@eodermatt wrote:

No, I said they said they were going to pay me, but that money has not appeared in my Paypal yet.

@oteixeira wrote:

Did you not state in this thread that they paid (or are paying you)?

@eodermatt wrote:

What's stopping me is non-payment of prior shops.

Do you always react before letting the dust settle? Give it some time and well, let the dust settle... Like I speculated, BVA will still award you for all of the shops at least from what I’m reading so far, even if THEY’RE taking the loss.

Would you say that if I did 8 bank teller shops in a day? Eight post office hazmat partner shops in a day, or USPS SSK shops? Eight phone call shops? What kind of shops are too obvious to do in multiples?

Ugh, I'm sick of judgey people who think my business - my literal business - should cap its capacity if there's no rule saying there's a limit. So what if I were a shopper who was single, childless, orphaned, friendless, solo-home-owning loner throwing pizza slices or samosas or egg rolls or Belgian waffles in the freezer? It either is a rule, or it isn't a rule. If you're going to argue that there was any irrefutable basis that it should just have been a rule - like the store that @indianyooper gave -, that the "store" had an expectation to limit the commerce, than explain it.

Yeah, I guess it is uncommon sense that in a capitalist society, commerce shouldn't flow freely without any rules imposed on it!

#GoodnightTrolls

@catseye221 wrote:

Seems to me like abusing a good thing, that’s a lot of food shops in a day!

No, I only react that way when the company says they're going to pay in 48 hours and it takes longer than 72 before they overcome their own mistakes to change their mind about payment. It is obviously of some incovenience to me that the money could have been deposited from Paypal into my bank account with the additional 24 (now going on 48) hours that it should have been but isn't. As a business, I could be spending that on other reimburseable shops, other food shops, or I could pay myself in order to spend it on a bath full of Beluga white caviar ..... I don't need to justify where I spend the money to which I'm entitled, it was my money and it is overdue. It would be one thing if I agreed to a shop with a turnover time of the-15th-of-the-next-month, but they're breaking their own published rule, which was 48 hours.

Are you assuming they're taking a loss because they're getting less than they thought in a flat fee agreement, or because you're assuming they won't be able to do enough future shops to be able to profit enough to dig themselves out of the hole? Because, again, for the later, they don't have to do that....

@Tarantado wrote:

@eodermatt wrote:

No, I said they said they were going to pay me, but that money has not appeared in my Paypal yet.

@oteixeira wrote:

Did you not state in this thread that they paid (or are paying you)?

@eodermatt wrote:

What's stopping me is non-payment of prior shops.

Do you always react before letting the dust settle? Give it some time and well, let the dust settle... Like I speculated, BVA will still award you for all of the shops at least from what I’m reading so far, even if THEY’RE taking the loss.

I haven't done any of these shops with BVA, but I did a few with another MSC and I think they are the same or similar type shops. Having said that, the purpose of beta testing is to get as many different eyes, opinions, computers, browsers, networks, restaurants, etc. looked at from as many different perspectives as possible.to work out the bugs and get suggestions for improvements. Once you've done a few of them, your value to the beta testing process diminishes greatly.

Congrats on finding a loophole within BVAs system and working it to your advantage. Kudos to BVA for stepping up and doing the right thing even though it will be costly to them.

I have to be honest here after reading all of your posts. I do not believe that your desire to "Help" BVA to recover the funds they are losing by paying you is genuine. It does appear that you are sorry that your gravy train has come to an end and you are grasping at reasons to extend the free food a little longer.

It seems clear enough to me that BVA no longer wishes to contract with you and that would seem to be that...

This is of course, just my opinion and nothing more.

I literally finished saying how the shops were mostly of different restaurants/locations/boroughs/orders. *eye roll* But, sure, let's run with that argument. Let's assume that the value diminishes, as you said. Then why have a limit of three per day, and not four per month, like the company doing these shops on Prestomap? Or, make shoppers change a computer or internet source. There's at least four libraries, a dozen Starbucks or Dunkin' Donuts, plenty of street wi-fi hotspots, plus other random businesses like local cafés or bars or clothing stores in a 5 mile radius of me. As an argument, it all seems kinda fishy to me....

