I'd like to also point out that getting angry at people for their feelings doesn't do anyone any good.

Some folks have taken to attacking the second anyone says something about being unhappy or less than satisfied with certain things as if it's a personal thing. It's not.

Getting angry at me or DBD or anyone else who is feeling unhappy and hurt at the moment and attacking us or the validity of our feelings is just sort of foul.

Y'all realize that more folks feel this way but don't want to make waves, right? less

I'd like to also point out that getting angry at people for their feelings doesn't do anyone any good.

Some folks have taken to attacking the second anyone says something about being unhappy or less than satisfied with certain things as if it's a personal thing. It's not.

Getting angry at me or DBD or anyone else who is feeling unhappy and hurt at the moment and attacking us or the validity of our feelings is just sort of foul.

Y'all realize that more folks feel this way but don't want to make waves, right? less

It is a community. And in communities people occasionally get their feelings hurt and need to talk about it. They get mad sometimes, too, and need to resolve their anger.

Community doesn't mean sunshine and light at all times - though the fun times ARE the best.

Talking this out now and perhaps finding a way to soothe some hurt feelings and anger will only make the community stronger. Letting it fester will only make things worse. less

Beautiful Dreamer, it's good to know this because sometimes appearances are deceiving. Not that I think you shouldn't be in the program but that they are not automatically accepting everyone.

I like reviewing for EF. I appreciate the community and the forums have offered a vast wealth of knowledge. I like learning new things, spreading some knowledge and having my voice heard. I understand EF is a big company and things will always be a work in progress. I can respect that.

Still, I feel both the original blog review and description programs were started in something of a secretive manner. Someone decided to ask members both within and outside the community to do reviews and I, too, felt a bit snubbed. Every time someone mentions how the best were chosen, it's a bit.. insulting, almost. I haven't put in nearly what some people have (like Dame Demi or Sleeping Dreamer) and I am humble enough to recognize that but it seems like very few recognize the 'privileges' granted those are obvious, especially as of late.

I think that DBD has a point when she asks what the true point of being a higher rated reviewer is when it does seem like a select few are getting more benefits - toys more frequently, to review new toys (even if they do suck), to review at their blogs without having 2 verified reviews et cetera.

I would appreciate it if EF were more open with these sorts of projects. I believe most of them were spearheaded by someone else and the current 'management' is left to deal with this. So, as a plea from just another reviewer - don't do things in secret. It makes it seem like there is something to hide and Ef didn't want everyone to know. I think that is one of the major things which are bothering some reviewers, myself included. If it had simply been announced from the beginning that EF was having a few people do description reviews, I think it would have been easier to swallow rather than one day stumbling across the fact that something was happening and we had no idea about it. less

No one is doubting DBD's assesment: it's just that, as Beautiful Dreamer said, it's impossible to tell the difference between free verified reviews and buyout reviews. Taking this to the level of individual reviewers is just an exercise in speculation.

Furthermore, I believe it's articulated somewhere that reviewers in the Descriptions program are going to get more than one free toy every month. So there's even less reason to go after individual people. less

We all understand that descriptions folks are going to get more than one toy per month.

Like I said in another post; if we assume everyone gets one free assignment per month and we check how many of the OTHER ones in that month have product descriptions, we can then asses how many are probably buy outs.

Checking and finding out that four or five of them were buy outs would probably ease DBD's hurt feelings a bit.

Finding out four or five of them were product descriptions would probably leave some of us wondering why EF doesn't spread out the wealth a bit. And who can blame us? It's natural to feel a bit envious. And it's natural to feel unappreciated.

*shrug* less

I guess I just don't understand why we have to know the particulars of how many reviews were free. You know some people get more than one a month for free, and that's clearly what people are upset about.

That complaint and the secrecy complaint, are probably better addressed directly to administrators than hashed out on the forum. None of us have any more information than you do. less

Online you cannot read inflection or body language.

You cannot assume that how you "think" something is being said is how it actually is.

I've found it's often best to take the words at plain, simple face value and not apply your own perceptions and feelings to someone else's words.

I truly don't think anyone is intending to be mean or to fight.

If we all just replied without letting ourselves get upset by what we "think" someone else meant or how we "think" someone said something we'd probably all do a lot better. less

One other point I'd like to make: as a private company, EF can do whatever it jolly well wants. If that means giving a single person all the toys for review, they can do it. None of us are entitled to anything, and EF is not obliged to "spread the wealth around." less

One other point I'd like to make: as a private company, EF can do whatever it jolly well wants. If that means giving a single person all the toys for review, they can do it. None of us are entitled to anything, and EF is not obliged to "spread the wealth around." less

Online you cannot read inflection or body language.

You cannot assume that how you "think" something is being said is how it actually is.

I've found it's often best to take the words at plain, simple face value and not apply your own perceptions and feelings to someone else's words.

I truly don't think anyone is intending to be mean or to fight.

If we all just replied without letting ourselves get upset by what we "think" someone else meant or how we "think" someone said something we'd probably all do a lot better. less

Great idea. Let's go "verify" the reviews of some poor person who (I'm certain) is reviewing legitimately and normally.

Come on. That is not what I meant when I said I didn't fall for her bait. I meant I don't fall for it, and it deserves no more attention. If DBD thought it was a serious enough issue, she could talk to the person and ask them, then go to EF. This does not need to be hashed out here. less

See, I don't get that.

No one is saying this person who supposedly did seven verified reviews did anything wrong. No one is saying it's her fault that some people feel hurt or angry.

She was used as an example of something that seems odd and that seemed to smack of favoritism. The only reason I asked for a link was because it occurred to me that it might ease DBD's mind if, after looking more carefully, it could be determined that probability was high that most of them were buy outs. less