Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
bad experience with reverb.com
1,013 views
Skip to first unread message
clevelandjazz
Apr 16, 2015, 10:43:52 AM4/16/15
to
A couple months ago, I bought a Gibson 137 from reverb.com. Prior to purchasing I asked the seller to verify that the truss rod functioned and he said it did with no issues.
When I first got it, the guitar was setup with .010 strings but it sounded really good and I left the seller positive feedback. However, I put a set of .011 strings on it and the neck bowed slightly. No problem, I thought. I tweaked the truss rod. Unfortunately, the neck didn't move when this happened. I contacted the seller and told him I thought the truss rod was not working and that I was taking the guitar into my luthier to inspect and that if it turned out that the truss rod was defective, I would be returning the guitar.
Unfortunately, my luthier concluded after 15 minutes that the truss rod was indeed not working. He could not get the instrument's neck to level out and advised me to return it. He wrote me up a repair ticket indicating this.
The seller called him and insisted I take the instrument back to the luthier for further inspection and for a repair estimate but I felt the seller had not lived up to the initial pre-sales claim and I returned it. I ended up having to dispute the transaction with paypal.
After the transaction was reversed, reverb.com canceled my account and later reinstated it after I posted publicly about the situation.
However, the seller wrote a scathing, negative feedback on me saying (among other things) that I had modified the instrument and then wanted a refund when it broke. They also made unsupported claims unrelated to the transaction.
I contacted reverb and asked them to remove it and cited that reverb.com's representative (Chris) had personally contacted my luthier who corroborated what was in the repair ticket and that it was a blatant lie to say I modified the instrument but they decided to leave the feedback intact saying it was fine for the seller to present his side of the story.
Just letting folks know. I'm sure most folks have great luck with reverb but the warning is that if you have a transaction go awry, they really don't have their act together.
When I first got it, the guitar was setup with .010 strings but it sounded really good and I left the seller positive feedback. However, I put a set of .011 strings on it and the neck bowed slightly. No problem, I thought. I tweaked the truss rod. Unfortunately, the neck didn't move when this happened. I contacted the seller and told him I thought the truss rod was not working and that I was taking the guitar into my luthier to inspect and that if it turned out that the truss rod was defective, I would be returning the guitar.
Unfortunately, my luthier concluded after 15 minutes that the truss rod was indeed not working. He could not get the instrument's neck to level out and advised me to return it. He wrote me up a repair ticket indicating this.
The seller called him and insisted I take the instrument back to the luthier for further inspection and for a repair estimate but I felt the seller had not lived up to the initial pre-sales claim and I returned it. I ended up having to dispute the transaction with paypal.
After the transaction was reversed, reverb.com canceled my account and later reinstated it after I posted publicly about the situation.
However, the seller wrote a scathing, negative feedback on me saying (among other things) that I had modified the instrument and then wanted a refund when it broke. They also made unsupported claims unrelated to the transaction.
I contacted reverb and asked them to remove it and cited that reverb.com's representative (Chris) had personally contacted my luthier who corroborated what was in the repair ticket and that it was a blatant lie to say I modified the instrument but they decided to leave the feedback intact saying it was fine for the seller to present his side of the story.
Just letting folks know. I'm sure most folks have great luck with reverb but the warning is that if you have a transaction go awry, they really don't have their act together.
CR
Apr 18, 2015, 9:28:53 AM4/18/15
to
"clevelandjazz" <jackz...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:86503224-a0b7-435d...@googlegroups.com...
I'm not sure that that is the idea. Many of we sellers have found that ebay
has become too intrusive, and along with that,requiring it to be too
expensive, largely due to its mediating of sales between two parties. If you
think all of that mediation and intrusiveness is free, well, take a look at
the jump in their FVF, an amount many of us are hesitatnt to bear.
When you sell on the Gear Page, for one example, there is NO involvement on
the part of the internediating company. And they have a zero FVF. But you
assume all the risk.Why can't we have a company that offers an alternative
and falls in-between the over-intrusiveness of an ebay and the total
non-intrusiveness of a Gear Page?
I think that if one has the need for full "protection" and "guarantees", and
if one's nature is not that of a risk-taker, one should deal with a brick
and mortar store, or a big chain online store. Next would be ebay.
Selling/buying on Gear Page, Reverb, or through the multitude of available
forums involves taking some risks, which in turn involves far less cost to
the sales.
You just can't have it all ways. Complaints like this will force reverb to
become another ebay. Is that what you really want ?
