(PENDING)Phonesafe, Beware!!!!!
Discussion
TankRizzo said:
ali_kat said:
A link away = still clearly laid out that only a fool would miss
Everyone knows calls from mobiles are more expensive
Really? As I've said before - if a blonde female knows that it's going to cost £££ surely the rest of PH will!
You seem intent on calling everyone fools and making out that you're smarter than most buyers - do you actually have anything meaningful to contribute to this thread?Everyone knows calls from mobiles are more expensive
Really? As I've said before - if a blonde female knows that it's going to cost £££ surely the rest of PH will!
Guess it's a draw then.
http://www.pistonheads.com/classifieds/used-cars/l... - there is no way the phonesafe button on that page looks like a link, so a high % of people are not going to realise it can be clicked for more info.
If you used that exact tactic on an 09 number there is no way you'd get away with it. So I suppose the only difference is whether 070 numbers come under the same rules.
If you used that exact tactic on an 09 number there is no way you'd get away with it. So I suppose the only difference is whether 070 numbers come under the same rules.
Podie said:
And everyone else seems intent on blaming someone else for the fact they didn't take responsibility.
Guess it's a draw then.
Well, let's look at the facts.Guess it's a draw then.
1. There are people in this thread who were misled by a link where the terms were not set out transparently.
2. There are quite a few people in many other forums who have had the same experience. A brief Google shows this.
3. PH has acknowledged the problem and will be correcting the display to explain the terms more clearly. They have seemingly admitted fault by issuing a refund as a goodwill gesture.
I'm all for taking responsibility, but you are conflating a lack of it with the seemingly deliberate obfuscation of the terms of the service.
So not "a draw" at all then.
KFC said:
http://www.pistonheads.com/classifieds/used-cars/l... - there is no way the phonesafe button on that page looks like a link, so a high % of people are not going to realise it can be clicked for more info.
If you used that exact tactic on an 09 number there is no way you'd get away with it. So I suppose the only difference is whether 070 numbers come under the same rules.
Looking at the picture below, you say you cannot tell that it's a link?If you used that exact tactic on an 09 number there is no way you'd get away with it. So I suppose the only difference is whether 070 numbers come under the same rules.
TankRizzo said:
You seem intent on calling everyone fools and making out that you're smarter than most buyers - do you actually have anything meaningful to contribute to this thread?
I haven't called anyone a fool, but if the cap fits 
On the contrary as I'm blonde & female I'm saying that the Gentlemen have 2 advantages over me; yet I can see the link, read the costs & tell that it's going to cost me money. That doesn't make me more intelligent than anyone else - as I point out, quite the opposite!
ali_kat said:
I haven't called anyone a fool, but if the cap fits
On the contrary as I'm blonde & female I'm saying that the Gentlemen have 2 advantages over me; yet I can see the link, read the costs & tell that it's going to cost me money. That doesn't make me more intelligent than anyone else - as I point out, quite the opposite!
Yes, I get that you can tell it's a link. No problem with that. I, however, couldn't at first glance, and I like to think of myself as reasonably intelligent (although I'm sure my wife would disagree!).On the contrary as I'm blonde & female I'm saying that the Gentlemen have 2 advantages over me; yet I can see the link, read the costs & tell that it's going to cost me money. That doesn't make me more intelligent than anyone else - as I point out, quite the opposite!
Regardless of who gets it or not, a lot of people seem to have been misled by it. That alone would call for a change - which PH are putting in place.
TankRizzo said:
Podie said:
And everyone else seems intent on blaming someone else for the fact they didn't take responsibility.
Guess it's a draw then.
Well, let's look at the facts.Guess it's a draw then.
1. There are people in this thread who were misled by a link where the terms were not set out transparently.
2. There are quite a few people in many other forums who have had the same experience. A brief Google shows this.
3. PH has acknowledged the problem and will be correcting the display to explain the terms more clearly. They have seemingly admitted fault by issuing a refund as a goodwill gesture.
I'm all for taking responsibility, but you are conflating a lack of it with the seemingly deliberate obfuscation of the terms of the service.
So not "a draw" at all then.
3) As for the changes - well in any other thread on here it'd be called "dumbing down" by the majority. I am told by the legal bod at the desk opposite that a "goodwill gesture" is not admitting fault. A subtle, but important distinction.
