I don't want to give too many details to identify myself....but NUMEROUS INVALID complaints including instructing me to comment in violation of the directions on the form, telling me to repeat comments in multiple boxes when that has not been required in the past...I seriously just need to copy and paste the exact same thing...telling me that I failed to name an associate that I DID NAME--twice for 2 different parts of the shop..saying i didn't enter an appropriate description when it EXACTLY FOLLOWED THE EXAMPLE.

For the amount I earn from them, I am seriously thinking about telling them to shove it or start paying for the wine I need t deal with the nonsense....and hope the client changes MSCs.

As often as they do this nonsense (that I don't get this level of nonsense from other MSC) they must be doing in on purpose...otherwise they would fire the offending editors.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/16/2016 07:56PM by jmitw.

Best to take a break with the client you appear to relish. I do not expect them to fire editors over a unique issue with one shopper.

jmitw

If you would like to reach out to me via PM or email, I would be happy to review the situation.

Thanks

Dave

I've seen so many examples of questionnaires that don't match the guidelines, guidelines that are ambiguously worded or have contradictory instructions, editors who ask for responses that were already included in the report, etc., etc., that nothing surprises me anymore.

Whatever the situation here, I hope the OP and Sentry can work it out. But, it sure would help if MSCs were as careful about reviewing their own instructions and surveys as shoppers should be about their work. Unfortunately, many don't seem to understand it when they're not providing good shop materials.

Of course, there are many MSCs whose instructions are clear and well written, whose questionnaires follow the guidelines and are structured logically, and whose editors are meticulous. I try to avoid the former and work for the latter as much as possible! It saves me stress.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/17/2016 04:24AM by BirdyC.

I'm happy to review guidelines? and correct issues that are brought to our attention. Having clear guidelines benefits everyone.

It is not a UNIQUE ISSUE WITH ONE SHOPPER. There have been MANY COMPLAINTS about this nonsense. And no I don't want to reach out to the MSC. I did once and still got b-otched at for my allegedly horrible work....based on the mistakes of the editor.

The questionnaire does match the guidelines...but the editor insisted I had to write something else.

The problem is with the poorly trained/skilled editors making false accusations of bad work.

Here is an 'example' of an issue:

The example in the report said to write a description like:
"Male, short blue hair, approx 5'6" tall, handing out free samples near the counter"

I write "Female, long brown hair, approx 5'0" tall, cleaning tables in the dining area"

and the editor whines that I didn't include an appropriate description even though it had all the same elements as the example. ....that has happened a couple times.

My reports aren't always perfect...after one i realized I should have added in 1 more comment to explain something, but it gets kicked back asking to to fix about 5 other things that are already correct....even simple things like saying I didn't list the name when it was listed....

I would love to get to the bottom of this situation and resolve any issues that exist on my team. If my team is performing poorly, then your criticism is justified and I will be happy to acknowledge it on this forum. Unfortunately, I cannot do so without more information.

If you change your mind about reaching out to me, I'll promptly research the situation and reply to you. If you prefer to remain anonymous, there is nothing more we can do to address the issue.

Perhaps they mean: "Caucasian Female, 5.6 tall, Short Brown layered hair, dark rimmed glasses, age 24, with a heart tattoo on her forearm, with pierced earrings that were titanium posts, with pink cubic zirconia 1/2 carat in size ."

I encountered a similar situation with a long Sentry dining/bar report. Every infraction was invalid. I took my evaluation seriously and wrote a thorough, professional, eloquent, and well thought out narrative. It was then completely lost on a novice editor who clearly had no idea what he/she was doing or simply didn't take the time to read it. I was so ticked off about having my report returned with so many invalid infractions that I spent an hour carefully going through each request and showing exactly where in my report that I clearly and professionally answered the question. I sent this into Sentry and explained that I was not happy. I received an admission that the infractions were invalid and an apology. Then, when I received a confirmation that my report was accepted, I was told that I needed to make sure that I explain all "no" responses! This was after spending an hour pointing out that I indeed did explain all no responses. I was so ticked off that I have not written a report for sentry since. It is a shame, because I could have provided a great product for their client on a regular basis.

Well, I'm seeing here Sentry reaching out and trying to right any potential wrong, and yet I only keep seeing complaints and a "And no I don't want to reach out to the MSC". So now it just starts looking more like a tantrum and less like a legitimate complaint.

@jnoyolapicazzo, do a forum search on Sentry for the past year and you will be kept busy with all the reading. Enjoy!

@Sybil2 wrote:

@jnoyolapicazzo, do a forum search on Sentry for the past year and you will be kept busy with all the reading. Enjoy!

That has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

There was a complaint, the MSC reached out to possibly correct the issue and was then rebuffed. The point jnoyolapicazzo made is valid. Your complaint falls on deaf ears with me if you wont take reasonable steps to resolve it.

If I have a problem with an MSC editor, I first reach out to the editor with the issue. If that fails, I move on the the head of the MSC. I would only post here if reasonable attempts to resolve the issue internally did not bring about a solution. The OP isn't trying to make shopping for Sentry a better experience for other shoppers. They are just complaining!...and doing everything they can to make sure the MSC cannot present their side of the argument by staying anonymous.

