3 ms·
I think even allowing changes from V1 to V2 while keeping reviews is pretty bad. It's not unheard of for hardware manufacturers to release a higher quality prod
by AlexandrB 3y ago
I think even allowing changes from V1 to V2 while keeping reviews is pretty bad. It's not unheard of for hardware manufacturers to release a higher quality product initially and then "cost optimize" it to suck later. A good example is hard drives and SMR[1].
Why not allow linking back to the V1 version and its reviews from the V2 so shoppers can judge for themselves instead of having one take the place of the other?
[1] https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/04/caveat-emptor-smr-disks-are-being-submarined-into-unexpected-channels/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/04/caveat-emptor-smr-di...
- heavyset_go 3y agoThis is why I think a new listing per SKU requirement would be great. You also see this happen with retailers, where manufacturers work with retailers to build exclusive cheaper versions of existing products that use those products' names and packaging. You end up with situation where the Walmart version of your specific product is actually different than the ones sold everywhere else.
- willis936 3y agoThen they just lie about the SKU. There is no rulemaking that will replace the need for more audits. Someone somewhere is accountable and if their illegal practices are made unprofitable the problem will go away.
- heavyset_go 3y agoDefinitely, the rule about SKUs is not enough at all.