falsifying evaluations
Warning: For Full Access Please Log In or Create an Account (Free)
walesmaven - Your post is simply full of assumptions and assertions that are incorrect. I never said that the driver for my post was a sanctioned part of the Vegas Conference, as in something that was promoted at that conference. Regardless of the source, falsifying evaluations is a problem and one falsified report can do irreversible damage. The story that I heard just made me wonder about the shoppers perception of the problem.
Let me be crystal clear, my post was not meant to say anything about any shopper conference or any shopper group at all. I believe that conferences and groups that help increase understanding in the industry and open doors to communication can only help improve the industry. Regardless of whether it is a shopper conference, a MSP conference, or one that brings everyone together.
Your assertion that I have something against the independent shopper conference or any shopper group is incorrect and without merit.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/10/2010 09:21PM by corydj.
Let me be crystal clear, my post was not meant to say anything about any shopper conference or any shopper group at all. I believe that conferences and groups that help increase understanding in the industry and open doors to communication can only help improve the industry. Regardless of whether it is a shopper conference, a MSP conference, or one that brings everyone together.
Your assertion that I have something against the independent shopper conference or any shopper group is incorrect and without merit.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/10/2010 09:21PM by corydj.
DFS2010,
Woukld you please identify your company affiliation in your posts?
Thanks.
Woukld you please identify your company affiliation in your posts?
Thanks.
Based in MD, near DC
Shopping from the Carolinas to New York
Have video cam; will travel
Poor customer service? Don't get mad; get video.
Shopping from the Carolinas to New York
Have video cam; will travel
Poor customer service? Don't get mad; get video.
walesmaven Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> DFS2010,
> Woukld you please identify your company
> affiliation in your posts?
>
> Thanks.
DFS2010 has identified himself previously, in the Job Board section.
-------------------------------------------------------
> DFS2010,
> Woukld you please identify your company
> affiliation in your posts?
>
> Thanks.
DFS2010 has identified himself previously, in the Job Board section.
AustinMom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And, as a Shopper Relations Committee member,
> research with members of our forum might provide a
> lot of good information for improving shopper
> relations.
I believe that the insight of shoppers, especially good, seasoned shoppers, could be invaluable. I have no doubt I/we will need that insight in the future.
-------------------------------------------------------
> And, as a Shopper Relations Committee member,
> research with members of our forum might provide a
> lot of good information for improving shopper
> relations.
I believe that the insight of shoppers, especially good, seasoned shoppers, could be invaluable. I have no doubt I/we will need that insight in the future.
The post below, especially Mert's comment leads me to a question regarding the etiquette of the forum. Does, or should, an MSP rep or owner identify themselves on every thread in which they take part or is identifying themselves occassionally (or once) enough?
As you know, this thread was my first post in this forum. In order to avoid the same mistake in the future, that clarification would be helpful and I have not been able to find any guidelines.
Mert Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> walesmaven Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > DFS2010,
> > Woukld you please identify your company
> > affiliation in your posts?
> >
> > Thanks.
>
>
> DFS2010 has identified himself previously, in the
> Job Board section.
As you know, this thread was my first post in this forum. In order to avoid the same mistake in the future, that clarification would be helpful and I have not been able to find any guidelines.
Mert Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> walesmaven Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > DFS2010,
> > Woukld you please identify your company
> > affiliation in your posts?
> >
> > Thanks.
>
>
> DFS2010 has identified himself previously, in the
> Job Board section.
corydj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The post below, especially Mert's comment leads me
> to a question regarding the etiquette of the
> forum. Does, or should, an MSP rep or owner
> identify themselves on every thread in which they
> take part or is identifying themselves
> occassionally (or once) enough?
>
> As you know, this thread was my first post in this
> forum. In order to avoid the same mistake in the
> future, that clarification would be helpful and I
> have not been able to find any guidelines.
>
> Mert Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > walesmaven Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > DFS2010,
> > > Woukld you please identify your company
> > > affiliation in your posts?
