Trade Participation on Pricescope

[stone-cold11]

I have my stones listed on my site on some other smaller listing services. Listing on PS is quite expensive, and I'm working to do that in the future.

You are correct, not all my stones have a GIA report listed on the site, and not all of them have images, and none have H&A photos at the moment. I deal with clients mostly in person, on referral over the phone, etc, and those images are provided on request for serious customers because of the workload involved. I cannot really answer more in detail without self promotion.

It's expected that you aren't referring anyone to me, as we've never worked together. The challenge is when people are working with me, or have before, when they are directed elsewhere to the 'favorites'.

--Joshua

If those that you are working with was given the GIA report, IS, H&A images, which you should be able to supply from what you stated, I would have just stated if those images are good or not.

 

[risingsun]

After all of my talk about PS, my B&M jeweler has been lurking on this site. No names to protect their privacy. They sell HOF diamonds and I own numerous pieces. It would be like stepping into a lion's den for them to speak up on PS. I've experienced this, too. I must say that when I have posted my rings and other jewelry, I have gotten very positive and enthusiastic feedback. There is a big but...when anyone asks advice about purchasing a HOF diamond or setting, they are immediately referred to an online vendor for a better deal. In fact, I've just been involved in such a thread. I would like to see more acceptance of posters who have decided to shop in B&M stores. It's fine to offer education and information, but the choice is ultimately up to the consumer. I remember a group of us talking a couple out of a purchase at Harry Winston or similar jewelry store. I have often felt badly about that. They wanted an experience, as well as a diamond. Who are we to talk them out of it. I am asking for more tolerance.

ETA: If you don't care for this post, please walk on by. I've been flamed enough this week

 

[Dreamer_D]

2) The forum strongly endorses a rather short list of vendors. Vendors from ‘outside’ the favored few are routinely not treated respectfullly. Potential customers are routinely steered away from them and towards the favorites with litle or no justification.

Great post, Neil. I especially agree with this part.

I for one would like to see other vendors promoted besides WF, Brian Gavin, and GOG. The amount of bias and favoritism towards them is bordering on silly.

One issue with trying to help people buy via PS, though, is that if they have not come with a vendor already picked, then I feel like I can really only recommend an online vendor whom I feel like I can trust... how can I recommend a local B&M or another online vendor to them? I mean this sincerely, not snarkily.

Ever since the admin posted the "Guide to Prosumers" on the stickies, above, I have personally been making an effort to help consumers assess the diamonds they have chosen or find something from the vendor whom they have chosen, rather than suggesting something from a new vendor, BUT what is one to do in those situations where they have not picked a vendor? We go to our usual "go tos" I suppose.

 

[denverappraiser]

Karl,

Successful selling here is a different task from effective forum participation. There are quite a few examples of folks who are way off to one side or the other and a fair number who straddle the line. I would be really curious to have real stats on how these things relate to one another and how relative sales are between, say, Abazias and HPD, both of whom are PS advertisers but who have VERY different strategies with it. I’m not actually convinced that Wink’s approach is more profitable for him although it certainly suits his personality better and the forum readers clearly benefit from his participation. Something tells me the relevant data to do this study would be tough to get with anything short of a couple of court orders.

Some of the old time players, like Jonathan at GOG and anyone from WF, seem to be moving away from the forum participation and concentrating their efforts elsewhere. Are they right? I don’t know. These are some smart people and I’m sure this is being thought out carefully but the consensus seems to be that it’s good to move away from the forum. As Paul points out above (and I hadn’t really realized until he did so), the ‘big’ players in the marketplace are largely absent from the forum beyond dealing with problems that come up. This is a change within the last year or so but I don’t know if it can be pinned on the updates to PS2 and the evolution of the rules. Maybe. It’s certainly a plausible theory.

 

[John P]

We have noticed that fewer trade members participate regularly now than some years ago.

