Feedback on diglloyd reviews

I provide as accurate and specific a description of what my paid reviews include as possible, because I want customers who are 100% satisfied who will buy again. Indeed, it is common for buyers of one of my Pro Reviews to order additional reviews, and quite a number have ordered all of them.

Today I received an email today from a customer who had ordered The Sharpest Image. He writes:

I downloaded the article expecting to see some reviews of Nikons & Canons newest DSLRs, Nikon-Canon comparisons, etc. The one comparison of DOF between Nikon & Canon was an eye-opener. Should one choose Nikon over Canon for 'Landscapes'?
...
You mentioned in your 'promo' that there would be facts forthcoming about each of the Nikon & Canon systems that add or detract from the respective systems...
I'm sorry, but here are 'too many' missing parts in this 'comprehensive' article to make it worth the $30+ fee

The Sharpest Image costs $26.95 (it’s worth it!), not “$30+” , so that’s a clue. And if one reads the description page and searches that page for the word “Canon”, it doesn’t even exist. The equipment list is specific and detailed. There are page previews and a detailed description of the questions addressed. The review itself has no comparisons of Nikon vs Canon at all! There is no “DOF” comparison in the article.

So feedback like this is baffling. Perhaps this customer read a description of D2x vs EOS, then ordered The Sharpest Image by mistake. Or read something on another web site authored by some 3rd-party.

My approach with such things is to stand behind my product, which means:

• Responding with the facts;
• Providing clarifications and/or answers to questions;
• Refunding the purchase price for a legitimate gripe (never happened so far).
• If I’ve sent the wrong review by mistake, I supply the correct one, and the buyer gets to keep both.

I’ve responded in detail to this particular customer, and I’ll do my best to satisfy him. And I’ve checked my records; he did indeed order The Sharpest Image.