I agree that intelligence and survival skills are not always mutually exclusive. Neither, apparently, are intelligence and courtesy to fellow human beings. On the other hand, a higher level of education is not always indicative of exceptional intelligence but often, sadly, carries with it a superior attitude.

Funny, we just had a discussion the other day about the Santa Clause and it is interesting how many people missed that it was not a misspelling of Claus, but rather a clause in the legal sense of the word which is really the premise for the whole movie. That example, however, does show the power of a single letter and how grammar and spelling issues can really mess up a report.

I am a Canadian, living in America. I had to change the spelling of many words.

Behaviour is behavior here. Neighbourhood is neighborhood. Colour is color.

I have to really be careful when I'm doing the reports.

Canandamommy,

I have already replied to you in a past thread about schedulers having no say in reports that go through. I have repeatedly explained that the QA department job is to give the client the most detailed report possible on the mystery shop experience. If a shop was negative that requires you, as a shopper, to answer all "no" responses in the narrative so the client understands completely where they need to further train their team. As I have said before if you have an issue or question for North Fork Research (ICCDS) in regards to your reports please email me directly so I can take a look at your past reports and help you with future ones.

Jolaine Otey
North Fork Research
Scheduler

ICCDS is a great company to shop for. They are very accommodating but, if the client needs a narrative to explain the NO responses, just do it. They need to know what is wrong. If you cannot deal with narratives, then don't do any shops for ICCDS. Plain and simple.

Nicole at North Fork Research is our field ops supervisor. She is professional in dealing with field reps. As the scheduler for our main client she has multiple deadlines that are delegated by that specific client. Nicole, as well as the other schedulers, cannot leave shops on shoppers pages no matter what the excuse for non completion is. We are sympathetic to our shoppers and their circumstances but at the same time you must be sympathetic to us and our job as schedulers. We must meet our clients deadlines in order to do our job properly. All day we deal with shoppers that are too sick, forgot or too busy to complete shops which causes us to delay reports to the clients or miss deadlines. We cannot just continue to move dates out in hopes that you will feel better to complete a shop; at some point we need to make the decision to cancel the shops and allow another shopper to successfully conduct these shops. Some schedulers have more leniency with there client while others, like Nicole, do not have any wiggle room. If you do have an issue with how she is assigning shops please email her or call her so she is aware instead of writing on a forum she does not see. This will allow for a better work relationship among everyone.

Specifically to JLewis calling names is not something we will tolerate at our company. Please do not be disrespectful to our schedulers and we will continue to respect you as an independent contractor.

Jolaine Otey
North Fork Research field coordinator

JOTEY,
You are all over Canadamommy for expressing an opinion based on her experience with North Fork/ICCDS. You assumed she did not provide a narrative on all no answers. How can you assume that?

You stated, "All day we deal with shoppers that are too sick, forgot or too busy to complete shops..." Maybe you should retrain Nicole to not auto-assign shops. Seems many shoppers have explained to Nicole that they did not want to be auto-assigned. I would say Nicole is aware of the shoppers' preferences and does not need to read this on the forum. Seems that retraining the ICCDS schedulers may result in more effective scheduling therefore allowing you to meet your deadlines rather than strong arming and attempting to stifle shoppers. Also, your comment to JLewis speaks of respect yet Nicole disregards and disrespects the shoppers' wishes. Respect is a two way street.

ShoppingBee,

The only thing I will address from your statement is you coming to Canandamommy's defense. She has made that comment in a few other threads in this forum. So this statement is a continuation and a reminder to her of what the client expects in reports. If you would like to understand completely why I would assume that she did not include a full narrative please check her past posts to see previous conversations between us.

There is no such thing as "auto-assign." I will no longer comment on your opinions of Nicole and her scheduling technique. Like I stated she would love to hear your feedback via email or phone call so she can learn to improve and learn how to better her process.

Thank you .

I did provide a narrative on all no answers.
I was told in emails back and forth with the editor that it was not allowed as in the
client was put in a negative light.
For example there was no employee in the particular department.
I went to neighboring departments to find an employee.
I went to the service return area and asked for an employee and was told there was none scheduled
as the one there went home sick. Good business practice? No, but I as the shopper showed exactly what
I encountered and it was still declined.



