Is it time for coin buyers to voice their concerns?

[+Eric K]

I agree with the general feeling that a rating system would not work. There are to many variables to determing if the ratings are correct.

 

Plus most ratings would probably only be from unhappy customers.

 

I don't know what the criteria should be for companies get delisted.

 

It seems the most logical solution is for those customers to contact Groundspeak. However, I think there would have to be some obvious place where customers to contact Groundspeak in regards to geocoin concerns.

 

Maybe a 'Contact us with coin concerns' link could be added to the Geocoin page.

[avroair]

Why don't one of you internet savvy folks put up an independent ratings site somewhere and let everyone post names dates and complaints there for all to see without any shutdown?

 

I like this idea. It's independent from Groundspeak and allows people to voice their praise or frustrations with individual coin sales. A topic could be started for a coin then comments placed in the same thread, kinda like a running commentary of how the coin sale went.

[+Team Van Stoffelen]

"The list below contains links to various Geocoin manufacturers approved by Groundspeak."

 

I do think the problem lays in the word approved. This word has a sence of quality in it, but what I think Groundspeak really says is: "This list below contains links to various GC manufacurers to which we sold tracking number too". And as a vendor can apply to be added to the list, the list is nothing more the a list of geocoin selling shops. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

I do not really have an opinion if Groundspeak should of should not deliver tracking codes to 'bad' companies. Groundspeak is not a referee. The only think they should do i not to give the impression that the mentioned companies are good companies becourse the are approved.

[+forthferalz]

Well I don'tagreee with the OP either - GC isn't a business arbitrator - what actually goes into the approval process is merely for the design appropriateness. But I don't think that is what most people think of when they see the 'approved vendors' listing. Agree with the last post that seems to imply some sort of quality control beyond just the design being GC appropriate (ie: not being political, not 'family friendly' or offensive to the majority of people. ) Perhaps the word 'approved' needs a link to an explanation. They don't actually even run a basic copyright check on a design.

 

If you are a company as opposed to an individual this apparently also means that you cannot discuss your trackable coin here in the forums or something which I don't quite understand? I think they are suppposed to buy advertising space from GC instead. Help me out here Eric and explain. Wouldn't have thought of as part of the 'approval' process for a vendor either!

 

What would be good and in GC's control is of the moderators in this forum didn't keep shutting down the threads that seek to discuss problems of this nature. I've only come across them by accident in the archives.

 

PS I think the whole idea of a presale is not paypal approved anyway - paypal is the one transacting the vast majority of the business and the place to complain - see moops excellent explanation

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=203483#

 

PPS anyone can edit http://www.trackablecoins.com/index.php?ti...ckable_geocoins and remove vendors (or :0 start a column labelled do not buy from ...)

Edited September 26, 2008 by forthferalz

[+maldar]

I think that's going to be VERY misleading. Here's why... Company A is very tiny and moves say 100 coins in a month. Company B is massive and move 1000 coins in a month. They each get 5 complaints posted so they end up with a similar rating even though by the numbers company B is 10 times more accurate than company A.

 

edit to add: Because more people will complain than compliment you'll never have an accurate description of the companies.

 

You could solve this by making a mathmatical formula based on number of coins minted, time in business, number of positive feedback and negative feedback. A person could leave multiple feedback, but only one feedback per coin minted. All feedback would be used to calculate the rating since each different coin is a new experiance.

 

maldar

[+maldar]

This is a good suggestion, because if no one lets Groundspeak know what is happening, how is Groundspeak supposed to know?

We are in discussion now about a feedback thread, for both traders and companies. Please stay tuned. It will probably be a pinned thread. We do listen. Since a lot of you trade, are you prepared to be rated in public? Those of you who produce coins, are you ready for the feedback? Are you all willing to do something about any negative feedback? And we don't want a feedback thread to turn into a flamefest.

 

Groundspeak doesn't get involved in any transactions between buyers and sellers, so I don't know about the email part of your suggestion, I'll bring it up, but they can do something about the approved list. Perhaps Groundspeak could stop selling tracking numbers to people who are defaulting on producing what they promised, and remove them from the list. We just need to know who the culprits are.

What we don't want is false reports, "shill" reports, that type of thing. It has to be backed up with facts. Not just complaints that the coins are a week late, or that type of thing. One report is not going to de-list a company. There has to be some kind of pattern of repeat offenses.

 

I would suggest making such a thread to really be a sub-board in the Geocoin Discussions Board and then each vendor or trader would have their own thread started. Personally I like this idea, even though I had a delay in minting and shipping my coins. In the end I think that everyone will be happy with their coins. I have never had a bad experiance thus far, but I have purchased very few coins. While on the other hand I have 6 coin designs I think people will like floating around in my head.

 

maldar

[+GEO*Trailblazer 1]

Make it a blind poll.

 

Or a Proxy.

Proxy may refer to something which acts on behalf of something else.

[+fox-and-the-hound]

I think that's going to be VERY misleading. Here's why... Company A is very tiny and moves say 100 coins in a month. Company B is massive and move 1000 coins in a month. They each get 5 complaints posted so they end up with a similar rating even though by the numbers company B is 10 times more accurate than company A.

 

edit to add: Because more people will complain than compliment you'll never have an accurate description of the companies.

 

You could solve this by making a mathmatical formula based on number of coins minted, time in business, number of positive feedback and negative feedback. A person could leave multiple feedback, but only one feedback per coin minted. All feedback would be used to calculate the rating since each different coin is a new experiance.

 

maldar

 

I thought about that, but most of the minting numbers "flex" with different versions, remints, etc. It also opens up a can-of-worms for sock puppet attacks. How do you verify a coin was ever bought to begin with or that the experience really took place? I like the idea of companies being kept in check and I also think these forums do a very good job of it. Now it's just up to Groundspeak and ourselves to keep communicating about companies that are making a muck of it and let it show in the company-in-good-standing listings.

[Tooeygeotrashed]

 

Since a lot of you trade, are you prepared to be rated in public? Those of you who produce coins, are you ready for the feedback? Are you all willing to do something about any negative feedback?

 

Yes please!!

As I seller I would be more than willing to provide GS with just about any information they need (excluding confidential customer info, of course), in order remove any questions about my business, and seperate us from those unscrupulous companies who are giving everyone a bad name.

 

Two questions-

1. Would there be an easy way to search for a specific company? A pinned thread offers the slight disadvantage of having to wade through all responses to find out about a seller/trader you want to order from.

2. Would there be a way to link buyers concerns with a sellers response? If someone complains on post 12 and the seller responds on post 20, will people have to read the entire thing to see the resolution? If they are not linked, there could be issues with a seller getting a bad image on something that was taken care of, it just took a weekend to get a post up.

 

Regardless, I think it is a good step in the right direction!

 

This is why it's still in discussion. All good questions, and I know I can't think of everything that needs to be asked by myself! If anyone else has suggestions or questions, or concerns to add, please do. Let's work together on this, shall we?

After a week since the OP - a good start would have been to have had the list edited by now. I don't believe giving feedback on individual companies is going to achieve a great deal, but where there are known problems, which have a history to them and reported in these forums it would be nice to see a little action rather than procrastination.

[+CBT69]

Create a yahoo group that is totally unrelated to GC.Com, and it (and anything) can be discussed there, as well as an unofficial list of "juried merchants" as chosen by those who have good, and bad, feedback about various sellers/traders/whatever.

[+Eartha]

Please see this new thread. Let's hope it will work.