Sorry chap, but I can't agree with you or the majority here. There is an obvious logo and the first thing I did when I encountered it was to establish why it was there. Then again, I'm the sort of person that actually reads small print - once bitten, twice shy and all that.
Podie said:
1 & 2) As with most things, you will only ever find complaints - so there is going to be little in the way of balance to show those who were not misled.
3) As for the changes - well in any other thread on here it'd be called "dumbing down" by the majority. I am told by the legal bod at the desk opposite that a "goodwill gesture" is not admitting fault. A subtle, but important distinction.
Sorry chap, but I can't agree with you or the majority here. There is an obvious logo and the first thing I did when I encountered it was to establish why it was there. Then again, I'm the sort of person that actually reads small print - once bitten, twice shy and all that.
Fair enough, fella. I don't think I'd have spotted it without a much closer look, but different strokes...3) As for the changes - well in any other thread on here it'd be called "dumbing down" by the majority. I am told by the legal bod at the desk opposite that a "goodwill gesture" is not admitting fault. A subtle, but important distinction.
Sorry chap, but I can't agree with you or the majority here. There is an obvious logo and the first thing I did when I encountered it was to establish why it was there. Then again, I'm the sort of person that actually reads small print - once bitten, twice shy and all that.
ali_kat said:
KFC said:
http://www.pistonheads.com/classifieds/used-cars/l... - there is no way the phonesafe button on that page looks like a link, so a high % of people are not going to realise it can be clicked for more info.
If you used that exact tactic on an 09 number there is no way you'd get away with it. So I suppose the only difference is whether 070 numbers come under the same rules.
Looking at the picture below, you say you cannot tell that it's a link?If you used that exact tactic on an 09 number there is no way you'd get away with it. So I suppose the only difference is whether 070 numbers come under the same rules.
Prior to this I was under the impression that it's a call to a mobile number, there is no information present at the time of call to warn me there will be additional costs.
And yes, I've spent all morning designing user interfaces ensuring that the information the user needs is present at precisely the point they need it
ali_kat said:
Looking at the picture below, you say you cannot tell that it's a link?
Me personally? I understand how to at least check if its a link (by hovering the mouse over it). But then I'd be expected to know... I do this for a living.If someone had designed that for me I'd be sending it back and telling them to do it properly. Unless the job description in the first place was to make a link that wasn't to look like one / wasn't to be clicked if possible...
KFC said:
ali_kat said:
Looking at the picture below, you say you cannot tell that it's a link?
Me personally? I understand how to at least check if its a link (by hovering the mouse over it). But then I'd be expected to know... I do this for a living.If someone had designed that for me I'd be sending it back and telling them to do it properly. Unless the job description in the first place was to make a link that wasn't to look like one / wasn't to be clicked if possible...
Generally, images are not links these days, apart from in dated websites, oh.
Podie said:
It's a commercial website - on what grounds do you not EXPECT them to make money? The days of it being run from a shed are long gone.
I'm waiting for the subsequent thread where someone complains they're selling a car and they keep getting canvassers...
I've got no problem with Haymarket getting a return on their investment and recognise it's run by a corporate that's run for the benefit of it's shareholders.I'm waiting for the subsequent thread where someone complains they're selling a car and they keep getting canvassers...
However that investment is to a large extent into the user base and they'd be wise not to treat it with too much contempt as the internet is a fickle place.
Furthermore when dealing as a consumer with an established company in the UK I take as given some basic degree of honesty. They've known for 5 years that people are being misled and have chosen to leave things as they are even when they redesigned the classifieds. The fix many suggest - to simply state the calls are at a premium on the advert - is trivial fix itself anyway. It's a deliberate ploy to mislead. A vague 'phonesafe' badge doesn't tell anyone anything.
Going back to your Nigerian email scammer analogy, presumably PH would be the Nigerian Scammer in this case. You wouldn't think said scammer is in the wrong for taking advantage of someone's lack of savvy?
rpguk said:
Going back to your Nigerian email scammer analogy, presumably PH would be the Nigerian Scammer in this case. You wouldn't think said scammer is in the wrong for taking advantage of someone's lack of savvy?
My point is, if you don't know you don't click on something. I don't see phoning is any different.I got a call from Santander the other day, the missus took it and they wanted me to phone back on an 05 number. She told them to write to me. Did I phone them back? No. Have they written to me? No. Can't have been important then (or legit?).
Clearly I have issues trusting people...
