2 ms·

I think that this whole issue was handled completely wrong. Jason should have sent an email to the company first and foremost, and if they didn't do anything ab

by kgrad5 18y ago

I think that this whole issue was handled completely wrong. Jason should have sent an email to the company first and foremost, and if they didn't do anything about it THEN it would be ok to put it out there publicly. You have to give the company the chance to right their wrong. It very well could have been an overlooked detail and again it could have been exactly what Jason claimed. However, Jason didn't give them a chance to make it right before attempting to drag their names through the mud. Heck, even one of the managers at 37s wrote on their comments section that when they have customers complain, they encourage them to send them emails and not post on some site out in the middle of the ether. That is basically what Jason did, instead of complaining about the site to GS he complained about it on his own site where the GS staff had to go and find it. Hypocrasy much?

Semiapies 18y ago
"Heck, even one of the managers at 37s wrote on their comments section that when they have customers complain, they encourage them to send them emails and not post on some site out in the middle of the ether." Yes, it's hard to do tech support via any third party that sets themselves up as your representative. "Hypocrasy much?" Among all the people who talk about honest, transparent communication but are unhappy that this wasn't settled under-the-table...I'd say arguably so.
- kgrad5 18y ago
  I don't think people are unhappy that this wasn't settled under the table. No one is saying that any of these concerns were unfounded. But I AM saying that it was irresponsible for 37s not to give GS the chance to rectify the situation before deciding to go ahead and try to ruin GS's reputation. Had 37s first dealt with this privately and then blogged about the outcome, it would have been a MUCH different blog post (or perhaps not if the accusations proved to be correct). "Yes, it's hard to do tech support via any third party that sets themselves up as your representative." I would argue that it's hard to deal with any criticism that you don't know exists...
  - Semiapies 18y ago
    "But I AM saying that it was irresponsible for 37s not to give GS the chance to rectify the situation before deciding to go ahead and try to ruin GS's reputation." GS wronged 37S in a way that was probably legally actionable. 37S has no responsibility to GS to forbear from criticizing them. They opted to criticize and see what GS did instead of starting legal actions; this was generous of them. (Like I say elsewhere on this page, there are some fallacious assumptions being made by those attacking Fried.) The only irresponsible party is GS. "I would argue that it's hard to deal with any criticism that you don't know exists..." Indeed - except that the ultimate complaint is that 37S made their complaint in a venue and fashion that resulted in a lot of people, including GS, seeing it!

by kgrad5 18y ago

Semiapies 18y ago

"Heck, even one of the managers at 37s wrote on their comments section that when they have customers complain, they encourage them to send them emails and not post on some site out in the middle of the ether." Yes, it's hard to do tech support via any third party that sets themselves up as your representative. "Hypocrasy much?" Among all the people who talk about honest, transparent communication but are unhappy that this wasn't settled under-the-table...I'd say arguably so.

kgrad5 18y ago
I don't think people are unhappy that this wasn't settled under the table. No one is saying that any of these concerns were unfounded. But I AM saying that it was irresponsible for 37s not to give GS the chance to rectify the situation before deciding to go ahead and try to ruin GS's reputation. Had 37s first dealt with this privately and then blogged about the outcome, it would have been a MUCH different blog post (or perhaps not if the accusations proved to be correct). "Yes, it's hard to do tech support via any third party that sets themselves up as your representative." I would argue that it's hard to deal with any criticism that you don't know exists...
- Semiapies 18y ago
  "But I AM saying that it was irresponsible for 37s not to give GS the chance to rectify the situation before deciding to go ahead and try to ruin GS's reputation." GS wronged 37S in a way that was probably legally actionable. 37S has no responsibility to GS to forbear from criticizing them. They opted to criticize and see what GS did instead of starting legal actions; this was generous of them. (Like I say elsewhere on this page, there are some fallacious assumptions being made by those attacking Fried.) The only irresponsible party is GS. "I would argue that it's hard to deal with any criticism that you don't know exists..." Indeed - except that the ultimate complaint is that 37S made their complaint in a venue and fashion that resulted in a lot of people, including GS, seeing it!