I have not worked for this company a few times before. I accepted a bar and dinner in a very high priced hotel. The scenario was for myself and a quest to sit at the bar and then move to a table for dinner. However, the bar was full, only five seats , so we sat at a bar small table. We did all that was required during the meal. When I submitted my report , over 200 questions, 24 hrs after, it was rejected as it was not in their usual wording. They made me go back and sit at the bar which I did. Mind you this hotel is a 30 minute drive from my home. When I returned I redid the survey and it was rejected again. They kept giving me extra time and samples of what they wanted. Like how many minutes before you got the appetizer and then how many minutes to main meal. I have a college degree and been doing stores for another company for two years with never a problem. I worked on the survey for 9 hours and the trips were about 3 hrs. And the bills were over $200 with their permission. Still rejected ...so I said I am wealthy enough to absorb the dollars and I was done.
What is so ironic about this nonsense of must conforming to exact way of writing, I saw the bartender stealing from the house. He did not ring up a tab as the person gave him a large cash tip not to.
WOULDN'T THAT BE MORE IMPORTANT TO THE CLIENT THAN THE STYLE OF HOW THE FORM WAS FILED OUT. WISH I COULD TELL YOU THE NAME OF THE COMPANY BUT I SEE NO ONE DOES.

OP:
I have a couple of observations.
1. I fully understand why the visit was rejected the first time: You stated that the requirements were that you sit at the bar and you sat at a table. Especially if bar integrity is a part of the audit, this would be an automatic rejection of the shop. You cannot change the guidelines if you find them inconvenient. If the bar is full, you leave and come back later - or you wait if possible/reasonable.

2. I recognize that we are on a social media site and it is perfectly acceptable to not use perfect grammar here. However, if the MSC is complaining about your "writing style," I have to make this observation: Your grammar and syntax in your post is very rough - to the point that it is difficult to understand what you are saying. If you wrote something like this for a narrative-heavy report, almost any MSC is going to reject it - especially if you are describing something as serious as theft. I am assuming that your writing for the report was more clear than your post, but, since you said that MSC did not like your "writing style," this seemed relevant.

3. Every MSC has different expectations and requirements. Some are very strict about writing style and formatting. Others are not. It sounds like this MSC tried to help you to conform to what they wanted, but, for whatever reason, you could not get onto the same page as them. It sounds like you and this MSC are simply not a fit. There is not shame in that: Anybody who has been shopping for a while has run into MSC's with which they don't work real well.

It does stink that you did the visit twice and are out the money (and time!!) for each meal. I'm just glad that you are able to afford it.

Seems some companies cannot extend their rules when one is in the right, no seats, no seating at the bar. You could (next time) go earlier to get a seat, or perhaps stand behind someone, however, most will let you sit at a table until a seat becomes available. I had a similar situation, they wanted me to evaluate the bartender, (which was not in the instructions) as I was doing a dining room dinner only, and being I had a 15+ minute wait, I did look into the bar which was mobbed, no standing room let alone seats to wait the eventual 30 minutes, or even see the bartender due to the darkness of the area. I waited in the waiting room in the front. My report (1st. time) was declined after a couple hours of work. I do not take blame for this, and feel they should be a bit forgiving if one cannot get to the bar due to crowds ,congestion and the fact it wasn't a bar evaluation.

Working on your report nine hours and going back tells me you are a serious shopper, sorry for your loss, both money and time.

Coyle?

@MFJohnston wrote:

OP:
I have a couple of observations.
1. I fully understand why the visit was rejected the first time: You stated that the requirements were that you sit at the bar and you sat at a table. Especially if bar integrity is a part of the audit, this would be an automatic rejection of the shop. You cannot change the guidelines if you find them inconvenient. If the bar is full, you leave and come back later - or you wait if possible/reasonable.

2. I recognize that we are on a social media site and it is perfectly acceptable to not use perfect grammar here. However, if the MSC is complaining about your "writing style," I have to make this observation: Your grammar and syntax in your post is very rough - to the point that it is difficult to understand what you are saying. If you wrote something like this for a narrative-heavy report, almost any MSC is going to reject it - especially if you are describing something as serious as theft. I am assuming that your writing for the report was more clear than your post, but, since you said that MSC did not like your "writing style," this seemed relevant.

