• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

User bashes Reseller Ratings publicly, RR people respond.

Originally posted by: Cuda1447
Ive heard bad things about RR before, wouldn't surprise me to be honest.
Click to expand...

same here.

wasnt there a posting on ATOT that was complaining about them takeing down a negitive review?
 
Scott Wainner has major issues if he wants to try to sue someone over that. I read that entire thread, and the other stuff on RR. It is just plain horrible how they handled the issue. A user complains that their review got removed, and that RR is on the take. (I would think the same thing, as any reasonable person would)
Scott Wainner:
That's the type of utter lie that will spark a lawsuit in a heartbeat. You've made a public, unfounded accusation against one of the most respected and most established review sites on the web, which also happens to be a 100% false statement.
Click to expand...
I guess you are only allowed to call non-respected and/or New companies to task. Guess what Scott, WorldCom and Enron were trusted at some point. So RR removes the post on their site, and threatens with legal action. Not only that, but it sure looks founded to me. He made post, post disapeared. What an idiot. Scott Wainner needs to hire an HR person before he gets his ass sued off; in most instances, the consumer wins, even if it is the consumer's fault.

Scott Wainner needs to look up 'Tact' in the dictonary. H goes on to complain that the thread on Ars should be removed because people will only read the first post in the thread. Well, too fricking bad. If RR would have their Rules and Regulatons and Other Crap in a redaly available location, this probably would not have happened. He is blaiming the user for his companies shoddy design.

Keep in mind I still trust RR, but Scott really f'ed up on this one.

<edit>
Made it more readable for the paragraph nazi's here.
 
Problem with this is that you can make false statements if you didn't know they were false. Libel/Slander is pretty freaking hard to prove especially when talking about opinions. I mean honestly, is Scott going to pay an attorney to get a subpoena to get this guy's address? I seriously bet you his ISP would have it quased anyway, and a civil suit isn't exactly too high on their to do list either. He's making empty threats because he is an ass. No one gives a damn that he runs a website and thinks he is God.
 
it is a tough situation tho.

RR is reputation. without that reputation RR is NOTHING. that's the ONLY service they provide is their reputation. so by this accusation, if RR loses credibility they lose some of the ONLY product they have, their reputation. i can understand why scott would be a bit over sensitive.

still, EBP does have a point.

scott should probably learn to deal with these situations more tactfully.
 
Originally posted by: Evadman
Scott Wainner has major issues if he wants to try to sue someone over that. I read that entire thread, and the other stuff on RR. It is just plain horrible how they handled the issue. A user complains that their review got removed, and that RR is on the take. (I would think the same thing, as any reasonable person would)
Scott Wainner:
That's the type of utter lie that will spark a lawsuit in a heartbeat. You've made a public, unfounded accusation against one of the most respected and most established review sites on the web, which also happens to be a 100% false statement.
Click to expand...
I guess you are only allowed to call non-respected and/or New companies to task. Guess what Scott, WorldCom and Enron were trusted at some point. So RR removes the post on their site, and threatens with legal action. Not only that, but it sure looks founded to me. He made post, post disapeared. What an idiot. Scott Wainner needs to hire an HR person before he gets his ass sued off; in most instances, the consumer wins, even if it is the consumer's fault.

Scott Wainner needs to look up 'Tact' in the dictonary. H goes on to complain that the thread on Ars should be removed because people will only read the first post in the thread. Well, too fricking bad. If RR would have their Rules and Regulatons and Other Crap in a redaly available location, this probably would not have happened. He is blaiming the user for his companies shoddy design.

Keep in mind I still trust RR, but Scott really f'ed up on this one.

<edit> made it more readable for the paragraph nazi's here.
Click to expand...

pwn3d
 
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
it is a tough situation tho.

RR is reputation. without that reputation RR is NOTHING. that's the ONLY service they provide is their reputation. so by this accusation, if RR loses credibility they lose some of the ONLY product they have, their reputation. i can understand why scott would be a bit over sensitive.

still, EBP does have a point.

scott should probably learn to deal with these situations more tactfully.
Click to expand...

If RR has credibility then some obviously upset guy on Ars isn't going to be able to destroy that. Sounds like the owner is a bit insecure.
 
I like Scott, having been around since the days of sysopt.com. I do not see him doing anything wrong in that thread other than getting rightfully defensive. There IS a 48 hour waiting period and that is pretty obvious if you look at any review.

Attention XXX: Preview all new customer reviews 48 hours before they ever appear to the public. With our Premium Edge package, you'll be able to screen new customer reviews 48 hours before the public sees the reviews and before they factor into your rating scores. Use that valuable time to contact the customer to resolve complaints, since customers can edit their reviews and survey responses at any time. Or, flag a review for us to consider removing under our policies, and we'll add a priority status to your flagged reviews, process your request, and make a decision about the reviews within 48 hours.
Click to expand...

They have to make money some how, and unless we all start pitching in to pay for the service, we will have to deal with a bit of slanting. It sucks, but I am cheap. 😉
 
Originally posted by: iamwiz82
I like Scott, having been around since the days of sysopt.com. I do not see him doing anything wrong in that thread other than getting rightfully defensive. There IS a 48 hour waiting period and that is pretty obvious if you look at any review.

