It's time for a revolution...

I'm sure we've all seen the 99% of vendors with flawless 5/5 feedback, and the ones who say they will leave you a 0/5 and blacklist you if you leave anything less than 5/5 (blacklist..? more like fucking blackmail!) Seriously... how did we ever let it get to this point?

So I say it's time for us to start leaving realistic feedback that actually reflects the quality of the transaction. As in, only 5/5 if the deal really was flawless AND THAT INCLUDES THE QUALITY OF THE PRODUCT. Oh and if you ever left "5/5 fe will update" you can shove that flat rate box that you never received so far up your ass

I'm sure this has been said before but maybe this time it will stick for some....


Comments


[19 Points] None:

Why can't people just accept that dealing in unregulated, illegal markets is not the same or should not be expected to be the same as a regulated legal market?


[5 Points] Theeconomist1:

Review systems are inherently difficult. Plain and simple. People have different expectations firstly. Various clearnet sites try to fix the problem by adding contextual information - including shit like social network for instance. Take one facet: expectations. What is perfect for you might be unacceptable to me. Also, recent trending is more important to a prospective buyer than an overall score. I don't care that the vendor was solid 6 months ago as much as I do if he is solid today and the last few weeks.

Market reviews serve a limited purpose. You can get a very narrow insight into how a vendor is. I actually do appreciate the FE Will Uodate review. The problem isn't that, the problem is lack of update. But FE Wikk Uodate reviews show me important information. If I see pages of it for a vendor that might have a small number, this can be indicative of a problem. It gives me an important contextual clue - insight into the vendors backlog. Many exit scam vendors had this particular context clue. I firmly believe these reviews can cut the scam time of an exit scam and can save people some coin.

Reviews tend to be largely binary. "Review inflation", lack of standards and the like are just some of reasons we have this. Bc let's face it, while there are 1-5 in most scoring systems, if you look at the distribution of scores it'll be an upside down bell curve. A lot of 1's and a lot of 5's with little between. It's a feedback loop problem as well. People rate a decent vendor a 5/5 bc a 3/5 or 4/5 will be interpreted poorly. Look at a vendor who exit scammed. For instance, TheStimGuy had a 4.1 or so average rating months after he exited. Obviously this is bc he had a year of excellent scores. But you see what I'm getting at. A vendor who has an average rating of a 4 won't be interpreted positively. Again, context matters.

HR and companies have long had major issues with ranking and rating employees. You solve that problem, you'd be rich.

I believe ratings should be trinary. Met expectations, did not meet and exceeded I think is a better system. Good, solid vendors should be "met expectations". These are vendors you'd order from all day and be happy. The other two are obvious. People are terrible at subjectively rating someone. They fair better doing comparative ranking bc it's a little easier to answer "which of these are the better at X". What would be interesting would be for a review system to put together a graph of vendors where people answer more comparative based questions and from there, implicit insights can be derived and a score calculated. Of course this is dreaming for our purposes.

In the meantime a trinary rating system would be good with scores weighted for age. Stale reviews should have some discount. But she also be important in determining vendor longetivity. A vendor that is a month or two old isn't as reliable as one who has been around for years


[3 Points] WhosThatWhosWho:

I posted about this a few days ago and didn't get much interest. I think the issues is that vendors can see who left the review. There is no reason for that, if the buyer wants to dispute the purchase then message the seller before leaving feedback. There is no reason for the vendor to ever know who said what about their product.


[3 Points] RevokeThis:

Lol vendors be sending threats for placing honest feedback about their product! Madness!

So these days, if you do leave realistic feedback, expect to be threatened by the vendor. Not all vendors are like this, and some appreciate the feedback as they should!


[2 Points] i_chose_life:

Yes, yes, YES! I was threatened, named on the vendor's profile, and "blacklisted" (as if I ever would try to buy from them again) for leaving a perfectly honest, politely explained FOUR OUT OF FIVE STARS!!! Huh?!

It's gotten insane. No vendor should ever make a policy that anything less than a 5/5 is allowed. It completely defies the purpose of feedback.


[1 Points] hog_master:

I'm guilty of not leaving feedback at all. Shit happens. Sometimes you get the order and then the market is down (Think 1.0, Ag).

Sometimes you get high and forget to leave feedback because you FE'd.

Sometimes you get your pack, and leave a good feedback. This is what I do 99% of the time.

I consider 5/5 the product arriving and the quality good. Nothing more nothing less. Anything more and it is a 5/5 10/5 cleartext post for the reasons why. Anything less product wise deserve a 0.

That all.


[1 Points] None:

[deleted]


[1 Points] s7iu:

Oh, or my favorite is when a vendor gets negative feedback and threatens to send people to your house and beat you up XD I've seen a couple of posts like that on here before.


[1 Points] Hank_Vendor:

don't ya know ya better run run run run run run run run run run run ruuuunnnnnn


[1 Points] throwaxanny:

If everything went as expected with no problems, thats a 5/5 for me.


[0 Points] InfinitelyOutThere:

This shit ain't Amazon son. Be happy you can even order drugs through the mail it's the fucking future today and you're complaining about vendors getting 5/5 for risking their fuckin lives