Trade Participation on Pricescope

[Karl_K]

Karl's behavior should not be tolerated- especially as he's posting under the guise of a trade member.

Your disrespect of consumers is what should not be tolerated you made your feelings clear about consumers who have opinion on diamonds when you posted:
"especially so in the case of self proclaimed consumer experts here on PS who claim to be able to advise other unsuspecting consumers "
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/are-aset-images-used-as-proofy-numbers.150015/

 

[arjunajane]

So what's your beef with RD? Why not get onto GarryH, DiamondExplorer, digitaldevo, Karl, and all who posted on this thread.

Trade members who disrespect consumers have no place here.
This is first and foremost a consumer forum.
That is why vendors are restrained in what they can do.
I don't know digitaldevo but the rest of who you posted have a lot of respect for consumers other than RD.

All I can say is exactly, what Karl is posting throughout this thread sums up my standpoint on the 'RD vs whoever' discussion. Although, admittedly I find it very disappointing that yet another valuable discussion, David has managed to take it off track and make it all about him.

RD, fwiw you have made many contemptuous and downright unprofessional remarks against numerous consumers, a number in this thread alone. You posed the question to Karl but I would like to answer, as you have disrespected me personally as a consumer a number of times-and I do not even enter debates with you! Because I respect the contributions of educational nature of posters who you have identified as your 'enemies', I have been subject to your disparaging remarks simply by association. This is what is completely unacceptable by a trade member and someone who presents themselves as a so called professional. My apology to need to resort to clichés, but RD you receive the respect you give, it really is that simple.

As to the actual question of the thread, I'm afraid I dont have the answer but I will say as a consumer on these boards I welcome new vendor/trade participation from All walks, regardless if their preferences or tastes are in line with mine or not. However what I dont welcome is open malcontent for or mocking of consumers in any form. Grow a thicker skin, quit complaining and stand up and Contribute.

Like others I feel this is a very relevant and important dialogue for PSers to have and I am reading the thoughtful responses with interest.

 

[Rockdiamond]

I disagree arajunejane. I've worked hard so as not to respond in kind to the personal attacks - I'm only human and the attacks have been quite vicious.
I'm proud of the discussions my views have spurred

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Hold your tongue.
Don't fall for it.
Just let any misinformation (the most successful bait of all) remain unchallenged, uncorrected and undiscussed.
Don't fall for the trick of showing how much you know.

Yes you have nailed it so here is what I do now.

PS 2.0 has a great new feature its called the Friends & Foes list.


Now threads like this one look like this:



Garry has also nailed it, like him I wasted my time in the Crushed Ice Thread and worked tirelessly to help RD with controlling his photography lighting and understanding how to prorperly interpret ASET images.
All of that work to have him start the "Aset images used as "proofy" numbers thread", less than a week later. It has become readily apparent he didn't retain most of the patient teachings that were given to him by Karl K, Garry H, Stonecold, Myself, Rhino and Diagem.

Pricescope is way too polite at times so much so the truth suffers. Being kind, compassionate, and respectful to others is one thing, creating an environment where novice consumers are misled or information is hidden or simplified in the name of being PC is quite another.

For those who want to see quite another picture of Rockdiamond they need only google.
"Our NIGHTMARE with David at Diamonds by Lauren!!!" (A quote and thread from one of his past poorly treated customers)

One particular quote struck me as particularly relevant.
"he overcharges for inferior products and places himself on a pedestal above the GIA as an authority."

The proof of the same behaviour on pricescope is right here in the crushed ice thread:
https://www.pricescope.com/communit...hions-bad.148696/page-6#post-2693543#p2693543

Yet I cannot blame Laila619, Gaby06, Imdanny and others for rushing to play the PC and "make nice" card. They don't engage in the fine technical points and may not be aware RD starts threads and attacks others opinions with the same simple arguments and material every couple of weeks in the name of "Education". I doubt the average consumer is even aware that its just a game and the answers to his questions have been given to him numerous times before by many different voices in many different ways.

The "wall of ignorance" isn't really as ignorant as he innocently pretends.

So Kenny, Neil, and Garry H you are absolutely correct, ignore the provocation as much as possible. The moderators and admin on PS have decided free speech is better than censureship. I tend to agree, thus the Foe List is is the best strategy moving forward in my experience.

