So we've all seen some questionable things happen, eh, with the most recent here involving The Haze Vaporizer. Just as recently, I was over at GC when someone with his very first post (and this person only posted once and then disappeared, btw), posted up a very positive, glowing review on the Herbalizer along with official pics that were taken from the Herbalizer site. This issue was exacerbated by the fact that his review was a direct copy, word for word, of StickStones review that was posted up at the Herbalizer site. So we have a person that copied the pics from Herbalizer, copied Sticks review from Herbalzer, and then re-posted them over at GC all while presenting himself/herself as an end user. Not only that, but there was also a direct link to the Herbalizer site. And no, it was not Sticks who posted up this review over at GC. Was the guy, in fact, an employee of Herbalizer promoting the product over at GC, ie, a shill, or was he some random person who did this simply because he liked the product but didn't have the ability to write his own review or take his own pics, and just decided, with his very first post, to plagiarize all this info, and then disappear? This is far from the first time that we have seen stuff like this happen. We have seen shills and possible shills here before. The FC staff, in the past have busted some of them for creating false accounts here and have then been banned for doing so. And some of them have not been start-ups but in fact, VERY reputable manufactures who have been in the business for a very long time. I also have no doubt that there may also have been some legitimate end users that were so passionate about the product, that they were falsely accused of being a shill. In my opinion, it's a fine line here when someone is being accused of inappropriate marketing tactics when in fact, it may not be the case and this should be a major concern in that a companies reputation could be falsely put into question. On the other hand, I think it's also important to question questionable marketing tactics, not only to protect the end user, but also to hold the manufacturers feet to the fire so that, in the end, they can make the necessary adjustments to improve their marketing efforts. I think the mods here do a pretty good job in allowing this weeding out (pardon the play on words) process to take place while at the same time, trying to not only protect the end user from unethical marketing efforts, but also to protect the companies from being falsely accused of those efforts. Thoughts on how to weed out the good from the bad and ugly? I'll start. For me, one of the first clues is post count. When a glowing review is done by a posters very first post, for me, raises the red flag. Not necessarily guilty, but definitely suspicious.