4 ms·
Indeed. Sounds good in principle, but how do you prevent someone from repeatedly returning items just to hurt a competitor and/or making frivolous defect/warra
by turtlebits 4y ago
Indeed. Sounds good in principle, but how do you prevent someone from repeatedly returning items just to hurt a competitor and/or making frivolous defect/warranty claims against them?
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> how do you prevent someone from repeatedly returning items just to hurt a competitor and/or making frivolous defect/warranty claims against them? Seems like a subset of the fake-review problem. Except with money exchanged, tangible costs to the retailer and more documentation.
- ThePhysicist 4y agoFaking a product defect is probably way harder than just submitting a fake review. Eventually the retailer will notice that something is off as you have to send the product back and it has to be defective. How do you create a plausible warranty defect in a TV, for example?
- truetraveller 4y agoJust break it? I mean the guy is already scamming, go all out.
- _trampeltier 4y agoAnd if it's not warranty, you have to pay it yourself. And you still have to buy the product in the first place.
- minsc_and_boo 4y agoThere are hidden reputation and anti-fraud mechanisms at play in a lot of consumer areas (incentives, reviews, etc.), it would be trivial to apply them to this too. Most fraudulent activity isn't attacking competitors, as it's prohibitively expensive, but instead propping up their own reputation. i.e. Amazon's fake reviews are mostly five-stars.
- truetraveller 4y ago>prohibitively expensive Very inexpensive. Especially when expensive products are involved + few competitors. The ROI is massively good.
- minsc_and_boo 4y agoFor one or two attacks, sure, but at the scales to having impact we're talking prohibitively expensive, especially with antifraud detection whacking the moles.