Lisa, I'm in a Home Depot right now as I type this, and a manager just showed & explained the difference between the two. Patio heaters are more on the electric side of heaters, emit less heat, and can be used for indoor use. Outdoor heaters are usually of the propane variety, and emit more heat. Though similar, both heaters are absolutely NOT the same.

Further, outdoor heaters have more of a risk factor for fires when used indoors vs patio heaters. Outdoor heaters also heat more square footage space than patio heaters as well.

The only question I have is this:
Did the CLIENT demand that the exact term "outdoor heater" be used?

If so, none of our opinions matter and the only discussion is whether or not the directions were clear enough.

That's great info, Eric, but since the guidelines did not specify that the exact phrase OUTDOOR HEATERS it still leans towards ambiguity...

MFJ, if the client wanted that exact phrase, then unequivocally the guidelines should have stated such.

Eric, that is why I asked the question earlier, like on the first damn page of this thread. A simple Google search using each term returned basically the same results. You have to admit there is a certain lack of logic attached to considering a "patio" heater for use indoors. At least there is in my mind. In reality, I don't give a rat's hiney other than I have considered some heaters for my own patio. You know how much I love to hang out there when the weather permits. Otherwise the question goes back to what MFJ just posted, were the guidelines clear the specific terms needed to be used? We all make fun of redundant guidelines, but you have to admit there is a need for them sometimes

@JASFLALMT
I agree with you on that - I commented on it in detail previously. My point is, whether or not the items are the same thing is completely irrelevant. If the client required a specific phrase, it is the MSC's job to make that clear and our job to use it.

From what I have read from the man posts on this thread about capitalization, emphasis, etc. I would have definitely used the correct term - it was "clear enough" for me. However, I stand by my statement that directions would have been stronger if they stated point blank that the precise phrasing was required.

MFJ: Yes, thank you! It was clear enough for many. But, like we and others have stated, it should have been emphasized clearly that this is the only terminology accepted.

I have completed thousands of shops for various MSCs. I know that in times where there were any questionable areas of verbiage in the past with guidelines, I ended up getting paid because it was indeed vague...and the MSC did not argue the point, and they agreed that the guidelines were not clear enough. This has only happened a couple of times.

I am not really understanding why being "right" and being stubborn is helpful to Sentry in this matter. I don't have anything to lose or to gain, I am just thoroughly bewildered as to why a less than $20 payment is worth more than a positive and solid reputation with forum members who post here and the many other shoppers who may lurk without posting at all.

In case anyone has forgotten, the OP apparently completed several of these shops. I don't know about you, but if it is not clear only specific verbiage can be used, I will change it up from shop to shop.

You know what else is irritating? When someone gives excellent advice and it not only goes completely ignored but...it goes completely ignored.

The guidelines said outdoor heater.

@JASFLALMT - You stated that you are "bewildered" why we just didn't pay the shopper and move on. You believe paying the OP would make us look good and contribute to a positive reputation on this forum. Very simply, I respectfully disagree.

The OP did not perform the assignments correctly and after review by our staff, the reports were rejected due to a deviation from the assignment guidelines. Any payment for the assignments would fall under consideration for goodwill. Between the OP demanding a denial in writing from the client and the manner in which they posted on this forum, I decided against a goodwill payment. In my opinion, paying goodwill in this case would reinforce behavior that I don't support.

I don't believe a dispute between a mystery shopper and the mystery shopper's client ( in this case, Sentry) should be litigated on a public forum as a first course of action. In similar cases, other forum members have posted request for advice without naming the MSC, they have PM'd a request for assistance or they have searched for contact information and reached out directly. Their communication was pleasant, professional and not accusatory. Ask @isaiah58 and @MikiNV how things work out when one remains pleasant and professional.

So that my point is clear:

In my opinion, a shopper is more likely to achieve a favorable outcome to a dispute they have with an MSC if they handle things directly with the MSC, if they maintain a professional demeanor and if they don't post about it as first course of action.

Apparently there are two satisfied Sentry shoppers since they are mentioned over and over and over.............

The thing that gets me here, like JAS mentioned, is all this really worth being “right” and avoiding the $20 payment?

I have experience running a business (totally unrelated to MS). There were a couple of times over the years where someone purchased something from me, and for whatever reason, the person was not a satisfied customer. Did they sign a legally binding contract that would hold up in court? Yes. Would I have won? Yes. Was I technically “right?” Yes. But it would not have been worth the time, energy, or negativity to argue. It’s MUCH easier & better for the business to refund them, satisfy them, and then cut ties.

@LisaSTL wrote:

Apparently there are two satisfied Sentry shoppers since they are mentioned over and over and over.............

The rest was terminated after reaching out to dispute, lol. Those two are big deal.

@LisaSTL - there are plenty of other forum members that we've helped over the years. Your sarcasm demonstrates your bias against Sentry and me pretty clearly.

@Megs7521 - It's great that you chose to refund something to customers. The thing is that the OP is not a customer of Sentry. Also, there is no company in this industry that pays shoppers 100% of the time, whether the project was completed properly or not. I'm curious, if you hired a painter and they did not complete the job according your agreement, would you still pay them and then hire a new painter to do the job?

Lets say I left the painter a note asking him to “paint the bathroom” and he did. He did a good job, but he painted the wrong bathroom. He painted the main bathroom but there was a second bathroom off the basement stairs and out of sight, and that was the one I wanted done.

Because I hadn’t specifically said “paint the basement bathroom off the stairs,” I would still pay him. Even if that meant I hired a 2nd painter to come behind him and paint the other bathroom because I didn’t want him painting for me anymore.

If he had painted the kitchen, I wouldn’t pay him. If he no-showed and didn’t do the work, I wouldn’t pay him. But since he acted in good faith, and my directions weren’t as clear as they could have been, I would pay him.

