Crystal Clear Vaping censors bad reviews

[jb0nez]

First let me say I love CCV's prices and product selection. Got my epower from them, love it. Their prices on 15-packs of cartos can't be beat. And they don't charge for shipping.

But they appear to censor their reviews. This is very duplicitous. If you're going to have a review section, you need to include good and bad reviews.

I bought the 2.5ml "Jumbo" XL resurrectors. I was sorely disappointed; you load them with 2.5ml but .5ml later you have to top it off again as it starts to taste burnt (I've been through 15 of them, I've got a pretty good sample size). I think all the extra filling just absorbs, holds on to, and sort of dilutes your e-liquid. You're left with 2ml wasted. Instead of lasting all day like one would think, I have to re-top off constantly. And I use fairly thin e-liquids. Their vapor production when just filled is superb, and I definitely had better luck with some than others. But overall, the normal Resurrectors blow these away. So I posted a 3 star review. It never got approved or showed up.

One week (and one order) later I posted a 5 star review for the normal 1.5ml Resurrectors. Within hours it was approved and posted.

 

[silversx]

are you surprised? i can list a full page of vendors who censor bad reviews..

let's just say my most recent review for rawrvapor was censored..

what did you expect? them allowing true opinions that would kill the sales of their products? lol

 

[jb0nez]

Yeah, I am surprised. Amazon doesn't censor bad reviews. There's an implicit trust when you put a review page up that you will allow people to post their honest reviews. Guess it's not just CCV that violates that trust!

 

[JAY73]

madvapes always post reviews the good the bad & the ugly it is one of the resons i stay with them if the product is crap you can tell by the amount of bad reviews the same if it is a stellar product!!......

 

[mostapha]

All reviews on vendor sites are crap. Period. If someone is selling you something, whether they actually tell you the good or bad of a product or not, they can't be trusted completely. Period.

Caveat emptor.

There are some vendors I really like. Vapor Alley is quickly becoming my favorite…Rick ships quickly, has a couple juices I like, has decent prices on a lot of stuff, has decently cheap shipping, and when I asked for extra baggies to organize things, they just showed up.

But I still don't read their reviews.

Read reviews here, on youtube, blogs, etc. Don't read reviews on any vendor's page. That's not disparaging any particular vendor, just admitting that there's a conflict of interests there. Plus, you have no idea what reviewers like that are comparing the product to; what they expected; what they consider good; etc.. They're just not a good source of information.

I think I'd implicitly trust a vendor that just didn't have reviews more quickly than one that said they didn't censor.

Now, it sucks that CCV appears to censor their reviews. I think that is evidence of a lack of character on the part of the proprietor. But pragmatically, I don't think it's relevant.

 

[jb0nez]

Well said Mostapha

Edit: And a great Read Me in your sig!
Edit2: Something jumped out at me though. In the table analyzing the chemical compounds found in various e-liquids, one of them was 7% benzene; the table states "Benzene is non-hazardous." This is NOT true. Benzene is a known carcinogen. A quick wikipedia (since I can't be bothered atm to hit the more authoritative references) states, among many other things,
"benzene causes chromosomal aberrations in the peripheral blood leukocytes and bone marrow explaining the higher incidence of leukemia and multiple myeloma caused by chronic exposure. "
Yeah this is going off-topic, but I had to comment on that. The article seems well-written, but the statement that benzene is non-hazardous lowers the credibility of the authors.
Edit3: Just to clarify, it was only one e-liquid solution of many tested that had benzene

 

[LucentShadow]

I've run across this issue on a few sites.

From my point of view, small vendors really can't afford bad reviews, so they are likely to censor them. I would much rather see no reviews anywhere on the site, than that, but it doesn't surprise me that they do it. I would hope that, eventually, they would shed that practice when they can afford to, but I wonder if customer mistrust could hold them back from reaching that point.

I expect to find honest reviews on bigger vendor sites, and I think that actually works in their favor. They can absorb the cost of bad products, and the honest review policies lead me to trust that site for honest reviews. If I'm going there to look for reviews on a product, I'll probably buy it there.

 

[swedishfish]

With a cartomizer, it's hard for a vendor to know if it's truly a bad product or user error. Not saying that's the case with you, but there could be a ton of reasons for a bad vape with a cartomizer- not filled properly, thick juice, etc. etc. That's not to say it's not a bad cartomizer. It's just hard for them to know. Yea, the bigger sites do allow negative reviews and I read half of them and you know it's user error just by reading the complaint. They must do a larger volume and it doesn't matter to them.

 

[mostapha]

@jb0nez: I believed they discussed that in the discussion. It's been a little while since I've read it. Since it was only in one of the juices, I kind of assumed that it wasn't normal and that it was included because one of the early companies had no idea what they were doing making juice.

I read half of them and you know it's user error just by reading the complaint.

Yeah. That's a part of it. Regardless of how good or bad the reviews are, there's no way to meaure the experience or skill level of the reviewer.