10 Pence Short said:
but I imagine you knew the costs to the consumer before you put the service in place
Really? I very much doubt that this is the case - there are hundreds of mobile providers in the UK (including all the MVNOs etc) each of which can apply whatever price they like for termination of calls to 070 numbers. Some of them (eg Orange) who've done hundreds of different price match tariffs in the past probably bill different sets of subscribers different amounts for such calls anyway.Also - where do you draw the line? Should you include subscribers of the channel Islands operators (JT, Sure, Wave, Aritel, Manx Telecom)? What about those people calling from abroad?
Jakdaw said:
Really? I very much doubt that this is the case - there are hundreds of mobile providers in the UK (including all the MVNOs etc) each of which can apply whatever price they like for termination of calls to 070 numbers. Some of them (eg Orange) who've done hundreds of different price match tariffs in the past probably bill different sets of subscribers different amounts for such calls anyway.
Also - where do you draw the line? Should you include subscribers of the channel Islands operators (JT, Sure, Wave, Aritel, Manx Telecom)? What about those people calling from abroad?
This, very much. At a former job we did some wholesale line provisioning for some of our customers - it was just impossible to figure out the pricing of a call in advance - the original plan was a nice simple price list that anyone could understand. We gave up and just promised our customers it would be cost + markup.Also - where do you draw the line? Should you include subscribers of the channel Islands operators (JT, Sure, Wave, Aritel, Manx Telecom)? What about those people calling from abroad?
When you have a situation where the charges from providers will vary and it's impractical to list them precisely, common practice seems to be words to the effect "Mobile calls will be more expensive and may vary".
If you are unconnected with Pistonheads and previously unaware of what PhoneSafe is, the little logo in an advert does nothing and it's very easy to assume the 07xxx number is a mobile number that has somehow been vetted.
Whilst some people on here may be savvy enough to know what an 070 number is, not everyone is as such.
All people seem to be suggesting is that buyers' attention is drawn to the fact that the PhoneSafe logo indicates that it is not a generic landline or mobile number and it will cost you more than making a normal call. Ultimately, as I have said earlier, if you make a 10 minute phonecall to discuss an advertised car, you currently may end up miffed with an £8 or £9+ bill not credited against your minutes allowance. This is not good for long terms business.
The fix for PH is more or less free and, if you are all right about how people understand it and don't mind paying, it will have minimal impact on revenue. So what's stopping them?
If you are unconnected with Pistonheads and previously unaware of what PhoneSafe is, the little logo in an advert does nothing and it's very easy to assume the 07xxx number is a mobile number that has somehow been vetted.
Whilst some people on here may be savvy enough to know what an 070 number is, not everyone is as such.
All people seem to be suggesting is that buyers' attention is drawn to the fact that the PhoneSafe logo indicates that it is not a generic landline or mobile number and it will cost you more than making a normal call. Ultimately, as I have said earlier, if you make a 10 minute phonecall to discuss an advertised car, you currently may end up miffed with an £8 or £9+ bill not credited against your minutes allowance. This is not good for long terms business.
The fix for PH is more or less free and, if you are all right about how people understand it and don't mind paying, it will have minimal impact on revenue. So what's stopping them?
I've heard this argument for a while now. Its the first time I've bothered to have a look.
I must admit, I don't click on anything I dont want to. I dont know who phonesafe are, therefor the last thing I want to do is click on a link to their webpage and risk incurring a virus.
That doesn't look like a link though, to me just looks like an advert for some garbage. There's plenty of adverts all over PH at the moment.
And the phone number starting with 07. The majority of mobile numbers I call start with 07.
Looks like blatant misleading moneymaking scam to me. At least this thread has made me aware of this trick.
Shameful though. How hard is it to make it more visible to the public? Not hard really. But then you wouldn't make money from it, would you?
I must admit, I don't click on anything I dont want to. I dont know who phonesafe are, therefor the last thing I want to do is click on a link to their webpage and risk incurring a virus.
That doesn't look like a link though, to me just looks like an advert for some garbage. There's plenty of adverts all over PH at the moment.
And the phone number starting with 07. The majority of mobile numbers I call start with 07.
Looks like blatant misleading moneymaking scam to me. At least this thread has made me aware of this trick.
Shameful though. How hard is it to make it more visible to the public? Not hard really. But then you wouldn't make money from it, would you?
Gassing Station | Website Feedback | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff