Send me a note.

There are two kinds of contact pages on the internet. The ones with a form nobody reads and a "we value your feedback!" message that gets filtered into a folder of support tickets, and the ones where a real person opens every email and sometimes changes what they're doing because of what one stranger wrote. This is the second kind.

I read every email sent to jeff@jeffsreviews.com that isn't an auto-generated PR pitch. Genuine reader emails — corrections, product requests, disagreements, questions — get a real reply. The average response time is about 36 hours on weekdays, sometimes faster, occasionally longer. The rest of this page is the specifics: how to reach me, what I'll reply to, what I won't, and how to write an email that's likely to actually change something on this site.

Email: jeff@jeffsreviews.com

That's the single best way to contact me. No form, no ticketing system, no middleware — just a regular email address that goes to a regular inbox I check several times a day.

If you use the form at the bottom of this page, it also sends email to the same address. The form is there for people who prefer forms; the email address is there for everyone else. Either works.

For anything time-sensitive (corrections to a review that's currently getting traffic, DMCA notices, formal legal matters), email directly rather than using the form. It routes to the same place but it's easier to flag in a crowded inbox.

The genuine stuff gets a genuine reply. In rough order of how fast I respond:

• Corrections. If I got a fact wrong in a review, tell me. Include the specific review URL and what you believe is wrong. I verify, fix, and log it at /corrections within 72 hours of a confirmed correction. These get the fastest reply because the clock is ticking on an inaccurate page.
• Your own experience with a reviewed product. If you used something I reviewed and your experience was materially different from mine, that's useful. Sometimes it's a correction. Sometimes it's material for a revision. Often it just makes the next review better because I now know a failure mode I hadn't thought to test for.
• Product suggestions. If there's something being marketed hard at you and you're uncertain whether it's legit, tell me. Reader requests drive about half of what I review next. Include the product name, where you saw it advertised, and what you're uncertain about — that helps me prioritize.
• Disagreements with a verdict. If you think I was too hard or too easy on a product, say so with specifics. I don't always change my mind, but I always think about it.
• Questions about methodology. If something at /how-i-review or /editorial-standards doesn't make sense or seems contradictory, that's on me for not being clear. Point out what's confusing and I'll clarify.

Reply times:

• Correction emails: within 72 hours, usually faster
• Everything else: average 36 hours on weekdays, sometimes 48 hours, rarely more than 5 business days
• Weekends and holidays: I do look at email but reply Monday for non-urgent stuff

If you haven't heard back in a week, resend. Email goes missing sometimes, and I'd rather get your message twice than not at all.

Some email goes to a folder I don't read. No hard feelings and no lectures — just not a good use of my time or yours:

• PR pitches. "Hi Jeff, I'd love to get [product] in front of you for a potential feature." This site doesn't accept free products for review; the policy is documented at /editorial-standards, Section 4. If your pitch includes the phrase "we're open to working with you on sponsored content," it goes to the unread folder without being opened.
• Affiliate network solicitations. "Looking for top affiliates in the [category] vertical." Not how this site works.
• Guest post inquiries. This site doesn't accept guest posts. Ever. Every review is written by one person.
• Link-exchange and "link-building" requests. Spam with better grammar.
• Outreach from companies I reviewed negatively asking me to "revisit" or "reconsider" the review. The policy is at /editorial-standards, Section 7. The answer is no, and the answer doesn't require a reply.
• Automated or templated emails. If the email was obviously generated by an outreach tool, I assume a human didn't choose to send it to me specifically.

If you're a PR person who thinks your pitch is different — that you genuinely want independent coverage without strings — email anyway. Sometimes the exception happens. But understand that the default response is no reply, and that's not personal.

You don't need to write it perfectly — I read short, scrappy emails and appreciate them. But a few things make any email easier to act on:

• Start with what you want me to do. "I think there's an error in one of your reviews" or "Would you consider reviewing X" in the first line. I can prioritize an email in three seconds if the ask is visible immediately.
• Include the review URL if it's about a specific review. Copy it from your browser and paste it in. Saves me five minutes of searching.
• Be specific about what you're saying. "The ingredient list in your review doesn't match what's currently on the product's website" is useful. "This review seems wrong" is hard to act on.
• Tell me if it's time-sensitive. If there's a reason the correction or question matters before some specific date, say so in the first sentence.
• Use your real name or a consistent pseudonym. I don't publish reader names unless specifically asked, but conversations are easier when I can tell you apart from the next person.

None of these are rules. All of them just make the email more likely to change something.

• If you're reporting a correction: Start the subject line with Correction: Include the review URL and the specific claim you believe is wrong. If you have a source that confirms the correct information, include that too.
• If you're submitting a DMCA notice: See /terms Section 7 for the full procedure. Subject line must begin with DMCA Notice: and include the elements required under 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3).
• If you're a reader whose experience with a product was negative after I rated it positively: I want to hear this specifically. Email with subject line starting Experience: — these get read carefully because they're potentially correctable material. Include what you bought, when, what went wrong, and whether you contacted the merchant.
• If you're a privacy-related inquiry: See /privacy Section 13 for the full process. Subject line starting Privacy: routes these correctly.
• If you're a legal matter (subpoena, service of process, formal complaint): Same email address, subject line beginning Legal: — these are logged and responded to through standard legal channels. Attorneys are welcome to email directly.
• If you're a journalist or researcher: Happy to talk. Subject line starting Press: or Research: — turnaround depends on your deadline; say what it is and I'll tell you quickly whether I can meet it.

Radical honesty for a moment: I'm a one-person operation, so my inbox responsiveness varies with what else is happening. When I'm mid-review-cycle on a product, email responses are slower. When I'm between products, replies are faster. When I'm traveling, I may go several days without a meaningful reply. When there's a serious correction pending, everything else stops.

I'm not always fast. I'm always eventually responsive to genuine messages. If three weeks go by without a reply and you're sure the email went through, something broke — resend.

I don't have a team, an assistant, a CRM, or a ticketing system. If I miss an email, it's because I missed it, not because it was routed somewhere. The simplest way to get attention on something I missed is to reply to your original email with "Bumping this." in the body. I check those.

Not many. By design.

• Email (primary): jeff@jeffsreviews.com
• This site: jeffsreviews.com — the reviews are what matter, everything else is scaffolding
• Newsletter: When it launches, it'll be a notification channel for new reviews and nothing else. No separate content, no extras. If that changes, it'll be disclosed.
• Social media: I don't currently maintain social accounts for this site. If that changes, they'll be linked from this page. If an account claims to be me or this site and isn't linked from here, it isn't.

Any impersonation accounts that appear will be dealt with through normal platform channels and documented at /corrections. Reader reports of impersonation are appreciated.

The form.

If you prefer a form to writing an email, this sends to the same inbox. All three fields are required. Successful submissions get a confirmation; I'll follow up directly from the email you provide.