Specifications for vendors to remain on recommended list

[T L]

This subject came up in another thread, and I was asked to open a new thread on it. In the colored stones forum, there is a sticky at the top with a vendor recommendation list. I think it would be a great idea to have more specifications for vendors to remain on the list, other than someone was happy with them. Examples of those specifications would be:

Good communication
No hassle refunds
Accurate photographic representation
Fair retail pricing

I often think it's too easy to put vendors on the list, and while they may have made one client happy, they fail in other specific areas of customer service with other customers. I believe this would save other people from aggravation and potential loss.

What are your thoughts on this, and are there other specifications we should add other than the ones I recommended?

 

[chrono]

I think good customer service should added. Prompt and polite communication, and meeting the promised dateline falls under good customer service. Sometimes the vendor may not meet the promised dateline but if it is a one time occurrence, coupled with good communication and follow up, that falls under good customer service.

Does it take 3 strikes for a vendor to be removed from the list? At what point and for what reasons will a vendor be removed?

 

[Marlow]

TL

Excellent Idea

Chrono

I think polite communication - o.k. but vendor and customer should be polite and fair.

Shipping expensive stones around the world for several weeks with a risk of damage or lost and losing much money - only course you regret buying a stones or you want to check which one is better - and send the other back....sometimes maybe not fair.

One reason why I am not in the trade - I could not accept this. But I understand many expect this...

Do not hate me for this but it is just my opinion.

 

[digdeep]

Two cents:

1.) It would be nice if there was a time period considered. 6 months of consistent service and experiences would be nice. The list could be reviewed yearly at a minimum for updates/additions/deletions.

2.) Remove all the vendors that no longer have websites or broken links. Such as Vance Gems under Ebay stone vendors.

Having said this I understand that this is voluntary and REALLY appreciate the efforts that go into maintaining and improving this service!

 

[GregS]

I agree with the above, at the very least remove broken links. However, I met the wife of the owner of Vance gems at a show and she was an incredibly sweet classy lady. I bought a nice Zircon from her.

 

[chrono]

Vance Gems is still around though (active in gem shows) so they should still be listed but their contact information needs to be updated.

 

[chrono]

Marlow,
Courteous two way communication and expectation between vendor and customer is a given. Understanding that international shipping (additional taxes, shipping times and insurance issues) is also different from local shipping is a given. Can you elaborate your concerns?

 

[digdeep]

If Vance gems doesn't have an online presence that needs to be clarified. I've looked for them at gem shows and I must be in an area they don't travel to. Any way to support clear access to them would be good! I would to see some of their gems!

 

[T L]

Vance Gems is still around though (active in gem shows) so they should still be listed but their contact information needs to be updated.

They have a FB page, and I believe phone numbers or contact information is there.

I don't think a vendor should be excluded if they're in business, but don't maintain an individual website.

I am unsure if we are allowed to post their FB page (would have to check with Ella on that).

ETA: Ella said it was okay to add their FB page as long as it was a business page and not a personal one, so I added it to the list.

 

[T L]

Shipping expensive stones around the world for several weeks with a risk of damage or lost and losing much money - only course you regret buying a stones or you want to check which one is better - and send the other back....sometimes maybe not fair.

What drives me nuts are some vendors that tell you not to insure the stones when you send them back. How scary is that??!!

They need to provide fool-proof shipping instructions otherwise (if that's even possible).

 

[minousbijoux]

I think it would be a great idea to have more specifications for vendors to remain on the list, other than someone was happy with them. Examples of those specifications would be:

Good communication
No hassle refunds
Accurate photographic representation
Fair retail pricing

I often think it's too easy to put vendors on the list, and while they may have made one client happy, they fail in other specific areas of customer service with other customers. I believe this would save other people from aggravation and potential loss.

What are your thoughts on this, and are there other specifications we should add other than the ones I recommended?

Thanks TL for actually starting the thread that we've all been talking about starting for some time! I agree with just about everything posters have said so far. It seems there are two categories for would be vendors: 1) seller practices necessary to make the cut; and 2) steps necessary to get on the list. For the first category, we have so far:

- Good Communication
- Good Customer Service (timely responses; notification/response to problems/changes)
- No Hassle Refunds
- Accurate Photographic Representation
- Fair Retail Pricing

Good list. My only concern is with the last item, Fair Retail Pricing. While I agree, how do we go about assessing this? For example, for a long time, many of us have felt that certain sellers were significantly overpriced. Do they come off the list? Is there some justification/guideline for how we judge this?

