Great concept! Could this be applied, Sam?
If, for example, a consumer decides that his/her $55 is worth more than PRIME, I only wish for them to make that choice based on legitimate assumptions. Corollary to that, I would only want them to make an affirmative choice on PRIME mediated through the same legitimate pathways.
I would like to take this one step further.
I think that its an excellent idea but there would be a large number of 'taggings' going on and it would take alot of time out of NP's staff.
Therefore i would suggest that NP appoint 'review moderators'. External moderators outside of NP, like forum users, who have the time and inclination to respond to these concerns and
maintain and
enforcethe review system.
review moderators would be required to agree to a set of terms and conditions which would state that they:
a: Are not a rep for any supplement company, nor have they been for (say) 2 years.
b: Have no affiliations with any supplement company.
c: Will not accept any gratuities from any supplement company.
d: As such, will run no sponsored logs whilst working for NP.
Breach of these rules would result in an immediate loss of privileges and a review of..errr... well reviews, moderated by them.
Now i think very few people would put in the time needed just for fun, so their work incentive could be that they would recive a greater number of/better free samples with their NP orders. Or that they reicive access to a special private discount code to use with their orders.
all in all, it equates to a lesser workload for NP staff, for little to no cost. It also helps to re-affirm public belief in the review system and finally allows for a fast reviewing procedure with several people simply deicated to moderating reviews rather than NP staff having on their 'to-do' list.