i think zanflare is hype-y and spammy feeling, at least the bike light and who ever they’ve got pushing that thing
wle
I’ve just seen Zanflare pushing one of their lights on a thread where someone was asking for recommendations, and that feels borderline to me.
I feel that people asking for recommendations are looking for ideas from real users like them, rather than manufacturers pushing their stuff. The manufacturer’s vested interest in getting sales makes me nervous in that scenario.
I always hit the “mark as spam” button on those kind of posts.
Manker already very popular lately, why and how they did the spam?
Sorry, can’t resist not to ask.
- Clemence
Just PM the vendor, and ask. It helps if you can show examples of previous reviews. Some prefer new reviewers to review lower cost products first, and if they are happy, then they will allow you to review higher priced products. They also like it if you are on multiple forums (e.g. BLF, CPF, Reddit), post videos (YouTube), and are on multiple social media platforms. I’ve never had any issues from vendors with any negative comments in reviews, though I try to word things politically e.g. if a light overheats in 30secs, recommend it for “experienced users” who can manually step down, rather than complaining too much about poor heat handling.
they give out free samples and “multiple ”reviews”“:Search results for '' - BudgetLightForum.com appear in the non commercial forums
if you click that link you will see at least NINE separate “reviews” of the Manker E02, just on the first page of the search result. I searched for “review marker E02”
this is another example of a Vendor using “reviews” for Social Media Marketing.
imo, ALL “reviews” should be in the commercial forum. When I click the non commercial link on BLF, I do NOT want to see multiple “reviews” of the same light, over and over, and over and over, and over and over, and over and over, and over…. (that was 9 times over)
if you go to page 2 of the search result, you will find even more E02 “reviews”
You would think the E02 is a very popular light, but actually its just a pile of freebies being distributed to “reviewers”.
As long as people continue to get free samples, they will continue to SPAM the NON COMMERCIAL forums with “reviews”.
People who get free lights are participating in SPAMMING, unless they post their reviews in the Commercial Forums ONLY!
Yeah, but sometimes you can be asked to review a light that you ordinarily wouldn’t buy. Eg, I’m not a fan of AA lights at all except a very few 1×AA lights, so I’d never go and buy on my own a light like a Zanflare F2, or Jaxman M2, etc., even if they’re exceptional lights in their own right.
But if I’m asked to review one of them, hellyeah I’ll say yes. 20bux, even 10bux, it’s not worth it to me. 0bux (or loose change like with a 99%-off code), absolutely. From there, I can give it away, sell it (tacky, but…), or if I do grow attached to it somehow, keep it.
The criteria I use is whether/not the review is honest enough to help me make a good decision whether/not I’d want one. Doesn’t matter to me if the reviewer paid full freight, or got it as a freebie, as long as it’s honest.
reviews are great for making purchasing decisions
reviews ARE commercial by nature, and that is my point, reviews belong in the Commercial forums
when I click NON Commercial, reviews should not show up.
Im not against reviews, I just don’t think they belong in the NON Commercial Forums
Especially not TWELVE Times, like the E02
Lets just stop pretending that reviews are non commercial, they are SPAM, intended to generate sales. Put them in the Commercial Forum, to STOP flooding the non commercial forum with multiple reviews of the same product.
But where does that stop? Nichia vs Cree vs SSC vs…
“Ooh, the new XP-L3 came out, here’s my review…” And no one from Cree sent anyone any samples. Tekkie info like Vf, efficacy, thermal performance, etc., are “reviews” of a sort.
I paid full freight on all my RJ02s and DV-S9s, yet I can’t help but sing their praises when anyone asks for a rec about a headlamp or variable-output light. I just like them that much. 
Lots of people here love Simon/Convoy, and RMM/MTN, and recommend them at every turn, and for good reason. That doesn’t bother me in the slightest, even though that’s clearly “commercial”, recommending a business.
Part of why people come to BLF is to see “reviews” of lights that they may be interested in. Or what LED to use, or where to get parts from, or… I’d have a hard time trying to figure out where that line is even if I put my mind to it. Getting slapped down for not “reviewing” a product in the commercial section is a good way to scare away n00bz and veterans alike.
Just playin’ Devil’s Advocate here…
Ah, thanks for explaining Jon.
- Clemence
I’d like to see more endurance/strength or destructive testing when free samples are provided for review.
There is a reason Amazon adjusted their review policy regarding free or discounted items. Bias is a powerful thing.
To paint the picture of ALL reviews being Spam is dangerous in the fact that a Negative review that warns of a possible big time problem, whether it be extreme overcharging inside the flashlight or a battery short possibility due to bad engineering is of a huge Help to this community and not a liability.
That is not commercial in any form.
That is being a good beta field tester.
Look at how many times these “countless reviews” have given way to the manufacturer actually improving the products, better spaced modes, better tint, etc. Thorfire is a perfect example of a company that gives away tons of flashlights to be tested, abused, torn apart so that they can better understand what the customer actually wants/needs/demands and then applies this knowledge to improve their product.
No tell me again, where is the problem with that???
