Vendor review proposal

Vendor review proposal

Post by andy » Sun, 09 Jan 2000 04:00:00



All my flaming (which by the way I saw as useful....sorry to those who
don't) about a certain vendor got me thinking about something which I'd like
to propose to this newsgroup.  I would be glad to keep track of complaints
AND praise on all woodturning related vendors and post the data on a web
page.

This way a turner can use more than simply cost or word of mouth from one or
two individuals in making a decision on a their purchase.

Each post I read or email sent to me on the subject would be recorded as a
data point along with specific anecdotal info as needed as well as dates
since last input.  Any other ideas?

 
 
 

Vendor review proposal

Post by James Gayd » Mon, 10 Jan 2000 04:00:00


Your idea would only apply to the turners that use this NG. IMHO this
would be a very small percentage of the purchases made at any of these
vendors. I do not belive that those asscociated with this NG, make up
the largest volume of sales with any of the vendors availiable.
I've been involved in this group for about a year,and it seams that the
average number of posts listed,is about 350 to 500 ,on any given day.
I've also noticed a lot of newbes lately, that do not know where to
purchase lathe tools or accsessories. Their experience with a vendor
would be ,maybe a small first time perchase. Untill a person has had
multiple purchases from a vendor,how could they honestly evaluate the
service ,that they received.
I've not had the best of service from Craft Supplies,but I have learned
to call in advance of any purchase,to see if the item is in stock.If not
I go else where,and save myself from the pain and agrivation,of a back
order.
Have at it with your idea,but also,you need to find out how many times a
person has delt with a vendor,to get an honest idea of the service that
they received.

How long do you intend to collect this information,and what will you do
with it once it is collected ? What is your goal in doing this ? You
also might want to collect data on the number of happy customers,
then you can compare the information and present it to the group.

James Gaydos
Member : AAW
The South Central Pa Turners

 
 
 

Vendor review proposal

Post by James Barle » Mon, 10 Jan 2000 04:00:00


350 - 500 ?
Boy am I missing something, my count is more like 25, or maybe 50 on a good
day.


been involved in this group for about a year,and it seams that the
average number of posts listed,is about 350 to 500 ,on any given day.
I've also noticed a lot of newbes lately, that do not know where to

 
 
 

Vendor review proposal

Post by Dave Mun » Mon, 10 Jan 2000 04:00:00


        Greetings and Salutations...
        Could be.  Do you find that you are getting a lot of threads that
START with a "Re:....blivet" title?  That is a hint that you are
missing at least ONE of the root posts.   Also, the volume you get can
be related to how often you d/l the posts (the oftener you do it, the
more you will get...ALL ISPs have rules for how long they keep a given
posting online).  Also, factored into the equation is your ISP's
filtering rules.  They might well zap off any messages that appear in
more than 3-4 newsgroups...or appear to be SPAM...or simply contain
language they feel is inappropriate.
        The only way to tell if any of these factors are affecting you is
to spend some time poking about your ISP's website, looking at terms
of use, etc, and, sometimes the questions will only be answered by
your E-mailing customer support there and asking specific questions.
        Regards
        Dave Mundt

Quote:

>350 - 500 ?
>Boy am I missing something, my count is more like 25, or maybe 50 on a good
>day.



>been involved in this group for about a year,and it seams that the
>average number of posts listed,is about 350 to 500 ,on any given day.
>I've also noticed a lot of newbes lately, that do not know where to

Remove the mapson. from the email address to get to me...
I hate Cullers who gather from newsgroups

Visit my home page at http://www.esper.com/xvart/index.html

 
 
 

Vendor review proposal

Post by Kevin & Theresa Mille » Mon, 10 Jan 2000 04:00:00


Quote:

