I don't know who you are but you are way out of line. I hope you find a new place to harass people. You're done.

Mark

 

Didn't take you too long. Once again, you all seem to be awfully concern with an insignificant little forum like MININUTS.com

 

Ahh, you'll address that, but not your greedy habits?

You aren't worthy of the people who comprise your forums, you parasite.

 

Think we've already made progress!! "Extreme case" has been defined....

 

I could grow into one... on the bright side, if I have any problems, I have 24/7 help from my other half
We don't agree on everything, but we have similar thoughts and opinions
just teach me what i need to know, i'm a very fast learner... my boss has me training the new people and i've only worked there a week

 

Ooooh, got a lil' present for you over there now

 

i dunno about that.. you're on the MINI***S. i'm sure that's a strike against you somewhere in the qualifications for SUPERMOD.

 

come now, let us leave that site out of this discussion - it's not really germane to the discussion at hand.

 

^ oh, but your avatar alone makes it worth "reviewing"

 

 

A few notes...

Anyone that volunteers to be a mod, you are not mod material.

MININuts... a few rotten eggs and ya'll condemn the entire basket. Wrong...some good eggs in every basket.

Posting divergent views. Yes, it is by almost all means encouraged. The kicker, be civil.

Whats past is past, let it go.

 

mark,

you asked for suggestions to stop all this fighting (instead of constantly whining about it.)

ok, i'll bet something really important (beer) on this: if M7 were kicked off of NAM (for continually making bogus/exaggerated claims), virtually ALL of this fighting would stop.

didn't NAM seem like the civil place you want it to be before M7 starting advertising in the forums?

as a secondary bet, i'll wager than revenues would then go UP, because other vendors would see that this is the civil place you all want it to be and would join/post and that the 'old timer,' respected technical guys would come back.

 

The issue is not that people feel their claims are exaggerated. The issue is being civil on the site. Take a look at the recent negative feedback thread about an Aesthetic Creations thread. It remained civil and resulted in resolution for the original poster.

Who is fully qualified (ie - they've been doing this for years and have a large amount of respect in the auto industry) to put each and every claim made by a vendor to the test and accurately and fairly assess if its truthful or not? Frankly I don't this is realistic though I do believe that providing a mechanism and policy to cut down the noise and enforce civility would be. For example if we expanded the role of the vendor directory so that it would include a review system....

The policy would be that each member could post one review of a vendor (overall vendor impression if you will). It would be positive, negative, or neutral with ample area to make their best case. Once submitted the vendor is notified that they have a new review about them. The vendor has one opportunity to provide a rebuttal and then he has to move on. Based on all the feedback we provide a number of scores for the vendor just like eBay. New users to the site can be directed to the reviews so they can draw their own conclusions, the vendor has a chance to address the specific issue, and, if they don't, it will be noted in their lack of response.

Mark

 

Interesting that you brought up Ebay. Will you also employ their model that if the vendor's rating drops bellow certain point they no longer enjoy the privilege of being a vendor? I think EBay uses 97% as that break point.

 

Mark,

You are right, it's not the issue of exaggerated claims, as many vendors have. It seems M7 is just protected more when questioned.

With regard to the AC thread, AC just hasn't come in throwing stones back with fanboys in tow. That's why it's civil.

I think this is where there are major perception differences between the admins and the users. And I must reiterate, there are many vendors that make exaggerated claims, which is what you are trying to solve with qualifications and ratings, it's the aftermath and fairness that others are trying to point out. Two different problems in my book.

 

Also, I don't think the PU threads ever remained civil, just that it was one sided.

 

Interesting idea...the difference is that eBay is facilitating a transaction between two parties and can determine that a transaction (ie - you won the auction from this other member). NAM does not have any mechanism to determine if a transaction actually occurred between the parties. Furthermore a review on NAM is really just an opinion and isn't necessarily associated with any transaction (ie - I don't like this vendor because he doesn't have a color I like in his logo).

Given these differences I still would prefer that if a vendor has a 65% rating that its up to the member whether or not to risk it based on the reviews they read...and how the vendor has (or has not) chosen to provide a rebuttal on the negative or neutral ratings.

Mark

 

I'm a little confused by your second paragraph, but I think I get the gist of it. The satisfaction percentile is obviously arbitrary. And to extend on that it is up to individuals to decide at what level they still would patronize the vendor. I know personally I would not deal with some EBay vendors even though they were still allowed to be on there. That being said, I know even EBay is fine tuning their rating model. I know I recently got some memo from them about sellers not being able to leave negative feed back for buyers, or something like that. Not even sure it would apply to NAM, but I can try to dig it up if you're interested.

