What would you do if a vendor privately solicited your business through your involvement on this sit

[cara]

Date: 2/24/2009 6:22:16 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Hypothetically speaking: Say the consumer feels ...shy to complain directly to the vendor.

In some cases, if the vendor publicly answered, it could really embarrass the consumer.

Remember, we''re talking about situations where prior private communication was established between vendor and consumer

There have definitely been posts like this on ps where a customer complains or expresses dissatisfaction with a product prior to completely addressing all issues with the pricescope vendor. Normally the peanuts tell the OP to address the vendor directly and offline, but if it gets out of hand, the best vendor responses are terse posts to the thread in question with instructions for the OP to contact them offline at their earliest convenience and a general statement that the vendor will do what is necessary to help or rectify the situation as appropriate. By posting on the thread, they are directly addressing the comments in the appropriate forum, but I do feel that vendors must use this option sparingly and with an abundance of caution. I do not think that vendors MUST remain silent, but that they must be aware that this is a site for consumers. The lengthiness of the reputation is more important than one hasty complaint. And if the OP later comes back to show happily show off the end result, all the better.

 

[Maisie]

Date: 2/24/2009 6:39:07 PM
Author: Steel

Date: 2/24/2009 6:24:01 PM
Author: Maisie

Date: 2/24/2009 6:21:02 PM
Author: Kaleigh
I gotta say this was handled so well by AllisonD.... So sending you cheers and a cocktail if you want one.

Ditto!

I respectfully disagree.

I''m not sure what AllisonD could have done differently. She admitted that Debi shouldn''t have sent the email. She couldn''t have done much more in my opinion.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 2/24/2009 6:11:16 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

A hypothetical:

A post might read:

''I have this ring that I bought and I''m not really happy with the pave work. I''m unhappy with the way it looks, and don''t want to make a big deal becasue I really like the vendor... but I''m not totally happy.

I don''t want to mention the vendor as I feel that doing so could be seen as a knock''

The client mentions the vendor: Post something like... We want our clients to be 100% happy please contact me so we can fix it for you.

If the vendor isn''t mentioned I generally wouldn''t recommend posting hey that''s me call me on the board.
In that case email is the best option.
Most of the time when a consumer makes a post like that they want comfort, validation, and support from other consumers.
Within reason I am all for vendors being proactive when there is a problem.
If they handle it right then it wont be an issue.

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 2/24/2009 6:38:18 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 2/24/2009 6:33:37 PM
Author: TravelingGal

LOL...good point.

As to your other question, it''s not just a vendor issue. Consumers abused PMs too. Obviously this thread is proof that stuff like this can still happen and the problems that Pricescope had with consumers doing doofy things can still be emulated today because people have gotten ahold of each other outside of Pricescope. But at least it''s outside pricescope and PS itself is not responsible for facilitating it.

Believe me, it goes beyond what you''re mentioning here. Like I said, vendors are here to make a buck and consumers to save one. There can be some serious shananigans on both sides when things go on behind the scenes and the general trusting Pricescope public has no idea what some of the motivations are.

Points noted, but that''s not and should not be PS''s problem. You can post personal information at your own risk and take responsibility for it (and again, a person can disable PMs if they want). I do not know of a single forum that does not allow people to contact each other if the choose to do so. PMs are the best way because the entire board does not have to see it. I do not see the big issue. It''s not like the law will come after PS simply because so n so gave so n so their email in a PM.

I love a person who can have a rational discussion.

And speaking of rational, not everyone is as rational as you, especially when money and emotions are involved. This is a forum where 1000''s of dollars are being exchanged for goods. People messenging admins because of what''s going on behind the scenes happen in other forums and mods are forced to police the goings on in the background. It''s time consuming AND annoying and takes away from what needs to be done in the actual forum.

Am I being cryptic?

BTW, we''re breaking PS rules by discussing this, lol.

 

[MoonWater]

LOL @ breaking a PS rule with this conversation (what is this, 1984??). PS can create a new rule: Use PMs at your own risk, feel free to report any member that solicites you for business (just like reporting a post) but all other issues must be handled on your own.

Obviously they can say it nicer, but you get the point. I just think it's absurd that adults can't communicate outside this forum if they want to. We allow people to post their freaking wedding photos for crying out loud, faces and all. People say what schools they go to, their jobs, their cities, states, their children etc. People go on for days talking about their friends Sally and Sue and what problems they're having in their relationships (I often wonder if their friends will come to this site and be embarassed). I mean, if I wanted, I could hunt people down I'm sure. So if people can post all that personal information, why couldn't someone share a dummy account which reveals nothing about them (save perhaps their bad taste in choosing their handle).

