Trade Participation on Pricescope

[Todd Gray]

I like this option, having an activation of the PM feature related to the number of posts contributed by a new member would certainly reduce the number of "brand new" members who might otherwise use the PM feature to spam other members.

However I'd also like to state that I don't see a reason for PM services to be restricted to non-trade members only... Personally I'd love to be able to PM one of my peers in the trade if they happened to be online at the same time that I am and be able to respond to a PM from a consumer if one was initiated by them. Opening up the PM feature for one "class" of PS member (consumers) while simultaneously blocking the feature for an equally important "class" (tradespeople) would constitute "discrimination"

P.S. I learned "that" from my PC buddies in local government! Doh!

LOL, Todd!!!

OK, seriously... the *only* reason I suggested that a PM function could be limited to non-trade members was because it was identified as a past problem that certain vendors had contacted PS members via PM with less-than-noble motives. Eliminating that feature would eliminate that problem. I'm not saying I personally even LIKE that idea or see it as necessary (as I have mentioned before, I am a firm believer that we are all big people here; I can choose to ignore a pushy vendor) -- but it would solve the problem of PMs being used by vendors in a way that went against what PS is supposed to be all about.

The other thing is this: I didn't think it wouldn't be any real hardship for the vendors not to have PMs is because you guys have your website link and/or e-mail address in every post. You can easily contact one another (or be contacted by posters) at any time; unlike us regular members, you're not hard to find!

True, we are able to identify ourselves in a variety of ways to be found by those who are looking for us... Things would be so simple if people didn't abuse the system in an effort to make sales.

 

[psadmin]

I like this option, having an activation of the PM feature related to the number of posts contributed by a new member would certainly reduce the number of "brand new" members who might otherwise use the PM feature to spam other members.

However I'd also like to state that I don't see a reason for PM services to be restricted to non-trade members only... Personally I'd love to be able to PM one of my peers in the trade if they happened to be online at the same time that I am and be able to respond to a PM from a consumer if one was initiated by them. Opening up the PM feature for one "class" of PS member (consumers) while simultaneously blocking the feature for an equally important "class" (tradespeople) would constitute "discrimination"

P.S. I learned "that" from my PC buddies in local government! Doh!

LOL, Todd!!!

OK, seriously... the *only* reason I suggested that a PM function could be limited to non-trade members was because it was identified as a past problem that certain vendors had contacted PS members via PM with less-than-noble motives. Eliminating that feature would eliminate that problem. I'm not saying I personally even LIKE that idea or see it as necessary (as I have mentioned before, I am a firm believer that we are all big people here; I can choose to ignore a pushy vendor) -- but it would solve the problem of PMs being used by vendors in a way that went against what PS is supposed to be all about.

The other thing is this: I didn't think it wouldn't be any real hardship for the vendors not to have PMs is because you guys have your website link and/or e-mail address in every post. You can easily contact one another (or be contacted by posters) at any time; unlike us regular members, you're not hard to find!

Hi Lynn,

We are definitely considering bringing PM back.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

I like this option, having an activation of the PM feature related to the number of posts contributed by a new member would certainly reduce the number of "brand new" members who might otherwise use the PM feature to spam other members.

However I'd also like to state that I don't see a reason for PM services to be restricted to non-trade members only... Personally I'd love to be able to PM one of my peers in the trade if they happened to be online at the same time that I am and be able to respond to a PM from a consumer if one was initiated by them. Opening up the PM feature for one "class" of PS member (consumers) while simultaneously blocking the feature for an equally important "class" (tradespeople) would constitute "discrimination"

P.S. I learned "that" from my PC buddies in local government! Doh!

LOL, Todd!!!

OK, seriously... the *only* reason I suggested that a PM function could be limited to non-trade members was because it was identified as a past problem that certain vendors had contacted PS members via PM with less-than-noble motives. Eliminating that feature would eliminate that problem. I'm not saying I personally even LIKE that idea or see it as necessary (as I have mentioned before, I am a firm believer that we are all big people here; I can choose to ignore a pushy vendor) -- but it would solve the problem of PMs being used by vendors in a way that went against what PS is supposed to be all about.

