Jump to content

Melita Magic

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Melita Magic

  1. Gunner Grun wrote: Did you try and get a hold of the merchant first to see if there was a fix for whatever you didn't like or did you just leave a bad review without contacting them. The customer has absolutely no obligation to the merchant. Why do some merchants feel otherwise? That is a rhetorical question. There is no defensible reason a merchant should order a customer to contact them prior to leaving a review, let alone break TOS and harass them for leaving a review.
  2. melaniehaughton wrote: I am sure that there are several of us who have purchased an item off Marketplace and have not been satisfied for whatever reason. We then decide to make a negative review of that product. However, on occasions some of us have received abusive IMs from that vendor over the review. Perhaps I am being naive, but surely it is the vendor's responsibility to either assist the customer or make an effort to improve their product rather than attack the customer. In other words... After Sales Service! Yes. I could not agree with you more. I recall this topic coming up some years ago here. Out of curiosity I peek in here once in a great while if I have to update my account or something. It is sad to hear this is still going on. I haven't changed my opinion on this, ever, despite being harassed about this myself. A product should be ready for use and review when it is sold. The customer pays real money, however small a real life amount, and has every right to leave a review. Merchants who do not like the review process do not have to sell things in Second Life, or can take it up with LL. The forum hasn't aged a day.
  3. Dresden Ceriano wrote: Melita Magic wrote: Dresden Ceriano wrote: Melita Magic wrote: Apparently in some reality "maybe you never worked a day in your life" is appropriate and not an insult. If anyone has difficulty perceiving reality, my dear, it's you... as evidenced by the fact that no one actually wrote what you quoted in reply to you nor anyone else in that thread. If your intent is to start arguments with people, at least have the common decency to reply to what they've actually said, rather than what you've conveniently misinterpreted in some vain attempt to paint yourself as some sort of martyr. It's as if you think that every post is about you or what you've had to say, therefore you must scour them all in order to find the one sentence that you can twist into something of which you are able to take offense. That was actually an interesting thread until you got all bent out of shape over nothing. ...Dres YAWN. Oh, why couldn't all of your replies be so concise and well thought out as this? ...Dres Why can't your insults at least be accurate?
  4. Dresden Ceriano wrote: If anyone has difficulty perceiving reality, my dear, it's you... as evidenced by the fact that no one actually wrote what you quoted in reply to you nor anyone else in that thread. ...Dres Here is the quote, nit picker: "even if you are not employed and never have been"
  5. Dresden Ceriano wrote: Melita Magic wrote: Apparently in some reality "maybe you never worked a day in your life" is appropriate and not an insult. If anyone has difficulty perceiving reality, my dear, it's you... as evidenced by the fact that no one actually wrote what you quoted in reply to you nor anyone else in that thread. If your intent is to start arguments with people, at least have the common decency to reply to what they've actually said, rather than what you've conveniently misinterpreted in some vain attempt to paint yourself as some sort of martyr. It's as if you think that every post is about you or what you've had to say, therefore you must scour them all in order to find the one sentence that you can twist into something of which you are able to take offense. That was actually an interesting thread until you got all bent out of shape over nothing. ...Dres YAWN.
  6. I know that Ceka and my reply was to the topic not to you as such. This (ETA: what you said about only replying to something in the actual post you replied to, not the topic) was made more clear in the other thread when you said you had not actually read the whole topic, only skimmed it. What I was really saying is why I did not focus on those happy times. I wasn't implying anything about your own posts. (ETA I will say though that a positive reply to someone who is saying all kinds of smack to someone else would imply 'siding with' to the casual reader. Knowing your post history as I do, I didn't feel that is what you were doing, personally.) PS I don't expect or really even want anyone to fight my battles for me or get between me and somebody rabid. I can take it. And I have to learn to step away from BS.
  7. Except that wasn't how they said it. (That's actually what I was saying though; which of course was ignored since I somehow becasme the villain of the piece. I said 'yes it's wonderful when that happens but there's no reason they SHOULD - SHOULD - go through all of that first.' In an attempt to understand just how much they expect a customer to go through before being allowed to post a review - and that's really the correct word if what they expect is this delay - I asked "how long?" I never got a real answer on that - not a direct one. A partial one.) The customer you find "Duh" is probably an average customer. If he found it difficult to use, others likely will as well. He has no obligation to go to the merchant before posting his review. That's all I was saying. And some were insisting the opposite.