Gerry
Apr 18, 2015, 10:57:33 AM4/18/15
to
regardless of the setting.
clevelandjazz
Apr 18, 2015, 11:59:34 AM4/18/15
to
That's not true. The gearpage has a feedback mechanism and they don't allow revenge feedback or lying. Fortunately, I've never had to deal with that issue on the gearpage but there have been plenty of others who have. The gearpage will suspend you permanently for that.
CR
Apr 19, 2015, 5:18:46 PM4/19/15
to
news:bccae2ea-16eb-4748...@googlegroups.com...
If you'd like to learn more about the value of feedback systems on sellers,
just google "yelp feedback" (for one example) and see what retailers think
of the fairness and objectivity of yelp's feedback system.
There are other things I can say about this, but I don't want to belabor
this. It is what it is. We all agree it isn't easy doing business on the
internet, yet as consumers we're driving mom n pop retailers out of business
everyday. The times they are a-changin'.... :-)
That's not true. The gearpage has a feedback mechanism and they don't allow
revenge feedback or lying. Fortunately, I've never had to deal with that
issue on the gearpage but there have been plenty of others who have. The
gearpage will suspend you permanently for that.
>
>
Feedback mechanisms are far from ideal ways to judge anything.
revenge feedback or lying. Fortunately, I've never had to deal with that
issue on the gearpage but there have been plenty of others who have. The
gearpage will suspend you permanently for that.
>
>
If you'd like to learn more about the value of feedback systems on sellers,
just google "yelp feedback" (for one example) and see what retailers think
of the fairness and objectivity of yelp's feedback system.
There are other things I can say about this, but I don't want to belabor
this. It is what it is. We all agree it isn't easy doing business on the
internet, yet as consumers we're driving mom n pop retailers out of business
everyday. The times they are a-changin'.... :-)
CR
Apr 19, 2015, 5:21:16 PM4/19/15
to
"Gerry" <add...@domain.com> wrote in message
news:2015041807573156818-address@domaincom...
total agreement. There are ways, though none that are ever sure-fire, to
feel out a seller as to whether (s)he'll be *honest* or not. But most of
life involves some risk, does it not?
clevelandjazz
Apr 19, 2015, 8:06:38 PM4/19/15
to
On Sunday, April 19, 2015 at 5:18:46 PM UTC-4, CR wrote:
> Feedback mechanisms are far from ideal ways to judge anything.
Whateva. The point is the guy out and out lied and said I modified the guitar and implied I broke it by changing the strings and adjusting the truss rod, then later said his luthier found nothing wrong with the truss
> Feedback mechanisms are far from ideal ways to judge anything.
CR
Apr 20, 2015, 3:02:05 PM4/20/15
to
news:09227646-2cb5-4f0a...@googlegroups.com...
Yes, I caught that. Yours was a really bad experience. I'm just sorry to
hear it.
I have been more fortunate with both my online purchases and sales and I am
grateful for that, believe me.
hear it.
I have been more fortunate with both my online purchases and sales and I am
grateful for that, believe me.
clevelandjazz
Apr 21, 2015, 3:41:06 PM4/21/15
to
the part you may be missing is that reverb.com was directly involved in this situation. It's not like ebay where there are 1.2 million sales every day. The owner of reverb.com called my repairman and verified that the guitar was inspected and that the trussrod didn't work. He then saw the paperwork on the repairman's letterhead stating the same.
He then got a phone call from me saying that the seller had left libelous feedback for me, lying and saying I had modified the guitar and insinuating that I broke it. He took a look at it and his conclusion was that the seller should be allowed to tell his version of the story. WTF?!?
There are no "VERSIONS" of the truth.
That was it for me. Done with them.
He then got a phone call from me saying that the seller had left libelous feedback for me, lying and saying I had modified the guitar and insinuating that I broke it. He took a look at it and his conclusion was that the seller should be allowed to tell his version of the story. WTF?!?
There are no "VERSIONS" of the truth.
That was it for me. Done with them.
CR
Apr 22, 2015, 2:15:50 PM4/22/15
to
news:103c350b-f6a5-49ea...@googlegroups.com...
I did get it. I am not a fan of feedback programs in general largely because
they allow vengeful and unethical people to express "feedbacks" that are,
well, vengeful and unethical. I have a business. I have direct experience
with Yelp. They don't even allow the business to give return feedback of the
customer. Believe me, you get some irrational, self-important, and entitled
people who feel free to say anything irrational that they want.
Interestingly, Yelps policies have been challenged in court and the comments
they allow, and the people who made them, have been upheld as protected free
speech, even when those comments border on libelous.
It's a screwed up world.
they allow vengeful and unethical people to express "feedbacks" that are,
well, vengeful and unethical. I have a business. I have direct experience
with Yelp. They don't even allow the business to give return feedback of the
customer. Believe me, you get some irrational, self-important, and entitled
people who feel free to say anything irrational that they want.
Interestingly, Yelps policies have been challenged in court and the comments
they allow, and the people who made them, have been upheld as protected free
speech, even when those comments border on libelous.
It's a screwed up world.
Gerry
Apr 22, 2015, 2:54:08 PM4/22/15
to
On 2015-04-22 18:16:02 +0000, CR said:
> I have a business. I have direct experience with Yelp. They don't even
> allow the business to give return feedback of the customer.
They can give direct and public feedback directly to the customer by
> I have a business. I have direct experience with Yelp. They don't even
> allow the business to give return feedback of the customer.
responding to their complaint. See Amy's Baking Company for the most
exotic example.
> Believe me, you get some irrational, self-important, and entitled
> people who feel free to say anything irrational that they want.
> Interestingly, Yelps policies have been challenged in court and the
> comments they allow, and the people who made them, have been upheld as
> protected free speech, even when those comments border on libelous.
see today's New York Times.
http://tinyurl.com/ndbh3nk
The first part:
A federal judge in Manhattan on Tuesday ordered the Metropolitan
Transportation Authority to display an ad from a pro-Israel group on
buses after the agency declined to run it last year.
The group, the American Freedom Defense Initiative, sued the authority
in October, saying it had infringed on the group’s First Amendment
rights by rejecting the ad. The authority had argued that the ad could
be seen as a call to violence against Jews.
The ad shows a man with a scarf across his face next to the words,
“Killing Jews is Worship that draws us close to Allah,” attributed to
“Hamas MTV.” Below that, it reads: “That’s his Jihad. What’s yours?”
The judge, John G. Koeltl, of United States District Court, ruled that
the ad qualified as protected speech and granted a preliminary
injunction ordering the transportation authority to run the ad.
> It's a screwed up world.
CR
Apr 23, 2015, 10:14:40 AM4/23/15
to
news:2015042211540787562-address@domaincom...
Yelp allows the business to write a response, which is in theory "public" to
a feedback, true. However, certain conditions surrounding that exist.
The first is that the business's response comes after the customer review
and is not displayed in its entirety unless a reader actively clicks on the
"See more" link (or however it's worded). It's not a passive display of the
businesses response. Most people, especially those using devices, I think
will not go that far.
The second is that the reviewer can insulate Him(her)self from your response
by blocking the notices of replies to their reviews that they would
otherwise receive. I think that borderlines on criminal. If a person is
given the privilege of the "free-speech" right to review someone, they
should have to face the music of the response.
On your story of the advertising poster, at one time I would have been
surprised that the calling for the murder of any people was protected
speech, but in this day and age, I guess there are no longer any rules, at
least for some. It's a shame.
Btw, what did you gather was the point of that ad? It's not clear to me what
the message is. If the point is that it's being critical of those kinds of
bigotries, then I might understand the judges ruling.
a feedback, true. However, certain conditions surrounding that exist.
The first is that the business's response comes after the customer review
and is not displayed in its entirety unless a reader actively clicks on the
"See more" link (or however it's worded). It's not a passive display of the
businesses response. Most people, especially those using devices, I think
will not go that far.
The second is that the reviewer can insulate Him(her)self from your response
by blocking the notices of replies to their reviews that they would
otherwise receive. I think that borderlines on criminal. If a person is
given the privilege of the "free-speech" right to review someone, they
should have to face the music of the response.
On your story of the advertising poster, at one time I would have been
surprised that the calling for the murder of any people was protected
speech, but in this day and age, I guess there are no longer any rules, at
least for some. It's a shame.
Btw, what did you gather was the point of that ad? It's not clear to me what
the message is. If the point is that it's being critical of those kinds of
bigotries, then I might understand the judges ruling.
Gerry
Apr 23, 2015, 11:59:57 AM4/23/15
to
On 2015-04-23 14:14:55 +0000, CR said:
> On your story of the advertising poster, at one time I would have been
> surprised that the calling for the murder of any people was protected
> speech, but in this day and age, I guess there are no longer any rules,
> at least for some. It's a shame.