Any discussion of "then" vs "now" should include mention that the trade member policies have changed over time.
Reference: https://www.pricescope.com/content/forum-policies

THEN

The first rules for trade members were no benefits to consumers in return for testimonials, no soliciting contact and no self-promotion (2 bc and h). As Pricescope grew so did competition among trade members. In time additional policies were written (2d) to stop vendors from creating fear-based doubts that would scare consumers into using their services and (2e) to end the "casual" mention of products or services that smacked of promotion.

As I recall, that umbrella of policies was the status quo when professional participation was at its peak, dialogue were ongoing and new members joined.

A few years ago new policies were added. These policies (2fg) forbid trade members from commenting on any other businesses or products. Ella recently clarified this in a hangout thread: <<We do not allow vendors to comment on or judge the purchases/potential purchases of members on the forum in order to keep it unbiased. >> While understandable, this rule stopped a lot of trade member dialogue in its tracks. And while this resulted in less arguments (positive) it also caused less posting by trade members and disinterest and departure-of many formerly-active professionals.

This is a difficult catch-22 for Pricescope, with no easy solution. The policies are well-intended but they have reduced professional participation. In fact, if the newer policies had been in-place from the start many threads which caused the explosive Pricescope phenomenon would never have taken place.

Older members will remember a time when most (or all) of the following pros participated in "hot topics:" Garry H, adamasgem, michaelgem, beryl, Serg, Yuri, denverappraiser, Oldminer, Richard Sherwood, RockDoc (RIP, friend), Modified Brilliant, Paul-Antwerp, Iiro, DiaGem, He Scores, BrianTheCutter, Rhino, Wink, niceice, DiamondExpert, CapitalBill, mepearl53, Brian Knox, barry, JohnQuixote (apologies to any old-school pros I neglected to include). I'd also add valeria101, strmrdr and aljdewey to the list since they went on to become professionals. And just as important was the regular flock of consumer posters - some remain (you know who you are) but most long gone - who participated in these very (very) technical discussions.

Head shadow. Ray-tracing. Stereo vision. Facet yaw. GemEx. The main & anti-cutter's lines. Imagem. Painting. ETAS. Rounding. AGS scint/fire metrics. Make thresholds... These and other issues were discussed at-length. Some went for 10+ pages. Many topics were discussed in real-time even as major trade bodies were researching and incorporating them. Leaders at the major labs read and referenced PS threads in meetings at work. RT was the coffee-break room for some of the highest minds in the business. These discussions went far beyond the (good) simple and repeated advice sung by the forum chorus today. In fact it was trade/enthusiast interactions which shaped that advice. If those elevated discussions had not happened many current consumer members would not have the knowledge they gained from following the arguments. Some of the finest "prosumers" cut their teeth when those discussions were happening and a few even spring-boarded into the trade: Karl K is a product of that era. So is Allison D. There are newcomers who have diligently paid attention to the topical debates from those years and benefitted from them.to the point where the PS admin receives private complaints that these are trade members in disguise since "no consumer is that knowledgeable" ...Lorelei, Stone-Cold and CCL are examples.

The rub? Many of those landmark discussions began in threads "involving the purchases/potential purchases of members on the forum."

So why the policy change? Well, aside from the unarguable potential for biased content, the debates became acrimonious... It's logical that professionals may have a financial stake that coincides with the position they take in an argument. And, while someone may sincerely believe in what he or she is saying, such a stake will unavoidably attract accusations of agenda (from some quarter) - especially when reason has been exhausted. What's worse; when things get heated the professional "sides" have consumer loyalists who step in and escalate the acrimony. In fact, since their comportment is unrestricted by the policies trade members are expected to follow, this can make for an especially unpleasant environment.

NOW

For better or worse, the trade member policies are what they are. There is no doubt that they reduced acrimony, but they also reduced professional participation. Not overnight, but over time. Half or less of those I named above participate regularly now. Some have disappeared entirely. Few new professionals have joined and contribute every day - with the exception of Rockdiamond; who is a thoughtful and frequent contributor but wasn't involved in the "legacy" discussions I refer-to above (one of the reasons he and Garry H, for example, are unable to find common ground sometimes).

