Don't you just LOVE that cute little "Point System" that goes along with the "Nastygrams" we authenticators get slapped with when things like this happen? Feels like kindergarten around here any more. :true:
tPF authenticator discussion
- Thread starter missbanff
- Start date
TPF may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, and others
- Status
Don't you just LOVE that cute little "Point System" that goes along with the "Nastygrams" we authenticators get slapped with when things like this happen? Feels like kindergarten around here any more. :true:
So if someone is doing a job for which they're paid, it's okay to be rude and abusive to them? Seriously?
That's why employee turnover is such a problem!
Somehow I can tolerate rudeness from customers when I am being paid, because it's part of the job: dealing with people, both nice and nasty.
However, when I'm generously giving away a service and my time on a strictly volunteer basis, and people treat me like trash, that's when I get pissy.
Last edited:
I'm not Megs but I can help try and respond:
We are constantly observing members that might make good mods. I can tell you it's an ongoing process and we add them as often as we can when we all agree on a member. It's a pretty strenuous process
ush: It requires finding members that have had very little to no drama/issues here, that have a history of trying to help, visit often and consistently, etc. . .
It's so hard!!
I want to reiterate what Megs said. . . Please don't assume there's no consequences for people causing trouble in these threads. We always try and respect privacy so we give warnings and then clean up the thread if needed. This may include authenticators or other well meaning members responses to be removed because when half the conversation is removed only, it no longer makes sense. Also there's less possibility of the drama flaring back up if we simply remove all the posts that had anything to do w/ the issue. Hope this makes sense?
Hi!
Authenticators don't have mod authority. Unfortunately, our software doesn't allow allowing members to have different privileges in singular threads.
I think I mentioned earlier in this thread that more than a week ago I spoke to Vlad and Megs about changes to this, before this thread even began. They're VERY receptive to change
They actually talked about online forms of some sort that could be submitted so there's less time wasting and user error.
While it is impossible to please all the people, all the time I can promise we all want a happy community. This is so complicated and I think talking it out and trying to find a resolution is great. It may be that Megs and Vlad make a change and it doesn't work and they have to tweak it a bit more. But hopefully with respectful input from everyone we'll get to a place that makes more people happy
We are constantly observing members that might make good mods. I can tell you it's an ongoing process and we add them as often as we can when we all agree on a member. It's a pretty strenuous process
ush: It requires finding members that have had very little to no drama/issues here, that have a history of trying to help, visit often and consistently, etc. . . It's so hard!!
I want to reiterate what Megs said. . . Please don't assume there's no consequences for people causing trouble in these threads. We always try and respect privacy so we give warnings and then clean up the thread if needed. This may include authenticators or other well meaning members responses to be removed because when half the conversation is removed only, it no longer makes sense. Also there's less possibility of the drama flaring back up if we simply remove all the posts that had anything to do w/ the issue. Hope this makes sense?
That's good to know.
Reading over this thread, there seem to be two prominent complaints that I've seen repeated several times.
~Members not following directions and bumping up their AT posts and getting angry with the authenticators
~Newbies authenticating items that don't seem to be vetted for the process
Do the longtime (fully vetted) authenticators in the AT threads have mod authority in these particular threads? If not, perhaps it might not be a bad idea to enable mod status for those threads. They could delete posts on their own (without having to wait for a mod) and send a warning if need be for abusive members. If you're concerned about one mod abusing power, perhaps you could have two mods agree for a deletion.
On various forums that I've moderated on in the past, a special forum (invisible to other members) was set up for moderators where they could post amongst themselves, keeping an eye on certain members, etc. Of course, Admin would have full access and this would likely make it easier on you and other Admins than to sift through the many emails and PM's that I'm sure you receive to see who/what is problematic.
I would tend to think that it would make sense to fully vet members that are authenticating. Personally, I wouldn't trust a newbie that hasn't been here long to authenticate an item for me. While they may be an expert in the brand, no one here knows that. I would hate to see a member purchase an item, find out at a later date that the item was counterfeit and, point fingers at TPF, thus giving the forum a bad name. For this, there really is no easy answer for. (Proving oneself in other threads over a period of time, showing that you know a particular brand with the seasoned authenticators in agreement?)
I have noticed that Colourful_belle for example has one lengthy signature line which shouldn't be necessary. Many don't read, we see this often enough with eBay sales. I see that Tutushopper had to repost the AT rules again yesterday in the AT Chanel forum. I think a great idea would be to have a form prompting the member for the proper fields required to provide authentication.
These are only my thoughts of course, as I'd like to see the entire community happy.
Hi!
Authenticators don't have mod authority. Unfortunately, our software doesn't allow allowing members to have different privileges in singular threads.