In the "Citizen's United" ruling of course, the use of money in
> On your story of the advertising poster, at one time I would have been
> surprised that the calling for the murder of any people was protected
> speech, but in this day and age, I guess there are no longer any rules,
> at least for some. It's a shame.
advertising, or propaganda is considered free speech, of course. So
"free speech" is any damn thing people of wealth and power say it is.
> Btw, what did you gather was the point of that ad? It's not clear to me
> what the message is. If the point is that it's being critical of those
> kinds of bigotries, then I might understand the judges ruling.
across his face next to the words, "Killing Jews is Worship that draws
us close to Allah,"...
The intended takeaway is that Muslim's consider killing "worship", who
wouldn't consider them the definition of evil? Apparently that's
considerd an "advertisement" instead of "defamation". It would be
interesting to see the public response to an Islamic group using busses
for agitprop.
Tim McNamara
Apr 23, 2015, 2:02:05 PM4/23/15
to
On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 10:14:55 -0400, CR <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> "Gerry" <add...@domain.com> wrote in message
> news:2015042211540787562-address@domaincom...
>> On 2015-04-22 18:16:02 +0000, CR said:
>>
>>> I have a business. I have direct experience with Yelp. They don't
>>> even allow the business to give return feedback of the customer.
>>
>> They can give direct and public feedback directly to the customer by
>> responding to their complaint. See Amy's Baking Company for the most
>> exotic example.
>>
>>> Believe me, you get some irrational, self-important, and entitled
>>> people who feel free to say anything irrational that they want.
>>> Interestingly, Yelps policies have been challenged in court and the
>>> comments they allow, and the people who made them, have been upheld
>>> as protected free speech, even when those comments border on
>>> libelous.
Not that I have yet seen. A bad review is not libel if it is based in
>
> "Gerry" <add...@domain.com> wrote in message
> news:2015042211540787562-address@domaincom...
>> On 2015-04-22 18:16:02 +0000, CR said:
>>
>>> I have a business. I have direct experience with Yelp. They don't
>>> even allow the business to give return feedback of the customer.
>>
>> They can give direct and public feedback directly to the customer by
>> responding to their complaint. See Amy's Baking Company for the most
>> exotic example.
>>
>>> Believe me, you get some irrational, self-important, and entitled
>>> people who feel free to say anything irrational that they want.
>>> Interestingly, Yelps policies have been challenged in court and the
>>> comments they allow, and the people who made them, have been upheld
>>> as protected free speech, even when those comments border on
>>> libelous.
fact.
<snip>
> Yelp allows the business to write a response, which is in theory
> "public" to a feedback, true. However, certain conditions surrounding
> that exist.
>
> The first is that the business's response comes after the customer
> review and is not displayed in its entirety unless a reader actively
> clicks on the "See more" link (or however it's worded). It's not a
> passive display of the businesses response. Most people, especially
> those using devices, I think will not go that far.
>
> The second is that the reviewer can insulate Him(her)self from your
> response by blocking the notices of replies to their reviews that they
> would otherwise receive. I think that borderlines on criminal. If a
> person is given the privilege of the "free-speech" right to review
> someone, they should have to face the music of the response.
broken? The poster is under no obligation to read the response of the
business.
Business also need to understand that a bad review is not necessarily
libel or slander. If the customer had a bad experience and their post
is based in fact, it is not slander or libel. A lot of business think
they do a great job when in fact they suck in one way or another.
When I read reviews I take them with a grain of salt. There are some
people who are never satisfied. If there are 43 good reviews and one
bad one, I ignore the bad one. If there are 43 bad reviews and one good
one, OTOH, it's a different story.
There are two particularly troubling abuses of things like Yelp,
however. The first is competing companies posting false bad reviews;
the second is companies posting false positive reviews (or paying
someone to do that). The third troubling abuse is the trend of putting
fine print into agreements allowing the company to sue or bill people
for posting negative reviews- like when you sign for a room in a hotel
and you don't notice the clause in the agreement that says they'll bill
you $1,000 for every bad review. Most companies that do this seem to be
also companies that deserve bad reviews...
> On your story of the advertising poster, at one time I would have been
> surprised that the calling for the murder of any people was protected
> speech, but in this day and age, I guess there are no longer any
> rules, at least for some. It's a shame.
>
> Btw, what did you gather was the point of that ad? It's not clear to
> me what the message is. If the point is that it's being critical of
> those kinds of bigotries, then I might understand the judges ruling.
is a bunch of right wing whacko Islamophobes. Plenty of information out
there about them, including their own.
van
Apr 23, 2015, 7:31:48 PM4/23/15
to
What up wit dat?
