延伸项目的观测以及关于器材测试项目的第一手经验，但是如果这一部分太长，把各个项目简单的罗列在一起，容易造成主次不分，这个器材特殊表现的方面反而容易被人忽略。所以，好的评测文章还是需要尽量保持简单易懂以及适当的篇幅。
The final segment is the SUMMARY REMARKS, which sort of "ties the ribbons" on the review. In it, the reviewer gives a brief one or two line summary of the article's highpoints.
最后是结论部分，作者可以画龙点睛的对整篇文章进行一两行的高度概括。
Again, as an example, here is the WHIZ-BANG summary:
"SUMMARY: The XYZ Optics WHIZ-BANG Automatic Telescope Assembler is a good way to avoid some of the headaches involved with the nightly setup routine. While not inexpensive, nor able to completely eliminate the setup process, it does provide a much simpler and less irritating way to get things up and running."如对WHIZ－HANG的总结：XYZ自动望远镜装置是解决你众多头疼问题的很好的解决方式，包括每天晚上的组装问题。虽然价格不便宜，也不能完全解决你的装配问题，但是他确实提供了一种更加简便的方式，把你的望远镜组装并且运行起来。Hopefully, this style of review organization will give you at least some idea of how to proceed when writing one yourself. You need not stick to exactly this kind of layout, but I have found this form to be a fairly useful one. As far as to how long a review should be, it depends greatly on what the reviewed item is and what the style of the writer develops into. However, remember that the faster you are able to convey the information to the reader, the better the review will generally be.当你自己写测评的时候，希望这种文章结构至少可以给你一些借鉴的地方。你不一定非要按照这种模式写，但是我发现这确实是一种很有用的方法。至于文章应该有多长，这与测试项目多少以及作者的风格有关。但是请记住，你越容易把信息传递给读者，那么这篇文章就越是一篇好文章。
Tip #2: Know Your Product
A review should be done *only* after the reviewer has had a *lot* of time to use the item. When I first reviewed Celestron's "Short Tube" 80mm f/5 scope, I had used it for only two weeks. However, after some more study (and some additional input from a friend of mine), some of my opinions and experiences changed significantly, requiring a partial rewrite of the performance section. I would probably recommend no less than a month or two's experience with the reviewed product before even attempting a first draft of the review. Also, when doing the initial observations, explore a wide variety of targets or techniques to fully determine what works with the product and what may or may not work well.技巧二：了解你的器材对器材的评测必须通过长时间的使用后才能作出。我第一次写CELESTRON 80 F／5镜子的评测时，只用过两周的时间。随着研究的深入，一些观点和感受也起了很大的变化。因此我建议，器材使用少于1个月或者2个月的，尽量不要做评测，那怕你仅仅是想做一个评测的草稿。而且，你应该选择更多的目标和办法来确定这个器材到底如何。
Tip #3: Do Comparisons If Possible
Comparing one scope to a similar one can really help the reader pin down their feelings about purchasing the scope. However, there are some potential pitfalls with this method. If the apertures are not the same or the viewing comparisons are done under differing conditions, performance differences can be seen which are not necessarily the fault of the reviewed instrument.
技巧三：尽量作对比。把相近的器材进行比较，可以帮助读者再买望远镜时克服感情色彩。但是，这种方法也有很多潜在的缺陷。如果口径不同，或者在不同条件下进行比较，器材的表现肯定不同，这可能并不是器材本身的毛病。
Quality differences due to vast differences in price can also lead to an undue slant to the review. To help avoid these problems, the items which are compared should be fairly equivalent to each other, and should be used under the same conditions. For telescopes and eyepieces, observations should be made at nearly the same magnfications and atmospheric conditions. If you can't easily do such comparisons, just state what your experences are with the reviewed item and try to avoid speculative comparisons or those done from some old memory about a scope you once used. One thing I have done for reviewing smaller aperture scopes is to use an off-axis stop on my ten inch to simulate a small scope's performance, thus allowing a comparison at equal apertures.巨大的价格差异导致的器材质量不同，也会影响评测的公平。为了避免这个问题，测试项目应该相同，并且在相同的条件下做比较。如果这种比较不是很容易做到，你就陈述对于这个测试项目你的感受，尽量避免主观比较或者是仅仅用老的经验做出结论。
Tip #4: Use Your Observational "Tools"
For optical assessment, the star test is one of the better ways to judge performance, so you should become familiar with at least a simple form of this test. However, remember that to the critical well-trained eye, the star test is capable of revealing optical defects which have little or no impact in the final in-focus image, so don't be too critical. Double star tests, while interesting to mention in reviews, are not quite as useful for judging the contrast and quality of optics, since things like secondary obstruction and residual spherical aberration often don't impact the view of double stars as much as they do high power planetary detail. For telescope mountings, become familiar with the "tap" test on a variety of mounts, so you can accurately judge how steady a reviewed mount is. Damping times of 3 seconds or less at moderate powers can be considered good to excellent performance in a mount, depending on the exact power used and the telescope size being supported.