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Here are my observations. On page one of this thread, there were people strongly suggesting a vendor doing such a thing should be BANNED from PS. On that first page, I did comment that I thought it depended partly on how they got the email address, so I was being a little cautious compared to some of the other posts. But then we found out who did it, and attitudes changed! (Nothing against Debi..she has been nothing but nice in my personal experience.)

But I am sitting here catching up on this thread, and I am thinking about certain vendors who would have been literally hung out to dry over this. I am sure others are thinking this but just don't want to say it.

 

[Kaleigh]

Date: 2/24/2009 6:52:55 PM
Author: Maisie

Date: 2/24/2009 6:39:07 PM
Author: Steel

Date: 2/24/2009 6:24:01 PM
Author: Maisie

Date: 2/24/2009 6:21:02 PM
Author: Kaleigh
I gotta say this was handled so well by AllisonD.... So sending you cheers and a cocktail if you want one.

Ditto!

I respectfully disagree.

I'm not sure what AllisonD could have done differently. She admitted that Debi shouldn't have sent the email. She couldn't have done much more in my opinion.

Yeah, thinking she gave all she could.
Mara, yes. Not wants, but needs.. I got that... Bars open, or will I get in trouble... Should I say make that a double.
Gotta have humor here, it's been a long day...

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 2/24/2009 7:02:20 PM
Author: MoonWater
LOL @ breaking a PS rule with this conversation (what is this, 1984??). PS can create a new rule: Use PMs at your own risk, feel free to report any member that solicites you for business (just like reporting a post) but all other issues must be handled on your own.

Obviously they can say it nicer, but you get the point. I just think it's absurd that adults can't communicate outside this forum if they want to. We allow people to post their freaking wedding photos for crying out loud, faces and all. People say what schools they go to, their jobs, their cities, states, their children etc. People go on for days talking about their friends Sally and Sue and what problems their having in their relationships (I often wonder if their friends will come to this site and be embarassed). I mean, if I wanted, I could hunt people down I'm sure. So if people can post all that personal information, why couldn't someone share a dummy account which reveals nothing about them (save perhaps their bad taste in choosing their handle).

Discussing why we don't have PMs anymore...mod actions, it's in the forum policies.

So I'll take a different approach and talk about it from a consumer standpoint.

Sally is a customer of Zeke the gemstone cutting guy. Sally is actually an UNHAPPY customer of Zeke the gemstone cutting guy. Zeke is just a nice fella trying to make a living and is a one man show. Zeke is an honest guy and his customers are generally very happy.

Sally is a pretty unreasonable customer. And, well, she's kind of unbalanced. (Of course, we've never seen unbalanced folks on Pricescope, right?)

Zeke's done all he humanly can to please Sally, but Sally is not satisfied. Now Sally's got a bone to pick with Zeke.

Betty has also done business with Zeke. Betty bought a stone from Zeke and it's a custom job and was not returnable. She knew that before getting into it. But she's not happy. She's out 400 bucks and thinks he should refund her money regardless of his policy that she knew about. Betty posts this on Pricescope.

Sally sees Betty's post and PMs her. They talk offline. The fire gets stoked. They decide they are going to take down Zeke as much as possible. They post negative, deceitful reviews. But no one knows they are in cahoots. Yeah, the regular PSers will be suspect, but there are 1000's of lurkers out there and if they take any of that business away, hooray!

Meanwhile, Janie posts an inquiry on pricescope about Zeke. Has anyone worked with him? Sally PMs Janie and tells her nasty story behind the scenes. Janie is not sure what to think so she messages the mods who then have to play babysitter offline when they should actually be moderating Pricescope's ATW forum.

Sadly, all this is going on unbeknowst to Zeke, who finds business is slow. It's getting harder to put food on the table and Zeke Jr is tired of having potatoes everyday...

 

[Steel]

Date: 2/24/2009 7:06:15 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
Here are my observations. On page one of this thread, there were people strongly suggesting a vendor doing such a thing should be BANNED from PS. On that first page, I did comment that I thought it depended partly on how they got the email address, so I was being a little cautious compared to some of the other posts. But then we found out who did it, and my how attitudes changed! (Nothing against Debi..she has been nothing but nice in my personal experience.)

But I am sitting here catching up on this thread, and I am thinking about certain vendors who would have been literally hung out to dry over this. I am sure others are thinking this but just don''t want to say it.

Thank you for posting this DS. I was wondering how I would address my comments if called out and was delighted to see your thoughts. I feel that certain vendors/posters can do no wrong; even when they do. Then the witch-hunt which whey would have been a passive part of becomes a misunderstanding/innocent faux pas from which the poster/vendor is granted a gracious exit. I too wonder if the same graciousness would have been granted to other vendors?