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> >
> >
> > DFS2010 has identified himself previously, in
> the
> > Job Board section.
I agree with walesmaven on this one also. Just IMHO, a MSC owner or MSC employee should identify him/herself in each post. As Mert noted, DFS2010 has identifed herself and her employer in a previous post, but many of us do not remember an anonymous number and I had to do a search for DFS2010's previous posts to remind myself who she is.
-------------------------------------------------------
> The post below, especially Mert's comment leads me
> to a question regarding the etiquette of the
> forum. Does, or should, an MSP rep or owner
> identify themselves on every thread in which they
> take part or is identifying themselves
> occassionally (or once) enough?
>
> As you know, this thread was my first post in this
> forum. In order to avoid the same mistake in the
> future, that clarification would be helpful and I
> have not been able to find any guidelines.
>
> Mert Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > walesmaven Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > DFS2010,
> > > Woukld you please identify your company
> > > affiliation in your posts?
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> >
> >
> > DFS2010 has identified himself previously, in
> the
> > Job Board section.
I agree with walesmaven on this one also. Just IMHO, a MSC owner or MSC employee should identify him/herself in each post. As Mert noted, DFS2010 has identifed herself and her employer in a previous post, but many of us do not remember an anonymous number and I had to do a search for DFS2010's previous posts to remind myself who she is.
corydj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> walesmaven - Your post is simply full of
> assumptions and assertions that are incorrect. I
> never said that the driver for my post was a
> sanctioned part of the Vegas Conference, as in
> something that was promoted at that conference.
> Regardless of the source, falsifying evaluations
> is a problem and one falsified report can do
> irreversible damage. The story that I heard just
> made me wonder about the shoppers perception of
> the problem.
>
> Let me be crystal clear, my post was not meant to
> say anything about any shopper conference or any
> shopper group at all. I believe that conferences
> and groups that help increase understanding in the
> industry and open doors to communication can only
> help improve the industry. Regardless of whether
> it is a shopper conference, a MSP conference, or
> one that brings everyone together.
>
> Your assertion that I have something against the
> independent shopper conference or any shopper
> group is incorrect and without merit.
Cory, it's becoming more and more apparent that your posts are simply full of something else and it's getting deeper by the minute.
-------------------------------------------------------
> walesmaven - Your post is simply full of
> assumptions and assertions that are incorrect. I
> never said that the driver for my post was a
> sanctioned part of the Vegas Conference, as in
> something that was promoted at that conference.
> Regardless of the source, falsifying evaluations
> is a problem and one falsified report can do
> irreversible damage. The story that I heard just
> made me wonder about the shoppers perception of
> the problem.
>
> Let me be crystal clear, my post was not meant to
> say anything about any shopper conference or any
> shopper group at all. I believe that conferences
> and groups that help increase understanding in the
> industry and open doors to communication can only
> help improve the industry. Regardless of whether
> it is a shopper conference, a MSP conference, or
> one that brings everyone together.
>
> Your assertion that I have something against the
> independent shopper conference or any shopper
> group is incorrect and without merit.
Cory, it's becoming more and more apparent that your posts are simply full of something else and it's getting deeper by the minute.
Her Serene Majesty, Cettie - Goat Queen of Zoltar, Sublime Empress of Her Caprine Domain
Ah, perhaps I'm the lone dissenting voice. While I agree that the initial post was akin to a ruse and misleading, I don't think Cory's posts are full of something else at all. I think it's good for any MSC to know that responsible shoppers feel strongly about this issue, too.
nicelytwicely Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ah, perhaps I'm the lone dissenting voice. While
> I agree that the initial post was akin to a ruse
> and misleading, I don't think Cory's posts are
> full of something else at all. I think it's good
> for any MSC to know that responsible shoppers feel
> strongly about this issue, too.
Thank you.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ah, perhaps I'm the lone dissenting voice. While
> I agree that the initial post was akin to a ruse
> and misleading, I don't think Cory's posts are
> full of something else at all. I think it's good
> for any MSC to know that responsible shoppers feel
> strongly about this issue, too.