The sad alternative(not there yet) is take the path other inactives have taken, focus on research and my own edcuation, lower the frequency of posting I do in these forums. This may be necessary at times because when RD is too heavily involved in a thread I find it very difficult to see the positive impact of my posts to the majority of consumers.

 

[clgwli]

So what's your beef with RD? Why not get onto GarryH, DiamondExplorer, digitaldevo, Karl, and all who posted on this thread.

Trade members who disrespect consumers have no place here.
This is first and foremost a consumer forum.
That is why vendors are restrained in what they can do.
I don't know digitaldevo but the rest of who you posted have a lot of respect for consumers other than RD.

No offense, but I asked Kenny. Not you. I want his answer since he has gone out of his way to put David down quite often. There has been several threads where all Kenny does is put in a negative bit for RD and he has no personal experience using him as a vendor from everything he has implied.

Respect goes both ways. I don't care what Kenny pretends to claim, but he has flat out attacked more than once and including me for the sole reason that I bought from DBL. A snippy comment here and here implying my stone sucks in anything but bright lighting. We are humans and I have lost my temper with him more than once. Granted I am learning to just ignore him, but there are times when I can't stand it. Much like this thread where he claimed favoritism on a moderated forum is smart.

Besides a few consumers who like to put down vendors (and I've seen more than RD being picked on) just because, I don't see how any vendor here has shown little respect towards consumers. And I am speaking of what I've seen in general and not just one vendor over another.

I've seen vendors get in heated arguments, but I figure that's the nature of the game and that doesn't seem to bug me. These people are passionate about their work so it is expected.

CCL funny that is THE ONLY review that wasn't 100% positive for DBL. Only one and that is through tons of google searching. I tend to believe there are 3 sides to every story. You never get the truth through only one side. Given I've seen at least one not so good review for pretty much every vendor here, I'd say that's damn good!

 

[AGBF]

I know it is bad form to skip pages, then post, but I was afraid that the thread would end before I could participate. I promise to go back and read everything!

I carefully read all of the first page of this thread and was very interested in the thread's premise. Obviously Andrey has an interest in greater trade participation on Pricescope, whether or not everyone else does, or he would not have started the thread.

Thank you, denverappraiser, for taking so much time to write your thoughtful postings about the nature of Pricescope and who can handle it.

I think many people posted very thoughtfully on that first page...I was a bit dismayed (but not at all surprised) to see that we were back to the usual by page 7.

If I may interrupt the argument for a moment, I wanted to say that, unlike Karl, I have not been on the trade side of the diamond business. I do not know all the nasty and horrible things that people do to make extra money on diamonds and to sell more diamonds. On the other hand, I have been around long enough to have received unsolicited PM's (back in the days when there were PM's) from vendors and to have had some experiences that make me not quite a virgin. I was present when one of the first Internet diamond forums started up...and in those days vendors could say anything they pleased!

My point is that I appreciate the strict ethics of Pricescope, but I think that this dialogue was a good idea. Unlike CharmyPoo, I am not willing simply to say, "Let's applaud the vendors who can make it here right now." I think it's great to look at why some vendors and appraisers are avoiding us!

Deb/AGBF

 

[psadmin]

Hi Everyone,

First I want to thank the trade and consumers for their honest views and thoughts on this important subject.

Second it is essential that everyone understand that Pricescope is first and foremost for consumers, and if we continue to think about what is best for consumers then we all win.

I want you all to know that I am reading everything and taking it all into account.

Please continue the conversation and if possible I would like to hear what exact changes you would propose and the pros and cons that come with it.

 

[Karl_K]

Andrey, my 2c

change 1:
allow vendors and experts to post pictures and videos for education only.
There is no real downside other than the potential for abuse and the needed moderation.
Some griping and belly aching will happen on occasion when a post is deleted.

change 2:
allow them to watermark the images with their website name only and with in reason.
In the age of every nice image under the sun being used for fraud on ebay it is a legitimate concern.
Downside: it may get out of hand like smtr did with more logo then diamond so it will have to be monitored.
vendors get free advertising with the watermark is both an upside and a downside.
upside, they have to post educational content to do so, downside its free advertising money wise.
They are paying for it with their time and expertise so it is not totally free.

change 3: try using mod/admin powers to separate out technical discussions into separate threads.
downside: more work for mods

Change 4:
sub forum for cut research
pro: will help bring experts back. provide more material, because it moves slower it will give busy people more opportunity to contribute.
Consumers can then take that information back to RT.

cons:
The exports wont be in RT... they already are not in RT and if they are on the site they are more likely to look over at RT than if they are not here at all.
consumers may not read it.