Also, I don't care if you think I'm genuine. Like I said, they can choose to deactivate me and use other shopper's shops to remake their money. One might be related to me, which they'll never know, but ... oh well. They'll still get my help if they want to make a roundabout go of it. Or they can just stop all shoppers in my area to prevent me from mutually benefitting both of us. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Like I said, I'll talk to the boss in the morning.

For the record, I am sorry that they are loosing money (or will if they pay me all of the reimbursements to which I am entitled, which they presently have not). I'm just not MORE sorry for them than I am aggrivated that they would try to blame me for something they failed to do. Other companies clearly wrote in their guidelines what the rules are, including the same shop on Prestomap. Other companies clearly write or install into their system (or both) their rotations. If I weren't at least a tiny bit sorry for BVA, this weekend, I could just turn around and finish the same shops via Prestomap that I didn't do (basically all month) while I was doing the BVA shops. Same gravy train, right? But I certainly am not going to lie and say it is my fault/grovel/apologize for something I didn't do wrong: which was demand payment when clearly owed it. Yes, owed it even when I did eight shops to feed more than just one member of my family/eat more than one of the same meal in the day. I followed all the instructions, including the instructions that say, "feel free" to book more shops. I'm not sorry that they wrote that in their website.

Mind you, last I checked the same shop on Presto didn't have a per-day limit. I'm pretty sure you can do all four shops in one day. So even BVA's three per day/one per meal limit is arbitrary.

@msimon-2000 wrote:

I haven't done any of these shops with BVA, but I did a few with another MSC and I think they are the same or similar type shops. Having said that, the purpose of beta testing is to get as many different eyes, opinions, computers, browsers, networks, restaurants, etc. looked at from as many different perspectives as possible.to work out the bugs and get suggestions for improvements. Once you've done a few of them, your value to the beta testing process diminishes greatly.

Congrats on finding a loophole within BVAs system and working it to your advantage. Kudos to BVA for stepping up and doing the right thing even though it will be costly to them.

I have to be honest here after reading all of your posts. I do not believe that your desire to "Help" BVA to recover the funds they are losing by paying you is genuine. It does appear that you are sorry that your gravy train has come to an end and you are grasping at reasons to extend the free food a little longer.

It seems clear enough to me that BVA no longer wishes to contract with you and that would seem to be that...

This is of course, just my opinion and nothing more.

#manicepisode

I can understand frustration about the guidelines not spelling shop limits out.

However, before the company higher up even got back to you with a response, you had already posted here, posted in a Facebook group, and brought up taking them to small claims court.

I realize you were bothered by the initial response about “having to ask the boss” about whether you would be reimbursed or not. But that’s just a lowly scheduler and I’m sure it was out of her hands. Rather than ignore you until she heard from her boss, she kept you in the loop.

Bottom line, it sounds like they would just rather not deal with you as a shopper. If they view you as a problem, or a potential hassle, the easiest thing for them is to sever ties.

@eodermatt wrote:

... Like I said, they can choose to deactivate me and use other shopper's shops to remake their money. One might be related to me, which they'll never know, but ... oh well....

#speechless

This is too funny. So post everywhere that NONE OF US should work for this company, then recruit your own family to go get the shops you were told you can no longer do. Yup, that will show them.

@msimon-2000 wrote:

@eodermatt wrote:

... Like I said, they can choose to deactivate me and use other shopper's shops to remake their money. One might be related to me, which they'll never know, but ... oh well....

#speechless

@eodermatt wrote:

No, I only react that way when the company says they're going to pay in 48 hours and it takes longer than 72 before they overcome their own mistakes to change their mind about payment. It is obviously of some incovenience to me that the money could have been deposited from Paypal into my bank account with the additional 24 (now going on 48) hours that it should have been but isn't. As a business, I could be spending that on other reimburseable shops, other food shops, or I could pay myself in order to spend it on a bath full of Beluga white caviar ..... I don't need to justify where I spend the money to which I'm entitled, it was my money and it is overdue. It would be one thing if I agreed to a shop with a turnover time of the-15th-of-the-next-month, but they're breaking their own published rule, which was 48 hours.

