Review section

[Drache]

Ok this will most likely be locked and/or thrown into the trash but I noticed something kind of alarming with reviews about retailers. It seems that when people review a retailer badly, the posts are locked, and the people are flamed. Shouldn't it be allowed that a retailer can receive negative feedback just as well as good? If not then why have a feedback system at all? If you can post a bad review about a gun, you should be able to do the same for the company that sold it to you.

Granted allot of the complaints turn into bitch fests, but I think a simple stickied thread about a retailer with a simple poll "Did you like your service: Yes/No" would be better. Yes I know there is a damn feedback system that does it, but how many times has someone not left bad feedback because they are worried about getting bad feedback in return? This is what finally screwed the ebay feedback system up! Ebay finally made it so sellers cannot leave the buyers bad feedback! Im not saying do this, I'm simply saying allow retailers/sellers to have bad reviews without locking/deleting them.

[Tex]

the review section was at first for product reviews not retailer reviews. we have a feedback system you can use that for retailers.

a sub-forum for for retailers might be good.

[Drache]

Originally Posted by Tex

the review section was at first for product reviews not retailer reviews. we have a feedback system you can use that for retailers.

a sub-forum for for retailers might be good.

Like I said above, people wont leave honest feedback because of retaliatory feedback....

If you pay instantly without hassle, only to get a defective product, wrong product, or just plain ripped off money wise, and leave the retailer bad feedback, the seller is allowed to leave you bad feedback without giving a real reason!

But personally I believe a RETAILER should be treated more "special" than a normal seller on the classifieds! If you have a stickied post in the classifieds, you should be allowed to be reviewed!

I believe that the only way for the feedback to be 100% effective is you have to list a VALID reason why negative feedback was left and link to the ad! A simple "bad buyer do not deal with" or whatever is NOT A VALID EXPLINATION!

[the2tower]

Yes that a good think, and do the same for those who are bad buyer!

[Brian McIlmoyle]

A review is a unbiased assessment of something... you can review a thing.. like a gun because its attributes are fixed.. it is what it is. either it is good or it is bad.. it has properties that can be assessed.
You can review a play or a movie.. because again, it is a thing. that can be measured against specific criteria.

Reviewing a "person" ( because the retailers left are people.. not companies) becomes more problematic. People can have good days and bad.. people can get along with one person and not with another.

Reviewing behavior is a lot more difficult.

One person could think that waiting 4 days to get a reply from an e-mail is completely reasonable... another thinks if they have to wait an hour its a catastophe. So right there .. you get one review.. satisfied.. the other not.. as a result of the same behavior.

If you are going to review something.. you need to have established criteria .. that everyone agrees is relavant.

Otherwise.. all you can do is relate your personal experience with that person.. which is what the retailer feedback does.

Legally you have to be careful what you say about people.. particularly if what you have to say could injure them financially. If it is true .. not much of an issue .. but if subjective ... you could end up in hot water.

[Drache]

Originally Posted by Brian McIlmoyle

A review is a unbiased assessment of something... you can review a thing.. like a gun because its attributes are fixed.. it is what it is. either it is good or it is bad.. it has properties that can be assessed.
You can review a play or a movie.. because again, it is a thing. that can be measured against specific criteria.

Reviewing a "person" ( because the retailers left are people.. not companies) becomes more problematic. People can have good days and bad.. people can get along with one person and not with another.

Reviewing behavior is a lot more difficult.

One person could think that waiting 4 days to get a reply from an e-mail is completely reasonable... another thinks if they have to wait an hour its a catastophe. So right there .. you get one review.. satisfied.. the other not.. as a result of the same behavior.

If you are going to review something.. you need to have established criteria .. that everyone agrees is relavant.

Otherwise.. all you can do is relate your personal experience with that person.. which is what the retailer feedback does.

Legally you have to be careful what you say about people.. particularly if what you have to say could injure them financially. If it is true .. not much of an issue .. but if subjective ... you could end up in hot water.

Actually you cannot legally be held responsible for givign your opinion of business/customer service otherwise people couldn't review resturaunts in local papers.

But once again people think the feedback program is the place to do this. But once AGAIN I have to remind people that how can you get an honest opinion of a business when people are too afraid to leave negative feedbacks because of retaliatory feedback from the business?!

And yes someone CAN have a bad day but it it happens over and over and over shouldn't people be allowed to express their views? One bad day isn't going to wreck someone's business but if they keep screwing up then people should be able to read good and bad reviews and make their own choice.

So unless ASC stops sellers from leaving buyers negative feedback (which isnt a good idea cause there can be bad buyers) then they need to make it so the negative feedback rating REQUIRES a valid explaination of what bad feedback is left. Until this time then a Retailer Review section should be allowed....

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by Drache

Actually you cannot legally be held responsible for givign your opinion of business/customer service otherwise people couldn't review resturaunts in local papers.

Actually you can be held liable for reviews in papers etc. You should see the insurance policies and litigation departments that most papers have for just that purpose.

You can also be held liable for an opinion published on the internet.

