Review rules needed

[Lika]

The OP, frogbmth, asked for suggestions on reviewer rules - if we think they're necessary or not...blah blah blah. Sorry, frog, but I'm not actually looking at the post at the moment, lol.

Here are my thoughts. I don't really see the need for "rules" as I like to think we can make up our own minds. However, to ease speculation and unwarranted distrust here are my suggestions: There are basically 3 categories a reviewer could fall into:

1. Sponsored Reviewer (titled) - A professional or semi-pro reviewer This reviewer receives some sort of supplier/retailer/manufacturer sponsorship resulting in a gain of financial value, i.e. free product, stock, commission, etc.

2. Independent Reviewer (titled) - A professional or semi-pro reviewer. This reviewer purchases all reviewed products on their own and does not accept supplier sponsorship. Note: The occasional supplier "thank you" does not warrant a sponsorship because there is no financial gain. An Independent Reviewer could receive third party compensation, i.e. an independent review firm, general industry related advertising such as Google Adsense, etc. Just not from the product supplier/retailer/manufacturer in exchange for specific product review.

3. Amateur/User Reviewer (untitled) - This reviewer generally only posts the occasional review of products he/she owns for personal use. These products are not supplied free of charge and there is no sponsorship agreement or third party compensation. This reviewer is not seeking the level of a professional or semi-pro. Otherwise, they could list themselves as an Independent Reviewer or accept sponsorships and become a Sponsored Reviewer.

The reviewers who fall under the two "titled" reviewer categories could have this title in their "Custom User Title." Of course, SJ would have to agree to this as some of them may not be paid supporting forum members. It may also be wise to give these members a free supporting forum membership because they do a lot in support of the community that makes this forum successful. I wouldn't view that as a “Sponsored Reviewer” because this forum itself is not a supplier.

There should also be a sticky that explains the reviewer categories. More detail other than I described above could be included. I’m not writing the rules. I’m just suggesting them. If something like this were done I think it would ease a lot of the "speculation" about what's going on behind the scenes and offer a little more transparency as a whole. We then shouldn’t feel the need to question a reviewer’s motive in terms of financial gain.

Personally it doesn’t bother me in the least if a reviewer gets some freebies. I think most of us are all for gettin' a little in return for something we work hard at. That said, I think the world of most of the reviewers here and think they do a great job. That includes Igetcha, Leaford and Teraphon - You guys rock!

My title suggestions are without favoritism. One should be no better than the other and yet both have their own merits amongst the profession and community. There are sponsored and independent reviewers in several industries and both are very valuable. The bottom line is that it is up to the reviewer to build and honor their own integrity and reputation. In any case action is usually louder than words and greatly affects how one is judged by a community. A dishonest reviewer will be called out eventually.

 

[frogbmth]

The more I think about it, I have to agree that splitting the review forums up probably isnt the best answer. I also agree that those paying for the ability to change their title should not be pushed to give it up.

I like Kate's idea about putting in the signature something like

"Sponsored by XXXXXX and XXXXXX"

or

"Affiliated to XXXXXX and XXXXX"

Then the info is there all the time, hell it could even be linked to the sticky explaining how freebies and affiliation works. Wouldnt that satisfy everybody? Then anybody hiding their interests by not putting it in their sig that is later found out can be dealt with, clearly not sticking to this would clearly show their intentions as less than honourable?

 

[Kate]

I think the custom titles can take up more than one line so you could have a custom title plus reviewer status if you wanted.

Sigs might work well too, I like the link to more information idea, that's pretty handy and direct.

 

[igetcha]

WHICH is entirely independent..they solely exist on consumer subscriptions and buy everything they review, that is why their reviews are the most trusted reviews of all,,, any review where someone might get a freebie or something out of it is going to be biased towards the positives rather than the negatives.

what money do they use to purchase these items? do they all work for free on a charity basis?

i doubt it. they purchase and pay wages out of the subcriptions.

so technically, they are still getting the items for free.

sorry pete, but to say that ANY review where a freebie is involved is automatically going to be biased is plain wrong.

e-cigsco.uk were one of the 1st guys to send me stuff to review and a code to use. most of my scores for their products have been 6 - 7 out of 10. hardly gonna send till bells ringing is it.

