Proper reviews

[banksy!]

He's already explained this is not the case several times in this thread.

But I think some people are (perhaps deliberately) missing the point.

What has he explained is "not the case"? That he only reviews good products because the bad ones are sent back (which is what I said)? Here it is:

When I get a new rifle for testing, if it's not fit for sale to 'the punter', then I make the points I believe are valid, send it back, and test it when the design/production changes have been made to that model. I believe this benefits everyone involved.

I would disagree and suggest this benefits the manufacturer (advertiser) and the magazine (revenue), to the disadvantage of "the punter", who is none the wiser.

If a car reviewer only reviewed good cars because they sent the lemons back, it would make for very dull reading, not to mention questionable journalism.