I just read a “Best impact drivers of 2023” post that came across my news feed, and it was terrible, and that’s the mildest way to describe it.
Shown above is an example of a typical impact driver, a Ridgid 18V model. It’s not directly related to the story, but I think it’s a reasonable featured image for an impact driver story.
With the “best impact driver” buying guide that hit my news feed, their featured image had an impact wrench, cordless drill, and Milwaukee Surge oil impulse driver.
Advertisement
This is typical for shallow buying guides written by mass media “shopping experts” these days, where a best cordless drill buying guide might show an impact driver, and an impact driver might show a cordless drill.
Here are the categories they featured:
- Best overall
- Best for pros
- Best cordless
- Best combo
- Best budget
What does “best cordless” mean, in an article that exclusively features cordless impact drivers?
They ranked a Makita XWT15T impact wrench as the “best for pros” pick, describing it as a impact drive [sic] kit that delivers 1600 pounds [sic] of torque and weighs 2.5 lbs.
This Makita impact wrench model actually delivers 240 ft lbs of torque, which is 2880 in-lbs of torque, and weighs 4.0 lbs with battery. It’s also an impact wrench, not an impact driver.
The article uses “pounds” as the unit for torque throughout the buying guide. Not inch-pounds or foot-pounds, just “pounds.”
Advertisement
When answering the question of “what is the most powerful impact driver,” the magazine says:
the Dewalt 20V Max Atomic impact driver produces more torque than any other impact driver on the market.
The model they were referencing delivers 1700 in-lbs of max torque, and is definitely not the most powerful impact driver on the market.
Milwaukee’s M18 Fuel impact driver – sold by itself, in a kit, and in a combo kit (promo at Home Depot) – delivers 2000 in-lbs max torque. The Flex FX1351 impact delivers 1800 in-lbs max torque. The Makita XGT GDT01D delivers 1950 in-lbs max torque. The Dewalt DCF850 and DCF845 both deliver 1825 in-lbs max torque.
They said in a Q&A that impact drivers require hex bits, which is true, but don’t mention anything about the bits needing to be impact-rated.
They also say:
A brushless motor runs faster and lasts longer than an impact driver with a standard motor.
This is not always true. There are many instances of brushed motor tools delivering more power and faster speeds than many brushless motors.
A cordless tool can be very well made, but if the battery isn’t strong, it won’t produce enough power or last long enough to be useful.
No… impact drivers generally aren’t very power-hungry, and as such batteries don’t have to be “strong.”
Statements like those could be true, but don’t make much real-world sense. I guess that’s what happens when magazines write for SEO bots instead of actual people.
The magazine also discusses how 18V and 20V batteries have “the same peak power and battery life.” What?
I make mistakes and can cut other publications some slack.
But in this case, the author – I can’t even call them a reviewer as it’s not clear whether they’ve ever used any impact driver before – demonstrated extremely poor proficiency with the subject matter, and the magazine failed to catch numerous technical errors, inaccuracies, fallacies, and falsities.
What happened to fact-checking?!
Jerry
That’s why I read ToolGuyd. For the BS filter.
eddie sky
+1
When I google for review of best rated something, I always see “the Spruce” and some other sites that really, aren’t specialists or even qualified to offer reviews on tools. Yet their SEO continues to be in the top 10, and their reviews are just lipstick on a pig.
Atleast some youtubers are honest and disclose “this was provided by the manufacturer and I can decide to keep it or not after putting it through its paces (and not saying “monetizing this video”). Or some tuber woodworkers that will disclaim that they paid for brand out of their pocket to have an unbias review…and usually the best (like StumpyNubs).
Thanks Stuart! Reviews of tools are welcome as long as unbias (un-influenced).
Nathan
Thing is. Stupid people only know they are stupid when they are told. So part of me says you really need to call out the site. Warning to others. Learning moment for them
Linus tech tips recently got shamed for putting out bad info and 9verall I think it turned out positive. But then again they are an organization that tries
I also understand why you don’t want to.
Stuart
The article was posted by Popular Science.