 

[Lika]

The more I think about it, I have to agree that splitting the review forums up probably isnt the best answer. I also agree that those paying for the ability to change their title should not be pushed to give it up.

I like Kate's idea about putting in the signature something like

"Sponsored by XXXXXX and XXXXXX"

or

"Affiliated to XXXXXX and XXXXX"

Then the info is there all the time, hell it could even be linked to the sticky explaining how freebies and affiliation works. Wouldnt that satisfy everybody? Then anybody hiding their interests by not putting it in their sig that is later found out can be dealt with, clearly not sticking to this would clearly show their intentions as less than honourable?

Ok... If I am a reviewer and have to link to the "sticky" I would have that as a separate link. If I name all my sponsoring suppliers in my sig line I'm going to want to also post my coupon codes there and link those suppliers to my affiliate accounts as well.

If I don't I'm going to lose money by "referring" people by just posting the names in every post I make. Doing this will make every reviewer's post in every forum a traveling spam sig. I don't think we want that and I don't think the reviewers want that either (but they'll have to or lose money). The suppliers might like it though, lol.

If the community wants rules then let there be rules that are easy and without ramifications. You're either a sponsored supplier or you're not. Pretty cut and dry. As far as the sticky is concerned it should state the differences and how each may be compensated much like you guys already suggested. From that point on it's none of our business unless someone shoots his/her own foot by their own actions.

 

[frogbmth]

I disagree. Most magazines give reviews to items sold by their advertisers in a deal for getting the contract. But a full page for six issues and they review x product and x product provided by the advertiser as additional promotion giving some nice additional photos and text in with the deal. Magazines buying products from the money taken from their audience is entirely different to those presenting the products of advertisers for promotional purposes.

But this is besides the point. I do agree with you that free stuff in a forum review doesnt mean that the review is entirely biased automatically, that is absurd. But it is also absurd to suggest that there is no chance of there being any element of bias or recommendation towards companies a reviewer might have a business relationship with. Heck, we all probably recommend businesses we like to deal with and we like to deal with companies who give us free stuff.

This is not a dig or accusation at anybody, but come on. Get real. Does anybody truly feel that no reviewer sponsored by a business would ever post a biased review and think it is ok for them to keep their associations a secret? Some of you have posted your suspicions in this very thread.

 

[surbitonPete]

Sorry Igetcha but I can't agree with you there....'Which' receive nothing from the manufacturers so if they have any bias at all it is on the consumers side and I know I am not wrong to say that 'any' review where someone might get a freebie or something out of it is biased ........and I am not saying that is dishonest.

 

[igetcha]

Sorry Igetcha but I can't agree with you there....'Which' receive nothing from the manufacturers so if they have any bias at all it is on the consumers side and I know I am not wrong to say that 'any' review where someone might get a freebie or something out of it is biased ........and I am not saying that is dishonest.

no worries pete, agree to dissagree


ive asked SJ to come to this thread and make a decision. so lets see what happens!

cheers,

scott

 

[frogbmth]

Doing this will make every reviewer's post in every forum a traveling spam sig.

See the discount codes already in use in sigs?

What about having just 'Sponsored reviewer' under the title and leaving people to find out who for?

 

[frogbmth]

ive asked SJ to come to this thread and make a decision.

SJ asked me to start this thread. Care to add some comments about what you feel is the right answer? Is it have no rules at all?

 

[Lika]

See the discount codes already in use in sigs?

What about having just 'Sponsored reviewer' under the title and leaving people to find out who for?

A reviewer's own discount code and links to his/her own sites alone are not considered spam in my opinion. lots of supplier's names with possible affilate links are.

The rest of your reply is what I already suggested in part so of course I agree with it.

 

[frogbmth]

Ok you beat me into submission again

 

[igetcha]

frog,

im not sure if its really down to me to start suggesting the rules as the rules are aimed directly at me and other reviewers.

not being funny, but it could be classed as biased! lol


i honestly feel that no matter what rules are put in place, someone at some stage will move the goal posts again to put the reviewers honesty into question. but for what its worth, i did make my suggestion in my opening post on this thread and on the thread i started about a month ago. i dont agree with having "affiliate" or "sponsored" as a title simply because not every review we do will be on a product that was free or a has a code attatched to it. i also feel the words "affiliate" or "sponsored" would be used as a warning rather than being used to inform.

as codes create a comission, it seems only fair that if there HAS to be a title then it should be "semi pro reviewer"......... why i hear you ask?

1. if you recieve money from doing something then technically it would be classed as professional. as the money no where near creates a sole income that could be classed as large enough to live it falls into the realm of "semi pro".

for example, a premiership footballer earns enough money to be able to live off and is therefore classed as "professional".
but a non league footballer would only earn a very small amount and would substitute that income with a full time job, thus making him a "semi professional".

i played ice hockey for 12 years before having to quit through injury. the last 4 years of my "career" i was deemed as semi professional because i was getting paid an income to play. i was earning £20 a week wages, plus shutout and win bonuses. not enough to live off, which is why i was also working full time. i think the same applies to reviews.

2. it sounds cool.



the reason i asked SJ to come and make a decision is because this whole forum has decended into suspicion and accusations being thrown all over the place..........not just on the subject of reviews but on many different topics.
it used to be the friendliest and most fun forum on the web, but its actually getting really depressing. imo

there is a very dark cloud hanging over this place and i would like to see the sun again.

thats why rather than discussing / arguing and going round in circles i feel its best for a decision to be made to get it over and done with.

cheers,

scott

 

[ZambucaLu]

SJ asked me to start this thread. Care to add some comments about what you feel is the right answer? Is it have no rules at all?

SJ asked you to start this thread? Did he say why?

Lu

 

[surbitonPete]

Can someone give scott a big hug and a good tickle......sounds like he needs one.....I can't I'm a guy. ......

 

[frogbmth]

Thanks for the input Scott. I still feel you should have your say, as a major review contributor you will be affected by what is being discussed than most.

I have seen posts from employees of suppliers posting in threads where the supplier would not be allowed to post. It got me thinking again of rules for reviews, and I will admit, events a couple of months ago rattled me some. I asked SJ to clarify any rules about users with sponsorship or affiliation and their reviews. This was not with any intent to moan about anybody.

SJ asked me to start this thread so that ideas can be fleshed out and opinions gathered. This thread wasnt posted to debate the moral right and wrong of freebies and affiliation, but for users to discuss possible rules or codes of practice. Its unfortunate that a few comments about possible conflicts of interest have made some reviewers feel defensive.

I truly dont see how introduction of an openness policy can possibly be against the interests of anybody but those looking to deceive.

 

[igetcha]

i freely admit that i do get defensive over these issues, but it truly is just because i feel so passionate about being honest and helping people. but i also admit that i get defensive because i have been thru a lot of unwarranted abuse and false accusations with regards to the intellicig thing. i also feel that i have gone far and beyond when it comes to making things clear by adding written warnings and verbal warnings at the beginning of a review to state i recieved it for free and to inform that i benefit from the use of a code as well as the viewer benefitting.

so those 3 things combined do add up to one defensive guy!

if i didnt care what you guys thought i simply would not even bother posting my replies to this thread or any other thread on this subject.

its upsetting when i KNOW im only being honest and trying to help but people still doubt you........its really not a nice feeling! (im sure the othr reviewers feel the same) i know that is just part of life and that i cant please all the people, all of the time, but it is still pretty hard to take.


so if i shoot my mouth off and do the odd rant here and there........please forgive me! its just because i care.



i will have that hug now please pete.

 

[frogbmth]

I'd hug you but being a gayboy it wouldnt likely go down well

Scott, I do get you. I run a few websites myself (not ecig related) and get plenty of stick. I make a loss on them, I dont have any sponsors or donations but people think I do.

In some ways, haveing rules might protect you from some of that sort of thing. Think of it this way, if there are rules then you get to have your official stamp of approval. From here, it looks like you are pre-approved. Just a thought.