3. Every MSC has different expectations and requirements. Some are very strict about writing style and formatting. Others are not. It sounds like this MSC tried to help you to conform to what they wanted, but, for whatever reason, you could not get onto the same page as them. It sounds like you and this MSC are simply not a fit. There is not shame in that: Anybody who has been shopping for a while has run into MSC's with which they don't work real well.

It does stink that you did the visit twice and are out the money (and time!!) for each meal. I'm just glad that you are able to afford it.

You are back at it. You are belittling and humiliating someone for your own twisted enjoyment. Don't play dumb and say you can't see that!

@Sobrokeigot2dothis wrote:

You are back at it. You are belittling and humiliating someone for your own twisted enjoyment. Don't play dumb and say you can't see that!

You are again picking on a forum member for responding to request for help. You are belittling and attempting to humiliate MFJ for responding to a request for help from a new forum member. MFJ's response was sensitive but straight-forward and to the point. It was well-thought-out, and, if the OP truly wants to understand her problem, MFJ has clearly laid out the reasons for her difficulty with the MSC.

On the opposite side, your post offers NO help to the OP. If you are only here to look for opportunities to bully others instead of giving useful information to help others, why bother?

Sobrokeigot2dothis 6m states concerning MF Johnston--You are back at it. You are belittling and humiliating someone for your own twisted enjoyment. Don't play dumb and say you can't see that!

Bob's comment--I well realize each individual's personal interpretation can be predicated upon their personality, but, after reading MFJ's post, it is, in my opinion, concise, considerate and, most importantly, accurate. Folks, this is business! A bar assignment is exactly what it states. I complete several of these shops each month and either arrive early or late, but should I ever be faced with a full bar, my choices are to flake, wait or leave and return. As to syntax, I also was unable to understand the OP.

Work that requires extensive narrative is not for everyone. As an example, I tried fine dining in the last decade and quickly decided the time necessary to report the job far exceeded my reward. As I do not enjoy fast food, I am a shopper of casual dining and that works quite well for me.

@Sobrokeigot2dothis
If you cannot speak truth to people, you'll never be able to help them. I recognize that you think we should always side with shoppers, even when they are wrong, but that does nothing more than harm them as shoppers. If a shopper is clearly looking at something from an unproductive angle, it benefits them to be pointed in a different direction.

The OP had a shop rejected twice and the reasons, from the OP's own account, were clear. We could tell the OP that the MSC is wrong (and lead him/her to repeat the mistake), or we could point out why the MSC rejected the report so that the OP does not repeat the error - and lose more money. The OP said s/he could afford the loss, but too much bad advice could lead him/her to be SoBroke... That's not helpful to anybody.

Yeah - and that forum name is already taken.

@MFJohnston wrote:

@Sobrokeigot2dothis
too much bad advice could lead him/her to be SoBroke... That's not helpful to anybody.

@Manhattanista
That sounds very frustrating. So often things don't unfold as I expect.

I might have thought it okay to sit at a table to observe the bar, having rarely done these.
Now, that I have read these comments I have learned that is most likely not acceptable to the client. That is the great thing about this forum. So much to learn.

@shopperbob wrote:

Sobrokeigot2dothis 6m states concerning MF Johnston--You are back at it. You are belittling and humiliating someone for your own twisted enjoyment. Don't play dumb and say you can't see that!

Bob's comment--I well realize each individual's personal interpretation can be predicated upon their personality, but, after reading MFJ's post, it is, in my opinion, concise, considerate and, most importantly, accurate. Folks, this is business! A bar assignment is exactly what it states. I complete several of these shops each month and either arrive early or late, but should I ever be faced with a full bar, my choices are to flake, wait or leave and return. As to syntax, I also was unable to understand the OP.

Work that requires extensive narrative is not for everyone. As an example, I tried fine dining in the last decade and quickly decided the time necessary to report the job far exceeded my reward. As I do not enjoy fast food, I am a shopper of casual dining and that works quite well for me.