I was going to write to their editor in chief, but the person they have listed on their “Editorial Standards” page apparently left the magazine in October 2022, nearly a year ago.
A lot of newspaper and magazine sites have been writing low quality tool “reviews” and buying guides for SEO and affiliate clicks for a while, this one was just the worst I’ve seen in a while.
JDsantos
PopSci is owned by a PE-backed digital media conglomerate. At this point I just assume every major publication has become a blogspam machine until proven otherwise.
You’re probably the first person to actually read that text, including the “person” who “wrote” it.
But hey, always good to remind us why we’re here!
Scott K
It’s such a shame that pop sci and pop mech seem to be so focused on clickbait and affiliate link dollars. My guess is that the list of those tools likely appeal to so many users that they’re bound to result in some revenue. I’ve noticed that a lot of buyer’s guides rely on Amazon reviews rather than an analysis of specs and hands-on experience.
on another note, I read a review of the Rigid track saw on ToolBoxBuzz and they came to similar conclusions to your post.
Mike
There are people who claim to be writers, who will cold-contact online editors offering to write a story or review, whether they know anything about the topic or not. Typically they’re just bloggers who are eager to get their name and maybe they’re blog linked. I used to edit an online encyclopedia, and I’d get contacts like that all the time, folks who didn’t even pay attention to what the encyclopedia’s format was. I’m glad you mentioned which publication posted this drivel.
Stuart
99.9% of those cold-contact emails are from people being paid for SEO services. Their main goal is to drop links in the middle of related keyword content so that their clients can get higher page ranks in Google search results.
S
You missed the point.
The article was never there to provide content. The article exists as a worm. The advertisements on the page serve as the hook.
Nathan
Oh and bet it was written by a chat ai bot
carl
My thoughts exactly
Jeremiah D
Same thought. Nearly every time I get a suggested article like this or try to find info about a tool I get these useless results. Applies to other categories as well.
Bob
Every time a start looking for info on a new tool, I find dozens of reviews like this. Similar groupings, calling something from the specs a ‘pro’ when it’s worst in category, no sign that a human has used the tool in review. The writing style and word choice is very robotic. All these ‘reviews’ feature Amazon affiliate links. They stink of AI chatbot affiliate link farming.
Despite not liking video reviews, I find myself relying much more on them now. But if I have to see yet another unboxing video…
Stuart
Yep, and there’s always a generic “why you can trust us” section in every such buying guide or review as well.
There’s so much wrong in most of the “buying guides” I’ve seen, but I don’t think they’re written by AI; I think they’re just poorly written pieces that should have been caught or improved during editing.
I have worked with magazines before, as both a contributor and someone tasked with editing others’ work. Editorial standards definitely changed since then.
YouTube isn’t much better, with how their algorithms seems to favor sensationalism over anything else. The shocked expression thumbnails are the worst.
Big Richard
I would argue the video titles next tot he shocked face thumbnails are equally awful, and misleading at best.
“99% of users are using this tool wrong!”
“Is this the best [insert tool] ever made?”
Stuart
The problem with sensational clickbait is that people keep clicking those thumbnails and video titles. And then they wait and wait and wait for the punchline. Google doesn’t measure viewers’ frustration levels, they measure view times, and that’s what matters in how their algorithm determines what to show next.
Munklepunk
There was a discussion on TWIT (this week in tech) about this topic. Many have tried writing and producing videos with straight headlines and they fail, clickbait headlines have to be used to get people to read/watch unfortunately, and it goes across all demographics. When you get to certain size and popularity cutting down on it happens and it’s possible but it’s still there to a point.
It’s also been shown that long form is hard to get people to pay attention to, Cliff Notes have and always will be a thing. There is a reason we all hate the novel that happens before a recipe.
Stuart
The “novel before a recipe” tactic infuriates me. I tend to be long-winded, but try to ensure the answer to any question is in the first three paragraphs, which I consider “above the fold.”
The answer to “when will a movie come out on streaming” shouldn’t be 8+ paragraphs into a post. The problem is that Google looks at dwell time, and so it’s better for publishers when a visitor is lost on a page.