Pursuant to that, the recent 20+ page discussion on Crushed Ice is reminiscent the type of threads that used to be common, but it was only a shadow of past discussions where dozens of experts debated defensible positions and moved forward based on mutually-agreed-upon fundamentals. That Crushed Ice thread went 9 pages before meaningful interaction occurred. After that it was more engaging but two positions were simply being repeated without mutual agreement at even the most basic level of Bloom's Taxonomy. Hypothetically, if another several prominent experts had entered the thread and reached consensus on [ABC] as fundamental jumping-off points (for everyone) I suspect more progress would have been made.

SO

We are left with Andrey's Catch-22:

1. Forbid professionals from commenting/debating (the status-quo): This protects consumers from "agenda" but silences the most expert opinions, prevents cutting-edge debates and deflates the interest of many professional members.

2. Allow professionals to comment, except where their own product is being sold: This promotes more expert input but risks ill-will and clique-building as some pros could be seen to be sabotaging sales in threads where their competition (the seller) is prohibited from commenting.

3. Allow professionals to comment universally: This brings back participation and intelligent debate but risks the perception of abuse-by-agenda and misinformation.

4. Other opinions?

 

[Karl_K]

Neil,
I think we have a little different way of looking at it but that's kewl.

As far as participation its not that far off from what it has always been except when John was posting all the time from WF then Infinity.
When he was posting it would often bring other trade members out to discuss things.

 

[denverappraiser]

Neil,
I think we have a little different way of looking at it but that's kewl.

As far as participation its not that far off from what it has always been except when John was posting all the time from WF then Infinity.
When he was posting it would often bring other trade members out to discuss things.

Aha ... It's all JOHN'S fault. Now there's a plausible theory.

 

[AnneinGA]

I am neither a prosumer nor a trade person, but I have a comment.

In my experience, when you take away the benefits of the educated from sharing their knowledge, they tend to share less, not because they don't want to share, but because their time is better used elsewhere.

I participate in another forum (totally different industry) where I am an expert. It used to be that I could put my contact information and point out when others who posted said something inaccurate or incorrectly, but the admins tightened the rules so I could do neither then wondered why I stopped contributing. At the end of the day, I still have a business to run, and I have to choose where I can market myself and my services to the best of my ability. When I can't even tell someone how to get in contact with me what's the point? I used to get business because people read my comments and realized I knew what I was talking about and therefore would get in touch with me. It was a revenue stream - not huge, but something in return for my time. It is frustrating to continually be asked to contribute when the return on investment is the warm happy feeling of helping someone. I love that feeling, and it doesn't pay my overhead.

Now on to the interplay between vendors - let's take buying a car.

If I go to a Toyota dealership, I expect to be told why a Toyota is better than a Ford. I expect to be able to judge the salesperson's knowledge myself (because I should also be educated) and decide whether I want to buy the Toyota and work with that salesperson. If the salesperson degrades another brand, or speaks specifically about another salesperson in a negative manner, then it puts a bad taste in my mouth and I walk away. I have done it before.

If a trade person says, "I don't like that diamond because X, Y and Z", then isn't that OK? Obviously if they say "I don't like that diamond because that vendor is an idiot" it's completely different.

We're all adults here. It took me a couple of weeks to figure out who was who and which business belonged to whom and more specifically to decide who I wouldn't want to do business with based on their postings. I love when I can talk to two different people about two products and have them tell me which is better and why. As long as it is done in a professional manner (and if it's not then they potentially lose business), why can't they comment?

 

[Rockdiamond]

A big part of the problem- and if anyone can speak of this who's experienced it, I am that person- is consumers who use extreme methods to interfere with professionals presenting, or exchanging ideas.
A very smart person told me, when I rejoined PS- "NEVER question reflector technology". This had nothing to do with their love of aset, rather the expected response.
Of course I have questioned aset, and the results have been quite enlightening IMO. My discussions with Garry brought many issues to light.
But a large part of that included a self appointed "protector of ideas" trying to silence me using some pretty nasty means, considering I'm not anonymous. I believe that also drove away another professional who was initially involved in the discussion.

In the "Bias" discussion, started by Judah, I was also attacked, kind of viscously, simply for presenting an alternate point of view.

Since I have the experience, and credibility to stand up to whatever they throw at me, I'm here. But it has not been easy.


The point is- if you want a broader range of ideas, and experience, more tolerance must be exercised by the consumer participants- some of whom clearly are unwilling to do so.
As I said in my earlier post- the job of moderating this forum is incredibly difficult.

Maybe allowing a section where only trade members can discuss issues might help- but that would blunt the benefit for consumers wishing to ask questions.

 

[serenitydiamonds]

Maybe allowing a section where only trade members can discuss issues might help- but that would blunt the benefit for consumers wishing to ask questions.

Very interesting idea.... I like it.

I've witnessed members of Pricescope retaliating against vendors whose opinions they don't agree with, attempting to drive customers away. It's disappointing.

--Joshua

 

[TheDoctor]

Interesting disussion.
Everybody has an agenda, some more veiled than others. When I first began reading jewellery forum content several years ago, I was horrified at the amount of slagging of B&M retailers was going on. Hundreds of thousands of posts later, it still continues. My participation began on another website forum and moved to this one a while ago. My intent has been, from the very beginning, to keep everybody honest and to defend those worthy of the time from the firey venom of some of the flaming posts I have run across.
I used to post photos but I think it got me in trouble, so I try to maintain a verbal presence. As this is a site dedicated to lovers of jewellery, I thought it might be good if people could see what my tiny company is doing..to understand that what I say is a result of decades of trade involvement at nearly every level. Otherwise, where is my credibility when I share an opinion or defend members of the retail establishment? My company doesn't sell online and I wasn't elbowing my way in front of any of the hosted vendors, just showing people what could be possible. Never worried for a moment that somebody would copy what I was showing, let 'em if they want. My sole reward for being here is affirmation, PS hasn't earned me .05 per hour of involvement.

 

[Regular Guy]

So...5 thoughts to share:

1) Save for a possible alternative hypothesis about the causes for reduced participation...I'm still sticking with my original theory.

2) Nevertheless, as a reasonable symptom for recent downturns, I'll go with this idea:

Neil,
I think we have a little different way of looking at it but that's kewl.

As far as participation its not that far off from what it has always been except when John was posting all the time from WF then Infinity.
When he was posting it would often bring other trade members out to discuss things.

Aha ... It's all JOHN'S fault. Now there's a plausible theory.

3) Now, as to John's theory, I suppose it should get attention, since he's presumably trying to represent causes for his own involvement, or lack thereof...and you'd think he would know. Also, it's at least possible his theory is based on vetting with others, which will add credibility. And, it coincides with Andrey's own presupposition.

But...were these previous extended diccussions really motivated or initiated by talk of somebody's purchase, and subsequent changes of rules have since curtailed the discussion? I doubt this. Like I said, I'm standing by my theory, as a primary cause. Of course, if there's lots of behind the scenes communications between admin and experts...telling them to stand down...because...look at the rules, and such, I might be convinced otherwise.

4) But there's another thing to consider. And that is, some of the other benefits some retailers can provide who don't show up, because they can't be quantified so well.

On another internet/social media platform, I happen to read that Infinity is feting one of it's dealers for being overall "aces." I asked there...to what did Infinity attribute the success of this other vendor. The reply..."customer service" X3.

Not sure what to say. Customer service is certainly talked about a lot on these boards. Prosumers will denounce those without good customer service. But, in Maslow's hierarchy of needs, I think that is relatively lower here. Or, to take Leon as a typified example, you might go to him and expect to not get it, if you get a good product. But, you wouldn't be on Pricescope routinely if you would accept lower quality so long as you got good customer service. As Stone has pointed out here earlier, and with simplicity...he is an equal opportunity reviewer, and comments with evidence in hand, thank you very much.

Perhaps once you have higher quality as a given, you can choose to bow down to customer service and its benefits. I'm not so active on this board any more, but once upon a time, I had to call their "Jeweler of the year" to identify something about one of their particular diamonds for a Pricescope shopper. They did get back to me! But...what can I say. For a national audience...it was too much work!