Attention XXX: Preview all new customer reviews 48 hours before they ever appear to the public. With our Premium Edge package, you'll be able to screen new customer reviews 48 hours before the public sees the reviews and before they factor into your rating scores. Use that valuable time to contact the customer to resolve complaints, since customers can edit their reviews and survey responses at any time. Or, flag a review for us to consider removing under our policies, and we'll add a priority status to your flagged reviews, process your request, and make a decision about the reviews within 48 hours.
Click to expand...

They have to make money some how, and unless we all start pitching in to pay for the service, we will have to deal with a bit of slanting. It sucks, but I am cheap. 😉
Click to expand...

The 48 hour thing wasn't the issue with this guy's review. His review got posted to the public. Then it was removed. Then it was back up. Then it was removed.

Can't blame that on the 48 hour delay.
 
This isn't the first time I've heard those accusations, and quite frankly, Wainner's attitude doesn't make me any more apt to believe him.

At the end of the day, there is an important lesson here:
There is a damn good reason Consumer Reports does not get any of its funding from advertsing.

BTW, that thread wasn't nearly as exciting or long as it was made out to be in the original post 😉
 
Originally posted by: Codewiz
Originally posted by: iamwiz82
I like Scott, having been around since the days of sysopt.com. I do not see him doing anything wrong in that thread other than getting rightfully defensive. There IS a 48 hour waiting period and that is pretty obvious if you look at any review.

Attention XXX: Preview all new customer reviews 48 hours before they ever appear to the public. With our Premium Edge package, you'll be able to screen new customer reviews 48 hours before the public sees the reviews and before they factor into your rating scores. Use that valuable time to contact the customer to resolve complaints, since customers can edit their reviews and survey responses at any time. Or, flag a review for us to consider removing under our policies, and we'll add a priority status to your flagged reviews, process your request, and make a decision about the reviews within 48 hours.
Click to expand...

They have to make money some how, and unless we all start pitching in to pay for the service, we will have to deal with a bit of slanting. It sucks, but I am cheap. 😉
Click to expand...

The 48 hour thing wasn't the issue with this guy's review. His review got posted to the public. Then it was removed. Then it was back up. Then it was removed.

Can't blame that on the 48 hour delay.
Click to expand...

Did you read the thread he pointed to as evidence? It seems like people are jumping the gun here.

http://www.resellerratings.com/forum/t78936.html


 
Attention XXX: Preview all new customer reviews 48 hours before they ever appear to the public. With our Premium Edge package, you'll be able to screen new customer reviews 48 hours before the public sees the reviews and before they factor into your rating scores. Use that valuable time to contact the customer to resolve complaints, since customers can edit their reviews and survey responses at any time. Or, flag a review for us to consider removing under our policies, and we'll add a priority status to your flagged reviews, process your request, and make a decision about the reviews within 48 hours.
Click to expand...

That really sounds like RR is taking money to keep negitive reviews off the site. I think to keep the site honest RR should mark each review that is wrongly flag so that users knew a company is having reviews checked and they should keep a count on how many reviews where deleted at the reseller request.
 
a bunch more has been posted. Scott must have an Evil Twin or something.
 
bah.. i just do my shopping with known sites..

long read.. but like i will be giving monarch any of my money.. i have heard complaints about htem before.. so there is an absolute no-no
 
I had a negative rating at RR about Newegg "disappear." Emailed them and they added it back. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they were on the take.
 
Scott Wainner sounds like an asshole. I like how he throws around 'lawsuit!!! wahhh lawsuit!!!' as if that is going to scare everyone so much.

I would say that I will never use RR again, but I never did in the first place.
 
I've been aware of Scott Wainner since his sysopt.com days also. He has always been a very good business person - even at a very young age. I think he handled this the way he had to - especially since RR is based on credibility like mentioned before. I'm not saying he should be pulling reviews, but his public response to the whole ordeal is in the right.
 
Originally posted by: Terranautical
Why is that moderator on Ars being such a little bitch? Sounds like he's heavily biased toward Reseller Ratings.
Click to expand...

Forums like that make me realize how good the mods are here. There is very little if any of the chest thumping "I'm a mod!!" kind of posting. I prefer when mods STFU and just quietly lock and ban 😉
 
I just read that entire thread. whew!

I have been a member or ARS (Agora) for a while, and cannot speak highly enough of the mods there. They are always available, approachable and fair. They handled this situation wonderfully.

I am also a member of RR and have heard the rumors of ballot stuffing and review tampering before. I was never sure whether or not they were true, and still dont know. But I do respect Scott taking time to answer personally. It is not very often that you get someone that high up in a company to answer. Usually it is a PR person.

Interesting reading in any case.

🙂
 
I've searched around RR.com and sifted through Monarch's reviews and I don't see any the resemble east_bay_pete's complaint. I guess it really was removed...
 
Originally posted by: misle
I've searched around RR.com and sifted through Monarch's reviews and I don't see any the resemble east_bay_pete's complaint. I guess it really was removed...
Click to expand...

yeah one of his last post say that people cant find it.

So i guess there is some truth to what he was saying. But i remember hearing about other people getting them removed for BS reasons. Guess as in anything you take there advice with a grain of salt,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top