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 2/24/2009 7:24:28 PM
Author: Steel

Thank you for posting this DS. I was wondering how I would address my comments if called out and was delighted to see your thoughts. I feel that certain vendors/posters can do no wrong; even when they do. Then the witch-hunt which whey would have been a passive part of becomes a misunderstanding/innocent faux pas from which the poster/vendor is granted a gracious exit. I too wonder if the same graciousness would have been granted to other vendors?

Well, I was reading your mind, so I just decided to say what we were thinking.

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 2/24/2009 7:24:28 PM
Author: Steel

Date: 2/24/2009 7:06:15 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
Here are my observations. On page one of this thread, there were people strongly suggesting a vendor doing such a thing should be BANNED from PS. On that first page, I did comment that I thought it depended partly on how they got the email address, so I was being a little cautious compared to some of the other posts. But then we found out who did it, and my how attitudes changed! (Nothing against Debi..she has been nothing but nice in my personal experience.)

But I am sitting here catching up on this thread, and I am thinking about certain vendors who would have been literally hung out to dry over this. I am sure others are thinking this but just don''t want to say it.

Thank you for posting this DS. I was wondering how I would address my comments if called out and was delighted to see your thoughts. I feel that certain vendors/posters can do no wrong; even when they do. Then the witch-hunt which whey would have been a passive part of becomes a misunderstanding/innocent faux pas from which the poster/vendor is granted a gracious exit. I too wonder if the same graciousness would have been granted to other vendors?

Diamondseeker, with all due respect, only ONE person thought the vendor should be banned (that was purrfectpear). Gypsy divulged the name on page one of this thread. So before the cat was let out of the bag, everyone else said it should be reported and let the mods decide. No one in the aftermath reneged on that sentiment.

 

[Kaleigh]

I think it''s up to the mods. Vendors make mistakes, this one has apologized. Can we move on?

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 2/24/2009 7:18:22 PM
Author: TravelingGal

Date: 2/24/2009 7:02:20 PM
Author: MoonWater
LOL @ breaking a PS rule with this conversation (what is this, 1984??). PS can create a new rule: Use PMs at your own risk, feel free to report any member that solicites you for business (just like reporting a post) but all other issues must be handled on your own.

Obviously they can say it nicer, but you get the point. I just think it''s absurd that adults can''t communicate outside this forum if they want to. We allow people to post their freaking wedding photos for crying out loud, faces and all. People say what schools they go to, their jobs, their cities, states, their children etc. People go on for days talking about their friends Sally and Sue and what problems their having in their relationships (I often wonder if their friends will come to this site and be embarassed). I mean, if I wanted, I could hunt people down I''m sure. So if people can post all that personal information, why couldn''t someone share a dummy account which reveals nothing about them (save perhaps their bad taste in choosing their handle).

Discussing why we don''t have PMs anymore...mod actions, it''s in the forum policies.

So I''ll take a different approach and talk about it from a consumer standpoint.

Sally is a customer of Zeke the gemstone cutting guy. Sally is actually an UNHAPPY customer of Zeke the gemstone cutting guy. Zeke is just a nice fella trying to make a living and is a one man show. Zeke is an honest guy and his customers are generally very happy.

Sally is a pretty unreasonable customer. And, well, she''s kind of unbalanced. (Of course, we''ve never seen unbalanced folks on Pricescope, right?)

Zeke''s done all he humanly can to please Sally, but Sally is not satisfied. Now Sally''s got a bone to pick with Zeke.

Betty has also done business with Zeke. Betty bought a stone from Zeke and it''s a custom job and was not returnable. She knew that before getting into it. But she''s not happy. She''s out 400 bucks and thinks he should refund her money regardless of his policy that she knew about. Betty posts this on Pricescope.

Sally sees Betty''s post and PMs her. They talk offline. The fire gets stoked. They decide they are going to take down Zeke as much as possible. They post negative, deceitful reviews. But no one knows they are in cahoots. Yeah, the regular PSers will be suspect, but there are 1000''s of lurkers out there and if they take any of that business away, hooray!

Meanwhile, Janie posts an inquiry on pricescope about Zeke. Has anyone worked with him? Sally PMs Janie and tells her nasty story behind the scenes. Janie is not sure what to think so she messages the mods who then have to play babysitter offline when they should actually be moderating Pricescope''s ATW forum.

Sadly, all this is going on unbeknowst to Zeke, who finds business is slow. It''s getting harder to put food on the table and Zeke Jr is tired of having potatoes everyday...