That poor woman posted in this forum for the first time ever and she was greeted by a pack of internet bullies who proceeded to attack her for simple spelling and grammar errors or any other two bit thing they could come up with. We don't need the spelling police on the internet people so get over that. Another thing we are mystery shoppers not professionals. These mystery shopping companies and schedulers send out e-mails by the dozens everyday that are full of spelling and punctuation errors. Get off your fake pedestals and get real!

@Sobrokeigot2dothis wrote:

Another thing we are ... not professionals

Speak for yourself.

Being a "professional" is being invested in doing good work and looking to improve at your craft, whatever it might be. It also includes conducting yourself in a way that garners respect. Not one of us is perfect, but some of us strive to improve ourselves in this and other endeavors and try to conduct ourselves with dignity and integrity.

I'm glad spicy is all up in MFJs jock instead of mine these days.

You can have her back.

@bgriffin wrote:

I'm glad spicy is all up in MFJs jock instead of mine these days.

Now her targets are MFJ and ceasesmith. argumentum ad hominem

@MFJohnston wrote:

You can have her back.

@bgriffin wrote:

I'm glad spicy is all up in MFJs jock instead of mine these days.

Thanks but no thanks

Actually it sounds more like shoptastic than spicy.

It does have kind of a whiny tone to it, but shoptastic liked to attack those who had posted in response to her posts. The spicy modus operandi has always been to cruise the forum and attack posters for their responses to others, calling them bullies. These seem to be very spicy posts.

I normally stay out of debates on here when they don't directly involve myself, but I have to say that I don't see the issue here with what MFJ said.

1. He's correct. If the guidelines tell you to visit the bar, you have to visit the bar. If there isn't seating, you have to either wait, contact your scheduler, or assume that maybe you are paying for your own meal that night.

2. Also correct. This is work, not all just fun. Companies are shopped for a reason, and they use these reports. If a client sees that the MSC is using shoppers that cannot use the basic forms of spelling and grammar, how are they to believe this person is capable of simple observations, or thorough in their observations? MFJ even went as far as to differentiate that we are on social media here, so perhaps the OP is more lax here than on her reports. But, when the OP admits that the MSC had an issue with his/her "writing style", you wonder if those misspellings and incorrect grammar on here are habits that come out in reports also.

3. Nail on the head. Different companies want different things, and will try to groom you before they just stop working with you. As MFJ said, there is no shame if you can't meet their expectations. Nobody ever meets everyone's expectations.

I think this was all very straightforward and extremely helpful. Not at all offensive, or demeaning.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/22/2019 03:34PM by KSSPete.

@KSSPete
Note: MFJ is a "he" not a "she."

Yeah, I was going to correct Pete but MFJ beat me to it. I thought MFJ was polite but very matter-of-fact in his post. If I were the OP I would not take offense to what he had said. MFJ goes out of his way frequently to help other forum members and provide helpful advice. Anyone who does a little digging to read the history of his other posts will see that.

I agree with MF's post, and with Pete's post.

Furthermore, I would like to add that the MSC seems to have bent over backward to help this shopper complete the assignment correctly. Not every MSC will do that!

I also feel the shopper did (her?) best.

Like someone already said, sometimes an MSC and a shopper just aren't a good "fit".

And MANY of us are PROFESSIONALS.

Good point. Shoptastic only responded to her own attacks, not someone else's.

@roflwofl wrote:

It does have kind of a whiny tone to it, but shoptastic liked to attack those who had posted in response to her posts. The spicy modus operandi has always been to cruise the forum and attack posters for their responses to others, calling them bullies. These seem to be very spicy posts.

I should say "perceived" attacks.

Which was basically anyone who ever replied to anything she posted.

Besides, shoptastic would write 10000 word responses.

ROTFLMAO

When she wasn't particularly wordy you mean....

Only if your reply did not agree with her post.

@bgriffin wrote:

Which was basically anyone who ever replied to anything she posted.

Oh I'm fairly certain she has been attacked in her mind by people agreeing!