I'm relatively new to this form. I believed it was for Mystery Shoppers. I find it is for both Mystery Shoppers and for Mystery Shopping Schedulers. I believe schedulers on this forum could prejudice shoppers and because of their influence, they should be identified as schedulers when they post.

Schedulers, editors, and any other MSC employees are required to identify themselves in their signature line on this forum. However, there is no way to really police that fully since it's anonymous.

@Hoju I don't think it's a requirement. It's done as more of a courtesy to avoid confusion.

That said, it's pretty easy in most cases to tell who the MSC staff are. If the owner of the MSC is Bob Smith and a user named BSmith answers a question in a thread about the company, do they really need a signature line?

While I agree with you about disclosure, OP, it's probably not going to happen unless a specific poster is willing to disclose. There is an "unwritten guideline" on our forum that requests that editors, schedulers, MSC owners, and other MSC employees identify themselves and the companies for which they work. It is not actually in the posting guidelines the forum owner has set out. Some of our longtime posters frequently request disclosure from specific posters when it becomes clear that the poster actually performs some role other than shopper. That poster may or may not choose to disclose.

Due to our industry, there is a lot of gray instead of things being black and white. It's even very difficult to define the parameters for disclosure. Some shoppers are also schedulers and editors but they are primarily shoppers. Many schedulers and editors are not employees but are independent contractors like shoppers and are prohibited by the terms of their contract from identifying on social media the company they work for, because the company does not want opinions they might express to represent the opinions of the company. Other schedulers and editors work with multiple companies - so which company would they identify? Other shoppers are EX-schedulers or EX-editors - should they be required to disclose?

The only way there could be any firm procedure on disclosure would be to end confidentiality. Right now, anyone with an internet connection can come to the forum and register without providing any information about himself. There is no telling who any of us are and no way to verify that we do or do not work as shoppers. We could be anything. We could be scammers, spammers, MSC owners, MSC employees, clients who are being mystery shopped, employees of client companies, the list goes on and on. There are even trolls who come here and register confidentially and post to cause trouble. When they get booted, they just register again with a new name and start over.

Great idea. Not possible with a lightly moderated forum allowing confidential registration.

And there is a plethora of schedulers and owners who read this forum but do not post. No way of knowing who they are or what they read. Personally I an the type of person who speaks my mind and I don't say anything here that I wouldn't say directly to them. Most of the schedulers and owners I interact with are great, and the ones that aren't I don't work for. From the MSC side it's fairly easy to figure out who I am. I've found that works for me. If it doesn't work for you I would suggest a screen name that is anonymous.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/06/2019 03:55PM by bgriffin.

@bgriffin wrote:

And there is a plethora of schedulers and owners who read this forum but do not post. No way of knowing who they are or what they read. .

Well said. I forgot that.. It's easy to believe that nobody comes to a forum except one group, but the truth is that on the internet anybody and everybody can see what is written. Anyone with an internet connection can read and search the forum - and they don't ever have to register with the forum or post anything. They can just drop in every day and read anything that's been posted. Even if all schedulers (and editors and MSC owners, etc.) are identified when they post, there's no way to identify the big group of readers who never post.

All this underscores the point that we should always post with the presumption that everything we write will be read by MSC owners, editors, schedulers, etc. In other words, it behooves us to think before we post.

It certainly depends on what editors, schedulers, mgrs, MSC's come to this shoppers forum for. If they are reading and trying to find out what the shoppers' difficulties are, what their main issues are, and wants to know how they can help to make their jobs easier and performance better, it's a win-win. They can also answer questions if the discussion is going on the wrong track and issues are raised. However, if they are playing sleuths in trying to find out who are complaining and are penalizing them from their identifiable descriptions, then it is against the purpose of this forum. These practices should be banned by the moderator.

One main complain I have is I wish schedulers would write clear and non-conflicting instructions. Writing conflicting information, then warning that the Guidelines is what to be followed, not other instructions. Well.....the MSC should go through their instructions and guidelines and clean up their writeup so it is understandable with no conflicting instructions.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/06/2019 05:33PM by BetteL.

