bad experience with reverb.com

[clevelandjazz]

A couple months ago, I bought a Gibson 137 from reverb.com. Prior to purchasing I asked the seller to verify that the truss rod functioned and he said it did with no issues.

When I first got it, the guitar was setup with .010 strings but it sounded really good and I left the seller positive feedback. However, I put a set of .011 strings on it and the neck bowed slightly. No problem, I thought. I tweaked the truss rod. Unfortunately, the neck didn't move when this happened. I contacted the seller and told him I thought the truss rod was not working and that I was taking the guitar into my luthier to inspect and that if it turned out that the truss rod was defective, I would be returning the guitar.

Unfortunately, my luthier concluded after 15 minutes that the truss rod was indeed not working. He could not get the instrument's neck to level out and advised me to return it. He wrote me up a repair ticket indicating this.

The seller called him and insisted I take the instrument back to the luthier for further inspection and for a repair estimate but I felt the seller had not lived up to the initial pre-sales claim and I returned it. I ended up having to dispute the transaction with paypal.

After the transaction was reversed, reverb.com canceled my account and later reinstated it after I posted publicly about the situation.

However, the seller wrote a scathing, negative feedback on me saying (among other things) that I had modified the instrument and then wanted a refund when it broke. They also made unsupported claims unrelated to the transaction.

I contacted reverb and asked them to remove it and cited that reverb.com's representative (Chris) had personally contacted my luthier who corroborated what was in the repair ticket and that it was a blatant lie to say I modified the instrument but they decided to leave the feedback intact saying it was fine for the seller to present his side of the story.

Just letting folks know. I'm sure most folks have great luck with reverb but the warning is that if you have a transaction go awry, they really don't have their act together.

[CR]

"clevelandjazz" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:86503224-a0b7-435d-89ac-***@googlegroups.com...
A couple months ago, I bought a Gibson 137 from reverb.com. Prior to
purchasing I asked the seller to verify that the truss rod functioned and he
said it did with no issues.

When I first got it, the guitar was setup with .010 strings but it sounded
really good and I left the seller positive feedback. However, I put a set of
.011 strings on it and the neck bowed slightly. No problem, I thought. I
tweaked the truss rod. Unfortunately, the neck didn't move when this
happened. I contacted the seller and told him I thought the truss rod was
not working and that I was taking the guitar into my luthier to inspect and
that if it turned out that the truss rod was defective, I would be returning
the guitar.

Unfortunately, my luthier concluded after 15 minutes that the truss rod was
indeed not working. He could not get the instrument's neck to level out and
advised me to return it. He wrote me up a repair ticket indicating this.

The seller called him and insisted I take the instrument back to the luthier
for further inspection and for a repair estimate but I felt the seller had
not lived up to the initial pre-sales claim and I returned it. I ended up
having to dispute the transaction with paypal.

After the transaction was reversed, reverb.com canceled my account and later
reinstated it after I posted publicly about the situation.

However, the seller wrote a scathing, negative feedback on me saying (among
other things) that I had modified the instrument and then wanted a refund
when it broke. They also made unsupported claims unrelated to the
transaction.

I contacted reverb and asked them to remove it and cited that reverb.com's
representative (Chris) had personally contacted my luthier who corroborated
what was in the repair ticket and that it was a blatant lie to say I
modified the instrument but they decided to leave the feedback intact saying
it was fine for the seller to present his side of the story.

Just letting folks know. I'm sure most folks have great luck with reverb but
the warning is that if you have a transaction go awry, they really don't
have their act together.
__________________________________________________________
I'm not sure that that is the idea. Many of we sellers have found that ebay
has become too intrusive, and along with that,requiring it to be too
expensive, largely due to its mediating of sales between two parties. If you
think all of that mediation and intrusiveness is free, well, take a look at
the jump in their FVF, an amount many of us are hesitatnt to bear.

When you sell on the Gear Page, for one example, there is NO involvement on
the part of the internediating company. And they have a zero FVF. But you
assume all the risk.Why can't we have a company that offers an alternative
and falls in-between the over-intrusiveness of an ebay and the total
non-intrusiveness of a Gear Page?

I think that if one has the need for full "protection" and "guarantees", and
if one's nature is not that of a risk-taker, one should deal with a brick
and mortar store, or a big chain online store. Next would be ebay.
Selling/buying on Gear Page, Reverb, or through the multitude of available
forums involves taking some risks, which in turn involves far less cost to
the sales.

You just can't have it all ways. Complaints like this will force reverb to
become another ebay. Is that what you really want ?

[Gerry]