  8. I have to remind myself to do that with any thread one or two people are posting in. Can't blame you Ceka. There was a LOT of tension in that topic. I tried joking at one point that it was ironic that some merchants were harassing people for even mentioning the customer right to a review. Completely ignored. I have to learn that when I'm being talked AT and not TO, it's time to go.
  9. Griffin Ceawlin wrote: I think most people are willing to give merchants or creators (in or out of SL) a chance to make things right before writing scathing reviews on the internet that may or may not have any basis in fact. No, no customer is ever "obligated" to do so, but the squeaky wheel gets greased, you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, etc., etc., etc. And yet I never said I wrote a 'scathing' review - I was replying to someone's post about being harassed for writing a barely even tepid review. (That's what the topic was actually about - is it wrong when a merchant harasses someone for that. That was, as I even said in the topic, what was coloring my posts there.) The topic became "a customer should contact a merchant before posting a review" which I find ridiculous. I never could have predicted the outrage my reply "that's not their obligation" would cause. I even pointed out more than once in that topic, that the worst I'd written was a tepid three star review and that usually my reviews are glowing and five star and have likely increased business for those people. That was followed by long rants by some about horrible lazy customers and lots of other 'shade.' (Like the "dear sweet Melita" jab here.) But if called on it OMG the drama. (I'll give Dres this though: at least he doesn't pretend his vinegar is honey so, no need to even discuss it.) Apparently in some reality "maybe you never worked a day in your life" is appropriate and not an insult. I am not saying your post was about me but since most of the replies in there are about or in reply to my posts (as well as some posts here now about whether or not anyone was being negative toward me, in that topic) there's a good bet some walked away with the impression you just posted. The people who actually READ what I posted in entirety and hopefully have good reading comprehension skills won't. I think if some of the merchants in the other thread were being honest they'd simply state they don't feel a customer should ever post a review. Not unless it's absolutely glowing with praise.
  10. Thanks for the feedback on the 'does the customer have a right to review' issue. No offense but if skimming a thread a lot of the subtlety would be lost, including subtext. (My posts were long as were some other people's, to be fair; just saying: I was trying to be helpful, my points were being ignored though and the others' opinions hammered repeatedly, trying to drown anyone else's out. Was I repeating mine in reply? Yep. But also trying to continue discussion in a meaningful sense.) As for Dres your reaction is as valid as mine is to anything either of us have read. As for my 'ganging up on me' post that was clearly a joke - notice the LOL? FFS when did this forum lose ALL of its humor (except for Ceka.)
  11. I've met some wonderful creators too in the past through buying their products, but didn't feel those stories were pertinent to the topic (and neither was my personal life nor job history.)