5) Oh, yes, something in Neil's phraseology made me reflect on a previous assumption from Paul. I think some significant vendors here may have to compete with each other for only showing up when there is a problem.

I would like to support the driving topic of this thread. We want to have the benefit of more experts here. If changing the rules would do it, I'm for it, and I'd go with both that Universal choice of Johns, and also, frankly, think a little heat in the kitchen makes things more interesting.

But, as far as "order of operations" go, before changing the vendor rules go...unless you think Pricescope's archives are actually dangerous, I'd encourage Pricescope to make past posts actually available to users in a practical way. Functionality like searching continues to be lacking. I'm not sure what else like that it needs to do. Except...that mods could do a pointed survey of folks, both experts and non...who have left...and ask them why. That might remove some of the theory based nature of everybody's comments.

Regards,

Ira Z.
who wonders where his signature has gone to...

 

[kenny]

I'd go with both that Universal choice of Johns, and also, frankly, think a little heat in the kitchen makes things more interesting.

IMHO PS preventing heated discussions is a mistake.
Heat is often generated when important stuff happens.

No heat = less important stuff.

 

[Karl_K]

Maybe allowing a section where only trade members can discuss issues might help- but that would blunt the benefit for consumers wishing to ask questions.

Very interesting idea.... I like it.

I've witnessed members of Pricescope retaliating against vendors whose opinions they don't agree with, attempting to drive customers away. It's disappointing.

--Joshua

There are other forums for vendors and other trade members to talk to themselves that is not and has never been what PS is about and would be very harmful.

 

[Rockdiamond]

I don't really see this as an answer either, but I but was just curious, but what would be the harm Karl?

In a hypothetical scenario, threads where tradespeople discuss issues, could be discussed on the broader forum.

 

[craftchris66]

First off, good point Kenny(above)
Pricescope has some great people on it. The problem as someone put it is the "draconian" rules. It's like no other forum gemstone or otherwise out there. The rules are what is breaking it and keeping the bigger dogs away. As an example a friend of mine, the one who taught me how to facet gemstones, is not on here anymore. Not that he was on here very long anyways. Some of you know who he is but for the sake of arguement we will call him Mr. Blue. He is my go to guy when it comes to faceting, cuts, etc. A member of any and all other gem/jewelry forums there are. I finally convinced him to come to Pricescope after much prodding even through he had "heard" certain things about it. Within 3 post he already had 2 warnings. His exact words in an email to me were "I don't have time for this" That sort of sums it up right there. I don't know what the warnings were for but it sure wasn't self-promotion since he sells nothing and cuts for no one except himself and his friends. Wasn't for being a potty mouth. The guy is respectable, mature and would never lower himself to such a degree. I have no idea what he got warned for but I guarantee it was for some rule that only Pricescope has and no other site has. Sure you can say, "well he should know the rules" Well, after 100 post you finally nail down ALL the rules and can sort of get by. I know scores of newbies or pro's that got warned for this or that when starting out as was I for rules that are unlike any other forum gem related or otherwise. Like I said, after awhile you finally "get" all the rules and can abide by them but they have turned off many a good tradesperson, cutter, dealer, etc. I am not just saying this, I know this from dealing with many of these people. Back to Mr. Blue. He is now on 3 other forums dishing out valuable educational info unimpeded, the type of info people would pay money for. So, he was turned away from the get-go by the rules. He is one of many that I know. But....but..we need rules. They keep things in order and people orderly. The difference is the type of rules here on pricescope. They are like no other forum that I know of. They turn away people that don't have the time to "walk on eggshells"

As with the poster Digital Devo. I echo everything he has said. I know who he is and he is one of the most intuitive and informed gem people I know. Instead of just adding education and informative information that he read on some other website or copied and pasted the guy actually test, studies, forms original throughts and hypothesis about whatever gem or stone he is speaking of or contemplating. Not many do that, especially on Pricescope. He is pretty much like a one man GIA or Gueblin. That is what you want. Me, I know a thing or two about stones and can spout off facts, graphs, and charts from my head but I can't do what Digital Devo does with in-house testing and real-time information. Read into his post carefully.

