Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Annie Rubanis

Left a negative review and am banned from sim...

Recommended Posts

it seems that the customer admired the quality of the products, and brought them frequently, it seems it found fault on the characteristics of that product alone, thats the hardship, the customer will not have access to the quality s/he admires.

the loss of benefits to the merchant, is that it will lose a frequent customer that probably invest a good amount of lindens, if the price of the products were high due to the quality, and was probably thinking in investing much more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Canoro Philipp wrote:

it seems that the customer admired the quality of the products, and brought them frequently, it seems it found fault on the characteristics of that product alone, thats the hardship, the customer will not have access to the quality s/he admires.

the loss of benefits to the merchant, is that it will lose a frequent customer that probably invest a good amount of lindens, if the price of the products were high due to the quality, and was probably thinking in investing much more.

The customer left a one star review based only on the fact that the item was 1) costly and 2) no-copy, both of which were clearly spelled out in the item description. The review was actually posted here on the forums for a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read through this whole thread and I'm just lost as to why you wouldn't think to send a message first and foremost to the creator before leaving them a bad review. Especially since you seem to have been a long standing customer. You have stated that this product had been purchased quite awhile ago at an expensive price. Like many have pointed out that when you go to purchase something on the marketplace, it indicates if an item is copyable or not. You have the choice of whether you purchase an item or not so if the item was too expensive in your opinion, why purchase it? It really seems like a waste.

Many times over the years i've been in Second Life I've had items with an issue here or there. I've always contacted the creator first and foremost. I've always had really great feedback with this method too. I've had a creator spend three hours helping me figure out my first pair of mesh feet even though I'm more than certain they were very busy with other things. I've also had another answer all my questions about a cute little sofa I really loved the look of, but still had misgivings until I spoke to the creator. Oh, I've also even had another kind enough to send me a second copy of a gown I had purchased in her shop, that I stupidly declined on accident when it was sent to me. No questions asked. I believe you get more when you treat a person the way in which you wish to be treated. It is just good common sense, and in this case good business.

Leaving a review on an item because it is no copy and you feel it is too expensive isn't a constructive way to give a creator feedback or other potential customers. I most likely would of done the same thing if I had been in the creator's shoes and had someone leave a review like that because it just seems like a very petty complaint. Why would this person wish to have your business if you feel her merchandise is too expensive in the first place? No one forced you to purchase this item, or to later purchase one for your friend. I think you would of gotten a much different response had you messaged the creator in the first place before jumping the gun and writing a review without giving the merchant a chance to even give you any type of feedback. Since you didn't give her the courtesy of contacting her to see what she could do to help before writing the review, why shouldn't she ban you from her store. Reviews hurt a merchant's business so I can completely understand that she paid you in kind for your lack of courtesy to her. You talk about the creator of the item being petty and perhaps taking it personally, but I don't see it this way. She is protecting her business and reputation. I know that you point out that you do have a right to not message the creator in the first place, but really look where it got you so perhaps you should rethink that particular chain of thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your review wasn't fair at all and that is why LL removed it.  The listing clearly showed the price and permissions, yet you bought it anyway.  No one forced you to buy it.  If you weren't paying attention how is that the creator's fault?

You then had buyer's remorse so took that out on the creator and gave them a one star review for something you clearly liked enough to buy the first time and enough to not only buy it again when you found it missing from your inventory, but buy it for a friend too.  It was a petty thing to do.

BTW, a lot of furniture is sold as transferable rather than copy.  If copy perms were important to you, you should check to be sure that is what you are getting BEFORE purchasing.

You are right that you are under no obligation to contact the creator before leaving a review.  But when you leave a completely unfair review then LL has a right to remove it when it's flagged.  Ultimately it is LL's decision to remove a reveiw or not and they obviously agreed it was unfair.

