[20-OCT-2015] Refinements of forum categories and rules on affiliate links / codes

96 posts / 0 new
Last post
ChibiM
ChibiM's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 hours 34 min ago
Joined: 05/09/2011 - 10:25
Posts: 5818
Location: Holland/Japan

DavidEF wrote:
ChibiM wrote:

sb56637 wrote:
Sirius9 wrote:
Wasn't there a rule that affiliate link must be followed by non-affiliate link!!!
It's optional, now that affiliate links are restricted to two specific categories, users should realize that any threads in those categories probably have affiliate links.

That greatly sucks! They should always provide a Non Aff link!

That's 2 steps back in my opinion. 

Your logic is flawed. :p

Elaborate 

FlashPilot
FlashPilot's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 35 min ago
Joined: 05/10/2010 - 16:07
Posts: 4492
Location: USA
ChibiM wrote:

sb56637 wrote:
Sirius9 wrote:
Wasn’t there a rule that affiliate link must be followed by non-affiliate link!!!
It’s optional, now that affiliate links are restricted to two specific categories, users should realize that any threads in those categories probably have affiliate links.

That greatly sucks! They should always provide a Non Aff link!

That’s 2 steps back in my opinion. 

I completely agree. This definitely invites more abuse with a blind eye deliberately turned away from managing it. We already have far more than our share of members who skate on the cusp of vague BLF policy for their own personal monetary gain and other benefits. The primary complaint of members against aff links is that BLF provides a safe harbor for these unscrupulous activities, where most other forums expressly forbid it. Its gotten far out of hand and detracts from the value of information provided on this forum.

At the very least, can you please make it mandatory that all aff links must be accompanied by non-aff links, regardless of where they are posted? Some specific verbiage in that regard would be greatly appreciated.

ChibiM
ChibiM's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 hours 34 min ago
Joined: 05/09/2011 - 10:25
Posts: 5818
Location: Holland/Japan

That was officially a rule! I also dont udersatnd why they can now post affiliate links without a non-aff link.

DavidEF
DavidEF's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 8 min ago
Joined: 06/05/2014 - 06:00
Posts: 6100
Location: Salisbury, North Carolina, USA

ChibiM wrote:

DavidEF wrote:
ChibiM wrote:

sb56637 wrote:
Sirius9 wrote:
Wasn’t there a rule that affiliate link must be followed by non-affiliate link!!!
It’s optional, now that affiliate links are restricted to two specific categories, users should realize that any threads in those categories probably have affiliate links.

That greatly sucks! They should always provide a Non Aff link!

That’s 2 steps back in my opinion. 

Your logic is flawed. Silly

Elaborate 


Your logic is flawed because you are not agreeing with yourself. Here’s how the logic might look in a step-by-step format. There are obviously going to be many more steps, and they may not happen in this exact order.

To start with, we’re assuming that you like flashlights, and you’re happy to find a deal on a flashlight that pleases you. So, you come to BLF and leaf through the pages, not necessarily looking for a deal, but maybe. So, we’ll pick up there. Follow along.

1) The deal is posted.
2) You decide it’s a good deal and you’re willing to buy the item at that price
3) You look for a link to buy the item.
4) Since the link is affiliate, that means the person who posted the deal that you’ve already decided is a good one will be getting a small cut from the seller which you won’t pay for.
5) You demand a non-aff link be provided for the deal that the affiliate made possible for you.

So, you’ve already decided that the deal is good. But, philosophically you disagree with the aff-link and don’t want to use it. The affiliate program is about advertising. The seller asks affiliates to advertise for them and pays them for the service. Because of the advertising, you find a deal that is good. If there were no advertising, you would have no access to the good deal. But, you want to interfere with the affiliate program and yet still get the good deal. It would be like getting coupons in the mail and using them at the store, while at the same time complaining to the store manager that you got coupons in the mail.

Now, here’s how you can fix your broken logic. Agree with yourself. That’s it! Just decide whether you want the deals or not. Then go with that. So, either the affiliate program should exist and bring you deals OR it should not exist and/or not bring any good deals to you. I understand that there are many people on BLF that would just as soon do without the deals that affiliates bring. Maybe you’re one of them. Well, I disagree, but at least that is sound logic. Demanding that affiliates post non-aff links is not sound logic. I also understand that some of them do post non-aff links. Logically, that should be their prerogative. But, ironically, probably the best way to encourage more affiliates to post non-aff links is to click on the aff-links of the ones who do. Money talks, ya know.