Gerry
Apr 23, 2015, 8:20:42 PM4/23/15
to
On 2015-04-23 23:31:47 +0000, van said:
> I was driving on the Van Wyck Expressway today, and I saw a big
> billboard that said "The NY Times in anti-Israel!"
> What up wit dat?
I'm guessing that should read "...IS anti-Israel!" They must have
> I was driving on the Van Wyck Expressway today, and I saw a big
> billboard that said "The NY Times in anti-Israel!"
> What up wit dat?
mentioned something Netanyahu didn't like, or an article that mentioned
an "occupation" of Palestine. They don't care for anyone using that
word.
The amount of money being spent for the USA to fight a ground war in
Iran on behalf of Israel's phobias is getting to be a mighty big bag of
cash. They've certainly bought the Republican's fealty. It appears
much stronger than the pre-prep of warring with Iraq on behalf of Saudi
Arabia's phobias.
If Mexico had better lobbyists or more wealthy folk that wanted to buy
senators, we'd likely have immigration reform tomorrow! Come to think
of it, the majority owner of the New York Times is Carlos Slim, a
Mexican national. If he'd spent a quarter of his $341 million dollar
holdings of the NYT on 20-30 congressman and senators--or better yet,
the American Enterprise Institute--we'd have Republicans passing the
Dream Act in a matter of seconds.
van
Apr 24, 2015, 3:38:48 PM4/24/15
to
CR
Apr 24, 2015, 5:32:45 PM4/24/15
to
"Tim McNamara" <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote in message
news:slrnmjicsr...@sugaree-2.local...
> On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 10:14:55 -0400, CR <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>> "Gerry" <add...@domain.com> wrote in message
>> news:2015042211540787562-address@domaincom...
>>> On 2015-04-22 18:16:02 +0000, CR said:
>>>
>>>> I have a business. I have direct experience with Yelp. They don't
>>>> even allow the business to give return feedback of the customer.
>>>
>>> They can give direct and public feedback directly to the customer by
>>> responding to their complaint. See Amy's Baking Company for the most
>>> exotic example.
>>>
>
Well, not exactly correct if you read my full response. The "response to the
>>
>> "Gerry" <add...@domain.com> wrote in message
>> news:2015042211540787562-address@domaincom...
>>> On 2015-04-22 18:16:02 +0000, CR said:
>>>
>>>> I have a business. I have direct experience with Yelp. They don't
>>>> even allow the business to give return feedback of the customer.
>>>
>>> They can give direct and public feedback directly to the customer by
>>> responding to their complaint. See Amy's Baking Company for the most
>>> exotic example.
>>>
>
complaint" is not readily visible to the public AND abusive reviewers often
block notifications that their review has been responded to. They don't know
and they don't care, and they don't want to see a review of themselves as a
customer. It's a thoughtful little feature that Yelp gave to people who
review so that they can remain removed from the experience and how it
affects those that they're reviewing.
>
>
>>>> Believe me, you get some irrational, self-important, and entitled
>>>> people who feel free to say anything irrational that they want.
>>>> Interestingly, Yelps policies have been challenged in court and the
>>>> comments they allow, and the people who made them, have been upheld
>>>> as protected free speech, even when those comments border on
>>>> libelous.
>
> Not that I have yet seen. A bad review is not libel if it is based in
> fact.
>
>
From what I understand, it would be very hard to prove that a bad review is
>
>>>> Believe me, you get some irrational, self-important, and entitled
>>>> people who feel free to say anything irrational that they want.
>>>> Interestingly, Yelps policies have been challenged in court and the
>>>> comments they allow, and the people who made them, have been upheld
>>>> as protected free speech, even when those comments border on
>>>> libelous.
>
> Not that I have yet seen. A bad review is not libel if it is based in
> fact.
>
>
libelous even under the worst of circumstances. They generally fall under
the umbrella of "opinion", even when some of the "facts" may be incorrect.
Some of the worst reviews I've seen are totally devoid of any fact anyway.
>
> <snip>
>
>> Yelp allows the business to write a response, which is in theory
>> "public" to a feedback, true. However, certain conditions surrounding
>> that exist.
>>
>> The first is that the business's response comes after the customer
>> review and is not displayed in its entirety unless a reader actively
>> clicks on the "See more" link (or however it's worded). It's not a
>> passive display of the businesses response. Most people, especially
>> those using devices, I think will not go that far.
