To the last sentence (bolded); In some respects, maybe.
What’s different is that you tend to explain things, so anyone interested can understand. It also demonstrates the thought, effort and time you invest in improving/maximizing performance.
That said, there are certainly the TLDR types who will only jump to whatever conclusion they ‘feel’ is right, from cursory perusal.
I am reminded of the reaction of a fella, Danny Godbout, to the field knife breaking on the Joe X YouTube channel.
That's what he does. He breaks knives. It isn't weird. But Danny was genuinely upset because he believed that all Carothers knives are literally completely unbreakable.
It was a field knife, not a rough use knife. It did extremely well. I was quite pleased by what I saw, especially compared to other makers. But Danny was blown away that it was possible to break it.
It was also pointed out that a mass manufacturer of a less expensive knife performed equally as well. It was the same alloy, it was thicker behind the edge and had more obtuse primaries, at a lower hardness. Why would it be weird that the same steel, thick and soft, could hang with a CPK, in this context? In this one particular thing. Now, if you want to talk about durability (which is not the same thing as toughness) and edge retention, obviously the CPK would run circles around it. But that's not what this particular demonstration was about. And I understood that and I didn't have a problem with it. A lot of makers hate this channel but I thought it was great. Because I understand what it is because I do those same things and I understand what kinds of things you can learn from those sorts of "experiments", and the limitations of what you can learn from that kind of use.
So anyway, this was the Genesis of the Fat Bastard. I made a thick knife with more obtuse geometry, to be a "survivor."
And he actually did manage to break that one also. However, as he stated, it was because he went above and beyond the regular tests and took it to a ridiculous level because he wanted to see what it would actually take to break it. And he said in the video he regretted doing that because the knife is a "survivor" and it was only after repeatedly sticking it in a stump and striking it with (I think) something like an axe or a sledgehammer that he finally got it to break. But people that fast forward through the video or just look at the end didn't hear him say that this was not the normal demonstration and that he regretted taking it that far because it honestly was a survivor. They didn't see that. So they think it broke in a normal run. Almost all knives break in a normal run, the survivors are very uncommon.
Oh well.
One of my competitors who makes knives that are known for exceptional durability, his knives did not do particularly well on that channel. Breaking, perhaps, when they shouldn't.
The knives that do the best are hardly knives at all. The fact that mine are high performance cutting tools and they hang with these incredibly stout knife shaped chunks of metal speaks very well for my work. But a lot of people didn't understand that. A lot of people take a very simplistic view of things and the subtleties are lost on them. I could send a fireman's tool and I can about guarantee you that nothing short of a cutting torch is going to break that thing, but that doesn't mean it's a good knife. It's not actually even a knife at all, it's a breaching tool. A surprising percentage of people don't comprehend this.