Are you assuming they're taking a loss because they're getting less than they thought in a flat fee agreement, or because you're assuming they won't be able to do enough future shops to be able to profit enough to dig themselves out of the hole? Because, again, for the later, they don't have to do that....

I'm assuming they're taking a loss based on the email you posted here to the public:

@eodermatt wrote:

They wrote me an e-mail this morning saying the following:

Hello Emily,

I submitted the issue to my boss and the conclusion is that since I agree that you never received the email with the limitations, you cannot be bound to follow them.

We are going to reward all of your surveys.

However, you never asked if there were some restrictions as did the other shoppers, you are the only one having done an average 8 jobs per day between the 21st and the 26th.

Only 18 out of those 46 surveys will be validated by our client because they are out of the boundaries. Therefore the work we did reviewing all the others will not be compensated.

We hope that you will understand that our relationship has been strained to the point that we’d rather put an end to our collaboration.

Best regards
The BVA Team

You're pretty black & white when it comes to T&C's, huh? You seem like a seasoned shopper. 48 hours ISN'T the industry standard here in the US for the most part. So your argument that you could be using that reimbursable funds to make more money is laughable. I'm guessing you've never done any actual consulting work where you cater to your customers either? I can tell, unless you have customers that really, really love your work lol.

And I can speculate where your ethics and morals lie too....

@eodermatt wrote:

I literally finished saying how the shops were mostly of different restaurants/locations/boroughs/orders. *eye roll* But, sure, let's run with that argument. Let's assume that the value diminishes, as you said. Then why have a limit of three per day, and not four per month, like the company doing these shops on Prestomap? Or, make shoppers change a computer or internet source. There's at least four libraries, a dozen Starbucks or Dunkin' Donuts, plenty of street wi-fi hotspots, plus other random businesses like local cafés or bars or clothing stores in a 5 mile radius of me. As an argument, it all seems kinda fishy to me....

Also, I don't care if you think I'm genuine. Like I said, they can choose to deactivate me and use other shopper's shops to remake their money. One might be related to me, which they'll never know, but ... oh well. They'll still get my help if they want to make a roundabout go of it. Or they can just stop all shoppers in my area to prevent me from mutually benefitting both of us. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Like I said, I'll talk to the boss in the morning.

For the record, I am sorry that they are loosing money (or will if they pay me all of the reimbursements to which I am entitled, which they presently have not). I'm just not MORE sorry for them than I am aggrivated that they would try to blame me for something they failed to do. Other companies clearly wrote in their guidelines what the rules are, including the same shop on Prestomap. Other companies clearly write or install into their system (or both) their rotations. If I weren't at least a tiny bit sorry for BVA, this weekend, I could just turn around and finish the same shops via Prestomap that I didn't do (basically all month) while I was doing the BVA shops. Same gravy train, right? But I certainly am not going to lie and say it is my fault/grovel/apologize for something I didn't do wrong: which was demand payment when clearly owed it. Yes, owed it even when I did eight shops to feed more than just one member of my family/eat more than one of the same meal in the day. I followed all the instructions, including the instructions that say, "feel free" to book more shops. I'm not sorry that they wrote that in their website.

Mind you, last I checked the same shop on Presto didn't have a per-day limit. I'm pretty sure you can do all four shops in one day. So even BVA's three per day/one per meal limit is arbitrary.

I literally give up. The point isn't "to show them." The point is to not put them in the hole, so that they can make up the money for their mistake. And you obviously didn't read the OP, since none of what I wrote says other people should not work for them. My title, which is about as much as you can muster for that idea, can be completely justified by saying that they're the worst at writing guidelines that elaborate upon all the rules.

@oteixeira wrote:

This is too funny. So post everywhere that NONE OF US should work for this company, then recruit your own family to go get the shops you were told you can no longer do. Yup, that will show them.