Thank you.
nicelytwicely Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ah, perhaps I'm the lone dissenting voice. While
> I agree that the initial post was akin to a ruse
> and misleading, I don't think Cory's posts are
> full of something else at all. I think it's good
> for any MSC to know that responsible shoppers feel
> strongly about this issue, too.
I don't think cettie was referring to the starting issue of falsifying shop reports, nicely. But it's OK, I've had my boots on for some time. cettie, is it time to call MrC with his tractor?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ah, perhaps I'm the lone dissenting voice. While
> I agree that the initial post was akin to a ruse
> and misleading, I don't think Cory's posts are
> full of something else at all. I think it's good
> for any MSC to know that responsible shoppers feel
> strongly about this issue, too.
I don't think cettie was referring to the starting issue of falsifying shop reports, nicely. But it's OK, I've had my boots on for some time. cettie, is it time to call MrC with his tractor?
Well...if you just want a shopper opinion on falsification, I'll give you one:
It is almost entirely due to the actions of MSC's and the MSPA
MSC's have fallen over themselves for years to outbid each other for contracts and devalue mystery shoppers to the point where the pay is verging on absurd. You have lowered the pay rate to what the market will bear and are reaping the harvest of those that will pretend to do your bidding for the pay you offer.
The MSPA has been unable to institute an effective certification program that all members can agree on, and there is little action taken against any shopper or MSC that breaks the rules, so this is little deterrent.
If certification were a requirement to shop for member companies and certification required a definitive proof of identity, I can assure you that the rate of flaking and falsification for shops that had value to shoppers would diminish if the loss of certification was at stake.
I would fathom a guess that that the rate for falsified shops in Nevada is far lower than anywhere else. That would be because all Nevada shoppers have undergone background checks, had positive ID established, and stand to loose both their jobs and work card for perpetrating such a falsification.
It is almost entirely due to the actions of MSC's and the MSPA
MSC's have fallen over themselves for years to outbid each other for contracts and devalue mystery shoppers to the point where the pay is verging on absurd. You have lowered the pay rate to what the market will bear and are reaping the harvest of those that will pretend to do your bidding for the pay you offer.
The MSPA has been unable to institute an effective certification program that all members can agree on, and there is little action taken against any shopper or MSC that breaks the rules, so this is little deterrent.
If certification were a requirement to shop for member companies and certification required a definitive proof of identity, I can assure you that the rate of flaking and falsification for shops that had value to shoppers would diminish if the loss of certification was at stake.
I would fathom a guess that that the rate for falsified shops in Nevada is far lower than anywhere else. That would be because all Nevada shoppers have undergone background checks, had positive ID established, and stand to loose both their jobs and work card for perpetrating such a falsification.
AustinMom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> nicelytwicely Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Ah, perhaps I'm the lone dissenting voice.
> While
> > I agree that the initial post was akin to a
> ruse
> > and misleading, I don't think Cory's posts are
> > full of something else at all. I think it's
> good
> > for any MSC to know that responsible shoppers
> feel
> > strongly about this issue, too.
>
>
> I don't think cettie was referring to the starting
> issue of falsifying shop reports, nicely. But
> it's OK, I've had my boots on for some time.
> cettie, is it time to call MrC with his tractor?
I'll let him drive my Allys Chalmers just this once but I'm rigging up the heavy duty spreader.
-------------------------------------------------------
> nicelytwicely Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Ah, perhaps I'm the lone dissenting voice.
> While
> > I agree that the initial post was akin to a
> ruse
> > and misleading, I don't think Cory's posts are
> > full of something else at all. I think it's
> good
> > for any MSC to know that responsible shoppers
> feel
> > strongly about this issue, too.
>
>
> I don't think cettie was referring to the starting
> issue of falsifying shop reports, nicely. But
> it's OK, I've had my boots on for some time.
> cettie, is it time to call MrC with his tractor?
