What would you do if a vendor privately solicited your business through your involvement on this sit
- Thread starter Gypsy
- Start date
- Status
TravelingGal
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2004
- Messages
- 17,193
LOL, I also speed read, but not well, which is a big problem in proper comprehension. Usually means I forget to buy half the things on the grocery list!!Date: 2/24/2009 3:54:48 PM
Author: LittleGreyKitten
Well, it is mine, but that doesn''t keep me from confusing things whatsoever!!Date: 2/24/2009 3:46:05 PM
Author: TravelingGal
Could be. English is not my first language.
Maisie
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 12,587
I don''t believe in lists. I just buy all the cakes. Can''t go wrong with thatDate: 2/24/2009 3:57:13 PM
Author: TravelingGal
LOL, I also speed read, but not well, which is a big problem in proper comprehension. Usually means I forget to buy half the things on the grocery list!!Date: 2/24/2009 3:54:48 PM
Author: LittleGreyKitten
Well, it is mine, but that doesn''t keep me from confusing things whatsoever!!Date: 2/24/2009 3:46:05 PM
Author: TravelingGal
Could be. English is not my first language.
TravelingGal
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2004
- Messages
- 17,193
Yep yep! Went back and read it, my apologies! I was going on memory and mixing up on number 10, which is just that you can''t post copyrighted material. Of course, anything you write is supposedly copyrighted, so that''s another can of worms altogether. Copyright discussion, anyone?
(ignore the crazy woman)
Apologies to Gypsy on her non rule breaking.
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2006
- Messages
- 58,547
I agree with Tgal's general point that copying and posting an email verbatim is kind of... not my favorite thing to have happen (to either a vendor or customer)... but in this case its kind of darned if you do, darned if you don't. Gypsy could have simply summarized the email and identified WF as the vendor, but that would not have made the complete disclosure people happy, no? And would not have allowed others to form their own opinion on, say, the tone of or specific contents in Debi's email.
Anyway, even well meaning vendors are still companies, and still can keep and use your personal information well after you would want it erased from their records. Kudos to WF for the mea culpa posts, and bigger kudos if they implement an 'opt out of future solicitations' checkbox for when people enter their emails on webforms, as well as an 'unsubscribe' link at the bottom of all their emails (for emails unrelated to the task at hand).
One of my pet peeves is getting contacted too frequently by companies after I've given them my info voluntarily, especially if there is no easy mechanism to reduce their communication efforts to me. Its one of the reasons I try not to give to new charities, in fact! I give them $100, and they spend it all on paper and mailings back to me over the next few years. Not my intent. I would give anonymously, but for its a bad idea to send cash through the mail
Anyway, even well meaning vendors are still companies, and still can keep and use your personal information well after you would want it erased from their records. Kudos to WF for the mea culpa posts, and bigger kudos if they implement an 'opt out of future solicitations' checkbox for when people enter their emails on webforms, as well as an 'unsubscribe' link at the bottom of all their emails (for emails unrelated to the task at hand).
One of my pet peeves is getting contacted too frequently by companies after I've given them my info voluntarily, especially if there is no easy mechanism to reduce their communication efforts to me. Its one of the reasons I try not to give to new charities, in fact! I give them $100, and they spend it all on paper and mailings back to me over the next few years. Not my intent. I would give anonymously, but for its a bad idea to send cash through the mail
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
Thank you Debi for the apology.
I think Gypsy handled a difficult situation very well.
I also think that Allison handled her response very well and showed how much she cares about PS and the members here.
As far as sharing emails, etiquette says they should not be shared without permission except under extreme conditions even if some people do play lose and fast with them.
This fell under the extreme conditions category.
Legally they haven''t been considered private by most courts unless there was a business contract saying otherwise.
Most courts have held that email is like a postcard with reduced expectations of privacy over say a letter.
In this case sharing the whole email was the best thing to do.
I think Gypsy handled a difficult situation very well.
I also think that Allison handled her response very well and showed how much she cares about PS and the members here.
As far as sharing emails, etiquette says they should not be shared without permission except under extreme conditions even if some people do play lose and fast with them.
This fell under the extreme conditions category.
Legally they haven''t been considered private by most courts unless there was a business contract saying otherwise.
Most courts have held that email is like a postcard with reduced expectations of privacy over say a letter.
In this case sharing the whole email was the best thing to do.
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2007
- Messages
- 715
Ditto, Karl!
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 9,725
Ditto, Ditto Karl!
This was handled nicely all around.
Kudos especially to Allison.
It does bring up an interesting quandary.
If a vendor finds a post that might be an indication that they could solve a problem an existing client has with them, or their product, wouldn''t it be more discreet to contact the client behind the scenes?
Would that violate a PS rule, or the spirit of the rule?
This was handled nicely all around.
Kudos especially to Allison.
It does bring up an interesting quandary.
If a vendor finds a post that might be an indication that they could solve a problem an existing client has with them, or their product, wouldn''t it be more discreet to contact the client behind the scenes?
Would that violate a PS rule, or the spirit of the rule?
purrfectpear
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 4,079
You should not be contacting anyone (previous customer or not) based on a post that was made on Pricescope. You could mention that you would invite any customers to contact YOU, but you should not be contacting THEM. Not based on something that was only posted on Pricescope.
mercoledi
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2006
- Messages
- 2,822
David,
I think the spirit of the rule is transparency, and it has certainly cut both ways in the past when a consumer has had issues, rightly or wrongly with a vendor. Besides, wouldn''t a vendor have that person''s contact info already if that person is a client?
