Regarding the 'Affiliate Relationship Disclaimer': Almost every website on the internet has advertising and affiliate relationships and therefore should (according to the FTC) publish a disclaimer similar to mine. Why is the fact that I publish the disclaimer and others do not (but should) a black mark against ME? I have nothing if I don't have my integrity which is exactly WHY that disclaimer is there.
Not you specifically. Any advertiser who gets paid for their content should be noted for their potential bias.
Of those five, the only the Sinclair link is connected to an affiliate program. In other words if you click on that link AND BUY THE PRODUCT I get a small commission. AND I MAKE THAT VERY CLEAR IN THE STATEMENT JUST ABOVE THE LINK.
Yes, that is specifically what adds an air of impartiality to your review of the process.
Thank you for pointing it out, in case anyone missed it.
I wasn't insinuating that you were hiding it. I was insinuating that you missed your own potential bias by doing so.
When I recommend a product it is without regard to any affiliate status
Potentially biased conjecture at the very best. Impossible to prove to be completely true at the very least.
The article contains my open and honest experiences and opinions
We would hope. However, given the fact that you earn money when someone buys the product you find best from a link provided in your article, the truth of that statement can't be impartially ascertained.
Regarding 'hybrid styles' of cleaning: I made the conscious decision not to include them.
And in doing so, have robbed not only yourself, but your viewership, of a process that meets the quality of cleanliness provided by ultrasonic, with the polish provided by tumbling. At approximately HALF the equipment investment of the product you claim to be "best", I might add.
The fact that your omission of that hybrid process leads you to a conclusion that gets you paid if someone agrees with you, further complicates your claim of impartiality and " Definitive-ness".
Regarding 'hybrid styles' of cleaning: I made the conscious decision not to include them.
Yes, you consciously excluded ALL of them, even though even ONE of them ( frequently mentioned here) approximates the standard of "hybrid styles" You could not even include ONE.... when the length of that test would have exceeded your longest test by only approximately 30 minutes...less so in some folks' formulas.
So yes, I stand by my first, and above, claims.
No, I wont freely generate research data for use in your paid advertisement- I don't believe anyone else should either.
I have already done research I find compelling. The results of that process, and the process itself, are freely given here- without commercial attachment.
You CAN however, find most of the hybrid theories here on THR....and should you feel so inclined, perform those experiments, obtain your own impartial data, and utilize that data to further your commercial interests.
PS
I also certainly do hope that the timing of this thread on a popular topic ( tumbling- stainless in particular), especially in this particular day and age where new reloaders are popping up faster than ever- and seeking advice here as a result......that links those users in question directly to the product you get paid for if they follow that link completely to a sale............ was not intentional.
Otherwise, thats just "Schilly-Willy" all the way to your bank.
but doesn't alter the fact that at its core....this is insidiously shilling.