>>
>> The second is that the reviewer can insulate Him(her)self from your
>> response by blocking the notices of replies to their reviews that they
>> would otherwise receive. I think that borderlines on criminal. If a
>> person is given the privilege of the "free-speech" right to review
>> someone, they should have to face the music of the response.
>
> In what way does that border on "criminal?" What law is being
> broken? The poster is under no obligation to read the response of the
> business.
>
>
I didn't mean "criminal" in the literal sense but in the sometimes common
> <snip>
>
>> Yelp allows the business to write a response, which is in theory
>> "public" to a feedback, true. However, certain conditions surrounding
>> that exist.
>>
>> The first is that the business's response comes after the customer
>> review and is not displayed in its entirety unless a reader actively
>> clicks on the "See more" link (or however it's worded). It's not a
>> passive display of the businesses response. Most people, especially
>> those using devices, I think will not go that far.
>>
>> The second is that the reviewer can insulate Him(her)self from your
>> response by blocking the notices of replies to their reviews that they
>> would otherwise receive. I think that borderlines on criminal. If a
>> person is given the privilege of the "free-speech" right to review
>> someone, they should have to face the music of the response.
>
> In what way does that border on "criminal?" What law is being
> broken? The poster is under no obligation to read the response of the
> business.
>
>
usage sense that it's over-the-top bad, imho. I should have been more
careful choosing my wording. And of course the poster is under no obligation
to read the response a business makes of their review, but they should have
to be notifed that one was made. That's part of the responsibility imo.
Whether they look at it or not is their choice. It's way too easy to make
allegations and point fingers totally anonymously, especially when you don't
have to have the mirror held back up to you to see how you were perceived
and/or how you may have created your own set of lose-lose circumstances. I
would be suspicious of reviewers who block notices that their review was
responded to.
>
>
> Business also need to understand that a bad review is not necessarily
> libel or slander. If the customer had a bad experience and their post
> is based in fact, it is not slander or libel. A lot of business think
> they do a great job when in fact they suck in one way or another.
>
> When I read reviews I take them with a grain of salt. There are some
> people who are never satisfied. If there are 43 good reviews and one
> bad one, I ignore the bad one. If there are 43 bad reviews and one good
> one, OTOH, it's a different story.
>
>
What if there were 13 good reviews and, say 3 bad ones, but Yelp decided
>
> Business also need to understand that a bad review is not necessarily
> libel or slander. If the customer had a bad experience and their post
> is based in fact, it is not slander or libel. A lot of business think
> they do a great job when in fact they suck in one way or another.
>
> When I read reviews I take them with a grain of salt. There are some
> people who are never satisfied. If there are 43 good reviews and one
> bad one, I ignore the bad one. If there are 43 bad reviews and one good
> one, OTOH, it's a different story.
>
>
through their "computer algorithm that 5 of the good ones were "not
recommended" and hid them? So, what the public sees is 8 good ones and 3 bad
ones. What might be your response then? And yes, this does happen. Yelp has
many secret reasons about why some reviews are "not recommended", one of
them being if it's a reviewer's first time review. Read up on it.
>
>
> There are two particularly troubling abuses of things like Yelp,
> however. The first is competing companies posting false bad reviews;
> the second is companies posting false positive reviews (or paying
> someone to do that). The third troubling abuse is the trend of putting
> fine print into agreements allowing the company to sue or bill people
> for posting negative reviews- like when you sign for a room in a hotel
> and you don't notice the clause in the agreement that says they'll bill
> you $1,000 for every bad review. Most companies that do this seem to be
> also companies that deserve bad reviews...
>
>> On your story of the advertising poster, at one time I would have been
>> surprised that the calling for the murder of any people was protected
>> speech, but in this day and age, I guess there are no longer any
>> rules, at least for some. It's a shame.
>>
>> Btw, what did you gather was the point of that ad? It's not clear to
>> me what the message is. If the point is that it's being critical of
>> those kinds of bigotries, then I might understand the judges ruling.
>
> It's meant to incite hatred against Muslims. The group running the ad
> is a bunch of right wing whacko Islamophobes. Plenty of information out
> there about them, including their own.
>
I thought it might be more along those lines
>
> There are two particularly troubling abuses of things like Yelp,
> however. The first is competing companies posting false bad reviews;
> the second is companies posting false positive reviews (or paying
> someone to do that). The third troubling abuse is the trend of putting
> fine print into agreements allowing the company to sue or bill people
> for posting negative reviews- like when you sign for a room in a hotel
> and you don't notice the clause in the agreement that says they'll bill
> you $1,000 for every bad review. Most companies that do this seem to be
> also companies that deserve bad reviews...
>
>> On your story of the advertising poster, at one time I would have been
>> surprised that the calling for the murder of any people was protected
>> speech, but in this day and age, I guess there are no longer any
>> rules, at least for some. It's a shame.
>>
>> Btw, what did you gather was the point of that ad? It's not clear to
>> me what the message is. If the point is that it's being critical of
>> those kinds of bigotries, then I might understand the judges ruling.
>
> It's meant to incite hatred against Muslims. The group running the ad
> is a bunch of right wing whacko Islamophobes. Plenty of information out
> there about them, including their own.
>
Gerry
Apr 24, 2015, 8:10:07 PM4/24/15
to
On 2015-04-24 21:33:00 +0000, CR said:
>>>> They can give direct and public feedback directly to the customer by
>>>> responding to their complaint. See Amy's Baking Company for the most
>>>> exotic example.
>>
> Well, not exactly correct if you read my full response. The "response
> to the complaint" is not readily visible to the public...
>>>> They can give direct and public feedback directly to the customer by
>>>> responding to their complaint. See Amy's Baking Company for the most
>>>> exotic example.
>>
> Well, not exactly correct if you read my full response. The "response
I disagree, I've readily *read* responses from owners to complaints
many times on Yelp.
>> When I read reviews I take them with a grain of salt. There are some
>> people who are never satisfied. If there are 43 good reviews and one
>> bad one, I ignore the bad one. If there are 43 bad reviews and one good
>> one, OTOH, it's a different story.
>>
>>
> What if there were 13 good reviews and, say 3 bad ones, but Yelp
> decided through their "computer algorithm that 5 of the good ones were
> "not recommended" and hid them? So, what the public sees is 8 good ones
> and 3 bad ones. What might be your response then? And yes, this does
> happen. Yelp has many secret reasons about why some reviews are "not
> recommended", one of them being if it's a reviewer's first time review.
> Read up on it.
I rarely read good reviews, I only read the bad ones. If a restaurant
has 8 single-star voters I read them. If 5 say cockroaches and hairs
in food, I don't go. But I almost never see that. I see mega picky
aholes that carp about some waitress who was fat and had too much
makeup refusing to comp a bad drink, or having to send cold food back
or something else. Mostly it's BS.
But when it's clear to me that it's a modality at the restaurant, I
believe I'm quick to suss it out. Level-headed complainants with
substantive issues are pretty easy to spot in the muddle of posts.
Here, as a favorite example, is clearly someone who had complaints that
*couldn't be* invented. It was called "Tapas Flavors of Spain" in
Newport Beach:
----- paste begins -----
Send your enemies here for a good meal.
It's the worst. Absolutely the worst. We got empanadas that were
finished in a microwave. What?! Yes, indeed. If you have good
empanadas, and they might, it's a crime to finish them in a microwave.
The pastry goes soggy with the moisture from the filling, and the
filling is scary hot and overcooked. Finish them in an oven--wait the
requisite five minutes and it's probably fine. Unless you're a lazy ass
working in this joint.
We got toast with a shmeer of tomato stuff. Where the tomato stuff laid
it was soggy down a full inch. Analysis: microwaved! They
grilled/toasted the bread, smeared on the tomato stuff, then into the
fridge till ordered, microwave until soggy and serve. Inedible.
Crab cakes analysis: Deep fried, then put in the fridge. When ordered,
deep fry some more, so they are hard over-cooked little turds and then
serve 'em up. Taste: miserable.
All of this came with wilted room-temperature lettuce. It looked like
they put out a big ol' bucket at 4pm and then set it next to the hot
plate, deep-fryer, grill-top and unused oven. So it looks fresh but is
wilted, warm, and miserable.
Mac-and-cheese anybody can do, right? So overcook the shell pasta,
grate some cheese on top, put it in the fridge. When ordered blast it
into slush and serve it up; piping hot crap. It even smells bad.
We eat at three or four new restaurants a month and are surprised at
how much good food there is out there; cheap food, fancy food, ethnic
food, everything. So maybe my observations aren't so exacting if
everything is good, right?
Then I hit a place like this failure and realize that I'm gauging just
fine. The cooks at Tapas are phoning it in--from out of state! I ate
here about four years ago and it seemed quite good. I don't know what
happened but it was big sea-change.