  12. Thank God someone finally posted a logical response from the merchant's perspective. I made several what I thought were salient points and helpful suggestions including a suggestion box or adding something in their product page and what I got was a bunch of emotional jibber jabber in response, followed by "you're stalking me." When someone clearly does not reply to any actual points made or questions posed and yet demands a response to their own highly inappropriate question it's time to pull the plug, which I should have done rather than keep trying to steer things back to sanity. I appreciate your post below, Sassy. ___ Sassy Romano wrote: Melita Magic wrote: My point is still being missed. It isn't whether it's great when a customer goes to 'work with' a creator but whether that is their obligation. That was my point. The question was not how long a merchant gives to reply. The question was how long before a person is allowed to write a review. Speaking as a customer, if i'm not happy enough with something to the extent that I feel others should be aware of an issue then I am prepared to wait ZERO TIME. Yes, I'll happily slap that review up there immediately but I try to remain objective and if there are positive points i'll highlight those too. I will usually also contact the merchant in parallel, more likely if they don't make me jump through hoops and let me use MY preferred method of contact which is IM's (send them to email, stop making excuses about them being capped). Example, was last week when I bought some lovely jewellery. One piece was a multi set of hip beads which were only resize. My review was fair and described that they were absolutely beautifully textured, well made and so on but being only resize wasn't a good fit as it needed to be stretched not sized. Anyway, I did send the merchant an IM and even gave her a link to a product that would do x,y,z stretch. I was pleasantly surprised by the IM an hour or two later where she agreed and later sent me the product, modify perm and also with the new script i'd suggested. It wasn't difficult to go back and re-visit the review i'd left and add that extra information but what i'm not going to do is try to keep a log of who I have contacted and for what so if the merchant does not respond, then the review sticks. How quickly they respond will also directly affect how quickly the review is modified where appropriate. In the past when merchants were not notified by email of a review being left, there was a much stronger argument for asking the customer to contact the merchant first (although it's not one that I supported then, onus is on the merchant to watch their store). However, now that merchants get an email when a review is left, if they're not attentive to that in a prompt manner then why expect the customer to care either? There is very little damage that a bad review can do if the merchant is responsive and a good merchant will take all comments and act accordingly. While it may be harsh to sometimes hear criticism about their "baby", that's how it is, people have opinions and have a right to air them.
  13. Pamela Galli wrote: Yet you have stalked me through this entire thread, commenting on every reply I make to someone else an interpreting it as if it was all about you. Guess what? It's not. And now I am putting you on ignore. First of all - you won't be missed. Second - that wasn't the way it was phrased. Third - a discussion in an open public forum is not 'stalking.' Get over yourself, take a chill pill, and stop the hysterical retorts. If putting me on ignore is what it took to get you to stop the passive aggressive jabs followed by "who me?" then I am thrilled with that.
  14. Extrude Ragu wrote: When you buy a house in the middle of a street you should expect people to walk past, this is what mainland owners seem to forget, they brought a parcel to develop on, where they have the right to ask people to leave, but they don't have the right to disturb everyone around them unnessacarily just for passing by, they should get off their high horse. Well, Second Life was not really designed with 'sidewalks' or throughways, unless you count Linden roads and water ways and Linden owned land. Maybe you'd enjoy places like Blake Sea (Amethyst had a good suggestion about only flying over such places) or some of the Linden-planned communities such as Shermerville or the former teen grid (not sure if it has a name now) or - gosh I haven't been there in so long - what is the other one?? (sigh) And again to reply to your real life analogy (which, as with most such, doesn't uniformly apply to Second Life) not all real life communities like people ambling through either and not all streets have a public sidewalk in them. There are even gated communities and such in real life, or if you look like you don't "fit in" (for any reason) you could have some curtains twitching at you or phone calls made. So it isn't quite so bucolic in real life in that way either, in my opinion/from my experience. Second Life apparently had a huge 'boom' and land was added such that in many places there is no road, sidewalk, water way etc., for people to 'pass through' and in some places the parcel line and road overlap a bit. That's when you can get knocked out of your vehicle on a public road, if one of those people has added a ban line. Or if their orb doesn't fit their parcel perfectly, or isn't scripted perfectly, the orb range extends into the road - I have run into both situations. Of course it's nicer when people are friendlier. Unfortunately not everyone is - and with some it's because of very negative experiences with griefers, nosey parkers, or even, people living in their house full time. I know it had to be infuriating to have your blissful immersive experience interrupted but perhaps ask some here the reasons they have used a ban line or an orb even temporarily in the past and you could see another side of it.
  15. Extrude Ragu wrote: private land is Land, not Private Air.For example, when I brought my house in the real world, I didn't buy the right to stop harry in his piper club from flying over, or John in his Jet. When I brought my home in the real world I also didn't buy the right to vaporize my neighbour when he stepped onto my drive with no warning, . part 1: Yes it's their air space too. They own everything on, under and above that parcel. part 2: People make a mistake in my opinion, in the forums, making too many 'real life' analogies. Part of the wonder of a virtual world is that it is pioneer territory. And part of the joy is that the TOS enables you to do exactly that ('vaporize') if someone steps on your virtual land - if you want to look at it that way. Did you ever notice the 'heart' icon? Do you know what it means? ETA and actually in some places you do have a legal right in real life to shoot a trespasser; but that's a whoooole controversy I am not willing to get into here (or anywhere online actually. Useless/fruitless expenditure of energy.)
