I agree with Lukas that the anecdotal comments add great value to the database. User experience with the steel and edge angle is important to the usefulness of the data. Maybe it would be enough to increase the number of characters allowed in the slots where there is now a cap on the number allowed.
Of course there has to be a balance in the size of the anecdotal comments and the objective comments, otherwise long-winded guys like me might bury the value of the data in too many words. Hopefully, submitters will use discretion when making comments and restrict their comments to germane information.
See what I mean Clay! Long-winded guys! LOL!

Cheers
Leo

wickededge wrote:


Yes there is an issue about the database, an issue not so much with the database, actually, as with the knives themselves.

Here is an example of what I mean: I have thought about including my data on my CRK Sebenza, but when I look at my own notes and history with that knife I see that it is all too weird and complicated to put into the database. The knife went from convex, to 18 per side to microbevel, and none of that really worked because of hardness issues with CRK knives, so I am just scratching my head on what to do with the data, I would not want to mislead anyone that is scanning over that data.

Maybe we could start another column in the database (oh no! your poor webmaster !!) like a numeric 1..10 rating of the authors opinion of how successful a particular grind option is. Then I could make four entries for my Sebbie, all rated as to how great I think the result turned out, and the the top rating would be (for that knife) only a 6 or 7 as I don't think you can ever really sharpen a CRK knife until they do something about their shops hardening policy. They take really *great* steels and then leave the loaf half-baked in the oven, so the result is soft squishy white bread Now my numeric rating, in contrast, to that knife, might be with my ZT / Elmax that is a solid 9.5, a razor blade in a folder, that's for sure!

leomitch wrote:


I agree with the the above post exactly! Let's keep the comment short and brief and to the point, but some amount of author experience comments *do* add much to frame the perspective and make sense out of the numeric data. I like reading them. They are very useful.

..BUT...I disagree strongly with Clays suggestion further down in this thread about adding a back and forth comment and reply area to the database. My fear would be that a database might degenerate into a "forum discussion area" and that would kill the usefulness of a database IMO.

These are great thoughts guys. Nice point Dan about the conversation disintegrating in a forum discussion. If people want that level of discussion on specific knives, we can maybe do sub-forums somewhere. I see no problem with multiple entries for the same knife so people can see the range of what's been tried. I also like the suggestion of a rating system though I wonder if it will get confusing. It would be great if we could cram all of the following into one record as in the attached PDF:

⇔ Manufacturer

⇔ Model

⇔ Blade Length

⇔ Thickness

⇔ Steel

⇔ Hardness

⇔ Recommended Angle

⇔ Recommended Finish

⇔ Depth

⇔ Alignment

⇔ Intent

Angle/Finish Tried Rating

Setting 1 4
Setting 2 3
Setting 3 7
Setting 4 6
Setting 6 8

Author

Author's Comments

I agree that preferences for angle and sharpening sequence are going to vary. I think the problem with the database is that these items come from the person who submitted the entry, and this in effect gives that person the last word on the subject. Perhaps there should be an optional link to a forum discussion about the particular knife model. The creator can start it with his/her preferred angle and sharpening sequence, and others can freely comment. With a single link in the database, the entries would be nice and neat.

To me, the most useful part of the database are the manufacturer's specifications and the WEPS vice depth and positioning information.

Speaking of specs I think there should be two columns for sharpening angle: one for the manufacturer's published angle (if any) and one for the angle recommended by the person who created the entry.

+1 on that