TK10 reviews = SPAM?

[cave dave]

Anybody else think the review section got spammed by all the TK10 reviews pouring in at the same time?


I really hope 4sevens doesn't do it again this way in the future.

 

[geepondy]

The lights they got were loaners, right? They have to return them, don't they? I guess I can see your point but on the other hand we certainly know a lot about the lights before plunking down the change. I'm glad for the reviews as to know it's not for me. Too much center light and not enough spill but what I like a light to have.

 

[bitslammer]

+1

That was really cheesy. It really lowered my respect for some of the "regulars." It reminded me of "payola" or the crooked way record labels used to pay radio stations to play their stuff.

It's now going to be hard to know which reviews come from honest fellow flashaholics or from bribed shils. I'm not saying anyone gave a great review just for a few $$$ discount but this is one of those deals where a line was crossed and the taint is going to linger for quite some time.

If people make a disclosure right up front in a review then it has some merit. Such was not the case here.

 

[Crenshaw]

The reviews were part of an agreement. im sure 4seven's intent wasnt to induce spam, in fact, all the reviews may be consolidated into one review thread.I believe Sasha may be doing something about it.

http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=193291&page=5

Crenshaw

 

[bitslammer]

The lights they got were loaners, right? They have to return them, don't they? I guess I can see your point but on the other hand we certainly know a lot about the lights before plunking down the change. I'm glad for the reviews as to know it's not for me. Too much center light and not enough spill but what I like a light to have.

My understanding is that they were provided at a discount which could call into question the validity of reviews if this fact was not made clear in the review.

I like to pride myself on being fair and honest, but if Surefire wanted to send me an Optimus at say 1/2 price it would be hard not to be excited and therefore give a favorable review.

Don't get me wrong, I like reviews, I just like them to be up front and clear abotu how the light was garnered.

 

[mossdabomb]

I would agree, but in all fairness, I think that all that I have read are honest.

 

[jzmtl]

I'm sure it's part of his marketing strategy to introduce with high visibility, but I can see it how it could be annoying to see crapload of "TK10 AWSOME!!!111" taking up the whole first page of review section.

 

[gadget_lover]

I was solicited. I did not take him up on his offer. There was nothing in the offer that would have influenced the review. The only requirements (that I recall) were that you wait till a certain date, and include the link to the right product on his web site.

The discount was minimal.

There was no hint of bribery. There was no hint of coercion. There is no "taint", and anyone who thinks otherwise may want to think about why they assume the worst without a single fact to work with. I'd be ashamed of myself if I automatically assumed that everyone was crooked and on the take.

I, too, think there should have been fewer reviews. I only read one or two of them, then figured I'd read enough. The TK10 is not one that I'd normally buy, and that's the only reason I did not review it myself.

Daniel

 

[bitslammer]

There is no "taint", and anyone who thinks otherwise may want to think about why they assume the worst without a single fact to work with. I'd be ashamed of myself if I automatically assumed that everyone was crooked and on the take.

I disagree. This event seemed heavily orchestrated, and spoiled the usual spirit of the reviews, which has often been a fellow hobbyist wanting to share info about a new light they purchased.

I don't think there was coercion or bribery, but if you were asked to participate in a review you need to state so in the review instead of letting the reader think the choice to buy the light was solely your own. 2 very important words to go by - "Full Disclosure"

Sure, some of the reviewers may have planned to purchase the light on their own anyway, but that still doesn't cut it. You need to be up front and honest with the facts if you want people to respect your opinion. I would not have thought any less of the reviews had they stated the terms of the small discount, early delivery, and agreement to link to the website.

I'm sorry there's just no excuse for something like this being out in the open.

 

[NeonLights]

I was also solicited with the offer of the discounted Fenix for a review and other restrictions. I also passed for a number of reasons. I really don't much care for the way the whole thing played out, maybe if it was done on a much smaller scale it would have turned out better.

 

[jezzyp]

I don't see a problem.
I have read them all and they all give their opinions - thats what I like about this forum.

Look at car reviews, stereo reviews etc etc all the magazines accept advertising so can't slate a model too much as that supplier may just pull their lucrative advertising spend. This is not the case on CPF - The reviewers have the experience to make an informed decision and if they don't get a small discount next time do you think that they would be really bothered?

I do think that in future it may be best to arrange to post all the review in a sticky or something. Until something is tried we do not know the answer, we learn and move on.

 

[mchlwise]

I also disagree that the TK10 reviews were "tainted" or "orchestrated" in any way.

I received an invitation, and accepted the offer. The lights were not loaned, we had to pay for them if we wanted them.