You will never be able to ascertain somebody's true intent for following this forum. An MSC owner might be coming with the intent of advising shoppers. Then, s/he runs across a message from a shopper who had just given them a really difficult time through phone and email (perhaps with profanity-laced insults) who continues to rant on the forum, disparaging the MSC, spewing outrageous falsehoods, and personally insulting the owner. Would not the MSC owner be justified in deactivating said shopper? Should the owner be banned from the forum for this? Personally, I don't think so. There is a level of professionalism that should be expected of all shoppers - both in their communications with MSC's and on public forums and natural consequences for those who cannot control themselves. (NOTE: I do not include truthful criticisms of MSC's in this.)

And, yes, this happens with some frequency here.

@BetteL wrote:

It certainly depends on what editors, schedulers, mgrs, MSC's come to this shoppers forum for. If they are reading and trying to find out how the shoppers' difficulties are, what their main issues are, and wants to know how they can help to make their jobs easier and performance better, it's a win-win. They can also answer questions if the discussion is going on the wrong track and issues are raised. However, if they are playing sleuth in trying to find out who are complaining and are penalizing them from their identifiable descriptions, then it is against the purpose of this forum. These practices should be banned by the moderator.

@BetteL wrote:

One main complain I have is I wish schedulers would write clear and non-conflicting instructions.

You realize schedulers don't write instructions.......

I do agree with the concern, however. I have read quite a few sets of guidelines that are very difficult to interpret. Often, this is because an older set of instructions has simply be adjusted for a new client and/or project, but not proofread well, leaving some major contradictions. It's not a big deal if the scheduler is able to respond to questions, but, when they don't, it can be a headache.

I remember one set of instructions that was crystal-clear that I had to call a community an make an appointment. The very next sentence started off with "Do NOT call the community, show up announced." I looked at the form and there was a section for me to report on the "recorded" phone call. However, there was a not a code to use the MSC's call recording system. There was no way to interpret what I was actually supposed to do. Of course, I picked up this shop an a Friday afternoon, planning to do it on Saturday... The scheduler was not back online until Monday. That Monday, the scheduler contacted me and put the shop on hold while she asked the project manager for clarification. Two days later, I was told to just make a cold visit to the community. The deadline was extended and I made the visit the following Saturday.... I picked up two more shops from the same project the following couple of weeks - and the contradictions were still there.

Contradictory guidelines are something that we just have to learn to live with as shoppers. While I agree that it is a frustration, I don't see it ending soon.

@bgriffin wrote:

@BetteL wrote:

One main complain I have is I wish schedulers would write clear and non-conflicting instructions.

You realize schedulers don't write instructions.......

Sunlight could be (in my opinion should be) required. Now I understand this is even open to manipulation. People of goodwill outnumber those of ill will. I'm grateful for the feedback of this forum, on the other hand, how difficult would it be for participants to use their own name and function in this industry.
Also, I notice many posts drawn off topic and on a professional forum, this would be minimal.

@maryanncostello wrote:

how difficult would it be for participants to use their own name and function in this industryl.

For me, this would be impossible and I would not be able to partake in a forum where my full name was used. For the majority of assignments I do, the person being evaluated has my full name and the ability to do a search for it online (and often does).

@maryanncostello wrote:

Sunlight could be (in my opinion should be) required.

You still missed my point. Let's say my name is Jeramiah Stinkpot and I'm the owner of SuperAwesome Shopping. I can register under the name JeramiahStinkpotSAS and never, ever post. I still have the ability to read every single thing posted and you would have no clue whatsoever unless you decided to go through the forum username list and see. And even then you have no clue if and when I'm reading anything. It sounds like Volition (is that even still open??) would be a better fit for you. It's heavily moderated to stay on topic and everyone is "required" to register using their real name (as if they have any way of policing that).

