Crescent wrote: "Ummm ... to put it mildly, that wouldn't work. What happens if the critic decides they don't like an item in the RMP? Then the merchant will accuse Renderosity of trying to damage their sales. If the critic likes something and someone purchases the item based on the review but doesn't like it, then Renderosity will be accused of lying to get more sales. Accusations will fly back and forth on favoritism, being hated by the staff, etc., when one product is reviewed before another. And if Renderosity reviews items off-site, then any negative reviews would be seen as attempts to hurt competitors. There's a reason that Consumers' Guide relies on subscriptions as their only source of revneue. Otherwise they can't help but have a vested interest in pumping (or softening reviews for) certain products." My response: To put it not-so-mildly but bluntly, I think it would work just fine. As I mentioned in my original post, of course a critic will incite a lot of anger, name calling, and cries of conspiracy or favoritism... ...just like REAL film, literary, theater, and art critics already do. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist. Newspapers, magazines and TV hire critics all the time. We hate them, but we love them. It'd be no different here. And I don't think any blame will land on Renderosity. Computer magazines which are full of ads to sell things hire reviewers to review software all the time. Why can't Renderosity? Personally, I'd like a real intelligent, opinionated critic or two to help wade through the garbage and warn us of the pitfalls in the marketplace. Maybe somebody will start a web site totally unrelated to Renderosity that will take on the task of impartially and fairly commenting on some of the stuff in the MP (I still think one already exists but I can't for the life of me remember the name of it -- anybody able to help here?). --jjsemp