The other thing is this: I didn't think it wouldn't be any real hardship for the vendors not to have PMs is because you guys have your website link and/or e-mail address in every post. You can easily contact one another (or be contacted by posters) at any time; unlike us regular members, you're not hard to find!

Hi Lynn,

We are definitely considering bringing PM back.

Hurray for that, the current bickering will go way down if you do.
Trademembers and regular posters are often posting to a general audience when they post instead of focussing on the one person they are replying to.

'Preaching to the crowd"

I see a lot of bravado and showmanship in public posts, but when the same topic is discussed in private by the same two people, information is shared more openly, weakness and counterarguments are admitted and less trivial debate and posturing goes on.

I have come to respect every PS tradeperson and consumer regulars I have been in contact with outside of these forums.

Even on topics where we may disagree the positions are much more clear and communication is much more open and takes place much more efficiently.

I do however think that the PM feature should require a minnimum number of posts or be turned on upon request and satisfying the criteria of a bonafide contributor to the community as determined by admin. Receiving PMs should be for everyone, sending PMs should be carefully controlled so that spammers and/or persistant self promoters are discouraged. Just by reading the first posts of some new trademembers who have subsequently disappeared tells me this feature is dangerous if not carefully controlled and monitored.

 

[Allison D.]

I was here as a consumer in the days when we had PMs, and I was here as a consumer for a few years after they were discontinued.

It's true that one of the reasons they were stopped was to curb solicitation by vendors behind the scenes. It started with a few vendors who were registered but didn't participate at any level on Pricescope. They monitored threads where posters would ask for help identifying good stones and instead of answering on the thread, they'd PM those posters saying "I have these stones that would work for you." It escalated much further when the then-admin became inundated with potential "spammer" vendors looking to exploit the forums.

HOWEVER......abusive vendors were not the only reason PMs were discontinued, and it wasn't even the primary reason. These two were far more influential:

1. Posters were using them as 'backchannel' communications to convey unhappy experiences with vendors. The entire point of Pricescope was to provide a place where people could come to get real feedback, positive and negative, to inform their choices. Instead, people would ask about experiences with a vendor and while all the public responses in the thread were glowing, the poster would get a dozen or so PMs saying "I didn't want to say this publicly, but......" This defeated the very point of Pricescope, which was transparency, and it created an environment of no checks and balances where vendors couldn't respond to criticisms. It reached a breaking point when a few groups of consumers used them to incite group participation to publicly exert pressure on vendors.

2. Some posters were using PMs to incite harassment of posters they didn't get along with. Then-admin felt this would erode the sense of community, which was the very thing that made Pricescope different from other internet forums at that time.

Because social networking hadn't yet erupted, the choice to disable PMs meant resolving many of their moderation frustrations and neutralizing the negative drama component. Now that people can easily connect in other ways, people can choose to forgo the snipe-fest here and by reading many of the posters in this thread, that's precisely what's happened. The erosion of the climate here has caused them to move away from PS.

 

[Todd Gray]

I was here as a consumer in the days when we had PMs, and I was here as a consumer for a few years after they were discontinued.

It's true that one of the reasons they were stopped was to curb solicitation by vendors behind the scenes. It started with a few vendors who were registered but didn't participate at any level on Pricescope. They monitored threads where posters would ask for help identifying good stones and instead of answering on the thread, they'd PM those posters saying "I have these stones that would work for you." It escalated much further when the then-admin became inundated with potential "spammer" vendors looking to exploit the forums.

HOWEVER......abusive vendors were not the only reason PMs were discontinued, and it wasn't even the primary reason. These two were far more influential:

1. Posters were using them as 'backchannel' communications to convey unhappy experiences with vendors. The entire point of Pricescope was to provide a place where people could come to get real feedback, positive and negative, to inform their choices. Instead, people would ask about experiences with a vendor and while all the public responses in the thread were glowing, the poster would get a dozen or so PMs saying "I didn't want to say this publicly, but......" This defeated the very point of Pricescope, which was transparency, and it created an environment of no checks and balances where vendors couldn't respond to criticisms. It reached a breaking point when a few groups of consumers used them to incite group participation to publicly exert pressure on vendors.

2. Some posters were using PMs to incite harassment of posters they didn't get along with. Then-admin felt this would erode the sense of community, which was the very thing that made Pricescope different from other internet forums at that time.

