Here's the situation...

I completed a Marathon/Arco shop, on a small route in a city about 90 minutes away from me. This location was Arco. Arco is NOT common near me, just a random scattering of locations. We have Marathon branding here.
The pump did NOT have tap to pay so I inserted my card at the pump, receipt even printed. Made my in store purchase and uploaded all my photos.

I get an email my shop is being excluded as I paid for my fuel in the store. ***WHAT????****

I replied to the email, explaining that the pump did not have tap to pay (I had uploaded a photo proving this) and I stood outside in the snow inserting my card, I did NOT pay inside. I included the receipt photo again, commenting that the receipt printed at the pump.

The editor replies that she will do a 'one time' switch of the receipts as the receipt I supposedly uploaded is not the same one I attached to the email.

1. I only made two purchases at this location. So only two pieces of paper were EVER received with this address in the month of December.
2. I've only shopped this location twice EVER, in my entire life. And it definitely wasn't on the same date!
3. Could I have accidently uploaded a receipt from the previous location that day? Most definitely, I'm human. BUT it would not have the correct address AND it would also show a pump purchase, not inside.
4. Could I have uploaded the inside receipt into both slots? Again, I'm human and definitely could have happened BUT the receipt would have been identical with identical transaction numbers, and gas doesn't have a upc number.

I'm being accused of making two fuel purchases (even though my inside receipt shows a upc number for the junk food I purchased)

I requested the editor send me what photo WAS uploaded into the report and she now won't respond to me.

Thoughts?

My thoughts are that I accidently uploaded the in store receipt twice and the editor didn't pay close attention and is now backtracking.

Things like that have happened to me on other brands. Something unusual about the visit that doesn't fit the standard mold, and the editor seemingly doesn't read my explanation, and restates their boiler plate reason of what I did wrong that ignores the facts. It does sting a little, as if they are calling me a liar to my face.

In the end I have to write it off to the fact the editors get paid measly amounts per shop, like a couple of dollars if even, and simply can't afford to pay close attention to things that fall outside the ordinary. They just use boiler plate stuff to get the job out of their queue. Probably in your case it was the inside receipt twice, and they didn't even bother reading your explanantion.

I'll not be repetitive, you guys can just randomly choose a previous, scathing post I've made concerning this MSC.

I have had more problems with the Marathon editor this go around than ever before. And it is just one editor that I am having non stop problems with. The last job she returned for edits I told her to just decline the job because no matter what it will not be to her standards and I was done trying to figure out what she wanted. She wanted me to make notes of the "MULTIPLE" branding infractions at this location. When I pointed out there were no branding infractions all the sudden she denied it for the pump screen because the photo of the fuel pump face does not show the rewards program. They don't offer the rewards programs its a souvenir shop and Dairy Queen I noted that in my report.

The corporate version of this location she wanted to deny because the MID was not in the overall photo. I explained that if I included it I would have to be so far away since it was way past the location that you would not be able to see the location. She said I should have noted it in the report, but there was no place to note it. At this point I think she is on a power trip and maybe gets paid for each time she looks at the report versus ones she actually edits and submits.

Sadly this will make me seriously reconsider doing Marathons in the future. I'm sure there are new people out there who are willing to do them and then figure out what a pain the editors can be and never do them again.

Cindy posts--The last job she returned for edits I told her to just decline the job because no matter what it will not be to her standards and I was done trying to figure out what she wanted.

Bob comments--7 yrs. ago, I had an identical situation and responded as did Cindy.. To my surprise, the shop was accepted, I was paid and I never heard another peep from that editor.

When such a problem exists, a shopper can either spend time and suffer aggravation, with zero guarantee of success, or reply as did Cindy and move on to other work .

That was my exact thought. This was not a hill worth dying on. I was fed up and frustrated and I truly think the editor was on a power kick and enjoying every minute of the jobs she returned. Most were for non existent infractions such as dirty canopies that were not dirty. So I started marking every single canopy as dirty just out of spite.

@cindycribbs wrote:

That was my exact thought. This was not a hill worth dying on. I was fed up and frustrated and I truly think the editor was on a power kick and enjoying every minute of the jobs she returned. Most were for non existent infractions such as dirty canopies that were not dirty. So I started marking every single canopy as dirty just out of spite.

Whe I get those, I mark the canopy as dirty and then submit a photo of a pristine canopy.

I've completely stopped doing Marathons because of this editor and the program manager. Now no one is doing them in my city. Doubt that is a coincidence! The shops are currently sitting at a +$40 Bonus for all 20 in my market. And sit there they will. I tried to have a civil conversation with the program manager about what was going wrong here, and she was, well, not fit to print.

Oh wow. Rhis us insane.

Cindy,

It seems we've shared an editor.. 2 locations same complaint, can't see this or that.. one was a canopy on the opposite side of the building. The location has 2 MIDs, so I got a picture of the MIDs and the rest of the site, but you can't see the other canopy. My choices were either both canopies, or both MIDs, there is absolutely no way to get all 4. And I explained it to her in an email. I got a 10 on the shop. The second one has a gas canopy and a diesel canopy, and the MID is behind the building on the opposite side from the diesel canopy, I explained that my choices were the diesel canopy or the MID, it can't be both, she gave me an 8 on that one.

By that time I think she fingered out that I wasn't going to put up with her nonsense, and I got 10 on all of the other stations.


Cassie, the MSC has already been named.. hint hint

Yes, looks like the OP changed the thread topic since Marathon/Arco was named in her original post.

Yep! I was so livid about being accused of lying I forgot about the rule.

@Cassiespark wrote:

Yes, looks like the OP changed the thread topic since Marathon/Arco was named in her original post.

All good with me, and frankly I didn't even notice. Was just responding to Morledzop who for some reason though i was in charge of what you posted here.

I'd venture there are about no people on here who don't know which MSC has this client and more importantly, can identify with what you posted. This team on this client as this MSC is one of the worst I've even encountered. Too bad!

@viv0412 wrote:

Yep! I was so livid about being accused of lying I forgot about the rule.

@Cassiespark wrote:

Yes, looks like the OP changed the thread topic since Marathon/Arco was named in her original post.

@Cassiespark wrote:

All good with me, and frankly I didn't even notice. Was just responding to Morledzop who for some reason though i was in charge of what you posted here.

I'd venture there are about no people on here who don't know which MSC has this client and more importantly, can identify with what you posted. This team on this client as this MSC is one of the worst I've even encountered. Too bad!

No Cassie, actually, I didn't notice viv's mistake, I noticed that you mentioned the gas staion, and that viv had named the MSC in the title. I'd make a lousy editor..