I would also like to add one other: Ethics of Seller. There have been instances where sellers have either been dropped from the list or have come close to being dropped for inappropriate behavior outside the scope of direct selling. Should this be taken into consideration? For example, if we become aware that a vendor on the list is threatening a PSer or is running an illegal/questionable side business are they removed?

As to how to get on the list, I agree that there should be valid measure by which new members are added. A while ago, a fairly new member came along, said something great about a seller and added the seller. I have not seen that PS member around since, nor has there been any mention of that vendor, and yet they are on the list. Is this standard acceptable? Should we have, as others suggest, a trial period? A minimum number of recommendations?

What does it take to remove someone? I like the idea of three strikes, as it eliminates the rare personality clashes or unrealistic clients from having a good vendor removed just due to their own discord.

 

[T L]

I think it would be a great idea to have more specifications for vendors to remain on the list, other than someone was happy with them. Examples of those specifications would be:

Good communication
No hassle refunds
Accurate photographic representation
Fair retail pricing

I often think it's too easy to put vendors on the list, and while they may have made one client happy, they fail in other specific areas of customer service with other customers. I believe this would save other people from aggravation and potential loss.

What are your thoughts on this, and are there other specifications we should add other than the ones I recommended?

Thanks TL for actually starting the thread that we've all been talking about starting for some time! I agree with just about everything posters have said so far. It seems there are two categories for would be vendors: 1) seller practices necessary to make the cut; and 2) steps necessary to get on the list. For the first category, we have so far:

- Good Communication
- Good Customer Service (timely responses; notification/response to problems/changes)
- No Hassle Refunds
- Accurate Photographic Representation
- Fair Retail Pricing

Good list. My only concern is with the last item, Fair Retail Pricing. While I agree, how do we go about assessing this? For example, for a long time, many of us have felt that certain sellers were significantly overpriced. Do they come off the list? Is there some justification/guideline for how we judge this?

I would also like to add one other: Ethics of Seller. There have been instances where sellers have either been dropped from the list or have come close to being dropped for inappropriate behavior outside the scope of direct selling. Should this be taken into consideration? For example, if we become aware that a vendor on the list is threatening a PSer or is running an illegal/questionable side business are they removed?

As to how to get on the list, I agree that there should be valid measure by which new members are added. A while ago, a fairly new member came along, said something great about a seller and added the seller. I have not seen that PS member around since, nor has there been any mention of that vendor, and yet they are on the list. Is this standard acceptable? Should we have, as others suggest, a trial period? A minimum number of recommendations?

What does it take to remove someone? I like the idea of three strikes, as it eliminates the rare personality clashes or unrealistic clients from having a good vendor removed just due to their own discord.

I agree that ethics are very important and that seller should be removed. I also don't like his return policy and how he asks people to return items (uninsured), and several people have complained his prices are in the stratosphere, and his photography is very inaccurate. I believe there were enough complaints in that thread to warrant removal. There have also been complaints in the past about his photography, but evidently, it's not been fixed.

I would also not just add someone until more than one person comes forward with good comments.

 

[minousbijoux]

I agree that ethics are very important and that seller should be removed. I also don't like his return policy and how he asks people to return items (uninsured), and several people have complained his prices are in the stratosphere, and his photography is very inaccurate. I believe there were enough complaints in that thread to warrant removal. There have also been complaints in the past about his photography, but evidently, it's not been fixed.

I would also not just add someone until more than one person comes forward with good comments.

TL: believe it or not, although I know to whom you are referring, I was not referring to that seller. There was another seller (in fact, two now) that was dropped from the list for absolutely inappropriate contact with clients/consumers. As to the one of whom you speak, I think that particular seller will likely continue to skate around the margins, but hasn't done anything sufficiently egregious (at least nothing that I'm aware of) to get knocked off yet. Its a free market and even if you and I think his photos are awful, his policies appear questionable, and his prices are ridiculous (we do, really do!), apparently others don't seem to mind.

I also absolutely agree with the bolded sentence.

 

[T L]

I agree that ethics are very important and that seller should be removed. I also don't like his return policy and how he asks people to return items (uninsured), and several people have complained his prices are in the stratosphere, and his photography is very inaccurate. I believe there were enough complaints in that thread to warrant removal. There have also been complaints in the past about his photography, but evidently, it's not been fixed.

I would also not just add someone until more than one person comes forward with good comments.