 

[ZambucaLu]

I asked SJ to clarify any rules about users with sponsorship or affiliation and their reviews. This was not with any intent to moan about anybody.

SJ asked me to start this thread so that ideas can be fleshed out and opinions gathered.

Oh, okay, I see now.

Lu

 

[Lika]

1. if you recieve money from doing something then technically it would be classed as professional. as the money no where near creates a sole income that could be classed as large enough to live it falls into the realm of "semi pro".

for example, a premiership footballer earns enough money to be able to live off and is therefore classed as "professional".
but a non league footballer would only earn a very small amount and would substitute that income with a full time job, thus making him a "semi professional".

I agree to a point with what you say determines a professional. However, I'm also convinced that especially within an online community such as this one, a rate of "salary" doesn't qualify you as a professional alone. Popularity also plays a big role. For example, a person could master the role of an ecig reviewer and become very popular without any financial gain from suppliers. The community would certainly deem him a professional in his field.

Your particular analogy of dollar amount in relation to being a professional doesn't make logical sense to me. Let me explain: The "professional" athletes you use for a comparison are in the top of their field and they make their top salaries because of the skills they've mastered to get there. Here, you and a few others are in the top of your field as ecig reviewers because you've mastered the skills to get you to a point of popularity where you are successful.

As a result of those skills and popularity your financial gains might be the pinnacle of what is currently possible to earn in this field. To compare it to an entirely different field with a much higher pay scale is incorrect. IMO, it doesn't really matter whether or not the "job" pays the bills. If we're talking about being a pro based on how much you make then what matters is where a person places on the pay scale within their respective field. As one of the top reviewers I would assume you place fairly high. To call yourself a semi-pro seems an injustice to your own hard work. Though I do realize you are also being somewhat modest because you're a nice guy

i freely admit that i do get defensive over these issues, but it truly is just because i feel so passionate about being honest and helping people. but i also admit that i get defensive because i have been thru a lot of unwarranted abuse and false accusations with regards to the intellicig thing. i also feel that i have gone far and beyond when it comes to making things clear by adding written warnings and verbal warnings at the beginning of a review to state i recieved it for free and to inform that i benefit from the use of a code as well as the viewer benefitting.

so those 3 things combined do add up to one defensive guy!

if i didnt care what you guys thought i simply would not even bother posting my replies to this thread or any other thread on this subject.

its upsetting when i KNOW im only being honest and trying to help but people still doubt you........its really not a nice feeling! (im sure the othr reviewers feel the same) i know that is just part of life and that i cant please all the people, all of the time, but it is still pretty hard to take.


so if i shoot my mouth off and do the odd rant here and there........please forgive me! its just because i care.



i will have that hug now please pete.

On being defensive:

Not that you asked me, but... If what I have to say matters to you then I would say this: I am absolutely fond of your videos. I also think you are a really great guy and I'm truly sorry that you feel a need to be defensive on a personal level by some of the posts on this thread. Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see that anyone had initially reached out and attacked you personally. It must be like you said with all the things in the past resulting in always being on guard. We know there will always be skeptics, not much we can do about them but be honest as you've done here. I just hope you can get past all this and that it doesn't end up causing you to reconsider the good you are doing for the community.

For me personally, I see this thread as part of a growing community that is simply looking for ways to protect itself from a group of people with a vested interest in a very competitive industry. To achieve this it would require holding these people to a certain level of integrity much as you've already done with your own videos. It's just that every reviewer may not want play fair and be as transparent as you. That's why the consideration of rules are being looked at. I know it's not easy to see it that way when you happen to be a part of the targeted group. But seriously IMO, that's all this is.

I will be content with whatever decision SJ makes. I've already said earlier that I don't need a set of rules because I feel like I am a pretty good judge of character and usually know before too long whether I can trust someone or not. I only participated in this thread because I wanted to offer help in reaching a common ground.

Anyway... with all this talk about hugs, I think it's high time for a group hug So *Big Hugs* to everyone and lets all try to let any hard feelings subside. I think everyone here is just trying to look out for the better of the community and that's what really matters in the end.