Bypassing CPF reviewers

[Rzr800]

Newbie observation:

After being made welcome here late last year; it was quickly apparent that well deserving CPF reviewers were being given the opportunity to both share with us much advance formation and even test new lights well before their release.

I'll make this simple.

It appears (lately) that many of these same extremely well thought of people are not privy to the same confidences; nor receiving product early or at all for their herculean efforts.

If it is our continuing desire that manufacturers formally treat this board as a valued resource...then I am of the opinion that it is high time that more of them be (unfortunately) shamed into returning to what I am guessing(?) have been oft-repeated "win/win" habits.

Vendors can only do so much and this proverbial light is not shone their way. Yet if this board is not worthy of a light or two distributed evenly amongst a few darn good people doing all of this work for absolutely nothing beyond our eternal gratitude...then maybe it's time to start keeping score as to exactly who values these people's opinions (or ours)...and who truly doesn't.

 

[Masque]

Oh, I'd wager reviewers are still getting lights early, at least from certain suppliers.

 

[jugg2]

Yep, in fact there is a "Deleted" post in the review section because the light hasn't technically come out yet.

 

[mchlwise]

Oh, I'd wager reviewers are still getting lights early, at least from certain suppliers.

There are probably some confidential early reviews out there.

From what I've seen, it hasn't really benefitted the manufacturers all that much to release early to certain people in the past. I remember a certain manufacturer who sent early lights to a couple certain posters who have since been banned from CPF.

As a manufacturer, it seems you may be taking your chances somewhat if you send a light out for a review and then "hope" the members you sent them to stay in good standing. If they don't, it could reflect poorly on your product, and you have also lost the resource which was the point of the whole thing in the first place.

 

[WadeF]

I really liked how EdgeTac offered many CPF'ers a low intro price on their Nitecore and Raidfire. It gave many of us a change to get one at a more affordable price. Then there were a lot of us who were able to give feeback, write reviews, etc.

It would be nice if more companies did this and gave CPF'ers a chance to get their products early at a special price.

 

[Flying Turtle]

Seems like sending a few out to us for evaluation would be a no-brainer, if you know you have a good product. Virtually free advertising.

Geoff

 

[Rzr800]

There are probably some confidential early reviews out there.

From what I've seen, it hasn't really benefitted the manufacturers all that much to release early to certain people in the past. I remember a certain manufacturer who sent early lights to a couple certain posters who have since been banned from CPF.

As a manufacturer, it seems you may be taking your chances somewhat if you send a light out for a review and then "hope" the members you sent them to stay in good standing. If they don't, it could reflect poorly on your product, and you have also lost the resource which was the point of the whole thing in the first place.

If there have been or are currently any 'confidential reviews' out there...I'd appreciate them being listed here so that I can at least never deal with said company or fellow member again.

About the only thing worse than companies making lame excuses in regards to their interaction with us around 'bad members' here on CPF...is any notion of back-door dealing with the very same type of individual whose very opinions shouldn't be trusted or valued to begin with. I have yet to witness anybody admit to 'coinfidentially reviewing' anything up here; yet imo, this does absolutely nothing for the overall integrity of the board itself.

As far as the benefits of early release being discounted or the risks of members staying in 'good standing' throughout the review process...is this what these 'confidential reviewers' tell the manufacturers...or what both parties would lead us to believe for obvious reasons?

 

[cave dave]

Isn't a free flashlight basically a bribe in which the company hopes to garner a positive review. The reviewer might therefore have incentive to give a positive review in order to keep the freebies coming. There was a reviewer who is long gone who appeared to be doing this a few years ago.

I would trust a review more if I knew the person bought the light themsleves, or had to return the light after the review.

 

[Rzr800]

Isn't a free flashlight basically a bribe in which the company hopes to garner a positive review. The reviewer might therefore have incentive to give a positive review in order to keep the freebies coming. There was a reviewer who is long gone who appeared to be doing this a few years ago.

I would trust a review more if I knew the person bought the light themsleves, or had to return the light after the review.

Again, the feeling here seems to be that reviewers in question (and I frankly have nothing but respect for those unsefishly and literally bankrolling these reviews to date) can be easily bribed and/or are somehow constantly in iminent danger of being kicked off of the board itself at any time.

Again, the wildly successful Chinese model is not only apparently dead...but being hurriedly buried just as fast as possible by those companies that would offer up these same above excuses if given the chance to directly...as opposed to simply dealing with us in the same manner.

These sponsored reviews aren't around anymore because high quality or high integrity CPF reviewers simply aren't on the board. It is for the simple reason that nobody shames these folks into providing us this true partnership in exchange for the valuable feedback garnered up here on CPF...for free! :thumbsup: (or I suppose at the going price for these 'confidential reviewers'...whoever they may be). :shakehead

 

[Monocrom]

I don't like the idea of giving free or reduced-cost samples to certain CPFers, for testing and review purposes.

We don't know if the lights sent out early were just grabbed off the line, or carefully inspected to pick out the best samples. Thus skewing the results after a model is put through its paces by an independent CPFer.

What happens if a light fails to perform reliably? I doubt that a CPFer who posts a negative review is going to stay on a company's Early-Sample List. The flip side is, if a CPFer knows he's going to end up on the "No Cookie," list for posting that a light failed to perform reliably; He might decide not to post such a review.

If the free or discounted lights are given for beta testing only, with no reviews to be posted; that's a different story.

 

[yaesumofo]

One thing about reviews is that if they turn out to contain false or misleading information that reviewer will not be trusted again either by the dealer/manufacture or by the usership of the CPF.

If a light is paid for I don't have a problem with a reviewer receiving a slightly early release. if the reviews are positive this can help increase sales.
If the light in question turns out to be a dog and the group of early recipients agree and call a dog a dog, the light will fail regardless of the efforts made by the manufacture or dealer.

