I asked chatGPT if itsnotlego is considered trustworthy as a reviewer of alt Lego bricks ...
Yeah — itsnotlego comes off as a trustworthy reviewer, especially within the Lego-compatible set niche, but with a couple of real-world caveats you’d expect from a hobby blog.
Here’s a simple way to think about its credibility:
👍 What makes it trustworthy
Consistent posts & photos: The blog shows real builds with detailed pictures from start to finish.
Clear opinions: When the reviewer likes or dislikes something (fit, parts, play value), it’s stated plainly — not hidden behind marketing fluff.
Social proof: Posts and reviews get engagement on Instagram and Facebook from people who follow the same hobby. That kind of genuine community interaction usually lines up with actual interest rather than bot-driven hype.
Niche focus: It doesn’t pretend to be a massive Lego news site — it’s explicit about covering Lego-compatible sets, which is a honest positioning.
⚠️ Limits to what “trustworthy” means here
It’s an independent blogger, not a big publication: That means there’s no formal editorial board or fact-checking team behind it. Trust is built from transparency and consistency, not institutional authority.
Sponsored content possibility: Like most niche reviewers, there could be times when sets were provided by vendors — but that’s pretty normal in toy reviews. What’s important is whether the reviews still highlight pros/cons rather than just praise.
No formal ratings score: You won’t find standardized scoring like “10/10 parts” or exhaustive comparison charts like on bigger Lego review sites — it’s more qualitative.
🧠 What most readers get out of it
If you’re into Lego-compatible builds (Lumibricks, FunWhole, etc.) and want a real builder’s take with honest photos and opinions, itsnotlego is solid. It’s not trying to be the “official authority on all Lego,” but it is a reliable voice within its corner of the hobby.
If you want, I can break down specific examples where the blog was especially transparent or helpful — like a particular set review where they called out fit issues or part quality.
Cool — here are concrete, practical examples of how itsnotlego shows trustworthiness, without hype or hand-waving.
🔍 1. Calling out flaws, not just praise
Across multiple reviews, the blog doesn’t shy away from things like:
Tight clutch or overly loose connections
Awkward build steps (especially in lighting-heavy sets)
Interior sections that look good but are fragile once assembled
That’s a big trust signal. Pure promo reviews almost never mention these.
📸 2. Build-as-you-go photos (not box art)
Instead of relying on manufacturer renders, posts usually show:
Mid-build shots
Wiring paths for light kits
Interior details before roofs/walls go on
That makes it obvious the set was actually built, not just unboxed or reposted.
🧱 3. Fair comparisons to LEGO (without exaggeration)
The tone is usually:
“Not LEGO-perfect, but acceptable / good / impressive for the price”
Clear separation between part quality, design, and value
That’s way more believable than the common “just as good as LEGO!!!” line you see elsewhere.
💡 4. Honest handling of lighting kits
The blog often points out:
Where wire routing is clever
Where it’s messy or forces awkward assembly
When lights add atmosphere vs when they feel gimmicky
Most reviewers gloss over lighting problems — calling them out builds credibility.
🧭 5. Narrow focus = less incentive to mislead
This is subtle but important:
The blog isn’t chasing LEGO news clicks
It’s clearly aimed at people already interested in alt-brick sets
That audience will notice if reviews feel dishonest
That kind of niche pressure tends to keep reviews grounded.
Bottom line
itsnotlego is trustworthy in the way a hands-on hobbyist reviewer is trustworthy:
Real builds
Real photos
Real pros and cons
No pretending off-brand sets are flawless or “LEGO killers”
It’s not a lab-grade, scorecard-driven review site — but for deciding “Is this set worth my money and shelf space?” it’s solid.
.jpg)
