Thanks for your review. Obviously, I totally disagree with your assessment but there is a reason why despite my opening intro I haven't bothered much with RHB. It seems the review skills are very robotic and, apparently even against first moderator impressions, the guidelines are rather weak.

I don’t think that RHB gets the concept of “user generated reviews” and wants to pretend that it is something it is not yet, not even remotely. You aren’t gdgt, you are definitely not the wire cutter, you are merely a nitrous site. What you will be will mostly be defined by the community and by your [future] interface. The latter can eventually define how you can impose a certain style — although that may be difficult in a decentralized content environment. Without that though, you will face an insurmountable battle and eventually run yourself in the ground. Right now you’re just a nitrous site. No matter how much you try to impose a “review definition”, that won’t suffice.

There are times when a crew needs to be able to think laterally, also when reviewing against its own guidelines. But worry not, Buzzi totally stole the /UGC reviews niche on Steem and once they expand with more categories, an own website, and gasp maybe even an own token... watch RHB nosedive.

Unless, the attitude of RHB is massively improved. Striving for quality is a good thing in my book, contradicting your own drive at times is kamikaze.👌

PS: I posted this review in Steempeak. Due to Steempeak's lacking character/line readability optimization there was no room for any further visuals. Sadly that also means that on condenser-based sites there is a huge section without visuals. Check it out in Steempeak, window width minimum 1024 (typing on an iPad Pro here) and you will see what I mean.