I began exploring this issue in the new members section and believe it is appropriate to move it to the larger membership. To be credible, reviewers in those cloud-blowing videos should promise or represent to viewers one of two things: (1) either that s/he has been regularly using the device for at least 3 weeks, or (2) s/he will post a follow up review after three weeks of regular use. Some reviewers already do that. Reviewers who don't simply invite a mass journey into the unknown--a form of voting in the dark that is a disservice to consumers who have neither the inclination, time nor luxury of watching/reading scads of reviews to inform themselves. Reviewers also should disclose whether they have any interest, direct or indirect, in the entity or product they review, and whether they are receiving any kind of consideration arising from the review process. We should regard those who routinely do not issue the appropriate representations and disclosures as gaming the review process and out them. Another thing, where possible, reviewers should specify the percentages of PG/VG in those cloud-blowing reviews, as it affects the amount of visible vapor. Any other suggestions besides cleaning up ones grammar, not using crutch words, scrubbing ones fingernails, frame rates, lighting, etc.?
Last edited:
