[denied] Negative feedback and vouches rework

I'm on the fence here.
Realistically, I believe a +/- system would have been great from the start. However, a rework & implementation, at this point, would be way too much work.

This is interesting and poses as a potential solution.

I see a negative feedback section, etc. being most impactful within the services section. There are many service buyers who wind up with their accounts being permanently banned due to workers botting, amongst other things. In these scenarios, the service provider usually pays the buyer an amount of GP as restitution (this does not make the buyer whole, in my opinion). The report is then swept under the rug of RAS archives to never be spoken of again.

In these situations, a negative feedback thread would be very beneficial. Future buyers could see that the service provider has had issues in the past and place emphasis on vetting his/her hiring practices before handing their accounts over for servicing.

 

Big support - as long as the negative feedback has the picture proof to back it up don't see why it would be a problem.

Might create a bit of extra work for mods as I'd imagine a few people will post shit but without the proof to back it up would just be removed.

 

Support it would knock a few of these guys out of the market pretty quick.

People would look at see 50 negative feedback with ruined , banned, or scammed gold from accounts and not be lured into their lies.

@Sythe Some of these guys do get banned and dnt removed but still have the same issues over and over again , new users / users who dont know a traders history with disputes , bans , or DNT's really need a way to see how a user has interacted other than a vouch thread that makes them look like theres been 0 issues in the past.

I'm 100% feedback off site and 300+ feedback not 1 negative ever so this would be great to have here.

Yellow Hat

EDIT: Although it does sound like alot of work to implement and manage, not sure the extra work would be worth it long term though if mods have to constantly check the feedbacks etc etc.

 

Great points & lines up very well with the scenario that I was referring to.

There are service providers who have received more DNT's, bot ban reports, failure to deliver services, etc. than you can count on two hands. Yet somehow they look very attractive to a newcomer because of their 500 vouches and $1K donator status. To prevent a flame war, I won't name anyone in specific.. but a quick browse thru the service section in conjunction with the RAS archives paints a clear picture of why this would be a worthwhile solution IMO.

 

Exactly, I understand the idea that once someone repays their debts, change their ways etc they should be allowed back in the market with a clean sheet however certain providers have had sooooo many issues and no one ever knows about it after the RAS section is closed.

Just not sure how someone can clean accounts, get bans, and continue to do it without any type of causality on it.

Yellow Hat

 

Here's an example of where a negative feedback thread would provide actual benefit.

What are your experiences purchasing powerlevelling?

If it were in place, I could have also said something like,
"Make sure to check out the negative feedback thread for various service providers. If I were you, I'd pick one that had lots of service vouches with little to no negative feedback. This means that they have had very limited/no botting bans, reports, etc."

 

So there is already a link on people with negative feedback? You click the TWC or DNT and it takes you to the scam report or issue at hand. If this is implemented, i think user added negative feedback shouldn't be allowed. Should still go throw the current not broken process of making a report, then the outcome staff can post to their negative feedback.

 

i agree that there is a problem with negative market experiences not really affecting ones reputation because it's hard to find and gets buried quick. i don't like the idea of a negative-specific section of the site if it isn't fully integrated into the profile, in the way that is already on the DNS list. I would much rather just see a change that "vouch threads" are renamed to "feedback threads", and allowed all sorts of feedback (positive, negative, and neutral) be allowed to be posted on these threads. We can force people for negative feedback to include screenshot proof of said interactions in order to prevent malicious use.

 

i feel like if negative feedback is overrun with positive feedback than the seller is doing a good job

 

just urge them to write down how many pos vouches they have and how many /neutral/negative ones.

I am new here and really can only laugh about this system here. its 2k20 and u cant post negativ feedbacks properly? wtf, someone tried to scam me lately and I cant post it anywhere so ppl see it? that's ridiculous

 

You can report the person for attempted scamming, i'm pretty sure that is somewhere you can post it. And this thread exists to try to find a solution to not having a perfect system

 

That’s not always necessarily true, though. Someone could have 5 pages of positive gold buy/sell vouches where they went first (arguably the lowest quality vouch). If you sprinkled in 5 vouches where they provided services that resulted in the users’ accounts getting banned, it would be likely that a person browsing their vouches would never see them. They would be buried in various pages.

 

I think the negative feedback threads would cause chaos. Why?
We know there are so many competitors and many has problem with the others or just want to ruin others business.
These threads would lead to fake vouches/questionable vouches (because what can we call a negative feedback exactly?) and this would be so many extra work for staff for nothing in many cases.
And what is a negative feedback? Customer may has a bad day and just leaves a bad feedback after a neutral service.
People are already able to leave negative feedback with reporting and service providers just get a TWC/DNT if it's deserved and i think it's enough.
We are humans and we make mistakes when delivering the product.

I like the idea, but no support from me.

 

I totally agree with this comment, can't add something else.

No support either, this will be a total drama thread.

 

Problem is people are in their small groups and will intentionally give the person negative feedback out of payback for leaving them one neg feedback out of spite

 

Coming up with a pre-determined list of what is allowed/constitutes a negative feedback would be very easy and straightforward. This would eliminate any ambiguity or potential for fake feedback. The vouch would have to be something very serious and verifiable (IE - getting a customer's account banned).

 

Regardless thats subjective, and don't think anybody can say whether it was bad or good