技巧四：用好你的观测工具。对于光学评测，最好的办法就是对星点进行测试，所以你应该熟悉一些简单的测试方法。但是请记住，训练有素、挑剔的眼睛，通过星点测试，可以发现一些光学上的暇癖，但是这些小问题对最终成像几乎没有影响，因此你大可不必那么挑剔。双星测试，对判断反差和光学质量并不是特别有效，残余球差的散射通常不会影响双星观测包括高倍测试行星细节方面。对望远镜支架的测试，通常采用轻敲的办法，中倍率下，颤动三秒或者更少，则可以认为这个支架有优秀的表现，但是这也取决于合适的倍率以及镜子的尺寸。
Tip #5: Write a Fair and Balanced Review
It can be hard for a person to put aside many personal beliefs and just put up the facts, but many times, that can be a good way to write a good review. The personal touch of opinion can be blended into the later parts of a review, but for the best results, the facts come first. The key is to be very aware of your biases and compensate accordingly. I like Newtonians, so if I review a refractor, that bias sometimes has to consciously acknowledged or even supressed a little in order to keep the review balanced. Quality and price issues are also a bias. For example, a small low-cost wide-field refractor like the 80mm f/5 "short tube" achromats cannot easily compete with the performance of an expensive 3 element Apochromat, nor should it be expected to. These inexpensive scopes don't generally perform as well at higher powers, but they were never designed to do so. To call them less than satisfactory just because they don't do well in one area, or against another much more expensive instrument might be a little unfair. Such performance problems can indeed be mentioned in a review, but this *must* be done in a carefully balanced manner which does not overshadow good performance in some other area. A review must look at all the areas of operation equally, with notable attention paid to what the item was actually designed for and to how "cost effective" the item is. Presenting the facts and BALANCE are the real keys to a great product review.
技巧五：写一个公平客观的评测。一般来说，完全抛弃个人主观色彩做出客观评价是比较困难的，但是大多数情况下，这也是写出一篇好的评测文章很有效的方式。虽然个人的观点可能掺杂在最终的测试结果中，但是最关键的是你要知道自己的偏好，然后尽量对其他的产品做一些补偿。比如，我喜欢牛反，但是当我做折射的测试时，我对自己的偏好保持清醒，所以对牛反的优点我尽量说的少一些，以使得最终的结果更加平衡、客观。价格和性能也是一种偏好。比如像80F5这种小的低成本宽视场折射镜和与价格昂贵的三片APO根本没法比，虽然这些廉价的镜子高倍表现不好，但是它的设计本来也不是为了上高倍。说他们在某一方面表现不好（比如高倍），或者拿他们和那些昂贵的镜子比较，有些不公平。这些表现方面的差异可以如实的在评测中写明，但是对于器材在其他方面的优异表现也应该进行陈述，这样评测文章才显得均衡和公平。评测应该在各方面公平，而且要说明每项测试的目的和效果，反映客观和公平，是一篇优秀测评的关键。
SummaryWriting a review has two notable benefits. It gets potentially useful information out to those who might need it, plus, it makes the reviewer *think* more about various issues, eventually making the writer an even better and more informed equipment purchaser. I encourage those who have specific experience with some item which might be useful to the amateurr Astronomer to consider writing a review about it.