Personally I think everyone will be shocked how many consumers read and contribute and take the information back to RT.

change 5: better protect consumers from vendors/experts who attempt to harass them.
upside: jerks will find someplace else to go.
Downside: none

Not changed: is the rule about commenting about a competitors diamond unless the vendor posted it for technical discussion.
There are way to many downsides to allowing it again.

 

[kenny]

Please continue the conversation and if possible I would like to hear what exact changes do you propose with the pros and cons that come with it.

1. Loosen rules for vendor posting; there has to be something in it for them.
2. Accept that no longer treating every vendor like the worst offender will result in a heavier moderator work load.
3. Ban vendors that, in admin's sole opinion, take more than they give or hurt more than they help, or just are not worth the trouble. No explanation is needed since this is a privately-owned website.
4. In summary, be more realistic instead of idealistic.

 

[clgwli]

Andrey, my 2c

change 1:
allow vendors and experts to post pictures and videos for education only.
There is no real downside other than the potential for abuse and the needed moderation.
Some griping and belly aching will happen on occasion when a post is deleted.

change 2:
allow them to watermark the images with their website name only and with in reason.
In the age of every nice image under the sun being used for fraud on ebay it is a legitimate concern.
Downside: it may get out of hand like smtr did with more logo then diamond so it will have to be monitored.
vendors get free advertising with the watermark is both an upside and a downside.
upside, they have to post educational content to do so, downside its free advertising money wise.
They are paying for it with their time and expertise so it is not totally free.

change 3: try using mod/admin powers to separate out technical discussions into separate threads.
downside: more work for mods

Change 4:
sub forum for cut research
pro: will help bring experts back. provide more material, because it moves slower it will give busy people more opportunity to contribute.
Consumers can then take that information back to RT.

cons:
The exports wont be in RT... they already are not in RT and if they are on the site they are more likely to look over at RT than if they are not here at all.
consumers may not read it.

Personally I think everyone will be shocked how many consumers read and contribute and take the information back to RT.

change 5: better protect consumers from vendors/experts who attempt to harass them.
upside: jerks will find someplace else to go.
Downside: none

Not changed: is the rule about commenting about a competitors diamond unless the vendor posted it for technical discussion.
There are way to many downsides to allowing it again.

I do like most of this.

Something I do want to add is that ALL posters should be held to the "no personal attack" rules. On another forum I moderate on we have a point system that allowed you to be warned with attacks. It works for everyone including moderators (if another mod found them in violation). That way if a poster attacks another whether it is a consumer or vendor, the person will get a formal warning. You were allowed 2 minor personal attacks before a 3 day ban. After 3 bans you were given a warning for a month long ban. After that any minor major attack caused permanent ban.

Usually there was a warning on the thread if many attacks were going on. Sometimes if things were on the thin line of an attack or not, the mod would say "keep attacks out of it" and to everyone calm down. If they had to come back again points were dished out. I have all the rules somewhere if someone is interested to hear the specs.

Here I notice mods say that and just threaten to close the thread. That does nothing because I find the same attackers making snide remarks at times on other threads.

There are way too many attacks on other posters IMO. It's not just a vendor on consumer as some try to claim. It really has to be respect from consumer to consumer and consumre to vendor. It isn't fair to allow people to attack no matter what.

Kenny I will ask you again, though I am sue I am "foe" why are the other vendors allowed and certain ones you dislike are not allowed to display vendor information?

My issue with some posters here is that they have a personal issue with people and are seemingly trying to get them banned simply because they don't like them. I am sure I am one that people don't like because I simply do not agree with them. I like fancy cut diamonds and can't follow "rules" That bugs me that people think I am dumb (and have been told I am not educated) because I choose with my methods. TO me calling me uneducated more than once is an attack and honestly, I am sick of it.