Because social networking hadn't yet erupted, the choice to disable PMs meant resolving many of their moderation frustrations and neutralizing the negative drama component. Now that people can easily connect in other ways, people can choose to forgo the snipe-fest here and by reading many of the posters in this thread, that's precisely what's happened. The erosion of the climate here has caused them to move away from PS.

This is interesting insight Allison, it reminds me of high school... Hopefully the scenario you describe will not be repeated if the PM feature is reactivated. I actually recall hearing something about this "back in the day" but had completely forgotten about it until you mentioned it. Haven't talked with you in awhile, hope all is well

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I was here as a consumer in the days when we had PMs, and I was here as a consumer for a few years after they were discontinued.

It's true that one of the reasons they were stopped was to curb solicitation by vendors behind the scenes. It started with a few vendors who were registered but didn't participate at any level on Pricescope. They monitored threads where posters would ask for help identifying good stones and instead of answering on the thread, they'd PM those posters saying "I have these stones that would work for you." It escalated much further when the then-admin became inundated with potential "spammer" vendors looking to exploit the forums.

HOWEVER......abusive vendors were not the only reason PMs were discontinued, and it wasn't even the primary reason. These two were far more influential:

1. Posters were using them as 'backchannel' communications to convey unhappy experiences with vendors. The entire point of Pricescope was to provide a place where people could come to get real feedback, positive and negative, to inform their choices. Instead, people would ask about experiences with a vendor and while all the public responses in the thread were glowing, the poster would get a dozen or so PMs saying "I didn't want to say this publicly, but......" This defeated the very point of Pricescope, which was transparency, and it created an environment of no checks and balances where vendors couldn't respond to criticisms. It reached a breaking point when a few groups of consumers used them to incite group participation to publicly exert pressure on vendors.

2. Some posters were using PMs to incite harassment of posters they didn't get along with. Then-admin felt this would erode the sense of community, which was the very thing that made Pricescope different from other internet forums at that time.

Because social networking hadn't yet erupted, the choice to disable PMs meant resolving many of their moderation frustrations and neutralizing the negative drama component. Now that people can easily connect in other ways, people can choose to forgo the snipe-fest here and by reading many of the posters in this thread, that's precisely what's happened. The erosion of the climate here has caused them to move away from PS.

Hi Allison,
Do you feel PM's will become a problem in those ways again?
It is one of my concerns too, but as per your last paragraph, I was prepared to give it a try since many 'Mum's' are already connected (it seemed to be a girl thing at the time).

 

[diagem]

I was here as a consumer in the days when we had PMs, and I was here as a consumer for a few years after they were discontinued.

It's true that one of the reasons they were stopped was to curb solicitation by vendors behind the scenes. It started with a few vendors who were registered but didn't participate at any level on Pricescope. They monitored threads where posters would ask for help identifying good stones and instead of answering on the thread, they'd PM those posters saying "I have these stones that would work for you." It escalated much further when the then-admin became inundated with potential "spammer" vendors looking to exploit the forums.

HOWEVER......abusive vendors were not the only reason PMs were discontinued, and it wasn't even the primary reason. These two were far more influential:

1. Posters were using them as 'backchannel' communications to convey unhappy experiences with vendors. The entire point of Pricescope was to provide a place where people could come to get real feedback, positive and negative, to inform their choices. Instead, people would ask about experiences with a vendor and while all the public responses in the thread were glowing, the poster would get a dozen or so PMs saying "I didn't want to say this publicly, but......" This defeated the very point of Pricescope, which was transparency, and it created an environment of no checks and balances where vendors couldn't respond to criticisms. It reached a breaking point when a few groups of consumers used them to incite group participation to publicly exert pressure on vendors.

2. Some posters were using PMs to incite harassment of posters they didn't get along with. Then-admin felt this would erode the sense of community, which was the very thing that made Pricescope different from other internet forums at that time.

Because social networking hadn't yet erupted, the choice to disable PMs meant resolving many of their moderation frustrations and neutralizing the negative drama component. Now that people can easily connect in other ways, people can choose to forgo the snipe-fest here and by reading many of the posters in this thread, that's precisely what's happened. The erosion of the climate here has caused them to move away from PS.