Post by clevelandjazz
A couple months ago, I bought a Gibson 137 from reverb.com. Prior to
purchasing I asked the seller to verify that the truss rod functioned
and he said it did with no issues.
When I first got it, the guitar was setup with .010 strings but it
sounded really good and I left the seller positive feedback. However, I
put a set of .011 strings on it and the neck bowed slightly. No
problem, I thought. I tweaked the truss rod. Unfortunately, the neck
didn't move when this happened. I contacted the seller and told him I
thought the truss rod was not working and that I was taking the guitar
into my luthier to inspect and that if it turned out that the truss rod
was defective, I would be returning the guitar.
Unfortunately, my luthier concluded after 15 minutes that the truss rod
was indeed not working. He could not get the instrument's neck to level
out and advised me to return it. He wrote me up a repair ticket
indicating this.
The seller called him and insisted I take the instrument back to the
luthier for further inspection and for a repair estimate but I felt the
seller had not lived up to the initial pre-sales claim and I returned
it. I ended up having to dispute the transaction with paypal.
After the transaction was reversed, reverb.com canceled my account and
later reinstated it after I posted publicly about the situation.
However, the seller wrote a scathing, negative feedback on me saying
(among other things) that I had modified the instrument and then wanted
a refund when it broke. They also made unsupported claims unrelated to
the transaction.
I contacted reverb and asked them to remove it and cited that
reverb.com's representative (Chris) had personally contacted my luthier
who corroborated what was in the repair ticket and that it was a
blatant lie to say I modified the instrument but they decided to leave
the feedback intact saying it was fine for the seller to present his
side of the story.
Just letting folks know. I'm sure most folks have great luck with
reverb but the warning is that if you have a transaction go awry, they
really don't have their act together.
__________________________________________________________
I'm not sure that that is the idea. Many of we sellers have found that
ebay has become too intrusive, and along with that,requiring it to be
too expensive, largely due to its mediating of sales between two
parties. If you think all of that mediation and intrusiveness is free,
well, take a look at the jump in their FVF, an amount many of us are
hesitatnt to bear.
When you sell on the Gear Page, for one example, there is NO
involvement on the part of the internediating company. And they have a
zero FVF. But you assume all the risk.Why can't we have a company that
offers an alternative and falls in-between the over-intrusiveness of an
ebay and the total non-intrusiveness of a Gear Page?
I think that if one has the need for full "protection" and
"guarantees", and if one's nature is not that of a risk-taker, one
should deal with a brick and mortar store, or a big chain online store.
Next would be ebay. Selling/buying on Gear Page, Reverb, or through the
multitude of available forums involves taking some risks, which in turn
involves far less cost to the sales.
You just can't have it all ways. Complaints like this will force reverb
to become another ebay. Is that what you really want ?

I think expecting *honesty* on the part of sellers is paramount
regardless of the setting.

[CR]

Post by clevelandjazz
A couple months ago, I bought a Gibson 137 from reverb.com. Prior to
purchasing I asked the seller to verify that the truss rod functioned and
he said it did with no issues.
When I first got it, the guitar was setup with .010 strings but it
sounded really good and I left the seller positive feedback. However, I
put a set of .011 strings on it and the neck bowed slightly. No problem,
I thought. I tweaked the truss rod. Unfortunately, the neck didn't move
when this happened. I contacted the seller and told him I thought the
truss rod was not working and that I was taking the guitar into my
luthier to inspect and that if it turned out that the truss rod was
defective, I would be returning the guitar.
Unfortunately, my luthier concluded after 15 minutes that the truss rod
was indeed not working. He could not get the instrument's neck to level
out and advised me to return it. He wrote me up a repair ticket
indicating this.
The seller called him and insisted I take the instrument back to the
luthier for further inspection and for a repair estimate but I felt the
seller had not lived up to the initial pre-sales claim and I returned it.
I ended up having to dispute the transaction with paypal.
After the transaction was reversed, reverb.com canceled my account and
later reinstated it after I posted publicly about the situation.
However, the seller wrote a scathing, negative feedback on me saying
(among other things) that I had modified the instrument and then wanted a
refund when it broke. They also made unsupported claims unrelated to the
transaction.
I contacted reverb and asked them to remove it and cited that
reverb.com's representative (Chris) had personally contacted my luthier
who corroborated what was in the repair ticket and that it was a blatant
lie to say I modified the instrument but they decided to leave the
feedback intact saying it was fine for the seller to present his side of
the story.
Just letting folks know. I'm sure most folks have great luck with reverb
but the warning is that if you have a transaction go awry, they really
don't have their act together.
__________________________________________________________
I'm not sure that that is the idea. Many of we sellers have found that
ebay has become too intrusive, and along with that,requiring it to be too
expensive, largely due to its mediating of sales between two parties. If
you think all of that mediation and intrusiveness is free, well, take a
look at the jump in their FVF, an amount many of us are hesitatnt to
bear.
When you sell on the Gear Page, for one example, there is NO involvement
on the part of the internediating company. And they have a zero FVF. But
you assume all the risk.Why can't we have a company that offers an
alternative and falls in-between the over-intrusiveness of an ebay and
the total non-intrusiveness of a Gear Page?
I think that if one has the need for full "protection" and "guarantees",
and if one's nature is not that of a risk-taker, one should deal with a
brick and mortar store, or a big chain online store. Next would be ebay.
Selling/buying on Gear Page, Reverb, or through the multitude of
available forums involves taking some risks, which in turn involves far
less cost to the sales.
You just can't have it all ways. Complaints like this will force reverb
to become another ebay. Is that what you really want ?

I think expecting *honesty* on the part of sellers is paramount regardless
of the setting.

I'm not sure what you meant by this, but taken at its face value, we are in
total agreement. There are ways, though none that are ever sure-fire, to
feel out a seller as to whether (s)he'll be *honest* or not. But most of
life involves some risk, does it not?

[clevelandjazz]

That's not true. The gearpage has a feedback mechanism and they don't allow revenge feedback or lying. Fortunately, I've never had to deal with that issue on the gearpage but there have been plenty of others who have. The gearpage will suspend you permanently for that.