Then again, if what M4DM4X said a few posts back is true, then a lot of your “non-aff” links still come with a payout anyway. It’s tied to the item discount code, so it is literally impossible to get the deal without paying the affiliate. And with all the animosity being shown in this forum toward aff-links, it might become the new norm.

Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone.
-Ayn Rand

ChibiM
ChibiM's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 hours 34 min ago
Joined: 05/09/2011 - 10:25
Posts: 5818
Location: Holland/Japan

DavidEF wrote:
ChibiM wrote:

DavidEF wrote:
ChibiM wrote:

sb56637 wrote:
Sirius9 wrote:
Wasn't there a rule that affiliate link must be followed by non-affiliate link!!!
It's optional, now that affiliate links are restricted to two specific categories, users should realize that any threads in those categories probably have affiliate links.

That greatly sucks! They should always provide a Non Aff link!

That's 2 steps back in my opinion. 

Your logic is flawed. :p

Elaborate 

Your logic is flawed because you are not agreeing with yourself. Here's how the logic might look in a step-by-step format. There are obviously going to be many more steps, and they may not happen in this exact order. To start with, we're assuming that you like flashlights, and you're happy to find a deal on a flashlight that pleases you. So, you come to BLF and leaf through the pages, not necessarily looking for a deal, but maybe. So, we'll pick up there. Follow along. 1) The deal is posted. 2) You decide it's a good deal and you're willing to buy the item at that price 3) You look for a link to buy the item. 4) Since the link is affiliate, that means the person who posted the deal _that you've already decided is a good one_ will be getting a small cut from the seller _which you won't pay for._ 5) You demand a non-aff link be provided for the deal that the affiliate made possible for you. So, you've already decided that the deal is good. But, philosophically you disagree with the aff-link and don't want to use it. The affiliate program is about advertising. The seller asks affiliates to advertise for them and pays them for the service. Because of the advertising, you find a deal that is good. If there were no advertising, you would have no access to the good deal. But, you want to interfere with the affiliate program and yet still get the good deal. It would be like getting coupons in the mail and using them at the store, while at the same time complaining to the store manager that you got coupons in the mail. Now, here's how you can fix your broken logic. Agree with yourself. That's it! Just decide whether you want the deals or not. Then go with that. So, either the affiliate program should exist and bring you deals OR it should not exist and/or not bring any good deals to you. I understand that there are many people on BLF that would just as soon do without the deals that affiliates bring. Maybe you're one of them. Well, I disagree, but at least _that_ is sound logic. Demanding that affiliates post non-aff links is not sound logic. I also understand that some of them do post non-aff links. Logically, that should be their prerogative. But, ironically, probably the best way to encourage more affiliates to post non-aff links is to click on the aff-links of the ones who do. Money talks, ya know. Then again, if what M4DM4X said a few posts back is true, then a lot of your "non-aff" links still come with a payout anyway. It's tied to the item discount code, so it is literally impossible to get the deal without paying the affiliate. And with all the animosity being shown in this forum toward aff-links, it might become the new norm.

Ah..no, not again...

not going to waste my energy on this crap! ;p

1dash1
1dash1's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 4 months ago
Joined: 08/29/2015 - 22:02
Posts: 1576
Location: Hilo, Hawaii

Debating the merits of another person’s logic is verboten! Party

Rule 1-1 as it applies to life, take it as it comes.

raccoon city
raccoon city's picture
Online
Last seen: 1 min ago
Joined: 10/06/2010 - 02:35
Posts: 11170
Location: रॅकून सिटी Palm Desert CA USA

FlashPilot wrote:
ChibiM wrote:

sb56637 wrote:
Sirius9 wrote:
Wasn't there a rule that affiliate link must be followed by non-affiliate link!!!
It's optional, now that affiliate links are restricted to two specific categories, users should realize that any threads in those categories probably have affiliate links.

That greatly sucks! They should always provide a Non Aff link!

That's 2 steps back in my opinion. 

I completely agree. This definitely invites more abuse with a blind eye deliberately turned away from managing it. We already have far more than our share of members who skate on the cusp of vague BLF policy for their own personal monetary gain and other benefits. The primary complaint of members against aff links is that BLF provides a safe harbor for these unscrupulous activities, where most other forums expressly forbid it. Its gotten far out of hand and detracts from the value of information provided on this forum. At the very least, can you please make it mandatory that all aff links must be accompanied by non-aff links, regardless of where they are posted? Some specific verbiage in that regard would be greatly appreciated.

Nicely put, ChibiM & FlashPilot!

+9001!

its_over_9000

DavidEF
DavidEF's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 8 min ago
Joined: 06/05/2014 - 06:00
Posts: 6100
Location: Salisbury, North Carolina, USA

1dash1 wrote:
Debating the merits of another person’s logic is verboten! Party

Fortunately for us, debating will not be necessary, as logic is absolute and measurable, just like math. Wink

Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone.
-Ayn Rand

DavidEF
DavidEF's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 8 min ago
Joined: 06/05/2014 - 06:00
Posts: 6100
Location: Salisbury, North Carolina, USA

ChibiM wrote:

DavidEF wrote:
ChibiM wrote:

DavidEF wrote:
ChibiM wrote:

sb56637 wrote:
Sirius9 wrote:
Wasn’t there a rule that affiliate link must be followed by non-affiliate link!!!
It’s optional, now that affiliate links are restricted to two specific categories, users should realize that any threads in those categories probably have affiliate links.

That greatly sucks! They should always provide a Non Aff link!

That’s 2 steps back in my opinion. 

Your logic is flawed. Silly

Elaborate 

Your logic is flawed because you are not agreeing with yourself. Here’s how the logic might look in a step-by-step format. There are obviously going to be many more steps, and they may not happen in this exact order. To start with, we’re assuming that you like flashlights, and you’re happy to find a deal on a flashlight that pleases you. So, you come to BLF and leaf through the pages, not necessarily looking for a deal, but maybe. So, we’ll pick up there. Follow along. 1) The deal is posted. 2) You decide it’s a good deal and you’re willing to buy the item at that price 3) You look for a link to buy the item. 4) Since the link is affiliate, that means the person who posted the deal that you’ve already decided is a good one will be getting a small cut from the seller which you won’t pay for. 5) You demand a non-aff link be provided for the deal that the affiliate made possible for you. So, you’ve already decided that the deal is good. But, philosophically you disagree with the aff-link and don’t want to use it. The affiliate program is about advertising. The seller asks affiliates to advertise for them and pays them for the service. Because of the advertising, you find a deal that is good. If there were no advertising, you would have no access to the good deal. But, you want to interfere with the affiliate program and yet still get the good deal. It would be like getting coupons in the mail and using them at the store, while at the same time complaining to the store manager that you got coupons in the mail. Now, here’s how you can fix your broken logic. Agree with yourself. That’s it! Just decide whether you want the deals or not. Then go with that. So, either the affiliate program should exist and bring you deals OR it should not exist and/or not bring any good deals to you. I understand that there are many people on BLF that would just as soon do without the deals that affiliates bring. Maybe you’re one of them. Well, I disagree, but at least that is sound logic. Demanding that affiliates post non-aff links is not sound logic. I also understand that some of them do post non-aff links. Logically, that should be their prerogative. But, ironically, probably the best way to encourage more affiliates to post non-aff links is to click on the aff-links of the ones who do. Money talks, ya know. Then again, if what M4DM4X said a few posts back is true, then a lot of your “non-aff” links still come with a payout anyway. It’s tied to the item discount code, so it is literally impossible to get the deal without paying the affiliate. And with all the animosity being shown in this forum toward aff-links, it might become the new norm.

Ah..no, not again…

not going to waste my energy on this crap! ;p


Language barrier? I don’t know. But, you missed what I said, apparently. And, no need to waste your energy on me. Save it for flashlights! :bigsmile:

Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone.
-Ayn Rand

sb56637
sb56637's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 1 hour ago
Joined: 01/08/2010 - 09:29
Posts: 6198
Location: The Light

Well, I wish there was a way to satisfy everyone’s preferences, but unfortunately there isn’t. We have a lot of members that want to see affiliate links, because they bring better deals. But also a few of our very knowledgeable and valued members detest them. At this point, few if any will change their position for or against affiliate links. So the best I can do is restrict them to a specific area of the forum, which has already been done. So I would recommend that the affiliate link haters not visit the “BLF User Negotiated Deals” section. And to make it easier for them to avoid it, I have created a Recent Posts page with threads from “BLF User Negotiated Deals” filtered out:

http://budgetlightforum.com/recent-posts-noaff

Budget Light Forum ...where Frugal meets with Flashlight!

hank
hank's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 10 hours ago
Joined: 09/04/2011 - 21:52
Posts: 7370
Location: California
Quote:
to make it easier for them to avoid it,

Bravo.

The lesson from Usenet is that killfiles work.
If something makes you crazy, don’t grab hold of it and hang on — arrange for yourself not to see it .

ChibiM
ChibiM's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 hours 34 min ago
Joined: 05/09/2011 - 10:25
Posts: 5818
Location: Holland/Japan

I think the best way is to get rid of them completely..

its absurd to think we should recommend members to not be part of BLF where we can get good deals..

whats the BLF deals alert thread for? where have the good deals been posted in the last 5 years? for who? who provided them? how?

pilotdog68
pilotdog68's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 05/30/2013 - 23:31
Posts: 6419
Location: Held against my will in IOWA, USA

frankly I have gotten much better deals through the aff-linkers than I ever got on the BLF deals alert thread. If I have email updates about martins thread and about the BLF Deal thread, I check Martins thread first.

That’s all besides the point. I think SB has done very well at reaching a compromise that works for both user sets, especially now that you can have your own ‘Recent Posts’ page with the aff threads filtered out.

Let’s stop giving SB more grief and causing strife, because as SB said, most people have already made up their minds about the issue. All of the hostility and passive-aggressive comments hurt this forum more than anything else.

Keep Calm and Flash On.

My Favorite Modded Lights: X6R, S8 , X2R , M6, SP03

Major Projects:  Illuminated Tailcap, TripleDown/TripleStack Driver

DavidEF
DavidEF's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 8 min ago
Joined: 06/05/2014 - 06:00
Posts: 6100
Location: Salisbury, North Carolina, USA

ChibiM wrote:

I think the best way is to get rid of them completely..

its absurd to think we should recommend members to not be part of BLF where we can get good deals..

whats the BLF deals alert thread for? where have the good deals been posted in the last 5 years? for who? who provided them? how?


SB just gave you what you wanted – a BLF without aff links. Why are you still stuck in ‘rant’ mode? :~ Come on, man, lighten up! We’re all here to have fun and enjoy our hobby together. Let’s not ruin that, okay? You won! You got what you wanted! Time to celebrate! Party

Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone.
-Ayn Rand

bugsy
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 2 months ago
Joined: 08/20/2015 - 11:40
Posts: 661
Location: USA

I noticed there are very many threads that advertising GearBest in the title including a bunch that were started by GearBest. I mentioned it to sb, but he said that they didn’t violate the rules.

I personally find it troubling that there are so many threads advertising GearBest as they are widely recognized as one of the worst (if not THE worst) sellers of flashlights.

sb56637
sb56637's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 1 hour ago
Joined: 01/08/2010 - 09:29
Posts: 6198
Location: The Light

bugsy wrote:
I noticed there are very many threads that advertising GearBest in the title including a bunch that were started by GearBest. I mentioned it to sb, but he said that they didn't violate the rules.

I personally find it troubling that there are so many threads advertising GearBest as they are widely recognized as one of the worst (if not THE worst) sellers of flashlights.

Unfortunately they are also one of the biggest vendors that frequently offers insanely good deals. Without banning them entirely, I don't see a way to avoid them generating a lot of buzz. For the record, this is the current GearBest rating page that I myself maintain:

 

sb56637 wrote:

http://GearBest.com

Pros:

  • Nice selection of chinese and name brand flashlights
  • Live chat support available
  • Customer service rep active on BLF
  • Good site organization and product category filters
  • Order system shows a photo of the shipped package
  • 5% off coupon for BLF: GBBLF

Cons:

  • Extremely slow turnaround times to fulfill orders
  • Frequent issues with orders
  • Extremely poor customer service
  • Many reports of much slower than average delivery and missing orders
  • Requires paying extra for tracking and order insurance, and won't offer full compensation on uninsured items
  • Problems caused by splitting orders into multiple shipments
  • Sometimes incorrect stock status of items, sometimes sells unavailable items
  • Some grossly inflated lumens claims
  • On at least one occasion GearBest customer service told a user to delete a negative comment in order to receive a refund.