Hi Allison,
Do you feel PM's will become a problem in those ways again?
It is one of my concerns too, but as per your last paragraph, I was prepared to give it a try since many 'Mum's' are already connected (it seemed to be a girl thing at the time).

I am not Alison..., but found her post a type of wake up call.
I restrained from commenting on this thread Garry because I dont feel the situation reflects the majority of sounds in this thread but Alison's post just got me thinking.
PriceScope's uniqueness is in its participants and its transparency/honesty..., it draws contributions from trade professionals that have more on the agenda than just personal consideration which I believe differs between PriceScope on the others.
I read plenty of complains about too 'strict' rules although I havent noticed any (never been warned by admin yet ), maybe thats because I am not a vendor and have no problems living in peace with the current rules.
From complaints about too strict rules to allowing PM's seems like going from one extreme to the other. Doesnt allowing PM's dismiss the rules? (I know moderators have some control but still...)

I believe there is less professional interaction as in the past simply because we are all busier which is natural to the current economic environment. (call me naive ) As far as the quality of threads & discussions..., PriceScope is an open forum in a free world, I choose to read and participate in the threads I pick..., if I stumble upon a thread that isnt to my taste I just move on.

I fully trust our moderators and feel they are doing a fine job.
We cant control the tone of our members but are allowed to comment and speak our minds as long as it is done civilly.

 

[Rockdiamond]

I believe PM's are a bad idea.
Allison's post was spot on regarding the two reasons she mentioned. If there's a complaint, the first course of action should logically be to contact the vendor directly. If the vendor is unresponsive, let it be aired in public. Of course this puts the onus on vendors to make sure they are satisfying buyers.
I disagree with ccl ( big surprise right? ) that it would lessen any bickering- mainly because the differences of opinion won't go away.
And any parties that have a difficult time accepting and politely disagreeing with these differences is unlikely to change due to PM's


There's also more possibilities for questionable transactions taking place.
Member a loves the ring member b owns.
Member b wants to sell the ring, PM's would allow this.
In many cases it might be fine- but there is the possibility that these transactions, conducted privately, yet facilitated by PS may leave one or the other party dissatisfied.
Basically, it would turn the site into a private seller's mecca.

 

[Maisie]

Surely as adults we can make our own mind up about who we speak to privately, or even if we want to buy a piece of jewellery from another member.

 

[TravelingGal]

Maisie, true. But I wonder in this litigious society whether Pricescope has to choose to CYA and not be a vehicle in those transactions in case something goes wrong.

I think Irina used to get the "blame" for all kinds of weird stuff.

 

[Maisie]

What does CYA mean?

 

[TravelingGal]

Sorry, "Cover Your A**"

 

[Lynn B]

I was here when there were PMs before, and obviously I've been here since they were removed. I don't doubt Alj's statements at all, but I do have to say that I musta been lucky or else I was oblivious to any of THAT drama! And I was a very prolific poster back then.

Anyway, my humble 2 cents: Reinstating PMs, while I think that might really help, are only *part of* a possible solution. The main thing (to me) is to relax the rules. I know I am probably starting to sound like a broken record so please bear with me.

Like I mentioned, my experience has been that too many rules can tend to become counterproductive, because sometimes you can end up with problems far worse than the ones you were trying to prevent in the first place. Yes, it's the darndest thing, but I have seen it over and over again!

My suggestion for the general member? Keep the rules short and sweet. No discussing CZs, etc., fine. There's lots of websites out there where people can learn all they could ever want to know about sims.

Beyond that? No racy stuff, fine. No obscene talk, fine. Play nice. Treat (and speak to) others like you want treated (and spoken to).

Could that be it? I mean, really? I know it sounds so... daring and maybe even a little scary. But what if it worked? What if things turned around and PS thrived?

ETA: I respectfully disagree with David. So what is Member A wants to buy Member B's ring and arrangements are made via a PM? How is PS in any way "liable" for this? As Maisie said, we are all adults here.

 

[TravelingGal]

I was here when there were PMs before, and obviously I've been here since they were removed. I don't doubt Alj's statements at all, but I do have to say that I musta been lucky or else I was oblivious to any of THAT drama! And I was a very prolific poster back then.