 

[Rockdiamond]

The last time ccl tried this tact admin removed it
The main thing it shows is the lengths he will go to attempt to personally and professionally attack me and dbl
Unlike the forum he is sending people to, PS does not seem to be a place that would solicit trash talk of one of their former advertisers simply because they stopped advertising. A shame the same can not be said of the forum ccl is sending people to.
If that's your "smoking gun" ccl, it also proves that in the 12 years Diamondsbylauren has been in existence there's one - exactly one- bad review - done in an underhanded manner where my response was not allowed
One in 12'years
Not too bad
How many positive reviews- and many right here on PS

But what exactly does that have to do with this discussion- other than discouraging other vendors from posting

 

[AGBF]

The last time ccl tried this tact admin removed it
The main thing it shows is the lengths he will go to attempt to personally and professionally attack me and dbl
Unlike the forum he is sending people to, PS does not seem to be a place that would solicit trash talk of one of their former advertisers simply because they stopped advertising. A shame the same can not be said of the forum ccl is sending people to.
If that's your "smoking gun" ccl, it also proves that in the 12 years Diamondsbylauren has been in existence there's one - exactly one- bad review - done in an underhanded manner where my response was not allowed
One in 12'years
Not too bad
How many positive reviews- and many right here on PS

But what exactly does that have to do with this discussion- other than discouraging other vendors from posting

What does this posting mean? I was reading suggestions by Karl and Kenny-and was about to post one myself-in response to Andrey. Is this a response to Andrey's request for suggestions on whether and how to entice more trade members to join the Pricescope discussions along with their pro's and con's? If not, to what are you referring? You included no statement above to show what you were referencing, David!!!

Deb/AGBF

 

[kenny]

Please continue the conversation and if possible I would like to hear what exact changes do you propose with the pros and cons that come with it.

1. Loosen rules for vendor posting; there has to be something in it for them.
2. Accept that no longer treating every vendor like the worst offender will result in a heavier moderator work load.
3. Ban vendors that, in admin's sole opinion, take more than they give or hurt more than they help, or just are not worth the trouble. No explanation is needed since this is a privately-owned website.
4. In summary, be more realistic instead of idealistic.

Edit number 3 to add . . .

3. Ban vendors (or consumers, including me) who, in admin's sole opinion, take more than they give or hurt more than they help, or just are not worth the trouble. No explanation is needed since this is a privately-owned website.

 

[CharmyPoo]

My point is that I appreciate the strict ethics of Pricescope, but I think that this dialogue was a good idea. Unlike CharmyPoo, I am not willing simply to say, "Let's applaud the vendors who can make it here right now." I think it's great to look at why some vendors and appraisers are avoiding us!

Deb - with all due respect, your quote is not something I said. It appears to be perhaps paraphrased out of context unless I just forgot I said it and if that is the case - please do point me to the post. What I said was "They sure withstand a lot of "crap" and do a lot of "time consuming" things to make a sale. In my mind, if they can keep this up, they deserve their recommendations and favoritism on here."

My point is that the vendors that are consistently recommended dedicated a lot of time to make a sale. Their profits per diamond may be lower if you count all the man hours that go into satisfying demanding customers. I have much respect for vendors that are able to satisfy a demanding and knowledgeable customer.

No where do I attempt to explain or share my thoughts about why vendors don't post here or why they "are avoiding us". The only thoughts I shared are around why certain vendors are recommended over and over again. I actually believe we should expand our horizons and I am continuously trying to find other vendors that I am happy with (I have projects on the go with non-ps vendors).

 

[Rockdiamond]

The only relevance Deb is that constant harrasement of members - be they trade or consumers is not condusive to more involvement
I was referring to ccl's post of a few hours ago

 

[CharmyPoo]

Please continue the conversation and if possible I would like to hear what exact changes do you propose with the pros and cons that come with it.

I haven't read everything in this thread but my thoughts are to hold trade and consumers to the same rules in the short term. Leverage and promote the Report Concern feature to understand what is acceptable or not. After a month or so, evaluate the concerns and identify themes to define a new set of rules.

 

[kenny]

Please continue the conversation and if possible I would like to hear what exact changes do you propose with the pros and cons that come with it.

I haven't read everything in this thread but my thoughts are to hold trade and consumers to the same rules in the short term. Leverage and promote the Report Concern feature to understand what is acceptable or not. After a month or so, evaluate the concerns and identify themes to define a new set of rules.

Huh?
So Kenny can post pics with Kenny watermarks?
Kenny can't plug diamond he's selling?
Kenny can't comment on a diamond sold by another vendor?

Hello!
Consumers and vendors have totally different motivations, so what you wrote does not make sense.
Vendors are here to make money. (Nothing wrong with that as long as they don't take more than the give)
Consumers are not.