  16. Have scanned the topic; will read later in entirety. But this has come up countless times in the history of the forums so I pretty much know the drill and the range of projected/expected responses. Here is mine: I keep my land open to the public at ground level. After some time in SL I am very lucky to have ocean front and road side properties. I know from experience it's a severe 'drag' to be knocked out of your car or boat when running into a property in such places, which has an orb or ban line active. However, it's still true that I am paying 'out the nose' for those properties, which I also spend time maintaining. So Linden Lab gives me (and every 'land owner') the right within Second Life to decide who can visit and who can not. If I wanted to install an orb or ban line around those properties, I could. I don't choose to. I choose to keep them open to visitors because that's how I'd like to be treated and how I do ilke to be treated - Second Life's joy is visiting other parcels. However that privilege is not expected when it comes to going inside someone's home, or snooping around their skybox. I keep more private stuff (nothing very interesting, trust me) way up in the sky. No one has a legitimate reason in my opinion, to be snooping around or 'exploring' up there. And that is where I go to be alone and to build or whatever I want to do in Second Life. Even if alone on my land I realize someone could drop in (which is fine) at ground level while I am puttering around putting in a new 'tree' or whatever. So I go up into the sky when I want uninterrupted 'me' time. Not that I had to explain that to anyone, because I pretty much can do what I want on my own 'land' in SL, within SL's TOS. But, that's my philosophy of use and my practical expression when in Second Life. If I see someone in my land I normally teleport away unless very tired and just about done with whatever I was doing there, for example. Because I want them to have that feeling that is 'their' land for that moment. (I do stop short of it becoming abusive, but for the most part I haven't encountered that.) I'm also a bit shy 'in person' even in SL and tend to flit away after a few cursory words. So I cut to that part quicker if we've never met, and I let others enjoy without my avatar hanging around. It makes me happy they are enjoying the 'space.' The way my sims are decorated is a form of artistic expression (I don't know how others experience their public sims but that's how I experience theirs as well) and one of SL's coolest aspects in my opinion is that others can share in that in a 3D way. OK, long winded enough. tl;dr version: No one has a 'right' to explore someone else's paid for 'land' - if they allow the public in part of it be happy for that, don't abuse the privilege, don't go where it's forbidden to go, and you will be invited back... Land owners...put your sky boxes and platforms high enough that planes won't run into your orb if you have one...if possible. If not, then yes it's your right to do so. Plane pilots...don't fly above 1000 meters and you USUALLY will not have a problem. (edited to fix a minor typo)
  17. I agree with that. It's too big a task. People will be dishonest. Yes there are those who will review a friend's product dishonestly (positive when it shouldn't be) or review a competitor's product dishonestly (negative when it shouldn't be.) I agree that the reviews can be and often are, hopelessly gamed. I still think it's worth it to write one if there is something 'important' to be shared about the product. If it's a glitch the merchant didn't know about, and they fix it, the customer should then update the review (they don't have to erase what came before, just update it) to reflect that, if they are to be fair. It's nice when people ARE fair. To me, forbidding a review until lengthy negotiations with the merchant have passed the merchant's expectation is unfair to expect of every customer. (If a friend does that for them, wonderful.) To me, a merchant expecting every customer to do back flips about their creation is unrealistic and perhaps unfair. To me, harassing a customer who has written anything less than OMG 5 stars the earth moved, is psychotic and shows an extreme lack of perspective on the merchant's part. And yes this is how I would do things if I were a merchant. I would let things stand or perhaps write a brief comment relative to that issue below a review, if I felt perhaps it was a competitor lying about it or something lke that. If it is the customer's opinion I would take it as constructive criticism and be silently grateful for that. When a merchant is nasty and butt hurt on the forums about even the very IDEA a customer has a RIGHT to a review, that will make me avoid them and their shop like the Plague.
