I have never done any work for Sentry but my wife has. She has said that of the fifteen or so shops she's done for Sentry, about a dozen have required an editor to contact her back for some sort of clarification. While I'm not sitting over her shoulder seeing how she does her reports, she has complained each and every time because the requested information was in the report.

In her opinion, this overzealous "editing" was done so that Sentry could not pay a bonus, as they state the report must be submitted ready to send to the client. On more than one occasion, the bonus was indeed refused. Considering the fact that my wife first started working for BestMark and knows how to write a report hitting everything that is required and sticking to the sample narrative, it seems to me that her instinct is right. After the last report she did where the bonus was withheld, she has not worked for Sentry, and I don't blame her.

thegov,

Are you sure you don't have us confused with another company? I found that your wife completed 18 assignments for us with only five being returned. Six had very positive feedback from the editors and two were paid bonuses.

Overall, your wife's profile is very strong?

@thegov2k2 wrote:

I have never done any work for Sentry but my wife has. She has said that of the fifteen or so shops she's done for Sentry, about a dozen have required an editor to contact her back for some sort of clarification. While I'm not sitting over her shoulder seeing how she does her reports, she has complained each and every time because the requested information was in the report.

In her opinion, this overzealous "editing" was done so that Sentry could not pay a bonus, as they state the report must be submitted ready to send to the client. On more than one occasion, the bonus was indeed refused. Considering the fact that my wife first started working for BestMark and knows how to write a report hitting everything that is required and sticking to the sample narrative, it seems to me that her instinct is right. After the last report she did where the bonus was withheld, she has not worked for Sentry, and I don't blame her.

Are you sure you have the right shopper? BTW, if you have ever wondered why a lot of shoppers are using aliases, your investigative work in order to show everyone you know (or think you know) who thegov2k2 is just might be the reason. It is downright creepy.

Checking a username against email address isn't exactly high-level detective work. Yes, I am sure I have the right shopper.

You can say what you want about it, however, I think it's perfectly normal for a company to want to know the identity of a vendor how is questioning their integrity. My guess is that if you found out that an MSC was disparaging you to other MSCs, you would have more than just a passing interest in uncovering the source.

You said in this very thread that "As long as the MSC is not being called a "scam" or something worse, let them vent.". I would say that accusing us of "zealous" editing to avoid payment of bonuses is akin to being called a "scam", so if you are true to your word, you shouldn't have a problem with my post. Of course, you'll come up with something to justify your double standard.

Enjoy having the last word, because I am not going to go round and? round with you on this topic.

@LisaSTL wrote:

Are you sure you have the right shopper? BTW, if you have ever wondered why a lot of shoppers are using aliases, your investigative work in order to show everyone you know (or think you know) who thegov2k2 is just might be the reason. It is downright creepy.

Dave. Stop. It's so not cool. I really thought you were progressing, but this is taking steps backwards.

No kidding. The poster qualified it with it, "in her opinion." Not exactly a statement of fact. And I'm still trying to figure out what is so bad about "overzealous" when you look at the synonyms for zealous; fervent, ardent, passionate, impassioned, devout, devoted, committed, dedicated, hard-core, enthusiastic, eager, keen, avid, card-carrying, vigorous, energetic, intense, fierce. I wouldn't exactly be insulted if accused of being overzealous.

I wanted to add this. Since Dave is so fond of asking members to PM or email him. He could have simply done the same with thegov2K2. But then again, it would not have had the same impact as showing others he can hunt them down.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/23/2016 09:52PM by LisaSTL.

suppose needs a d... it is supposed... sorry ! good thing I am not an editor.

@Ronnie B. wrote:

suppose needs a d... it is supposed... sorry ! good thing I am not an editor.

Why? you have just proven that you are able to edit. Maybe you'd be a great editor.

@thegov2k2 wrote:

I have never done any work for Sentry but my wife has. She has said that of the fifteen or so shops she's done for Sentry, about a dozen have required an editor to contact her back for some sort of clarification. While I'm not sitting over her shoulder seeing how she does her reports, she has complained each and every time because the requested information was in the report.

In her opinion, this overzealous "editing" was done so that Sentry could not pay a bonus, as they state the report must be submitted ready to send to the client. On more than one occasion, the bonus was indeed refused. Considering the fact that my wife first started working for BestMark and knows how to write a report hitting everything that is required and sticking to the sample narrative, it seems to me that her instinct is right. After the last report she did where the bonus was withheld, she has not worked for Sentry, and I don't blame her.