Kevin M Smith
I’ve been using a browser tool called uBlacklist to remove those sites from my search results. Every time I searched for something, those sites would be in the top 5-10 results, making it more difficult to find some truly useful info.
Since I’ve been using the blocker and being diligent to add sites to it when I come across them, my results have become much more concise.
Munklepunk
Google News feed allows sites to be blocked as well.
TomD
> What happened to fact-checking?!
It produces as many or fewer affiliate payments so why bother?
After all an honest review might tell you why it’s the wrong tool for you, which reduces sales.
Content farm articles are annoying and worse than worthless.
Scott K
They’re appealing to someone who isn’t well-informed and wants to be told what to buy because it’s the best. Offering several “bests” gives more opportunities for affiliate link revenue.
Stuart
Sure, I get that, but it’s not an excuse for saying things like the Dewalt Atomic “produces more torque than any other impact driver on the market,” confusing a 1/2″ impact wrench for a 1/4″ hex impact driver, having a “best cordless” rating when all of the impacts are cordless, or specifying torque in units of simply “pounds.”
As mentioned in my other comment, a tech magazine gave “best overall” 12V and 18V titles to 13 and 10 year old models, respectively.
None of this seems to be written for people, it’s as if they just want you look at the affiliate links and think “ooh, a button to click.”
Scott K
I did not, by any means, want to excuse the article or defend their intentions. It’s clear that the author is similarly uninformed. It’s also pretty lazy to not conduct basic research to include an explanation of how impact drivers work and differ from drills.
Drew
I see a lot of guides like the one described here. I have a very strong suspicion they are written by AI, and not a real person who’s actually used the products. The text seems to regurgitate manufacturer claims, and no real opinions are ever given. They also usually list maybe five “Best for…” but never mention what others were tested that didn’t make “best” list.
Steve L
Stuart, If the Editorial Standards page hasn’t been updated since October 2022 you can guess Popular Science is in financial trouble. And might be looking for affiliate clicks just about everywhere.
I know you can figure how to send them an email but the person reading it probably won’t know the tools, how they are measured, or how they are used. You think they can even fix the review?
Better to invest your time finding another mini tool box ( in stock )
Steve L
I want to buy one in pink for my granddaughter
Stuart
All of the editors that I had communicated with there in the past are long-gone.
I considered trying harder, but didn’t think it would accomplish anything.
The problem is that most of these buying guides seem to be produced by people that lack experience in the subject matter, and are fact-checked (or not) and published by editors that also seem to lack experience in the subject matter.
A tech magazine has a top-ranking “best cordless drills of 2023” post, and in it they recommend a 10 year-old Milwaukee brushed motor drill as “best overall 18V,” and a 13 year-old Bosch brushed motor drill as “best overall 12V.” Those are not well-informed recommendations.
AP
Bet they have an affiliate link with all of those “best” tools.
Big Richard
They all do that though, even sites like this. I think there are even a couple affiliate links embedded into this article.
Stuart
The difference is I don’t build articles around links, I use links as logical references within articles.
The goal of content should be inform, educate, or entertain readers, not funnel them towards Amazon.
ken
I see this on youtube as well. The reviewers do use the tool and provide accurate info but often fail to show weaknesses or explain other options from competitors that are better. Even though they don’t link to the item for sale they go easy on every review. They seldom say how dissappointed a new product is from a major manufacturer. It becomes stale and useless if every item they show from these manufacturers is really good with only minor weaknesses that can easily be overlooked or are just personal preferences. What I want to know is how does it compare to other options and why should I pick this one versus another. You can find some of this too but not as often. I assume it is because they need to get more free test samples from the manufacture.
MM
I know what you mean about those kind of youtube videos. It seems that a lot of the time they are more a demonstration than they are a review. They show you how the tool works–maybe show a saw cutting some wood or a ratchet loosening some random bolts on a car–but they don’t illustrate the tool’s limits or show how it compares to other models. It’s certainly less than ideal. But at least these people actually have the tools in hand and show them working. You can hear and see the tools work. Most of these “buying guides” are just rehashed adcopy assembled by either an AI or a completely clueless worker that have zero contact with the tools whatsoever.