  18. I had forgotten how passive-aggressive your 'discussion techniques' were; my bad for forgetting. I am always extremely polite when dealing with someone. Even when I was running a sim in which people sometimes called me filthy names I never once replied with snark or cursing or name calling (for example.) If one were prone to such it would come out at times like that. Your tactic seems to be to insinuate and imply and make sideways jabs, in hopes someone who doesn't know better will believe that about the other person. It isn't appreciated. I also feel you knew very well what you were doing in your questions about me and my life. Not appreciated either. Pamela Galli wrote: I can't think of any negative experiences I have had with merchants, either. They are always very nice. I am always nice, too. In SL, nothing works better than niceness :-) Actually, nothing but niceness works at all. Something some are slow to learn. (bolding mine) Maybe you could start by being nicer in this very topic, Pamela. Or maybe you are just a very special person who's never worked a day in their life or had to work a very easy job when you did. Yeah, that wasn't an insult. Right.
  19. Sassy Romano wrote: Rosen Janus wrote: Changing vendors to "some vendors" is just nitpickicking, trying to make the issue sound lighter. Of course there are vendors that won't work the system. And I'd thank them for not trying to manipulate reviews. But I've seen it happen.. so.. many times. Haha, i'm proud to have a 1 star review - because it is real, real in the sense that it's the opinion of a purchaser and I had the opportunity to explain in a response. One of the simplest ways to reduce shill reviews is to also be able to see what else the reviewer has bought. If the reviewer has reviewed just about everything in one shop and nothing else, that's a pretty clear abuse compared to one which has bought a variety of things from many merchants. Anyway, i'm not fussed, regardless of sales, i'm lucky to get 2 reviews per year *shrugs* I love your attitude. You seem to respect your customers' rights AS HUMAN BEINGS to express their opinion. Expect some purchases soon.
  20. OMG where are you in the other thread? The merchants are ganging up on me in there! LOL Yes I agree with you 100%. No one puts a gag into my mouth. Period.
  21. I have a serious question for merchants. Are you role playing being a merchant? Because it seems as if the responses indicate that. They seem perhaps SL-centered. For instance, in real life, since some are very fond of going back there if you buy a sweater (to use Reeva's analogy) do you expect to contact the manufacturer and go to their house and try it on and help them to see just why it unravels in that particular place? Or why the color didn't suit your skin tone? If you eat in a restaurant in real life, do you expect to go back to the kitchen and discuss the meal with the chef, or do you write a review on Yelp? For what it's worth I've only Yelped a couple of times and those were extreme cases. But I'm sure some of you are against Yelp as well. Thank God my mother didn't pin my drawings to the fridge.
  22. Pamela Galli wrote: Trinity Yazimoto wrote: You are welcome Czari :smileyhappy: i cant tell the massive ammount of hours i spent on these shoes and feet... while you know, i have already a so busy schedule.. and this till crying... Goran often proposed me to help me.. since i have a lot of shoes from him. And then one day, i was totally irked by that.. so i sent to him a friendly im , asking him to not aware me about his next releases anymore bec, im sorry, but its impossible for me.. whatever i do, or the time i deed to that, i cant fix this damn feet skin.. So Goran came in my workshop and he told me the settings for my skin. but i still saw my feet not matching with my main skin.. he sent me a snapshot and it was perfect. I sent him a snapshot and it was horrible. Then... it came to my mind !!!! lol.. i enabled basic shaders and OMG ! That was it !!!! So now... i set and match the skin color with basic shaders enabled... i dont mind it doesnt match when im at my usual low graphic bec i rarely look at my feet anyway.. but when i do pics and so raise till high or ultra graphic, my feet match perfectly with my main skin. This is a perfect example of the kind of thing someone might write a scathing review about -- if they had decided not to contact the creator first. It is also the kind of thing the creator might not even know about, so contacting him enables him to learn about the effect of basic shaders. Many times a customer and I have worked together like detectives trying to figure out the cause of some bug that I can't see but he can. The merchant should have included a warning about that issue in their note card with the product. Most people realize though that those sculpt feet and their like are notorious for looking different to different people. So even if her feet now looked good to her - would they look green to others seeing her? That's why I stopped wearing those types of feet and shoes. I wouldn't review a product like that at all, for those reasons. Or if I did - in the case of SLink for instance I really liked their products - I would state exactly as I have above, giving all sides and making clear that part of it is outside the creator's control, and that all such products have that problem. I'm sure you will have something highly insulting to say back to me on this. Ooh, I can't wait. /hoping that means she will now ignore me just to spite me.