结论：写评测有两个显著的好处。一方面，可以提供有益的信息给那些潜在的购买者，同时，也给作者提供了思考各种问题的机会，甚至成就作者成为一个更好的、知识丰富的购买者。我鼓励那些对器材使用有一些感受的同好去写一写测评的文章，因为这些可能对那些业余天文爱好者来说有很大的参考价值。
[ 本帖最后由 我爱祖祖 于 2007-6-20 15:19 编辑 ] 好文章， 我一直以此作为参考标准。 不过， 每条都符合， 我就成大牛了， 哈哈！::42::
多谢祖兄给大家翻译那么长的东西， 我码字能力是太落后了。::40::
[ 本帖最后由 wbhifi 于 2007-6-19 02:47 编辑 ] 嗨，也不知道翻译得对不对。不过老兄真利害阿，全是大APO。真令人羡慕。
那个事情谈的如何了 TEC１４０估计黄了， 因为要９月才能到， 我本来想拿来看木星。 不过， 话说回来， １４０mm口径对于行星而言， 只能说刚刚够， 所以最终我估计会投向１６０mm的TEC１６０。 所谓衣带渐宽终不悔啊！ 为了区区１６０mm， 投入太大了。
周六去参加本地一个观星会， 有幸见识了TMB的CNC １５２ f8 APO， 可惜另外一个AP的扇子没有去， 不然就可以对比AP１５５和TMB１５２了。 目镜是TMB super mono １０mm， 倍率１２０， 因为所在地纬度３７N， 所以木星实在太低了。 还好大气算稳定， 木星看起来对比度很不错， 赤道上的纹路很清晰。 红斑也可以看到， 不过没太多细节。 但 和我想象中的TMB还是有差距， 感觉色差控制不错， 但是大气的折设射效应太明显了。 在我的１０＂Dob里， 完全没有这样的折射效应， 不管换任何的目镜。 这也让我怀疑TEC１４０看木星不会和TMB１５２有太大的差异， 导致了我决定放弃。
今晚有空我也码几行字报道一下那天观测的， 包括obsession １８＂。 按照您的说法,看来TEC和TMB在六寸镜子上面估计也不会有太大的差距.如果是追求目视效果的话,我感觉您还是应该从DOB开始入手,不然APO投入太大又达不到自己的理想状态,太浪费钱了,你说呢?大口径APO毕竟还是要谨慎,毕竟价格太昂贵了. 每个人都想要大的APO， 这就是我所谓的＂衣带渐宽终不悔＂。 当然投入产出是太小了。 考虑到目前我也不搞天体摄影， APO就是完全满足一种长久以来的愿望而已（估计大伙儿都这样吧::37:: ）。
没错， 从目视的角度上来说， 大的Dob是最好的选择。上次出FS１２８也是因为这个（看来我也够爱折腾的::39:: ::40:: ）。 大APO确实是每个同好的梦想,不过对我来说115可能已经足够了,大口径APO无论从体积还是重量都很惊人,不过对老兄的选择,我是绝对的支持. 我还想请教一下,您说到在折射镜中的大气折射效应是指什么呢?很想学习一下 就是在亮的天体周围， 有色差， 但是和一般折射镜不同的是大气带来的色差在物体的两侧（或者上下）有不同的颜色。 通常一边是红色， 另外一边是蓝绿色。在物体离开地面较高的时候， 不容易看到； 当大气不稳定， 且物体比较低， 就容易看到。 这样的效应在折射镜（包括折反射）中相对容易看到， 在纯反射系统里不容易看到。 另外也和目镜有关系， 比如TV的Radian就比较容易显现这种效应， 这是因为设计的关系， Radian的＂lateral color＂比较明显。
BTW， TMB１１５ f７ 是好东东， 好好享用吧::0020::
[ 本帖最后由 wbhifi 于 2007-6-19 09:17 编辑 ] 原帖由 wbhifi 于 2007-6-19 09:16 发表 http://www.astronomy.com.cn/bbs/images/common/back.gif
就是在亮的天体周围， 有色差， 但是和一般折射镜不同的是大气带来的色差在物体的两侧（或者上下）有不同的颜色。 通常一边是红色， 另外一边是蓝绿色。在物体离开地面较高的时候， 不容易看到； 当大气不稳定， 且物体比较低， 就容易 ...
您这么一说我明白了。不过有时候这种大气的色差和镜子的色差混在一起，有时候也不太容易分辨。 折射系统的色差表现在物体的周围， 相对要均匀一些。
大气折射效应在所以的镜子里都可以看到， 而且如我前面提到的， 在有些目镜里会凸显这个问题。 你有OR的ortho目镜， 不妨拿它做试验， 根据我的经验， OR的ortho属于对大气折射比较敏感的。 OR的好处就是真实再现，我感觉。比如你的镜子没有色差，OR应该不会引入色差；但是你镜子所有缺点，OR也不会有任何的掩盖；就象空气一样，所以对测试镜子非常适合。纯属个人观点。 正需要这样的资料，收藏起来慢慢。 呵呵，OR只有18和25，没有20的。我手里多了一只12.5，不知道是否适合你。 楼主翻的不错，支持一下 呵呵，笑话我。有好几句话我都没有看明白，就略过了 原帖由 我爱祖祖 于 2007-6-19 16:32 发表 http://www.astronomy.com.cn/bbs/images/common/back.gif
OR的好处就是真实再现，我感觉。比如你的镜子没有色差，OR应该不会引入色差；但是你镜子所有缺点，OR也不会有任何的掩盖；就象空气一样，所以对测试镜子非常适合。纯属个人观点。 ...
很重要的一点，对于测试主镜，高质量的目镜关系到了测试的结果。
页:
[1]
2