In fairness to the OP, jmitw did say this has been an ongoing problem AND he or she has reached out before with no success. To reach out directly from this thread would now jeopardize his or her anonymity which they stated clearly they do not want to do. We have a case of some venting which is certainly not uncommon. The OP was willing to provide specific examples. Complaints about inconsistent editing are common with many companies yet I see no one jumping in to defend Intellishop and insisting the OPs of those threads contact the MSC or risk being accused of "sour grapes" or throwing a tantrum. Sometimes a vent is just that. As long as the MSC is not being called a "scam" or something worse, let them vent.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/18/2016 12:04PM by LisaSTL.

I also don't see anyone from Intelleshop posting in their threads in an effort to rectify the issues with that MSC. That's not really an accurate comparison.

The OP claimed to have reached out before and then been accused of sup-par work. I'm not making a judgement either way, but the options are that the submission did not follow the example, the guidelines are not in-line with editorial expectations, or both. That's basically it, and it seems like the issue could be resolved with a little communication. That would potentially make the assignment better for the OP and all other shoppers in the future.

If the intent is to no longer work for the MSC, then why fear jeopardizing the relationship?
If the intent is to continue working with them, why not work to rectify the issue?

Seriously, I don't think there's any assignment I have ever done for Sentry where I didn't send an email to Dave complaining about the instructions, the training or just generally telling him how he could better the shopper experience. He's not adverse to feedback if it's honest, so why the fear of losing one's anonymity?

I am not sure if this is an ongoing problem or not. Over the last year, there have been approximately 815 posts that included the word "Sentry" and I found four references to editing issues. This does not seem to be a major topic about Sentry on this forum.

The OP may very well be 100% correct. If so, it would benefit all parties involved for us to correct the project guidelines and coach our editors accordingly. Conversely, this may be an issue limited to the OP and/or a small number of shoppers. If the purpose of the post is for the OP to vent, that's fine. I can't say that I appreciate the comments about our editors being "poorly trained/skilled' and "making false accusations".

If something is broken, we would love to fix it.

@SteveSoCal wrote:

@Sybil2 wrote:

@jnoyolapicazzo, do a forum search on Sentry for the past year and you will be kept busy with all the reading. Enjoy!

That has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Let's see. The topic of this thread is about Sentry. I made a short post about a company called Sentry in the Mystery Shopping Company Discussion section of the forum? How does this have nothing to do with the topic at hand? Last I heard, Sentry is a MSC.

@SteveSoCal wrote:

There was a complaint, the MSC reached out to possibly correct the issue and was then rebuffed. The point jnoyolapicazzo made is valid. Your complaint falls on deaf ears with me if you wont take reasonable steps to resolve it.

I am not sure why you are quoting my short and simple post. I never said anything about the MSC reaching out being good or bad. I made no reference to the MSC's poster. You say "Your complaint falls on deaf ears with me if you wont take reasonable steps to resolve it" but I did not make a complaint. If you are going to complain about a particular post, you might want to quote the correct person. I have no issues to resolve with this MSC because I choose not to work for them. That is my choice and the beauty of being an IC.

Steve, I am not going round and round with you about this subject. It doesn't matter whether Intellishop bothers to respond to each and every shopper just trying to vent. They have participated here before. If they do not find it useful to try to argue with every shopper who wants to let off some steam, that is their decision. I specifically quoted two other posters who used the words tantrum and sour grapes. The OP isn't obligated to follow your advice to contact the company.

This forum allows people to register and post anonymously. It may just make the OP feel better to lodge a mild complaint and maintain the relationship with the MSC rather than try to address the issue and risk retaliatory deactivation. Often it helps just to know you are not the only one having the same experience.

I wanted to add this. If complaints are being made about editing or inconsistent guidelines, rather than looking at each shopper's issue individually it may make more sense to review current guidelines or look at the overall statistics from editing. Patterns do tend to emerge so if reports for a specific client or from a specific editor are frequently being returned it would be relatively easy to find out why. If one editor is not understanding the requirements it can be solved by some additional training and guidance. If reports for one client are popping up, it could be shoppers are having a hard time understanding the requirements or the report. And then we have all seen times where the issue was something as simple as an editor accessing out of date guidelines while the shopper is using the most recent version.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/18/2016 02:00PM by LisaSTL.

@Sybil2 wrote:

I am not sure why you are quoting my short and simple post. I never said anything about the MSC reaching out being good or bad.

There are a few things that seem obvious to me:

1. Your 'short and simple post' was sarcastic and intended to take a jab at Sentry, as well as jnoyolapicazzo for defending them.

2. That topic was specifically about issues with editors at Sentry. You have stated that you prefer not to work for this MSC, so it would seem that you don't have much experience with the specific topic and were just misdirecting by attempting to bring up other issues with the MSC that have been discussed here.

