Once again I am reading the "offended" single review by a "new" member - they obviously have a itch to scratch and with the great forum here are throwing - what in most cases is biased - inflammatory S___ to see if it sticks. Is there not a rule that you must post at least THREE reviews before any of them are show? If not then what about doing so .....I think the vast majority of posters do so fairly -- but --- then its the ONE GUY/ (gal).
We used to have a rule that required reviewers to submit 3 reviews (then later dropped to two) before we would post the first review. However, we have since decided that many valuable reviews were not being posted because of this, so we removed the restriction entirely. You did not mention the review you are referring to, but if you feel it should not be posted you can report it here or to the Help Desk or use the Report Concern button displayed on each review.
Sorry for the tardy reply. It seems spare time is rare these days. I was, and still am, for the three review rule. To me, it meant more of a commitment to the site. But in any case, a review is still a review. It may just be axe grinding but it is still information that can be used by others. Darrell
Although there were definite pros and cons for the three/two review rule, the management of RVPR has made a decision that is not subject to further debate. There's nothing wrong with forum members expressing their opinions of the decision, but everyone involved should understand that the ensuing discussion will not have any impact on the change that was made.