>         Greetings and Salutations...
>         Could be.  Do you find that you are getting a lot of threads that
> START with a "Re:....blivet" title?  That is a hint that you are
> missing at least ONE of the root posts.   Also, the volume you get can
> be related to how often you d/l the posts (the oftener you do it, the
> more you will get...ALL ISPs have rules for how long they keep a given
> posting online).  Also, factored into the equation is your ISP's
> filtering rules.  They might well zap off any messages that appear in
> more than 3-4 newsgroups...or appear to be SPAM...or simply contain
> language they feel is inappropriate.
>         The only way to tell if any of these factors are affecting you is
> to spend some time poking about your ISP's website, looking at terms
> of use, etc, and, sometimes the questions will only be answered by
> your E-mailing customer support there and asking specific questions.
>         Regards
>         Dave Mundt

I see on the average 25 to 60 posts here a day.  350 to 500 is the
normal amount in rec.woodworking, but I'd be really surprised if this
group ever approaches much more than what I see.  I read it daily.  Are
you really seeing that much more?  I hit dejanews, and got the following
results:

Jan 5:  56
Jan 6:  67
Jan 7:  66

While I'm sure I miss an occaisional post, I can't believe that both
me and Dejanews have lousy newsfeeds missing 95% of 'em...

...Kevin
--
Kevin & Theresa Miller
http://www.alaska.net/~atftb

 
 
 

Vendor review proposal

Post by Andy Cohe » Tue, 11 Jan 2000 04:00:00



Quote:
>Your idea would only apply to the turners that use this NG.

snip...
Not necessarily..I'd be willing to accept input from nonUSENET users either
through snailmail, word of mouth (direct) etc and I would not have a problem
sharing the URL to it (as well as anything else) with Roger Austin(AAW).

True, there's always sampling error, but it would still be much better for
the turner then an even smaller sample of one or two friends.  Yes it's a
time critical measure so the updates have to be dated and easy to make.

Quote:
>How long do you intend to collect this information,and what will you do
>with it once it is collected ? What is your goal in doing this ? You
>also might want to collect data on the number of happy customers,
>then you can compare the information and present it to the group.

As long as it seems useful.  If sampling errors are too extreme or my page
counter shows zero access I'd stop. Once collected I'd post the data on a
web page (inputs on how it can be presented I'd welcome from this group).

My goal for doing this is the same as my goal for the Stubby web site, my
writing here and my writing in turning pubs... to share info for the
betterment of woodturners.  I would also love to see an enhancement in the
way some vendors treat their customers (if a vendor treats a customer poorly
just think about how they may be treating their smaller suppliers!)... the
info just might help both sides.  As I said in the proposal the data would
be for both citing problems and for citing examples where the vendor went
beyond the minimum they needed to do to make a profit... that is they went
out of their way to make the customer happy.  I'm open to suggestions on
this as well as how to handle everything in between.

 
 
 

Vendor review proposal

Post by Donald R. Watlan » Wed, 12 Jan 2000 04:00:00


A few points to look at when considering the "success" of this last flame,
and the usefulness of keeping the proposed statistics is as follows:

1.  The number of posts that resulted from the original complaint were not
all directed at Crafts Supply, but at the poster, and whether or not he
should have posted the complaint, and if there might have been a better way
of dealing with the problem.

2.  Keeping a future list of vendors and any associated complaints or praise
about their service is going to give a VERY misleading set of data.  Not
every who buys from all vendors is going to file a survey form, so the
number of voiced opinions compared to the total number of purchases will be
unknown.  There will be no way to evaluate how "common place" the voiced
behavior is.

3.  If it is up to the buyers to file a survey form, it is likely that
nearly all of your statistics will be based on only those that feel that
have been unjustly treated.  lt is the nature of us beasts to take action,
or become very vocal when we are offended.  It is far less likely that those
who are satisfied folks would be moved to jump onto their computer to fill
out a survey form stating they are pleased.

4.  One black complaint can outweigh 1000 at-a-boys in one's mind.

Be careful of what you propose to do.   Is there going to be any truly
meaningful data that will assist anyone with making a good decision, or
merely a pool of poisoned opinions.  It could be that those who based their
decision on whether to make a purchase or not, on what they read on the
proposed web site, might find that there was no where to go to make the
purchase, because every vendor, sooner or later, screwed up because one of
their staff had had a bad-hair day.

D. Watland
Watland Design

 
 
 

Vendor review proposal

Post by Richard Prest » Wed, 12 Jan 2000 04:00:00


I missed the start of this.  I wish you had copied the original. Interesting
points.
Quote:
>A few points to look at when considering the "success" of this last flame,
>and the usefulness of keeping the proposed statistics is as follows:

>1.  The number of posts that resulted from the original complaint were not
>all directed at Crafts Supply, but at the poster, and whether or not he
>should have posted the complaint, and if there might have been a better way
>of dealing with the problem.

>2.  Keeping a future list of vendors and any associated complaints or praise
>about their service is going to give a VERY misleading set of data.  Not
>every who buys from all vendors is going to file a survey form, so the
>number of voiced opinions compared to the total number of purchases will be
>unknown.  There will be no way to evaluate how "common place" the voiced
>behavior is.

>3.  If it is up to the buyers to file a survey form, it is likely that
>nearly all of your statistics will be based on only those that feel that
>have been unjustly treated.  lt is the nature of us beasts to take action,
>or become very vocal when we are offended.  It is far less likely that those
>who are satisfied folks would be moved to jump onto their computer to fill
>out a survey form stating they are pleased.

>4.  One black complaint can outweigh 1000 at-a-boys in one's mind.

>Be careful of what you propose to do.   Is there going to be any truly
>meaningful data that will assist anyone with making a good decision, or
>merely a pool of poisoned opinions.  It could be that those who based their
>decision on whether to make a purchase or not, on what they read on the
>proposed web site, might find that there was no where to go to make the
>purchase, because every vendor, sooner or later, screwed up because one of
>their staff had had a bad-hair day.

>D. Watland
>Watland Design

 
 
 

Vendor review proposal

Post by Andy Cohe » Wed, 12 Jan 2000 04:00:00


Quote:

>A few points to look at when considering the "success" of this last flame,
>and the usefulness of keeping the proposed statistics is as follows:

>1.  The number of posts that resulted from the original complaint were not
>all directed at Crafts Supply, but at the poster, and whether or not he
>should have posted the complaint, and if there might have been a better way
>of dealing with the problem.

No comment on that.  Some people were offended, some weren't.  No concensus;
non-issue.  See my other post for an update to my complaints.

Quote:
>2.  Keeping a future list of vendors and any associated complaints or
praise
>about their service is going to give a VERY misleading set of data.  Not
>every who buys from all vendors is going to file a survey form, so the
>number of voiced opinions compared to the total number of purchases will be
>unknown.  There will be no way to evaluate how "common place" the voiced
>behavior is.

True.  Also, these inputs can be biased in the positive as well as the
negative.  Still some info is better than none.  Best example I'd guess is
the reader ratings on Amazon.com pages.  They can be polarized yet if
there's enough they rate consideration.  I've yet to see them lead me wrong
on a purchase.  Anybody experience otherwise yet?

Quote:
>Be careful of what you propose to do.   Is there going to be any truly
>meaningful data that will assist anyone with making a good decision, or
>merely a pool of poisoned opinions.  It could be that those who based their

snip...

Again I recall over the past 3 years reading about as many extreme positives
as negatives.  An extreme positive comment on a vendor who really did
nothing out of the ordinary is just as misleading...  however, in this case
it's at the Turner's expense rather than the vendor.  My thoughts are that
if there's persistent complaints or praises  from more then 1 or 2 people on
extreme situations it will show in one place.

Where's the danger?  Well, I can see if someone maliciously faked a number
of posts under different names which badmouthed or praised a vendor
innappropriately to manipulate the mkt it could be dangerous...  and to be
honest I was waiting for someone to use this as an argument.  I was hoping
there would be interest and discussion on really doing this to protect
ourselves, then we could figure out a way to ensure validity checks.  If
not, that's fine by me.  It was only a proposal.