Naming and Shaming

[Scalehill]

I see a second thread has appeared regarding adverse reports on companies chosen to provide facility services selected, in part, as a result of advertisng in LF. Both those threads have been subject to censorship, on the basis of the 'naming and shaming' policy operated on the forum. The excellent thread posted by Frederic regarding his appalling experience also raised an interesting point regarding the positive in-forum promotion of some facility providers, the potential dangers of that, and the difficulty of being even-handed.

Whilst understanding the nature of the problem of content for the owners of this Forum, and the fact that as print-publishers they are in the business of attracting paid advertising, it seesm to me that they would at least wish to have some moral responsibility toward acknowledging that some advertisers sometimes are not all that they crack on to be. It also seems a nonsense that a Forum provided as an information resource does not provide a mechanism for giving full-range feedback, positive or negative, on typical facility services. The current 'You can say that they're good, but not that they're bad' is clearly a poor policy. I have a proposal that could address that.

One of the issues on giving qualitiative feedback is that different people use different performance indicators. For example, some people might think a company provided were 'good' service if they received a progress phone call everyday, whilst others might think them 'good' if they heard nothing but had the result . If, however, the performance indicators were laid down in advance then there is an attempt to define a level playing field. So, let's say that Forum contributors were able to provide feedback on a service that they'd received, on an 'out of 10' basis;

--------
I recently used XYZ Services to find me a house/lay me some drains and found the following;

Customer Service 5/10
Value For Money 8/10
Use Them Again Yes/Maybe/No
--------

Now, clearly, this does not enter the realms of libel. It is subjective comment, unqualified, and it serves three purposes;

1. It allows sharing of information that does not take place at present
2. It allows people to 'voice' their satisfaction or lack of it (the latter is usually very important to most people) without getting into the grudge.
3. It gives the magazine publisher an opportunity to monitor the reality of services being offered by an advertiser, something whcih one would assume they'd be pleased to know when considering accepting repeat advertising.

Just a thought.

[Penny29]

What an excellent idea!

[Hoppy55]

I agree, what is the use of a forum, as good as this is if people fall into the same trap as someone else. The advice given could really help the "newbies" as the "oldies" have already been through it, good or bad.


Val & Dave

[Ex Forum Admin]

I would just like to clarify:

The fact that the companies do or do not advertise in LF is not the reason for them being deleted. The posts were not removed because of this (and I haven't checked to see if they do advertise). There is no 'naming and shaming' allowed on the forum as stated in the forum rules as it would be impossible for LF to investigate each and every post to clarify that what is being written is true. In my opinion all forum owners should have the same policy to reduce the possibility of libel. If they do not then that is up to them to face potential consequences.

The 'no advertising' policy is due to the conflict that may come about with the printed magazine. It must be stressed that, as with all advertising, people must make up their own minds on whether they use products or services.



I agree that this forum is a good way to gauge the service others have had and as long as there is no 'naming and shaming' on the forum I think that your proposed feedback system on a product/service is a good idea as we all want this forum to be as useful as possible.

All users must understand though that LF can't be put in a position where libel/defamation is an issue.

Regards,
Forum Admin

[Dick Smith]

If people don't like the rules that LF set out, they have the absolute right to go and post somewhere else, of course.

Regards

Dick
BONO ANIMO ES