Lets move on. Another "titan" of industry whether you like him or not is Richard Wise. He has been banned before on here. I think for a whole year once. It wasn't for being a potty mouth either. The man is a wealth of information all gleamed first hand from a lifetime of dealing with every manner of gemstone. He can and does follow rules but I am sure he broke some "draconian"(there is that word again) rule and got lambasted. He is on at least one other forum I frequent and adds his information freely with no fear of banning or warnings. He peeks his head in here every now and then and I am thankful for it since it's always to add some extremely educational information. He is a great example of a tradesmember who doesn't frequent Pricescope anymore..a titan of industry.

I don't see much...well, I never see Vincent Pardieu on here anymore. I know he used to post because I have read his older post. I do see him on another gem forum though. Any thoughts as to why that is? John Pollard had an excellent post. I know many of the folks he is speaking of and it's sad to see them not around anymore for the most part but I do see some of them on certain other forums. Any thoughts as to why that is? hmmmm

These are just a couple examples. I know many more. I even did a scathing write-up on Pricescope policies and rules a long while ago on 2 other forums. To be fair, I would not write the same report I did then as I would today. With the introduction of the moderator Ella things are much smoother and the rules are not as harshly enforced. She is more understandable when you inadvertently break some rule that was unintended. So good job on that end. I have even seen my buddy Mr. Blue add a few posts since Ella came along.

As for me..well, I was banned a few months ago for "being a tradesperson" and not claiming it or whatever the rule is. I have sold maybe 8 gemstones my whole life. I sold one I didn't have a need for or liked anymore on ebay to a friend who also happened to be a Pricescope member who mentioned it and I was accused of being a tradesperson. You show me any tradesperson that has sold just 8 stones..more like a "living in a cardboard box"person. So what do I do now? On the rare occasion I want to pass along a stone that I don't like anymore do I need to make it a covert operation and make sure none of my friends, whom I knew way before Pricescope, find out about it? I now frequent more liberial gem and gemstone sites where as long as I keep it clean and respectable I can post information without the fear of reprisal or breaking the rules. I post to add educational information about something I truly am passionate about and my post are very informative and good so I have been told man, many a time on here and elsewhere( a little gloat never hurt anyone ) I just don't have time to be worried about this rule or that rule. I will just move to the next gemstone online forum.

 

[Karl_K]

4. Other opinions?

What you said has a lot of truth... but the question is what is better for consumers?
The feedback from consumers seeking help in those threads was confusion and the feeling of not being helped in a manner they could understand.

I loved those threads in the old days and was in the thick of it giving everyone a headache :}
BUT I do not believe it was best for the average poster who joined 2 days earlier to have that happen in their thread.
I would like a cut research sub-forum for such discussions for anyone who wants to visit it.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

After all of my talk about PS, my B&M jeweler has been lurking on this site. No names to protect their privacy. They sell HOF diamonds and I own numerous pieces. It would be like stepping into a lion's den for them to speak up on PS. I've experienced this, too. I must say that when I have posted my rings and other jewelry, I have gotten very positive and enthusiastic feedback. There is a big but...when anyone asks advice about purchasing a HOF diamond or setting, they are immediately referred to an online vendor for a better deal.

That is because not once has it been proven that an HOF is better (I've seen evidence some in the past have been worse) or just simply not substantially different from the PS vendors H&A rounds being suggested. So why does this brand justify a premium and reccomendation?

There have been a few threads about HOF diamonds led by consumers recently, unfortunately they lacked the equipment, tools and experience to make controlled and precise comparisons without trade help. This is unfortunate, I would love to see a HOF rep or dealer come on pricescope and do those comparisons or talk in depth on a technical level about their stones. Can we loosen the rules enough to allow this?