ShoppingBee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JOTEY,
> You are all over Canadamommy for expressing an
> opinion based on her experience with North
> Fork/ICCDS. You assumed she did not provide a
> narrative on all no answers. How can you assume
> that?
>
> You stated, "All day we deal with shoppers that
> are too sick, forgot or too busy to complete
> shops..." Maybe you should retrain Nicole to not
> auto-assign shops. Seems many shoppers have
> explained to Nicole that they did not want to be
> auto-assigned. I would say Nicole is aware of the
> shoppers' preferences and does not need to read
> this on the forum. Seems that retraining the
> ICCDS schedulers may result in more effective
> scheduling therefore allowing you to meet your
> deadlines rather than strong arming and attempting
> to stifle shoppers. Also, your comment to JLewis
> speaks of respect yet Nicole disregards and
> disrespects the shoppers' wishes. Respect is a
> two way street.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/29/2014 09:21PM by CANADAMOMMY.

JOTEY
Here is what I will address:
Obviously Nicole believes in auto-assign. What else would you call the overzealousness in scheduling multiple shops when your scheduler is told by various shoppers not to do that? There are too many shoppers that have experienced her over-scheduling. Many stated that they have told her that much. Nicole has received the feedback you requested on her behalf. You should save your "reminders" for Nicole because right now you are proving JLewis to be correct in their assessment of Nicole. It is that simple!

Basically it comes down to credibility. I choose to believe Canadamommy for a number of reasons, the main one being you either lack comprehension or do not listen. Apparently she is an experienced shopper and has stated her case clearly. You have displayed an unprofessional and downright disrespectful approach to Canadamommy.

ShoppingBee


Thank you very much for your support. As for your offer of calling you to discuss this JOTEY, no thanks.
I prefer to turn in honest and accurate reports.

Sorry, I didn't read your post correctly.

Keep bad-mouthing schedulers. It will be more available work for the rest of us. Thank you.

I've learned that schedulers DO speak with each other and you might be doing yourself in, by posting on a public forum. I would've contacted them and discussed the problems with them. That's how I would've done it.

It is risky business posting in response to shopper complaints on here. I think JOTEY handled that professionally. Nothing sucks more than shoppers badmouthing schedulers. Schedulers do talk about shoppers and it is pretty easy to figure out who is who by what is posted..

CANANDAMOMMY,

I cannot help you since I have no idea what report you are referring to . So I cannot help you practice better reporting skills on future reports. If there was someone not in the department and you did not include all the information you just wrote in this forum than yes, your report would be excluded since it would seem like you just overlooked a department. Our reviewers did not tell you that you could not submit a report with a negative experience as several negative reports are given to our clients daily. Once again we are at the same crossroad as before if you will not contact me or the QA department personally (email or phone) we cannot help you.

Jolaine Otey
North Fork Research

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/30/2014 03:16PM by JOTEY.

It is a sad state of affairs when fellow shoppers attempt to instill fear in another shopper to keep them from expressing their opinion. In reality what does suck are the shoppers that want to butter their bread by sucking up to those schedulers/companies. This is a mystery shopping forum not a school yard. Success comes with taking risks unless like some of you feel your success comes with licking boots.

No JOTEY did not handle herself professionally. For her to come on a forum and harangue a shopper is totally, completely unprofessional! I would venture to guess that JOTEY has only been in this business for a short period of time. Her inexperience in communicating is obvious. The above naysayers have made their motivation clear. They think their postings will get them more assignments. That pretty much nullifies any and all of your collective opinions.

I 100% concur with what ShoppingBee said above.
,.
There is a core group of posters on this forum that are nothing more than school yard bullies that prefer to criticize and ridicule the view and concerns of other shoppers than offer any real assistance.

The scheduler or the company should have a right to express their point of view as well whether it is wrong or right. They also should be allowed to defend themselves if they see something being posted is incorrect. I also think bad experiences with MSCs should be posted about so atleast someone new knows what they are getting into. I have seldom read a problem on here where the poster used problem solving skills like calling the company or emailing first though. That's unfortunate.