3. My reference to 'deaf ears' was clearly about the OP's complaint, since you did not lodge a complaint.

4. Using your own logic; Anyone reading this should do a forum search for posts by you and make a decision if you are sarcastic and argumentative, or logical. Feel free to do the same with posts by me.

The purpose of my post was to try to resolve the issue reported by the OP and not to "argue' with the shopper.

I would love to address the issue reported by the OP, however, without specific details, it is not possible. I'm not certain which project they completed, why their report was returned, or what comments the editor made when returning the report. I don't know if the OP submitted a very good report that was returned for improper reasons or if the report was poorly written and our editor followed the correct processes.

Perhaps we should follow the lead of the companies who don't monitor this forum or try to address issues reported by forum members.

@SteveSoCal wrote:

@Sybil2 wrote:

I am not sure why you are quoting my short and simple post. I never said anything about the MSC reaching out being good or bad.

There are a few things that seem obvious to me:

1. Your 'short and simple post' was sarcastic and intended to take a jab at Sentry, as well as jnoyolapicazzo for defending them.

You love making ASSumptions but you have the right to do that. I was not taking a jab at Sentry or jnoyolapicazzo. My post was quite neutral. I received a nice PM from one of the people in question. But if you want to ASSume what I am thinking, I wish you luck with that adventure.

@SteveSoCal wrote:

2. That topic was specifically about issues with editors at Sentry. You have stated that you prefer not to work for this MSC, so it would seem that you don't have much experience with the specific topic and were just misdirecting by attempting to bring up other issues with the MSC that have been discussed here.

Gimme a break! How many times has a forum thread been completely derailed or hijacked into a totally unrelated topic. Making a quick reference to a MSC in a thread about that MSC is not going off-topic.

@SteveSoCal wrote:

4. Using your own logic; Anyone reading this should do a forum search for posts by you and make a decision if you are sarcastic and argumentative, or logical. Feel free to do the same with posts by me.

I encourage everyone to do a forum search on whatever subject they want to. I have nothing to hide and no apologies. We are a diverse group here so not all personalities are going to be a cohesive unit.

I missed Sybil's post. This was a suggestion for Dave.

"If complaints are being made about editing or inconsistent guidelines, rather than looking at each shopper's issue individually it may make more sense to review current guidelines or look at the overall statistics from editing. Patterns do tend to emerge so if reports for a specific client or from a specific editor are frequently being returned it would be relatively easy to find out why. If one editor is not understanding the requirements it can be solved by some additional training and guidance. If reports for one client are popping up, it could be shoppers are having a hard time understanding the requirements or the report. And then we have all seen times where the issue was something as simple as an editor accessing out of date guidelines while the shopper is using the most recent version.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/18/2016 02:40PM by LisaSTL.

@SteveSoCal, if you keep producing "sour grapes" over my simple post, you will not be able to produce a quality wine for LisaSTL to enjoy. And that would be very tragic.

@Sentry Marketing wrote:

Perhaps we should follow the lead of the companies who don't monitor this forum or try to address issues reported by forum members.

@Sentry Marketing wrote:

The purpose of my post was to try to resolve the issue reported by the OP and not to "argue' with the shopper.

I commend Sentry Marketing for responding to a thread about their company in this forum. And for keeping level-headed about it at this time.

Maybe SteveSoCal? can now start producing juicy, flavorful grapes.

As stated in my original post, I did reach out to sentry and they did admit that my report was edited incorrectly. It was the gall to remind me to explain all no responses after the whole issue that escalated my anger at the time and made me feel doubly unappreciated.

Flash

I'd like to be sure that I understand the intent of your post.

Are you indicating that Sentry should never post on this forum, even when our posts are an attempt to address an issue reported by a forum member?

@Flash wrote:

@Sentry Marketing wrote:

Perhaps we should follow the lead of the companies who don't monitor this forum or try to address issues reported by forum members.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/20/2016 01:30PM by Sentry Marketing.

@thunderdeacon wrote:

It was the gall to remind me to explain all no responses after the whole issue that escalated my anger at the time and made me feel doubly unappreciated.

Maybe the note to explain all no responses may have been auto generated based on the previous communications, or the editor may have forgotten to delete the comment after you had explained that your responses did address them. Personally, I wouldn't take it so personally.... Especially since the editor appears to have been an airhead to begin with.

I've never done a report for Sentry, so I really don't know. But I've had editorial questions/comments remain on my shop log even after the issues were addressed. And, yes, one of these issues was what you describe: an editor who couldn't read or couldn't understand my responses and kept asking for information I'd already provided in my narratives. I appealed, received a nice apology from the editor's manager and a higher grade. But the unwarranted comments still show up on the shop.

I don't care, as long as I can still shop for them and my overall rating with them wasn't affected.

OK, so plenty of people have had plenty of stuff to say about Sentry in the past. This is not the past, this is the present, and I found Dave's responses in this particular thread to be non-argumentative and not overly defensive, he seems as if he would like to get to the root of the problem for this situation. I say we go forward with no negative expectations and see what the outcome is for this issue.