I completely agree with all of Sundae's points. Offensive terms are a big no no for me and often make me not even want to finish reading the review. Overly explicit things and slang make me pay less attention to the review.

or Open Office

I think I'm probably guilty of the run-on sentence crime. I let that sort of thing slide a bit more when I'm reviewing. However, I understand where you're coming from with spelling mistakes and stuff, a couple will always slip through the cracks, but at least use a spellchecker!

I think that's what I was thinking of actually. Hadn't finish my coffee + angry rant = can't think of words/names.

hahha, noted.

I agree. Since the offsite reviews are linked on EF, the pictures of less than safe for work things should really be behind a cut with the warning of nudity, etc. It's not difficult to do and it shows respect for everyone

Very much agree with Sundae. A light tale of the experience is enjoyable to read, but when it's overly detailed or graphic, it falls in the category of unappreciated TMI.

One personal pet peeve of mine comes with the waterproof toys. If it's labeled waterproof and the reviewer mentions this but admits they didn't test it, that's ok. But when they play up the fact that the toy is waterproof, give lots of suggestions for underwater use, and THEN say they didn't test it, that's absurd. Plenty of toys that are labeled as being waterproof turn out not to be. And honestly, if they aren't able to actually take it in the bath with them during the testing period, would it be a stretch to expect them to submerge it in a sink or bowl of water for awhile just to see if the claim is solid?

One thing I have noticed is people suggesting anal play with everything from bullets to vibes which are not meant for such. I have noticed staff going into some of these reviews and putting up a disclaimer, which is good.

Let me see. I noticed something recently that put a lot of people off. There have been one or more reviewers speaking negatively about a normal man's penis size. In fact, I remember one review mentioning putting a man through pain in order to pleasure the woman because the man was too small for the woman. This kind of talk is negative and in my opinion, has no place on Eden.

That's one thing that really, really gets to me. I live in a college dorm. I rarely have access to a tub to take a bath, or to a private sink, so of course I could only test if the toy is splash-proof in the shower, right? No, I usually get a bowl of water, bring it back to my room, and dunk a few of the darn things under there for a goodly while. We're reviewers. TRY to push the boundaries of the toys, within reasonable limits. Don't have a tub? Try a sink or bowl.

Another thing that bugs me is when people spend a review tearing apart a product that worked for them, implying or saying flat-out that no one could ever get any pleasure out of it... when there are a whole bunch of reviews praising it. Feel free to disagree with the crowd about whether it works for you, but try to take into account that some people may love they toy you hate. (I hate toys with hard glass nubbies, but others absolutely adore them)

Regardless of what you do in your personal life, I don't like seeing recommendations for unsafe or questionable acts in reviews. As Heartthrob said, suggesting anal with bullets or straight traditional vibrators is generally something that sets off warnings in my head.

On the other hand, saying "this may be fun for anal play if you ____ ____ ____, are very careful, and know your limits. However, this is not recommended for any but experienced anal players (who are ready and willing to go to the ER if something goes wrong)." Someone said something similar to that in a review of a very long dildo or vibrator once. I forget who it was, but it struck me as very well put and safety conscious, while still admitting in a professional manner that "off-label" use was possible.

I agree with Pleasureman. Talking down to any body/bodypart size has no place here, nor does bragging about endowments. Mentioning in passing that something doesn't fit/work right because of your size or shape is one thing. Going on and on about how your man is sooooo big that he would never, ever need an extender to pleasure you , the thought is ridiculous, but maybe a smaller man might need this so a woman could feel how nice a real, big, juicy penis feels... Unpleasant. I've seen it too many times.

"Sometimes, I'm not prepared to see some nudity when reading the review of a feather tickler for instance or see the screenshots of a porn movie right below a massage candle review."

I'm not sure why porn screenshots would be in a massage candle review. Could you explain that part? I think I'm missing something.

I'm slightly exagerating. It was just to say that even if we know off-site reviews are necessarily 18 or 21+ because of the content, but we are not always warned about some nudity or explicit content among the reviews. People using the links to read off-site reviews are not all reviewers, and if the off-sites are not completely "adult-friendly", they might not want to click on those links as much as they did.

Some people may disagree, but I personally feel that being part of this review program, I am representing this website as much as anyone officially working here, and I believe I must make sure to keep my image similar to Edenfantasys'.

And Pleasureman and Luscious, you are cute. Why do I get the impression I read that review? And yes, I completely agree about that point.

Honestly, after dealing with so many waterproof toys, you get a feel for when it is true and when it is not. So to me, if I see something that looks unreliable as far as waterproofing, I shower test it and recommend shower use only, not submersion. If I think it can handle it I will do submersion tests with the toy or take it in the bath.

It does not take much to make a toy splashproof but the cheapie rubber washers are rarely enough for complete watertightness and many manufacturers include warnings (I think I encountered this not too long ago) not to fully submerge the toy and such. A lot of it is also user care. Are you taking the toy in the shower/bath to review it or are you trying to kill it? Splashproof for cleaning and shower use does not mean to hold it under a running tap. I treat things carefully and I suppose for that reason, it is good that we have multiple reviews since it is entirely a 'your mileage may vary' thing for how you treat your toy.

Sometimes manufacturers claim waterproofness and they dont have any kind of flexible seal. In these cases it depends entirely on how much I like the toy and if I am willing to risk killing it. If I am I'll do it anyways and find out. If I'm not I will recommend caution and note my thoughts on it, like to use a damp rag and avoid dousing the battery compartment area or whatever.


Anywho, I do agree that people shouldnt say these things without actually testing them. Although admittedly seeing a bunch of 'waterproof' dildos bobbing around in a bucket is a hilarious sight.

What do I think should never be in reviews.. hmm.

Well, obnoxious-type personal experience is a definite turn off. Wrong info or tales of sharing without condoms also is. I think a lot of reviews suffer from a lack of detail and personality. It's something I've been trying to fix in my own reviews, because people either completely leave out details such as WHY it is so amazing or why is it horrible, or they go overboard on details and end up with a dry piece of cardboard.

So.. balance is important.
Lots of caps and exclamation marks should be avoided. It's childish and makes me think the reviewer is like 14 or something, which is gross. So do tales of how you hide it from your mom or your kids, or how the dog tried to eat it. Family details should usually stay out of reviews.

I can see your point, but at the same time, the censoring seems to be sparse and only on packaging and such. There are tons of realistic vaginas and penii on the site, fully exposed, and I wouldnt have it any other way. EF is not a work safe site, unless your boss is okay with you browsing an assortment of bedtime accessories- so I dont see why offsite reviews should have to exclude them entirely. Even some of the top rated reviewers have included nudity, spousal, self or otherwise in off site reviews. Some people have pics of an adult nature as part of their layout.

I do think a warning may be nice, but not required.

I agree. You know you're clicking off site with those reviews and you can simply choose to view them at a different time. I'm not sure why anyone would think EF is work safe anyway.

I think this is an awesome idea. I, too, have been bothered by the quality of some new "Advanced Reviewers". I think what you're proposing is a great balance between the old system and the new.

We have something kind of like what you're suggesting, in the works. It's a Mentor Program. I don't want to spoil the surprise - but I will say that the suggestions for newer reviewers on how to improve and more actual involvement will be met. This will not be mandatory but will be available to anyone who wants to be a reviewer. Stay tuned

Wow, sounds great.

That does sound great, can't wait to hear more!

I try to point out to the contributor when this happens. I know a lot of people read this site looking for a toy for the first time, and I think it's crucial they know what not to use anally. We don't need to be blamed when someone loses a toy up their bum!