I'll let him drive my Allys Chalmers just this once but I'm rigging up the heavy duty spreader.
Her Serene Majesty, Cettie - Goat Queen of Zoltar, Sublime Empress of Her Caprine Domain
Let's not forget (back to the subject), shoppers that are dishonest are taking our jobs, so this does effect us to some degree. I agree with Steve, having just gotten my Vegas license. I put time and money into it, they know my background and I take shopping very seriously, or believe me I wouldn't have gone through this. The one or two time shopper doesn't care, "gimme a free lunch"...cutting out this mentality would be good for both the MSC and the serious shopper. Since MSC's want cheap workers, this is part of the senario they have created. I say pay your experienced shoppers that have done say 20 shops and received a 9/10 more money...every 21 shops get a raise or bonus. You'll save in the long run, and we'll stop complaining (well maybe).
Live consciously....
Cory has a couple of people in Omaha NE who like his company, I-Spy, based in Omaha....
walesmaven Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I strongly believe that all company reps should
> announce their comapny affiliation in their
> origial posts and, if possible, in their sig
> lines.
>
> Next, Cory, I was at the Las Vegas conference I
> attended nearly every session. (Attending all
> sessions is impossible because there is more than
> one session offered in each time slot on many
> occasions.) I neither heard, nor heard of, anyone
> making statements about falsifying reports being
> okay, or routine, or anything except contemptable.
> Sounds like your "third party" was also not at
> the conference. The shoppers on this forum, and
> those who attended the conference, are serious
> professionals. Your method of introducing your
> original question and your failure to identify
> your professional affiliation (even in general
> terms, much less your specific company until
> pressed) is highly unprofessional. Most forums
> *require* disclosure of MSP affiliation, as you,
> as a "leader" well know.
>
> Your organization, the MSPA, "disinvited" shoppers
> from your conferences in 2009 and 2010. Now,
> without having observed the 2010 Las Vegas
> conference, or even having a "second party" source
> who did, you cast aspersions on a shopper
> conference that upholds the highest standards in
> its presentations and where every speaker is on
> the record. Some shoppers on this forum do not
> want to be affiliated with the independent
> conference, for a variety of personal reasons and
> differences of opinion, and that's fine. But to
> imply that people at that conference are actually
> undermining the integrity of shopping standards
> goes beyond the pale. Since the Las Vegas IMSC
> conference was the only recent shopper conference,
> known to any of us, you will have to go a long way
> to dissuade me that that was the conference to
> which you referred. (If the collective
> intelligence represented on this forum does not
> know about a shopper conference, it's very
> doubtful that one happened, lol.)
>
> I have no doubt that you posed your question in a
> forum where several frequent contributors have
> objected to the leadership of the IMSC as a way of
> fishing for attacks on the conference planners and
> participants. Sorry that you are disappointed
> that no one would take your poisonous bait. The
> critics of the IMSC on this forum and I disagree
> about a number of things, but no one on this forum
> is using "third party" reports to inpugn (sic)
> the reputations of the Las Vegas conference
> attendees.
walesmaven,
see the 1st post on the 2nd page. corydj clearly states that it was NOT related to the Las Vegas conference.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I strongly believe that all company reps should
> announce their comapny affiliation in their
> origial posts and, if possible, in their sig
> lines.
>
> Next, Cory, I was at the Las Vegas conference I
> attended nearly every session. (Attending all
> sessions is impossible because there is more than
> one session offered in each time slot on many
> occasions.) I neither heard, nor heard of, anyone
> making statements about falsifying reports being
> okay, or routine, or anything except contemptable.
> Sounds like your "third party" was also not at
> the conference. The shoppers on this forum, and
> those who attended the conference, are serious
> professionals. Your method of introducing your
> original question and your failure to identify
> your professional affiliation (even in general
> terms, much less your specific company until
> pressed) is highly unprofessional. Most forums
> *require* disclosure of MSP affiliation, as you,
> as a "leader" well know.
