Thread: A Confused Citizen

Originally Posted by Pithor

I am aware that the review section is (sadly) no longer accessible, but encouraging vendors to offer their items for review in order for exposure may cause issues with those reviews not necessarily being unbiased, no matter where they are published. If those samples are paid for by the reviewer or a disclaimer is added that they were not then this of course would be a lesser issue, though.

I am not aware of the existence of any such review neither in the no longer existing section nor anywhere else on SRP. I'm, however, pretty sure that there are number of reviews by members who were given incentives by the vendor but who haven't disclosed the conflict of interest.

The point is that we have no control over any shenanigans that members may be engaging in but if people chose to go through the process above, we will know that a free product is being provided for a review, we can pick a reviewer with experience and integrity to provide a honest review, and ensure that there is a disclosure the product was given for free. Furthermore, I don't expect that the reviewer would get to keep the stuff if it's of significant value, most likely it'll be raffled in some sort. That's what happened with the razor Thiers-Issard sent to Lynn back in 2007 or 2008 when they were switching to the c135 steel.

But that's only theoretical because this is not something that happens. During my time in charge I've gotten exactly one request for a review of an aftershave (may be six to twelve months ago). I found a senior moderator who was willing to review it, passed their address to the manufacturer/vendor and I don't think it went any further. One more vendor inquired about it, but I think they expected some assurances that it would be positive review i.e. marketing, because after I told them that it is a simple process of selecting an experienced member of our choosing and they will provide honest review they decided it 'may be something to consider down the road'.

Perhaps that's precisely why it is not something popular - it is not a marketing device.

Originally Posted by Pithor

Secondly:

I understand that the majority of the panel are not vendors, but nonetheless: is there not at least a slight conflict of interest of any vendors having a say in vendor policy? There must be at least five Senior Mods who are not vendors, I would think. I would be most obliged if any of the Senior Mods could clarify how exactly I am to understand this.

Here is the current list of senior moderators:


There are 6 of them, 2 are vendors 4 aren't.

Jimbo already gave a very good account of why things are the way they are.

The way I look at it is that we have to work with what we've got. Absolute commercial purity is impossible, so the objective is pragmatic - keep the priorities straight. The commercial side should not be front and center, like it is on many other places, but should rank towards the bottom of things.