Budget Light Forum ...where Frugal meets with Flashlight!

Ormbett
Ormbett's picture
Offline
Last seen: 15 hours 7 min ago
Joined: 02/26/2015 - 09:55
Posts: 1039
Location: Sweden
ChibiM wrote:

That was officially a rule! I also dont udersatnd why they can now post affiliate links without a non-aff link.

Yep, that is strange. My silent protest is to never click on affiliate links when the non aff link is missing Smile

M4D M4X
M4D M4X's picture
Online
Last seen: 1 min 45 sec ago
Joined: 03/19/2014 - 05:17
Posts: 6438
Location: Austria (GMT + 1)

i hope to be the less worse pain in your *** Wink

i was also not happy with the rules (ask Sb how often i wrote him Big Smile ) because it was heavily unballanced…

i think the only shop who give the chance not to reward the guy whoms work you are using Wink is banggood..

okay, some shops use redirects with “shareasale” (which can easily be identified) and a nonaff link makes sense – but i see them seldom here

BUT what do you do in all that cases where the affiliate is not honest and does not tell you that he participates from your order?
some get their share counted on the codes used in total – so everyone uses their “affiliate ID” and bring them money…

they worked around the rules before the great changes Sb made!
every deal now is in its “commercial” section where you can choose to see them or not

… the people who do not take money or points or free goods for their work will proceed and post their deals there also i am sure Wink

find all available items in this list

i launched my new blog - all deals for members without MAP B$ Wink

find a short description about my idea here

 

if you want to buy a flashlight or battery for a better price: just send a mail - i will try to save you money!

M4D M4X
M4D M4X's picture
Online
Last seen: 1 min 45 sec ago
Joined: 03/19/2014 - 05:17
Posts: 6438
Location: Austria (GMT + 1)

no – not a job, but i invest a lot of time since i am unemployeed since 2 months…

its true – i make money IF i bring you guys deals you find worth to buy Wink

find all available items in this list

i launched my new blog - all deals for members without MAP B$ Wink

find a short description about my idea here

 

if you want to buy a flashlight or battery for a better price: just send a mail - i will try to save you money!

1dash1
1dash1's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 4 months ago
Joined: 08/29/2015 - 22:02
Posts: 1576
Location: Hilo, Hawaii

can wrote:
Thanks for the honest reply, and maybe explains why you and a few other pro Affiliters have been really acting like 3 year old kids competing to get their affiliate link up first and fighting etc etc etc. What was the rule dont be annoying? also do you have to link your commercial website on every one of your posts?

PS: for about 1.5 years I did not mind affiliate links, for the last year I do mind because you and your competitors are in it for yourself only.

That’s rather harsh!

I don’t see all affiliates as acting solely for themselves. Some, like M4D M4X, actively participate in discussions, participate in group buys, post reviews, and try their best to satisfy individual requests for discounts or product information.

Rule 1-1 as it applies to life, take it as it comes.

ChibiM
ChibiM's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 hours 34 min ago
Joined: 05/09/2011 - 10:25
Posts: 5818
Location: Holland/Japan

That is interesting!

It even saves banggood 8% not to use a aff link, when you ask them directly.

So I guess it's just a matter of contacting Neal or GB directly to get the same discount. They will be happy to earn another 8%.

Btw Neal has been quite helpful with a problem I had with my Blf a6. So he is helpful.

hank
hank's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 10 hours ago
Joined: 09/04/2011 - 21:52
Posts: 7370
Location: California

I’m moved to suggest a forum subcategory — under Commercial — for reviews by people who got free or discounted lights.

I resemble this remark, recently, I don’t know if they’ve just discovered me somehow or if there’s a big push on.

I’ve heard today from the third flashlight company in a couple of weeks asking if I’d like a free flashlight and hoping I review it at BLF and/or Amazon.

When I checked today’s offer, I find literally more than a dozen topics already at BLF over several years about this same flashlight.

I would like BLF to be a place people critique, and take apart, and improve on — not just applaud — flashlights.

