Soliciting Feedback

[Stubby47]

Kenton,

 

I don't think the reviews of products is in any way affected by this thread (or the reason for it) - as I understand it was positive reviews of a trader that were being solicited.

 

As has been said, if the trader was that good, then they wouldn't need to ask for reviews, if the trader is poor then no amount of soliciting would work - or would be very quickly spotted. If the trader is new and trying to make a name for themselves ( but not in this case, perhaps, as Andy has hinted at previous history) then it's a clumsy attempt to raise their profile.

 

Stu  

[Miss Prism]

Although having no idea who 'Trader X' is or what kind of product is involved, let me take a hypothetical example - imagine Trader X says, in a private communication, something like "Here's a bag of machined/laser-cut/etched bits for a thing, I know the bits probably aren't all quite right at the moment, but if you do a predominantly positive test build review, and let me know the problems so that I can tweak the artwork/tooling, I'll let you have another set for at least 10% off." I can't see anything wrong with that in principle, and it happens all the time in our world. Indeed, rather than chastising Trader X, I'm feeling (although not knowing the facts of this particular case) he should be congratulated for having such a constructive and enterprising approach.

 

If however, Trader X is a box shifter and is merely seeking public endorsement of his general business, then all RMwebbers saying innocently-intended "Trader X gives an excellent postal service" or the ubiquitous "In stock now at Trader X!" or even the traditional "No connection with Trader X, just a satisfied customer" is liable to come under Andy's suspicion and potential censorship.

 

Either way, it's a can of worms or the thin end of a dangerous wedge.

 

 

 

Edit: grammar

[Kenton]

 

As has been said, if the trader was that good, then they wouldn't need to ask for reviews, if the trader is poor then no amount of soliciting would work - or would be very quickly spotted. If the trader is new and trying to make a name for themselves ( but not in this case, perhaps, as Andy has hinted at previous history) then it's a clumsy attempt to raise their profile.

 

I agree with that, however:

 

I still see no difference between the incentivisation and the request made by nearly every commercial site to encourage customers to make posts on Facecrook/Twitter.

 

Also, I still think we have lost out on a review (and probably many future reviews) of products by the prevention of a review of this particular product on RMWeb. It is this creeping censorship that annoys me more than anything about this instance. We are both familiar with posts being censored We have lost sight of what might be a very good product and one potentially offered by a good supplier with excellent service - simply because we are not treated as adults and able to make up our own minds on the ethics or otherwise of a poorly judged marketing ploy.

 

If I or you posted a review and recommendation of a product today on RMWeb how can we even expect that post/topic to remain viewable. It seems to me that if that product was the one at issue here, the post will be removed by management. What chance any review being left visible if it goes against policy the likes/dislikes of those running the site.

 

BTW: There is and always has been a fine line between direct advertising and a promotional review.

 

[Ed]. *'policy' is a ill chosen word that can be misunderstood as being 'rules' - it is the 'hidden' rules that are relevant.

[Arthur]

I really, really, really cannot see any links between Warners in general, other product reviews ('official' or by members), impartiality, censorship (paranoia in my view) and Andy's stance on this one.

 

I am uncomfortable with positive product reviews being generated through a 'payment'. Do I really think that members are going to post a good review following a bad experience in exchange for 10% off?, no of course not, but I just don't like it. It is a precedent I would not like to be set. If I receive good service, or find a great product, and a trader simply asked me to share that experience on here, I would. I've recommended traders to others in the past with the caveat, 'no link with the trader, just a satisfied customer'. Could I add that having received payment or a discount for it? And I'll answer that for you, No, I couldn't.

 

Not interested in what Tesco or Amazon do; on here I've benefited from like minded individuals openly sharing good, or bad, trade and product experiences free from censorship and free from incentives. Long may that continue.

[Kenton]

Miss Prism you have hit a nail solidly there. So I await the closure of the long standing "Bargain" topic and the otherwise excellent topics of a certain well known producer of brilliant loco etches, not to mention the many kit building topics (even some of mine) and layouts. Actually no I don't.

 

One of the most important features of RMWeb is its independence and the honesty of comments posted - even if they are in disagreement.

 

If I was doing the first of your examples I would declare it as a test etch - after all that has significance in the critical review, along with the suppliers comments. But would I need to declare that I would be getting a revised and new etch for free or can keep the test built item - probably not even though this is quite normal practise no more than if I was building as a commission (paid for the build) Many kits would never get reviewed.

[The Stationmaster]

If anyone thinks all reviews are straightforward just try Trip Advisor (still pen to folk putting on 'influenced' reviews) - an example to be truly wary of.  If someone is 'buying' appreciative reviews, even if they are absolutely correct, it still smacks of bribery to me.

[edcayton]

I don't see why this should affect the "bargain hunters" topic. That really only gives a heads up for special offers/prices with no particular recommendation for any supplier or manufacturer.

 

Ed

[Kenton]

 

I don't see why this should affect the "bargain hunters" topic. That really only gives a heads up for special offers/prices with no particular recommendation for any supplier or manufacturer.