Post by clevelandjazz
A couple months ago, I bought a Gibson 137 from reverb.com. Prior to
purchasing I asked the seller to verify that the truss rod functioned and he
said it did with no issues.
When I first got it, the guitar was setup with .010 strings but it sounded
really good and I left the seller positive feedback. However, I put a set of
.011 strings on it and the neck bowed slightly. No problem, I thought. I
tweaked the truss rod. Unfortunately, the neck didn't move when this
happened. I contacted the seller and told him I thought the truss rod was
not working and that I was taking the guitar into my luthier to inspect and
that if it turned out that the truss rod was defective, I would be returning
the guitar.
Unfortunately, my luthier concluded after 15 minutes that the truss rod was
indeed not working. He could not get the instrument's neck to level out and
advised me to return it. He wrote me up a repair ticket indicating this.
The seller called him and insisted I take the instrument back to the luthier
for further inspection and for a repair estimate but I felt the seller had
not lived up to the initial pre-sales claim and I returned it. I ended up
having to dispute the transaction with paypal.
After the transaction was reversed, reverb.com canceled my account and later
reinstated it after I posted publicly about the situation.
However, the seller wrote a scathing, negative feedback on me saying (among
other things) that I had modified the instrument and then wanted a refund
when it broke. They also made unsupported claims unrelated to the
transaction.
I contacted reverb and asked them to remove it and cited that reverb.com's
representative (Chris) had personally contacted my luthier who corroborated
what was in the repair ticket and that it was a blatant lie to say I
modified the instrument but they decided to leave the feedback intact saying
it was fine for the seller to present his side of the story.
Just letting folks know. I'm sure most folks have great luck with reverb but
the warning is that if you have a transaction go awry, they really don't
have their act together.
__________________________________________________________
I'm not sure that that is the idea. Many of we sellers have found that ebay
has become too intrusive, and along with that,requiring it to be too
expensive, largely due to its mediating of sales between two parties. If you
think all of that mediation and intrusiveness is free, well, take a look at
the jump in their FVF, an amount many of us are hesitatnt to bear.
When you sell on the Gear Page, for one example, there is NO involvement on
the part of the internediating company. And they have a zero FVF. But you
assume all the risk.Why can't we have a company that offers an alternative
and falls in-between the over-intrusiveness of an ebay and the total
non-intrusiveness of a Gear Page?
I think that if one has the need for full "protection" and "guarantees", and
if one's nature is not that of a risk-taker, one should deal with a brick
and mortar store, or a big chain online store. Next would be ebay.
Selling/buying on Gear Page, Reverb, or through the multitude of available
forums involves taking some risks, which in turn involves far less cost to
the sales.
You just can't have it all ways. Complaints like this will force reverb to
become another ebay. Is that what you really want ?

[CR]

"clevelandjazz" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:bccae2ea-16eb-4748-afed-***@googlegroups.com...
That's not true. The gearpage has a feedback mechanism and they don't allow
revenge feedback or lying. Fortunately, I've never had to deal with that
issue on the gearpage but there have been plenty of others who have. The
gearpage will suspend you permanently for that.
Feedback mechanisms are far from ideal ways to judge anything.

If you'd like to learn more about the value of feedback systems on sellers,
just google "yelp feedback" (for one example) and see what retailers think
of the fairness and objectivity of yelp's feedback system.

There are other things I can say about this, but I don't want to belabor
this. It is what it is. We all agree it isn't easy doing business on the
internet, yet as consumers we're driving mom n pop retailers out of business
everyday. The times they are a-changin'.... :-)

Post by clevelandjazz
A couple months ago, I bought a Gibson 137 from reverb.com. Prior to
purchasing I asked the seller to verify that the truss rod functioned and he
said it did with no issues.
When I first got it, the guitar was setup with .010 strings but it sounded
really good and I left the seller positive feedback. However, I put a set of
.011 strings on it and the neck bowed slightly. No problem, I thought. I
tweaked the truss rod. Unfortunately, the neck didn't move when this
happened. I contacted the seller and told him I thought the truss rod was
not working and that I was taking the guitar into my luthier to inspect and
that if it turned out that the truss rod was defective, I would be returning
the guitar.
Unfortunately, my luthier concluded after 15 minutes that the truss rod was
indeed not working. He could not get the instrument's neck to level out and
advised me to return it. He wrote me up a repair ticket indicating this.
The seller called him and insisted I take the instrument back to the luthier
for further inspection and for a repair estimate but I felt the seller had
not lived up to the initial pre-sales claim and I returned it. I ended up
having to dispute the transaction with paypal.
After the transaction was reversed, reverb.com canceled my account and later
reinstated it after I posted publicly about the situation.
However, the seller wrote a scathing, negative feedback on me saying (among
other things) that I had modified the instrument and then wanted a refund
when it broke. They also made unsupported claims unrelated to the
transaction.
I contacted reverb and asked them to remove it and cited that reverb.com's
representative (Chris) had personally contacted my luthier who
corroborated
what was in the repair ticket and that it was a blatant lie to say I
modified the instrument but they decided to leave the feedback intact saying
it was fine for the seller to present his side of the story.
Just letting folks know. I'm sure most folks have great luck with reverb but
the warning is that if you have a transaction go awry, they really don't
have their act together.
__________________________________________________________
I'm not sure that that is the idea. Many of we sellers have found that ebay
has become too intrusive, and along with that,requiring it to be too
expensive, largely due to its mediating of sales between two parties. If you
think all of that mediation and intrusiveness is free, well, take a look at
the jump in their FVF, an amount many of us are hesitatnt to bear.
When you sell on the Gear Page, for one example, there is NO involvement on
the part of the internediating company. And they have a zero FVF. But you
assume all the risk.Why can't we have a company that offers an alternative
and falls in-between the over-intrusiveness of an ebay and the total
non-intrusiveness of a Gear Page?
I think that if one has the need for full "protection" and "guarantees", and
if one's nature is not that of a risk-taker, one should deal with a brick
and mortar store, or a big chain online store. Next would be ebay.
Selling/buying on Gear Page, Reverb, or through the multitude of available
forums involves taking some risks, which in turn involves far less cost to
the sales.
You just can't have it all ways. Complaints like this will force reverb to
become another ebay. Is that what you really want ?

[clevelandjazz]

Post by CR
Feedback mechanisms are far from ideal ways to judge anything.

Whateva. The point is the guy out and out lied and said I modified the guitar and implied I broke it by changing the strings and adjusting the truss rod, then later said his luthier found nothing wrong with the truss

[CR]

Post by clevelandjazz

Post by CR
Feedback mechanisms are far from ideal ways to judge anything.

Whateva. The point is the guy out and out lied and said I modified the
guitar and implied I broke it by changing the strings and adjusting the
truss rod, then later said his luthier found nothing wrong with the truss

Yes, I caught that. Yours was a really bad experience. I'm just sorry to
hear it.

I have been more fortunate with both my online purchases and sales and I am
grateful for that, believe me.

[clevelandjazz]

the part you may be missing is that reverb.com was directly involved in this situation. It's not like ebay where there are 1.2 million sales every day. The owner of reverb.com called my repairman and verified that the guitar was inspected and that the trussrod didn't work. He then saw the paperwork on the repairman's letterhead stating the same.

He then got a phone call from me saying that the seller had left libelous feedback for me, lying and saying I had modified the guitar and insinuating that I broke it. He took a look at it and his conclusion was that the seller should be allowed to tell his version of the story. WTF?!?

There are no "VERSIONS" of the truth.

That was it for me. Done with them.

[CR]

"clevelandjazz" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:103c350b-f6a5-49ea-8754-***@googlegroups.com...
the part you may be missing is that reverb.com was directly involved in this
situation. It's not like ebay where there are 1.2 million sales every day.
The owner of reverb.com called my repairman and verified that the guitar was
inspected and that the trussrod didn't work. He then saw the paperwork on
the repairman's letterhead stating the same.

He then got a phone call from me saying that the seller had left libelous
feedback for me, lying and saying I had modified the guitar and insinuating
that I broke it. He took a look at it and his conclusion was that the seller
should be allowed to tell his version of the story. WTF?!?

There are no "VERSIONS" of the truth.

That was it for me. Done with them.
I did get it. I am not a fan of feedback programs in general largely because
they allow vengeful and unethical people to express "feedbacks" that are,
well, vengeful and unethical. I have a business. I have direct experience
with Yelp. They don't even allow the business to give return feedback of the
customer. Believe me, you get some irrational, self-important, and entitled
people who feel free to say anything irrational that they want.
Interestingly, Yelps policies have been challenged in court and the comments
they allow, and the people who made them, have been upheld as protected free
speech, even when those comments border on libelous.

It's a screwed up world.

[Gerry]

I have a business. I have direct experience with Yelp. They don't even
allow the business to give return feedback of the customer.

They can give direct and public feedback directly to the customer by
responding to their complaint. See Amy's Baking Company for the most
exotic example.

Believe me, you get some irrational, self-important, and entitled
people who feel free to say anything irrational that they want.
Interestingly, Yelps policies have been challenged in court and the
comments they allow, and the people who made them, have been upheld as
protected free speech, even when those comments border on libelous.

For the most *totally insane" bullshit about "protected free speech",
see today's New York Times.

http://tinyurl.com/ndbh3nk

The first part:

A federal judge in Manhattan on Tuesday ordered the Metropolitan
Transportation Authority to display an ad from a pro-Israel group on
buses after the agency declined to run it last year.

The group, the American Freedom Defense Initiative, sued the authority
in October, saying it had infringed on the group’s First Amendment
rights by rejecting the ad. The authority had argued that the ad could
be seen as a call to violence against Jews.

The ad shows a man with a scarf across his face next to the words,
“Killing Jews is Worship that draws us close to Allah,” attributed to
“Hamas MTV.” Below that, it reads: “That’s his Jihad. What’s yours?”

The judge, John G. Koeltl, of United States District Court, ruled that
the ad qualified as protected speech and granted a preliminary
injunction ordering the transportation authority to run the ad.

It's a screwed up world.

Oh yeah.

[CR]

Post by Gerry

I have a business. I have direct experience with Yelp. They don't even
allow the business to give return feedback of the customer.

They can give direct and public feedback directly to the customer by
responding to their complaint. See Amy's Baking Company for the most
exotic example.

Believe me, you get some irrational, self-important, and entitled people
who feel free to say anything irrational that they want. Interestingly,
Yelps policies have been challenged in court and the comments they allow,
and the people who made them, have been upheld as protected free speech,
even when those comments border on libelous.

For the most *totally insane" bullshit about "protected free speech", see
today's New York Times.
http://tinyurl.com/ndbh3nk
A federal judge in Manhattan on Tuesday ordered the Metropolitan
Transportation Authority to display an ad from a pro-Israel group on buses
after the agency declined to run it last year.
The group, the American Freedom Defense Initiative, sued the authority in
October, saying it had infringed on the group's First Amendment rights by
rejecting the ad. The authority had argued that the ad could be seen as a
call to violence against Jews.
The ad shows a man with a scarf across his face next to the words,
"Killing Jews is Worship that draws us close to Allah," attributed to
"Hamas MTV." Below that, it reads: "That's his Jihad. What's yours?"
The judge, John G. Koeltl, of United States District Court, ruled that the
ad qualified as protected speech and granted a preliminary injunction
ordering the transportation authority to run the ad.

It's a screwed up world.

Oh yeah.

Yelp allows the business to write a response, which is in theory "public" to
a feedback, true. However, certain conditions surrounding that exist.

The first is that the business's response comes after the customer review
and is not displayed in its entirety unless a reader actively clicks on the
"See more" link (or however it's worded). It's not a passive display of the
businesses response. Most people, especially those using devices, I think
will not go that far.

The second is that the reviewer can insulate Him(her)self from your response
by blocking the notices of replies to their reviews that they would
otherwise receive. I think that borderlines on criminal. If a person is
given the privilege of the "free-speech" right to review someone, they
should have to face the music of the response.

On your story of the advertising poster, at one time I would have been
surprised that the calling for the murder of any people was protected
speech, but in this day and age, I guess there are no longer any rules, at
least for some. It's a shame.

Btw, what did you gather was the point of that ad? It's not clear to me what
the message is. If the point is that it's being critical of those kinds of
bigotries, then I might understand the judges ruling.

[Gerry]

Post by CR
On your story of the advertising poster, at one time I would have been
surprised that the calling for the murder of any people was protected
speech, but in this day and age, I guess there are no longer any rules,
at least for some. It's a shame.

In the "Citizen's United" ruling of course, the use of money in
advertising, or propaganda is considered free speech, of course. So
"free speech" is any damn thing people of wealth and power say it is.

Post by CR
Btw, what did you gather was the point of that ad? It's not clear to me
what the message is. If the point is that it's being critical of those
kinds of bigotries, then I might understand the judges ruling.

The content of the agitprop, again: The ad shows a man with a scarf
across his face next to the words, "Killing Jews is Worship that draws
us close to Allah,"...

The intended takeaway is that Muslim's consider killing "worship", who
wouldn't consider them the definition of evil? Apparently that's
considerd an "advertisement" instead of "defamation". It would be
interesting to see the public response to an Islamic group using busses
for agitprop.

[Tim McNamara]

Post by CR

Post by Gerry

I have a business. I have direct experience with Yelp. They don't
even allow the business to give return feedback of the customer.

They can give direct and public feedback directly to the customer by
responding to their complaint. See Amy's Baking Company for the most
exotic example.

Believe me, you get some irrational, self-important, and entitled
people who feel free to say anything irrational that they want.
Interestingly, Yelps policies have been challenged in court and the
comments they allow, and the people who made them, have been upheld
as protected free speech, even when those comments border on
libelous.

Not that I have yet seen. A bad review is not libel if it is based in
fact.

<snip>

Post by CR
Yelp allows the business to write a response, which is in theory
"public" to a feedback, true. However, certain conditions surrounding
that exist.
The first is that the business's response comes after the customer
review and is not displayed in its entirety unless a reader actively
clicks on the "See more" link (or however it's worded). It's not a
passive display of the businesses response. Most people, especially
those using devices, I think will not go that far.
The second is that the reviewer can insulate Him(her)self from your
response by blocking the notices of replies to their reviews that they
would otherwise receive. I think that borderlines on criminal. If a
person is given the privilege of the "free-speech" right to review
someone, they should have to face the music of the response.

In what way does that border on "criminal?" What law is being
broken? The poster is under no obligation to read the response of the
business.

Business also need to understand that a bad review is not necessarily
libel or slander. If the customer had a bad experience and their post
is based in fact, it is not slander or libel. A lot of business think
they do a great job when in fact they suck in one way or another.

When I read reviews I take them with a grain of salt. There are some
people who are never satisfied. If there are 43 good reviews and one
bad one, I ignore the bad one. If there are 43 bad reviews and one good
one, OTOH, it's a different story.

There are two particularly troubling abuses of things like Yelp,
however. The first is competing companies posting false bad reviews;
the second is companies posting false positive reviews (or paying
someone to do that). The third troubling abuse is the trend of putting
fine print into agreements allowing the company to sue or bill people
for posting negative reviews- like when you sign for a room in a hotel
and you don't notice the clause in the agreement that says they'll bill
you $1,000 for every bad review. Most companies that do this seem to be
also companies that deserve bad reviews...

Post by CR
On your story of the advertising poster, at one time I would have been
surprised that the calling for the murder of any people was protected
speech, but in this day and age, I guess there are no longer any
rules, at least for some. It's a shame.
Btw, what did you gather was the point of that ad? It's not clear to
me what the message is. If the point is that it's being critical of
those kinds of bigotries, then I might understand the judges ruling.

It's meant to incite hatred against Muslims. The group running the ad
is a bunch of right wing whacko Islamophobes. Plenty of information out
there about them, including their own.

[CR]

Post by Tim McNamara

Post by CR

Post by Gerry

I have a business. I have direct experience with Yelp. They don't
even allow the business to give return feedback of the customer.

They can give direct and public feedback directly to the customer by
responding to their complaint. See Amy's Baking Company for the most
exotic example.

Well, not exactly correct if you read my full response. The "response to the
complaint" is not readily visible to the public AND abusive reviewers often
block notifications that their review has been responded to. They don't know
and they don't care, and they don't want to see a review of themselves as a
customer. It's a thoughtful little feature that Yelp gave to people who
review so that they can remain removed from the experience and how it
affects those that they're reviewing.

Post by Tim McNamara

Post by CR

Post by Gerry

Believe me, you get some irrational, self-important, and entitled
people who feel free to say anything irrational that they want.
Interestingly, Yelps policies have been challenged in court and the
comments they allow, and the people who made them, have been upheld
as protected free speech, even when those comments border on
libelous.

Not that I have yet seen. A bad review is not libel if it is based in
fact.

From what I understand, it would be very hard to prove that a bad review is
libelous even under the worst of circumstances. They generally fall under
the umbrella of "opinion", even when some of the "facts" may be incorrect.
Some of the worst reviews I've seen are totally devoid of any fact anyway.

Post by Tim McNamara
<snip>

Post by CR
Yelp allows the business to write a response, which is in theory
"public" to a feedback, true. However, certain conditions surrounding
that exist.
The first is that the business's response comes after the customer
review and is not displayed in its entirety unless a reader actively
clicks on the "See more" link (or however it's worded). It's not a
passive display of the businesses response. Most people, especially
those using devices, I think will not go that far.
The second is that the reviewer can insulate Him(her)self from your
response by blocking the notices of replies to their reviews that they
would otherwise receive. I think that borderlines on criminal. If a
person is given the privilege of the "free-speech" right to review
someone, they should have to face the music of the response.

In what way does that border on "criminal?" What law is being
broken? The poster is under no obligation to read the response of the
business.

I didn't mean "criminal" in the literal sense but in the sometimes common
usage sense that it's over-the-top bad, imho. I should have been more
careful choosing my wording. And of course the poster is under no obligation
to read the response a business makes of their review, but they should have
to be notifed that one was made. That's part of the responsibility imo.
Whether they look at it or not is their choice. It's way too easy to make
allegations and point fingers totally anonymously, especially when you don't
have to have the mirror held back up to you to see how you were perceived
and/or how you may have created your own set of lose-lose circumstances. I
would be suspicious of reviewers who block notices that their review was
responded to.

Post by Tim McNamara
Business also need to understand that a bad review is not necessarily
libel or slander. If the customer had a bad experience and their post
is based in fact, it is not slander or libel. A lot of business think
they do a great job when in fact they suck in one way or another.
When I read reviews I take them with a grain of salt. There are some
people who are never satisfied. If there are 43 good reviews and one
bad one, I ignore the bad one. If there are 43 bad reviews and one good
one, OTOH, it's a different story.

What if there were 13 good reviews and, say 3 bad ones, but Yelp decided
through their "computer algorithm that 5 of the good ones were "not
recommended" and hid them? So, what the public sees is 8 good ones and 3 bad
ones. What might be your response then? And yes, this does happen. Yelp has
many secret reasons about why some reviews are "not recommended", one of
them being if it's a reviewer's first time review. Read up on it.

Post by Tim McNamara
There are two particularly troubling abuses of things like Yelp,
however. The first is competing companies posting false bad reviews;
the second is companies posting false positive reviews (or paying
someone to do that). The third troubling abuse is the trend of putting
fine print into agreements allowing the company to sue or bill people
for posting negative reviews- like when you sign for a room in a hotel
and you don't notice the clause in the agreement that says they'll bill
you $1,000 for every bad review. Most companies that do this seem to be
also companies that deserve bad reviews...

Post by CR
On your story of the advertising poster, at one time I would have been
surprised that the calling for the murder of any people was protected
speech, but in this day and age, I guess there are no longer any
rules, at least for some. It's a shame.
Btw, what did you gather was the point of that ad? It's not clear to
me what the message is. If the point is that it's being critical of
those kinds of bigotries, then I might understand the judges ruling.

It's meant to incite hatred against Muslims. The group running the ad
is a bunch of right wing whacko Islamophobes. Plenty of information out
there about them, including their own.

I thought it might be more along those lines

[Gerry]

Post by CR

Post by Tim McNamara

Post by Gerry
They can give direct and public feedback directly to the customer by
responding to their complaint. See Amy's Baking Company for the most
exotic example.

Well, not exactly correct if you read my full response. The "response
to the complaint" is not readily visible to the public...

I disagree, I've readily *read* responses from owners to complaints
many times on Yelp.

Post by CR

Post by Tim McNamara
When I read reviews I take them with a grain of salt. There are some
people who are never satisfied. If there are 43 good reviews and one
bad one, I ignore the bad one. If there are 43 bad reviews and one good
one, OTOH, it's a different story.

What if there were 13 good reviews and, say 3 bad ones, but Yelp
decided through their "computer algorithm that 5 of the good ones were
"not recommended" and hid them? So, what the public sees is 8 good ones
and 3 bad ones. What might be your response then? And yes, this does
happen. Yelp has many secret reasons about why some reviews are "not
recommended", one of them being if it's a reviewer's first time review.
Read up on it.

I'm never ever going to read up on it, because I don't care that much.
I rarely read good reviews, I only read the bad ones. If a restaurant
has 8 single-star voters I read them. If 5 say cockroaches and hairs
in food, I don't go. But I almost never see that. I see mega picky
aholes that carp about some waitress who was fat and had too much
makeup refusing to comp a bad drink, or having to send cold food back
or something else. Mostly it's BS.

But when it's clear to me that it's a modality at the restaurant, I
believe I'm quick to suss it out. Level-headed complainants with
substantive issues are pretty easy to spot in the muddle of posts.

Here, as a favorite example, is clearly someone who had complaints that
*couldn't be* invented. It was called "Tapas Flavors of Spain" in
Newport Beach:

----- paste begins -----

Send your enemies here for a good meal.

It's the worst. Absolutely the worst.  We got empanadas that were
finished in a microwave. What?! Yes, indeed. If you have good
empanadas, and they might, it's a crime to finish them in a microwave.
The pastry goes soggy with the moisture from the filling, and the
filling is scary hot and overcooked. Finish them in an oven--wait the
requisite five minutes and it's probably fine. Unless you're a lazy ass
working in this joint.

We got toast with a shmeer of tomato stuff. Where the tomato stuff laid
it was soggy down a full inch. Analysis: microwaved!  They
grilled/toasted the bread, smeared on the tomato stuff, then into the
fridge till ordered, microwave until soggy and serve. Inedible.  

Crab cakes analysis: Deep fried, then put in the fridge. When ordered,
deep fry some more, so they are hard over-cooked little turds and then
serve 'em up.  Taste: miserable.

All of this came with wilted room-temperature lettuce.  It looked like
they put out a big ol' bucket at 4pm and then set it next to the hot
plate, deep-fryer, grill-top and unused oven. So it looks fresh but is
wilted, warm, and miserable.

Mac-and-cheese anybody can do, right?  So overcook the shell pasta,
grate some cheese on top, put it in the fridge.  When ordered blast it
into slush and serve it up; piping hot crap. It even smells bad.

We eat at three or four new restaurants a month and are surprised at
how much good food there is out there; cheap food, fancy food, ethnic
food, everything. So maybe my observations aren't so exacting if
everything is good, right?

Then I hit a place like this failure and realize that I'm gauging just
fine.  The cooks at Tapas are phoning it in--from out of state!  I ate
here about four years ago and it seemed quite good. I don't know what
happened but it was big sea-change.

We ate the food without puking, so they get a star.  But as I drove
away from this place I just got more and more angry at the miserable
job they do.

Bonus points: Read their rules on the back of their menu.15-20
different points, including NO CORKAGE, dollar-per-patron "cake charge"
if you bring your own cake (I'm sure that was bankrupting them), all
tapas go up 50 cents during performances, and on and on. They are
chiselers as well as lazy.

Echh...

----- paste ends ------

[Tim McNamara]

Post by CR

Post by Tim McNamara

Post by CR

Post by Gerry

I have a business. I have direct experience with Yelp. They don't
even allow the business to give return feedback of the customer.

They can give direct and public feedback directly to the customer
by responding to their complaint. See Amy's Baking Company for the
most exotic example.

Well, not exactly correct if you read my full response. The "response
to the complaint" is not readily visible to the public AND abusive
reviewers often block notifications that their review has been
responded to. They don't know and they don't care, and they don't want
to see a review of themselves as a customer. It's a thoughtful little
feature that Yelp gave to people who review so that they can remain
removed from the experience and how it affects those that they're
reviewing.

Post by Tim McNamara

Post by CR

Post by Gerry

Believe me, you get some irrational, self-important, and entitled
people who feel free to say anything irrational that they want.
Interestingly, Yelps policies have been challenged in court and
the comments they allow, and the people who made them, have been
upheld as protected free speech, even when those comments border
on libelous.

Not that I have yet seen. A bad review is not libel if it is based
in fact.

From what I understand, it would be very hard to prove that a bad
review is libelous even under the worst of circumstances. They
generally fall under the umbrella of "opinion", even when some of the
"facts" may be incorrect. Some of the worst reviews I've seen are
totally devoid of any fact anyway.

Post by Tim McNamara
<snip>

Post by CR
Yelp allows the business to write a response, which is in theory
"public" to a feedback, true. However, certain conditions
surrounding that exist.
The first is that the business's response comes after the customer
review and is not displayed in its entirety unless a reader actively
clicks on the "See more" link (or however it's worded). It's not a
passive display of the businesses response. Most people, especially
those using devices, I think will not go that far.
The second is that the reviewer can insulate Him(her)self from your
response by blocking the notices of replies to their reviews that
they would otherwise receive. I think that borderlines on criminal.
If a person is given the privilege of the "free-speech" right to
review someone, they should have to face the music of the response.

In what way does that border on "criminal?" What law is being
broken? The poster is under no obligation to read the response of
the business.

I didn't mean "criminal" in the literal sense but in the sometimes
common usage sense that it's over-the-top bad, imho. I should have
been more careful choosing my wording. And of course the poster is
under no obligation to read the response a business makes of their
review, but they should have to be notifed that one was made. That's
part of the responsibility imo. Whether they look at it or not is
their choice. It's way too easy to make allegations and point fingers
totally anonymously, especially when you don't have to have the mirror
held back up to you to see how you were perceived and/or how you may
have created your own set of lose-lose circumstances. I would be
suspicious of reviewers who block notices that their review was
responded to.

I see, I think I undeerstand your point better.

Post by CR

Post by Tim McNamara
Business also need to understand that a bad review is not necessarily
libel or slander. If the customer had a bad experience and their post
is based in fact, it is not slander or libel. A lot of business think
they do a great job when in fact they suck in one way or another.
When I read reviews I take them with a grain of salt. There are some
people who are never satisfied. If there are 43 good reviews and one
bad one, I ignore the bad one. If there are 43 bad reviews and one good
one, OTOH, it's a different story.

What if there were 13 good reviews and, say 3 bad ones, but Yelp decided
through their "computer algorithm that 5 of the good ones were "not
recommended" and hid them? So, what the public sees is 8 good ones and 3 bad
ones. What might be your response then? And yes, this does happen. Yelp has
many secret reasons about why some reviews are "not recommended", one of
them being if it's a reviewer's first time review. Read up on it.

I have the Yelp app on my phone but have not much checked the reviews-
mainly I am looking for resturants and don't put much stock in the
reviews. I wonder if I would feel the same way about reviews for, say,
a general contractor or a plumber. I've not used Yelp for that sort of
thing. Given that the outlay is much higher than for a meal, perhaps
reviews would weigh heavier.

I did not know that Yelp ranks reviews in this way, thanks for cueing me
into that.

Post by CR

Post by Tim McNamara
There are two particularly troubling abuses of things like Yelp,
however. The first is competing companies posting false bad reviews;
the second is companies posting false positive reviews (or paying
someone to do that). The third troubling abuse is the trend of
putting fine print into agreements allowing the company to sue or
bill people for posting negative reviews- like when you sign for a
room in a hotel and you don't notice the clause in the agreement that
says they'll bill you $1,000 for every bad review. Most companies
that do this seem to be also companies that deserve bad reviews...

Post by CR
On your story of the advertising poster, at one time I would have
been surprised that the calling for the murder of any people was
protected speech, but in this day and age, I guess there are no
longer any rules, at least for some. It's a shame.
Btw, what did you gather was the point of that ad? It's not clear to
me what the message is. If the point is that it's being critical of
those kinds of bigotries, then I might understand the judges ruling.

It's meant to incite hatred against Muslims. The group running the
ad is a bunch of right wing whacko Islamophobes. Plenty of
information out there about them, including their own.

I thought it might be more along those lines

I have to admit that while I generally value freedom of speech, even
when I don't agree with what's being said, when it's just vituperation I
do start to squirm sometimes; it feels lke there are or should be some
limits over what's protected under the First Amendment in the US and
similar laws in other countries. This ad would make me squirm. The
family that goes around "protesting" soldiers' burials to get publicity
for their anti-gay nonsense also pushes past what I consider reasonable
freedom of speech.

[l***@gmail.com]

I'm a seller on reverb fedex sent out my merchandise and it was damaged so reverb put my account under review granted my other items were received in perfect condition my pay outs are being held the correspondence has been little to none I have not received my money or any correspondence in 6 days I have to call daily just to be told I have to email. this company sucks it's the worst customer service I've had ever had do not use them they are horrible

[van]

Post by Gerry

I have a business. I have direct experience with Yelp. They don't even
allow the business to give return feedback of the customer.

They can give direct and public feedback directly to the customer by
responding to their complaint. See Amy's Baking Company for the most
exotic example.

Believe me, you get some irrational, self-important, and entitled
people who feel free to say anything irrational that they want.
Interestingly, Yelps policies have been challenged in court and the
comments they allow, and the people who made them, have been upheld as
protected free speech, even when those comments border on libelous.

For the most *totally insane" bullshit about "protected free speech",
see today's New York Times.
http://tinyurl.com/ndbh3nk
A federal judge in Manhattan on Tuesday ordered the Metropolitan
Transportation Authority to display an ad from a pro-Israel group on
buses after the agency declined to run it last year.
The group, the American Freedom Defense Initiative, sued the authority
in October, saying it had infringed on the group's First Amendment
rights by rejecting the ad. The authority had argued that the ad could
be seen as a call to violence against Jews.
The ad shows a man with a scarf across his face next to the words,
"Killing Jews is Worship that draws us close to Allah," attributed to
"Hamas MTV." Below that, it reads: "That's his Jihad. What's yours?"
The judge, John G. Koeltl, of United States District Court, ruled that
the ad qualified as protected speech and granted a preliminary
injunction ordering the transportation authority to run the ad.

It's a screwed up world.

Oh yeah.

I was driving on the Van Wyck Expressway today, and I saw a big billboard that said "The NY Times in anti-Israel!"
What up wit dat?

[Gerry]

Post by van
I was driving on the Van Wyck Expressway today, and I saw a big
billboard that said "The NY Times in anti-Israel!"
What up wit dat?

I'm guessing that should read "...IS anti-Israel!" They must have
mentioned something Netanyahu didn't like, or an article that mentioned
an "occupation" of Palestine. They don't care for anyone using that
word.

The amount of money being spent for the USA to fight a ground war in
Iran on behalf of Israel's phobias is getting to be a mighty big bag of
cash. They've certainly bought the Republican's fealty. It appears
much stronger than the pre-prep of warring with Iraq on behalf of Saudi
Arabia's phobias.

If Mexico had better lobbyists or more wealthy folk that wanted to buy
senators, we'd likely have immigration reform tomorrow! Come to think
of it, the majority owner of the New York Times is Carlos Slim, a
Mexican national. If he'd spent a quarter of his $341 million dollar
holdings of the NYT on 20-30 congressman and senators--or better yet,
the American Enterprise Institute--we'd have Republicans passing the
Dream Act in a matter of seconds.

[van]

Post by Gerry

Post by van
I was driving on the Van Wyck Expressway today, and I saw a big
billboard that said "The NY Times in anti-Israel!"
What up wit dat?

I'm guessing that should read "...IS anti-Israel!" They must have
mentioned something Netanyahu didn't like, or an article that mentioned
an "occupation" of Palestine. They don't care for anyone using that
word.
The amount of money being spent for the USA to fight a ground war in
Iran on behalf of Israel's phobias is getting to be a mighty big bag of
cash. They've certainly bought the Republican's fealty. It appears
much stronger than the pre-prep of warring with Iraq on behalf of Saudi
Arabia's phobias.
If Mexico had better lobbyists or more wealthy folk that wanted to buy
senators, we'd likely have immigration reform tomorrow! Come to think
of it, the majority owner of the New York Times is Carlos Slim, a
Mexican national. If he'd spent a quarter of his $341 million dollar
holdings of the NYT on 20-30 congressman and senators--or better yet,
the American Enterprise Institute--we'd have Republicans passing the
Dream Act in a matter of seconds.

Yeah, I meant IS- I'll have to fire my proofreader. ; - )

[[e-mail]]

Beware Sellers: Sold an amp on Reverb just to have it returned with a reason: sounds to much like the amp I already have !I told the seller sorry out of your 7 days...then Reverb contacted me and said that I have to return the buyers money less the processing fees? You mean sellers fees, no processing fees they said and any $ I spent for shipping. So now I am out $100. the amp is back at the house. Hailey was the support rep and was totally on the side of the buyer telling me that I should have written better return policy.

So is it right that I sold and shipped my used amp, the buyer admits its a great amp but returned anyway and it cost me $100? Total BS...and FU Reverb.