5 ms·

>Why is "we made a mistake, we're offering to fix it" not enough? Because I don't want to have to waste my time trying to drum up media attention when it happe

>Why is "we made a mistake, we're offering to fix it" not enough? Because I don't want to have to waste my time trying to drum up media attention when it happens to me. >What more could they say? Explain how this mistake happened in the first place, and what they are doing to prevent it from happening again. It doesn't help me that I may be able to publicly shame them into giving me an RMA. I want to know that I will, 100% for certain get an RMA without having to jump through hoops. >It was a simple human error. Customer service agent was wrong about the policy How do you know this? Who says it isn't policy to reject RMAs when another OS has been installed, and they only back down if someone creates a scene? Given those two possibilities, they need to demonstrate that it really was just a mistake, and that they are training their staff so it doesn't happen again. It isn't like this is an easy mistake to make.

eropple 14y ago
>It was a simple human error. Customer service agent was wrong about the policy How do you know this? Personally, I know this because they've never given me a word of trouble on an RMA when I've done this, and Newegg's record is so staggeringly positive that I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. It feels like you're making a mountain out of a molehill here (it sort of reads like you have an axe to grind about them, but I'm not going to accuse you of it without proof), but as far as I'm concerned, Newegg has the credibility to leave it at "we screwed up, it's fixed" unless it reoccurs.
- papsosouid 14y ago
  >It feels like you're making a mountain out of a molehill here (it sort of reads like you have an axe to grind about them, but I'm not going to accuse you of it without proof) That is an accusation, trying to backhandedly hide it behind "I'm not going to do exactly what I am doing right now" is just as disingenuous as people who say things like "not to be a dick, but ..." as they proceed to be a dick. >but as far as I'm concerned, Newegg has the credibility to leave it at "we screwed up, it's fixed" unless it reoccurs. That's wonderful for you. How does it follow then that everyone else should also just accept your belief in them on blind faith? The question was "why is this not good enough?". I explained why. Your personal lack of concern is not relevant, given that the question is addressed to people who are concerned. Your opinion does not negate others' and no amount of random people saying "I like them still" will address the actual concerns I pointed out.
  - shabble 14y ago
    Moving rapidly off-topic: That is an accusation, trying to backhandedly hide it behind "I'm not going to do exactly what I am doing right now" is just as disingenuous as people who say things like "not to be a dick, but ..." as they proceed to be a dick http://www.virtualsalt.com/rhetoric4.htm#Apophasis http://www.virtualsalt.com/rhetoric4.htm#Apophasis I'm often surprised by discovering certain rhetorical devices that are old and widely spread enough to have their own name.
  - eropple 14y ago
    > That is an accusation, trying to backhandedly hide it behind "I'm not going to do exactly what I am doing right now" is just as disingenuous as people who say things like "not to be a dick, but ..." as they proceed to be a dick. No, I'm saying that you sound like you have an axe to grind. I don't know if you do. Do you? Whether yes or no, your post still sounded like you did. If I thought you had an axe to grind with them, with evidence, I'd have said so. Given your continued posting in the same tone it's difficult to tell whether you're just inherently hostile, have a general "business bad" mindset, or specifically dislike Newegg, but at this point it certainly does seem like you've got an axe to grind with somebody. Nobody acts like you're acting without at least some reason. > That's wonderful for you. How does it follow then that everyone else should also just accept your belief in them on blind faith? The question was "why is this not good enough?". I explained why. The standards you expect Newegg to reach are absolutely insane given their size and the triviality of this issue[1]--and that, given the very widespread amount of goodwill toward the company, that you're absolutely flying off the handle. And that the ridiculous standards you want them to meet are a large part of why it sounds like you've got a personal beef with them. [1] - I mean, c'mon--as stated elsewhere in the thread, the original complainant went public while Newegg was dealing with the RMA appeal. They have a process if you think a RMA was denied in error (I've used it before, and they got it right). If they'd said no to that, I would give the complainant significantly more weight, but given that Newegg has a nearly-universally-positive public opinion in geek circles, it reads like a huge stretch to paint this as some gigantic failure rather than an individual issue of process. Getting the pitchforks and torches out before confirming malice is stupid.