Why would any Editor with a heart want to take her bonus away? I thought we are in the business of building long lasting relationships. If our bonus is debatable over subjective areas, how can a shopper protect themselves and their pay? The reason people request or do shops with bonuses is their driving outside their normal range. I have seen shops as low as 6 and 7s get paid plus blood-time. How low was the score that caused your wife to lose her "drive pay" because that would break my heart.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/23/2016 11:18PM by GuyFawkes.

@JASFLALMT wrote:

But it's the same people. Kind of saying the same thing. Being snarky asshats.

I disagree. Anyone can be an asshat. It takes a special skill to be snarky.

@GuyFawkes wrote:

The reason people request or do shops with bonuses is their driving outside their normal range. I have seen shops as low as 6 and 7s get paid plus blood-time.

I ask for and receive bonuses because I want more money. It usually has nothing to do with "drive pay." I just completed two back-to-back shops. One I could have walked to from my house. The second one, I could have walked to from the first shop. Walking back home from the second shop would have been a bit of a hike; a bike would have been better.

@LisaSTL wrote:

Are you sure you have the right shopper? BTW, if you have ever wondered why a lot of shoppers are using aliases, your investigative work in order to show everyone you know (or think you know) who thegov2k2 is just might be the reason. It is downright creepy.

And the hunt is one. Like a lioness stalking the gazelle.

personal attack deleted by mod

@guanadu wrote:

personal attack deleted by mod.

Would you rather have a CEO that does not care what his vendors think, just blow's them off? Dave was put in a impossible situation from the start of this thread because there were no specific examples. How was he suppose to address certain shoppers allegations that one of his "shoppers is going Rogue", maybe he needs to learn ESP? The poster who accidentally revealed their own family's identification was treated with respect too, he kept his post professional and refrained from calling names. Dave could have come against that post harshly, even full throttle but chose to take the high road leaving the content up for us to judge.. Its a no win situation for him, he's tried to engage politely and refrained from junior high attacks some of our political leaders use when anyone challenges them. To quote "If his employees are taking any queues from him" its how to handle themselves quite calmly and respectfully well.

Respectfully, Guy, none of us are vendors here.

Then what would you categorize us as if not vendors? By my understanding vendors are companies that provide product or services to a business. I'm not sure how MSCs classify us internally. I suspect it is at least similar to their other vendors.

We are considered Independent Contractors, not vendors. Vendors sell stuff. We sell our "services" but I don't feel like a "vendor". I think we are hired to evaluate vendors.

@GuyFawkes wrote:

Would you rather have a CEO that does not care what his vendors think, just blow's them off? Dave was put in a impossible situation from the start of this thread because there were no specific examples. How was he suppose to address certain shoppers allegations that one of his "shoppers is going Rogue", maybe he needs to learn ESP? The poster who accidentally revealed their own family's identification was treated with respect too, he kept his post professional and refrained from calling names. Dave could have come against that post harshly, even full throttle but chose to take the high road leaving the content up for us to judge.. Its a no win situation for him, he's tried to engage politely and refrained from junior high attacks some of our political leaders use when anyone challenges them. To quote "If his employees are taking any queues from him" its how to handle themselves quite calmly and respectfully well.

I don't want a CEO who blows off his shoppers. Guy, I'm guessing you mean shoppers rather than vendors? And when you say "certain shoppers allegations that 'shoppers is going rogue'" {sic} you really mean editors? I'm sure you write and proofread your shop reports a little better or the editors will be constantly calling you with questions. I want a CEO who is performing his own QA and doesn't need to ask the identity of every anonymous shopper who posts about his company on an internet forum. I also have little respect for a CEO who spends his time hanging out on a shopper forum and stalks the shopper posters, matching any info they post about themselves to his shopper database so he can let them know he has figured out who they are. That time might be better spent performing QA and responding to shopper questions that come directly to his company rather than responding to complaints on an internet forum.

Quality Assurance is a good thing. With so many complaints about the same thing, perhaps it's an opportunity to do random QA on the company's editors rather than reply on specific instances of shopper complaints. After all, shopper complaints might be very subjective. Planned, random quality assurance checks could be objective and consistent, measuring the same things in a controlled environment.

Not nice guanadu. I'd tone it down.

What I know is that it very sad that someone of adult age would act in such a childish manner. It's easy to hurl insults while hiding in the shadows of the internet but we both know you would NOT use this kind of language in person. In truth, I could care less about your insults because they reveal a lot about your character or lack thereof.

There was one purpose for my participation in this thread: to address the editing issues posted by jmitw. Nothing more, nothing less. In fact, prior to this thread, I had posted only once in the last 90 days and that post was in response to the suggestion that we were the MSC that demonstrated a lack of concern for a shopper who was assaulted during an assignment. The truth is that we have been monitoring and posting to the forum less often over the past year because of the ad hominem attacks you see in this thread by guanadu and others. I don't spend my time "hanging out" on this forum, as Jay suggested.