Now you are banned from the sim.  It is the creators right to do that.  I doubt it was because of hurt feelings but more likely because the creator just doesn't want to deal with you, which is also their right.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The purpose of a review surely is to make a comment on things including the subjective value of that product. If it is no copy, then that affects the value, as do a number of other factors like the quality of the animations, the scripting, the texturing etc etc.

I don't understand why when reviewing a product you would be expected to contact the creator prior to making the review unless it was missold... which in this case it was not.

I can also imagine buying something I thought was overpriced, because it fitted my needs but still feeling it was overpriced. I rarely leave reviews of any sort, and personally in a situation like this I would probably leave a 3 star review or something which acknowledged the positive as well as the negative.

But such reviews are subjective and I think it extremely concerning a subjective review can be deemed wrong, because the creator doesn't like it. If there was a pattern of harassment then fair enough, but there is no evidence of that here.

Look at it this way. At least the reviewer had the decency to give their reasons for the one star rating so we get the opportunity to decide whether we agree or disagree. Had they not given their reason and just left a one star review would linden labs be removing that because the merchant didn't like it? I really hope not... and if that is what happens it makes a mockery of the objective nature of the review process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i agree, i think that is legitimate to consider an object you need that is unique, overpriced. specially since the creator could have taken steps to prevent the problem that the customer had, due to the lack of that easy to apply protective feature, the customer thinks that the price is not justified, i think thats a valid negative view towards the product.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the issue in this instance was that they lost the item that they were happy to buy but then clearly aggrieved that they had to buy it again and decided to complain that it was too expensive for a no copy item. There a difference in obtaining something that looks great in the advert but turns out to be less so and hence the perceived value is diminished.

 

Had they explained their loss to the creator, they may well have been offered a free replacement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Canoro Philipp wrote:

i agree, i think that is legitimate to consider an object you need that is unique, overpriced. specially since the creator could have taken steps to prevent the problem that the customer had, due to the lack of that easy to apply protective feature, the customer thinks that the price is not justified, i think thats a valid negative view towards the product.

Oh be carefull here.  If you NEED it and can't get it from anywhere else then you may consider it expensive but it's not overpriced if you buy it.

You're onto one of my favourite topics here and that's value.  Any good pricing strategy is going to involve the vendor setting a price that compensates for effort and one where the customer is prepared to pay.

If the item is unique then it's completely normal for the item to be positioned at a price that refelects this uniqueness.  A potential customer need only consider their need for this item.  If they don't need it then the item will not sell, it's as simple as that but if it's required, the choice is either to pay or find someone else to make something suitable and introduce competition in the marketplace.

You cannot just state though, that something is overpriced, merely on the basis that it's too expensive for you.

I have an item that is listed on MP for the sum of L$1,000,000.  I won't go into the reason that it's there but it gets flagged regularly enough for "inflated listing price".  The purpose of that flag is "compared to other ecommerce sites or inworld".  NOT just because someone doesn't like the price or thinks it's expensive.  I've added an apology from LL to the listing, an apology where LL admits their mistake in de-listing it for that incorrect reason.  The amusing part is that it still gets flagged and de-listed for the same reason.  I'm not sure who is more stupid, the people who don't understand the purpose of the flag or LL staff (or agents) for not knowing either?

So to summarise, a comment that a price is not justified because it's LESS then the promised quality (a promise offered either by a deceptive advert text or picture) but I can't accept that a complaint about price because it's what they wanted, lost and then probably had to buy again is defendable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the LL guidelines for writing a review are:

"The purpose of reviews is twofold:
• first, to inform other buyers or potential buyers about the merits, drawbacks, and uses of the item; and
• second, to provide feedback on the seller's customer service."