  23. My point is still being missed. It isn't whether it's great when a customer goes to 'work with' a creator but whether that is their obligation. That was my point. The question was not how long a merchant gives to reply. The question was how long before a person is allowed to write a review. I know some merchants have a note in their profile about 'wait two days' or 'wait a week' (for their reply on a matter), or whatever. I have one still in my own profile from when I had a busy sim. (There is a difference in the question, especially since not all merchants reply within said time frame, or even after the second try, and some have nothing about that at all in their profile, and some don't speak the same language, etc.) Part of that question was implied: Why should the customer do that? Sometimes I buy tons of things on MP at once. Am I to keep a note card going of who replied to what, when, and at which point I can now determine each one's 'time limit' has expired and I am allowed to post something about my end of the deal? ETA: the rest is to 'everyone.' So, I see that almost uniformly the merchants are going to give merchant-centric responses (some incredibly rude and personal at that) in a thread about merchants who harass a customer over a bad review. Instead it's turned into the 'lazy unhelpful customers' thread. For the record, if it's something that I feel is outside the scope of normal expectation, I do contact the merchant. A suggestion or special request would fall into that category, for instance, or something beyond their control, such as SL glitches. (And I do know the difference.) (ETA: Ugh, poorly worded. I don't necessarily contact them about the SL glitches but that would absolutely not go into the review.) But the customer experience belongs in a review, that's what those are for. If the customer has time to spend helping you (general 'you') beta test what should be a final product, that's wonderful. But that was never what I was talking about. Example: I just bought some items on MP yesterday. I am thrilled with them in general, but, parts of it could be more user-friendly, and one aspect was a bit confusing (when you clicked to change something in the menu, it did not change on the note card, and the instructions did not say which took precedence - since it's a security system I don't want to find out the hard way. The 'chat' from the item seemed to show the note card took precedence in which case, I was curious why there was a menu at all. That made me wish the entire thing could be governed by menu, especially since editing a note card within an item might be beyond the scope of a newer SL resident. That's the type of 'minus' I would put in a review, and not go to someone about first. Because the customer who buys the product NOW is going to experience that. That is the product as it stands NOW. If the creator should later IM me that it's been changed for that product, on that page, then I would update my review to reflect that. I feel an 'obligation' to be fair and accurate for myself and for the merchant's sake, but mainly I post for other customers' sakes.) Such a review with positive and negative both fairly examined is helpful to all, in my opinion. I'm not someone's mother pinning drawings onto the refrigerator; I spent money and time on the product and I'm going to be truthful about my experience with it. And also FYI I left a couple of five star reviews last night in honor of this topic. I really didn't deserve comments like "if you have ever worked at all" (?) and "you must be a 'very special person'/have an easy job" (so now I'm 'special?') when personal comments never belonged in this topic to begin with and the analogy did not apply here. If one wants to go there, "special snowflake-ism" is rampant in this topic.
  24. And BTW how ironic that some merchants are harassing here about the very idea of writing a review - an imaginary or putative one at that.
  25. Pamela Galli wrote: Pamela Galli wrote: in particular about the idea that any creator that makes one mistake ( or appears to, since the apparent mistake is not always an actual one) should receive a negative review instead of / before being contacted. Again, I was explicitly responding to Reeva's statement, which I quoted in its entirely. I quoted the part of it I was referring to. (Above.) Reeva was replying to the same 'idea' you said you were actually talking about in your 'reply to Reeva' - but who was putting forth that idea? Some in this topic including myself. It clearly was not Reeva putting forth "the idea that any creator that makes one mistake should reeceive a negative review before being contacted." And that is the part of your post I was asking about - which is why I quoted that part of it. And that is why I asked if you were referring to my posts. (And because other 'customers' have said the same as I did.)
  • Create New...