 

[CharmyPoo]

Kenny - What I meant was to hold trade to the same rules consumers are and not the other way around. Afterall, this discussion is not about encouraging trade to join and post .. not consumers.

Please refer to policies at https://www.pricescope.com/content/forum-policies

Below are examples of current rules that are already in place and I feel cover off the general conerns of "advertising" or bashing another vendor. The one key aspect that is absent is the need for trade to identify themselves; however, I see that most trade will actively do this to promote their website. Shady vendors who chose to not disclose themselves and push their companies are covered off by the shilling related policies (not included below).

Recommendations given within the Pricescope community should be done in a good faith as genuine opinions based on personal knowledge and experience and not influenced by any commercial interests.

Any renumeration , such as discounts or any other benefits, in exchange for posted testimony, referred products or services within the Pricescope community are strictly forbidden. Please report any vendor offering you any such benefits to the “Admin”.

Posts of any special promotions/offers/surveys/coupons/quizzes/games and alike from other companies as well as affiliate based URLs are not allowed.

Do not post links or references to any other jewelry information website, forum, videos, blog, or podcast.

Do not use this forum to organize group meetings with any vendor or start vendors' "fan clubs" or the like.

No Solicitation of any kind or 'for sale' ads here. If you have questions on how to sell your jewelry, check out this topic: Reselling Gems & Jewelry.

EDIT: Typo of "revise" was corrected to "refer"

 

[CharmyPoo]

So Kenny can post pics with Kenny watermarks?
Kenny can't plug diamond he's selling?
Kenny can't comment on a diamond sold by another vendor?

If you really want to be this literal ..

Kenny can post pics with Kenny watermarks? Of course, Kenny can post pics with Kenny watermarks. I have watermarked some of my own photos. I have been on forums where they encourage posters to watermark their photos to prevent them from being stolen and reused on sites like ebay.

Kenny can't plug diamond he's selling? No, Kenny can't plug a diamond he is selling. Consumers and trade are not allow to post sale ads on here or even link to sale ads.

Kenny can't comment on a diamond sold by another vendor? In some cases, Kenny can't comment on a diamond sold by a vendor. An example would be a diamond sold to a PS member who did not solicit Kenny's opinion - Kenny is suppose to be "respectful of other users, the system, and the moderators." Obviously another would not apply as Kenny is not a diamond vendor although he may be a vendor of some sort that I am not aware of.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Andrey- my suggestion is to allow tradespeople to post photos and videos in informational threads
With moderation in place there's no downside
The way I see other aspects you're between a rock and a hard place. Members that offer a lot of content are hard to excise
I do wish the level of antagonism was less, but the essence of this forum is about the exchange of ideas so tossing prolific posters- even if they are aggressively attacking others may be tough to do
I repeat- y'all have a tough job
I think you do it well

 

[AGBF]

Deb - with all due respect, your quote is not something I said. It appears to be perhaps paraphrased out of context unless I just forgot I said it and if that is the case - please do point me to the post. What I said was "They sure withstand a lot of "crap" and do a lot of "time consuming" things to make a sale. In my mind, if they can keep this up, they deserve their recommendations and favoritism on here."

My point is that the vendors that are consistently recommended dedicated a lot of time to make a sale. Their profits per diamond may be lower if you count all the man hours that go into satisfying demanding customers. I have much respect for vendors that are able to satisfy a demanding and knowledgeable customer.

No where do I attempt to explain or share my thoughts about why vendors don't post here or why they "are avoiding us". The only thoughts I shared are around why certain vendors are recommended over and over again. I actually believe we should expand our horizons and I am continuously trying to find other vendors that I am happy with (I have projects on the go with non-ps vendors).

This is the quotation which made me think you were dismissing the idea of wooing new vendors, CharmyPoo:

"In my mind, if they can keep this up, they deserve their recommendations and favoritism on here. The others who can't take the time to satisfy a demanding customer .. certainly doesn't deserve my business."

Apparently you did not mean by this that you were uninterested in wooing new vendors. I misunderstood, so I misstated your position. I apologize.

Deb/AGBF

 

[CharmyPoo]

No hard feelings Deb I wanted to make sure I wasn't saying something I didn't mean - seems to happen a lot when I try to PS on the blackberry.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Loosen up a bit, but use standrad legal practices:

e.g Place deleted links in a forum bin where everyone can see them. If need be describe the bad behaviour.