+

is bananas to think that a comment like: "I give this a 1-star bc I think the price is to expensive for what it is" is informative to other customers

is as informative as a review that says: "I give this a 1-star bc I think is way to cheap for what it is"

neither of these reviews informs on the item. They are commentaries on the character of the business owner

We can comment on the business owner's customer service for sure. But to just comment on the business owner's character is a cheap shot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sassy, if you are saying a negative review is only valid if there is some misleading involved then that is news to me. As Linden Labs removed the review then presumably they agree. But I must say that view was not my understanding and does not make reviews helpful or meaningful in the way people expect.

As for the point about contacting the creator for a replacement. I think most everyone would expect to be told it is not my problem and to raise a ticket with Linden Lab. We don't have any right to expect any different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No i'm not saying that a negative review is only valid if there's something misleading.  What I am saying is that it's not valid to come back later because of a personal failure and then **bleep** that the price is now expensive (because they're buying a replacement).

A review should be objective about the item or service however and yet people still leave 1 star reviews saying "I didn't receive the item" when that process is wholly outside the control of the merchant for example.

I would not expect a negative review though where the information given PRIOR to purchase is known and correct.  For example, an item is listed as no modify and someone buys it and leaves a negative review saying "I wanted to modify this but can't because the permissions are no good for me".

If the item was listed as modify but turned out to contain no mod elements where they would be expected to be modify (not including scripts unless stated) then that's reasonable as the product is not as described and there's a flag category for "not as described".

What I don't find is reasonable would be something like "picture looked great, item is as it looks in the picture, all functions as described work as described, it completely meets the offered statements but damn it's expensive but I bought it anyway but because of price 1 star!"

Don't bloody well buy it if unsure!  If price is considered an issue, then ask the merchant to show/demo or whatever first.  Then make a considered purchase.  If after making a considered purchase and there's no fault in the item or description, there's no merit in bitching about the price as it's only the fault of the purchaser who parted with their money.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the customer shared a drawback she found about the item, that by not having that security feature, she have the problem that is having now, if that feature would have been added, in her perspective the value of the product would be justified, the fact that the product is exposed to this kind of problems, its a drawback of the item, and therefore, her review is compatible with the purpose of the review system.

The purpose of reviews is twofold:

  • first, to inform other buyers or potential buyers about the merits, drawbacks, and uses of the item; and
  • second, to provide feedback on the seller's customer service.

if the purpose of deleting the review is because the creator dont agree about the value with the reviewer, than deleting the review was wrong from Linden Lab, it should delete only comments that are not compatible with the purpose of the review system.

it is also wrong to ban someone for writing a negative perspective that is compatible with the purpose of the review system, only because the creator disagree about the price. im sure many who visit the store may disagree about prices, the OP got banned because she dare to express it in a way that Linden Lab finds acceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The no copy permission was known prior to purchase, it was not subsequently discovered.

 

Let's say you purchased a car that took diesel fuel and then 6 months later wished you could put petrol in it. It's just plain daft to them review that car as bad because you've changed your requirement for it.

 

This is senseless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Canoro Philipp wrote:

the customer shared a drawback she found about the item, that by not having that security feature, she have the problem that is having now, if that feature would have been added, in her perspective the value of the product would be justified, the fact that the product is exposed to this kind of problems, its a drawback of the item, and therefore, her review is compatible with the purpose of the review system.

The purpose of reviews is
twofold:
  • first,
    to inform other buyers or potential buyers about the
    merits,
    drawbacks
    , and uses
    of the item
    ; and
  • second, to provide feedback on the seller's customer service.

if the purpose of deleting the review is because the creator dont agree about the value with the reviewer, than deleting the review was wrong from Linden Lab, it should delete only comments that are not compatible with the purpose of the review system.

it is also wrong to ban someone for writing a negative perspective that is compatible with the purpose of the review system, only because the creator disagree about the price. im sure many who visit the store may disagree about prices, the OP got banned because she dare to express it in a way that Linden Lab finds acceptable.

