? about Good Guy Certification Certificates

[Cheryl Marchek AKA JM]

I don't think I interpretted the suggestion for
Revoked - Action taken for cause.
Withdrawn - Requested by holder
Suspended - Administrative reasons (fees due, Fauna fines etc.)
The same way you did. I thought the certs would stay in place~ exactly where they belong, but with a notice on them that they are "Revoked" "Withdrawn" or "Suspended".

Such as mine is #11~ if I decide to call Rich a ___________(use your imagination~ I'm not interested in actually BEING banned again just yet)~ then did not pay my fine~ my Cert would be "Suspended"~

Wouldn't it be easier on everyone~ on Rich with the programing and on people looking for a cert if they are kept in chronological order~ with a note pinned to it telling the status?

 

[WebSlave]

I DO NOT however support the idea of the community vote in these matters. If X and Y do a business deal that falls out, X screws Y, then Y should be the only voter. Not Y's friends A thru M, for this would not be fair and accurate if all the concerned parties friends voted against them also. They were not part of the deal. I am all for community input (BOI) for there are many people here with different ideas and one or more actually may prove helpful. But nobody except the buyer should be able to vote good or bad towards the GGC.


Just My $0.025
Rick

That all sounds well and good in theory, but in reality it would be completely unenforceable. And in actuality, if someone sees someone acting in a manner on the BOI, or anywhere else for that matter, that leads them to believe that they would not wish to do business with them, then I do believe they should have the capability to vote in such a manner in relation to someone being considered a "Good Guy" via the certificate. A person does not have to do direct business with someone to come to that conclusion.

Balancing this out on the other hand, someone could have glowing reviews from customers that would lead other prospective purchasers to believe that this would be an excellent person or business to do business with. And in such cases, such a person is most certainly welcome to vote as such when their opinion is such that they wish to publicly show that sort of support.

One incident could change anyone's point of view in either direction. Which is why I had the capability to CHANGE your vote programmed into the system. You only get ONE vote on someone, but it does not have to be set in concrete for all eternity afterwards. It needs to be flexible and fluid simply because people will sometimes change, and the certification poll needs to reflect this reality.

In any real "board of inquiry" kind of situation, it is HIGHLY unlikely that all members of such a board would have directly pertinent hands on experience with the issues at hand. And as is on the BOI, ALL participants are considered to be on the Board of Inquiry, and open to make their own judgements based on the evidence presented, and their interpretations of that evidence. To do otherwise and demand that only people who have that direct experience can be on the board, would be rather useless and self limiting.

Of course, this assumes that the majority of the people on such a board are credible and ethical themselves. And I believe that this is certainly the case here. However, there is always the possibility that this could change to corrupt the entire system at any time in the future. If I were to see that beginning to happen, I would take whatever steps are necessary to fix that problem.

 

[WebSlave]

I don't think I interpretted the suggestion for
Revoked - Action taken for cause.
Withdrawn - Requested by holder
Suspended - Administrative reasons (fees due, Fauna fines etc.)
The same way you did. I thought the certs would stay in place~ exactly where they belong, but with a notice on them that they are "Revoked" "Withdrawn" or "Suspended".

Such as mine is #11~ if I decide to call Rich a ___________(use your imagination~ I'm not interested in actually BEING banned again just yet)~ then did not pay my fine~ my Cert would be "Suspended"~

Wouldn't it be easier on everyone~ on Rich with the programing and on people looking for a cert if they are kept in chronological order~ with a note pinned to it telling the status?

Sorry, but no, I don't agree. If someone is checking up to verify a certificate, just seeing it in place might be enough for them, and they may not take the time to investigate fully any other details concerning the situation. And probably many people just go into the GGC area and scan down the list of participants, thinking anyone there MUST be a good guy. Or at least hope so, without even looking at the polls. In the manner I am seeing it, there would be a section or sections set aside for those removed certificates to make certain there is no mistaking the actual active certificates from the ones that are no longer active. For instance, there will most certainly be people who will refuse to comply with the removal of the certificate from their websites. Yes, there are legal sanctions available to pursue in such cases, but they will likely be a pain in the butt, and rather time consuming. So I have to handle that impending issue from this end as much as possible.

And most certainly sometime in the future, I will probably think that I should have done something differently from how I am doing it now.

 

[crotalusadamanteus]

I must be missing the point of the BOI and GGC then. I thought the BOI was for public questions, concerns, and experiences both good and bad, and the GGC votes were strictly for individual business experiences. It wouldn't be the first time I was wrong though. LOL
I picture the same sort of abuse that led to the recent changes you have made concerning the reputation system. You get certain groups or cliques that band together, and the votes become a little less than honest or accurate. X and Y have a falling out, Y tells friends A thru M about it, and going only on what Y has said, they vote against X.
This to Me would be bias and inaccurate for the purpose of the GGC, and would more appropriately be a BOI discussion, where Y at least has a chance to reconcile or defend against A thru M.

And I agree, what you read in the BOI may very well sway your dicision to do business with someone, but at least you are reading both sides and are able to make a fair and hopefully unbiased determination in most cases.
With the GGC you see only numbers once you vote. At least, I have not found where to read, or make comments, just a vote.

You say it's unenforceable, it probably is. You would know better than me about that.
Most businesses give you a purchase or order number. How about a box to insert this number along with the vote when you click the certificate?
Just an idea.

Rick

 

[WebSlave]

You say it's unenforceable, it probably is. You would know better than me about that.
Most businesses give you a purchase or order number. How about a box to insert this number along with the vote when you click the certificate?
Just an idea.

