Response to Bill T. (long)

[Paul Brakefield <Dirtball@domain.elided>]

>If y'all aren't sick of this topic already, let's take it one step further.
> I'd like to toss out for comment an experience I've had and an unfortunate
>decision I felt forced to make, and see if there are not alternatives that
>I've overlooked.

I am sick of it, but you personally provide such a fantastic resource for
all of us that I can take part in trying to help you out.

>Background:
>------------------
>I had developed what I thought was a pretty nifty "feedback facility" to
>augment the vendor list on the Binder Bulletin web site.  It was a place
>for folks to post experiences (both positive and negative) that they've had
>with the various listed vendors.  I felt the vendor list would be more
>useful to a newcomer to our community if one could see "customer service
>patterns" associated with the various vendors.

And I thought it was a neat idea.  I've enjoyed reading some of the
"feedback" in the past.

>If "Vendor X", for example, charges your credit card for a product on the
>day that you phone, and then doesn't ship for 30 days -- this is a valuable
>experience to share with your IH-loving fellows.  Likewise, if "Vendor Y"
>consistently goes above & beyond the call of duty,  dispenses free advice
>readily, and always ships the correct parts promptly -- this too is
>noteworthy & deserving of being shared.

Amen

>Business can be directed to those vendors exhibiting consistently high
>standards of customer service (thereby rewarding good business practices),
>and vendors with less-than-stellar track records might be motivated to
>improve their customer service practices.  Seemed like a perfect Win-Win to
>me.

And it should be.

>Problem Scenario:
>---------------------------
>John Doe (with no e-mail address) posts some negative feedback about
>"Vendor Z".  Said vendor cannot locate Mr. Doe in his customer database,
>and feels that the comments can neither be verified, nor can the situation
>be corrected -- as Mr. Doe has left no way to be contacted.  Vendor feels
>that the comments are libelous and false.  I as WebMaster am left in a
>position of having to decide among:
>
>1) removing a comment that *may* be perfectly valid
>2) allowing a comment to remain on my site that may be false and injurious
>   to a vendor's business
>3) more or less having to "adjudicate" the truth of these conflicting
>claims.
>
>I elected to shut down the entire feedback facility, since maintenance and
>administration became way more of a nightmare than I thought I "signed up
>for" when I created it.
>
>If I allow an unverified comment to remain on my site, am I tacitly
>"endorsing" it and lending it additional credibility?
>
>The vendor in question is perfectly free to post the "rest of the story",
>if there is another side of the issue that deserves to be heard.  Is this
>sufficient?
>
>How can I offer a forum for such a collection of vendor feedback -- WITHOUT
>feeling responsible for "refereeing" or "judging" the veracity of each
>posted comment?

A major disclaimer (or did you have one?).  Something to the effect that
"the content here is opinion only.  Your experiences may vary.  Please
check all vendors carefully. Blah, Blah, Blah..."

>I rather expected that experienced web surfers would read Mr. Doe's
>comment(s), judge for themselves his language / tone / grammar / argument,
>and decide for themselves how much credence to place on Mr. Doe's expressed
>opinion.  Perhaps he doesn't come across as the reasonable sort, for
>example.

Yes, but this assumes intelligence where there might not be any.  It seems
that the day is long past when we can just assume that people will "figure
it out."  Too many people have gotten so used to someone else telling them
what to do that they no longer think for themselves.  As a professional
educator (gee, didn't we used to be teachers?) I can verify this through
experience.  As one who expects his students to grow and think for
themselves, I am appalled at the number of young people who can't because
they've never been expected to, whether at home, on the streets, or, heaven
forbid, in any class before they got to mine.  Unfortunately, if you decide
to start the feedback again, you may have to think for your readers with
some type of messagewhich tells them exactly how to think before they act.

>I was unwilling to delete a negative comment just because the vendor
>objected to it's presence.  It's not my purpose to "blow sunshine . . .",
>and only post feedback if it's positive.  The entire facility becomes
>meaningless in this case.

And would cost you all credibility in the process, especially among those
who CAN figure it out.

>I was willing to eliminate the entire feedback facility for a given vendor
>(at that vendor's request), but this conspicuously "singles them out" as
>being unwilling to expose themselves to public feedback, and certainly
>doesn't reflect well.  I could likewise remove a vendor from the list
>altogether -- and place a vendor on the list ONLY if they agreed to accept
>public feedback.

I think you really do have to treat all vendors the same way.  Either
everyone participates or no feedback forum at all.  Or, you could list
those who were not willing to accept public feedback at the beginning of
the section for everyone to see.  You could just list their names, but none
of the other useful info, like where they are and what they offer.  Kind of
force them to a halfway point since they aren't willing to meet you.

>I've rambled on long enough here -- but the issue I think is clear:  am I
>"responsible" for the CONTENT of a forum that I provide and make available?

I hate to say it, but I feel you are to a very small degree.  You are
intelligent enough to pick up on tone, intent, etc., in someone's feedback
on a company.  If you feel that it is really meant to injure a company and
not much else (I'm talking ONLY the feedback section here, not an open
discussion forum like the Digest) then I think you have editorial license
to clean it up, put in a statement that makes it less offending, or delete
it entirely.  That would be a judgment call on your part, though, and, as
you stated earlier, cause a lot of extra work.

> Does Richard feel responsible for the CONTENT of the speech that passes
>through the Digest?  Are there simple "rules" that I can make and enforce
>that will make the process more fair and "self-moderating"? (e.g., no
>comments posted without REAL name, e-mail address & phone number of the
>poster).

I waver here.  I don't think that Richard is responsible for the content
here, but then again, I've seen him come on and get us back on course when
the topic gets too far off base.  He sets the rules for the content here
and as long as we stay in those bounds we're ok.  You could do the same
thing by letting people know that it's ok to be unhappy but it's NOT ok to
just rant and rave or use profanity.  Messages should have to be concise,
perhaps giving a date of purchase or phone call, or some other such
specific information.  Is there some program that you can use that confirms
addresses, etc.?  I could see an e-mail address being required, especially
if it could be confirmed ("thank you for participating in our feedback
forum.  Your comments will be noted as soon as your e-mail address is
verified").  However, there are enough crazy people out there that I would
be very wary of REAL names and phone numbers being required.  Optional,
yes.  But required...

>I would like to provide a forum for vendor feedback that is both credible,
>and FAIR to all participants.  I don't want one business to be able to
>sabotage the reputation of one of its competitors, and make me in the
>process an unwitting accomplice in libel.  It's a sad thing that I felt I
>had to pull the plug on what could have been a useful facility.  But I felt
>I had no choice -- until I answered some of these questions, that is.
>

I hope I've at least given you some ideas.  It is a good service and can be
useful if done the right way.  I hope you figure it out.

>Regards,
>
>Bill Thebert
>The Binder Bulletin

Paul
(No sig.  This was long enough)


Paul Brakefield
"Dirtball"

1966 IHC Scout 800- "The Beast"
	Chevy 350/SM465/Dana20
	<Springover with 33s>
1972 Scout II
	345/727/Dana20
	<I'm workin' on it!>
1990 Daihatsu Rocky
	<Badder than you think>
IHC Mailing List
Southern Scouts
Georgia Bounty Runners
Southern Four Wheel Drive Association
United Fourwheel Drive Associations
Proud Member of the NRA