We have a few reviewers who are quick to label unpublished reviews as "shill review, club ad." These overly zealous critics are well known, so no need to add names. The liberal use of "shill review, club ad" is no big deal, unless the overly critical reviewers are preventing the publication of legitimate reviews.
Also, I recently submitted a review that was also labeled as a shill review by one of the reviewers (tuscl.net). The review was published based on the recommendation of the other reviewers. I certainly was not offended with the false alarm (mislabeling a legitimate review as a shill review), but it got me to thinking about how to spot a shill review.
In our current system for screening unpublished reviews, the author's screen name is not linked to the UNPUBLISHED reviews. I like this "blind" review system but it means that it is no longer possible to spot a shill review by noticing if the reviewer has only one or two published reviews (and those are often glowing reviews of his/her own club).
So my discussion question is: what criteria do you use during the evaluation of unpublished reviews to spot a "shill review, club ad?" Secondarily, do we need an "intervention" for those who consistently mislabel legitimate reviews as shill reviews?


It's like dog shit. I can't describe it but I know it when I see it. 3 out right give aways in a shill review are no mention of mileage and/or prices or anything bad about the club.