TL: believe it or not, although I know to whom you are referring, I was not referring to that seller. There was another seller (in fact, two now) that was dropped from the list for absolutely inappropriate contact with clients/consumers. As to the one of whom you speak, I think that particular seller will likely continue to skate around the margins, but hasn't done anything sufficiently egregious (at least nothing that I'm aware of) to get knocked off yet. Its a free market and even if you and I think his photos are awful, his policies appear questionable, and his prices are ridiculous (we do, really do!), apparently others don't seem to mind.

I also absolutely agree with the bolded sentence.

Well, if someone wants to put him back, that's fine. I have been on this forum for years, and like you, I've seen him skate around the margins. If we do decide to put up specifications however, he has clearly broken some of the recommended ones. It's also not that I think his photos are awful, but they're highly inaccurate to many people on this board, and this complaint has been going on for years. Pricing is really important IMO. Over pricing is one thing, but justifying ultra high prices for various reasons, and even admitting to being very expensive, is just not what I think this consumer forum is about.

That brings up another point, how do we enact these specifications?

 

[chrono]

Before additions and deletions begin, we need to spell out the requirements clearly and have most PSers speak up. I understand it can feel awkward for some posters because the list is self-moderating.

 

[Marlow]

Chrono,

I think it is a very good idea - three strikes ( not the same person!) - we need vendors with fine gems and fair prices so this would be fair!

TL,

you know I often posted that some offered gems are to expensive or overpriced!
(
Normally I don't care but my problem is if somebody recommands maybe to a newbie a gem which is def. overpriced.
Nobody would accept if some say an LI stone is loupeclean or a dark murky stone is vivid - so warning PSer is absolutely o.k.!!!!
)......

( I was not fast enough - you say exactly what I mean!!!!!!!! Cut, Clarity, Color AND THE PRICE!!!! )

We know which one we are talking about but - fair play - what about a BIG dealer in FCD or a BIG player in CS from California USA?????

They offer extremely overpriced gems too......???

 

[minousbijoux]

I agree that ethics are very important and that seller should be removed. I also don't like his return policy and how he asks people to return items (uninsured), and several people have complained his prices are in the stratosphere, and his photography is very inaccurate. I believe there were enough complaints in that thread to warrant removal. There have also been complaints in the past about his photography, but evidently, it's not been fixed.

I would also not just add someone until more than one person comes forward with good comments.

TL: believe it or not, although I know to whom you are referring, I was not referring to that seller. There was another seller (in fact, two now) that was dropped from the list for absolutely inappropriate contact with clients/consumers. As to the one of whom you speak, I think that particular seller will likely continue to skate around the margins, but hasn't done anything sufficiently egregious (at least nothing that I'm aware of) to get knocked off yet. Its a free market and even if you and I think his photos are awful, his policies appear questionable, and his prices are ridiculous (we do, really do!), apparently others don't seem to mind.

I also absolutely agree with the bolded sentence.

Well, if someone wants to put him back, that's fine. I have been on this forum for years, and like you, I've seen him skate around the margins. If we do decide to put up specifications however, he has clearly broken some of the recommended ones. It's also not that I think his photos are awful, but they're highly inaccurate to many people on this board, and this complaint has been going on for years. Pricing is really important IMO. Over pricing is one thing, but justifying ultra high prices for various reasons, and even admitting to being very expensive, is just not what I think this consumer forum is about.

That brings up another point, how do we enact these specifications?

Oh, sorry, I'm apparently one page back, as I didn't realize he'd been taken off - no complaints from me if he has been.

 

[T L]

Point taken, I removed my last deletion from the list. Thanks everyone for the clarity.

 

[chrono]

Marlow,
I think the 2 overpriced you mentioned have 2 things going for them:
1. Hassle free return (and you WILL get your money back)
2. Good customer service.

ETA
Make that 3 things - a large inventory. Sometimes, a consumer needs the stone in a hurry and may have to pay more to get what they want within that rushed time frame.

 

[T L]

Chrono,

I think it is a very good idea - three strikes ( not the same person!) - we need vendors with fine gems and fair prices so this would be fair!

TL,

you know I often posted that some offered gems are to expensive or overpriced!

Normally I don't care but my problem is if somebody recommands maybe to a newbie a gem which is def. overpriced.
Nobody would accept if some say an LI stone is loupeclean or a dark murky stone is vivid - so warning PSer is absolutely o.k.!!!!

We know which one we are talking about but - fair play - what about a BIG dealer in FCD or a BIG player in CS from California USA?????

They offer extremely overpriced gems too......???

Well, that's fine Marlow, I know vendors can charge what they want, but how about the issue with again, extremely inaccurate photos? Or the issue with telling people they can't insure gems for return, and limiting it to a five day return policy, which overseas, can be difficult and full of hassle, worry and aggravation? I also don't appreciate the fact that they refer to treated gems as not gems, that was another issue, but okay, it's an opinon. ????

In any case, back to the topic at hand, we need to come up with specifications I think, which is why I opened this thread. Consumers use that list a lot and it speaks to this forum as a whole, so it's important we keep it full of highly reputable vendors that adhere to standards.

Now, should we enact this list, and if so, how? How many complaints does it warrant to be removed?

Any other specifications?

 

[minousbijoux]

Chrono,

I think it is a very good idea - three strikes ( not the same person!) - we need vendors with fine gems and fair prices so this would be fair!

TL,

you know I often posted that some offered gems are to expensive or overpriced!

Normally I don't care but my problem is if somebody recommands maybe to a newbie a gem which is def. overpriced.
Nobody would accept if some say an LI stone is loupeclean or a dark murky stone is vivid - so warning PSer is absolutely o.k.!!!!

We know which one we are talking about but - fair play - what about a BIG dealer in FCD or a BIG player in CS from California USA?????

They offer extremely overpriced gems too......???

So here's where it starts to get dicey. Marlow, you've clearly been around the block (and around, and around and around!) so you know prices extremely well and as was mentioned in another thread a while back, likely have contacts that afford you excellent pricing, probably closer to wholesale than the majority of PSers can obtain. I am not trying to defend overpriced gem dealers at all, but just want us all to acknowledge that the playing field may not exactly be level; that many will likely not find that "BIG player in CS from California" hugely priced because there are not many other big, trusted, US-based, internet accessible options (actually the other one that comes to mind is also in California and is even MORE expensive).

 

[minousbijoux]

Chrono,

I think it is a very good idea - three strikes ( not the same person!) - we need vendors with fine gems and fair prices so this would be fair!

TL,

you know I often posted that some offered gems are to expensive or overpriced!

Normally I don't care but my problem is if somebody recommands maybe to a newbie a gem which is def. overpriced.
Nobody would accept if some say an LI stone is loupeclean or a dark murky stone is vivid - so warning PSer is absolutely o.k.!!!!

We know which one we are talking about but - fair play - what about a BIG dealer in FCD or a BIG player in CS from California USA?????

They offer extremely overpriced gems too......???

Well, that's fine Marlow, I know vendors can charge what they want, but how about the issue with again, extremely inaccurate photos? Or the issue with telling people they can't insure gems for return, and limiting it to a five day return policy, which overseas, can be difficult and full of hassle, worry and aggravation? I also don't appreciate the fact that they refer to treated gems as not gems, that was another issue, but okay, it's an opinon. ????

In any case, back to the topic at hand, we need to come up with specifications I think, which is why I opened this thread. Consumers use that list a lot and it speaks to this forum as a whole, so it's important we keep it full of highly reputable vendors that adhere to standards.

Now, should we enact this list, and if so, how? How many complaints does it warrant to be removed?

Any other specifications?

I gotta say, when you put it like that, TL, it does seem like its begging the question of deletion. I think this vendor is a good test case and, once we've all weighed in on policy, its probably time to call the question on whether he stays or goes.

 

[digdeep]

The basis of this forum is to educate and inform about colored stones. There are some vendors that charge a higher price for their gems and they consistently sell higher value gems that match up with their descriptions/photo's/product. If someone sells low quality gems at a high price I don't recommend them. We can focus on photo issues, but the reality is that many CS are difficult to photograph. The point I would focus on is the description of the gem by the vendor......if the description is an adjective inflamed monologue and not accurate about the gem then it's no different than a photo shopped picture that is meant to mislead. I don't know how many vendor's do this.........but we all know at least one!
This is where the price to value ratio comes into play.............when words don't match up with the gem's value. And yes, that's a range from a minimum to maximum for most PS folks based on gem variety, color, cut, clarity, return policy, etc

 

[T L]

Yes, Minous, we need to let more PS'ers weigh in first.

I would like to discuss the specification of unfair retail pricing though. How is that determined?