@msimon-2000 wrote:

@eodermatt wrote:

... Like I said, they can choose to deactivate me and use other shopper's shops to remake their money. One might be related to me, which they'll never know, but ... oh well....

#speechless

(1) Just because something isn't the "industry standard" doesn't mean it isn't misleading or false advertising or breach of contract (depending on where and how it is written) to say you'll do differently than the industry standard as a mystery shopping company and then not do that. Depending on the location, people have a right to rely on what you wrote for payment turnaround.

(2) Not being compensated by the client and not being able to "repay" the shops that were not compensated are not the same thing.

(3) If being a "go getter" makes me ethically and morally wrong, even when following all of the published rules, instructions, guidelines, and website prompts/suggestions published by the company who made that website, then, fine I'm ethically and morally wrong for feeding me and the people around me. Straight to the inner circle of hell I go! I guess I'll be right next to Jesus, who if I recall correctly fed the masses of his disciples and strangers with fish and loaves....

@Tarantado wrote:

@eodermatt wrote:

No, I only react that way when the company says they're going to pay in 48 hours and it takes longer than 72 before they overcome their own mistakes to change their mind about payment. It is obviously of some incovenience to me that the money could have been deposited from Paypal into my bank account with the additional 24 (now going on 48) hours that it should have been but isn't. As a business, I could be spending that on other reimburseable shops, other food shops, or I could pay myself in order to spend it on a bath full of Beluga white caviar ..... I don't need to justify where I spend the money to which I'm entitled, it was my money and it is overdue. It would be one thing if I agreed to a shop with a turnover time of the-15th-of-the-next-month, but they're breaking their own published rule, which was 48 hours.

Are you assuming they're taking a loss because they're getting less than they thought in a flat fee agreement, or because you're assuming they won't be able to do enough future shops to be able to profit enough to dig themselves out of the hole? Because, again, for the later, they don't have to do that....

I'm assuming they're taking a loss based on the email you posted here to the public:

@eodermatt wrote:

They wrote me an e-mail this morning saying the following:

Hello Emily,

I submitted the issue to my boss and the conclusion is that since I agree that you never received the email with the limitations, you cannot be bound to follow them.

We are going to reward all of your surveys.

However, you never asked if there were some restrictions as did the other shoppers, you are the only one having done an average 8 jobs per day between the 21st and the 26th.

Only 18 out of those 46 surveys will be validated by our client because they are out of the boundaries. Therefore the work we did reviewing all the others will not be compensated.

We hope that you will understand that our relationship has been strained to the point that we’d rather put an end to our collaboration.

Best regards
The BVA Team

You're pretty black & white when it comes to T&C's, huh? You seem like a seasoned shopper. 48 hours ISN'T the industry standard here in the US for the most part. So your argument that you could be using that reimbursable funds to make more money is laughable. I'm guessing you've never done any actual consulting work where you cater to your customers either? I can tell, unless you have customers that really, really love your work lol.

And I can speculate where your ethics and morals lie too....

@eodermatt wrote:

I literally finished saying how the shops were mostly of different restaurants/locations/boroughs/orders. *eye roll* But, sure, let's run with that argument. Let's assume that the value diminishes, as you said. Then why have a limit of three per day, and not four per month, like the company doing these shops on Prestomap? Or, make shoppers change a computer or internet source. There's at least four libraries, a dozen Starbucks or Dunkin' Donuts, plenty of street wi-fi hotspots, plus other random businesses like local cafés or bars or clothing stores in a 5 mile radius of me. As an argument, it all seems kinda fishy to me....

Also, I don't care if you think I'm genuine. Like I said, they can choose to deactivate me and use other shopper's shops to remake their money. One might be related to me, which they'll never know, but ... oh well. They'll still get my help if they want to make a roundabout go of it. Or they can just stop all shoppers in my area to prevent me from mutually benefitting both of us. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Like I said, I'll talk to the boss in the morning.

For the record, I am sorry that they are loosing money (or will if they pay me all of the reimbursements to which I am entitled, which they presently have not). I'm just not MORE sorry for them than I am aggrivated that they would try to blame me for something they failed to do. Other companies clearly wrote in their guidelines what the rules are, including the same shop on Prestomap. Other companies clearly write or install into their system (or both) their rotations. If I weren't at least a tiny bit sorry for BVA, this weekend, I could just turn around and finish the same shops via Prestomap that I didn't do (basically all month) while I was doing the BVA shops. Same gravy train, right? But I certainly am not going to lie and say it is my fault/grovel/apologize for something I didn't do wrong: which was demand payment when clearly owed it. Yes, owed it even when I did eight shops to feed more than just one member of my family/eat more than one of the same meal in the day. I followed all the instructions, including the instructions that say, "feel free" to book more shops. I'm not sorry that they wrote that in their website.

Mind you, last I checked the same shop on Presto didn't have a per-day limit. I'm pretty sure you can do all four shops in one day. So even BVA's three per day/one per meal limit is arbitrary.

@eodermatt wrote:

(1) Just because something isn't the "industry standard" doesn't mean it isn't misleading or false advertising or breach of contract (depending on where and how it is written) to say you'll do differently than the industry standard as a mystery shopping company and then not do that. Depending on the location, people have a right to rely on what you wrote for payment turnaround.

(2) Not being compensated by the client and not being able to "repay" the shops that were not compensated are not the same thing.

(3) If being a "go getter" makes me ethically and morally wrong, even when following all of the published rules, instructions, guidelines, and website prompts/suggestions published by the company who made that website, then, fine I'm ethically and morally wrong for feeding me and the people around me. Straight to the inner circle of hell I go! I guess I'll be right next to Jesus, who if I recall correctly fed the masses of his disciples and strangers with fish and loaves....

1. ..... They are doing you a huge favor already by awarding you for all of your work, regardless if you've been a PITA for them or not. Your situation is obvious out of the norm, so why get pissed of the delay past the 48 hour pay out listed in the terms of this project? I see you have a lack of understanding when it comes to working with your clients (the MSC's), whether it's due to miscommunication, etc. AAAAAAND, it was clearly stated in that publicly posted email that YOU WILL BE AWARDED FOR YOUR WORK. To say and complain you haven't been paid again is premature as you haven't given the situation a chance to let the dust settle.

2. The contract between the MSC and THEIR end-client has nothing to do with you. I'm not even sure why you're even talking about this?

3. Lol..... You're missing some key aspects of being a 'go-getter.' You're OBVIOUSLY aware of the same shops offered by the other MSC's. They had some pretty strict restrictions. Part of the 'go-getting' attitude would be to show proactiveness by inquiring with BVA on any restrictions since you did not see any since you're aware of other MSC's of the same shops with restrictions.... IMO, of course.

Also, I'm not sure if you're referring another aspect to being a go-getter by also suggesting to make another BVA account under another member under your household as anything close to being moral or ethical either.

As I stated in this thread already, I asked why you didn't let the dust settle first? But obviously you publicly outted the situation before it was fully handled and concluded. Posting the bodies of emails, blowing up the situation BEFORE the situation's been settled, yet you seem to leave it as, "... Like I said, they can choose to deactivate me and use other shopper's shops to remake their money." Not sure how oblivious you are to your situation, but you've already burned your bridges down completely, especially with your comments about 'possibly making another account under someone else related to you,' which speculates that you'd be somehow related to this 'second' account.

@Tarantado wrote:

1. ..... They are doing you a huge favor already by awarding you for all of your work, regardless if you've been a PITA for them or not. Your situation is obvious out of the norm, so why get pissed of the delay past the 48 hour pay out listed in the terms of this project? I see you have a lack of understanding when it comes to working with your clients (the MSC's), whether it's due to miscommunication, etc. AAAAAAND, it was clearly stated in that publicly posted email that YOU WILL BE AWARDED FOR YOUR WORK. To say and complain you haven't been paid again is premature as you haven't given the situation a chance to let the dust settle.

2. The contract between the MSC and THEIR end-client has nothing to do with you. I'm not even sure why you're even talking about this?

3. Lol..... You're missing some key aspects of being a 'go-getter.' You're OBVIOUSLY aware of the same shops offered by the other MSC's. They had some pretty strict restrictions. Part of the 'go-getting' attitude would be to show proactiveness by inquiring with BVA on any restrictions since you did not see any since you're aware of other MSC's of the same shops with restrictions.... IMO, of course.

Also, I'm not sure if you're referring another aspect to being a go-getter by also suggesting to make another BVA account under another member under your household as anything close to being moral or ethical either.

As I stated in this thread already, I asked why you didn't let the dust settle first? But obviously you publicly outted the situation before it was fully handled and concluded. Posting the bodies of emails, blowing up the situation BEFORE the situation's been settled, yet you seem to leave it as, "... Like I said, they can choose to deactivate me and use other shopper's shops to remake their money." Not sure how oblivious you are to your situation, but you've already burned your bridges down completely, especially with your comments about 'possibly making another account under someone else related to you,' which speculates that you'd be somehow related to this 'second' account.

(1) It isn't a favor, if one defines favors are voluntary. It is them fulfilling their end of the contract that they wrote. They contracted to pay me (up to) $30 for each shop completed in accordance with their terms and conditions. I did the job, they owe me (up to) $30. That's not a favor, no more than any other client paying you for the work you did in accordance with the contracts you sign is a "favor." That's why we're "independent contractors" not "independent favor-makers."

Also, just because they SAID they will "REWARD" (reimburse) me for my work, doesn't mean they have or will. #StillWaiting

(2) I'm talking about this because either there's a shovel that I can help them fill the hole with, or there isn't.

(3) Uh, sorry, no, my time has value, I don't go asking for more restrictions. For example, Bare and Intelli-shop have the same brand of pizza client, but Bare allows me to do a combination of pizza toppings (bacon and mushroom) that Intelli-shop doesn't. I don't go asking Bare for rules against the toppings combo. And Bare, unlike BVA, has paid me for all my bacon and mushroom pizza shops without asking me to prove that I didn't break a rule that is no where in their guidelines. Bare, and Intelli-shop, and basically every other company that I work for, WRITES THEIR RULES IN THEIR GUIDELINES. Same thing with A Closer Look and iSecretShop's common fast casual sit-down client. Each one has their own guidelines and neither transmutes to the other. If you're an MSPA member (which BVA is) and you don't know to write all of your rules somewhere, ANYWHERE, in the shop, you're wrong. And judging by the fact that they had to send out an e-mail before I started shopping for them, they obviously knew that at least one other person was not following an unwritten rule. Meaning, they knew that they hadn't communicated the client's rule to new shoppers, i.e. those who were not there when the e-mail was sent, and they proceeded to assume that only in the first round of shoppers would there be a person or people who do multiples per day. They already knew it had been "broken" previously. Why would new shoppers versus first-gen shoppers have different inclinations about unwritten rules?

That's right. They wouldn't.

Here's an idea: put it in the shop instructions the minute you know there's a problem that might cause you grief - which, considering they wrote the unwritten rule into a written rule via e-mail to shoppers that were signed up on June 4th, would have meant an update to the shop instructions on June 4th, not an e-mail to me on June 26th - so that people without a time machine are equally as likely to know the rule. That's literally all it would have taken to solve the problem! A one-sentence website add-on to their website on June 4th. What's the expression? Penny wise and pound foolish. They saved themselves a penny's worth of effort not putting the rule in the shop instructions on June 4th, but cost themselves "pounds" of dollars by having to reimburse me for shops for which their client won't pay because they couldn't solidify the one rule in writing. I bet if I go on their website today, the rule still won't be there. What, do you not have control over your shop website as a mystery shopping company? I think not. Short of being out of control of their own website, they made a choice to do something they knew could cost them. That's called negligence. #NoSympathy

@eodermatt wrote:

(1) It isn't a favor, if one defines favors are voluntary. It is them fulfilling their end of the contract that they wrote. They contracted to pay me (up to) $30 for each shop completed in accordance with their terms and conditions. I did the job, they owe me (up to) $30. That's not a favor, no more than any other client paying you for the work you did in accordance with the contracts you sign is a "favor." That's why we're "independent contractors" not "independent favor-makers."

Also, just because they SAID they will "REWARD" (reimburse) me for my work, doesn't mean they have or will. #StillWaiting

(2) I'm talking about this because either there's a shovel that I can help them fill the hole with, or there isn't.

(3) Uh, sorry, no, my time has value, I don't go asking for more restrictions. For example, Bare and Intelli-shop have the same brand of pizza client, but Bare allows me to do a combination of pizza toppings (bacon and mushroom) that Intelli-shop doesn't. I don't go asking Bare for rules against the toppings combo. And Bare, unlike BVA, has paid me for all my bacon and mushroom pizza shops without asking me to prove that I didn't break a rule that is no where in their guidelines. Bare, and Intelli-shop, and basically every other company that I work for, WRITES THEIR RULES IN THEIR GUIDELINES. Same thing with A Closer Look and iSecretShop's common fast casual sit-down client. Each one has their own guidelines and neither transmutes to the other. If you're an MSPA member (which BVA is) and you don't know to write all of your rules somewhere, ANYWHERE, in the shop, you're wrong. And judging by the fact that they had to send out an e-mail before I started shopping for them, they obviously knew that at least one other person was not following an unwritten rule. Meaning, they knew that they hadn't communicated the client's rule to new shoppers, i.e. those who were not there when the e-mail was sent, and they proceeded to assume that only in the first round of shoppers would there be a person or people who do multiples per day. They already knew it had been "broken" previously. Why would new shoppers versus first-gen shoppers have different inclinations about unwritten rules?

That's right. They wouldn't.

Here's an idea: put it in the shop instructions the minute you know there's a problem that might cause you grief - which, considering they wrote the unwritten rule into a written rule via e-mail to shoppers that were signed up on June 4th, would have meant an update to the shop instructions on June 4th, not an e-mail to me on June 26th - so that people without a time machine are equally as likely to know the rule. That's literally all it would have taken to solve the problem! A one-sentence website add-on to their website on June 4th. What's the expression? Penny wise and pound foolish. They saved themselves a penny's worth of effort not putting the rule in the shop instructions on June 4th, but cost themselves "pounds" of dollars by having to reimburse me for shops for which their client won't pay because they couldn't solidify the one rule in writing. I bet if I go on their website today, the rule still won't be there. What, do you not have control over your shop website as a mystery shopping company? I think not. Short of being out of control of their own website, they made a choice to do something they knew could cost them. That's called negligence. #NoSympathy

#NoProfessionalism



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/28/2018 03:43PM by Tarantado.

OMG, you already said goodnight and called us all trolls an entire page ago. Make good on your promise to stop. This is getting ridiculous.

@sandyf wrote:

OMG, you already said goodnight and called us all trolls an entire page ago. Make good on your promise to stop. This is getting ridiculous.

Lol it might be my fault for continuing this. This will be my last response for this thread

BVA emailed the shoppers on this project mid-month that payments would be a bit later than the normal 72-hour time frame.

As for the rest of this thread, I'm going to keep it in mind the next time I read seemingly overly-obvious guidelines, email an MSC with a seemingly overly-obvious question, or have to submit some combination of a receipt and a GeoVerify and a time/date stamped photo and a business card with my report.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/28/2018 06:32PM by NinS.

I don’t think you broke the rules and they realize that. I think that you stood out among other shoppers by signing up for many shops and not double-checking with them regarding the rules, as many other shoppers did. I often ask for clarification when something is a bit unusual even if it is stated in the guidelines, and ask for the confirmation from the scheduler. I assume that MSC realized that you kind of forced the system and are not happy with it. It is obvious to me that MSC decided not to use you as a shopper in the future. Like you mentioned, maybe have your family members sign up with MSC so your fanily still can get the benefits of these shops. I hope you get payed soon and I hope your situation gets resolved quickly.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/28/2018 06:36PM by MikiNV.