Moonwater,
I do think there should be an end-around for that; some sort of mechanism whereby two people mutually interested in contacting one another can each email the admins from thier PS linked email account and receive each other''s contact info. I''m sure that too could somehow be abused, but I agree that it would be nice to be able to look eachother up some way.
Alj- What a day. It''s after 5 here
Gypsy,
I understand why you would felt perturbed. I hope it''s all been sorted out to your satisfaction.
Regular Guy
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2004
- Messages
- 5,962
David, maybe you help us feel Debi''s pain.
Of course, what you''ve described could be understood to be exactly the case reviewed here, in this thread. And the conclusion, I think, is that...no, you don''t do that.
But....there could be some nuance, depending on what or who you regard as a client. I think Gypsy did not regard herself that way.
For Debi to have a different view, or for the term or classification of "client" to allow a wider or different access to action....would take a definition that I cannot construct.
I think I end up needing to feel your pain, if we are to imagine Pricescope to be the place we would like it to be.
Maybe this can bounce more, but I''m hard pressed to figure out how. Right now, in Pricescope, an environment exists where people do get, and are allowed to share details of intimate thoughts, and ideas about all kinds of projects. I think that we would like users to continue to feel free to do so. I would likewise, have to imagine that the vendors who provide service to Pricescope have assumed their livelihood because of their perceived skill, real or imagined, at helping consumers realize their dreams. Although it may be natural for a vendor to reach out to a consumer...and one who had already engaged them in some previous communication, I guess I confirm Gypsy''s general intent here, and would like to think this environment can work best as a hassle free zone.
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 9,725
NO question, a solicitation for a sale is out of bounds- existing client or not.
But if there is an existing relationship, and the post refers to a situation that the vendor recognizes that they are already involved in, wouldn''t a personal communication preserve every-one''s privacy?
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"
Speaking hypothetically, if the vendor was eager to resolve the client''s concern, it would seem to be a win win.
The vendor would of course realize that if their actions resulted in anything less than totally satisfying the client, there could still be a public conversation.
In terms of emails, the best rule to follow is surely one where you imagine that anything you write might be posted on the front page of the times.
Again, a double edged sword.
It''s really empowering for the consumer knowing that the vendors must live in a glass house...but the other side is that vendors might have to exercise such strong caution it might actually hamper communication.....
But if there is an existing relationship, and the post refers to a situation that the vendor recognizes that they are already involved in, wouldn''t a personal communication preserve every-one''s privacy?
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"
Speaking hypothetically, if the vendor was eager to resolve the client''s concern, it would seem to be a win win.
The vendor would of course realize that if their actions resulted in anything less than totally satisfying the client, there could still be a public conversation.
In terms of emails, the best rule to follow is surely one where you imagine that anything you write might be posted on the front page of the times.
Again, a double edged sword.
It''s really empowering for the consumer knowing that the vendors must live in a glass house...but the other side is that vendors might have to exercise such strong caution it might actually hamper communication.....
MoonWater
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2007
- Messages
- 3,158
I think this thread proves that we do not need PMs for a vendor to abuse the privilege of having our contact information. That said, I do not understand why PMs are not allowed. If you do not want to be harrassed, don't use the PMs. In fact, many forums have it so that the user is allowed to disable PMs for themselves individually (this forum really does not utilize all the amazing features forums have nowadays). Further, if I want to post my email address to share with someone, why am I not allowed to do it at my own risk? Email accounts are free, anyone can create a dummy account just to exchange contact info so if any vendors or jerks want to spam them, they don't have to worry about it clogging their geniune email box.
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 9,725
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
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
Regular Guy
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2004
- Messages
- 5,962
Two points:
1)
2) Remember, again, David...this thread is not about you. For some queries, Hangout could be helpful, too. Dancing Fire might give you some ideas....
1)
Conventional misrepresentation is what is called for...as we are called to do in life, I think. Since you have a working relationship with the customer, allow a gap, and then find a way to ask how your customer''s service has been, and if you can help further. Whether the writer recognizes that the cause was really her post at that point becomes irrelevant...because your query is appropriate, and consistent with your relationship, otherwise.
2) Remember, again, David...this thread is not about you. For some queries, Hangout could be helpful, too. Dancing Fire might give you some ideas....
MoonWater
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2007
- Messages
- 3,158
Well, I think if the vendor is doing good customer service and follows up after they receive the purchase to see if everything was ok, you have given them the opportunity to voice their complaint. Also, I find it hard to believe that once a person created a thread complaining, that the overwhelming majority would not direct them to contact the vendor (including the vendor, like someone just mentioned). I feel that if someone felt the need to post rather than contact the vendor, they probably did so for a reason, thus, the vendor should not take it upon themselves to contact them directly.
TravelingGal
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2004
- Messages
- 17,193
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.
Mara
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2002
- Messages
- 31,003
______________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.
Strike out want and replace it with NEED. Hahaha. But yes I agree. Such fine lines..dotted almost.
I loved reading 4 pages of 'what would YOU do'. Wow. For me personally...if I got an email like that from a vendor I'd had acquaintance with previously where they felt like there was some sort of relationship built...I would just respond and say 'Thanks but no thanks' if there was no interest. Or report it if I really felt it was somehow 'against the rules'. Or maybe just simply ask the admin if it was against the rules first. Dunno. So many options. Glad it was worked out.
MoonWater
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2007
- Messages
- 3,158
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.
- Status
Did You Miss the March 2024 Jewels of the Weeks?
Did You Miss the March 2024 Jewels of the Weeks? - 03/30
300x240.png)