@SteveSoCal wrote:

@maryanncostello wrote:

how difficult would it be for participants to use their own name and function in this industryl.

For me, this would be impossible and I would not be able to partake in a forum where my full name was used. For the majority of assignments I do, the person being evaluated has my full name and the ability to do a search for it online (and often does).

Why would a client search for you online?

IMO the shopper can be identified. Unlikely a client would search but they can.

Why would a client search for you online?[/quote]

Because Steve does very expensive 5* resort type properties. The type where they Google every guest before arrival. He wouldn't be able to shop those locations if a Google search showed a mystery shopping website.

@Niner exactly what BG says ^^^

A few years ago I had to jump through a lot of hoops to have my name removed from Google searches related to an old MSPA article about MSing. I had agreed to an interview in a local paper long before Google searches were even a thing, and only learned of it being searchable on Google when a concierge at a resort I was shopping brought it up to me.

Ouch.

I didn't think a hotel would Google anyone. So if they find out you like ducks or chocolate, you might end up with a stuffed duck or some chocolate? The only thing you could find out if you Googled my real name and location, is that I am a lawyer. I can't imagine what a hotel would do with that.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/07/2019 01:54AM by Niner.

They would notify all the hotel workers that you are a shopper.

@Niner wrote:

I didn't think a hotel would Google anyone.

Absolutely. For a lot of reasons. You have 3 guests checking in. One is a Dr, one is a Lawyer, and one is a Vice President of Google. Which one you think is getting the best room? They wouldn't have a clue about that if they didn't google them. Or they might find that one is Instagram famous so they would give them the room with the best view in hopes that it shows up on their Instagram and a million people see it. Or they might find one is a well known wine collector, so they will make sure their best wines are available. Whatever. A place with that type of service will do whatever they can to get an edge.

Plus the fact that your name is visible to anyone on the internet - from the spammers who sign up on this forum and are still here with the only intent to spam to internet hackers all over the web. I have a very common name but if I didn't, it wouldn't be too hard to google my name and have it come up in an internet search. Perhaps I have mentioned the area where I live. Putting two and two together along with other info they may have gotten from another website I frequent, they may know more about me than I want them to.

I am wondering why, ML Johnston, that you naturally paint the shopper in a bad light and the MSC in the right? Are you a Scheduler/Editor?

@MFJohnston wrote:

You will never be able to ascertain somebody's true intent for following this forum. An MSC owner might be coming with the intent of advising shoppers. Then, s/he runs across a message from a shopper who had just given them a really difficult time through phone and email (perhaps with profanity-laced insults) who continues to rant on the forum, disparaging the MSC, spewing outrageous falsehoods, and personally insulting the owner. Would not the MSC owner be justified in deactivating said shopper? Should the owner be banned from the forum for this? Personally, I don't think so. There is a level of professionalism that should be expected of all shoppers - both in their communications with MSC's and on public forums and natural consequences for those who cannot control themselves. (NOTE: I do not include truthful criticisms of MSC's in this.)

And, yes, this happens with some frequency here.

@BetteL wrote:

It certainly depends on what editors, schedulers, mgrs, MSC's come to this shoppers forum for. If they are reading and trying to find out how the shoppers' difficulties are, what their main issues are, and wants to know how they can help to make their jobs easier and performance better, it's a win-win. They can also answer questions if the discussion is going on the wrong track and issues are raised. However, if they are playing sleuth in trying to find out who are complaining and are penalizing them from their identifiable descriptions, then it is against the purpose of this forum. These practices should be banned by the moderator.

Sometimes I feel the instructions were vague or contradicting on purpose. They would deny the report citing the "right" instruction. At this point of course, they have your completed report for free..

@MFJohnston wrote:

I do agree with the concern, however. I have read quite a few sets of guidelines that are very difficult to interpret. Often, this is because an older set of instructions has simply be adjusted for a new client and/or project, but not proofread well, leaving some major contradictions. It's not a big deal if the scheduler is able to respond to questions, but, when they don't, it can be a headache.