Jim
Thanks for intelligently putting into words what I feel so many times when I read a review, buying guide, or “best” tool article.
You have an excellent site here, keep doing what you do.
Stuart
Thanks, I appreciate it!
I used to say that there’s always room for more tool reviewers and opinions, but this isn’t what I had in mind.
Rx9
Chat GPT powered brute force affiliate link spam marketing.
Fish_Stick
Nothing against DeWalt but when it was 18V and 20V systems only, DeWalt would come out on top for a lot of these “best” lists. Why? Simply because 20V was more powerful than the other brands at their weaker 18V systems. Total garbage sites made just for clicks and revenue links. Only a few places left I trust for decent info, ToolGuyd being one.
Scott K
DeWalt may have produced 20v tools that offered better specs or features than similar 18v tools, but 18v and 20v are actually the same. Companies that label tools as 18v are stating the nominal power rating while 20v represents the max rating. This is marketing.
https://14cyiuhvcgv.com/dewalt-20v-max-vs-18v-2023/%3C/a%3E%3C/p%3E
Fish_Stick
That was the rub Scott, since they were the same system just the different voltage reporting you could instantly see how low effort they were for a review. I wanted to mention only 18v and 20v because of the later FlexVolt and MultiVolt which could and did make a difference depending on the tool and battery choice. But a basic drill comparison between say a Makita or Milwaukee 18V and then DeWalt 20V the DeWalt automatically won because 20V>18V.
Stuart
There was a household name magazine that once did a 20V-only drill review because they thought 20V Max was different from 18V.
Michael F
So any “review” where they have multiple categories like that (Best Cordless, Best for Pros, etc) are usually geared for SEO and designed to pack as many affiliate links into the article as possible. It’s an immediate red flag.
Stuart
Yes, and no.
Google has started to prioritize promotion of such content as it’s the shortest path towards initial product research.
Some users – and even some tool brands’ marketing teams (e.g. https://14cyiuhvcgv.com/vampire-tools-vampliers-worlds-best-pliers/%3C/a%3E%29 mistakenly treat it as actual recommendations and reviews.
I might have such posts on occasion, but I steer clear usually because it’s not worth the trouble. Magazines will constantly republish their junk review content, leading Google to award them “freshness” points. Because of that, it’s not worth the time and effort for me to put together my own “best of” guides, because they quickly fall in search results unless I employ the types of unfriendly tricks I strongly frown upon.
ak28117
I wont be surprised if it (the content) was predominantly generated by some sort of AI tool. This is based on what I have read recently about publishing houses and digi media conglomerates replacing their writers with such tools.
Pop Sci probably is aiming for $/clicks with the most ROI route, quality of content be damned.
As many pointed out, all the more reason destination sites like Toolguyd will stand out in the long run.
Mike
Thanks for posting this article. I shared it on FB as an example of looking for good quality reviews on sites that regularly cover that topic, not some random review on a site that probably SHOULD actually know the topic. It doesn’t matter if you’re buying tools or TVs or camera gear. Find reputable reviews and shootouts.
Jared
That’s terribly embarrassing for whomever published this. It also highlights the challenge of finding good quality advice online. An article like this is going to be instantly recognizable as nonsense to readers of this site, but if you’re not familiar with a subject area… it can be really confusing to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Franco Calcagni
I see many of these websites, and sure they have many distinguishing factors. The one I see mist is what Stuart mentioned above…
Best overall
Best for pros
Best cordless
Best combo
Best budget
When I see these categories broken down, I usually figure it was an AI/bot produced webpage.
I can’t say for sure, but often they will have someone, example Bob Vila, or publication, example “The Home Handyman”, associated to this best of article, I think the person/publication has nothing to do with it, they are just being ripped off.
Stefanooch
Honestly, I think a lot of those articles are “written” by AI/bots because often there are many mistakes, odd pro/con lists, and weird choices for tools (including listing tools not even in the same category)
They just try to catch people searching for “best tool” and get some affiliate money or ad money.
John
It will only get worse with articles written by AI and buying recommendations from media sources you used to trust but now only make recommendations as click and ad bait.