I requested that the forum members who posted complaints about our staff contact me so that their specific issue could be researched and/or addressed. Without that information, it's impossible to know if our staff acted incorrectly or if the shoppers in question are simply oversensitive. I didn't respond to comments that our staff is poorly trained even though I thought the comment was out of line.

If the goal of posting about the problems with our editing staff is to vent, so be it. If the goal is to help be part of the solution, then contacting us to address the issue shouldn't be a problem. Expecting us to address issues without having specific details is just not reasonable and we are not going to engage in this type of wild goose chase.

In fact, we do have a quality control process in place for our editing staff. The process involves reviewing reports, staff/shopper communication and we meet as a team weekly. I pulled random reports over the weekend in response this thread. This is why, contrary to Jay's comment, specific feedback is needed from shoppers in order to review the specific details of the report in questions.

The manner in which this thread devolved is very good reinforcement why we should resume ignoring this forum. I'd urge schedulers, editors and other owners to do the same. While I am a strong believer that a lot of good can come from shoppers and MSC team members interacting, there is too much bias an inconsistency on this forum. As a result, civil conversation is replaced with personal attacks, unsubstantiated accusations, and other unneeded behavior. Sad.

**Editied to correct content**

@guanadu wrote:

[personal attack deleted by mod].

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/24/2016 01:22PM by Sentry Marketing.

I kind of feel like doing a job for Dave to see who is telling the truth here.

Gosh. The big, fat baby comment is pretty out there.

Feel free to pull my reports and email communications with the editor. " No" responses were asked and answered yet were returned for not responding to "No" responses.

@optikdave wrote:

Feel free to pull my reports and email communications with the editor. " No" responses were asked and answered yet were returned for not responding to "No" responses.

Did you save a pdf of your original report? You could send that to Dave and compare your answers to the editor's questions. Of course, Dave or better yet, a neutral party should review the reports/e-mails, not an editor or scheduler for the MSC.

i dunno... sending posts to the snarkiness @sshat forum would prevent me from reading because i wouldnt get posts that they respond through the red colored updates... and busting a gut laughing...

and no the saying "a mistake done twice is a decision" is towards conscious decisions and not unconscious.... unless you make plans to fall down for the laughs...

Dear Diary:
Today i plan to sprain my ankle. Next week a compound fracture. I am considering having a bone break from my skin in one or two months but will write more later.
Sincerely Yours

and yes i am a klutz too... thankfully my roommate who is a sergeant in the marines doesn't care... hes the chillest marine from Vietnam i have ever met... i wake him up dropping something or smashing into something on my way to the bathroom, kitchen, or coming back from the 24 hour shell station that is two houses down... a few times a week... im getting better... but still... i have learned not to swear to loudly too...

as to the rest carry on... its amusing



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/24/2016 03:43PM by cooldude581.

Wow. I think I can understand exactly why the original OP did not want to identify herself to the MSC. It is downright creepy that the MSC did their undercover work to expose a poster, and even creepier that they announced and then justified their actions to the forum. The MSC poster should have walked away from the conversation when the OP said she did not want to seek resolution with the MSC. Instead the MSC poster went on a rampage. I find that very unprofessional.

also just reading this you can see that you lose your anonymity in the forum if you have a screen name that is identical or close to your email account

Yup.

If by "undercover work" you mean the 30 seconds it took to perform an email search, then I guess you are correct. If by "creepy" you mean that I posted our response to the claims made by the forum member, then I guess you are correct. If by "rampage" you mean that I are concerned with inaccurate information being posted about our company, then I guess you are correct.

I don't think the OP was really concerned with their anonymity based on their selection of username.

**Edited? to correct "we" to "I" - Dave Agius

@COMystery wrote:

Wow. I think I can understand exactly why the original OP did not want to identify herself to the MSC. It is downright creepy that the MSC did their undercover work to expose a poster, and even creepier that they announced and then justified their actions to the forum. The MSC poster should have walked away from the conversation when the OP said she did not want to seek resolution with the MSC. Instead the MSC poster went on a rampage. I find that very unprofessional.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/24/2016 04:52PM by Sentry Marketing.

Did I miss someone else from Sentry posting something? I didn't see "we" I only saw Dave...but I think it's time to put this mess to rest and agree to disagree. I am pretty sure the OP was venting and quite possibly read some old posts seeing other forum members who got deactivated, and maybe was fearful of the same thing happening to them. So let's be done with this, okay?