Oh, so we no longer have PMs and aren''t allowed to share personal information for the sake of vendors, not for the sake of us. I get it.

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 2/24/2009 7:37:17 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 2/24/2009 7:18:22 PM

Author: TravelingGal

Date: 2/24/2009 7:02:20 PM

Author: MoonWater

LOL @ breaking a PS rule with this conversation (what is this, 1984??). PS can create a new rule: Use PMs at your own risk, feel free to report any member that solicites you for business (just like reporting a post) but all other issues must be handled on your own.


Obviously they can say it nicer, but you get the point. I just think it''s absurd that adults can''t communicate outside this forum if they want to. We allow people to post their freaking wedding photos for crying out loud, faces and all. People say what schools they go to, their jobs, their cities, states, their children etc. People go on for days talking about their friends Sally and Sue and what problems their having in their relationships (I often wonder if their friends will come to this site and be embarassed). I mean, if I wanted, I could hunt people down I''m sure. So if people can post all that personal information, why couldn''t someone share a dummy account which reveals nothing about them (save perhaps their bad taste in choosing their handle).

Discussing why we don''t have PMs anymore...mod actions, it''s in the forum policies.


So I''ll take a different approach and talk about it from a consumer standpoint.


Sally is a customer of Zeke the gemstone cutting guy. Sally is actually an UNHAPPY customer of Zeke the gemstone cutting guy. Zeke is just a nice fella trying to make a living and is a one man show. Zeke is an honest guy and his customers are generally very happy.


Sally is a pretty unreasonable customer. And, well, she''s kind of unbalanced. (Of course, we''ve never seen unbalanced folks on Pricescope, right?)

Zeke''s done all he humanly can to please Sally, but Sally is not satisfied. Now Sally''s got a bone to pick with Zeke.


Betty has also done business with Zeke. Betty bought a stone from Zeke and it''s a custom job and was not returnable. She knew that before getting into it. But she''s not happy. She''s out 400 bucks and thinks he should refund her money regardless of his policy that she knew about. Betty posts this on Pricescope.


Sally sees Betty''s post and PMs her. They talk offline. The fire gets stoked. They decide they are going to take down Zeke as much as possible. They post negative, deceitful reviews. But no one knows they are in cahoots. Yeah, the regular PSers will be suspect, but there are 1000''s of lurkers out there and if they take any of that business away, hooray!


Meanwhile, Janie posts an inquiry on pricescope about Zeke. Has anyone worked with him? Sally PMs Janie and tells her nasty story behind the scenes. Janie is not sure what to think so she messages the mods who then have to play babysitter offline when they should actually be moderating Pricescope''s ATW forum.


Sadly, all this is going on unbeknowst to Zeke, who finds business is slow. It''s getting harder to put food on the table and Zeke Jr is tired of having potatoes everyday...

Oh, so we no longer have PMs and aren''t allowed to share personal information for the sake of vendors, not for the sake of us. I get it.

Trust me, there is a LOT of drama and hurt feelings when PM''s are allowed-consumer to consumer!

Why do you think we need them?

 

[Steel]

Date: 2/24/2009 7:30:55 PM
Author: TravelingGal

Date: 2/24/2009 7:24:28 PM
Author: Steel

Date: 2/24/2009 7:06:15 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
Here are my observations. On page one of this thread, there were people strongly suggesting a vendor doing such a thing should be BANNED from PS. On that first page, I did comment that I thought it depended partly on how they got the email address, so I was being a little cautious compared to some of the other posts. But then we found out who did it, and my how attitudes changed! (Nothing against Debi..she has been nothing but nice in my personal experience.)

But I am sitting here catching up on this thread, and I am thinking about certain vendors who would have been literally hung out to dry over this. I am sure others are thinking this but just don't want to say it.

Thank you for posting this DS. I was wondering how I would address my comments if called out and was delighted to see your thoughts. I feel that certain vendors/posters can do no wrong; even when they do. Then the witch-hunt which whey would have been a passive part of becomes a misunderstanding/innocent faux pas from which the poster/vendor is granted a gracious exit. I too wonder if the same graciousness would have been granted to other vendors?

Diamondseeker, with all due respect, only ONE person thought the vendor should be banned (that was purrfectpear). Gypsy divulged the name on page one of this thread. So before the cat was let out of the bag, everyone else said it should be reported and let the mods decide. No one in the aftermath reneged on that sentiment.

TGal, I know you were not responding to me, but I would like to say that this is the kind of camaraderie which whether intended or not bolsters my point of view. Addressing the minutiae rather than the sentiment of DS's post - to what end?