>
> Your organization, the MSPA, "disinvited" shoppers
> from your conferences in 2009 and 2010. Now,
> without having observed the 2010 Las Vegas
> conference, or even having a "second party" source
> who did, you cast aspersions on a shopper
> conference that upholds the highest standards in
> its presentations and where every speaker is on
> the record. Some shoppers on this forum do not
> want to be affiliated with the independent
> conference, for a variety of personal reasons and
> differences of opinion, and that's fine. But to
> imply that people at that conference are actually
> undermining the integrity of shopping standards
> goes beyond the pale. Since the Las Vegas IMSC
> conference was the only recent shopper conference,
> known to any of us, you will have to go a long way
> to dissuade me that that was the conference to
> which you referred. (If the collective
> intelligence represented on this forum does not
> know about a shopper conference, it's very
> doubtful that one happened, lol.)
>
> I have no doubt that you posed your question in a
> forum where several frequent contributors have
> objected to the leadership of the IMSC as a way of
> fishing for attacks on the conference planners and
> participants. Sorry that you are disappointed
> that no one would take your poisonous bait. The
> critics of the IMSC on this forum and I disagree
> about a number of things, but no one on this forum
> is using "third party" reports to inpugn (sic)
> the reputations of the Las Vegas conference
> attendees.
walesmaven,
see the 1st post on the 2nd page. corydj clearly states that it was NOT related to the Las Vegas conference.
Joytron,
But Cory earlier said that it had happened at a recent shopper conference. There was only one such conference recently. If the event happened at all, it happened at the Las Vegas conference. If he denies that it was there, then he has another problem.... whether or not it happened at all.
I did see his denial, which is one reason that I edited my post to make it even stronger!
But Cory earlier said that it had happened at a recent shopper conference. There was only one such conference recently. If the event happened at all, it happened at the Las Vegas conference. If he denies that it was there, then he has another problem.... whether or not it happened at all.
I did see his denial, which is one reason that I edited my post to make it even stronger!
Based in MD, near DC
Shopping from the Carolinas to New York
Have video cam; will travel
Poor customer service? Don't get mad; get video.
Shopping from the Carolinas to New York
Have video cam; will travel
Poor customer service? Don't get mad; get video.
Actually, unless I missed something, Cory did not say he was present at a shopper's conference where this was overheard.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/11/2010 02:11PM by nicelytwicely.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/11/2010 02:11PM by nicelytwicely.
nicelytwicely Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually, unless I missed something, Cory did not
> say he was present at a shopper's conference where
> this was overheard.
He never said he was present at a shopper's conference. He did say the third party who related it to him heard shoppers talking at a shopper conference. After Irene asked for more information, he said it had no connection to a shopper conference. But he did say very clearly that the information that sparked his post was heard at a shopper conference and repeated to him by a third party.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually, unless I missed something, Cory did not
> say he was present at a shopper's conference where
> this was overheard.
He never said he was present at a shopper's conference. He did say the third party who related it to him heard shoppers talking at a shopper conference. After Irene asked for more information, he said it had no connection to a shopper conference. But he did say very clearly that the information that sparked his post was heard at a shopper conference and repeated to him by a third party.
Cory also stated he had two personal experiences at his Co. regarding falisfied reports. I think that on top of heresay at the conference prompted his wanting to find out what shoppers thought about the topic. Started out on a bad note, but ended o.k., think we beat this one to death...let's move on!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/11/2010 03:56PM by Irene_L.A..
Live consciously....
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/11/2010 03:56PM by Irene_L.A..
I agree with Irene, time to move on.
