Suggestion Add "Compensated review" checkbox to "Review" category

[rmssetc]

Suggestion:

For new posts where the user chooses the tag "Review" (or that text is present in the title -- if that real-time filtering is possible), add a checkbox to indicate whether a review was compensated, with an optional text box for the user to provide details.

Rationale:
The content on SB will gain greater value & trust if readers have more information to evaluate the motivation in a product review.

(Note that Orcatorch, in particular, has a very high vendor presence here and that most of the recent reviews were probably in response to Orcatorch providing free equipment. That doesn't necessarily mean that a review is biased, but it is a factor for readers to consider.)

 

[scubadada]

It would be in SBs interest to require disclosure of financial compensation in reviews or comments regarding commercial products. There are innovative programs that may make this compensation appear to be opaque.

A worthy goal, practically, very difficult

 

[Akimbo]

For new posts where the user chooses the tag "Review" (or that text is present in the title -- if that real-time filtering is possible)

Filtering on threads with title prefix flags is not a configuration option available to us in the current version of xenForo (the software that ScubaBoard runs on). However, you can see all the threads with Review title prefix flag in this forum:

Home Forums > Best of ScubaBoard (category) > Search Forums > Review Threads

There is about a 10 minute delay for updating the forum. They contain links to the thread in the forum they were posted and are sorted by the most recent post in the thread.

There are a number of Special Search Forums that are populated by threads from all over ScubaBoard that relate to a certain subject.

 

[rmssetc]

It would be in SBs interest to require disclosure of financial compensation in reviews or comments regarding commercial products. There are innovative programs that may make this compensation appear to be opaque.

A worthy goal, practically, very difficult

Yes, requiring disclosure would be very difficult.

Making it easier (and obvious) for people to self-disclose any conflict of interest wold be a start.

 

[scubadada]

Yes, requiring disclosure would be very difficult.

Making it easier (and obvious) for people to self-disclose any conflict of interest wold be a start.

Doesn't happen

 

[rmssetc]

Doesn't happen

Yes, it does:

Review - Orcatorch D530 review

Here are my first impressions, before diving with the light. Well packaged, comes with 3 spare o-rings. I like that the battery can be charged from USB (why not USB-C?), and has a prominent LED indicator of the charge. The printed manual is way too small to read without a magnifying glass...

scubaboard.com

Even if it is rare, it would be good to make it easier.

 

[tursiops]

OrcaTorch has sent me a couple of lights to review. This does NOT affect the content of my review at all, but it does encourage me to spend the time and effort to perform and report the review. Otherwise I would not usually bother.

 

[lexvil]

OrcaTorch has sent me a couple of lights to review. This does NOT affect the content of my review at all, but it does encourage me to spend the time and effort to perform and report the review. Otherwise I would not usually bother.

It usually easy to port a BS review so I’ve never given the disclosure thing much thought. I agree if someone wants a review enough to give away a sample, I also feel that I need to at least put some time into it, I’m not going to get to worked up over a free light enough to make up results, I have one of the 550 lights coming in to test out, I like to tryout different things, don’t often get a chance to try stuff without buying it my self.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

It would be in SBs interest to require disclosure of financial compensation in reviews or comments regarding commercial products. There are innovative programs that may make this compensation appear to be opaque.

A worthy goal, practically, very difficult

The devil is in the details. Many people, but not everyone, knows I'm a Deep 6 affiliate. I became an affiliate for the following reasons:
1) provides training/assistance to customers, a big deal for me for opening a dive center in Greece who don't get the same level of support from the big name regulator companies.
2) moderate priced regulators at comparable performance as the most expensive offerings
3) ethical owners (what motivated me to purchase their products prior to becoming an affiliate) who provide excellent customer service.

I'm not being financially compensated for my posts. Also, my endorsement when I first became a customer and prior to becoming an affiliate. My endorsements hasn't changed. So do I need to disclose the above?

Because if you do, you need to get those dive pros who get keyman prices on gear that they purchase for themselves and their students. Unfortunately not all of them have the integrity to admit their bias. They like to give the facade of expertise, but if you read enough posts, you see they lack knowledge of agency standards and equipment.

So the question is, how do you address people that are patently disingenuous and often outright lie?

 

[JohnN]

Suggestion:

For new posts where the user chooses the tag "Review" (or that text is present in the title -- if that real-time filtering is possible), add a checkbox to indicate whether a review was compensated, with an optional text box for the user to provide details.

Rationale:
The content on SB will gain greater value & trust if readers have more information to evaluate the motivation in a product review.

(Note that Orcatorch, in particular, has a very high vendor presence here and that most of the recent reviews were probably in response to Orcatorch providing free equipment. That doesn't necessarily mean that a review is biased, but it is a factor for readers to consider.)

I may be cheap, but I’m not easy