Anyway, my humble 2 cents: Reinstating PMs, while I think that might really help, are only *part of* a possible solution. The main thing (to me) is to relax the rules. I know I am probably starting to sound like a broken record so please bear with me.

Like I mentioned, my experience has been that too many rules can tend to become counterproductive, because sometimes you can end up with problems far worse than the ones you were trying to prevent in the first place. Yes, it's the darndest thing, but I have seen it over and over again!

My suggestion for the general member? Keep the rules short and sweet. No discussing CZs, etc., fine. There's lots of websites out there where people can learn all they could ever want to know about sims.

Beyond that? No racy stuff, fine. No obscene talk, fine. Play nice. Treat (and speak to) others like you want treated (and spoken to).

Could that be it? I mean, really? I know it sounds so... daring and maybe even a little scary. But what if it worked? What if things turned around and PS thrived?

ETA: I respectfully disagree with David. So what is Member A wants to buy Member B's ring and arrangements are made via a PM? How is PS in any way "liable" for this? As Maisie said, we are all adults here.

Lynn I totally agree. I thought those were the rules? Did they get more and more crazy around here? I guess I don't get slapped, nor do I report much of anything so I never noticed. I haven't looked a the forum rules in ages...don't even know where they are in 2.0.

As for the PM buying ring thing - Off the top of my head, I can only think that maybe a reason would be if PS somehow had information (although I don't know what that could be) that it couldn't pass to the member for privacy issues if something went wrong and the wronged member insisted on having that information.

 

[TravelingGal]

And Lynn, I wouldn't be surprised if you were oblivious to all the drama because while you were a prolific poster, you were also a KIND one. Basically, you wouldn't be in the thick of any trouble!

 

[Kaleigh]

Surely as adults we can make our own mind up about who we speak to privately, or even if we want to buy a piece of jewellery from another member.

Big ditto..

PS needs to grow a pair.. I am sick so guess I can get away with being a tad pissy??? You can't be this and that.... Pick one... And stick to it.. Cause right now, this site looks so wishy washy.... No hard and fast rules...

Sends a very mixed message...


Andrey needs to pick the direction he wants to go and stick with it....

I am tired, of the back and forth, the this and the that....

I have been here for a long time, and HAVE given my time, and all my best efforts...

I hate to see a losing battle, but that's how I see PS.

I am just tired ot the lack of effort to do things that will help PS going forward...

Peace.

 

[Lynn B]

And Lynn, I wouldn't be surprised if you were oblivious to all the drama because while you were a prolific poster, you were also a KIND one. Basically, you wouldn't be in the thick of any trouble!

TGal,
That was such a kind and thoughtful thing to say. It meant a lot to me. Thank you very much.
Lynn

 

[Allison D.]

This is interesting insight Allison, it reminds me of high school... Hopefully the scenario you describe will not be repeated if the PM feature is reactivated. I actually recall hearing something about this "back in the day" but had completely forgotten about it until you mentioned it. Haven't talked with you in awhile, hope all is well

Believe me, Todd, I hope it won't return to that either. I figured the details would ring a bell to folks who were around back in those days, though there aren't nearly as many left anymore.

We haven't talked in a while, and I'd like to. All is well here, and I hope all is well on your end too. Of course, I don't see how it couldn't be such a fine set of new paws in your home. Duscha (am I spelling that right?) looks to be a love!

 

[Allison D.]

Hi Allison,
Do you feel PM's will become a problem in those ways again?
It is one of my concerns too, but as per your last paragraph, I was prepared to give it a try since many 'Mum's' are already connected (it seemed to be a girl thing at the time).

Garry, I'm afraid I do think it would be inevitably become problematic again.

I do realize that many of the mums are connected already, but their main purpose in doing so was to share photos of their children. They weren't comfortable sharing them here because anonymous posters could see them, too, instead of access being restricted only to known, registered users, and there was no visible way to provide them with something better.

Here's the thing, though.....it didn't diminish potential enrichment and survival of the PS community for that activity to relocate because PS's stated goal isn't to promote family or to collect photos of infants and toddlers. In fact, except for a few moms, most don't contribute in arenas outside FHH.