Issue frequent and reasonable punishments e.g. ban consumers and non paying vendors for 1, 2, 3 days, a week, or a month, or a year. Give reasons publicly unless there is some powerful reason not to.

for paying vendors issue fines of say $100 and or a banning as above for 1, 2, 3 days, a week, or a month, or a year. Give reasons publicly unless there is some powerful reason not to.

Pro's - it educates everyone as to what good befahiour is, and just like parenting, grounding a teanager for a year begats sneaking out at night, where-as taking the i-Phone away for 8 hours really hurts.
Con's - initially more moderator work (but a committee of people like Deb could be judges)

Allow voting for helpful advice so that people can see who really helps and who confuses. For consumers only, or trade people only, or one system for all.
pro's - gives newbies a fair idea of who is worth listening to, and recognition for those who bother to learn and bother to help
con's - some programing costs and work and effort to refine to a workable system.

All of the above suggestions could be managed Wiki wise with a seperate forum and a guiding comitee made up of opposing sides like senate comittees.

 

[AGBF]

The only relevance Deb is that constant harrasement of members - be they trade or consumers is not condusive to more involvement
I was referring to ccl's post of a few hours ago

David-

Thank you for explaining to whom you were speaking. Indeed, I had guessed that it was to someone earlier in the thread. My point was really that it would be helpful, if you are not just following along in order, if you posted a reference above your reply. (By, "reference" I mean a point of reference, something we can refer to, like a quotation from someone else's posting.)

I am as guilty as anyone else of just posting without an elaborate quotation that others can refer to if I am in a rapid "conversation" with others. Just now, for instance, I wrote back and forth with Sharon (canuk-gal) about a stone for which she was looking. I didn't bother to do anything but talk rapidly.

However, in a long thread full of many opinions and long pauses, it would help if you showed to whom you were speaking or to what comments you were addressing your remarks.

Thanks.

Deb/AGBF

 

[arjunajane]

I disagree arajunejane. I've worked hard so as not to respond in kind to the personal attacks - I'm only human and the attacks have been quite vicious.
I'm proud of the discussions my views have spurred

RD you asked Karl for examples of consumers you had disrespected, and I responded to that question, stating that I am one amongst a number. Exactly what about my post do you disagree with? its not clear.

 

[Regular Guy]

Well, I'm up late. Andrey, thank for asking for suggestions. As usual, I have something to say. A couple of brief notes first:

John, if by chance you might have given my comments any thought in your earlier speaking of feedback, please feel free to reply any time. The most active area I engage in lately concerns ethical issues and diamonds, and although I may not be especially knowledgeable, that hasn't stopped me, and the need to bring it forward on this board is apparent enough.

Otherwise, I'd invite anyone to review the several comments from slg47, which...after reviewing these 7 pages, I find all insightful. Nevermind I still also think PS2 is an issue to be contended with (as did at least one other writer here), and I've now taken one of my comments to the technical issues thread pinned at the top of the page.

In particular, with respect to what may have emerged as a reasonable theory for a significant part of the problem, is reviewed by slg47 below:

I wasn't here, but this is what I suspect-it has to do with what I posted earlier about scientific discourse.

I imagine that at first things were amicable but then the posters who participate in scientific discourse got frustrated with the ones who did not. This turned into a general ignoring of such posters and personal attacks (which I do not condone but I understand). I can imagine it is really frustrating for those who want to educate and learn to have to deal with people who aren't willing to play by the rules, and simply claim ignorance.

Speaking of-I saw a quote today. it went something like this-"ignorance is often not a vacuum waiting to be filled, but rather a wall carefully maintained"

If we do take the sort of concern described here as pretty substantive...and I'll allow, this discounts some important opinions about the rules, which I'm (largely) going to pass on commenting on...from the point of view of looking more squarely at the content elephant in the room, I might like to hear from another voice.

For example, in the past, Sergey has been among the most gracious to RD. And, somehow, for reasons he can better speak to than I, as one who might typify the value for science, he would speak to the necessary value for RD's opinion.

I would say, Kenny's strategy about giving admin a wide birth and possible encouragement to re-ban him is not too wacky.

The fact of the matter is...without intention....this thread, as many other threads, seems to become about RD and his views. It is not...I'm not sure I really think... that a wider set of views are not accomodated. Rather, there simply becomes this vortex about which RD is so frequently at the center. I never opened the crushed ice one, and yet, I read here that that happened there, too.

