As much as I love to use Amazon for buying products, this had me scratching my head. Amazon user Keith Fuller posted his 5 star review on the Sigma 50mm F1.4 DG HSM Art Lens that hasn't been released. Oh, and he even pointed out that he does not own the lens. He hasn't even tried it out. NICE!
I thought the humor in this post was pretty genuine, but this is definitely not something that Amazon should be allowing on their products. This is not good for a lot of different reasons.
As much as I found this to be funny right away, I noticed how bad this could be for Sigma (and other brands). This situation really can hurt them because it makes you second guess how many other reviews are being posted by people who don't own the product or have never even used it. I rely heavily on reviews for a lot that I buy but now I am definitely going to try sticking to other sites as well and look for video reviews to accompany the product reviews.
At the time of this post, his review had 9 replies, one stating "this is why I hate the internet."
Amazon has let the review stay untouched for almost 2 days now. What are your thoughts on Amazon allowing reviews to be published before they're even available?
[via Amazon]
I find it harder and harder to trust anything on the internet these days, especially reviews as of course companies can pay for anonymous reviews of their products that are totally biased. They're usually pretty easy to spot though as they read like an advert. Best to just wait for the various photo review sites to check them out and give them a proper run through.
You don't think there's some behind the scenes hanky panky going on? Don't be so naive.
how is this news worthy?
amen
Amazon has had a long problem with allowing reviews on unreleased products. It reflects badly on them.
This is actually worse than Ken Rockwell.
more sites should work like NEWEGG.com At newegg in order to write a review about a product you have to sign in your account and they have to see that you actually bought the item from them... this makes the sites reviews very credable.
Sigma zombies, whether they're paid employees or not, are all over photography sites. No matter the topic there's always someone pimping Sigma. A thread on the 85mm Sony/Zeiss lens and someone will pipe up, "Has anyone tried the SIgma?" We're not talking about Sigma, but it seems no matter what the topic, there's a Sigma troll always lurking.
At least for me, it is not really a new insight that there are people on the internet, that might not tell the truth. That is why I don't trust everything I read on whatever website I'm visiting. Of course are there people that get paid to post positive comments and reviews and you will most likely not be able to identify these posts.
So now you tell me this guy is the reason why I should not believe everything I read on the internet? I mean he doesn't even lie! How the heck did this post make it to this website? Will I get a frontpage post if I post `first` on the next Canon Cam Amazon-article? Could you link to my blog as well then?
this article was such a waste of time
Why not delete the "article", instead of my comment? Can't take criticism?
John White really has no business having the ability to publish articles ..if we can even call them that.
wouldn't put too much stock in an Amazon review anyway. DPR, DxO, Pop Photo, fstoppers, Fred Miranda - those are much more reliable sources for me.