The same can't be said for diamond-related or vendor-related off-channel discussions. Pricescope's stated mission is to serve as a diamond education and consumer advocate site. It does this by providing a venue where consumers can gather knowledge to make informed and confident diamond purchase decisions, and it promises a transparent, no-pressure environment in which to do so. People learn not only through getting answers to their own questions, but also in hearing others' questions and answers. That knowledge base is threatened if back-channel discussions result in lack of access to content for some.

I fully support Lynn's contention that excessive regulation has been a root problem in retaining long-term contributors, and I agree with her that PS needs to ponder how to make the user experience more enjoyable. I do support the notion of empowering with personal freedoms as long as they don't encroach upon the health of the community. At that tipping point, I think what's best for the community has to trump personal latitude, i.e. forest is more than the individual trees.

 

[TravelingGal]

And Lynn, I wouldn't be surprised if you were oblivious to all the drama because while you were a prolific poster, you were also a KIND one. Basically, you wouldn't be in the thick of any trouble!

TGal,
That was such a kind and thoughtful thing to say. It meant a lot to me. Thank you very much.
Lynn

Hey well, I'm not much for BS, so I definitely think it's true!

Back to your regularly scheduled programming..........

 

[Laila619]

I don't think PMs are the solution. When PS 1.0 had no PMs, there was still a TON of traffic. Traffic is way down on PS 2.0 because many people just do not like the new site.

 

[perry]

Concerning PM's:

AllisonD has raised the key reason why PMs were disabled. I personally never had a problem with PMs in the sense that no one spammed me and I was involved with some discussions with a few other people via them.

However, when the problems were identified on how a group of people were using PMs to coordinate attacks against individual posters I had an "Ah-ha" moment on what had happened on a few threads that I participated in. Back in those days I was very active in RT.

There was so much PM traffic that the moderator felt that they could not possibly monitor all PM traffic - so they were banned, and the key offenders were also banned from PS as well.

Yet there have been times where I have wanted to reach out to another person and wished that PMs existed (or at least some way to contact a specific person directly).

Despite my desires otherwise - and how useful I found the PM tool to be in the past -- I agree PMs are not the solution and the problems outweigh the benefit (even in this day and age of facebook and other sites).

I do not believe that having PMs will increase the traffic to the site - or the discussions in the threads.

I would like a method of on occasion being able to contact a person directly if the other person wished to be contacted. Perhaps that could be handled by the moderators (and be openly known as an option). The moderator can also provide some filtering as needed.

As previously stated: I think the rules need to be severely changed in that we don't need a lot of the "can't discuss this" and other rules - to be replaced by a general "you must be civil, not bicker, not attack, and play nice" rule. It does seem that every time a problem has occurred that it has resulted in a new rule... as it was easier to moderate based on rules instead of moderate based on bad behavior. Get rid of the bad behavior offenders, make it apparent to newbies that their behavior will be monitored, and I think the forum will regain life.

Perry

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Thanks Perry

 

[sillyberry]

I'm not sure if this can/will be answered, but out of curiosity - where is most of the PS traffic these days? Is diamond education still where most of the action happens, or are more posts centered around the non-jewelry threads (hangout, LIW, FHH, etc)?

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

As previously stated: I think the rules need to be severely changed in that we don't need a lot of the "can't discuss this" and other rules - to be replaced by a general "you must be civil, not bicker, not attack, and play nice" rule. It does seem that every time a problem has occurred that it has resulted in a new rule... as it was easier to moderate based on rules instead of moderate based on bad behavior. Get rid of the bad behavior offenders, make it apparent to newbies that their behavior will be monitored, and I think the forum will regain

Perry those rules are in place but enforcement right now is practically zero on the "play nice" rule.
The threshold for "bad behaviour" is very high and getting rid of or censuring a misbehaving but overall contributing member is a tradeoff and could only be done with subjectivity which is never easy or perceived well by others.

I report posts infrequently and usually for really obvious stuff, but then it can take 3 days to get a response. For most of them I don't even get a response and the report goes unanswered. Even when I do get a response their is a reluctance to delete or edit posts or to censure anyone.