ETA: "to me"

 

[Mara]

Date: 2/24/2009 7:18:22 PM
Author: TravelingGal

Date: 2/24/2009 7:02:20 PM

Author: MoonWater

LOL @ breaking a PS rule with this conversation (what is this, 1984??). PS can create a new rule: Use PMs at your own risk, feel free to report any member that solicites you for business (just like reporting a post) but all other issues must be handled on your own.


Obviously they can say it nicer, but you get the point. I just think it''s absurd that adults can''t communicate outside this forum if they want to. We allow people to post their freaking wedding photos for crying out loud, faces and all. People say what schools they go to, their jobs, their cities, states, their children etc. People go on for days talking about their friends Sally and Sue and what problems their having in their relationships (I often wonder if their friends will come to this site and be embarassed). I mean, if I wanted, I could hunt people down I''m sure. So if people can post all that personal information, why couldn''t someone share a dummy account which reveals nothing about them (save perhaps their bad taste in choosing their handle).

Discussing why we don''t have PMs anymore...mod actions, it''s in the forum policies.


So I''ll take a different approach and talk about it from a consumer standpoint.


Sally is a customer of Zeke the gemstone cutting guy. Sally is actually an UNHAPPY customer of Zeke the gemstone cutting guy. Zeke is just a nice fella trying to make a living and is a one man show. Zeke is an honest guy and his customers are generally very happy.


Sally is a pretty unreasonable customer. And, well, she''s kind of unbalanced. (Of course, we''ve never seen unbalanced folks on Pricescope, right?)

Zeke''s done all he humanly can to please Sally, but Sally is not satisfied. Now Sally''s got a bone to pick with Zeke.


Betty has also done business with Zeke. Betty bought a stone from Zeke and it''s a custom job and was not returnable. She knew that before getting into it. But she''s not happy. She''s out 400 bucks and thinks he should refund her money regardless of his policy that she knew about. Betty posts this on Pricescope.


Sally sees Betty''s post and PMs her. They talk offline. The fire gets stoked. They decide they are going to take down Zeke as much as possible. They post negative, deceitful reviews. But no one knows they are in cahoots. Yeah, the regular PSers will be suspect, but there are 1000''s of lurkers out there and if they take any of that business away, hooray!


Meanwhile, Janie posts an inquiry on pricescope about Zeke. Has anyone worked with him? Sally PMs Janie and tells her nasty story behind the scenes. Janie is not sure what to think so she messages the mods who then have to play babysitter offline when they should actually be moderating Pricescope''s ATW forum.

Sadly, all this is going on unbeknowst to Zeke, who finds business is slow. It''s getting harder to put food on the table and Zeke Jr is tired of having potatoes everyday...

Maybe Zeke would like some pie.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 2/24/2009 7:39:41 PM
Author: neatfreak


Trust me, there is a LOT of drama and hurt feelings when PM''s are allowed-consumer to consumer!

Why do you think we need them?

I explained several posts up and I also stated people can turn them off if the choose. And by the way, this is not restricted to PMs, though that is apparently the focus.

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 2/24/2009 7:37:17 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 2/24/2009 7:18:22 PM
Author: TravelingGal

Date: 2/24/2009 7:02:20 PM
Author: MoonWater
LOL @ breaking a PS rule with this conversation (what is this, 1984??). PS can create a new rule: Use PMs at your own risk, feel free to report any member that solicites you for business (just like reporting a post) but all other issues must be handled on your own.

Obviously they can say it nicer, but you get the point. I just think it''s absurd that adults can''t communicate outside this forum if they want to. We allow people to post their freaking wedding photos for crying out loud, faces and all. People say what schools they go to, their jobs, their cities, states, their children etc. People go on for days talking about their friends Sally and Sue and what problems their having in their relationships (I often wonder if their friends will come to this site and be embarassed). I mean, if I wanted, I could hunt people down I''m sure. So if people can post all that personal information, why couldn''t someone share a dummy account which reveals nothing about them (save perhaps their bad taste in choosing their handle).

Discussing why we don''t have PMs anymore...mod actions, it''s in the forum policies.

So I''ll take a different approach and talk about it from a consumer standpoint.

Sally is a customer of Zeke the gemstone cutting guy. Sally is actually an UNHAPPY customer of Zeke the gemstone cutting guy. Zeke is just a nice fella trying to make a living and is a one man show. Zeke is an honest guy and his customers are generally very happy.

Sally is a pretty unreasonable customer. And, well, she''s kind of unbalanced. (Of course, we''ve never seen unbalanced folks on Pricescope, right?)

Zeke''s done all he humanly can to please Sally, but Sally is not satisfied. Now Sally''s got a bone to pick with Zeke.

