I gave it a rest and while keeping quiet I got a message from Parked's friend asking me about myself - who I am, my interests, what I do. It's like dealing with the mafia, shady dealings and half truths.
You are protecting a xxxxxx SmokeyJoe. He said it himself - at least 25% of his reviews are biased. For the people who see nothing wrong with that then we'll have to agree to disagree. I think it's wrong and the dirty tricks since add insult to a situation that could have been easily cleared up.
There's been some pretty good covering of advertisements on the review board under the guise of an independent consumer. I believe that members of the forum should be warned that reviews could be marketing tricks.
Attacking me for smelling the rat doesn't make the smell any less.
There's that con word again...do the words defamation of character or libel mean nothing?
Indeed, it's quite unbelievable.
Kate, you must realise that you are repeatedly defaming someone on this forum. Any more and I will have to ban you.
Do you understand? The con word is out of bounds. By all means question his business practices, but accusing people of being conmen without any evidence to show they are exposes the forum to unacceptable risk.
It's as if you want this place to be taken down!!
nb. Biased reviews is not the same as being a conman. I suggest you look up what a conman actually is.
"Confidence man, practitioner of confidence tricks"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_Man_(disambiguation)
"A confidence trick or confidence game (also known as a bunko, con, flim flam, gaffle, grift, hustle, scam, scheme, or swindle) is an attempt to defraud a person or group by gaining their confidence."
Confidence trick - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
How would you define marketing videos posted as reviews on a supposedly independent review board?
Dont bash me, but I have a innocent question. So does this mean I can do reveiws of my items and place them in my forum? With a disclaimer of course.
as far as my understanding goes , you can pretty much do what you like in YOUR forum.
Ofcorse giving a bad review of a competitors product is a no no..
It's a special no-no if you give a competitors product a bad review while giving the same re-branded product that you sell a good review. Hey... I'm not saying it happened... but it's true.
That is grossly unfair. The separation of suppliers and members has always been the no.1 priority in my mind - the decisions about how the forum is run has always been made with member input, this place is still at its core about giving members the ability to make their own minds up about products with the widest possible amount of information.
Trogg is absolutely wrong about the forum. But then he ACTUALLY has vested interests in doing this place down, doesn't he?
Why anyone would take seriously a comment about this place's commercialisation from Trog - a man making money from the e-cig - is totally beyond me. But hey, it takes all sorts to make a world.
I will continue to improve the forum, and I hope you all continue with the input that is so valuable in making it what it is.
ah, yes...the Evo review issue...I forgot about that one.
I did press Parker in this issue and here's what I got.
He states that when he did the reviews he had a 2-hole Evo atomizer which CAN effect the performance of the product. We know that 2 hole atomizers were out there and it is possible that this is the case.
I haven't pressed the issue because I have no reason to doubt the veracity of Parker's statement.
Suffice it to say, that HAS been addressed and his answer came quickly and, again, with no signs of evasiveness or deception.
Like I said, I'm satisfied.
I wasn't naming names or pointing out a specific instance... yes that is what brought it to mind, but I was just making a comment.