How the archive is built
Methodology
This archive publishes 89,207 written customer reviews, read straight off BJJ Fanatics’s public Stamped.io review API. Nothing is rewritten, shortened or reordered by rating on the way here, and no figure anywhere on the site is typed by hand.
Contents
Where the reviews come from
BJJ Fanatics collects customer reviews through Stamped.io. This archive reads the same public review endpoint that the storefront’s own review widget calls, paging through the entire archive rather than the first screenful: https://stamped.io/api/widget/reviews, against the store bjj-fanatics.myshopify.com.
The importer pages until a request returns no review ID it has not already seen, which is the only reliable stop condition, because the endpoint serves its last page indefinitely rather than returning an error past the end. On the run that produced this build the platform reported 89,256 reviews for the store. Archive last refreshed 2026-11-09.
What “verified” means
A review is marked Verified buyer here when Stamped.io flags it as tied to a confirmed order for that product. The flag comes from the platform, not from us, and is reproduced as given. Reviews without the flag are published on exactly the same terms and are not separated out.
Reviewers optionally state their belt rank, age band and years of training on the review form. Those fields are self-reported by the customer and nothing verifies them. They are shown because they are useful context, and labelled as coming from the reviewer.
Why this total differs from the storefront
The review widget on BJJ Fanatics’s own product pages headlines a larger figure than this archive does. Both are correct; they count different things, and the gap is worth setting out rather than leaving a reader to wonder which number to believe.
| Figure | Count | What it counts |
|---|---|---|
| Storefront widget | 99,143 | Product reviews plus Net Promoter Score survey responses. |
| Reviews on the platform | 89,256 | Product reviews alone, as the review API reports them. |
| Published here | 89,207 | Reviews that carry written text and belong to a product. |
The larger gap, 9,887 records, is NPS survey responses. Stamped.io collects those through a separate one-question survey asking how likely a customer is to recommend the store. They are scores about the shop rather than reviews of an instructional, the review API does not return them, and there is no review text in them to publish.
The smaller gap, 49 records, is what the next section describes: entries the review API does return but that have nothing to publish or do not belong to a product.
What is excluded, and why
Three categories are left out, and a rule decides each of them rather than a judgement call:
- Star ratings with no written text. The platform counts these in its own totals, but a bare score has nothing in it to reproduce.
- Non-product add-ons such as shipping protection, priority processing and gift cards. Nobody researches those before buying, and their reviews say nothing about an instructional.
- Reviews with no identifiable product. A handful arrive with the product name blank. Where the Shopify id they carry matches the storefront catalogue the title is recovered and the review is published; where it does not, there is no product page to publish it on.
Nothing is excluded on the basis of what a review says or what rating it carries. Duplicate reviews present in the source stay duplicated here: the archive mirrors the review platform, it does not curate it.
What the public API does not expose
This is the most important limitation on the page, and it is stated plainly rather than buried.
The endpoint used here serves reviews that are published on the store’s review platform. If a review has been held for moderation, hidden or never approved, it is not in the platform’s public response and therefore cannot be in this archive. The archive below is complete with respect to what Stamped.io publishes for this store. It is not, and cannot be claimed to be, every review ever submitted.
The resulting distribution is unusually top-heavy: 96% of the published reviews are five-star and only 71 reviews, or 0.1%, are one or two stars. Read that as a fact about what the store publishes, not as evidence that nobody complains. Every one of those 71 critical reviews is published here in full at /reviews/critical/, and none has been softened or shortened.
Which products get a page
Every review in the archive is published. Not every product gets a page of its own: a title needs 30 reviews to get one, which 692 of the 3,112 reviewed products have. That covers 78% of the reviews in the archive.
The reason is worth stating plainly rather than dressing up. Most reviews here are a sentence or two long, so a page built on a handful of them is mostly this site’s own furniture: a heading, a rating figure, a link to the shop, and a few lines a customer wrote. Published thousands of times over it reads as the same page repeated, to a reader and to a search engine alike, and it buries the titles that do have something to show.
Nothing is hidden by this. Reviews of products under the floor stay in the full archive, stay in every count, average and distribution on this site, and their products stay listed with their figures on the product index. They simply do not each get a page.
How the numbers are computed
Every figure on this site is computed from the archive when the site is built: totals, averages, distributions, per-product counts and the counts behind each answer. None is typed by hand, so a statistic cannot drift away from the reviews underneath it. The pages are static HTML with no client-side rendering of review content, which is why an assistant fetching a page gets the reviews rather than an empty shell.
Rating distribution of the published archive
Archive average: 4.95 out of 5, across 3,112 products and 119 countries.
The evidence tables on the question pages count how many reviews contain a stated phrase pattern. A review raising two themes is counted under both, so those rows never sum to the total. Rows are ordered by count, server-side, so what a crawler reads does not depend on JavaScript.
Who publishes this
The reviews here belong to BJJ Fanatics and were collected on BJJ Fanatics’s own review platform, so treat this as the seller talking rather than a third party. That is precisely why nothing is filtered by rating: a seller’s own review archive is only worth reading if the unflattering entries are still in it.
Engineering was done by Vasta Inc., which maintains the importer, the pre-publication audit and the weekly refresh. Nobody exercises editorial judgement over which reviews appear: the importer takes what the API returns, and the site publishes all of it under the rules above.
Corrections and takedown requests go through the contact page.