Anyone can post a thread about any topic whether its educational or not just to stir up the same arguments repeatedly
Anyone can take a thread off topic whenever they like and the worst that will happen is a mod writes a post please stay on topic.
Anyone or a group of people can take shots at someone personally or their opinion at any time
Trade especially favored advertisers are allowed to post self promotional comments from time to time and as long as they are mixed in with a minnimum of content it is allowed.
Trade can post or start threads for the primary purpose of exposing their signature line

One of two things needs to happen:

1) The rules are relaxed in all areas except maybe CZ and posting of competitor forum links.

Regular posters have to stop complaining about "play nice" and certainly stop attacking someone for a post or posts they feel aren't playing nice. The status quo here will change to much like every other internet forum, people are allowed to speak freely even if differing opinions get a bit ugly.

This place is surprisingly civil compared to most other forums I am on, yet I see constant complaining it isn't civil enough. Maybe the complaining has to stop and is the true problem. Accept pricescope for being an overall positive experience and ignore the posts you don't agree with (like Diagem).

OR

2) One part time moderator and full time admin is not enough for policing this forum. Self moderation doesn't work with the current "play nice" rule.

PS needs more mods, even volunteer mods, like a mod for each subforum and several for RT who makes it more clear things are being enforced and one with a mandate to strictly edit or delete posts, delete threads, and give warnings. Perhaps even allow posters a way to contact the mod in each subforum to make a complaint which are responded to within a short timeframe.

All reported posts need to be responded to within a few hours to be effective. The rules even if relaxed need to be enforced vigorously.

 

[Lynn B]

I’ve been thinking a lot about this. I think the main issue here is that there is a HUGE world of *internet* out there vying for the time and attention of each individual consumer. How to keep PS not just viable, but thriving, is the crux of the matter, no?

The “key”, I believe, is to be willing to adapt and change to meet the needs (and in fact, the “demands”) of the ever-more-discerning, technologically savvy consumers who are out there.

As has been pointed out, social networking has exploded in recent years, changing the face of internet usage, probably forever. I did a quick Google search for “social network sites” and this link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_networking_websites) brought up almost 200 sites, and I’m sure this number grows almost daily.

What does this mean for PS? Well, admittedly I am no expert on social network sites, but I did check out a few of their “rules” pages and several things stood out to me right away. First of all, I was not surprised by the absence of voluminous rules and regulations. I’m sure that is no accident. Basically, all the sites I looked at operated on variations of the same basic principles: users cannot spam, engage in unlawful multi-level marketing, upload viruses or other malicious codes, bully/intimidate/harass other users, post any content that is hateful/threatening/pornographic/violent, or use the site for anything that is unlawful, misleading, malicious, or discriminatory. Beyond that, users accept full responsibility for their own privacy and security by setting choices that THEY MAKE based on their own decision(s) and comfort level.

Consumers today are very capable of and comfortable with deciding what and how much personal information they will share on the internet. We do it every day. It is my feeling that to go to a forum, in this day and age, that forbids you to share anything that could even be remotely identifying is, frankly, shocking and insulting.

Something else I thought of. Have you ever noticed when researching a subject, or just enjoying some “down time”, how people tend to “hop, skip and jump” all over the internet? A link (perhaps within a social network site) somewhere will pique someone’s interest, and they will click on it… then something there will point them somewhere else, then maybe within that article a person will be mentioned who interests them, and they’ll click there to learn a little more about that person, which leads to more clicking and “jumping around” -- like stepping stones through a creek. But because of the rule prohibiting any identifying information (and all the various “sub-rules” that has seemed to spawn) - it all comes to a grinding halt here. And personally, I think that’s very off-putting.

But it doesn’t have to be this way. Imagine instead (for example), being able to post (if a member chooses to, of course) their FB page, personal website or blog address in their PS profile, and/or a link to their PS profile in their FB page, personal website, or blog. It would be in this way that the “hopping, skipping, and jumping” around the internet could continue – right through PS… and with it, I believe, the very real potential to bring in a whole host of potential new members, as well as retaining our current ones.

Right now PS seems to be at a critical crossroads... and I think the stakes are high. It seems to me that people will always want to gather with others who have similar interests. And the internet continues to make this easier every day. Unfortunately, though, I think that some forums may well “go under” as people find other online outlets for their common interests. Personally, I think that will be a shame, because to me, an active, vibrant forum is a uniquely enjoyable experience.

