Ask HN: Do you trust reviews with affiliate links?
Do you discount reviews that have affiliate links due the the inherent conflict of interest? Accept them since they are ubiquitous? Reject the idea they impact reviews? I don't trust reviews anyway. I look for mentions of features I might be interested in or aspects that would bother me, but I put zero weight on any "opinion" about something. That said, affiliate links make a site look really sleazy, it's essentially the lowest form of business model so it signals that the author is less likely to be someone who has put a good package of information together. How do other people use (product) reviews? Are you putting value on the reviewer's opinion? > How do other people use (product) reviews? Are you putting value on the reviewer's opinion? With the exception of Consumer Reports, I ignore all reviews that appear in commercial publications, review websites, etc. I do put value on a review coming from Joe Random's hobbyist website, assuming that they aren't using affiliate links, weren't given the thing they're reviewing for free, and weren't otherwise compensated. But I put the greatest value on people that I personally know telling me about their experience with the thing, followed by people I may not personally know, but that I've been paying attention to for long enough that I have an idea of what their tastes are. It's very hard to know how to interpret a review (about a product, yes, but also about things like books, movies, music, etc.) without knowing a fair bit about the reviewer. Different people value different things, and a review has the most value to me when it comes from someone who values similar things to me. If the person doing the review isn't one that has already earned my trust, then the presence of affiliate links definitely makes me discount the review. The same for other forms of payment, such as them being provided with free items to review. If the person doing the review has already earned my trust, my trust drops a notch, but I won't discount the review. I'll just be more vigilant about the reviewer into the future. Interesting distinction. Would they have earned your trust from a pre-affiliate era, or just from other non-review content you’ve consumed (assuming all of their review posts / YouTube videos have affiliate links?) Pre-affiliate. If they're using affiliate links, then they're effectively acting as salesmen, not honest reviewers. Not necessarily. Let’s say they are using Amazon affiliates, if they consistently use those across the site regardless of if they reviewed the product as good or bad, then they aren’t inherently being salesman. Just opportunistic, as they can make some money in a way that benefits everyone. But if it is only done on some, particularly those they rate highly, it does become questionable. True, it's a rule of thumb. But I think it holds in the overwhelming majority of cases -- even if the reviewer themselves honestly don't think so. > Let’s say they are using Amazon affiliates, if they consistently use those across the site regardless of if they reviewed the product as good or bad, then they aren’t inherently being salesman. I don't think that rules them out of acting as salesmen at all. Let's say I run a review site with the intention of making money from affiliate links. Mixing a couple of bad reviews in with the good reviews is an excellent tactic for increasing the trust my readers have in the good review, increasing the chances that they'll buy one of those through me. In my view, if someone is making money by reviewing things, then it's far more likely than not that their reviews will be different because of that. Catch-22 No affiliate links means they're paid to review. Affiliate links means they get paid for people visiting. Basically someone gotta get paid to put in the work. It is increasingly bad as a practice to review things negatively. So generally incentives work towards good reviews. One sign though that a review is very biased... If they give you a discount code. They are not reviewers, they are salesmen. > No affiliate links means they're paid to review. I don't think this is a good rule of thumb. There are lots of people reviewing things without getting paid to review. And affiliate links are a variation of getting paid to review. They make money if you buy what they're reviewing, after all, so are incentivized to encourage you to buy. meh. you need views. and often the things to review are expensive. so often people don't review negatively because then it prevents a future deal with that company. ultimately. people need to get paid. i view groups who tend to have great respect in the community and generally own up to their mistakes as worthy voices. when you don't know someone and need to judge who they are, i find that admission of mistakes to be the biggest indicator of trust, vs those who effectively downplay or claim they don't make them. How would you view a reviewer who monetized with ads rather than affiliates? Do you see that as a distinction? ads tend to be a minority of income. its extra cash, for sure, but not a major source. I have two criteria: 1. Reviews by that author/site are exhaustive, not one-paragraph reheated press releases. 2. Reviews by that author/site are sometimes negative. A site that has all positive reviews is just a marketing brochure. I am also more forgiving of affiliate links when it's a random nobody/blogger/Youtuber who is making money solely from affiliate links. What's slimy is when big magazine brands double dip on affiliate links and display ads -- e.g., "Hey, REI: we'll push all our affiliate links to REI.com if you buy X number of ads on our website." No, I don't. I also don't trust recommendations/suggestions from people if they give me an affiliate link, it doesn't feel genuine.