I was thinking of posting “How about a Big Group Review of the ______” (until I realized how many threads already exist about the _____).

That still might be a good idea, if a lot of us have all gotten today’s email offering a free ______ hoping for yet another review.

Or, maybe, a subforum to identify reviews garnered by giving people free lights — which right now are mixed throughout the site.

Yeah, people do identify them, almost always now, early on in a review.

But it seems, somehow, like it’d work better for us all if these kinds of review got all bundled up together, as a group cooperative project.

Dunno. Whatcha think?

DavidEF
DavidEF's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 8 min ago
Joined: 06/05/2014 - 06:00
Posts: 6100
Location: Salisbury, North Carolina, USA

hank wrote:
I’m moved to suggest a forum subcategory — under Commercial — for reviews by people who got free or discounted lights.

I resemble this remark, recently, I don’t know if they’ve just discovered me somehow or if there’s a big push on.

I’ve heard today from the third flashlight company in a couple of weeks asking if I’d like a free flashlight and hoping I review it at BLF and/or Amazon.

When I checked today’s offer, I find literally more than a dozen topics already at BLF over several years about this same flashlight.

I would like BLF to be a place people critique, and take apart, and improve on — not just applaud — flashlights.

I was thinking of posting “How about a Big Group Review of the ______” (until I realized how many threads already exist about the _____).

That still might be a good idea, if a lot of us have all gotten today’s email offering a free ______ hoping for yet another review.

Or, maybe, a subforum to identify reviews garnered by giving people free lights — which right now are mixed throughout the site.

Yeah, people do identify them, almost always now, early on in a review.

But it seems, somehow, like it’d work better for us all if these kinds of review got all bundled up together, as a group cooperative project.

Dunno. Whatcha think?


I’m in! I tried to make my review as complete and fair/balanced as I could, but you’re right that a forum category for this kind of review churn-out by manufacturers might help clear some things up. A group review sounds like an awesome idea as well. Maybe I’ll PM you the next time someone contacts me to do a review for one of their lights. Full disclosure: Olight contacted me about the light I reviewed recently and that is so far the first and only time I’ve ever been offered a free product and asked to do a review of it. I thought at first that maybe they picked me especially because I’ve already been a long-time fan of their products. I knew it wasn’t because I might do a quality review, because I’m not known for reviews around here or anywhere else. Yet, lots of other guys are. I still can’t figure out why they offered the same light to a half-dozen or so people on the same forum at the same time. Except that SEO gets a boost from so many people mentioning the product name in whatever (good or bad) context.

Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone.
-Ayn Rand

HKJ
HKJ's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 hours 38 min ago
Joined: 05/24/2011 - 12:23
Posts: 6272
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
hank wrote:
I’m moved to suggest a forum subcategory — under Commercial — for reviews by people who got free or discounted lights.

I do not review light at the moment, but I do get free stuff to review and I see no reason to post these reviews at another place than for the stuff I buy.

My website with reviews of many chargers and batteries (More than 1000): https://lygte-info.dk/

mattlward
mattlward's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 15 hours ago
Joined: 06/19/2015 - 09:20
Posts: 2319
Location: Illinois, USA

I have only done a handful of reviews… I like the idea of a central location and maybe even a group review. It seems that we tend to find different things we like or don’t like and compare these lights to different lights we own. I do not think that furnished reviews are bad, as long as they are honest, thoughtful and stated up front. Not everyone here will own a custom light, build a modified light or even have the desire to do so. I think that these reviews give an opinion from a sampling of people who have differing skills and desires and therefore may help those who are looking for a good over-the-counter light. When I first started with lights, I used opinions here and other places to decide what I wanted to buy and found it very valuable.

EDC rotation:
Convoy S2+, 6*7135, XM-L2 3D, 10 degree TIR, PilotDog lighted tailcap.
Convoy S2+, H17F, XM-L2 4C, lighted tailcap
Zebralight SC52w-L2
Olight S1A
Olight S1R

M4D M4X
M4D M4X's picture
Online
Last seen: 1 min 45 sec ago
Joined: 03/19/2014 - 05:17
Posts: 6438
Location: Austria (GMT + 1)

what about a “gentleman's agreement“ on BLF:

 

we tell IF the reviewed item was free / send as sample with discount without naming the source!

