"Hall of Shame" discussion thread

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 :slight_smile:

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. :smiley:

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 :wink: 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

What! I bought it some months ago!

Maybes its just me but Zanflare is back at it again.

Starting to feel too commercial in the “non-commercial space.

” Zanflare B3 Teaser ( Bike Light )“:Zanflare B3 Teaser ( Bike Light )

I totally get that old4570 does not work for Zanflare aka gearbest but adding a crowd funding link feels sort of over the top.

For a so so light.

but maybe its just me?

Now if old4570 thought it was the worlds greatest light and was worried they would not get seed money and fail? (cool), but we all know Gearbest is behind starting/pushing an inhouse brand (as such I cant think of a single reason I would recommend my friends to dig in there pockets to save gearbest development money on inhouse marketing and product development.

I’m not against inhouse brands or comapnies doing product development but to ask us for money to do is… well… ballsy!

.02

First post of the boss:
“….Please avoid discussions here, and just post the name of vendors that you have recently seen spamming threads or using shill tactics……”

I do not understand why people not read the first posts…. there are tons of discussions here….
(sorry for this post)

Gearbest is using Fin17

the “give away” is supposed to be a “Fin17 Six-Month Anniversary Giveaway ” but it is obvious it is just more marketing and research.

I think what we need is a “commercial” button because spam is not quite correct, so we can put these in the proper place and have it recorded.

So information is now over the top ? ( Very strange )
I dont work for anyone - I do reviews - sometimes I am sent stuff - some times its out of my pocket …

I don’t want to get in on the politics of opinion … So how about leaving me out of it … ( I have worked hard at distancing myself from OPINION )
If you dont want a review posted on the B3 just let me know !

Oh and so that you know , I don’t know what I think about the B3 yet !
So far it has some good points and some not so good …

But I really don’t want to get involved in the politics , I just do reviews - part of that is trying to provide information …

Argh come on!
Make it a sport to call bluff, point to nice deals or just give commercial parties a chance
Just wanted to post a reply (I was happy about, bam, topic gone here is the reply I wrote:

A few months back a “shill” posted about some outdoor string lights or something, the topic filled up with the same product for less or same price for more. That teaches more and gives some interesting threads.

Mostly the main issue is posting in wrong section, so a “commercial” button to move it seems cool!

llucas xie, spammer for ledflashlighting.com

(Funny…or not: everytime this member makes a post, it is his/hers 1st post… BTW, normally the threads presenting their lights are not even in the commercial part)

http://budgetlightforum.com/forum/misc/commercial

Zanflare is now banned after many flagrant rule violations and warnings.

This thread used to be the Hall of Shame thread, but it has now been opened up as a general discussion thread.

The new Hall of Shame thread (NO DISCUSSIONS ALLOWED!) is here:
https://budgetlightforum.com/t/-/47069

I have just re-read a Zanflare product thread, but this time without the spammy comment by member Zanflare. Suddenly, the Zanflare product became much more appealing without the spamming. In a way this is contradictory, as the purpose of a spammer is supposed to increase sales.

Exactly, I hope that the flashlight vendors will read this and realize how incredibly stupid and counterproductive their spammy tactics are. And the worst thing is that it’s completely unnecessary, BLF has an incredibly lenient and inviting FREE policy toward commercial vendors.

Seeing as how I just posted a review of a freely provided light recently, and it was my first actual product review, I’d like to post my opinion.

Personally, I like to see 3 or 4 reviews of the same product (with original content, not just copy/paste of the sellers page). This gives me a good idea of what a few different people think of a product. If there are 9, 12, or two-dozen reviews… OK, that’s getting excessive.

If it’s clearly an advertising post masquerading as a “review”, that’s not OK to me either. That being said, it does make some sense to combine multiple reviews of a single model of product in a way…

Ultimately, I think we want to avoid/reduce spam posts, and if we can get legitimate reviews (even for free products) that are not excessive or advertising in nature, that would be a win.

It’s true that subtle forms of advertising are a legitimate issue that we need to deal with better. But the subject of this thread is blantant spam that even some established big brands have been posting here on BLF recently. I found an example in of one of HKJ’s usual fantastic review threads where the manufacturer of that product popped in and posted: “Nice review. Wanna buy one? Check it out here (link)”. So garbage like that is nothing to debate about, it’s a flagrant and shameless violation of the Rules for Commercial Sellers, and should be marked as spam if anything like that appears in the future.