What would you think of a one-star review of a real-world electric iron that said, "This iron is dangerous! I ironed my shirt while I was wearing it and I burned myself really badly?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Canoro Philipp wrote:

 

The purpose of reviews is
twofold:
  • first,
    to inform other buyers or potential buyers about the
    merits,
    drawbacks
    , and uses
    of the item
    ; and
  • second, to provide feedback on the seller's customer service.


Paraphrasing from a review I once wrote to illustrate what a "drawback" would/should be.

"This is a very nicely styled horse but because of the method the creator used to make it rideable it is only suitable on flat terrain.  It is incapable of going up a hill."

Wrong review would be:

"For this price your damn horse should be able to make it up a dang hill."

Price is a moot point.

But to the review in question, if being "No Copy" is a reportable draw back, then every single No Copy item needs reported regardless of price.  It's not a valid point.   "No Copy" is a legitimate part of SL's permissions system.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Annie, I agree with you 100% it is pathetic.

 

This might be off the topic a little. 

I previously bought some tattoo's for my mesh avatar, and posted a semi bad review on market place, that went something like this.

I really like this tattoo, however I do not recommend buying it for the TMP avatar, until TMP fixes the issue with the tattoo layor because the tattoo keeps disappearing....

Well the creator of the tattoo called me over to their In world store and basically said its not their fault and that it was a TMP issue.. He was kind of upset that I left a bad review. 

I removed my review and moved on with life.

However, I spend allot of money on purchasing stuff on SL, and I feel as a purchaser I should be able to leave negative feed back to warn others; without the creator hunting me down or possibly banning me from their store.  If the creator feels the review was uncalled for then have them take the proper steps of having it removed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the significant difference between your purchase and the OPs is that there was a actual flaw in the item offered for sale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


BornToTease wrote:

Annie, I agree with you 100% it is pathetic.

No it's not.

I really like this tattoo, however I do not recommend buying it for the TMP avatar, until TMP fixes the issue with the tattoo layor because the tattoo keeps disappearing....

That text in a review is a fair comment even though the issue is beyond the creators control but what star rating did you give the actual product, I presume you were able to be objective about the actual item and not the problem caused by a 3rd party item?

If the creator feels the review was uncalled for then have them take the proper steps of having it removed.

This happened, so you've just contradicted your first comment that it's pathetic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Annie Rubanis wrote:

I left a negative review of a very popular home and furniture designer's creation (wicker outdoor furniture set) and stated it was because they charged entirely too much for a no copy item.  My review was removed and I was banned from the sim.  I find this outrageous and petty.  I'd love to put the creator's initials here but actually like their work.  I've purchased TONS of items from her but am now banned because maybe her feelings were hurt.  This is pathetic.

When I purchase from real life places I do take a look at people's reviews, and then I determine whether the negative ones have any value.

If I had read your review, I would have just thought badly of you for putting a negative review, not because I believe everyone should be singing merrily around each other saying only good things, but because anyone anywhere has the right to set a price for their creation, and often in Second Life, as in Real Life, you buy one chair or one table or one lamp, you have to make a new purchase to get a second or third one. And just like in real life, some Second Life creators charge more, or stock items that are more desirable, have more work put into them, or are unique, so therefore can charge a bit more.

And so I am not at all surprised the store owner banned you from their sim. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Theresa Tennyson wrote:


Annie Rubanis wrote:

I'd love to put the creator's initials here but actually like their work.  I've purchased TONS of items from her but am now banned because maybe her feelings were hurt.  This is pathetic.

We already know who it is, sugar - she's even quicker on the rant than you.

That thread get deleted or something? Or am I just not looking in the right places?

 

I've left 2-3 negative reviews at furniture places for issues of modability.

In both cases that I can recall, the merchants contacted me, worked through some things, made adjustments or showed me what to do... and flipped my opinion of them - causing me to rewrite the review for good reasons, and go on to recommend them to others.

I note 2-3 because I think I've done this once more somewhat earlier, but cannot recall the example...