For example, there is a thread here on a Tiffany & Co ring that someone is deliberating on. Everyone said it's too highly priced, but you are paying for the name of the designer (Tiffany). I don't know what justifies the cost on some gems that are almost identical (cut, color, carat weight, treatment status, etc. . . ) but are thousands, yes thousands of a percent more than a similar gem elsewhere in the retail market. I've seen that, and the justification was poor IMO. At least the Tiffany & Co piece has a name ascribed to it, and will always sell for more on the secondary market as a result, even if a very similar ring is found elsewhere.

 

[sparkleismyfavcolor]

Thanks TL for starting this thread! LOVE this idea. I know it will take some doing, but I think it will be so helpful, and I volunteer to help if you need it. Everyone has raised such great and valid points, I know it'll be work to iron out the details but it'll be great when complete!

The hardest part will probably be deciding when a vendor gets to go on the list, and when a vendor gets pulled. Would it be possible to have a poll at the top like on some threads with vendor's names (instead of a setting option for example) so that PS'ers could "vote" for vendors they have good experiences with?

I'm the type of person who researches EVERYTHING (maybe to the point of OCD! ) and has trouble making a decision so I love consumer websites and forums like this one where you can get past all the advertising and get real people's opinions to help you make a decision. I also like sites like Consumer Reports that accept no advertising and hence are supposed to have no bias when they rate a product. While they don't rate the companies providing the products per se, we could still use their ratings as a very rough guide for recommended vendors. Here is an example:



In place of the "price and shop" could be contact info/website etc, and for value in pricing, maybe you could use restaurant ratings as an example, for instance the lowest priced vendor would have one $ (least pricy) as their rating and the most expensive would have $$$$$ (however many dollar signs if we are using US currency symbols) as their price rating. From there, you can just choose whatever specific aspects to rate each vendor on across the board, and what rating system to use (poor, average, excellent, etc). Just some ideas!

 

[chrono]

Is it possible for the anonymous poll to be circumvented by vendors and consumers? I like the idea of a poll for ease of a headcount but I think there is a possibility of having personal friends and business associates vote for them too, right?

 

[T L]

Is it possible for the anonymous poll to be circumvented by vendors and consumers? I like the idea of a poll for ease of a headcount but I think there is a possibility of having personal friends and business associates vote for them too, right?

Yes.

I would just vote on specifications at the moment, and non-anonymously.

I could just get a list together when everyone weighs in, and people can then discuss it.

 

[T L]

Thanks TL for starting this thread! LOVE this idea. I know it will take some doing, but I think it will be so helpful, and I volunteer to help if you need it. Everyone has raised such great and valid points, I know it'll be work to iron out the details but it'll be great when complete!

The hardest part will probably be deciding when a vendor gets to go on the list, and when a vendor gets pulled. Would it be possible to have a poll at the top like on some threads with vendor's names (instead of a setting option for example) so that PS'ers could "vote" for vendors they have good experiences with?

I'm the type of person who researches EVERYTHING (maybe to the point of OCD! ) and has trouble making a decision so I love consumer websites and forums like this one where you can get past all the advertising and get real people's opinions to help you make a decision. I also like sites like Consumer Reports that accept no advertising and hence are supposed to have no bias when they rate a product. While they don't rate the companies providing the products per se, we could still use their ratings as a very rough guide for recommended vendors. Here is an example:



In place of the "price and shop" could be contact info/website etc, and for value in pricing, maybe you could use restaurant ratings as an example, for instance the lowest priced vendor would have one $ (least pricy) as their rating and the most expensive would have $$$$$ (however many dollar signs if we are using US currency symbols) as their price rating. From there, you can just choose whatever specific aspects to rate each vendor on across the board, and what rating system to use (poor, average, excellent, etc). Just some ideas!

Thank you for the idea. IMO, it might be too ambitious to give vendors such "consumer report" or "star" type ratings in the list. I think they should be reputable or not reputable based on the specifications, and if enough people complain about the specifications, they should be taken off the list if they've been given ample time to correct their customer service issues. However, maybe someone is ambitious enough to take that up, and that would be something else we need to discuss and maintain, moderate. It might be too much work and require too much consensus to make changes. I like your thinking though.

Like you, I'm really OCD on buying things as well, and I do a lot of research before I start thinking of buying something.

 

[Acinom]

Thank you for starting this thread TL! Very helpful.

 

[Marlow]

Good idea - would be helpful....

I cannot type fast enough!!!!!!

So I will take the real Marlow ( my Italian greyhound) and walk around the block....

TL and Minous - you are right - I think about your posts!!!!

But not today....long week - I am tired!