I realize the MSC is the customer. But in an instance like this, I would rather suck it up and just pay the measly fee to avoid my business being dragged through the mud on the internet.

Dave PMed me and said that "only" 12 shoppers had shops rejected on this project. That seems like a lot to me and that's 12 too many. I think 12 shoppers who found the guidelines unclear is proof that the guidelines were not specific enough.

This is getting ridiculous. We've had 12 shops rejected out of over 900 completed. That's a rejection rate of under 2%. It is not excessive.

@JASFLALMT wrote:

Dave PMed me and said that "only" 12 shoppers had shops rejected on this project. That seems like a lot to me and that's 12 too many. I think 12 shoppers who found the guidelines unclear is proof that the guidelines were not specific enough.

Interesting. As a teen I worked at Roy Rogers. A customer, 15 minutes after being served, complained that their fries cold. I started to explain why they were cold. My manager intervened and gave her fresh fries. A few days later a customer comes up and complains about their burger. The same manager is involved. This time the manager explains that because the customer almost completed eating the burger, his complaint was not legitimate. Had he taken a bite or two, the complaint would be acceptable.

Here we are trying to legitimise a complaint wher the OP clearly misrepresented the situation. The members here that followed the guidelines, and explained their being very clear, have been deligitimized or ignored.

On a recent Market Force thread about someone not being paid, everyone commenting asked for more facts, put the blaim on the shopper, and/or avoided questioning Market Force. Similar situation on payment complaints against other MSCs.

We complain about MSCs not being active here yet condemn those that are?

Dave is exaggerating everything I said. I request something- he says I demanded it. I ask for help- he says I am litigating my case.

What is he trying to prove?

@Sentry Marketing wrote:

This is getting ridiculous. We've had 12 shops rejected out of over 900 completed. That's a rejection rate of under 2%. It is not excessive.

@JASFLALMT wrote:

Dave PMed me and said that "only" 12 shoppers had shops rejected on this project. That seems like a lot to me and that's 12 too many. I think 12 shoppers who found the guidelines unclear is proof that the guidelines were not specific enough.

As a scheduler and editor, I would be thrilled to only have 12 shoppers miss the guidelines.

Some of the comments here I think are completely ridiculous.

Seems a small over sight to withdraw 20.00 payment. i had an error (larger than this), and Mercantile worked with me and said they never had intention to withhold pay, which I assumed they would. I was supposed pay cash, and paid cash for drinks and CC for appetizer.....they let it go and called me explaining everything. Did report talk about Outdoor heater, did OP report on that and not just Patio heater. Misunderstandings can be worked out if the MSC wants to keep a good shopper. Seems petty, perhaps the title of shop should read :"Outdoor heater"

What companies do you work for, SoCalMama?

@jenamars - I apologize for misquoting what you wrote. You did not use the word "demand", rather, you wrote:

"I will need further proof, in writing, that the client rejected two reports from the independent contractor because of the reason specified."

I interpreted your request as a demand. My bad.

Megs7521 - Respectfully, I think your analogy is a little off target. You are entitled to interpret the situation any way you want, however.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2018 09:55PM by Sentry Marketing.

As a former editor for two different MSCs, I know that some shoppers were paid for bigger messups than this one, even when the shop wasn't usable. Both of those MSCs valued their shoppers far more than a $10-$20 fee. Just a simple change to the guidelines well before the 12th shopper misinterpreted them (such as clearly stating that the shop would be rejected if anything but the specific and exact terminology "outdoor heaters" was used) would have eliminated any doubts on why the shop was rejected.

@SoCalMama wrote:

@Sentry Marketing wrote:

This is getting ridiculous. We've had 12 shops rejected out of over 900 completed. That's a rejection rate of under 2%. It is not excessive.

@JASFLALMT wrote:

Dave PMed me and said that "only" 12 shoppers had shops rejected on this project. That seems like a lot to me and that's 12 too many. I think 12 shoppers who found the guidelines unclear is proof that the guidelines were not specific enough.

As a scheduler and editor, I would be thrilled to only have 12 shoppers miss the guidelines.

Some of the comments here I think are completely ridiculous.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2018 11:04PM by JASFLALMT.

So if the report said buy a pop and I bought a pop but in the report I said I bought a soda would the editor email me and ask me what I bought or presume it was the same item? My point many posts ago was editors DO contact the shopper for clarification. Why not do it in this case? Would my report be denied because I did not say the word pop but said the word soda when 99% of us understand it IS the same thing.

The conclusion is that the editors who work at Sentry aren’t doing a good job. I’ve seen jobs being rejected, solely to editor’s fault. Aren’t they suppose to make sure the report is up to standards, before it is sent to client?

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2018 11:40PM by Vicky86.

@RoutedNotOuted wrote:

What companies do you work for, SoCalMama?

I no longer schedule or edit. Frankly, the quality of the work that I saw blew my mind.

@CANADAMOMMY wrote:

So if the report said buy a pop and I bought a pop but in the report I said I bought a soda would the editor email me and ask me what I bought or presume it was the same item? My point many posts ago was editors DO contact the shopper for clarification. Why not do it in this case? Would my report be denied because I did not say the word pop but said the word soda when 99% of us understand it IS the same thing.

Please read the thread. The shopper was to ask for something specific in a specific way. They did not describe something they saw, but provided a quote of the question they asked. I had a report for another MSC rejected because I provided quotes and they said I did not ask for the item as directed. Since then I developed better ways to properly ask for specific items. Even above, the OP continues to twist words even though they clearly made a demand, which in the thread several members advised was not appropriate.

@Vicky86 - How is it that you have seen shops rejected due to a mistake by our editor. Please elaborate.