An even greater concern could be reviews of samples provided/selected by the manufacturer, especially when they have a somewhat 'spotty' reputation for QA/QC.Ok but that's a slippery slope. In my personal opinion, a manufacturer should have no (none, zero) input into what is or isn't published in a review, so that it can remain unbiased and impartial. If a member requests such a thing (if they don't want to have to read both reviews, to see both charts) that's different. Anyways, I was just surprised to read that a manufacturer would actually make such a request. Maybe I'm just too picky.
Thanks for another great review though. I always enjoy your reviews.
Many reviewers get their sample from the makers. And what can I do about it, exept making it the first thing you read in my review?An even greater concern could be reviews of samples provided/selected by the manufacturer, especially when they have a somewhat 'spotty' reputation for QA/QC.
I agree.IMHO it would be impartial if they asked me what I prefer.
I put togher data, a couple of runtime graph. Data are not partial, they are the most partial thing that exist. That's why I make most of my reviews based on them.
Many reviewers get their sample from the makers. And what can I do about it, exept making it the first thing you read in my review?
[...] Selfbuilt's comparisons are what I find most useful, regardless of who suggested them. [...]
They could have done the comparison test themselves and posted the results, they do know how and they have a thread dedicated to this light where they could have posted it.
And surely enough nobody would have tought that they may be in a conflict of interest and be impartial...
I still think what this company did was sneaky and wrong.
I wanted to add that I disagree with Wendee's opinion that Manker asking you to compare against the Klarus is shady in any way. I have a lot of review experience in an unrelated industry and to my knowledge no company that wants to influence the review process will ask for MORE tests against competitors. This is a sign that either Manker is curious to see what happens in independent testing, or Manker is very confident in its product and wants to show it is a superior product. It is a very good sign when manufacturers want reviewers to do additional testing and I don't see it as a slippery slope at all. The slippery slope only starts when manufacturers ask for changes in what or how something is is written, not when they ask for more comparison or more exploration of a product. I think its admirable that you added additional comparisons like this Budda, it's more work for you and more info for us!
You know, I had visited the other forum as a guest and people there are complaining about Manker's MK34 light. It seems people want a comparison done to the M43 Meteor. How about a chart identifying Manker's stated specs for the MK34 vs the actual output levels and runtimes. Then a chart comparing it to the M43. It's a comparable light, isn't it? I don't see Manker asking for that. Why not? Do they cherry pick lights they want comparisons done? You think this is fair and unbiased? I know for a fact they knew the stats on the Mi7 before they asked for the comparison chart (as per Mi7 thread that Manker actually posted in, that contained Mi7 test results, before Budda had even ordered the Mi7 for review).