I'm not sure if this is the right place for this question...

Which is better, honesty or "niceness"?

For reviewing purchases? Honesty.

Agree!

A review that is not frank and candid (i.e., "honest") is of no value. Having said that it is essential to keep in mind that a review reflects nothing more nor less than one person's opinion and that as the saying goes "one man's meat is another man's poison." Accordingly, it helps if a review is not only as objective (i.e., "honest") as possible, but includes some explanation of the good and/or bad features that prompted the reviewers evaluation -- but without exposing such details of the "secret(s)" involved that would enable the reader to copy the effect.

As one of the regular reviewers of products for the I.B.M.'s magazine "The Linking Ring" I try to follow the aforementioned principles, but will readily admit that it can be very difficult if not impossible to entirely put one's own tastes and prejudices aside. A reviewer is also limited by his personal experience and I turn down the opportunity to review an item unless I am confident that my knowledge and experience render me qualified to do so.

Whether amateurs on te Café or pros in magazines, the way I see it, the best reviewers actually perform tricks they review for audiences and include that experience in their reviews. Otherwise I find reviews worthless.

I can only speak for myself, but IF one has sufficient experience with VERY SIMILAR effects I submit that it IS possible to adequately review/evaluate an effect. (Please note that I have very specifically qualified that assertion.) Otherwise, I agree that properly "audience testing" an effect should be part of the process whenever it is practical and appropriate to do so. Having said that, I hope you can understand it is generally considered important to review new products in a timely manner when they are introduced to the market and that a working pro might be reluctant to deviate from his carefully crafted, honed and polished program by putting his reputation (and thereby his livelihood) on the line in order "audience test" someone else's new effect.

I would suggest that one of the primary responsibilities of anyone introducing a new effect to the market place should be to have thoroughly audience-tested it in THEIR programs for THEIR audiences before pitching it to others. If THAT rule were followed it would eliminate many of the untested, ineffective and transparent "pipedreams" to which the market is sometimes exposed.

In order to save time, space and bandwidth, I haven't even addressed such issues as verifying the originality of an item one puts on the market, acknowledging and giving appropriate attribution to the work of others on which the item may be based or from which it was derived. Suffice it to say that this is more than a mere "nicety" and something that I have often found lacking in items which have either been sent to me for review or which I have purchased for my own use and about which I have subsequently posted comments. A lot of what I see is (charitably speaking) "highly derivative" and offered without so much as nod to the work that has gone before.