Rant/vent/plea….
This concerns the conundrum or receiving stressed, diseased, bleached or famished livestock within the framework of most vendors DOA policy.
Unlike vendors selling consumer electronic products, vendors selling “biologicals” simply have no way to reasonably parse out their liability from end user neglect. Therefore DOA policies usually expire in 24hrs leaving LOTS of surface area for shipping products with a pre existing “death sentence”: Bleached corals, gaping clams, skinny fish, et…
….basically us livestock consumers receive products that are technically alive as agreed but in fact have a much more limited shelf life than than expected.
The consumers depend on word of mouth and vendor feedback to shape our purchasing choices. A Formal Feedback system is a compiled form of this. Negative feedback bias not withstanding, positive resolution of a negative transaction also has value, and a feedback system should also provide information about problem resolution.
While I fully understand that an open forum with multiple contributors in a single thread makes accurate feedback difficult (a vendor flame thread) I likewise wonder if the current vendor feedback format that has us sifting though many pages of feedback from a single vendor is any more accurate/efficient than sifting through pages of many vendors with a single contributor per thread.
When looking at feedback I ask:
What was the loss? what was the compensation?
What was the reason for the loss?
What part of this issue got resolved via email or pm?
…..and there is the rub: under the current system, any part of dialogue between vendor and customer can remain private. If the problem and its resolution can’t be followed from end to end then what’s the point?
if the point of this privacy is to remain “flexible” on a “case by case” basis, then that’s my point: the advantage of dialogue privacy serves only the vendor, it slows needed process change.
Trunacated/private feedback/resolution = inaccurate feedback/resolution
I just had an issue with a vendor, turns out it wasn’t a single incident. I get that threads of vendor “flame fest” can affect a websites bottom line but IMO the current format isn’t informing the public as well as it should
I might have saved a few thousand had this issue been available to me in a public open forum. I wasted a lot of time and money
This concerns the conundrum or receiving stressed, diseased, bleached or famished livestock within the framework of most vendors DOA policy.
Unlike vendors selling consumer electronic products, vendors selling “biologicals” simply have no way to reasonably parse out their liability from end user neglect. Therefore DOA policies usually expire in 24hrs leaving LOTS of surface area for shipping products with a pre existing “death sentence”: Bleached corals, gaping clams, skinny fish, et…
….basically us livestock consumers receive products that are technically alive as agreed but in fact have a much more limited shelf life than than expected.
The consumers depend on word of mouth and vendor feedback to shape our purchasing choices. A Formal Feedback system is a compiled form of this. Negative feedback bias not withstanding, positive resolution of a negative transaction also has value, and a feedback system should also provide information about problem resolution.
While I fully understand that an open forum with multiple contributors in a single thread makes accurate feedback difficult (a vendor flame thread) I likewise wonder if the current vendor feedback format that has us sifting though many pages of feedback from a single vendor is any more accurate/efficient than sifting through pages of many vendors with a single contributor per thread.
When looking at feedback I ask:
What was the loss? what was the compensation?
What was the reason for the loss?
What part of this issue got resolved via email or pm?
…..and there is the rub: under the current system, any part of dialogue between vendor and customer can remain private. If the problem and its resolution can’t be followed from end to end then what’s the point?
if the point of this privacy is to remain “flexible” on a “case by case” basis, then that’s my point: the advantage of dialogue privacy serves only the vendor, it slows needed process change.
Trunacated/private feedback/resolution = inaccurate feedback/resolution
I just had an issue with a vendor, turns out it wasn’t a single incident. I get that threads of vendor “flame fest” can affect a websites bottom line but IMO the current format isn’t informing the public as well as it should
I might have saved a few thousand had this issue been available to me in a public open forum. I wasted a lot of time and money
Last edited: