Maybe before making a significant purchase (each of us can decide how much
that is), we might want to post something like:
"Does anybody have any experience with so-and-so. If so, please reply off
list. Thanks."
From: Kelton Rhoads <krho@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: "Olympus List" <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [OM] Naming Names
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 10:27:20 -0800
>><< It was advertised as LN but it is more like EX cosmetically with a
>>bad meter . . . I also bought the f280 flash from same seller that was
>>advertised as LN but is more like Bargain >>
>
>Sorry to hear about your grade inflation problems. You ought to post the
>name of that seller here.
I agree, but Frank should be prepared for mail from a handful of list
members urging him not to reveal the name. Several weeks back I aired the
name of a seller giving me problems and got some negative off-list
feedback from a few list members for it. I felt I was taking on personal
risk for the benefit of the list (giving advance warning to other
potential purchasers), but that got spun by a few people as my jumping to
conclusions and damaging an innocent seller's record. Posting the names
of deadbeat sellers is the right thing to do, but be prepared for a
reaction from a small minority of list members if it isn't done right.
And that was where I think I went wrong weeks ago, because, given the
nature of e-communications, I've learned you can't summarize and condense
as you might if you were talking to your neighbor. If you simply say,
"Beware of so-and-so," your communication may be interpreted as unjust, a
"judgment without a trial." I had summarized, because I didn't feel like
airing all the dirty laundry. That was a mistake. (In fact, eBay also
discourages summaries, and encourages negative feedback to be based
strictly on the facts). In the future, when I issue a seller warning,
I'll provide detail so people can make up their own minds. And, I'll skip
the judgment calls altogether. I've come to believe that, although shared
summary judgments are efficient and useful in many instances, they are
not well-suited to virtual communities. In any case, the rules of
politics still apply: "You can't throw mud without getting hit by mud
yourself." (Which is why I think the feedback on eBay is such a
crock--why give negative feedback when it will only damage your own
record in a tit-for-tat retaliation? What's to stop a person with a lot
of negative feedback from re-emerging under a different name? If you are
honest with your side of the story, what constrains your antagonist to be
honest as well? Do we really believe that everybody is equally honest?)
OK, I'm starting to go seriously OT here, but let me take a moment and
issue a GOOD seller notice. There's a guy on eBay named James Timmons
(jktphd) who is an outstanding, honest seller of OM equipment. I
purchased several items from him, most recently a 28/2 for $230 and it
arrived in better-than-described, near-mint condition (REALLY near-mint,
not pseudo near-mint, with apologies to those of you who don't think
"mint" should be used as a descriptor). He also threw in free shipping
and a free micro-fiber cloth. I say "What a guy," but draw your *own*
conclusion from these facts. (And what a lens! Now I can see what y'all
have been raving about.)
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|