I think I mentioned earlier in this thread that more than a week ago I spoke to Vlad and Megs about changes to this, before this thread even began. They're VERY receptive to change
They actually talked about online forms of some sort that could be submitted so there's less time wasting and user error.While it is impossible to please all the people, all the time I can promise we all want a happy community. This is so complicated and I think talking it out and trying to find a resolution is great. It may be that Megs and Vlad make a change and it doesn't work and they have to tweak it a bit more. But hopefully with respectful input from everyone we'll get to a place that makes more people happy
I am just offering an opinion, and am not familiar with all of the forums even though I am along time member.
I understand that some authenticate forums go smoothly. But...I went to review most of the recent LV thread and Chanel thread. What I saw was blatant disrespect and entitlement . How does someone no one knows just come in and get nasty with a senior member who is providing a service FOR FREE and not get supported? How does someone with no history just start authenticating ( risking other's money and the board's reputation)?
I can't fathom the time and patience it takes to authenticate, but it must be overwhelming at times, and hats off to those who do. I could see someone new having some sort of manners, introducing themselves, stating some sort of history with the brand, and ASKING if they can help out? I could see them identifying themselves as new contributors, and informing the member requesting that they are new and giving them the option of waiting for another authenticator.
I moderated a huge board for years some time ago, and yes you have to assure new members are welcome everywhere, and not intimidated by senior ones. But authentications are serious business. New members have the whole board at their disposal, they don't have to be allowed to chime in willy nilly where people's money is at issue.
Moderation doesn't have to be rude, but it does have to be consistent, ever present, and fair....or what's the point of it? I would ask the authenticators what they need as far as support, and give it if I wanted the board to offer this invaluable resource. I wouldn't let my seasoned authenticator become weary of all the drama, and have them leave. Where are you going to find others? They don't grow on trees. That wealth of knowledge outside of the design houses themselves isn't easy to acquire...the damn sales associates in the stores don't even know the brand as well as they do. Where do you find another colorful belle for Chanel?
You lose just a few and the quality of the board suffers, why risk that?
People don't have a RIGHT to free authentications. They are lucky to get them. These aren't employees of the board. I'd put mod support behind them 100% on those threads consistently! Personally, I would put a post requirement, but that just me. Too many requests from people who only come here for that.
I understand that some authenticate forums go smoothly. But...I went to review most of the recent LV thread and Chanel thread. What I saw was blatant disrespect and entitlement . How does someone no one knows just come in and get nasty with a senior member who is providing a service FOR FREE and not get supported? How does someone with no history just start authenticating ( risking other's money and the board's reputation)?
I can't fathom the time and patience it takes to authenticate, but it must be overwhelming at times, and hats off to those who do. I could see someone new having some sort of manners, introducing themselves, stating some sort of history with the brand, and ASKING if they can help out? I could see them identifying themselves as new contributors, and informing the member requesting that they are new and giving them the option of waiting for another authenticator.
I moderated a huge board for years some time ago, and yes you have to assure new members are welcome everywhere, and not intimidated by senior ones. But authentications are serious business. New members have the whole board at their disposal, they don't have to be allowed to chime in willy nilly where people's money is at issue.
Moderation doesn't have to be rude, but it does have to be consistent, ever present, and fair....or what's the point of it? I would ask the authenticators what they need as far as support, and give it if I wanted the board to offer this invaluable resource. I wouldn't let my seasoned authenticator become weary of all the drama, and have them leave. Where are you going to find others? They don't grow on trees. That wealth of knowledge outside of the design houses themselves isn't easy to acquire...the damn sales associates in the stores don't even know the brand as well as they do. Where do you find another colorful belle for Chanel?
You lose just a few and the quality of the board suffers, why risk that?
People don't have a RIGHT to free authentications. They are lucky to get them. These aren't employees of the board. I'd put mod support behind them 100% on those threads consistently! Personally, I would put a post requirement, but that just me. Too many requests from people who only come here for that.
Great post, completely agree.
I really don't understand why new members who are snarky and rude to authenticators, why they aren't banned right away. I have no patience with rudeness.
Exactly! Ignoring them breeds the resentment that leads to angry exchanges, that's why mods are there ideally to take the heat. The lovely authenticator only authenticates what they want, when they want...and if someone doesn't post correctly, or won't read the rules, or keeps bumping because they are being ignored...the mod steps in and handles it. The authenticators should do nothing more than authenticate as they please.
There are examples of kind members already doing this in Chanel...or they were before it CB left. They stepped in to handle people ignoring the rules, so she didn't have to keep repeating herself and waste her time over and over stating the obvious ( if people really cared to participate correctly they would the rules, but they don't ), and she could focus on authenticating.
Perhaps members designated to just this will suffice if the owners don't want to restrict otherwise, and the pressure is off the authenticators. It's a thought ..
Of course , you know by now what I would do...but I was a no nonsense heavy mod...like Wyatt Earp. I run a clean town with no law breakin'
Answering a few questions/points that were brought up over the past few pages:
- Members reporting when another member is combative/rude/breaking the rules is so integral because it helps us see something and act accordingly. The mods here follow the rules that Vlad and I have set up but many times we only see the issue if it's reported.
