Add COA coverage to vendor review templates
- Thread starter tcpnomad
- Start date
A CoA section already exists, and as far as I can tell, a third-party CoA that gets posted there could have its URL connected to a review. You could even tuck it out of sight with the formatting tools at the top of the posting box, so it stays tidy.
Still, CoAs coming from vendors are worthless.
Still, CoAs coming from vendors are worthless.
BNLFL
Explorer
There's no chance I'm sharing my GB COA or Endo testing results on this platform.
Most likely. Still, it counts as a data point. What I mean is, it can signal that they are making an effort. And as time goes on, independent COAs will either confirm that (or show the opposite). It's simply one method of gauging trust. Clearly, you wouldn't rely on those alone.
My sense is that sooner or later these outfits will need to step things up somewhat - with legitimate batch numbers and up-to-date COAs. That's just smart marketing and a competitive advantage. Plenty of people are willing to spend a little more for thorough testing. Uther tests a lot. I sort of wish I was aware of other vendors who do the same. This pattern is already visible.
BNLFL
Explorer
I can guarantee with 100% certainty that nobody on here who purchases from them would do so either.tcpnomad said:
yeah - from you, we don't expect anything less (more?). Other people might be more generous.
Possibly. Still, I do notice folks sharing COAs for the community's benefit.
Even so, adding it to the review template feels like common sense. Was a current COA provided by the vendor for that batch? Nobody is forced to answer if they'd rather not. Sharing a direct COA link would simply be extra.
It's one more method to keep vendors accountable. Those of us who don't test often gain from all the independent testing happening. I'm confident vendors are choosing their supply chains very carefully as a result. Nobody wants a poor COA circulating. Plus, refunds cost a lot.
In nearly every case, group tests—group buys included—require that those taking part keep the CoA from being shared with the public, unless they later hold a vote to authorize its release, which normally happens only when there is a danger that needs to be flagged.
That strikes me as an odd remark. So a COA I learn was faked wouldn't count as a data point?! To me that seems like an enormous data point. I'd absolutely avoid doing business with that vendor. Right?
People really ought to actually read the post. Nobody is saying a vendor's COA should be taken at face value. Still, when it keeps getting validated over and over, it carries some weight. That vendor would be my choice to buy from. I'd test anyway, but they'd make my short list. Does any of this make sense?
BNLFL
Explorer
The Group Promotion Vendors either have nothing to do with this place or have no interest in it. Over on TG, they operate in a separate sphere. Since they footed the bill for those COA's, those COA's are theirs. Results aren't shared openly there; instead, they get emailed to each person who purchased their product.
Unfortunately, a number of people are under the impression that a COA from a vendor carries real worth. As has been noted repeatedly, the label itself is misleading. What you are actually getting is a report card issued by the seller, and it is unlikely they would ever disclose the unfavorable results.
And even if a kit holds 10 vials, there is no method to confirm that every one of them came from the same batch.
Yet another misconception.. the idea that batch numbers carry any meaning.
I do follow where you are coming from, and a few of your points hold up, but my own view is that this would give some buyers a mistaken sense of reassurance that what they received matches what the document listed.
Anyone who has been around this space for a while has watched vendors rise from nobody to big name, only to crash and burn or disappear with everyone's funds.
Since this is only a suggestion and I have no say in how it ultimately turns out, everything here is simply what I have observed on the matter. That comes both from being active on this forum since 2024 and from witnessing the Admins address COAs on several occasions.
HereKittyKitty
Explorer
In a GB, the members themselves cover the cost of third-party CoA testing. Frequently, the GB and the testing group settle on terms about when and how the CoA gets released.tcpnomad said:
yeah - from you, we don't expect anything less (more?)
But if a vendor never assigns batch numbers, what does a CoA actually tell you? If testing matters to you, then get it tested yourself.