Some forums will survive and thrive, though, and I think PS, with its undeniably special niche as a consumer diamond education site has an excellent chance to be one of those success stories. But to think that success can be achieved without recognizing and responding to the obviously rapidly changing needs of the people you wish to reach is IMHO, virtual suicide.

 

[Todd Gray]

This is interesting insight Allison, it reminds me of high school... Hopefully the scenario you describe will not be repeated if the PM feature is reactivated. I actually recall hearing something about this "back in the day" but had completely forgotten about it until you mentioned it. Haven't talked with you in awhile, hope all is well

Believe me, Todd, I hope it won't return to that either. I figured the details would ring a bell to folks who were around back in those days, though there aren't nearly as many left anymore.

We haven't talked in a while, and I'd like to. All is well here, and I hope all is well on your end too. Of course, I don't see how it couldn't be such a fine set of new paws in your home. Duscha (am I spelling that right?) looks to be a love!

Duscha is a love and he's getting really big, which I knew would happen because he's not my first German shepherd. He's laying at my feet right now while I post and spends most of the day following me about. For the record, he thinks that Price Scope is boring... It holds little interest for him, however neither does answering email or talking with clients on the telephone. He's five months old now and is a real joy to have around the house and office, he even likes to ride in the elevator which seems to be amusing to some of the people in the building. Duscha thinks that Dad should get off PS, toss the laptop in the trash, and go for another walk, it's been like 15 minutes since the last one and "big sigh" (that was him) the beach is only 1.5 hours away and it's sunny outside

 

[Maisie]

I am probably going to be slapped down for this but here goes.....

I know PS is a diamond education forum first and foremost. However, I do feel that there could be an area just for discussing sims. There are a lot of people who buy them and there are some beautiful pieces out there. Finding the budget to pay for an expensive diamond is beyone a lot of people. Can't we have a section where only sims are discussed?

I also feel that there aren't enough moderators available. If a topic is reported it can take hours before it is removed. I know this because I asked for an old thread I started to be taken down. I appreciate that the mods and admins are busy. Maybe its time to appoint more mods.

Could PS be headed in a new direction? Perhaps the admins feel that its become too large and they want to bring it back to a more diamond focused community. I hope this isn't the case as I used to love coming to PS. Maybe we need a secondary site where its not connected to diamonds. Two separate communities so the diamond education can continue in a smaller environment.

 

[that_someone_special]

I have read many pages and then stopped reading a bit back.

On another forum I am on the general product information has "open" threads where you do not have to be logged in to see it. However the more personal threads (similar to FHH and hangout) are locked and can only be viewed when you are logged in. I think it prevents a load of people from just viewing "anything" on the Internet.

Maybe this isn't right for ps but I wanted to mention it because I've been thinking about it..

Re: pm's couldn't there be a feature to turn them on/off so people that want to be contacted can be contact and others can just not accept them if they don't want to deal with it? Perhaps new members would have theirs automatically turned to OFF to prevent a lot of "vendors" pming about "deals" right off the bat- since I'm assuming the people that would mostly use pm would be the regular users...

 

[Allison D.]

ETA: I respectfully disagree with David. So what is Member A wants to buy Member B's ring and arrangements are made via a PM? How is PS in any way "liable" for this? As Maisie said, we are all adults here.

Lynn, I see your point, but I respectfully disagree on this one for a couple of reasons.

Pricescope states that it provides a place where people can come to learn without feeling as though they're being solicited or pressured. While private transactions aren't quite the same, they are nonetheless sales transactions which strips the claim of a solicitation free environment.

What's not being considered is that PS's name and reputation is most visible at risk if a transaction goes awry. Already, a PS member has posted about a private transaction with another PSer claiming she didn't get paid, and there's all this back and forth about what each party's responsibilities ought to be. If I were a newcomer to PS and read about that, I'd likely be concerned that this may not be a safe haven.

What about the possible damage by word of mouth in other places? I can easily see someone going to other forums saying "Oh, I got ripped off by a member of PS." That strikes against PS's reputation. Beyond that, i can just about guarantee that somewhere down the line, the argument will be made that PS provided the connection and should have done more to protect its members. The courts are full of claims like this, whether it's eBay or other venues.

It's great to think we're all adults here, and yes, most of us behave like it. But it only takes a few who don't to damage the whole.