The bottom line here is that good lights are generally reviewed in a positive and even keeled manner. Lights which SUCK are not reviewed in a positive light and will not sell well. Once the light reaches the general population if it is a good light it will be known as such if it is a bad light the same will be true.
there is nothing better than a community of people to determine the quality of something...whatever it is.
Yaesumofo

 

[Handlobraesing]

One thing about reviews is that if they turn out to contain false or misleading information that reviewer will not be trusted again either by the dealer/manufacture or by the usership of the CPF.

If a light is paid for I don't have a problem with a reviewer receiving a slightly early release.

Do keep in mind that same model light isn't necessarily the same.

The Lowe's 2C CREE vs Luxeon is a good example. They're the same product in the eyes of the vendor and manufacturer. They have the same UPC.

Fortunately, these two products are different enough to to be very obvious.

Vendors often change their OEM source throughout the product cycle. If you get a pre-release review sample, it might actually not be representative of mass production sample and you should consider the potential for cherry picking to get a favorable review.

 

[StefanFS]

I'm not claiming to be very good at reviewing, and I haven't done very many so far.
But....
Lets say you first buy a light, then start to construct a comprehensive review since you like the light. It's quite a process. You need to have pics of the product, doing runtimes and measurements will take a number of hours, to get decent outdoor beamshots you need to find a good location and then go there for a few hours to set up and shoot. When all this is done you need to start editing your pics and start writing. Especially the outdoor beamshots require time and cost some money. You need two decent tripods, a good camera with full manual settings and a car to get you there.

I pick my review candidates carefully and sparingly since it's so time consuming.

If I'm offered a 'free' light I tell the one offering it that my objective results will be published. It has happened that the offer is then retracted..... I have actually bought almost all of my reviewed lights so far.

One of the strangest things that can happen after a review is that the manufacturer is pissed off and shows bad form. That has also happened.

Stefan

 

[parnass]

....
If I'm offered a 'free' light I tell the one offering it that my objective results will be published. It has happened that the offer is then retracted..... I have actually bought almost all of my reviewed lights so far.

One of the strangest things that can happen after a review is that the manufacturer is pissed off and shows bad form. That has also happened.

I reviewed electronic equipment (not flashlights) in magazines for many years. You have to set a few ground rules to maintain credibility and impartiality.

First, don't accept free samples and be sure to return the item when the review is complete.

Some publications have a policy of publishing only positive reviews. If a reviewer determines that a product is poor, the publisher just won't print the review. I wouldn't be a part of such an arrangement and avoided magazines with this policy.

A couple of times, a manufacturer requested to see the review before it was published. My policy was to politely deny the request, which in least one instance caused the manufacturer to refuse to supply a sample.

 

[Handlobraesing]

Isn't a free flashlight basically a bribe in which the company hopes to garner a positive review. The reviewer might therefore have incentive to give a positive review in order to keep the freebies coming. There was a reviewer who is long gone who appeared to be doing this a few years ago.

I would trust a review more if I knew the person bought the light themsleves, or had to return the light after the review.

I think the review would work better if the reviewer purchases a flashlight on his own, then send in a receipt and receive a check for the amount + reasonable compensation. It would make cherry picking impossible.

 

[gadget_lover]

I was recently offered a chance to review a light. I did not do it, since that particular light was not one I'd normaly buy.

BUT:

If I'd accepted the offer, I'd have provided a truthful review, just like most people. It's insulting to think otherwise.

As for the "hand picked lights" possibility? Are reviewers provided with the best of the batch? Maybe. But how do you know whether ANY review is based on an exceptionally bad or exceptionally great sample? I tend to buy the "premium" models, so maybe I should never post about my lights?

Just some thoughts.


Daniel

 

[Rzr800]

I guess that I am a little 'naive' here (or maybe even a bit to conservative) in that I don't expect 'father flashlight' to police or filter everything that is offered up here on CPF or CPFM. The comments to date (save a few) pretty much remind me of the "for heavens sakes, save us from ourselves" Edgerac prepay debacle.

Can anybody out there simply be happy for a guy or gal that is actually receiving something for all their hard work and time spent providing this group with valuable information not found at any other location on the planet(?)...or are perceived moral shortcomings in flashlight reviews of all things...indeed something that we should all be (by gosh and darn tootin!) worried about...in the first place?

Again, I have yet to witness a person up here that I would even so much as suspect of trying such a thing...and I suppose that it is my conservative midwestern attitude shining through in any insistence that true community is never built that way...nor ever will be (we send paypals clear across the world to who knows and don't trust the guy busting his butt darn near every day to make certain that we don't waste our money). :thinking:

 

[Crenshaw]

that reads like one of them essays i hate reading so much in school...:nana:

anyway, fenix is sending out review units of the Tk10, thats all i can say..

Crenshaw

 

[Any Cal.]

Free, discounted, early release,...whatever. A proper review requires more time and effort than most of these lights are worth. If a reviewer shows obvious bias, without any basis, than that could be a problem. I have not really seen that around here.
I am glad to have some decent reviews on lights. Regardless of how or whether the reviewers were compensated, I think they do a nice job, and remain objective.

 

[Rzr800]

that reads like one of them essays i hate reading so much in school...:nana:Crenshaw

I'm surprised that the concept of 'self-determination' or even conservatism itself isn't a breath of fresh air from your every day textbook reading. Our schools over here tend to teach their essays around the same evils we are puportedly inflicted with up here on CPF...mainly that you can't trust the manufacturer (govt.) or anybody associated with them (reviewer); yet that regulation ('rules' surrounding reviewers) is always the preferred answer.