As I recall, the light cost over $50.00, which is certainly enough that you would feel negatively towards the light if it didn't perform as you expected. If it had been $2.00, I could see feeling positively towards it even if it didn't perform as expected. For fifty bucks, it better do what you expect it to, and if it doesn't you would say so. Therefore, I see no bias towards the light.

Part of the "deal" in getting the light pre-release was an agreement to post a review of the light shortly after the light was released, either in it's own thread in the review section or in the release announcement thread. There was no direction regarding the contents of the review, or the time it should be posted. Because of the pre-release "information blackout" I could see some people being anxious to get reviews posted, and there were a number which came out at the same time - very shortly after the official release. I personally was unable to get to my computer for the first few hours, and when I did I saw many capable reviews posted - therefore I just posted some brief comments in the announcement thread. I suspect many others did the same.

Being a part of what happened, receiving an invitation and accepting it, therefore being privy to all communications from 4Sevens regarding the light (of which the invitation was the only one) I can assure everyone that there was no "orchestration" or even organization regarding the reviews - other than to wait until the date of official release.

I believe that any allegations or feelings of impropriety are unfounded, and appreciate 4Sevens' making the lights available for review prior to release. Anyone considering purchasing the light certainly had a wealth of information to consider - which is what I thought CPF was supposed to be about.

 

[Thujone]

um... I am going to have to say that i feel I am a good enough internet user to be able to discern between facts and opinions. As well as bias.. That is all the internet is full of. With that said I think it is never a bad thing to have more reviews, the more the merrier. Some will be more valuable than others, but en mass you have a better shot of finding the truth... Unless you are a boob. In which case what difference does it make because the internet will have already eaten you alive anyways.

 

[mchlwise]

Unless you are a boob. In which case what difference does it make because the internet will have already eaten you alive anyways.

 

[Hitthespot]

I was solicited. I did not take him up on his offer. There was nothing in the offer that would have influenced the review. The only requirements (that I recall) were that you wait till a certain date, and include the link to the right product on his web site.

The discount was minimal.

There was no hint of bribery. There was no hint of coercion. There is no "taint", and anyone who thinks otherwise may want to think about why they assume the worst without a single fact to work with. I'd be ashamed of myself if I automatically assumed that everyone was crooked and on the take.

I, too, think there should have been fewer reviews. I only read one or two of them, then figured I'd read enough. The TK10 is not one that I'd normally buy, and that's the only reason I did not review it myself.

Daniel

Thank You

Bill

 

[jzmtl]

You guys are all missing the OP's point. He never said it's tainted or not, that's another discussion, but all of you cramming the review board with review for the same light at the same time (I just counted ten on first page, five more on second page, which undoutably are all on first page at certain point). 47's strategy is obviously use sheer number of reviews to catch attention to his product, and to some people, that is spam.

 

[Crenshaw]

Bitslammer, i am truly sorry that you feel that way about the reviews, but i think 4sevens deserves the benefit of doubt. He made the light available for third parties to take nice pictures of, and give thier initial opinions of the lights, so that the rest of the CPFers who wanted it, would have some pictures, and thoughts top tide them over until they could get it.

I have said this in another thread, ill say it here to,i truely believe that CPFers will give honest reviews. Notice, my review did have negative comments. 4sevens also invited a member who if i would say very pro (other brand) and is very critical of fenix for the most part (not that this is a bad thing). I am glad he did this, as it would give us a review from someone who if definetly un-biased, even if the rest of us were, which i honestly doubt.

Crenshaw

 

[cave dave]

You guys are all missing the OP's point. He never said it's tainted or not, that's another discussion, but all of you cramming the review board with review for the same light at the same time (I just counted ten on first page, five more on second page, which undoutably are all on first page at certain point). 47's strategy is obviously use sheer number of reviews to catch attention to his product, and to some people, that is spam.

BINGO! It's also clever marketing!

I would have had no problem with the PR stunt if all the reviews went into one thread.

PS Full disclosure. I was invited to be one of the reviewers but declined, so it isn't sour grapes either.

 

[4sevens]

I'm sorry folks for the trouble I caused. I promise this will not happen again.
(I know there are rules now in place to prevent this) I did not intend to be
a source of problems. Again, I'm sorry.

I also made a public apology here http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2417745&postcount=149

 

[bitslammer]

I'm sorry folks for the trouble I caused. I promise this will not happen again.
(I know there are rules now in place to prevent this) I did not intend to be
a source of problems. Again, I'm sorry.

I also made a public apology here http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2417745&postcount=149

'nuff said right there. :thumbsup: