Proposal for a browser plug-in to warn of dodgy sellers

[Sassy Romano]

Since it would appear that LL have little interest in providing any effective enforcement of those who are clearly found to be selling plywood boxes,maybe because they take a commission and shrug shoulders pretending they're not involved in the transactions and thus complicit.

How about an external database that is end user populated (there's currently a 60 page thread on SLU of dodgy URL's and merchants that operate the scams).

Then all we need is a web plug in that works like the Grease Monkey script that shows product keywords nice and clearly but instead compares either the specific URL or known bad merchant (a simple scrape of the product HTML would yield the merchant name) and slaps a nice big warning, client side in the browser about that product/merchant.

Opportunity for witch hunts, sure, opportunity for false positives, indeed. 

Better than being as bad as LL and doing nothing?  Discuss.

(It's not my skill set but i'd be interested to know what thoughts are around such a proposal)

[Madeliefste Oh]

I think it's a great idea. I would use such Grease Monkey script when it was available.
On the other hand, I wonder how many people are willing to install a plugin?

Maybe something like a 'SL Marketplace Black Book', would be something more comfortable for people to use. Something like a website, where residents collect their experiences with scams on the marketplace. Whether it is plymouth boxes, empty boxes, stolen content. Searchable by merchant, by product, by sort of scam. 

[Pamela Galli]

If administered by people with the right reputation and history of research on this topic, yes.  For example, I know someone that has for years been a leader in identifying and reporting copybotting as well as now stolen mesh importing.  I know someone else who has developed a list of criteria indicating fraud and IP theft -- she monitors the new products page to identify and further investigate these.  Then there are the technically-abled among us who could implement it.

[Amethyst Jetaime]

A good idea if and only if it is properly executed. It would have to be run by someone with an impeccable reputation themselves, preferably not a merchant either.

There would have to be some type of independent verification in place other than someone just reporting the problem  I can see a lot of room for abuse of such a system with people reporting competitors and, people they want to get back at for something etc..   This could bring that to a whole new level. There is already enough abuse and anti competitive behavior with reviews.

While all merchants should check and double check, what if an otherwise reputable merchant makes a mistake and doesn't pack their delivery box correctly?  Should they be penalized by being branded a scammer?  Sure it could be a requirement that the customer has to contact the merchant first to try to resolve it, but what proof could they give that they did this that couldn't easily be forged by someone with ill intentions?  What about a person looking to scam a merchant who refuses to be scammed. 

Whoever runs it needs liability insurance too as they may get sued for slander.  Even if they win the case they will face a lot of legal expenses.  I would also advise they consult a good lawyer before starting this to make sure they are on sound legal footing with their policies and procedures.

[jwenting]

99.99995% chance that within 10 seconds of going life the first fake "reports" will start to appear, created by people who want to drive their competitors (or even the people they stole content from) out of business.

[Sassy Romano]

I'm not big on roll over and do nothing mentality but that's not to say this will happen either as there are technical challenges to be overcome first.

There would have to be ways to handle reports, i'm not suggesting an instant black mark just because someone says so.  What i'd like to do is provide "evidence" using publicy available information such that people can make more informed judgements.

Nor do I support the constant paranoia that all merchants listings that get flagged and de-listed are because they are highlighted by competitors.  I've flagged listings that so blatantly flout the guidelines and come up as "already flagged" and they're very much far from my competitor. 

It's quite common for a merchant to post here that their product was delisted <insert probably by a competitor claim> only to then be told that a "Wooden desk" does not suit keywords "doll, child, cat, dog, black, white, furniture, prim, SALE!!, avatar, tall, skinny, dress, fashion, boots, shoes,gloves" as if they had no idea that wasn't appropriate.

Anyway, that's somewhat of a different debate :matte-motes-whistle:

[Alicia Sautereau]

No.

Some creators will use their friends/customer base to report their competition and shut them down.
Griefers will grief every one and shut them down.

[Theresa Tennyson]

I think some sort of whitelist like the old "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval" would work better. With a blacklist not only does someone actually has to be caught first, but they have to be caught by someone bright enough to know how to report it to the blacklist keepers. Meanwhile, the scammers would continue hitting those not savvy enough to use the blacklist.

I saw an interesting article about the "Nigerian scam" E-mails. Most people looking at them find them to be obvious scams and you'd expect those sending them to try and be a little less blatant,. but the article said that they actually try to be obvious so they know anyone who responded would be gullible enough to be worth the time of scamming them.

However, a group of honest merchants could set up a similar filter that would only return results from trusted merchants - the bar to join wouldn't have to be that high. It's doubtful that scammers would try to join the group because their techniques would be obvious - "I KNOW Vista Barnes and you're NOT Vista Barnes", etc.