    - 14y ago
- rndmize 14y ago
  I agree. I've never had any problems with newegg, they were ahead of the game as far as shipping/order speeds for a long time, and the times I've had products that had problems they were replaced efficiently. Newegg has been the standard for computer gear since I started building machines, and I've never heard anything but praise for them.
km3k 14y ago
>Who says it isn't policy to reject RMAs when another OS has been installed, and they only back down if someone creates a scene? This is a valid concern. Their policy for return shipping is that the customer pays for return shipping on an RMA unless you ask a customer service agent for a free shipping label. If you ask, you get it, without any special requirements.
colanderman 14y ago
> Because I don't want to have to waste my time trying to drum up media attention when it happens to me. You could just e-mail customer service with a link to this article.
- papsosouid 14y ago
  Which is supposed to accomplish what? If they are actually refusing RMAs deliberately, then privately pointing out that they shouldn't isn't going to do anything.
  - colanderman 14y ago
    But privately pointing out that "I know I can make a fuss like this guy so let's just save each other some time and cut to the point" very well might.
DanielStraight 14y ago
> How do you know this? I don't. You are right that it could be policy. It just seems that the Occam's Razor explanation is human error. I disagree about the ease of making the mistake. I think it is a very easy mistake to make. Customer service agents deal with tons of emails. They probably also deal with tons of emails where the customer has legitimately done something to warrant not taking the machine back (like say, dropping it in the bath tub). If you don't hear about Linux often (and most people don't), don't know the details of reinstalling OSes (something customer service agents are unlikely trained on), it's easy to think the customer has gone too far. You spend 2 minutes on the email (so you can get through them all), send it on its way and never give it a second thought. I think it's an easy mistake to make because I make stupid mistakes all the time. Where I work, some users have a certain network path mapped as a drive letter and some don't. Yet even after making the mistake several times before, I still sometimes send emails to users who don't have it mapped referencing the drive letter instead of network path, only to hear back from them that my link doesn't work. You want 100% certainty it won't happen again, but nothing is ever 100%. The best they can do is increase the number of 9's. Zero tolerance for errors simply doesn't work. I will admit, however, that my tendency is to give the benefit of the doubt, so I could be biased here.
- papsosouid 14y ago
  >You want 100% certainty it won't happen again, but nothing is ever 100% No, I didn't say that at all. I want a reasonable assurance. Going "oops, nevermind" after a public outcry doesn't give me reasonable assurance. Saying "one of our support staff made an error, and we have decided to improve our training materials so that our support staff will know what an operating system is in the future" would give me reasonable assurance. And I would be totally fine with that, even though I have no way of knowing they actually did change their training. I would gladly give them the benefit of the doubt. The problem is not that I assume they are bad when they are trying to be good, it is that they are offering me no information at all, so I have to assume it would be risky to deal with them.
  - DanielStraight 14y ago
    What about "one of our support staff made an error and we are doing absolutely nothing about it because stuff happens"? That, to me, is what seems like the reasonable respond from Newegg, but I don't think anyone would want to hear that.