Based on this thread im going to gander a guess and say youve got lots of time on your hands...and im not sure how much value...
#nocommonsense

@eodermatt wrote:

(3) Uh, sorry, no, my time has value.....

More importantly: did @eodermatt get paid?

I've had some time to think about this, and I'm really, really curious. OP jumped out the starting gate and did a LOT of shops quickly. If she reported the shops immediately, why didn't the MSC realize after the first batch of seven or eight reports arrived, all with the same date on them, that the shopper was overdoing it? And e-mailed her immediately, hey, you're out of bounds, you're only supposed to do 3 of these a day? Or is this one of those things done on an app and just sort of disappears into the ether, with no human monitoring/editing?

My day job is supporting Hadoop, which is a set of big data collection tools to do just what you are thinking. Many companies collect all of this information and use nothing but applications to run against them and look for key words or values that would kick them out to a human for review.

Based on that, I would say they did not have a counter going that would flag on too many jobs performed, but at final review (time to actually pay) a human caught the issue.

What I am saying is a lot of this work can totally be done on the back end with little to no human review of your paperwork. Less so with a lot of narratives, but you get the point. Hope I helped, and not just made it more confusing to folks.

@ceasesmith wrote:

I've had some time to think about this, and I'm really, really curious. OP jumped out the starting gate and did a LOT of shops quickly. If she reported the shops immediately, why didn't the MSC realize after the first batch of seven or eight reports arrived, all with the same date on them, that the shopper was overdoing it? And e-mailed her immediately, hey, you're out of bounds, you're only supposed to do 3 of these a day? Or is this one of those things done on an app and just sort of disappears into the ether, with no human monitoring/editing?

Thanks; that makes perfect sense.

I'll just add that June 21-26 overlaps a weekend, so based on BVA's current pay schedule, they wouldn't have run payments and noticed until the 25th or 26th.

I love this company and have nothing but kudos for them. I've had a great time working with them and have recruited a number of my friends for this assignment. But, they really should update their website guidelines with their "rules". When I first started this project, I also was churning out assignments, doing 3 or 4 a day, before I was told that I was only supposed to do 3 and only 1 per meal period, but I only knew because I was in contact with them.

Hopefully this next website update will keep this situation from happening again.

They just sent this email out...

"
Hello,



We have come to the end of the first part of our study and thanks again to you, we did well.

The program continues with a new set of rules.



Please kindly note that from now on (SATURDAY JUNE 30TH) :



- The rewards will be treated within 5 business days (we have too many daily surveys to review, to validate and to reward)

- The mode is TAKEOUT only. Even if the questionnaire has not changed, we only need takeout surveys until next notification.

- Some towns are now out of the list (you received an update on June 27th and 28th). No survey will be accepted if you manage to pull some.

- Starting July 2nd, the new job questionnaire will bear the city name, the partner name and the mode as follow:



Atlantic City

USA

NJ

Slice

Take-out

Baltimore

USA

MD

Slice or LevelUp

Take-out



Reminders:



- You still can do more than one job a day but it has to be takeout for both, different partners, different meals, different restaurants

- You still have only 24h to fill out the questionnaire

- The screenshots have to be accurate (checkout mention, name of partner/restaurant on the detailed confirmation email, total amount of expenses, order ID, date and hour of each required steps…)

"

I don't think exact quoted guidelines for an MSC's project should be posted on a public forum....

I'm still not entirely reimbursed, even though my last shop was Tuesday.

@shopsuey wrote:

More importantly: did @eodermatt get paid?

They are not guidelines. Theres more to this that one would need to perform the shops.

@Tarantado wrote:

I don't think exact quoted guidelines for an MSC's project should be posted on a public forum....

Oh, look, what was that rule about not being able to do more than one shop, even if they're in different locations, using different internet sources and/or computers, at different restaurants, and at different times? Can someone tell my scheduler about that bullet (well, that dash symbol)? #RighteousIndignation

@indianyooper wrote:

- You still can do more than one job a day but it has to be takeout for both, different partners, different meals, different restaurants