But the point is that those merchants handled it right and turned a bad impression into a very good one. A LOT of the items I've got on my land now come from those two, and they get fast recommendations from me when people are looking for items similar to what they carry.

 

Its worth noting that I usually make very long detailed reviews noting specific good and bad details when I do so - so I think people don't read my review and come off feeling lke I've slighted them out of malice, but instead feel open to engaging me - and when they do so also without malice, I like to have that conversation and see if I can either help them fix something or correct my assumptions.

Sometimes the tone of a review can be why a merchant reacts badly to it.

 

Also, I NEVER downrank a merchant for something they were upfront about BEFORE purchase. Like permissions and price (unless the item ends up having different perms than advertised, which was one of the above examples and was actually an accident, so the merchant was glad to know about it.)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


BornToTease wrote:

Annie, I agree with you 100% it is pathetic.

 

This might be off the topic a little. 

I previously bought some tattoo's for my mesh avatar, and posted a semi bad review on market place, that went something like this.

I really like this tattoo, however I do not recommend buying it for the TMP avatar, until TMP fixes the issue with the tattoo layor because the tattoo keeps disappearing....

Well the creator of the tattoo called me over to their In world store and basically said its not their fault and that it was a TMP issue.. He was kind of upset that I left a bad review. 

I removed my review and moved on with life.

However, I spend allot of money on purchasing stuff on SL, and I feel as a purchaser I should be able to leave negative feed back to warn others; without the creator hunting me down or possibly banning me from their store.  If the creator feels the review was uncalled for then have them take the proper steps of having it removed.

In your situation if you gave the product a good rating, because you did say you liked it,  and just had  noted the TMP issue, that would be a fair review and the creator shouldn't have had a problem with it.  But if you gave it a low rating then you are punishing the creator for something beyond their control and so I can understand why the creator may be upset because you aren't being fair.  Your beef would be with TMP not the product itself.

You do have a right to give a negative review if the problems you found with it are about quality, misrepresentation, or material facts about the product that were not disclosed prior to purchase, however why do you think it's fair that some one buy something when the price and perms are clearly disclosed and then complain about it in a poor review?  Don't buy it if you don't like it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Pussycat Catnap wrote:


Theresa Tennyson wrote:


Annie Rubanis wrote:

I'd love to put the creator's initials here but actually like their work.  I've purchased TONS of items from her but am now banned because maybe her feelings were hurt.  This is pathetic.

We already know who it is, sugar - she's even quicker on the rant than you.

That thread get deleted or something? Or am I just not looking in the right places?

 


The thread is gone; names were named.

 

So we have an incident that resulted in two people giving their opinions.

Both have been silenced because of how they chose to do it.

 

Both have started forum threads to make some sort of point.

Both have only managed to make themselves look worse.

 

Yep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

You do have a right to give a negative review if the problems you found with it are about quality, misrepresentation, or material facts about the product that were not disclosed prior to purchase, however why do you think it's fair that some one buy something when the price and perms are
clearly
disclosed and then complain about it in a poor review?  Don't buy it if you don't like it.


I agree with this to an extent, depending if your definition of clearly also means that the permissions are stated in the Description part of the listing also. There have been some occasions where the standard permissions information that is part of the template of the listing had been indicated incorrectly.

Furthermore, going on the details that have been mentioned in this thread, I think the creator went a little overboard on the reaction to the negative review by also including a ban from their inworld store. Unless there were some details that haven't been disclosed yet that warranted this extra action, removal of the comment and working with the customer to find a resonable solution would have been adequate enough. The creator only amplified and drew much more attention to the problem than he/she was otherwise hoping to suppress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the permission is no copy/transfer and the delivered item is no copy/transfer as it was in this case, why would a creator need to also state the same in the description?

 

If the permissions are not as described, flag the item with "permissions not as described".

 

Where permissions are complex, the option for creators is to chose the "see item description" and explain them there. This was not the case in the OP complaint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...