I remember one set of instructions that was crystal-clear that I had to call a community an make an appointment. The very next sentence started off with "Do NOT call the community, show up announced." I looked at the form and there was a section for me to report on the "recorded" phone call. However, there was a not a code to use the MSC's call recording system. There was no way to interpret what I was actually supposed to do. Of course, I picked up this shop an a Friday afternoon, planning to do it on Saturday... The scheduler was not back online until Monday. That Monday, the scheduler contacted me and put the shop on hold while she asked the project manager for clarification. Two days later, I was told to just make a cold visit to the community. The deadline was extended and I made the visit the following Saturday.... I picked up two more shops from the same project the following couple of weeks - and the contradictions were still there.

Contradictory guidelines are something that we just have to learn to live with as shoppers. While I agree that it is a frustration, I don't see it ending soon.

@bgriffin wrote:

@BetteL wrote:

One main complain I have is I wish schedulers would write clear and non-conflicting instructions.

You realize schedulers don't write instructions.......

@Niner wrote:

I didn't think a hotel would Google anyone. So if they find out you like ducks or chocolate, you might end up with a stuffed duck or some chocolate? The only thing you could find out if you Googled my real name and location, is that I am a lawyer. I can't imagine what a hotel would do with that.

You would get a chocolate duck for dessert probably...but there are a number of things they can find out. The concierge in question that mentioned it to me brought up my alma mater, and that's a good indication to them of what you may be expecting as a guest, or perhaps just a talking point, since he told me that his wife and I went to the same school. If you recently won a high-profile case, they might congratulate you (my college roommate was recently in the news about a case he won).

My online profile is a little more robust than most people, so it's often a point of conversation if people do look it up. MSC's do as well, since some schedulers have brought up public projects that I have worked on when deciding that I might be a good fit for a client.

@Niner wrote:

I didn't think a hotel would Google anyone.
. . . .
I can't imagine what a hotel would do with that.

I can tell you that hotels routinely Google your social media profile. I had the manager who checked me in and roomed me at a five star property in Bora Bora inform me that they had checked my and my guest's profiles through social media and were aware of our professions. They were able to tailor our experience at the property to ensure that they not only offered a memorable stay, but a meaningful one.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/07/2019 02:04PM by Professional Guest.

Being ignorant of sunlight in the context it was used, I attempted but failed to locate a reference. Please share.

thanks. "I feel sheepish", didn't think of that. (i.e. target companies finding us as shoppers on a Google)

I do not believe that this is true.

@BetteL wrote:

Sometimes I feel the instructions were vague or contradicting on purpose. They would deny the report citing the "right" instruction. At this point of course, they have your completed report for free..

@MFJohnston wrote:

I do agree with the concern, however. I have read quite a few sets of guidelines that are very difficult to interpret. Often, this is because an older set of instructions has simply be adjusted for a new client and/or project, but not proofread well, leaving some major contradictions. It's not a big deal if the scheduler is able to respond to questions, but, when they don't, it can be a headache.

I remember one set of instructions that was crystal-clear that I had to call a community an make an appointment. The very next sentence started off with "Do NOT call the community, show up announced." I looked at the form and there was a section for me to report on the "recorded" phone call. However, there was a not a code to use the MSC's call recording system. There was no way to interpret what I was actually supposed to do. Of course, I picked up this shop an a Friday afternoon, planning to do it on Saturday... The scheduler was not back online until Monday. That Monday, the scheduler contacted me and put the shop on hold while she asked the project manager for clarification. Two days later, I was told to just make a cold visit to the community. The deadline was extended and I made the visit the following Saturday.... I picked up two more shops from the same project the following couple of weeks - and the contradictions were still there.

Contradictory guidelines are something that we just have to learn to live with as shoppers. While I agree that it is a frustration, I don't see it ending soon.

@bgriffin wrote:

@BetteL wrote:

One main complain I have is I wish schedulers would write clear and non-conflicting instructions.

You realize schedulers don't write instructions.......