JOTEY didn't jump on anyone and she encouraged everyone who complained to contact the company regarding their concerns. What else can she do? CANADAMOMMY declined to speak on the phone and maybe that is a good thing for her given what she has posted. She will probably still do shops for this company thinking she is anonymous and the world will continue to go round. Not to bash anyone specifically but I think many here have problems with communication. They jump to the www to post about a problem that could easily be discussed over the phone or through email. We are all learning though so I hope people who are having issues with this scheduler call up North Fork and talk about it. It's always worth a try to turn a situation around.

Sorry to deviate from the scheduler and fellow shopper bashing.....

Sandra Sue Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Opinion piece finished now. (If you can think of
> that word, please let me know, though.)

Phonetic spelling was a biggie about 20 years ago when the "Whole Language" approach was being used in public schools.

JOTEY
I do not need help in practicing better reporting skills, thank you very much.
There was no employee in the department. Your editors informed me it would not be accepted with no employee.
I wrote the same thing in the report, no employee and told the steps I took to find no employee.
If there was ONE department and I was on a mission for ONE department then you are saying I am not
intelligent enough to find that one department? I think not! You just implied I overlooked the department. It was a ONE department shop. ONE.

Your reviewer did indeed say it would not be accepted.

Many shops require a name and that sometimes is impossible. I understand that.
In this case I would have thought the store would want to know there were zero employees to assist.
It is not a department that one can cover for another employee.

And for other editors this is not the first crossroads of this problem. On occasion we do come across a department
with zero employees. This is not the first client that has that issue. The editors require without a doubt that employee.
I wish when the jobs were originally accepted by the shopping company you would incorporate that issue.
Or the no name tag. This is not the first nor the last of the problems if the client wants to see a "normal" visit.
Things happen and employees are out of the department, wear no name tags, etc etc. You would think that is exactly what the store would want to know.



JOTEY Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> CANANDAMOMMY,
>
> I cannot help you since I have no idea what
> report you are referring to . So I cannot help you
> practice better reporting skills on future
> reports. If there was someone not in the
> department and you did not include all the
> information you just wrote in this forum than yes,
> your report would be excluded since it would seem
> like you just overlooked a department. Our
> reviewers did not tell you that you could not
> submit a report with a negative experience as
> several negative reports are given to our clients
> daily. Once again we are at the same crossroad as
> before if you will not contact me or the QA
> department personally (email or phone) we cannot
> help you.
>
> Jolaine Otey
> North Fork Research

ShoppingBee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
. This is a mystery shopping
> forum not a school yard. Success comes with
> taking risks . . .


Success comes from doing the right thing at the right time. Risk may or may not be involved, but deliberately increasing risk seems like it would be the wrong thing at any time. Sometimes forum members can help others, and sometimes that counsel is rejected. Trying to help is what we do. Sometimes it doesn't work out but we always hope for good results now and then.

ShoppingBee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is a sad state of affairs when fellow shoppers
> attempt to instill fear in another shopper to keep
> them from expressing their opinion. In reality
> what does suck are the shoppers that want to
> butter their bread by sucking up to those
> schedulers/companies. This is a mystery shopping
> forum not a school yard. Success comes with
> taking risks unless like some of you feel your
> success comes with licking boots.
>
> No JOTEY did not handle herself professionally.
> For her to come on a forum and harangue a shopper
> is totally, completely unprofessional! I would
> venture to guess that JOTEY has only been in this
> business for a short period of time. Her
> inexperience in communicating is obvious. The
> above naysayers have made their motivation clear.
> They think their postings will get them more
> assignments. That pretty much nullifies any and
> all of your collective opinions.


I too agree 100%.

Also I would like to add- so it's ok for schedulers/MSCs to "talk about" shoppers, but it's not ok for shoppers to "talk about" them? Silly! And regarding contacting Nicole or ICCDS about our issues, many of us have met with rudeness when we have tried to bring up any of these issues to her directly. It does not seem that JOTEY is much more receptive or willing to take concerns seriously, and I did not find her responses professional either. It seems many on here are quick to attribute bad motives to anyone who has a problem- like the shopper MUST be the one at fault. This is not someone creating an account for the purpose of tarnishing someone's name for no reason, and they have been reasonable the whole time here. I fail to see how it is badmouthing to share our negative experiences with each other and get support from other shoppers who have faced similar issues. I forum searched this scheduler's name a while ago and was surprised there were no topics on her. I for one feel better after reading the responses of others who have had these issues with her, as I now know I am not the only one now. So to me, this topic has served a good purpose, and it is definitely not out of line on a shopper forum like this!

Sandra Sue, on the other side of the coin, there's also "spelling pronunciation." This is when common English words are pronounced as they are spelled, like "brooch." As I'm sure you're aware, brooch is properly pronounced BROHCH (like the word broach), but it's not uncommon to hear it pronounced BROOCH (rhymes with pooch). There's a book you might enjoy entitled, "There Is No Zoo in Zoology" by Charles Harrington Elster. It's entertaining, and is an excellent illustration of how the English language is a living, breathing entity that is constantly changing.

MDavisnowell
Success does come with risk, be it large or small. Risk is inherent in every aspect of our daily lives. I am not sure how "...deliberately increasing risk..." comes into play here. I see it that Sybil, Canuck and Dixie wanted to take advantage of the situation by sucking up to JOTEY to curry favor for themselves. That is in no way helpful to the shopper or the shopper community. It is downright self serving! If memory serves me right, Dixie attempted to be "helpful" (in another thread) to her former employer. Soon after she was shown the door and had her shopper account cancelled. I don't think Service Metrics appreciated her "help." Nor do I believe any one of the three of them made a serious attempt to help or "do the right thing."

ShoppingBee

Apparently Sybil, Dixie, and Canuck already had a good relationship with ICCDS prior to this thread. So did I. I regret you and several others had problems with someone at that company, but that's not the case with everyone. If you think everyone who hasn't had a problem and says so is "sucking up" then you have a very broad view of "sucking up".

I don't deal with the schedulers mentioned so I can't address their work methods or personalities. I can only speak to my own experience, which has been good. When more than a few shoppers complain about a scheduler, it is my opinion there is likely a problem. When other shoppers say they have not had a problem with the company, it is not fair to accuse them of "sucking up" when they are dealing with different circumstances and different company employees.

It's a good thing for shoppers to share their experiences, negative as well as positive. If you come here and write down your negative experiences, why do you take issue with others who write down their positive experiences? Is everyone who writes about positive experiences "sucking up?" How so? And if we're "sucking up", exactly how would you describe what you're doing so that we can understand it at the same level of manners and grace?

MDavisnowell
Why do you assume I have had issues with ICCDS? I have not had any issue with ICCDS, it is on my okay list and never had a problem with getting paid by ICCDS. If you read the first page there is more than one person complaining about that scheduler, Nicole. I will type this slowly so that you can understand. I take issue with those shoppers that ignore posts by other shoppers and look to take advantage for their own benefit. The three stooges warned against posts that revealed Nicole for what she is, one even stated "It will be more available work for the rest of us." I do not see anything positive or helpful in that and I am not one to take a veiled threat lightly. It is beyond reason that you can defend their actions.

Bee, thank you so much for typing slowly so that I can understand. Now you're referring to forum members as "the three stooges" and telling me it's beyond reason that I defend their actions. Well, they seem normal to me. Tell me, Bee, does it make you feel really good to refer to your fellow forum members as "sucking up" and as "the three stooges"? Do you get some kind of satisfaction out of name calling? What's in it for you? I'm wondering if these communication skills are the same ones you use when you communicate with your schedulers/editors/MSCs. How's that working for you? Please now, type r-e-a-l-l-y extra s-l-o-w-l-y because I'm still not catching on. Oh wait, I know what it is. I'll bet my IQ is not on the same level as yours. Is that it?

ShoppingBee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The
> three stooges warned against posts that revealed
> Nicole for what she is, one even stated "It will
> be more available work for the rest of us." I do
> not see anything positive or helpful in that and I
> am not one to take a veiled threat lightly. It is
> beyond reason that you can defend their actions.

Get a grip, ShoppingBee. My one little statement was called sarcasm. Look it up in the dictionary. If you took that as a threat, you need to up your dosage of whatever you are on. I think it is time for you to BUZZ off!

So much anger here. Why? This thread does nothing to help anyone.