eropple 14y ago

>It was a simple human error. Customer service agent was wrong about the policy How do you know this? Personally, I know this because they've never given me a word of trouble on an RMA when I've done this, and Newegg's record is so staggeringly positive that I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. It feels like you're making a mountain out of a molehill here (it sort of reads like you have an axe to grind about them, but I'm not going to accuse you of it without proof), but as far as I'm concerned, Newegg has the credibility to leave it at "we screwed up, it's fixed" unless it reoccurs.

papsosouid 14y ago
>It feels like you're making a mountain out of a molehill here (it sort of reads like you have an axe to grind about them, but I'm not going to accuse you of it without proof) That is an accusation, trying to backhandedly hide it behind "I'm not going to do exactly what I am doing right now" is just as disingenuous as people who say things like "not to be a dick, but ..." as they proceed to be a dick. >but as far as I'm concerned, Newegg has the credibility to leave it at "we screwed up, it's fixed" unless it reoccurs. That's wonderful for you. How does it follow then that everyone else should also just accept your belief in them on blind faith? The question was "why is this not good enough?". I explained why. Your personal lack of concern is not relevant, given that the question is addressed to people who are concerned. Your opinion does not negate others' and no amount of random people saying "I like them still" will address the actual concerns I pointed out.
- shabble 14y ago
  Moving rapidly off-topic: That is an accusation, trying to backhandedly hide it behind "I'm not going to do exactly what I am doing right now" is just as disingenuous as people who say things like "not to be a dick, but ..." as they proceed to be a dick http://www.virtualsalt.com/rhetoric4.htm#Apophasis http://www.virtualsalt.com/rhetoric4.htm#Apophasis I'm often surprised by discovering certain rhetorical devices that are old and widely spread enough to have their own name.
- eropple 14y ago
  > That is an accusation, trying to backhandedly hide it behind "I'm not going to do exactly what I am doing right now" is just as disingenuous as people who say things like "not to be a dick, but ..." as they proceed to be a dick. No, I'm saying that you sound like you have an axe to grind. I don't know if you do. Do you? Whether yes or no, your post still sounded like you did. If I thought you had an axe to grind with them, with evidence, I'd have said so. Given your continued posting in the same tone it's difficult to tell whether you're just inherently hostile, have a general "business bad" mindset, or specifically dislike Newegg, but at this point it certainly does seem like you've got an axe to grind with somebody. Nobody acts like you're acting without at least some reason. > That's wonderful for you. How does it follow then that everyone else should also just accept your belief in them on blind faith? The question was "why is this not good enough?". I explained why. The standards you expect Newegg to reach are absolutely insane given their size and the triviality of this issue[1]--and that, given the very widespread amount of goodwill toward the company, that you're absolutely flying off the handle. And that the ridiculous standards you want them to meet are a large part of why it sounds like you've got a personal beef with them. [1] - I mean, c'mon--as stated elsewhere in the thread, the original complainant went public while Newegg was dealing with the RMA appeal. They have a process if you think a RMA was denied in error (I've used it before, and they got it right). If they'd said no to that, I would give the complainant significantly more weight, but given that Newegg has a nearly-universally-positive public opinion in geek circles, it reads like a huge stretch to paint this as some gigantic failure rather than an individual issue of process. Getting the pitchforks and torches out before confirming malice is stupid.
  - 14y ago
rndmize 14y ago
I agree. I've never had any problems with newegg, they were ahead of the game as far as shipping/order speeds for a long time, and the times I've had products that had problems they were replaced efficiently. Newegg has been the standard for computer gear since I started building machines, and I've never heard anything but praise for them.

km3k 14y ago

>Who says it isn't policy to reject RMAs when another OS has been installed, and they only back down if someone creates a scene? This is a valid concern. Their policy for return shipping is that the customer pays for return shipping on an RMA unless you ask a customer service agent for a free shipping label. If you ask, you get it, without any special requirements.

colanderman 14y ago

> Because I don't want to have to waste my time trying to drum up media attention when it happens to me. You could just e-mail customer service with a link to this article.

papsosouid 14y ago
Which is supposed to accomplish what? If they are actually refusing RMAs deliberately, then privately pointing out that they shouldn't isn't going to do anything.
- colanderman 14y ago
  But privately pointing out that "I know I can make a fuss like this guy so let's just save each other some time and cut to the point" very well might.

DanielStraight 14y ago

> How do you know this? I don't. You are right that it could be policy. It just seems that the Occam's Razor explanation is human error. I disagree about the ease of making the mistake. I think it is a very easy mistake to make. Customer service agents deal with tons of emails. They probably also deal with tons of emails where the customer has legitimately done something to warrant not taking the machine back (like say, dropping it in the bath tub). If you don't hear about Linux often (and most people don't), don't know the details of reinstalling OSes (something customer service agents are unlikely trained on), it's easy to think the customer has gone too far. You spend 2 minutes on the email (so you can get through them all), send it on its way and never give it a second thought. I think it's an easy mistake to make because I make stupid mistakes all the time. Where I work, some users have a certain network path mapped as a drive letter and some don't. Yet even after making the mistake several times before, I still sometimes send emails to users who don't have it mapped referencing the drive letter instead of network path, only to hear back from them that my link doesn't work. You want 100% certainty it won't happen again, but nothing is ever 100%. The best they can do is increase the number of 9's. Zero tolerance for errors simply doesn't work. I will admit, however, that my tendency is to give the benefit of the doubt, so I could be biased here.

papsosouid 14y ago
>You want 100% certainty it won't happen again, but nothing is ever 100% No, I didn't say that at all. I want a reasonable assurance. Going "oops, nevermind" after a public outcry doesn't give me reasonable assurance. Saying "one of our support staff made an error, and we have decided to improve our training materials so that our support staff will know what an operating system is in the future" would give me reasonable assurance. And I would be totally fine with that, even though I have no way of knowing they actually did change their training. I would gladly give them the benefit of the doubt. The problem is not that I assume they are bad when they are trying to be good, it is that they are offering me no information at all, so I have to assume it would be risky to deal with them.
- DanielStraight 14y ago
  What about "one of our support staff made an error and we are doing absolutely nothing about it because stuff happens"? That, to me, is what seems like the reasonable respond from Newegg, but I don't think anyone would want to hear that.