Naming and Shaming
Discussion
Is it time for a review of the naming and shaming policy? Or, perhaps, the uniform application of it. It seems to apply mostly with regard to car/motoring topics, sometimes in relation to high street outlets and - as the link below points out - never in the case of ebay/paypal
http://www.pistonheads.com/xforums/topic.asp?h=0&a...
http://www.pistonheads.com/xforums/topic.asp?h=0&a...
What is there in that link that relates to Paypal/eBay?
The reality is that the name and shame rule can't be applied in a uniform manner.
Millions of people for instance use BT, 1% of them or whatever may have a less than appealing experience with them and of those 1%, 0.1% may post about it on here. The impact from the voicing of that is significantly different to a small business with a few hundred customers being openly berated.
Also in the case of large companies the issue is generally caused by a failure in process or for some other absolute reason. In the case of the small business the issue is more often than not two sided.
As mods we have to look at each instance on it's own merit.
The reality is that the name and shame rule can't be applied in a uniform manner.
Millions of people for instance use BT, 1% of them or whatever may have a less than appealing experience with them and of those 1%, 0.1% may post about it on here. The impact from the voicing of that is significantly different to a small business with a few hundred customers being openly berated.
Also in the case of large companies the issue is generally caused by a failure in process or for some other absolute reason. In the case of the small business the issue is more often than not two sided.
As mods we have to look at each instance on it's own merit.
Plotloss said:
The reality is that the name and shame rule can't be applied in a uniform manner.
This is the crux of it and I'm grateful for you getting to the point so succinctly.If the rule cannot be applied in a uniform manner should you even have it at all? To apply it only when it suits you does not reflect well on an independant and fair minded organisation.
The rule is there to prevent litigation against PistonHeads.
We can not go and research every N&S on the forums, find out both sides of the argument, get statements from both and then come to a decision whether it would stay or not.
The rule should be provided uniformly, as we are in the same litigation battle regardless, it is just that a bigger company is likely to take it as constructive criticism, while a smaller company would see it as damaging their business.
Libel can destroy a website like PistonHeads, regardless of whether it even was libel or not as the costs to even proceed to court are incredibly high.
If any thread is reported as N&S then, as responsible publishers, we need to act on it. Smaller companies are more likely to report a thread, or users or think that a smaller company is going to be affected by the comments.
We can not go and research every N&S on the forums, find out both sides of the argument, get statements from both and then come to a decision whether it would stay or not.
The rule should be provided uniformly, as we are in the same litigation battle regardless, it is just that a bigger company is likely to take it as constructive criticism, while a smaller company would see it as damaging their business.
Libel can destroy a website like PistonHeads, regardless of whether it even was libel or not as the costs to even proceed to court are incredibly high.
If any thread is reported as N&S then, as responsible publishers, we need to act on it. Smaller companies are more likely to report a thread, or users or think that a smaller company is going to be affected by the comments.
Forums | Website Feedback | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff