WORK IN PROGRESS

 Ethics Statement

Reviews

The purpose of CommonGeek’s reviews are to give the average user an idea of the quality of a product. This can include the quality of the materials of a physical product, the user interface of a piece of software, how stable an internet services’ server connection can be, among other traits.

Reviews are representative of the product at the time it was reviewed, though updates may be given. Unless substantial changes are made to the product, we reserve the right to keep the score as is. Finals grades are based on the merits of the product itself and thus should not be compared to the score given to another product. The reviews are also a representation of the author’s opinion, unless the review is done in a group format. We aim through our recruitment process to make sure our reviews represent a broad range of voices and experiences.

Reviews are naturally subjective, but as an organization we will attempt to test measurable metrics when possible. Examples can include traits such as download speeds, render rates, and power consumption among others.

Like any of our writings, review scores will not be based on personal relationships with or influence by the creator of the product. Our writers must disclose and worthwhile connection they have to them, and recuse themselves from participating. Reviewers themselves will not be given incentive or bonuses based on page traffic. If CommonGeek is sent a pre-release copy of a product, it will be disclosed as such in the review. Typically, products will be purchased by the reviewer at cost.

Review Grades:

No: Whether from minor bugs, bad design, or being simply unusable, we can’t in good conscience recommend this product to you.

Yes: A quality product worth your time to pick up. May not be perfect, but definitely does what it sets out to do.

HELL YES: This is a fantastic product either at the top of its market or changes one so well that it is a must have.