This logic applies the same way for B&M sores who may want to be reccomended, prove what differentiates your product or services from what is routinely offered here, otherwise the price premium required(if any) to do business with you is not justified.

ETA: If you don't care for this post, please walk on by. I've been flamed enough this week

 

[Dreamer_D]

I think the admin have to make a decision about what sort of purpose they have for PS (beyond a business obviously) and organize things to reflect that goal.

I like that this is a consumer forum, it is what drew me to the diamond boards in the first place. I did not want to get information from diamond vendors -- when I want that I call the vendors. I wanted information from other educated consumers. I don't think the boards would have nearly the same feel for consumers if rules governing trade participation change dramatically. I know I would probably participate less if that happened, for a few reasons. But maybe that does not matter to the overall goal of PS. It is not my decision to make.

I think that there are fewer people period here in RT, not only tradespeople. Probably reflects the economic times more than anything. And I am not sure bringing more tradespeople into RT will bring in more consumers, if that is the end goal. Why do people come to PS to begin with? That is a more important question to me.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Older members will remember a time when most (or all) of the following pros participated in "hot topics:" Garry H, adamasgem, michaelgem, beryl, Serg, Yuri, denverappraiser, Oldminer, Richard Sherwood, RockDoc (RIP, friend), Modified Brilliant, Paul-Antwerp, Iiro, DiaGem, He Scores, BrianTheCutter, Rhino, Wink, niceice, DiamondExpert, CapitalBill, mepearl53, Brian Knox, barry, JohnQuixote (apologies to any old-school pros I neglected to include). I'd also add valeria101, strmrdr and aljdewey to the list since they went on to become professionals. And just as important was the regular flock of consumer posters - some remain (you know who you are) but most long gone - who participated in these very (very) technical discussions.

I missed those days, they were well before I even thought shiny rocks had any bearing on my life and I'm disappointed I did, I could have learned quicker and more actively, now I can only read passively. Sir John your posts are certainly missed as are many of the others who have posted less frequently.

These discussions went far beyond the (good) simple and repeated advice sung by the forum chorus today. In fact it was trade/enthusiast interactions which shaped that advice. If those elevated discussions had not happened many current consumer members would not have the knowledge they gained from following the arguments.

Absolutely, and it is a shame the discussions don't reach that elevated level anymore.

NOW

Pursuant to that, the recent 20+ page discussion on Crushed Ice is reminiscent the type of threads that used to be common, but it was only a shadow of past discussions where dozens of experts debated defensible positions and moved forward based on mutually-agreed-upon fundamentals. That Crushed Ice thread went 9 pages before meaningful interaction occurred. After that it was more engaging but two positions were simply being repeated without mutual agreement at even the most basic level of Bloom's Taxonomy. Hypothetically, if another several prominent experts had entered the thread and reached consensus on [ABC] as fundamental jumping-off points (for everyone) I suspect more progress would have been made.

Yes agreed those threads are where I get to learn the most. The Crushed Ice thread however did not reach the higher technical level of past great threads. Opinions were in abundance, the necessary support and fundamental scientific understanding for some of those opinions was lacking.

We are left with Andrey's Catch-22:

1. Forbid professionals from commenting/debating (the status-quo): This protects consumers from "agenda" but silences the most expert opinions, prevents cutting-edge debates and deflates the interest of many professional members.

2. Allow professionals to comment, except where their own product is being sold: This promotes more expert input but risks ill-will and clique-building as some pros could be seen to be sabotaging sales in threads where their competition (the seller) is prohibited from commenting.

3. Allow professionals to comment universally: This brings back participation and intelligent debate but risks the perception of abuse-by-agenda and misinformation.

4. Other opinions?

I think small steps are needed especially since this forum is run with Andrey's vision in mind. First I hope Andrey will allow trade to post photographs and video with restrictions and see how that works.

 

[kenny]

Pricescope's finest hour was when John Pollard, aka John Quixote, posted freely.

It is sad that policy is now determined by addressing the lowest common denominator of behavior.
But I guess that makes the moderator's jobs easier.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Pricescope's finest hour was when John Pollard, aka John Quixote, posted freely.