Betty has also done business with Zeke. Betty bought a stone from Zeke and it''s a custom job and was not returnable. She knew that before getting into it. But she''s not happy. She''s out 400 bucks and thinks he should refund her money regardless of his policy that she knew about. Betty posts this on Pricescope.

Sally sees Betty''s post and PMs her. They talk offline. The fire gets stoked. They decide they are going to take down Zeke as much as possible. They post negative, deceitful reviews. But no one knows they are in cahoots. Yeah, the regular PSers will be suspect, but there are 1000''s of lurkers out there and if they take any of that business away, hooray!

Meanwhile, Janie posts an inquiry on pricescope about Zeke. Has anyone worked with him? Sally PMs Janie and tells her nasty story behind the scenes. Janie is not sure what to think so she messages the mods who then have to play babysitter offline when they should actually be moderating Pricescope''s ATW forum.

Sadly, all this is going on unbeknowst to Zeke, who finds business is slow. It''s getting harder to put food on the table and Zeke Jr is tired of having potatoes everyday...

Oh, so we no longer have PMs and aren''t allowed to share personal information for the sake of vendors, not for the sake of us. I get it.

AND for the sake of us. Janie is confused because she wanted to work with Zeke, and now feels unsure. So hell, she''s giving up her idea of a dreamstone.

 

[purrfectpear]

Date: 2/24/2009 6:45:32 PM
Author: cara

Date: 2/24/2009 6:22:16 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Hypothetically speaking: Say the consumer feels ...shy to complain directly to the vendor.

In some cases, if the vendor publicly answered, it could really embarrass the consumer.

Remember, we''re talking about situations where prior private communication was established between vendor and consumer

There have definitely been posts like this on ps where a customer complains or expresses dissatisfaction with a product prior to completely addressing all issues with the pricescope vendor. Normally the peanuts tell the OP to address the vendor directly and offline, but if it gets out of hand, the best vendor responses are terse posts to the thread in question with instructions for the OP to contact them offline at their earliest convenience and a general statement that the vendor will do what is necessary to help or rectify the situation as appropriate. By posting on the thread, they are directly addressing the comments in the appropriate forum, but I do feel that vendors must use this option sparingly and with an abundance of caution. I do not think that vendors MUST remain silent, but that they must be aware that this is a site for consumers. The lengthiness of the reputation is more important than one hasty complaint. And if the OP later comes back to show happily show off the end result, all the better.

Big ditto.

Otherwise we will have PS posters who are afraid to mention anything negative on PS for fear that the next thing they''ll receive is a personal email saying "hey you complained, what will it take to make you happy so you don''t say stuff like that again?"

We already have one vendor who was accused of doing exactly that on another forum.

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 2/23/2009 8:19:01 PM
Author: Allison D.

Date: 2/23/2009 7:33:47 PM
Author: Gypsy
The first Storm. Straight solicitation.

I would have reacted differently to the second. But also, the vendors I have relationships with... wouldn''t do even that. They know that if and when I am ready, I know they are there. And if I don''t contact them, there is a reason... whatever that might be at the time.

I''d swiftly report this to the PS Admin. As described, it''s an egregious violation of the PS rules, and Ira is correct that similar instances contributed to PMs going away.

In premise, a vendor shouldn''t have a way to contact a PSer privately since emails, etc. aren''t allowed. I''m not clear on how he''d come by the needed information to do so, but it''s out of bounds either way.

This is supposed to be a site where consumers can get information without feeling like prey. What you''ve described goes against that purpose.

I''m going to assume that since only ONE person suggested banning that that Alison''s post came across at potentially the biggest about face (as Steel as respectfully disagreed that Alison handled it well), this is the main issue that people have?

So what did Gypsy respond to: Strm''s options were the following:

"A general hey buy from me they would get an earful no matter what.
An email from a vendor that saw I was working on a project that I had a past relationship with sending me an email saying something like: Hi, I saw your thread. have you considered this? (link to something that was close to what I''m looking for)
I would be ok with.
The first is solicitation of business the second I would see as being helpful."

*PERSONALLY* a solicitation to me means, "Hi my name is Bob, please buy from me." I know this isn''t the TECHNICAL DEFINITION, but that''s what it means to me.

Strm''s second choice seems like it could be an option here. Gypsy and Debi had a past relationship, no matter how minor. She saw she Gypsy was working on a project and in her eyes offered to help (with some iffy other statements, I''ll admit).

Honestly, I see what happened as a combination of 1 and 2.

And all of this hoo-hah could have been prevented if we all didn''t have to speculate!