So, as a first theory, I would suggest we look at the elephant, and strategize ways to make appropriate room for same. Seek out Sergey's advice, and I might encourage Andrey to seek out feedback broadly on that more narrow subject, but maybe in private...outside of this public forum.

Regarding the rules, otherwise...reasonable people have reasonably different ideas about this. I'd be open to relaxing them, frankly. I read writers complaining about their effects, and I suppose, based on the propensity of that evidence, I should now believe them. So, yes, I'd favor unbinding them, where experts say they are constrained, and that is what this thread is supposed to be about.

But, I have been moved to comment on simply what I observe as has been a more problematic issue, and which does seek out what may be more creative solutions. Alternately, again, I will say that RD, fella, somehow you take up a lot of space, and you might take a break, encouraged by admin.

I say this, of course, understanding my own tenure here is at risk at any time. We are all at the mercy of admin, as it should be.

Best wishes,

Ira Z.

 

[MAC-W]

Hello All,

Our community benefits when trade people post. In fact, trade member participation helped build our forum's reputation. Professional education is a must on our forums, but there is a fuzzy line between honest education versus agenda/promotion.

Here are a couple of examples:

Example 1: A trade member posting photos from his inventory is seen as promoting, not educating. But sometimes photos are useful or necessary.

Example 2: Trade members may not comment in threads where the vendor is known. But sometimes, professionals are best suited to comment - and those comments have led to some of our most informative discussions.

We have noticed that fewer trade members participate regularly now than some years ago. And we hear that potential new members worry about joining because the rules are strict.

What do you think? Are the policies too strict for the Trade?

Hi Everyone,

First I want to thank the trade and consumers for their honest views and thoughts on this important subject.

Second it is essential that everyone understand that Pricescope is first and foremost for consumers, and if we continue to think about what is best for consumers then we all win.

I want you all to know that I am reading everything and taking it all into account.

Please continue the conversation and if possible I would like to hear what exact changes you would propose and the pros and cons that come with it.

Hi Andrey,
Just wanted to contribute here and say, for me as a consumer there are a few things that spring immediately to mind (and this is just MY peception which may be totally different than all others but hey-ho)

1. The policies are maybe not too strict – more like confusing and difficult to know/ find / understand. I’m guessing most people (consumers) are probably like me and probably stumble across Pricescope in a google search and sign up when they want to post a question. At that point the question is the important thing and they just click OK OK OK OK OK to get as rapidly to the point of asking their question as possible. After all in this digital day and age, we see so many “policies” or “terms and conditions” and they’re normally pretty identical so we just skip over them so we can post our first question. Wrong of us? – absolutely. Understandable? – definitely. Solution: make the link to the policies more obvious AFTER someone has joined up, so that after that inital 'desperation' of the first question, there's a chance we might go back and read the policies if they are easily visible. Some new vendors might be the same, for example, they hear someone has said something degrogatory / non-flatering about them in this forum and just want to get in and respond, putting their side of the story across, so dont take the time to read all the policies and advices before posting. A one off is understandable in my opinion. Repeat offences 20 - 30 times is not.

2. The thing with no logos on vendor pics needs to be clarified. I’ve spent quite some time on various threads I’ve posted in, removing vendor logos from pictures of settings or gems that I’ve posted, although I will admit that a couple of times I have forgotten to do so. I’ve always just taken it pretty much as gospel that pictures can’t have vendor logos ‘cos that’s what 'everybody' said when PS2 came online. I know, ‘mea culpa’!!!! but it wasn’t until today and I saw this thread that I went actively looking for the Forum Policies. (not easy to find in my opinion – I made a couple of attempts to find it from the home page. In the end I gave up and did a search and found them eventually). Once I actually read through the Forum Policies today (from start to finish) I realised there is nothing stated about consumers having to remove vendor logos. In fact General rule No. 10 specifically states

“You will not post any copyrighted material without appropriate acknowledgements.”

To me, having Vendor logos on the pictures seems to be the ideal way to do this, but that doesnt seem to be the percpetion amongst members.