It is sad that policy is now determined by addressing the lowest common denominator of behavior.
But I guess that makes the moderator's jobs easier.

AMEN.

 

[kenny]

Maybe if John Pollard and Brian Gavin went back to Whiteflash . . .

 

[Karl_K]

Pricescope's finest hour was when John Pollard, aka John Quixote, posted freely.

I would agree with that.
John and I would often tag team providing information.
He would mention something and I would provide documentation and vis versa.
That was some of my favorite times on PS ever.
When we disagreed it was not as much fun because he kept me on my toes and it became work.

But we did so within the the current rules while he was working at WF and Infinity.
If anything much of the time the rules were tighter than they are today as far as enforcement goes.

 

[Regular Guy]

John and I would often tag team providing information.

Like this?:

 

[kenny]

Am I the only one who misses KarlK's ability to comment on asshcers that people post?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

2) The forum strongly endorses a rather short list of vendors. Vendors from ‘outside’ the favored few are routinely not treated respectfullly. Potential customers are routinely steered away from them and towards the favorites with litle or no justification.

Great post, Neil. I especially agree with this part.

I for one would like to see other vendors promoted besides WF, Brian Gavin, and GOG. The amount of bias and favoritism towards them is bordering on silly.

It also can appear (and possibly sometimes is) to be schilling. I believe there is a broadly held view by a lot of jewellers that this site does that regualrly and I know that is not true and also how much effort has gone into tracking down suspect cases by both regulars and moderators over many years.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Joshua,

One thing is you do not have stones put up for search on PS database, so how would people direct customers to you?

Second, even your serenity diamonds do not have IS, hearts image or even the GIA report, uploaded for easy screening. Again, how to direct any customers to you? Based on what? Just a loupe image?

EDT:
Third, GOG, HPD and NiceIce are also small operations.

I have my stones listed on my site on some other smaller listing services. Listing on PS is quite expensive, and I'm working to do that in the future.

You are correct, not all my stones have a GIA report listed on the site, and not all of them have images, and none have H&A photos at the moment. I deal with clients mostly in person, on referral over the phone, etc, and those images are provided on request for serious customers because of the workload involved. I cannot really answer more in detail without self promotion.

It's expected that you aren't referring anyone to me, as we've never worked together. The challenge is when people are working with me, or have before, when they are directed elsewhere to the 'favorites'.

--Joshua

Guy's I think a valid part of Joshua's problem is what we call "redirects".
A shopper asks about a diamond and a few people say "oh, buy this one cause its cheaper or better" or whatever - and then they link to stones from a single vendor which can make us all look like schills.
I for one think price should be handled like the other 4C's - if someone wants to shop at HW or Tiffany or the local jeweller who supports local chairties, then by all means point out features about the diamond and answer the questions. Even show how to do Pricescope searches, but just as it should be someones right to buy a VVS stone - let them also choose their preferred way to buy.
After all, it seems that 90% of diamonds are still sold at B&M's.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Maybe allowing a section where only trade members can discuss issues might help- but that would blunt the benefit for consumers wishing to ask questions.

Very interesting idea.... I like it.

I've witnessed members of Pricescope retaliating against vendors whose opinions they don't agree with, attempting to drive customers away. It's disappointing.

--Joshua

There are other forums for vendors and other trade members to talk to themselves that is not and has never been what PS is about and would be very harmful.

I agree, and there is no promo-money in it.
We have at times had closed forums when there has been a row about something, but aside from that there would not be much activity anyway.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

4. Other opinions?

What you said has a lot of truth... but the question is what is better for consumers?
The feedback from consumers seeking help in those threads was confusion and the feeling of not being helped in a manner they could understand.

I loved those threads in the old days and was in the thick of it giving everyone a headache :}
BUT I do not believe it was best for the average poster who joined 2 days earlier to have that happen in their thread.

John I think suggested to me once that changing the thread topic after the posters question has been answered, and letting those wonderful exploratory threads run could solve that.
A bit of extra moderation, but probably only a couple a week.