Silk Road forums

Discussion => Silk Road discussion => Topic started by: fractalglobal on November 02, 2012, 12:16 pm

Title: Increase veracity of negative feedback by requiring contraindications?
Post by: fractalglobal on November 02, 2012, 12:16 pm
When I look through vendor feedback on SR I notice that it is almost universally either a 5/5 or 1/5.  Even the most trusted vendors on this site have some 1/5 feedback scores, from what I assume are disgruntled customers who probably made the mistake leading to their package not arriving/getting caught/dog eating pills/whatever.

This poses a problem for some of the newer vendors who may not have a large enough sample size to "take the hit" from potentially incorrect negative feedback.

My idea is to require any feedback below 3/5 to fill in an additional field, "contraindication" whereby at least 1 potential reason is given for the vendor not being at fault.  Then, all a customer has to do is look at the contraindications to get an idea of whether the negative feedback to a vendor is warranted or not.  Stupid comments in this field, i.e. "hes a dick" will generally be indicative of lazy customers blaming vendors for their own failings, and are therefore still useful.

Thoughts?
Title: Re: Increase veracity of negative feedback by requiring contraindications?
Post by: PlutoPete on November 02, 2012, 12:26 pm
When I look through vendor feedback on SR I notice that it is almost universally either a 5/5 or 1/5.  Even the most trusted vendors on this site have some 1/5 feedback scores, from what I assume are disgruntled customers who probably made the mistake leading to their package not arriving/getting caught/dog eating pills/whatever.

This poses a problem for some of the newer vendors who may not have a large enough sample size to "take the hit" from potentially incorrect negative feedback.

My idea is to require any feedback below 3/5 to fill in an additional field, "contraindication" whereby at least 1 potential reason is given for the vendor not being at fault.  Then, all a customer has to do is look at the contraindications to get an idea of whether the negative feedback to a vendor is warranted or not.  Stupid comments in this field, i.e. "hes a dick" will generally be indicative of lazy customers blaming vendors for their own failings, and are therefore still useful.

Thoughts?
Vendors have been asking for the ability to reply to buyers feedback for a long time, even established vendors take a hit from a 1/5 and it's really gutting when it's undeserved.
I recently got a 1/5 for sending a red powder snuffer instead of a black one, and the buyer didn't even express a preference on his order!
Another time I got marked down because the buyer didn't like my address label  ::)
Quite often these low feedbacks are an attempt to extort refunds or freebies from the vendor, as the buyer knows how important their feedback score is and exploits this for their own ends.
Title: Re: Increase veracity of negative feedback by requiring contraindications?
Post by: fractalglobal on November 02, 2012, 01:31 pm
I think this is just an unfortunate side effect of anonymity. The problem I see with allowing vendors to respond to negative feedback, is that instead of promoting rationality, it may result in a further breakdown of logical argument, i.e. flame wars between vendor and buyer.  By forcing the buyer to point out ways he could possibly be wrong in his feedback, I think its more likely that negative feedback will be given for the "right" reasons in the first place.
In other words, I think a proactive solution will be more effective than a reactive one.