I have read many reviews from members here that saved me much money and frustration because of their honest review of a flashlight that they were provided by the vendor free of charge.
What section it is listed in makes no difference, I’m going to read it and give the same smell test to what was written regardless.
Later,
Keith
I think reviews fall into three categories:
1. The reviewer buys their own light at full price.
2. The reviewer is given the light (or a discount), but no other compensation.
3. The reviewer receives money for sales of the lights.
Personally, I find all reviews useful, as long as I know what compensation (if any) the reviewer receives.
Given the amount of time it takes to put together a review, getting a free $30 light is not a big incentive to do a review (especially if the light sucks!). You’re probably making $1 / hour. Reviewers in category (1) and (2) have to actually like doing a review. Nobody is going to be a shill for $1/hour.
I agree that (3) may be a little spammy, but I still like to know what kind of new lights are coming on the market, and what the features and specs are. I have no idea how much people make doing this, but it’s probably not a lot. A minimum wage job probably pays more (though I admit that’s a total guess).
That assumes that the review is original and honest. If all they do is grab the manufacturer’s marketing slides and repost it, then yeah it’s total spam.
Finally, some manufacturers and retailers actually use the feedback from their reviewers to update specs (to the correct ones), or get manufacturers to fix flaws. Is the manufacturer getting something out of these reviews? Sure, of course, otherwise they wouldn’t give away lights to get the reviews. But it’s not all one-sided. If reviewers were limited to type (1), then there’d be far less reviews.
I agree with your Devil. Everything on BLF is ultimately related to purchasing products. Im only objecting to the practice of putting multipole “Reviews” of the same light, in the non Commercial forum.
My only point is that the “reviews” are Commercial, and belong in that area.
That is my point. The problem of having many “reviews” of the same light, is caused by Vendors giving many free samples.
A very large proportion of most “reviews” is not new info, just a requote of the Commercial Web Page that sells the lights.
There are some very small, by comparison, contributions made by “reviewers”, that are Original tests the Vendor did not do. I find these valuable. I just don’t need a dozen “reviews” requoting all the MFG images and specs, to find the one or two paragraphs of the “reviewers” conclusions and original data.
I yield to the distinguished gentlemen intent on pointing out that “Reviews” are commercially useful (they help me decide what to buy as well as what not to buy). I agree. But 12 “reviews” of the E02, most of which are just requotes of images and specs? That is the problem I propose to solve by forcing “reviewers” to post in the Commercial Forum.
Again, I LIKE reviews, and I do search for them. They simply are out of control due to Vendors gaming the system, by giving free lights that lead to “reviews” being posted in the NON commercial forums.
but, no biggie, I realize All areas of BLF are ultimately commercial. Maybe we just need to get rid of the “non commercial” link at the top of the BLF page. Then let the flood of “reviews” continue 
Okay, if that’s all the review is, then just hit the spam button and report it. It belongs in a commercial/marketing area.
I see your point about multiple reviews. But if they’re all original and do their own testing, I don’t see it as a problem. I’d rather read several reviews by different people, than just rely on a single review, especially when it comes to testing. Putting them in the commercial area would mix real reviews in with all the commercial marketing. I see those as very different things (as long as the review is original and honest).
Just to muddy the water on the “reviews are Commercial, and belong in that area” discussion.
HKJ does a lot of reviews, and some of the products (chargers, cells, etc) he receives for free, but I would not want to see the reviews moved to the commercial section.
For me, the difference is: does the review present information they have gathered from using the product (light, cell, charger) or did they just restate what the manufacture said.
Depends. As much as I like the Zanflare F1 in pretty much every other way, I still beat up on it about the green tint. And the VG10S, I pointed out all the steps backward vs the old VG10. Dunno if I’ll be getting any more review offers from either Z or TF, but I called it like I saw it.
Granted, it’s tempting to just be a shill for every freebie, in the hopes of getting more freebies, but I’d hope it’d be easy to see through that.
But even that still doesn’t stop everyone else from dogpiling on it to call shenanigans.
I think we partly have this backwards.
We don’t need a new policy especially applying reviewers. All the points previously made are largely valid.
But how about we sanction the vendor/mfg. If specific “supplier” mfg or distributor abuses the reviewer system (really I think abuse revolves around the price/cost of the unit.)
For example If hank wanted to flood the market with meteors and in so doing gave away 24 meteor M43 for reviews, we probably could tolerate the burden 
But flooding our market with low cost (pick a price) lights is definitely abusing the opportunity SB has granted.
Ultimately its about abuse, not if someone received a light for free or not. If we set it up so that it’s in the “to generalize” (Chinese best interest to not abuse our opportunity) then we all win. If they abuse it (like porn we all know it when we see it) then we ask SB to toss em (future reviews) in the commercial camp.
Bingo we might have near perfect compliance, and if not we can see if the problem rises to the level of justifying policy creation.
knema.com = spammer
Same here:
Interesting how huntking bought a Zanflare F1 for the MSRP price of $39, as the light is always on sale.
Edit: the correct answer is Zanflare