Review rules needed

[frogbmth]

I am not interested in making accusations or passing judgement on any reviewer here, I have not done so and will not do so.

Take this thread as an attack if you wish, get defensive if you wish, moan about the work you have caused yourself if you wish. I make no judgement on your choices. If you post your interests openly and clearly then we do not disagree.

Is there anybody that thinks making clear rules is a bad thing, please, lets talk about it.

I do feel that describing some posters as ‘affiliates’ of businesses would be a good move, and to possibly have in their sig or something which businesses they are affiliated with would make sense. If there are rules about suppliers posting about their own products, I really don’t see how affiliates can not be subject to some form of distinction from the rest of us?

Andy

 

[chief druid]

i want free stuff!!!!!

 

[frogbmth]

Druid, demanding free stuff and calling them every 5 minutes every day isnt going to work. People have to earn free stuf and for the lazy sods like you and I, its not going to happen

 

[Multisync98]

I agree 100%. While I tend to trust Scott's video reviews (mostly because he and I have talked a bit behind the scenes and I know where he stands) there are a lot of shifty reviewers out there that I KNOW are not only getting kickbacks but being influenced by them as well.



Yeah, this is a big issue...and one that's going to be hard to kill.

I only got a thank you from the Supplier... That's it... But then again, I purchased mine, and informed the suppplier later that I did a review. I'm pretty sure I'm not going to recieve this "Kickback" you're talking about.

-Jim

 

[chief druid]

worth a shot though i might even do a video revie if i was given free stuff hee hee

 

[igetcha]

jim,

i really dont think terraphon was referring to you personally mate.



apostle,

i apologise if my rant went over the top. although we may not always see eye to eye on certain issues, i do think you are a good guy who is looking out for other forum users.




now what i want to know is this. who has EVER seen ANY reviewer give an e-cig a brilliant review but only to find that the majority of forum users actually think its a completely crap product?

all this talk of shills, "bigging up reviews", kickbacks, blatant biased etc etc etc.......CAN SOMEONE PLEASE GIVE ME THE NAME OF THE REVIEWER AND A LINK TO THE REVIEW. (but no references to a Mr Parked......that it over with and does not need to be reopened)

i have never seen any evidence of this from ANY reviewer. have i just been living in a hole???
it seems a few people can say that they KNOW that there are bogus reviewers.......so who!?

provide names and links now.

its precisely all this "talk" of distrust and dodgy dealing that is causing the very problems being discussed.
if there are bad apples who are giving other guys a bad name then now is the time to sort them out.

to the people who are saying that they know certain things about certain reviewers.......please, either speak up or shut up.

 

[Nuck]

Personally, I would do a review in a thong for free stuff. Hell...even the thong is negotiable.

 

[chief druid]

no no no nuck the thong is not negotiable....a pink tu-tu maybe .. but i draw a line at a thong

 

[frogbmth]

Can we move forward and get this thread back on track, this isn't a 'bash the reviewers and have them defend what they do' thread, its to discuss some guidelines going forward.

Who thinks there should be no rules, and who has thoughts on introducing some?

 

[Nuck]

Sorry..back on track it is!

I propose that we add some guideline that the use of a thong or any thong like device in appearance and/or texture be prohibited.

 

[igetcha]

how about all reviewers must swear an oath and be strapped to a lie detector throughout the recording..........any reviewer who fails to do so must then be publically flogged before being burnt at the stake. his / her ashes must then be surgically implanted up a baboons rectum.

or we could make it very simple by just making one rule that says:-

if you dont feel you trust the opinion or motive of the reviewer.....please dont watch.



either way, someone get SJ in here to post some rules and get this bollox over with. its his call and only he can decide.

 

[Kate]

Is it a problem to state your interests openly so people know without having to develop suspicious characters?

 

[igetcha]

Is it a problem to state your interests openly so people know without having to develop suspicious characters?

i do kate,

"if i recieve an item for free for the purpose of a review then i make that clear at the beginning of the review:-

example

YouTube - REVIEW OF THE ECOPURE "FRESH" E-LIQUID FROM INTELLICIG.COM​

if i recieve an item for free and i have a discount code attatched to it then i have a "please read" notice at the start of the review to state that i benefit from the use of any discount as well as the viewer benefitting, plus text to state i recieved it for free PLUS a verbal statement to state i recieved it for free:-

example

YouTube - REVIEW OF THE PILOT ELECTRONIC CIGARETTE​

if its an item that i purchased but have a discount code for then it recieves the same "please read" warning but no verbal warning.

if its a item i purchased and have no discount code then i say bugger all!


i dont think that i could be any more clearer than that."




i dont think there is anyone else who makes as many disclaimers as me.........correct me if im wrong

cheers,

scott

 

[lordmage]

not for me kate which is why i openly state it in my reviews each person has there own style. if we has a whole want to make up some guidelines for those who are just starting and for those still doing that is fine with me but. Guidelines should not be treated as a you must comply because it would cramp anyones style to the point where they may not even do it. it is one thing to politly ask it. it is another thing to demand it not every one will want to comply to a dictator reign. these comments apply to the rules being strict and not just a simple guidelines to try and follow sit....

 

[Kate]

... if you dont feel you trust the opinion or motive of the reviewer.....please dont watch...

You say 'buyer beware' here and then say that's not what you do.

What would be most ethical and helpful?

 

[Multisync98]

You say 'buyer beware' here and then say that's not what you do.

What would be most ethical and helpful?

JUST LET IT GO! Sheesh!

-Jim

 

[Kate]

Excuse me?

Aren't we supposed to be having a discussion?

 

[igetcha]

You say 'buyer beware' here and then say that's not what you do.

What would be most ethical and helpful?

when have i ever said that! i have never used the term "buyer beware" (at least i dont think i have???)

kate, i really aint got a clue what you are trying to say.

please explain

 

[Multisync98]

Excuse me?

Aren't we supposed to be having a discussion?

Yes, not a hanging.. And that's what it's turning into. So excuse me. I'm not trying to be rude.

-Jim

 

[frogbmth]

So is there any reason why affiliates should not be labeled 'supplier affiliate'? Everybody is saying that they are open about it so no problem right?