Approximately a week ago IPSOS (through their scheduling company) posted a multitude of the same shops throughout my state (five of which were in my hood). I requested five of the shops. I was awarded one. Okay, no big surprise. I assumed that the other four shops went to other shoppers. But, no. ALL the shops immediately disappeared off the board. Every last one of them. Seemed odd, but I just wrote it off. I performed the one shop I had been awarded. It has since been reviewed and accepted.

Yesterday, IPSOS again posted the assignments again. For my area there were only four shops posted this time. The one I had worked was not listed. I selected two shops and applied. I kept checking to see if they had been awarded to me. While I was on the IPSOS website, the two shops I had in the pending folder disappeared one by one. Literally! My first reaction was that someone obviously beat me to the punch. But, again while I was on the website ALL the shops were removed from the board.

Has anyone else run into this issue or have you managed to get assigned? Is this normal for this MSC? Are they training a new scheduler at our expense??

I presume this is an IPSOS issue as opposed to the scheduling company as the scheduling company would hopefully only schedule what they've been directed to schedule. But, I could be wrong.

I don't know why they rate me as a new participant. I've been enjoying this forum for quite some time? I just don't write much.

Val, I just posted about this subject the other day. Judith from the scheduling company replied and explained why this happens. Here is the thread link: [www.mysteryshopforum.com]

It happened again last night! This time I jumped on the one I wanted, and this morning it's gone poof again. I think I may stop applying for these types of shops with Ipsos. It's getting frustrating and time consuming to keep checking the board for these new jobs, checking to see which ones I can do (based on location and due date), put in the application, and never get any of them. I think I need to move on and look for jobs that actually are going to continue to exist and that I have a good chance of getting!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/08/2015 02:43PM by BirdyC.

Thanks Birdie! I remember reading your post. But, when I did a search this morning all that came up was IPSOS payment issues.

While I understand the response you received. It doesn't make me very happy to have shops being posted that they have no intent to fill. Very frustrating for the shopper.

@ValG wrote:

Thanks Birdie! I remember reading your post. But, when I did a search this morning all that came up was IPSOS payment issues.

While I understand the response you received. It doesn't make me very happy to have shops being posted that they have no intent to fill. Very frustrating for the shopper.

I agree. In my what I think is my logical world, I'd post the number of jobs I wanted to actually fill, then if those didn't get grabbed within a certain timeframe, post more. Clearly they can get them filled, so this method makes no sense to me. But I, obviously, don't know all the ins, outs, and other logistical issues involved.

IPSOS is horrible and I keep crossing my fingers for them to implode.

That said there is a section of the newly named "SEE" which does the same thing for one of their shops as far as applying, disappearances, never really existed in the first place/whatever/shrug ..etc.

It is a numbers game. The client needs a certain number of locations shopped. The scheduling company/MSC post all available locations. Shoppers apply and are quickly assigned the shops. When the quota is met, the rest of the locations are no longer needed and removed from the job board. If they sat on the job board without being assigned, shoppers would be complaining about that.

This particular client has a very small shopping window. Early holiday deadlines are not allowing for flexibility. It is just business. Unless you have pissed off a scheduler from the scheduling company and they are now holding it against you.

Maybe their schedulers are reading the forum and not assigning shops to the bashers.

Yes, Sybil, we understand what the reasoning is behind this. Both ValG and I understood Judith's posts. I understood your posts on the other thread. We're not stupid. And, no, we're not bashing Ipsos. At least I'm not, nor are some of the others. Those who are "bashing" have different reasons, not this specific issue. We're expressing frustration and unhappiness with the system. That's entirely different from "bashing" Ipsos.

If I were ordering and scheduling the shops, I think I'd do it differently (taking into account the fact that we shoppers aren't privy to all that goes on behind the scenes). That's not bashing the company; it's merely disagreeing with its methodology.

@BirdyC, where did I call you stupid? Where did I call you a basher? Funny how you ASSUMED that I was referencing you. Hmmmmm.

@Sybil2 wrote:

@BirdyC, where did I call you stupid? Where did I call you a basher? Funny how you ASSUMED that I was referencing you. Hmmmmm.

Because you yourself tied in those of us who are expressing frustration with not getting shops by saying, "Maybe their schedulers are reading the forum and not assigning shops to the bashers."

The people who are bashing Ipsos aren't here complaining about the specific issue of not being assigned shops. "Rasky" was complaining on this thread about Ispos, but not specifically about not being assigned shops. The reference was to another company with disappearing shops. Many other posters have been "bashing" Ipsos lately all over this forum, but not about this particular issue.

