In their examination of the effectiveness of affect regulation strategies, Webb, Miles, and Sheeran (2012) offered the results of a broad meta-analysis of studies on regulatory interventions. Their analysis provides an alternative to our earlier, more focused meta-analysis of the affect regulation literature (Augustine & Hemenover, 2009). Unfortunately, there are a number of errors and omissions in this new meta-analysis that could lead to misconceptions regarding both our previous work and the state of the affect regulation literature. In this comment, we examine the impact of methodological issues, inconsistent inclusion criteria, variance in manipulations, and what we perceive to be a subjective and inconsistent selection of effect sizes on the accuracy and generalizability of Webb and colleagues' estimates of affect regulation strategy effectiveness. (Contains 3 footnotes.)