- When we remove rude remarks, as Swanky said, we often remove the people who quote those and the discussion that follows. If I'm deleting one side being rude to the other person, I'm not going to leave the person who quoted the other one there
- We don't have separate rules for separate parts of the forum. The forum runs under the same rules across the board. I'm not heavy handed and have never been - I believe people make mistakes, sometimes because they are unaware of what's going on and how we do things. Sometimes it's just a bad apple who won't fit well into the forum. They always dig their graves if it's the later. And majority of members who have been here a long time probably know I'm understanding
- If you see someone authenticating and getting it wrong, send me a PM. Tell me what's going on, tell me why they are wrong, and I will ask them to stop authenticating. I have no problem doing that. A PM would be so helpful in that case!!!
- Only mods can delete/edit, authenticators can not
- While I have zero qualms apologizing for not always being right, missing certain reports, and owning up to knowing I could have handled certain situations better, I have always had the backs of the authenticators.
- This community is huge and it's amazing. We have so many forums and so many amazing members. Does everyone love everyone here? No. But I do think for a forum this large we are lucky to have a very good group. I don't want to take away from that either
- Members reporting when another member is combative/rude/breaking the rules is so integral because it helps us see something and act accordingly. The mods here follow the rules that Vlad and I have set up but many times we only see the issue if it's reported.
- When we remove rude remarks, as Swanky said, we often remove the people who quote those and the discussion that follows. If I'm deleting one side being rude to the other person, I'm not going to leave the person who quoted the other one there
- We don't have separate rules for separate parts of the forum. The forum runs under the same rules across the board. I'm not heavy handed and have never been - I believe people make mistakes, sometimes because they are unaware of what's going on and how we do things. Sometimes it's just a bad apple who won't fit well into the forum. They always dig their graves if it's the later. And majority of members who have been here a long time probably know I'm understanding
- If you see someone authenticating and getting it wrong, send me a PM. Tell me what's going on, tell me why they are wrong, and I will ask them to stop authenticating. I have no problem doing that. A PM would be so helpful in that case!!!
- Only mods can delete/edit, authenticators can not
- While I have zero qualms apologizing for not always being right, missing certain reports, and owning up to knowing I could have handled certain situations better, I have always had the backs of the authenticators.
- This community is huge and it's amazing. We have so many forums and so many amazing members. Does everyone love everyone here? No. But I do think for a forum this large we are lucky to have a very good group. I don't want to take away from that either
That number includes thousands of members who haven't been active in years, and certainly not all members are active in every forum. Excessive volume isn't the issue.
exactly! Ignoring them breeds the resentment that leads to angry exchanges, that's why mods are there ideally to take the heat. The lovely authenticator only authenticates what they want, when they want...and if someone doesn't post correctly, or won't read the rules, or keeps bumping because they are being ignored...the mod steps in and handles it. The authenticators should do nothing more than authenticate as they please.
There are examples of kind members already doing this in chanel...or they were before it cb left. They stepped in to handle people ignoring the rules, so she didn't have to keep repeating herself and waste her time over and over stating the obvious ( if people really cared to participate correctly they would the rules, but they don't ), and she could focus on authenticating.
Perhaps members designated to just this will suffice if the owners don't want to restrict otherwise, and the pressure is off the authenticators. It's a thought ..
Of course , you know by now what i would do...but i was a no nonsense heavy mod...like wyatt earp. I run a clean town with no law breakin'
+1
So Meg, we can PM you directly without the fear of being blacklist or given a warning? I have earlier asked a new member with a low number of posts to stop authenticating. She herself posted in the thread asking for authentication & said that she is not an expert & learning. However my posts were deleted & was told not to confront members like that which is so so demoralizing. I have been telling that member nicely that we should allow the expert to authenticate but she treated me like I was invisible. If we helping on the thread is making the mod / admin duties so difficult, then pls tell us & we will exit gracefully.
Last edited:
This is what is so hard, whether you are an authenticator or someone helping. Someone slapping you on the wrist and getting a demerit notice whilst the person doing the thing that's not helpful just keeps on going. We need to support those helping and authenticating. They need the support, they provide the service.
This scares the hell out me. Knowing that anyone willy nilly can go in the AT and tell someone that their bag (they are about to spend thousands on) looks good to them and then find out they are not even an authenticator. I have seen it and experienced it and I will not use this service until something is done about it.
Now there has been some mention of labelling authenticators and legal liability etc But anyone who holds themselves out to be an expert in a particular field is liable under the law for false, misleading and or deceptive conduct. So it might be better to give the authenticators a title to make them more identifiable so other non-authenticators can be easily identified to people posting requests. Then they can politely tell that person that they would prefer an approved authenticator to give an opinion.
Last edited:
And those same people are reporting sellers for selling fakes when they aren't sure they are fake. After CB posted last night I went and checked out the Chanel AT thread. It was infuriating. How unfair to possibly ruin someone's reputation and livelihood just because they 'think' that it 'looks' fake. 
- Status