We all made statements without ANY facts and a host of ASSUMPTIONS. We are allowed to revise our reactions based then on the facts given (although I don''t see it that way but I will go back and reread again). No one is saying WF was kosher. The PS admin has said WF did not break any of the technical rules (and really, how CAN they control what goes on behind the scenes? WF had Gypsy''s email already, for goodness sake!)

Steel, you and DS are claiming that WF got a break just because they were WF. I don''t think you''re nuts for thinking that. But I don''t think people HERE changed their opinion because it was WF, not those who posted before it was known it was WF. Even if it was "lame-a$$ vendor", I''m not sure most would agree he should be banned for contacting a person with whom he has had a discussion offline before. I still say it was in VERY poor taste and Gypsy had every right to blink three times.

AND, I think WF handled it well. Came, apologized for the mistake that was obviously made. Some vendors do have a hard time doing this, and they probably WILL get raked over the coals more fiercely as a result.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 2/24/2009 7:30:55 PM
Author: TravelingGal

Diamondseeker, with all due respect, only ONE person thought the vendor should be banned (that was purrfectpear). Gypsy divulged the name on page one of this thread. So before the cat was let out of the bag, everyone else said it should be reported and let the mods decide. No one in the aftermath reneged on that sentiment.

Umm, a couple of people copied her posts and said they agreed with her sentiment of report and ban...I am thinking you might have been one of them?

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 2/24/2009 7:50:08 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006

Date: 2/24/2009 7:30:55 PM
Author: TravelingGal

Diamondseeker, with all due respect, only ONE person thought the vendor should be banned (that was purrfectpear). Gypsy divulged the name on page one of this thread. So before the cat was let out of the bag, everyone else said it should be reported and let the mods decide. No one in the aftermath reneged on that sentiment.

Umm, a couple of people copied her posts and said they agreed with her sentiment of report and ban...I am thinking you might have been one of them?

I can see how you would see it that way, but no. I said I had a problem with what happened if the POST WAS made on pricescope (I highlighted that part). I said "agreed". I can see why you would think I agreed to the whole post.

IF Gypsy''s post in question had NOT been made on Pricescope grounds, I would have no problem with it whatsoever. None. Don''t care. But Gypsy has since come back and pointed out the thread in question, so YES, I believe that WF made bad judgment in contacting her.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 2/24/2009 7:44:07 PM
Author: TravelingGal

Date: 2/24/2009 7:37:17 PM
Author: MoonWater


Oh, so we no longer have PMs and aren't allowed to share personal information for the sake of vendors, not for the sake of us. I get it.

AND for the sake of us. Janie is confused because she wanted to work with Zeke, and now feels unsure. So hell, she's giving up her idea of a dreamstone.

Ya know, this could go both ways. Suppose Zeke is a PS favorite and any complaint about him is attacked by long term PS members who love Zeke. Suppose as a result, other customers are afraid to post complaints they have but would feel more comfortable discussing it in private with a few people. Suppose being able to discuss it in private opens many people's eyes and it eventually comes out in the open and improves Zeke's work/customer relations, etc (or results in his banning if necessary). Oh well, we'll never know.

ETA: I would also say that Janie will have the information from the psychos along with various posters here that have had positive experiences with Zeke. If she is confused and isn't sure what to do she can reveal that she is getting negative feedback as well and isn't sure what to do. She can then make an informed decision based on the experiences of a variety of people. If the only people willing to chime in for Zeke are Sally and Betty, well, maybe he's a crap vendor.

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 2/24/2009 7:43:24 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 2/24/2009 7:39:41 PM
Author: neatfreak


Trust me, there is a LOT of drama and hurt feelings when PM''s are allowed-consumer to consumer!

Why do you think we need them?

I explained several posts up and I also stated people can turn them off if the choose. And by the way, this is not restricted to PMs, though that is apparently the focus.

Yes, it was a choice back then too. But it didn''t help anything at the time I imagine, or they would not have been turned off.

Bottom line, we''ve got only two mods running a site we can all participate in for free. Why do you want to give them more work?

 

[Mara]

Date: 2/24/2009 7:53:38 PM

Ya know, this could go both ways. Suppose Zeke is a PS favorite and any complaint about him is attacked by long term PS members who love Zeke. Suppose as a result, other customers are afraid to post complaints they have but would feel more comfortable discussing it in private with a few people. Suppose being able to discuss it in private opens many people's eyes and it eventually comes out in the open and improves Zeke's work/customer relations, etc (or results in his banning if necessary). Oh well, we'll never know.