 

Your gist assessment is correct. I do feel that the satisfaction number is arbitrary and up to the discretion of what the member is willing to risk/tolerate. If they go through with their purchase even after seeing what they have they are taking responsibility for their actions. If they too get burned they will also put a review up regarding their experience.

As for eBay changing their rating model I'm aware of that and don't agree with it. Transactions are always two ways. The vendor could have a bad experience with a buyer paying promptly, refusing acceptance of a shipment, etc. just as easily as the customer could have problems with the vendor. Regardless the rating system is just giving you a relative experience of other people that have dealt, in some way, with that person. I, personally, will look at the specific feedback on eBay for a seller if I see it less than 100%. With the feedback you'll sometimes see someone that is dinging the seller for something that is really insignificant in my view and I would adjust my view of the rating accordingly.

The net here is that if you had some type of rating where the member could make his best case, and if neutral or negative, the vendor could provide a rebuttal the end user gets to see both sides of the coin and has the opportunity to make their own decision.

Mark

 

OK. I know I only have 300+ posts, but I've decided I'm going to weigh in here anyway.

1) NAM is a free service to those of us who choose to take advantage of it's existence without joining.

2) It is not a free service to the vendors who have to pay something for the right to advertise, etc.

3) So why would I ever expect the management of NAM to favor me, a non-paying customer, over a vendor, a paying customer.

PLEASE NOTE: I am not actually saying that they do favor vendors. I am just saying, "WHY WOULD I EXPECT IT TO BE OTHERWISE?" By what logic would I ever assume that someone who uses a free service should get anything more than what they pay for.

And finally, DO NOT interpret any of the above as any kind of criticism of NAM. I absolutely love it here ... otherwise I wouldn't spend as much time here as I do.

 

I'm not sure how to make this clear on my position with M7 but I'm going to try again. I see M7 threads start (regardless if its started by M7, a customer, or someone just wanting to learn more) and they initially start out with people being civil and asking questions of M7. M7 is often responding directly during this time.

After the thread starts making it onto the Latest Threads list and the word gets out there are a group of users that always comes in and goes to work on the thread. The original focus of the thread is lost to what happened in the past, pixel by pixel dissection of photos, dyno, etc. The members that started it with their own questions stop posting as they don't feel like they can get a word in edgewise, M7 gets defensive and stops posting or lashes out when baited, the active posters keep on posting and posting and posting until it gets really personal. At this point we've received a weeks worth of reported posts in an hour from the original people that were civil in the thread, M7, and even the group saying that M7 lashed out at them after they were baited. The thread is locked and/or infractions issued because of how it gets personal.

Its the above pattern that has occurred over and over and the opinions expressed by those involved, over time, that have lead me to the impression that when the piling on occurs it is not for the benefit of the other members of the community through making them aware of issues, protect them from making the same mistakes, etc (insert favorite charitable and public service notion here). It is an attempt to bury M7 and create enough confusion that the issues that people point out can never be resolved since they are lost in the shuffle.

If the intent truly is to get M7 to drop hype, exaggeration,etc then those people most concerned about it should stop wasting time in their efforts to brow beat everyone with their points of view but to collectively pull together a constructive open letter to M7 which focuses on all the things you take issue with, provide concrete reasonable steps in how those could be addressed, etc. all the while remaining civil. At that point M7 can choose how they respond to the points in the letter. If they do, can remain civil in their responses, and are interested in resolving the issues then everyone wins.

Frankly I don't care how its done but I want the playing field to be fair for all parties involved. When it doesn't feel fair because of the actions of a few that is when I take exception (and its perceived as protection from those not seeing the wide range of issues, personalities, etc from where I sit). That said I think that both M7 and the members of the site could benefit by making an effort to calmly and coolly address the issues that seem to keep coming up and repeatedly creating a mess for all on the site.

Mark

 

Amen. Exactly. Well said.

 

Mark,

After reading your response, I appreciate the discussion, but I don't think anything I say will be constructive to this subject. I'm done.

Thanks.

 

I'll bet if you did a poll, M7's record would be way positive. If you look at all these threads, it is a very select few that are saying negative things about them.

 

Here he is again, "Mr. Negative". Give it a break man.