3. In the front of your policies you state “this is a consumer education site”. But things like the videos and articles you prepare for education are not easily accessible from the forums (or at least not for me – maybe I’m just not very forum savvy, but I would guess a lot of newbies may be like me, particularly those of my age group and older who didn’t grow up with the internet). It would be good if the link to these were more prominent. As it is, since being told on another thread that there is another website which has lots of informative videos, I tend to go there as it is easier to find what I want on that one.

4. As far as vendors posting here, I find myself in sympathy with a lot of what the trade members have said earlier in this thread. For them to post here means they have to take time out from their normal day job of earning a buck which quite rightly is and should be their number 1 priority. So they should be able to feel that their contributions here might lead to increased sales enquires / business. Schilling - definitely stamp that out... and stamp it out hard! but ‘reasonable’ promotion of stock shouldn’t be an issue. After all that’s just what the prosumers and experienced consumers do (point out a stone on a website the poster may not be familiar with but fits their criteria). Is it really any different when Lorelei does it or when Jonathon/James Allen/ Brian Gavin does it? There are enough experienced members here that if a trade member inappropriately offers a stone from their own inventory, they will be “jumped on” and the inappropriateness highlighted.

5. I like the idea that others have said about offense points leading to warnings (with explanation) then ultimately bannings if the offense persists, but think that should apply to consumers as well as vendors. There a number of experienced consumers on PS that definitely tend to favour one or two vendors to the exclusion of all others and point to stones that aren’t what the original poster asked for (and do it in quite a bullying manner with little or no explanation other than an ‘I know better than you’ attitude rather than an educative manner). If they were vendors they would be "chastised" but because they are consumers nothing is said. That seems wrong to me.

As I said, these are just my views as a frequent lurker but not too frequent poster.

 

[MAC-W]

Just wanted to add, two of the best statements I’ve seen on Pricescope come from Neil Beaty in the article “A jewelers guide for how to get along with Pricescope” and are possibly some of the wisest pieces of advice I’ve ever seen (and applies to consumers, prosumers and vendors alike IMO) I think Andrey they embody what you are hoping will be the predominant behaviours on the Forums.

If you see something that annoys you, avoid the tendency to jump in and respond. There’ll be time for that later. Keep on reading and you’ll often see other posters come in and offer a correction or at least an alternative view. Notice who comes across like they are a knowledgeable pro and who comes off looking like a jackass. Your objective is to be one of the former, not the latter, right?

you don’t have to agree but it’s important for you to have an understanding of where they’re coming from. It’s a fundamental of debate that you must understand both sides of any argument. What if they’re right?

 

[MAC-W]

Kenny, I see you’ve complained a few times on this thread about RockDiamond having his business link in his signature line, for example

<snip> which keeps his sigline's link to his sales website in front of more eyeballs.

and

Maybe I'd talk to him after he deleted his sales link for, say, a year.

but trade members having their business link in their signature line is not actually against forum rules

General rule No.3

For your privacy and security do not post any private information including emails, personal pages, and usernames on other sites or IM's on the open forums. Diamond trade members contributing with educational information may post links in their signature.

A lot of (most) other trade members do it also (just on Page 1 in this thread alone I can see that Karl_K, DenverAppraiser, Michael_E, DigitalDevo, ModifiedBrilliant, RockDiamond, Garry H, Paul-Antwerp, OldMiner, SerenityDiamonds and JudahGutwein are the trade members who posted and every single one of them have links to their websites in their signature line.

Why are you singling out RD about siglinks and not the others?

I normally like what you post and find you quite insightful, funny and informative, but on this issue you seem to be not quite your usual self.

Your own signature line states “The only thing I can't tolerate is intolerance”, but I have to say you seem to be remarkably intolerant of RockDiamond on this issue. Just saying!

I think the best thing for you to do is just put him on your foes list then you will be able to follow your own advice

<snip> just ignore all the brilliant, seductive, involving, tempting bait he throws out.

 

[PinkTower]

I would not like to see a watermark across a diamond photo. I find watermarks very distracting. If someone wishes to watermark, in an attempt to protect their property, fine; I respect that. However, reducing a three dimensional diamond to a photograph is already distorting enough for those of us trying to view fine detail without superimposing a banner over the top of the stone.
I prefer the vendor be allowed to place their name discretely below their diamond. I do not consider a tiny logo to be undue advertising when a consumer, not a tradesperson, chooses to share their property on the forum. Also, some of us like to keep files of stones we like, and later on, under the current system which does not allow a logo, we have no way to determine where the photo came from.