I might be swayed by personal revelation only if the revelation contained proof that it was valid. One possible way to achieve this is if the revelation contained a non-ambiguous and non-trivial prediction that then came true. This method is, however, subject to judgmental bias. A better method would be if the revelation contained a solution to something like Hilbert's sixteenth problem, or some other unsolved mathematical issue. Then describing your revelation to a friend who actually understands math should result in some interesting excitement.
Now mind you, this wouldn't lead to "thus god exists" because as far as I know it could have been a hallucination coupled with the possibility that I'm an unconscious math whiz. Or it could have been a CIA plot to test the radio-tooth the dentist slipped me unawares. Or it could be the aliens beamed it into my brain from their mothership in orbit at this very moment. I'm going to have to evaluate all these much more plausible possibilities before I examine the supernatural.
And let's say I did examine them and the evidence led to the supernatural. Let's even say the revelation was that god exists and oh, by the way, here's a solution to a math problem so you can verify that this message is from an external source. Why should I believe the god part? I'd have to have a known god to compare it to, and I don't have one. I'd have to evaluate whether its claim that it's the god of the bible is true or not in order to identify it. I'd have to contend with the possibility that the Satan character also exists, and as a result all my observations and conclusions are suspect. I would have to check all this stuff out, because to do any less would be dodging my responsibilities. To just have faith and believe it was a revelation from the god, when it could just as easily be a message from Satan, is the height of irresponsibility.
It is simply irresponsible to employ faith to believe.