Ld

[Brian McIlmoyle]

Originally Posted by Drache

Actually you cannot legally be held responsible for givign your opinion of business/customer service otherwise people couldn't review resturaunts in local papers.

But once again people think the feedback program is the place to do this. But once AGAIN I have to remind people that how can you get an honest opinion of a business when people are too afraid to leave negative feedbacks because of retaliatory feedback from the business?!

And yes someone CAN have a bad day but it it happens over and over and over shouldn't people be allowed to express their views? One bad day isn't going to wreck someone's business but if they keep screwing up then people should be able to read good and bad reviews and make their own choice.

So unless ASC stops sellers from leaving buyers negative feedback (which isnt a good idea cause there can be bad buyers) then they need to make it so the negative feedback rating REQUIRES a valid explaination of what bad feedback is left. Until this time then a Retailer Review section should be allowed....

Reviewing a restaruant is different than reviewing a person..

Saying the food was bad is very different than saying the chef is "clueless in the kitchen" one talks about product the other, person

Saying something is bad is an assesment... saying someone is bad is an insult. ( if you can't back it up)

If I am buying ... I am interested in what other buyers have had to say.. I could care less what the seller has to say about buyers ( and I am very unlikely to go and look at the feedback received by a buyer .. why would I?)

This site.. has to be concerned about what appears in its forums... they could be held responsible for publishing statements that are injurious to people.

For the most part people express their opinions with their money.. bad experience.. don't use the service again.. this way the market is self correcting for bad sellers.... eventually their bad practices will result in loss of trade.

[Gunk]

It is my opinion that being held accountable for opinions on the internet sucks, and whomever came up with that rule also blows the big one.

Hold me accountable for that!

So you can really be disciplined for writing an honest review about crappy service and food (which genuinly deserved it's review) and publish it and get in trouble? Nasty filthy hobbit law...

never mind... I'm just too quick to wait for Brian...

[Drache]

To be charged with slander/defamation the prosecutor must prove you were TRYING to "damage the reputation"....

Read below, it must be proven that what you said about the business or product is untrue...

Where a person's goods are brought into discredit, rather than suing for defamation, the tort of injurious falsehood or slander of goods would be applied (See Flaman Wholesale v. Firman et al (1982), 17 Sask. R. 305). This tort; however, requires proof of monetary damages. This has become prominent in Cyberspace as disgruntled ex-employees or dissatisfied customers have taken to posting complaints along with defamatory statements on the web. For the plaintiff, this tort is available where: first there was a statement made about the plaintiff's goods; second that the statement was false; third that the statement was published maliciously (dishonestly with improper motive); and lastly, that the plaintiff suffered special damage.

Dietrich further notes that in Canada, legitimate comparisons between products are generally not actionable. However, the distinction between disparaging comments and truthful comparisons is often a fine one and the test used to identify when a statement constitutes slander of goods involves determining what a reasonable person with knowledge of the facts would conclude. (17) In order to be liable the defendant need not necessarily named the plaintiff or the product(s) directly but rather where an implication will be drawn by the public that the defendant's disparaging comments must necessarily have been referring to the plaintiff's product (for instance when there are only two products in a market).(18)

[Lawdog]

Please don't make me do a law lecture.

The law of Slander of Goods that you quote about is a very, very, very, narrow part of the general law of libel and slander. The quote above would apply to something like "TM is better than CA", not a comment on a legal entity like a business or a person.

There are ways to criticize or make negative comments about something that are not actionable, but just making a blanket statement that a review cannot cause a successful lawsuit is simply wrong.

Ld

PS- slander and libel in Canada is not a criminal offense, but a civil tort. Thus there is no prosecuter involved, nor is one "charged".

[Brian McIlmoyle]

misconception that what appears on the internet "does not matter"

It is a public forum potentially visible to millions of people. It matters.. This medium is persistant and public... what you say here you are responsible for.

[Drache]

If I call a business/person a THIEF then yes that it slander, but if I say that they sent me one item instead of two and kept the monatery difference then that is not slander, defamation, nor libel....

[mcguyver]

Retaliatory feedback is not permitted on ASC. If it happens, report it to a mod or admin. It's their job to sort that shit out.

Therefore, leave appropriate feedback. Keep reviews for products, not people.

Nobody would like it if we started reviews on people.

[Drache]

Originally Posted by mcguyver

Retaliatory feedback is not permitted on ASC. If it happens, report it to a mod or admin. It's their job to sort that shit out.

Therefore, leave appropriate feedback. Keep reviews for products, not people.

Nobody would like it if we started reviews on people.

If this is true then I retract everything about the review section. Now the big problem is how can you tell if it IS retaliatory feedback?

On ebay the problem is buyer would leave seller bad feedback about item so buyer made something up (IE late payment or something like that). Buyer complains to Ebay and ebay removes both feedback because it doesn't want to take time sorting out who is right and who is wrong.

Besides feedback/reviews on people isn't all bad, I can leave feedback and a review on anyone I do business with through paypal. Anyone who then does business with that person can read the review and/or feedback.