 

Ed

IF (and in this example I stress IF) in that topic I were to post the fact (just an example) that a not so well know shop was selling DCC fitted 37's at half RRP price following purchase of said item by myself and a request by that shop to "tell my friends" wouldn't that be the same thing especially if the shop offered me a discount for doing so.

 

I stress I don't want fewer of these topics just less interference. I can make my own mind up, thank you, if it is a real bargain or a really good product review.

[Andy Y]

 I agree with that, however:

 

I still see no difference between the incentivisation and the request made by nearly every commercial site to encourage customers to make posts on Facecrook/Twitter.

 

Also, I still think we have lost out on a review (and probably many future reviews) of products by the prevention of a review of this particular product on RMWeb. It is this creeping censorship that annoys me more than anything about this instance. We are both familiar with posts being censored We have lost sight of what might be a very good product and one potentially offered by a good supplier with excellent service - simply because we are not treated as adults and able to make up our own minds on the ethics or otherwise of a poorly judged marketing ploy.

 

If I or you posted a review and recommendation of a product today on RMWeb how can we even expect that post/topic to remain viewable. It seems to me that if that product was the one at issue here, the post will be removed by management. What chance any review being left visible if it goes against policy the likes/dislikes of those running the site.

 

BTW: There is and always has been a fine line between direct advertising and a promotional review.

 

[Ed]. *'policy' is a ill chosen word that can be misunderstood as being 'rules' - it is the 'hidden' rules that are relevant.

 

 You haven't lost out on a review;  no reviews have been received for that trader since this issue arose. Unless someone's been discouraged from posting because of it but if so that's an unfortunate loss to the trader through clumsy activities.

 

You keep making things up about censorship of product info and reviews which means I have to come back, repeatedly and say you're wrong; just in case someone's daft enough to believe you.

 

In the case of Miss Prism's test product I wouldn't really have an issue as that's reasonably open and for mutual benefit rather than trying to solicit extra benefit through conditional actions.

 

I'm trying to stand up for that independence you value but you somehow, bizarrely, twist it around. Some days.... some days......

[Miss Prism]

Maybe we should have a new "Sounds a bit dodgy to me" icon?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Kenton]

 

 You haven't lost out on a review;  no reviews have been received for that trader since this issue arose. Unless someone's been discouraged from posting because of it but if so that's an unfortunate loss to the trader through clumsy activities.

 

You keep making things up about censorship of product info and reviews which means I have to come back, repeatedly and say you're wrong; just in case someone's daft enough to believe you.

 

In the case of Miss Prism's test product I wouldn't really have an issue as that's reasonably open and for mutual benefit rather than trying to solicit extra benefit through conditional actions.

 

I'm trying to stand up for that independence you value but you somehow, bizarrely, twist it around. Some days.... some days......

We have "lost out" because the original post WAS censored. All it needed was a follow-up post by yourself on that topic stating the motive behind the post and then we could all see the promotion for what it was. We could then add our own experiences of the product (both good or bad) in that topic and be left like adults to decide for ourselves if the product was worth purchasing or the trader supporting. As it has turned out we have been denied (I call it censored) from receiving that information as the product and supplier remain fictitious* to us.

 

All this has blown this topic (really a clear statement of rules) way out of all proportion.

 

Sadly, as you are fully aware, censorship is around and well on RMWeb. I have experience of it, and others have noticed. I have always thought of it as a petty way of dealing with crossed opinions but it is bound to cloud the overall picture as I still cannot bring myself to believe it to be so personally targeted.

 

* as in we know no what and who it concerns.

[Andy Y]

  We have "lost out" because the original post WAS censored. All it needed was a follow-up post by yourself on that topic stating the motive behind the post and then we could all see the promotion for what it was. We could then add our own experiences of the product (both good or bad) in that topic and be left like adults to decide for ourselves if the product was worth purchasing or the trader supporting. As it has turned out we have been denied (I call it censored) from receiving that information as the product and supplier remain fictitious* to us.

 

All this has blown this topic (really a clear statement of rules) way out of all proportion.

 

Sadly, as you are fully aware, censorship is around and well on RMWeb. I have experience of it, and others have noticed. I have always thought of it as a petty way of dealing with crossed opinions but it is bound to cloud the overall picture as I still cannot bring myself to believe it to be so personally targeted.

 

* as in we know no what and who it concerns.

 

Bloody hell; sometimes you're the king of supposition.

 

There was no original post.

No post has been deleted.

The matter was notified to me by PM and email.

You've not been denied anything.

I've not blown anything out of proportion; you've gone off at half cock.

Send me examples of this 'censorship' that you'd like people to believe mysteriously happens and I'll explain any reasons for any content removal.

 

Meanwhile I've got some other stuff to get on with rather than having to address your wild inaccuracies.

*  - You don't necessarily need to know. The trader concerned has a topic for feedback which, to my knowledge, is not based on incentives.