Actually...we already DO know. There were PM's in the past, primarily what they brought about was crappy behavior. In terms of 'helpful' information that was passed on for diamond seekers...who knows, it was all dragged down into the mud in the end. I personally do not miss them one bit. PS is a better place without them.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 2/24/2009 7:56:49 PM
Author: TravelingGal

Date: 2/24/2009 7:43:24 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 2/24/2009 7:39:41 PM
Author: neatfreak


Trust me, there is a LOT of drama and hurt feelings when PM's are allowed-consumer to consumer!

Why do you think we need them?

I explained several posts up and I also stated people can turn them off if the choose. And by the way, this is not restricted to PMs, though that is apparently the focus.

Yes, it was a choice back then too. But it didn't help anything at the time I imagine, or they would not have been turned off.

Bottom line, we've got only two mods running a site we can all participate in for free. Why do you want to give them more work?

Oh, I didn't realize it was about "them." You say this as if we all are a burden, as if they make no money from us being here. Is this a non-profit? I think it's insane that a person can be banned for exchanging emails with a fellow poster that they like. And again, this is not simply about PMs, they could obviously work out anything they wish to allow people exchange information if they want to. People have GTG here for crying out loud, you think Betty and Sally can't conspire that way?

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 2/24/2009 7:53:38 PM
Author: MoonWater

Ya know, this could go both ways. Suppose Zeke is a PS favorite and any complaint about him is attacked by long term PS members who love Zeke. Suppose as a result, other customers are afraid to post complaints they have but would feel more comfortable discussing it in private with a few people. Suppose being able to discuss it in private opens many people''s eyes and it eventually comes out in the open and improves Zeke''s work/customer relations, etc (or results in his banning if necessary). Oh well, we''ll never know.

ETA: I would also say that Janie will have the information from the psychos along with various posters here that have had positive experiences with Zeke. If she is confused and isn''t sure what to do she can reveal that she is getting negative feedback as well and isn''t sure what to do. She can then make an informed decision based on the experiences of a variety of people. If the only people willing to chime in for Zeke are Sally and Betty, well, maybe he''s a crap vendor.

True, and this has been a long running concern on PS. But I truly do believe private he said talk can make the problem worse. The pros outweigh the cons when it comes to PMs.

At least on PS, the vendor can come and defend himself to the potential customer. You can''t do that in a private setting.

Again, I''m not saying there isn''t some kind of value in PMs. I''m just saying the headaches were big when they were there.

BTW, have you ever looked at feedback on ebay? You can have a lot of positives and be 98.7 positive, but many people say they won''t do business with someone with less than a 99.5. And those little red negatives are pretty damn glaring.

 

[MoonWater]

I will say this again, and hopefully for the last time: it''s not just about PMs.

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 2/24/2009 8:01:33 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 2/24/2009 7:56:49 PM
Author: TravelingGal

Date: 2/24/2009 7:43:24 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 2/24/2009 7:39:41 PM
Author: neatfreak


Trust me, there is a LOT of drama and hurt feelings when PM''s are allowed-consumer to consumer!

Why do you think we need them?

I explained several posts up and I also stated people can turn them off if the choose. And by the way, this is not restricted to PMs, though that is apparently the focus.

Yes, it was a choice back then too. But it didn''t help anything at the time I imagine, or they would not have been turned off.

Bottom line, we''ve got only two mods running a site we can all participate in for free. Why do you want to give them more work?

Oh, I didn''t realize it was about ''them.'' You say this as if we all are a burden, as if they make no money from us being here. Is this a non-profit? I think it''s insane that a person can be banned for exchanging emails with a fellow poster that they like. And again, this is not simply about PMs, they could obviously work out anything they wish to allow people exchange information if they want to. People have GTG here for crying out loud, you think Betty and Sally can''t conspire that way?

Well, this is where we can agree to disagree.

I don''t care if they are here to make money. They obviously are. This is their venture and they have been more than kind to us by opening up other forums which we all enjoy which have nothing to do with diamonds or gemstones.

So I think I''m a guest in someone''s house. I don''t care how they run it, I play by their rules. Back in the day, you would have really hated it because the rules were clear, warnings were issued and people were indeed, banned. If I don''t like it, I can start my own forum and let people do whatever they want. I guarantee you, it''d get ugly though.

GTG''s were a sticky issue too, but thus far they''ve been left alone. I fully agree with you that loony things can start from that too.

They picked their battles. They banned PMs. You don''t have to like it. You can even say so. Maybe it will change, maybe it won''t.

 

[Ali]

For the most part, the discussions regarding the original topic has hopefully been beneficial to consumers and vendors alike. We are all one fine knit community and should be aware of the subtle nuances that make Pricescipe unique. However, at this time I am going to be closing the thread since the topic has strayed into Moderator actions, which is not allowed. If anyone ever has a concern about the policies, they should contact us directly.