I know I haven’t been here long but when I look through the different categories regarding battery specific lights, I can’t help but wonder why the first 50 threads are reviews stickied in that category. Why is there not a reviews category for all of the reviews to be in?
forum appears to be sorted by battery form factor and reviews/discussion is around that topic. Which, in my opinion, is one way of doing it.
There are people out there who don’t care about AAA/AA/(…) and can then focus on their own type of light. Also, the search should work just fine? I use google for searching through BLF though.
Hi there, most of the most popular battery formats have a dedicated review sub-category inside them. If you see any category that doesn’t have one yet and that is cluttered with sticky’d reviews, please feel free to let me know.
Thanks, looks like the 26650 category is the main one that is still cluttrred. Sorry, I should have been more clear in my OP.
It would be a big improvement to have rules about disclosure.
Did the seller send the reviewer a free light, which might be improved without his knowledge?
Or did the reviewer buy it from ebay ?
It makes a big difference.
Does the reviewer have a business connection with the seller and is doing a canned good review ?
Is the reviewer doing the seller a favor by trying to help him sell lights ?
Are the first 3 posters shills for the seller who all recommend buying the light ?
It makes a big difference.
I find some reviews to be very suspicious.
If the reviewer does not give any disclosure and does not tell where the light came from , and then argues that he should not have to tell these things, you can go ahead and take the review with a pinch of salt.
But you are free to make your own decisions about the review.
All good ideas, but in practice, how do you enforce it? If shills are involved, by definition they are dishonest. They’re not going to obey any rules of disclosure.
However, perhaps if they stated any conflicts of interest, or lack of conflict of interest, they might be a little more hesitant to lie about it, just in case they’re caught. Then again, what’s to stop them from just creating a new account and doing it all again? I suppose a low post count might indicate they have an agenda.
Just because we can’t make dishonest reviewers follow those rules is not a reason to go without rules.
——————-
—-
It might always be a problem, but when some reviewers have no credibility at all anymore, we need to let the other reviewers know that we have standards that we hope they will live up to. Some reviewers do not disclose their business connections, and friendships with sellers, and do not even say if they have a special “review edition” light, or the same dangerous light that the rest of us got. Some reviews are so obviously dishonest in their intent, that we have to speak up.
—— We have to have some rules about Full Disclosure in reviews. Just because we can’t make dishonest reviewers follow those rules is not a reason to go without rules.
Sure, I’m okay with that. At the very least, it will make the honest reviewers post disclaimers that might indicate bias. I don’t think it will stop shills, though.
Look, I have been called a shill here on BLF. I have a relationship with Banggood mainly, but have been contacted by Gearbest, OrcaTorch and others to do reviews. I am not a shill as in the traditional sense, which is to make money for the people I work for while appearing to just be a customer. I do not work for Banggood or any other vendor, or BLF…
Yet I am a shill here for taking a positive view of what was received and a practical view of the quality for the money apparently. Ok, then I am a shill because here on a DIY forum I advocate to not look at the bad and bemoan it, but how to fix it and move on if it is worth it, or return it if the situation is not cost effective to fix… I will be that kind of shill all day long. Now obviously if you are simply a user and have no want to fix something, that is your right to take up action for yourself and seek a refund or return the item to the vendor.
If I say the light was sent by xxxx for the review, I am disclosing the fact I got the light for a review from this manufacturer, either for free or a reduced cost. I have gone into the economics of these “free” lights elsewhere, so the review is really for BLF and my knowledge, with no real “profit” monetarily. Heck, I won a PflexPro giveaway last year and wrote a review BECAUSE the light was awesome, not because it was free… Am I a shill for winning a contest?
In my signature link is the “all my links are non affiliated for your pleasure” statement. Tthis came about from a rash of affiliated links here last year sometime. I have no want to do anything showing that I “sell” lights for companies. I was a bit uncomfortable even with the A01 codes being ReManGA01 or A01C for the versions as it seems like I am making some affiliated link with this. I am not, it was Neal at Banggoods choice for the code instead of some random group of letters and numbers. I benefited nothing from points or money or anything at all with that code. I do not sell lights, I just review them and if there is any issue, try to point it AND a solution out for readers to consider. They always have the right of returning something, I have never said otherwise.
Any code you get from a member here is track-able to that member, how would the manufacturer/vendor know the code and whom it went to? They generate it… So I would hope that all those here talking about shills would not be using other members here to send them codes for discounts, but instead buying the lights at full price. If the code can be used to track the member who sends it out to other members (i.e. my code for the light is different than the one sent out by another member for the same light) then you are using a shill to get cheaper lights….
Just my view on this, and my statement, again, I make nothing off the lights I review, neither monetarily or with affiliate links or points… I get a free light, sort of.
I think most regular reviewers tend to get their lights for free. Certainly selfbuilt (over at CPF) gets his lights for free, and he implies this (though I’m not sure if he explicitly states it). I’m not sure if he’s compensated in any other way.
Basically, I assume this is always the case in a review, unless the reviewer states he bought the light himself.
Certainly, people that bought a light are more likely to be straight about negative things. But, I don’t expect that a regular reviewer that reviews a hundred lights to have purchased them all.
I think that applies to reviewers of most inexpensive products. And people that review expensive things (like cars) probably get paid for it.
So, there’s a lot of bias out there, but as long as people are aware of it I think it’s okay.
For me, the minimum the reviewer should disclosed is whether he got the light for free from the manufacturer or dealer for review, whether it is a pass-around light or whether they purchased the light at normal retail price, discounted price or reviewer’s discounted price (if there is such).
Any other disclosures from the reviewers are not so critical to me