@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. .
@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.
@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.......
@maryanncostello wrote:
how difficult would it be for participants to use their own name and function in this industryl.
@maryanncostello wrote:
Sunlight could be (in my opinion should be) required.
@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).
@Niner wrote:
I didn't think a hotel would Google anyone.
@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.
@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.
@Niner wrote:
I didn't think a hotel would Google anyone.
. . . .
I can't imagine what a hotel would do with that.
@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.......