Replies Received
|
Replies to your reviews or comments. |
| Type |
Site |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
1
|
The English Mansion
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#11
from asmith12:
(SteveWebslave's Reply)
> Frankly, what you personally think I have the right to do or mention is completely irrelevant.
It is indeed very relevant to this site that you should comply with your own privacy policy, and I'm not sure your posts here are in compliance. What you did post may (or may not, depending on jurisdiction and other factors) constitute "individual user personal information", which your site claims to protect.
> When somebody blatently lies in a public forum and slanders a
> reputeable business,
And what exactly this "blatant lie" was? That you didn't issue refund? You agreed yourself it's truth. That he's unsatisfied customer? I tend to trust him on this one. So could you please mention what was the alleged lie?
> the truth should be aired and I have every right to state the
> absolute truth.
Do you really pretend to know what the absolute truth is?
|
10-30-07 10:25am
|
Reply
2
|
The English Mansion
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#9
from asmith12:
(SteveWebslave's Reply)
> no, we would not refund somebody who joined our site, downloaded a gallery, then said they didn't like it
It means that all the references to Josh's e-mails are completely irrelevant, so I'm not even sure that you did have a right to mention such potentially sensitive information in public forum (especially as in this case you seem to be bound not only with publicly available privacy policy, but also with your contractual obligations with JoshP).
Bottom line: as I've already said, my understanding is that support did an extremely poor job in handling this situation. Furthermore, I'm sure that allowing refunds in such cases of 'hate on the first glance' (sure, not after user downloaded 20G of content) would be beneficial for all the parties involved.
|
10-30-07 08:23am
|
Reply
3
|
The English Mansion
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#7
from asmith12:
(SteveWebslave's Reply)
> You talk about my interpretation as if there is some ambiguity here as to who was in the wrong.
Sure there is some ambiguity and some of your interpretation; first of all, there is no way to identify person reliably on the Internet (except for digital certificates, but I really doubt they were involved).
But this is not that important, what is more important is your answer to the following question: if somebody (without any e-mails which you would interpret as coming from him) will subscribe, then come in, download one gallery and say that he's not satisfied, asking for a refund - what would you do? Will you refund or not? If no, then all the references to Josh's alleged e-mail are irrelevant, if yes, then the whole thing just didn't make any sense from business point of view - cost of time and efforts (not to mention loss of goodwill) spent on this pretty specific case has already exceeded the refund amount many-fold.
PS > Why you are blindly jumping to this guy's defence is puzzling?
It's very simple and you should expect it on the Internet, especially in places like this one: I'm a customer too, and dealing with unscrupulous merchants all the time (see for instance my comment 'Swindling alert'). I can imagine that you're dealing with fraudulent customers all the time either, but fortunately that's not my problem :-).
|
10-30-07 03:30am
|
Reply
4
|
The English Mansion
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#5
from asmith12:
(SteveWebslave's Reply)
> Keeping customers happy, is actually something we are very proud of and something we do very well...
No comment.
> It appears from your comments that you are condolning somebody joining a pay site, downloading what they want and then demanding a refund by getting their bank or credit card company to dispute the transaction. You seem to be suggesting people should commit fraud?
That's only the way you prefer to read it. What I've said is that if there is a conflict between VISA customer and VISA merchant (and it doesn't matter what is the reason of the conflict: fraudulent charge or service so poor so it wasn't really possible to use it), one of the ways (which seems the most convenient to me) is to bring this conflict to the customer's bank to solve, that's it. And then it will be the bank who will decide how to deal with the matter. I should mention though that as far as I know, historically VISA/MC tend to like their customers much more than their merchants, so in case of doubts conflicts tend to be resolved in customer's favor. Any other questions?
> After all, this is what Josh P did...
Again, this is just your interpretation, and given the way you've interpreted my own words, personally I tend to doubt this your interpretation too. Still, in case of conflict it shouldn't be decided by me (and even less by you as you're the party of the conflict) but by appropriate conflict resolution body (like bank in the case of VISA-related conflict).
|
10-30-07 02:29am
|
Reply
5
|
The English Mansion
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#2
from asmith12:
(SteveWebslave's Reply)
Not sure that you're listening out there (your reply was posted way too long ago), but on any account your support did an extremely poor job. First of all, keeping customers happy is a cornerstone of doing long-term business (opposed to hit-n-run businesses), and deviating from it have already cost you lots of customers (for instance, myself - I won't join the site with such a comment and such a webmaster reply).
Second, to make their customers happy, both VISA and MC have policies which allow to challenge any credit card charge quickly and efficiently (and which can be barely argued in case of website subscription with no goods physically delivered); I wonder why JoshP didn't come to his bank and say "I want to dispute the transaction of $XX.YY which appear on my statement on DD MMM 2006. I wasn't satisfied with service provided and wasn't able to solve it contacting the merchant" - usually this is enough to get full refund via your own bank (takes a few weeks but eventually does work).
PS Or maybe support is run by one of site dominatrixes? That would explain attitude, but still is a very poor way of doing business.
|
10-28-07 08:50am
|
Reply
6
|
The English Mansion
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#1
from JoshP:
(SteveWebslave's Reply)
'Bitter' and 'unfair' is an unsatisfied customer unable to state those feelings without challenge. One unhappy customer among 'thousands of satisfied members' is small potatoes, so why not let me have my say in peace?
I'm no scam artist. I've joined many porn sites and paid my money and enjoyed them. Some have been sad disappointments. Those few were gracious enough to give me my money back and go on looking after their members, not worrying about the ones that slipped the net.
If I buy a pair of jeans in a store, take them home and they don't fit, I should be able to take them back with a receipt of purchase and receive a refund. Straightforward customer service 101. If I wear the jeans to go mud sliding in the park and then try to take them back, the storekeeper can gladly tell me to jog on.
Online, that scenario would be tantamount to me downloading huge quantities of material and then asking for my money back. One gallery download is no scam. Besides, I can't have wanted the gallery that much if it was so poor I ended up trashing it.
|
07-09-07 03:41pm
|
| *Message rows highlighted in light orange are replies to replies. |
|