Rick

Again, how would this be enforced? If someone were intent to cause trouble, do you really think they wouldn't lie? Someone could make up a bogus invoice number on something they never really received. Or the seller could say that the number is bogus and not really something that was issued. Who could prove one way or the other? And since the GGC is a POLL only forum, this would all have to take place via emails with me stuck right in the middle of them all, becoming a judge of the truthfullness of one participant or the other. Thanks, but no thanks.

We now have 130+ active participants in the GGC program, and problems are pretty much nonexistent. So at this point, with the paid memberships being a requirement for voting on those polls, I think the problems you are addressing, while certainly a possibility, are not an actuality at this point. As such, I am not inclined to give myself a mandate that would most certainly cause an excessive complication for all participants (proof of a business transaction - which would also need to be made retroactive) and a lot more work on my part.

If anyone feels this is unfair, they do not have to participate. In my opinion, anyone doing good business, and being of the caliber that I would wish to be in this program, has nothing at all to be concerned about. If someone IS having a problem doing good business, this should become apparent pretty quickly, which is what the system is designed to help point out.

 

[crotalusadamanteus]

well, like I said, You would know the enforcability and work involved more than I. And I can see your points very well, especially about the "being in the middle" part. Can't blame you there.

 

[nicolai]

If anyone feels this is unfair, they do not have to participate. In my opinion, anyone doing good business, and being of the caliber that I would wish to be in this program, has nothing at all to be concerned about. If someone IS having a problem doing good business, this should become apparent pretty quickly, which is what the system is designed to help point out.

That Paragragh says it all!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[crotalusadamanteus]

That Paragragh says it all!!!!!!!!!!!

LOL I happen to agree. I have no concerns like that for Myself, I was thinking of those who DO participate, and may do business on a more extensive level than My occasional litters. I don't attempt to participate, because for now I forsee Myself remaining a "smalltime" occasional breeder.

But as Rich pointed out, it doesn't seem to be a problem at the moment. That summed it up pretty well for Me.

Rick

 

[hhmoore]

nobody except the buyer should be able to vote good or bad towards the GGC.

I thought the BOI was for public questions, concerns, and experiences both good and bad, and the GGC votes were strictly for individual business experiences..

I disagree with these comments on a couple of levels. While I don't feel that the GCC should be (effectively) a popularity contest, I don't think it necessarily must be based on sales. I know that 2 of the people that voted in my poll did so because they felt I was helpful to them...because I went out of my way to offer information, extensive explanations, advice, whatever. Based on the first quote - those votes could be construed as an abuse of the system...and, by the same token, it couldn't really be considered customer service since they aren't "customers" of mine. The Trader Ratings deals directly with sales, the GCC is more of a total package (IMHO)

 

[crotalusadamanteus]

I disagree with these comments on a couple of levels. While I don't feel that the GCC should be (effectively) a popularity contest, I don't think it necessarily must be based on sales. I know that 2 of the people that voted in my poll did so because they felt I was helpful to them...because I went out of my way to offer information, extensive explanations, advice, whatever. Based on the first quote - those votes could be construed as an abuse of the system...and, by the same token, it couldn't really be considered customer service since they aren't "customers" of mine. The Trader Ratings deals directly with sales, the GCC is more of a total package (IMHO)

OK, Looks like I was misunderstanding the purpose of the GGC. Now I see what you are saying about the total package thing. So it's the trader rating that is for the sales experience, and the GGC goes in hand with the BOI. Is that correct?
Thanks for clearing that up for Me. Guess I need to slow down and read ALL the words. LOL

Rick

 

[hhmoore]

Again - the "total package" thing was my view of the GCC poll...but to go right to the source, this is what WebSlave said in his explanation thread (What this is all about and HOW to apply)

Quite simply, any business or person applying to take part in this program has to agree to do "good business". This is something that is subject to interpretation, but in it's most simplest form, simply means to treat your customers well and in a manner that will speak highly of the way you do business. This will be reflected in the poll set up in your thread here and by the votes people will place in your "Trader's Ratings".

and

Well, this is where this section comes in. This is a proactive method for people to know the good guys to deal with by them having a certification medallion displayed on their website that indicates them being in good standing with the members of this site in relation to how they do business. This is basically a "BOI Lite", in that a person can ONLY vote on a poll indicating that person or business is being a "Good Guy" or "Bad Guy". Plus anyone can also view the "Trader's Ratings" for that person or business as well, and active customers can post their experiences for a quick thumbnail sketch of that business without going into long drawn out discussions that some threads can run on as over time

So, yes - customers can use the GCC as feedback for a positive buying experience...or they can use the Trader Rating system for every business transaction they have with a person (not limited to one vote or opinion; which is to say that if there are 3 transactions, and one was great, one average, and one bad - a positive, neutral, and negative vote could be given by the same customer). The GCC poll, on the other hand, is 1 vote...yes, it can be changed if the customer changes his/her mind, but only one vote stays on the record. The statement "treat your customers well and in a manner that will speak highly of the way you do business," to me, implies that there is more to it than a sale...and could be used by a "potential" customer that asks tons of questions about an animal, husbandry, breeding, (whatever) regardless of whether or not a purchase is made; or any other person that thinks highly of the way you do business. As it is subject to interpretation, one person can say that they have not done business with me so they won't vote on my GCC poll. No problem. But somebody else can think to themselves that they really like the way I handle something, whether it directly involves them or not, and decide to cast their vote based on their impression of how I do things. I think that in the earlier days of the GCC, many people were freer about casting that vote based on "non-business" impressions...or more specifically, because they liked/respected the image that the person projected in the forums. And some of them regretted it enough to change their votes.

 

[crotalusadamanteus]

Got it. I think I'll just start reading things 2 or 3 times. LOL I have read every word of this before, but for some reason it holds different meaning this time around.

This is basically a "BOI Lite",

About sums it all up right there.

Thanks again for helping Me understand.

Rick