I totally agree. A bad review that is warranted is just that and as long as it's honest, it's fine with me.

I fully understand the business side of the review / site equation with respect to the paying clients of the reviewer and what kind of review they want and certainly understand the right of the site reviewers to have clients, even those that are friends and associates.

What I don't think is right is a site reviewer having a personal bias against a site BEFORE they even begin the review and then use that review to advance their personal agenda. I think site reviewers should be honest.
And that includes being honest enough to recuse themselves from doing a review of a site for which they may not have an honestly objective perspective going into the review.

Once again, I'm not pointing fingers at anyone. This is just a hypothetical question about ethics.







Quote Originally Posted by DEVELISH View Post
Tom,

when Patti or Bec do reviews they most likely know the owner of the site already, be it from meetings, gatherings or fair, forums, phonecalls, professsional buisiness relations etc. If they would reject those sites for a review they would loose money and customers likewise.

IMHO a reviewer should always be frank and true when writing a review and not overstate nor understate cuz they like or dislike somebody. A shitty site is still shitty even if they receive raving reviews. For me I'd LOVE a really shitty, fucked up review in all of the review sites of cutejeremiah.com - it gets me exposure - I'd also love a mediocre and a raving good one.... Traffic is traffic and it will convert.

Like I wrote: the reviewer should do the job and leave personal relationships of whatever kind behind.

DEVELISH