Cory, if you read this, I am sure your original idea was just a general checkup on the shopping community. However, those of us that participate on this forum strive for a professional demeanor, and no one is going to shout out, "Falsify? Why yes, of course, I do it all the time and so does so and so." We just are not that itty bitty percentage of shoppers you may be looking for, and I don't think asking here is going to put you any closer in touch to that 1 % or however much you may estimate the percentage to be. With that being said, perhaps you wouldn't mind us asking you few questions about life on the other side of things. I would consider that fair. The number one question in my mind is why the long waits for payment, not necessarily with your company since I haven't joined you yet, but just may do so, but with companies in general. The shoppers have already put out their time, their money for gas, or purchases, etc., and should be paid first in my opinion. How can that be? Running a company don't you have enough in the bank to handle your expenses? My husband and I owned a used furniture store for 25 plus years. We purchased the furniture, so that the seller of that item would have the money right away because their part of the deal was fulfilled. Once in a blue moon, there would be a customer who would prefer that the item be sold on consignment, thereby hoping for a higher return as a percentage of the sale. But 99% of the time, the burden was left on us. We didn't wait for a buyer to purchase our merchandise before paying the original owner who sold it to us. why can't MSC's work like that? We have done our job, we should be paid, and it is up to you to collect those higher fees to reimburse yourself, and there is always the chance that it might take two years for the furniture to sell, yet that is the risk you take running a business. It seems as though the MSP's leave us to be "on consignment" so to speak. You get paid then we get paid, long after we have completed our part of the bargain. Thank you.
Carol
Cory, if you read this, I am sure your original idea was just a general checkup on the shopping community. However, those of us that participate on this forum strive for a professional demeanor, and no one is going to shout out, "Falsify? Why yes, of course, I do it all the time and so does so and so." We just are not that itty bitty percentage of shoppers you may be looking for, and I don't think asking here is going to put you any closer in touch to that 1 % or however much you may estimate the percentage to be. With that being said, perhaps you wouldn't mind us asking you few questions about life on the other side of things. I would consider that fair. The number one question in my mind is why the long waits for payment, not necessarily with your company since I haven't joined you yet, but just may do so, but with companies in general. The shoppers have already put out their time, their money for gas, or purchases, etc., and should be paid first in my opinion. How can that be? Running a company don't you have enough in the bank to handle your expenses? My husband and I owned a used furniture store for 25 plus years. We purchased the furniture, so that the seller of that item would have the money right away because their part of the deal was fulfilled. Once in a blue moon, there would be a customer who would prefer that the item be sold on consignment, thereby hoping for a higher return as a percentage of the sale. But 99% of the time, the burden was left on us. We didn't wait for a buyer to purchase our merchandise before paying the original owner who sold it to us. why can't MSC's work like that? We have done our job, we should be paid, and it is up to you to collect those higher fees to reimburse yourself, and there is always the chance that it might take two years for the furniture to sell, yet that is the risk you take running a business. It seems as though the MSP's leave us to be "on consignment" so to speak. You get paid then we get paid, long after we have completed our part of the bargain. Thank you.
Carol
I have been told that the client does not want to know about issues that have been corrected. I got edited reports omitting the issues that occurred. That is falsifying my reports, but I am not the one who is spraying perfume on the pig.
I am sure a restaurant in a mall closed their doors because people would not return to that location. I reported the negatives not once but on several visits. I was told my score was reduced because I was not objective. If the food was served the second or third try and the issue was corrected, the issue should not be reported. I should not report that people were waiting for tables because tables were not bussed. The floors were excessively littered...WRONG! People will not come and your investment will be lost if you do not correct those issues.
A hamburger company let their managers complain and claim my reports of timing, and abusive service was figments of my imagination. I had digital recordings. The MSP was not interested in the truth. I do not work for that company as they are not being fair to the client when they hide issues like that.
Long before I was a mystery shopper, I was an entrepreneur. My concept and my principle was that the customer should receive value and quality. People will talk about you and send customers your way if they enjoy the interaction. Customers will even pay extra because they can relax, and know they will not be disappointed. My reputation is very important to me. It upsets me when a owner must close their doors because MSP's filter the truth so as not to upset the client.