We ate the food without puking, so they get a star. But as I drove
away from this place I just got more and more angry at the miserable
job they do.
Bonus points: Read their rules on the back of their menu.15-20
different points, including NO CORKAGE, dollar-per-patron "cake charge"
if you bring your own cake (I'm sure that was bankrupting them), all
tapas go up 50 cents during performances, and on and on. They are
chiselers as well as lazy.
Echh...
----- paste ends ------
Tim McNamara
Apr 24, 2015, 11:45:52 PM4/24/15
to
>>
>> Business also need to understand that a bad review is not necessarily
>> libel or slander. If the customer had a bad experience and their post
>> is based in fact, it is not slander or libel. A lot of business think
>> they do a great job when in fact they suck in one way or another.
>>
>> When I read reviews I take them with a grain of salt. There are some
>> people who are never satisfied. If there are 43 good reviews and one
>> bad one, I ignore the bad one. If there are 43 bad reviews and one good
>> one, OTOH, it's a different story.
>>
>>
> What if there were 13 good reviews and, say 3 bad ones, but Yelp decided
> through their "computer algorithm that 5 of the good ones were "not
> recommended" and hid them? So, what the public sees is 8 good ones and 3 bad
> ones. What might be your response then? And yes, this does happen. Yelp has
> many secret reasons about why some reviews are "not recommended", one of
> them being if it's a reviewer's first time review. Read up on it.
mainly I am looking for resturants and don't put much stock in the
reviews. I wonder if I would feel the same way about reviews for, say,
a general contractor or a plumber. I've not used Yelp for that sort of
thing. Given that the outlay is much higher than for a meal, perhaps
reviews would weigh heavier.
I did not know that Yelp ranks reviews in this way, thanks for cueing me
into that.
>>
>> There are two particularly troubling abuses of things like Yelp,
>> however. The first is competing companies posting false bad reviews;
>> the second is companies posting false positive reviews (or paying
>> someone to do that). The third troubling abuse is the trend of
>> putting fine print into agreements allowing the company to sue or
>> bill people for posting negative reviews- like when you sign for a
>> room in a hotel and you don't notice the clause in the agreement that
>> says they'll bill you $1,000 for every bad review. Most companies
>> that do this seem to be also companies that deserve bad reviews...
>>
>>> On your story of the advertising poster, at one time I would have
>>> been surprised that the calling for the murder of any people was
>>> protected speech, but in this day and age, I guess there are no
>>> longer any rules, at least for some. It's a shame.
>>>
>>> Btw, what did you gather was the point of that ad? It's not clear to
>>> me what the message is. If the point is that it's being critical of
>>> those kinds of bigotries, then I might understand the judges ruling.
>>
>> It's meant to incite hatred against Muslims. The group running the
>> ad is a bunch of right wing whacko Islamophobes. Plenty of
>> information out there about them, including their own.
>>
> I thought it might be more along those lines
when I don't agree with what's being said, when it's just vituperation I
do start to squirm sometimes; it feels lke there are or should be some
limits over what's protected under the First Amendment in the US and
similar laws in other countries. This ad would make me squirm. The
family that goes around "protesting" soldiers' burials to get publicity
for their anti-gay nonsense also pushes past what I consider reasonable
freedom of speech.
lonnie...@gmail.com
Jun 22, 2018, 1:27:26 PM6/22/18
to
I'm a seller on reverb fedex sent out my merchandise and it was damaged so reverb put my account under review granted my other items were received in perfect condition my pay outs are being held the correspondence has been little to none I have not received my money or any correspondence in 6 days I have to call daily just to be told I have to email. this company sucks it's the worst customer service I've had ever had do not use them they are horrible
jackro...@gmail.com
May 13, 2019, 7:09:11 PM5/13/19
to
Beware Sellers: Sold an amp on Reverb just to have it returned with a reason: sounds to much like the amp I already have !I told the seller sorry out of your 7 days...then Reverb contacted me and said that I have to return the buyers money less the processing fees? You mean sellers fees, no processing fees they said and any $ I spent for shipping. So now I am out $100. the amp is back at the house. Hailey was the support rep and was totally on the side of the buyer telling me that I should have written better return policy.
So is it right that I sold and shipped my used amp, the buyer admits its a great amp but returned anyway and it cost me $100? Total BS...and FU Reverb.
So is it right that I sold and shipped my used amp, the buyer admits its a great amp but returned anyway and it cost me $100? Total BS...and FU Reverb.
0 new messages