So, when you relate the issue of Ipsos not assigning shops to "bashing" being the reason for that, then you're calling ValG and me bashers. By clear inference if not by clear statement. And you can't argue otherwise. Well, you can, of course, but it's not going to change what you already wrote.

@BirdyC wrote:

Because you yourself tied in those of us who are expressing frustration with not getting shops by saying, "Maybe their schedulers are reading the forum and not assigning shops to the bashers."

When I am addressing someone personally, I will quote that specific person or write @BirdyC. When I am addressing the general public, I keep my statements general. But you ASSume that I was addressing you specifically which I think is just hilarious.

@BirdyC, I do not think you are a basher. I do think you are a whiner. But that is just MY opinion. If you spent at much time cultivating relationships with schedulers as you do whining over multiple threads ofn the same or similar subjects, maybe you would be assigned these shops that you are whining about. Peace out.

@Sybil2 wrote:

@BirdyC wrote:

Because you yourself tied in those of us who are expressing frustration with not getting shops by saying, "Maybe their schedulers are reading the forum and not assigning shops to the bashers."

When I am addressing someone personally, I will quote that specific person or write @BirdyC. When I am addressing the general public, I keep my statements general. But you ASSume that I was addressing you specifically which I think is just hilarious.

@BirdyC, I do not think you are a basher. I do think you are a whiner. But that is just MY opinion. If you spent at much time cultivating relationships with schedulers as you do whining over multiple threads ofn the same or similar subjects, maybe you would be assigned these shops that you are whining about. Peace out.

Just because you did not respond personally to me doesn't mean you weren't including me in your general statement. Surely you were referring to someone? Weren't you? And since you mentioned a specific issue, which only two or three people here have referred to, my assumption wasn't a stretch in any way.

You have no idea what my relationships are with schedulers, or how much time I spend cultivating them. Maybe I do spend "at" [sic] much time developing relationships with schedulers and MSCs as I do "whining" here. If you're going to call people out as whiners, there are a hell of a lot of people on this forum who do a hell of a lot more whining than I do....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/08/2015 08:40PM by BirdyC.

It happened to me too. I applied for 6 shops in my immediate area that I could do and got not one. They all disappeared and then just reappeared yesterday. What is up with this? For my shops, it was K. Troli who was the scheduler/decision maker. She schedules for a number of companies BTW. Was she your scheduler too?

read the new topic...

ATTENTION IPSOS SHOPPERS (read this) !!!!!

It's simple, several companies do this. They list every available client location. The only need a certain number of visits by local area, county, state and nationally. They assign shops and leave the extras up for a while. Once they audit the assigned shops, they end up with rejects and flakes. Then they go for round two, round three, etc...

@BirdyC wrote:

Just because you did not respond personally to me doesn't mean you weren't including me in your general statement. Surely you were referring to someone? Weren't you? And since you mentioned a specific issue, which only two or three people here have referred to, my assumption wasn't a stretch in any way.

@BirdyC, there you go ASSuming again. There were three other people involved. You had a 1 in 3 chance of getting it right. Guess what? You were wrong. I recommend that you stay away from Las Vegas. The odds are not in your favor.

@Sybil2 wrote:

@BirdyC wrote:

Just because you did not respond personally to me doesn't mean you weren't including me in your general statement. Surely you were referring to someone? Weren't you? And since you mentioned a specific issue, which only two or three people here have referred to, my assumption wasn't a stretch in any way.

@BirdyC, there you go ASSuming again. There were three other people involved. You had a 1 in 3 chance of getting it right. Guess what? You were wrong. I recommend that you stay away from Las Vegas. The odds are not in your favor.

Sybil, you really need to learn how to read. There is nothing in my quoted statement that should lead you to believe I ASSumed your comments were targeted specifically and only at me. I wrote, "...including me in your general statement." "Including," in case you've forgotten, means one among others. I also stated that my assumption wasn't a stretch. Which it wasn't. As any reasonable person would agree.

Of course, you will probably find a way to further argue your point in order to make yourself look superior. If that is so important to you, go right ahead. It's quite sad when someone wants to make herself or himself appear better than everyone else by sniping and being petty to others.

Try taking a nice pill, at least for the holiday season. You might find that makes you look like a reasonable human being. Hell, you don't even have to be nice. Being polite and tactful would work.

BTW, I do quite well in Las Vegas, thank you very much.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/09/2015 01:22PM by BirdyC.

yawn

@rasky wrote:

IPSOS is horrible and I keep crossing my fingers for them to implode.

I've not really had problems with them since I started with them (when they took over my favorite shops). I feel like they pay pretty quickly, too?!

Gee wiz. You people are going to have a Heart Attack if ya all don't calm down.