I am sure a restaurant in a mall closed their doors because people would not return to that location. I reported the negatives not once but on several visits. I was told my score was reduced because I was not objective. If the food was served the second or third try and the issue was corrected, the issue should not be reported. I should not report that people were waiting for tables because tables were not bussed. The floors were excessively littered...WRONG! People will not come and your investment will be lost if you do not correct those issues.
A hamburger company let their managers complain and claim my reports of timing, and abusive service was figments of my imagination. I had digital recordings. The MSP was not interested in the truth. I do not work for that company as they are not being fair to the client when they hide issues like that.
Long before I was a mystery shopper, I was an entrepreneur. My concept and my principle was that the customer should receive value and quality. People will talk about you and send customers your way if they enjoy the interaction. Customers will even pay extra because they can relax, and know they will not be disappointed. My reputation is very important to me. It upsets me when a owner must close their doors because MSP's filter the truth so as not to upset the client.
sorry ~ o.t.
"...spraying perfume on the pig..."
LMAO! What a funny expression! I've never heard that one before...thanks for the giggle
"...spraying perfume on the pig..."
LMAO! What a funny expression! I've never heard that one before...thanks for the giggle
mmm... i tend to call it something different... i call it giving them the benefit of the doubt... im a bit of a forgetful person and it happens that i forget some pieces of the assignment... i just give them a positive review on the things that i forgot to check out
i dont intentionally falsify my reports but sometimes i may forget something in the evaluation and instead of redoing the shop or canceling or what not (some i can not do over like revealed audits) i just leave a positive report...
and i believe the politically correct term is "putting lipstick on a pig" but whatever...
i dont intentionally falsify my reports but sometimes i may forget something in the evaluation and instead of redoing the shop or canceling or what not (some i can not do over like revealed audits) i just leave a positive report...
and i believe the politically correct term is "putting lipstick on a pig" but whatever...
shopping north west PA and south west ny
Dude,
It is not cool to make something up because you "forgot".... You can call it what you like, but the truth is you falsify reports.
It is not cool to make something up because you "forgot".... You can call it what you like, but the truth is you falsify reports.
cooldude581 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> mmm... i tend to call it something different... i
> call it giving them the benefit of the doubt... im
> a bit of a forgetful person and it happens that i
> forget some pieces of the assignment... i just
> give them a positive review on the things that i
> forgot to check out
>
> i dont intentionally falsify my reports but
> sometimes i may forget something in the evaluation
> and instead of redoing the shop or canceling or
> what not (some i can not do over like revealed
> audits) i just leave a positive report...
>
> and i believe the politically correct term is
> "putting lipstick on a pig" but whatever...
My son is a shopper also and has a very bad memory and a short attention span, so I can sympathize with you, cool dude. But I agree with Tom, whether intentional or not, falsifying information in a report is wrong. My son has recognized that he has a problem with memory and attention span, so he makes himself read the report questions immediately before doing the shop. Then he completes the report out in car immediately after the shop. That way, if he has forgotten something, he could go back in right away ("I set my keys down, have you seen them?" "I think I left my shades in the men's room."
-------------------------------------------------------
> mmm... i tend to call it something different... i
> call it giving them the benefit of the doubt... im
> a bit of a forgetful person and it happens that i
> forget some pieces of the assignment... i just
> give them a positive review on the things that i
> forgot to check out
>
> i dont intentionally falsify my reports but
> sometimes i may forget something in the evaluation
> and instead of redoing the shop or canceling or
> what not (some i can not do over like revealed
> audits) i just leave a positive report...
>
> and i believe the politically correct term is
> "putting lipstick on a pig" but whatever...
My son is a shopper also and has a very bad memory and a short attention span, so I can sympathize with you, cool dude. But I agree with Tom, whether intentional or not, falsifying information in a report is wrong. My son has recognized that he has a problem with memory and attention span, so he makes himself read the report questions immediately before doing the shop. Then he completes the report out in car immediately after the shop. That way, if he has forgotten something, he could go back in right away ("I set my keys down, have you seen them?" "I think I left my shades in the men's room."
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.