OR

was bought regularly (no chance for the manufacturer or shop to cherry pick)

 

 

i trust most blf-members ( and know the few i should not) 

so no need to think the separation of reviews itno free stuff / paid opinion / trusted guy / whatever would help.

for sure the black sheeps would lie and the trusted members might get  strange views because they say it was free stuff...

find all available items in this list

i launched my new blog - all deals for members without MAP B$ Wink

find a short description about my idea here

 

if you want to buy a flashlight or battery for a better price: just send a mail - i will try to save you money!

hank
hank's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 10 hours ago
Joined: 09/04/2011 - 21:52
Posts: 7370
Location: California

Yeh, I’m not suggesting separating reviews.
Quite the opposite — I’d rather see us with one or a few review topics, and as M4X says, those who disclose how they came by the light would get some respect for saying that.

Mainly, I’m suggesting we as a group contributing to one discussion find out more than if we each have our own.

Time will tell.

mattlward
mattlward's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 15 hours ago
Joined: 06/19/2015 - 09:20
Posts: 2319
Location: Illinois, USA

Right Hank, now all we have to do is figure out how a group review would be done… Small section up top for general specs and a couple of pics and a section for each person who reviews the light for individual pics and comments? Followed by maybe beamshots, I always like to do a comparison with another known light.

EDC rotation:
Convoy S2+, 6*7135, XM-L2 3D, 10 degree TIR, PilotDog lighted tailcap.
Convoy S2+, H17F, XM-L2 4C, lighted tailcap
Zebralight SC52w-L2
Olight S1A
Olight S1R

DavidEF
DavidEF's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 8 min ago
Joined: 06/05/2014 - 06:00
Posts: 6100
Location: Salisbury, North Carolina, USA

I’m amazed at how many reviews we’ve been seeing for the same light from the same manufacturer. I’m almost sorry that I did one now. This group review thing would really help cut down on the noise. And by noise, I don’t mean anything against anyone’s review. What I mean is the sheer number of threads started. Each review thread, good or bad, is gonna add another potential hit for their product in search engines everywhere. I’m starting to think that Olight didn’t even care to get “good” reviews. They were just going for quantity. Please, somebody make group reviews a reality!

One thought I had: Pick a person who would be responsible for the final format (for each review). Others who wish to review the same light can look at what is already written, and send the ‘Editor’ their suggestions, such as adding content, uploading a video review (that they’ve personally done), changing wording in the text to make it more clear, etc. Each contributor would also be allowed to make a concluding statement. Review conclusions are very personal, written from the perspective of the one doing the review. So, I think that would count as that person having done a review. I think it should only be after they’ve made other contributions to the group review. I’d like to know that if I promised a review to someone in exchange for product, that I’m not breaking that promise, even if there are ten other people reviewing the same product at nearly the same time.

Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone.
-Ayn Rand

hank
hank's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 10 hours ago
Joined: 09/04/2011 - 21:52
Posts: 7370
Location: California
Quote:
I’d like to know that if I promised a review to someone in exchange for product, that I’m not breaking that promise, even if there are ten other people reviewing the same product at nearly the same time.

Welll, that’s the same problem that got me thinking about this — a flood of reviews for each of several lights being given away free in hopes of reviews just lately.

I suggested our host could create a subcategory here — seller-funded reviews — then we could nudge one another to assign that forum category to posts.

Within that — yeah, we could cooperate more and better.

The first person to post one could call it a group review.
(Or, the first person to want to do that could go back and edit an original post — put “group review” in the thread title and try to gather up the scattered bits).

One shining example of doing it right — the consolidated thread about the ZeusRay — shows it’s doable, if someone makes the effort.
When you start a thread, you could invite others in and state how she/he would like others to contribute (but tolerantly, nobody reads the rules anyhow (grin)).

But honestly, I think sweeping ants or herding cats would be easier than having a rule set to corral multiple reviews.

I jumped into your review, David, and into someone else’s, posted my comments about the S1A and posted cross-references to the other reviews I saw for the same light around the same time — and I consider that enough honest effort. (And I appreciate that you weren’t ticked off to have my comments dropped into your review.)

If flashlight sellers are just wanting more individually posted threads to get more SEO hits, they’ll learn not to bother me. If they want serious comments, they can ask.

Pages