Contest Entries for Positive Reviews? Ethical?

[Midrats]

I'm not a troll and gave you my opinion. Name calling doesn't help your cause.

I interpreted what he said as being directed at SharkLaser.

 

[TheEngineer]

There's plenty of great and bad reviews for Hannah and there products. I seriously don't see the point or good in this thread.

I think I understand the original intent by the OP. When an opinion is requested and something is provided in return (in this case nothing of real value, just a contest entry) it creates a certain air of bias. It is enough of a problem that Amazon doesn’t allow it anymore (https://blog.aboutamazon.com/innovation/update-on-customer-reviews).

In this case, with the reviews going to the manufactirer’s website, I don’t take too much issue with it. I’d expect fluff there and I’d seek advice somewhere reputable (like here) before making a purchase. It is sorta like Yelp, do you trust the one five-star review from the person who has only ever reviewed that one place? Of course not because it is obviously a biased review. Further, since the review is just for an entry into a contest and is optional I really don’t think it is an issue.

 

[TheEngineer]

One more thing...

There was a very short lived sponsor here that offered a discount on something they sell through amazon if you gave a review. Didn’t matter if it was positive or negative. The item was terrible and a waste of money even at the discounted price. It resolved itself.

 

[SharkLaser]

Really now, I find that biased. Any proof to back that up? R2R favors it's users IMO.

No, it's not biased. There was an attempt to have a DIY thread on here to help the community analyze Apex protocol for interoperability purposes with other devices. This thread was shut down (disabled and moved to admin forum) very swiftly and I highly suspect that Neptune management was directly involved.

 

[DSC reef]

No, it's not biased. There was an attempt to have a DIY thread on here to help the community analyze Apex protocol for interoperability purposes with other devices. This thread was shut down (disabled and moved to admin forum) very swiftly and I highly suspect that Neptune management was directly involved.

Good grief. R2R is for there members, we can disagree.

 

[NS Mike D]

There's plenty of great and bad reviews for Hannah and there products. I seriously don't see the point or good in this thread.

thats part of my point. there are many third party outlets for unbiased reviews. case in point, the contest made no mention of posts having to be positive on the retail sites that carry their product.

i don't think hanna is that business ignorant not to be using other methods for getting the market research on their products as well as on their competition. i take negative feedback from my clients very seriously and seek it out, but i don't publish it. i however, do ask my clients for their permission to post their positive comments on my web site. different purposes, different methods.

 

[NS Mike D]

that is what I figured but there are business out there who will 'hide' bad reviews and push those customers away.

it's called firing the client. there are some clients who only complain and will never be happy. best to send them on their way - preferably to your competitor.

 

[NS Mike D]

Good grief. R2R is for there members, we can disagree.

More like a broker, bringing members and sponsors together. There has to be a balance. if my site, I'd most certainly shut down a thread that was intended to compromise my sponsor's intellectual property. Sponsor participation makes this site better so, at times, compromise is the best path.

 

[TheEngineer]

I’ve found the moderation group to be thoughtful in their consideration of such things. I’ve not personally seen any instances of overt preference one way or another in my 6 years here but things seem to lean towards members as a fallback in ambiguous cases IMO. There is a line to be walked for sure! I’m confident it is being done fairly.

 

[DSC reef]

I’ve found the moderation group to be thoughtful in their consideration of such things. I’ve not personally seen any instances of overt preference one way or another in my 6 years here but things seem to lean towards members as a fallback in ambiguous cases IMO. There is a line to be walked for sure! I’m confident it is being done fairly.

Very well said.

 

[revhtree]

Hey everyone. Maybe its just me but isn't there something untoward to providing someone an entry to a contest for providing a "positive review"? Now I'm a big fan of certain Hanna products that I use so this isn't an issue I have with the product, but I think its just not right that they would provide contest entries for providing positive reviews which would make unbiased reviews less visible to prospective customers...

Am I wrong? Should R2R be supporting this type of contest?

PS. You can consider this an unbiased positive review for the ultra low range phosphate checker and alkalinity tester as I am independent having not entered the contest I would, however, caution about reviews you might find elsewhere online...

I will ask Hanna to adjust this wording to say just reviews. Our previous one was worded correctly and I honestly think they meant no harm. @Hanna Instruments

 

[revhtree]

Well, R2R has a history of favoring sponsors over users.

No, it's not biased. There was an attempt to have a DIY thread on here to help the community analyze Apex protocol for interoperability purposes with other devices. This thread was shut down (disabled and moved to admin forum) very swiftly and I highly suspect that Neptune management was directly involved.

Hello,

The thread that was removed was talking about reverse engineering various Apex modules. We're not going to put ourselves in a position to be legally liable.

FYI we just removed a sponsor from our community because they were not being honest and ethical with our members. It was proven so we took action. It's a fine line but we try our best. We're not perfect by any means but we have the best interest of the community at heart.

 

[SharkLaser]

The thread that was removed was talking about reverse engineering various Apex modules. We're not going to put ourselves in a position to be legally liable.

Well, you could then put yourself in that position by allowing the discussion of vinegar/vodka ratio in Red Sea Nopox product.
In the meantime, I would urge you to consider reading Electronic Frontier Foundation's advisory on reverse engineering, specifically for interoperability purposes and DMCA exceptions:
https://www.***.org/issues/coders/reverse-engineering-faq#faq9

Keywords to pay attention to would be "fair use doctrine" and "interoperability"

Edit: Too bad the link is not showing up.

 

[NS Mike D]

Well, you could then put yourself in that position by allowing the discussion of vinegar/vodka ratio in Red Sea Nopox product.
In the meantime, I would urge you to consider reading Electronic Frontier Foundation's advisory on reverse engineering, specifically for interoperability purposes and DMCA exceptions:
https://www.***.org/issues/coders/reverse-engineering-faq#faq9

Keywords to pay attention to would be "fair use doctrine" and "interoperability"

Edit: Too bad the link is not showing up.

Is it the same from a liability point of view. I can see if nopox contained proprietary chemicals they synthesized, but from what I can tell, discussions are in line with forums that try to clone bbq sauces. I think you get into much dicier area with breaking codes. I’m not sure how a web site can ensure that the information being posted is truly being reversed engineered in a vacuum versus someone posting information they got without permission.

 

[Grey Guy]

Hey everyone. Maybe its just me but isn't there something untoward to providing someone an entry to a contest for providing a "positive review"? Now I'm a big fan of certain Hanna products that I use so this isn't an issue I have with the product, but I think its just not right that they would provide contest entries for providing positive reviews which would make unbiased reviews less visible to prospective customers...

Am I wrong? Should R2R be supporting this type of contest?

PS. You can consider this an unbiased positive review for the ultra low range phosphate checker and alkalinity tester as I am independent having not entered the contest I would, however, caution about reviews you might find elsewhere online...

How dumb do they think we are?