Wow about the photos. I'm a tech person and if the photo is clear when you send it, it should be clear for everyone else. A jpeg file is a jpeg file. And I use my 3 year old smartphone to take photos. After I take a photo on the phone I look to see if it is clear and when I get home and look on the computer, it looks even more clearer. Please keep me updated on what happens with this. They shouldn't be rejecting your report over something like this, especially if the MSC sees that it's a clear photo.

@tommyjaneston wrote:

I think the greater issue is why Sentry would allow a report to be sent to the client with inappropriate commentary about the shopper's compensation. Why wouldn't the editor have deleted the comment first?

I agree that the comments should never have been included in the report. That was just plain stupid on the OPs part. However, I also agree that Sentry is culpable, in that, they should have removed the comments before sending to their client. There is no evidence to indicate that the report would have been rejected if the comments had not been there to piss the client off. The editor needs to be called to task!

I think the OP is due their pay and I think Sentry has every right to deactivate the OP after they have paid.

They are not paying me. The photos were not blurry and I submitted three with the shop. I also received a grade of 10. It's clear by the MSC offer to resubmit the photos after the client rejected the shop that they had sympathy on me. There are two shops sitting on the board that are now bonused because that particular location is hard to book. If the MSC would have offered me some form of compensation, I would have probably done the shop without a bonus. I have decided I am not doing anymore reimbursement shops from them.

An apology is nice but I'd rather have more money in my account. However, I do understand and accept my responsibility.

@7star wrote:

Wow about the photos. I'm a tech person and if the photo is clear when you send it, it should be clear for everyone else. A jpeg file is a jpeg file. And I use my 3 year old smartphone to take photos. After I take a photo on the phone I look to see if it is clear and when I get home and look on the computer, it looks even more clearer. Please keep me updated on what happens with this. They shouldn't be rejecting your report over something like this, especially if the MSC sees that it's a clear photo.

@COMystery wrote:

@tommyjaneston wrote:

I think the greater issue is why Sentry would allow a report to be sent to the client with inappropriate commentary about the shopper's compensation. Why wouldn't the editor have deleted the comment first?

I agree that the comments should never have been included in the report. That was just plain stupid on the OPs part. However, I also agree that Sentry is culpable, in that, they should have removed the comments before sending to their client. There is no evidence to indicate that the report would have been rejected if the comments had not been there to piss the client off. The editor needs to be called to task!

I think the OP is due their pay and I think Sentry has every right to deactivate the OP after they have paid.

Exactly!!!! All I want is to get paid for this reimbursement only job. Clearly the bridge with this company is burned.

Don't worry, Dave already handled my account suspension part yesterday.

Sentry marketing still ows me for the job I completed in the end of January (the payment should arrive via direct deposit by the end of this month).

From our ICA:

Section Five: Pay
The Company will pay Contractor per assignment, following the timely submission of all necessary documents as set out in assignment guidelines. The rate and type of pay varies with each assignment. All of this information would be disclosed upon scheduling the assignment.
By accepting assignment, Contractor is agreeing to perform said assignment for the compensation published with the assignment.
Contractor acknowledges that Contractor’s failure to timely submit an assignment according to Company standards and the guidelines for each assignment may cause Contractor’s compensation to be reduced or eliminated in the sole discretion of the Company. Contractor will not receive fees and reimbursement of costs incurred for assignments that have been rejected by the Company.

@alycja wrote:

@eyelove2shop wrote:

I also stated that it depends on the guidelines and one's IC agreement. Some (most) IC agreements state that payment is contingent on a client's acceptance of the shop. If that is the case then the MSC did not withhold payment in this particular case. The client rejected the shop so shopper does not receive payment.

Sentrys IC doesn't state that payment is contingent with the company accepting the report.

Dave, why don't you address the key issue about the editor not removing my comment about the pay?
Or maybe, what's the point? You can't own up to this. Clearly you had those issues before and will continue if you keep treating your contractors like this.

@COMystery wrote:

@tommyjaneston wrote:

I think the greater issue is why Sentry would allow a report to be sent to the client with inappropriate commentary about the shopper's compensation. Why wouldn't the editor have deleted the comment first?

I agree that the comments should never have been included in the report. That was just plain stupid on the OPs part. However, I also agree that Sentry is culpable, in that, they should have removed the comments before sending to their client. There is no evidence to indicate that the report would have been rejected if the comments had not been there to piss the client off. The editor needs to be called to task!

@alycja wrote:

The email about rejection from the company.
"After review from the client, your report is being rejected. The photo you provided was compared to your comments concerning the entree item which was not appropriately rated, affecting the scoring. For instance, you rated the meat platter as Average for presentation/appearance and commented, “The meat platter did not look appetizing. The three slices of pork were not neatly organized and the pulled chicken contained lots of skin parts.” However, the photo attached to the report does not show that the pieces of pro were stacked on top of each other and were cooked properly. The chicken in the photo shows mainly chicken with very little skin visible."

There is a lot of discussion about the inappropriate comments alycja put into the report and there is an assumption that the editor left the inappropriate comments in the report when sending it to the client and that the client refused the report because of the inappropriate comments. I agree her comments were inappropriate, to the point of being plain stupid, but it does not sound like the editor left them in the report. I think Dave just threw in info about alycja's inappropriate comments as "and another thing you did wrong ....." to imply to everyone here that, in addition to the client refusing the report, the editor had to remove plain stupid comments before submitting it to the client. It sounds to me as though the editor removed those comments before submitting the report to the client. Only Dave can answer that. Dave?

It sounds from alycja's post quoting the company's rejection that the client rejected the report because her rating of the food did not appear to them to match the photo she provided. Based on alycja's quote, there is no evidence that any stupid comments about cost and lack of reimbursement were submitted to the client.

edited to add: I could be completely wrong. Maybe the editor did leave the alycja's stupid comments in the report Based on my understanding of the situation, it's my belief that Sentry is correct in not paying alycja, although I think Dave is going out of his way to showcase for all members of this forum that she also did something dumb and the editor corrected it.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/15/2017 03:41PM by roflwofl.

@roflwofl wrote:

@COMystery wrote:

@tommyjaneston wrote:

I think the greater issue is why Sentry would allow a report to be sent to the client with inappropriate commentary about the shopper's compensation. Why wouldn't the editor have deleted the comment first?

I agree that the comments should never have been included in the report. That was just plain stupid on the OPs part. However, I also agree that Sentry is culpable, in that, they should have removed the comments before sending to their client. There is no evidence to indicate that the report would have been rejected if the comments had not been there to piss the client off. The editor needs to be called to task!

@alycja wrote:

The email about rejection from the company.
"After review from the client, your report is being rejected. The photo you provided was compared to your comments concerning the entree item which was not appropriately rated, affecting the scoring. For instance, you rated the meat platter as Average for presentation/appearance and commented, “The meat platter did not look appetizing. The three slices of pork were not neatly organized and the pulled chicken contained lots of skin parts.” However, the photo attached to the report does not show that the pieces of pro were stacked on top of each other and were cooked properly. The chicken in the photo shows mainly chicken with very little skin visible."

There is a lot of discussion about the inappropriate comments alycja put into the report and there is an assumption that the editor left the inappropriate comments in the report when sending it to the client and that the client refused the report because of the inappropriate comments. I agree her comments were inappropriate, to the point of being plain stupid, but it does not sound like the editor left them in the report. I think Dave just threw in info about alycja's inappropriate comments as "and another thing you did wrong ....." to imply to everyone here that, in addition to the client refusing the report, the editor had to remove plain stupid comments before submitting it to the client. It sounds to me as though the editor removed those comments before submitting the report to the client. Only Dave can answer that. Dave?

It sounds from alycja's post quoting the company's rejection that the client rejected the report because her rating of the food did not appear to them to match the photo she provided. Based on alycja's quote, there is no evidence that any stupid comments about cost and lack of reimbursement were submitted to the client.

Good investigative skills. The initial email from MSc says it all...

Yep. We're back to square one: rejecting the report based on the subjective answer to a subjective question. The food didn't look appetizing to me, the photo also proves that it didn't look as good as it could. I have just loooked at it again and i reassert my previous statement.

People saw here how Sentry changed their story here about the reasoning for the rejected shop.

The comments about the reimbursement for the assignment were seen by the client. The client felt that the comments, coupled with the inconsistency in the food rating, photo and description, indicated bias on the part of the shopper.

The initial email from the MSC does appear to say it all. Although it's JMHO, I think Sentry is correct to not pay alycja and I think deactivation, under the circumstances, is best for both alycja and for Sentry. Despite other errors and stupid comments in the report that had to be edited, it appears that the client refused alycja's report, resulting in non-payment.

@SoCalMama wrote:

So, Vicky86 & alycja are the same person?

Reading all of alycja's posts, she reminds me of another forum name that was banned from the forum. If I remember correctly, the writing and whining styles were similar. Alycja, how many forum names do you have/have you had?

I wonder how many shops could have been completed in the amount of time that alycja kept posting the same lengthy thing over and over again. I bet she could have earned enough money to cover the loss from not being paid for this job.

@Sentry Marketing wrote:

The comments about the reimbursement for the assignment were seen by the client. The client felt that the comments, coupled with the inconsistency in the food rating, photo and description, indicated bias on the part of the shopper.

Clearly then it's your editor huge mistake.
Sentry still can't own to this...Tells you many things about them...

There was no inconsistency, the description matches what is on the photo.
Their client just can't take the criticism and thinks it's biased. Poor business model on both sentry and their client.

@roflwofl wrote:

The initial email from the MSC does appear to say it all. Although it's JMHO, I think Sentry is correct to not pay alycja and I think deactivation, under the circumstances, is best for both alycja and for Sentry. Despite other errors and stupid comments in the report that had to be edited, it appears that the client refused alycja's report, resulting in non-payment.

Now you are getting ahead of yourself, bud.
If the editor didn't edit my comment about the pay, then there was nothing else that "had to be edited" on my report, so you are making things up. You are of course focusing too much on my faults, while the biggest fault is right in front of you - sentry editor letting the comment about the pay slip to the client. Thus the client refused to pay.

In addition to revealing another identity, Vicky86=alycja, this is another rant about Sentry Marketing, alycja's second. alycja deleted all her comments under the thread Sentry Marketing Rant that she started in January, [www.mysteryshopforum.com]

@Sybil, I think you're right. alycja's posts and writing style do sound familiar.

@Sybil2 wrote:

@SoCalMama wrote:

So, Vicky86 & alycja are the same person?

Reading all of alycja's posts, she reminds me of another forum name that was banned from the forum. If I remember correctly, the writing and whining styles were similar. Alycja, how many forum names do you have/have you had?

I wonder how many shops could have been completed in the amount of time that alycja kept posting the same lengthy thing over and over again. I bet she could have earned enough money to cover the loss from not being paid for this job.

I had to report all your nasty insinuations to the admin. Nice try to defame me, by suggesting I was previously deactivated form this forum. I asked admin to confirm this by looking at my IP address.
You are one of the most vile forum members out there, I'm not the only one who has to toggle your account because you can't contribute anything helpful, nor positive nor substantial in here. It's clear you make yourself feel better by bringing others down. Maybe forum would benefit greatly if people like you were banned from here?

@roflwofl wrote:

@Sybil, I think you're right. alycja's posts and writing style do sound familiar.

You're making accusations with no proof and trying to discredit my whole account because you have a wrong impression? Let's see what admin will say about that, because this is a defamatory statement based on lies.
Shady tactic, you fit right there with sybil. Anonymous bullies...

@alycja wrote:

I'm not the only one who has to toggle your account because you can't contribute anything helpful, nor positive nor substantial in here.

Answer me this then. How are you able to read AND quote AND respond to any of my posts if you have toggled me?

Have you ever attended a mystery shopping conference?

@Sybil2 wrote:

@alycja wrote:

I'm not the only one who has to toggle your account because you can't contribute anything helpful, nor positive nor substantial in here.

Answer me this then. How are you able to read AND quote AND respond to any of my posts if you have toggled me?

Have you ever attended a mystery shopping conference?

Bless your heart, it's a rhetorical question. Let me answer that for you...
I was curious why this one person who is toggled keeps replying to this thread over and over... then I looked at your unpleasant responses. Me ignoring your baiting posts did not satisfy you so you, a bully, made up a lie and tried to discredit me here.
Nice job, you diverted the subject that was discussed. How come people like you who constantly bring people down are still allowed to post on this forum? I haven't seen one helpful response of yours before I toggled you.
Don't bother to reply, You're toggled now for good so I won't read your immature posts.

@alycja wrote:

Dave, why don't you address the key issue about the editor not removing my comment about the pay?

Can I get a reply?

I find this absolutely hysterical. Many of the forum members have participated more in this entire thread than I have. The majority of my posts were in response to other forum members' posts. Only recently have a directed some of my posts to you, alycja. You are not liking some of the responses in this thread so you go on the attack. I find that very interesting.

I think the mod should close this thread.

@mahemj

I apologize for my contribution to the hijacking of your thread.

Someone just sent me a link to this previous thread. It appears that confrontation and breaking the rules is what alycja thrives on.

[www.mysteryshopforum.com]

@eyelove2shop wrote:

I think the mod should close this thread.

@mahemj

I apologize for my contribution to the hijacking of your thread.

I think it's fair to close this thread.

Even sentry marketing gave up responding, after realizing his editors made the unforgivable mistake by not editing one sentence out from the report.

It's a lesson for everyone that there's a big chance you won't get paid with them because their editors and the company owner don't get your back.

Anybody knows how toxic Sybil is and it's been called out hundreds of times on this forum, just look up their name and see yourself. I find it funny that this person tries to call out others based on the behavior they exhibit for everyone here to see for years. It's sad, sybil seem to have lots of deep rooted issues.

[www.mysteryshopforum.com]