tPF authenticator discussion

[littlerock]

In this case it's not that the member is getting it wrong; but she's giving the 'looks good' without a complete set of photos. In fact, at least in our AT thread, that's usually the problem. Giving the go ahead with far too few pics.

Thanks for the links.. I just read the last several pages of that thread, and from what I can see, it was handled great. You guys were respectful and pointed out that more photos would be needed to authenticate. You guys flagged the AT post in question to let the OP know that although it had been called authentic, that more photos would be needed to provide an accurate authentication. And then you PM'd a mod/ and reported it.

It is doubtful that the post will be removed, as the thread has moved on, and you guys so competently handled it but it is my opinion that the proper moderator should nudge this member to take authenticating more seriously and require all the important photos before giving an opinion.

 

[lonesomeoctober]

Buyer here. Fascinating thread.

Have gotten to know who the "real" authenticators are for those brands I'm interested in, and would certainly do the same for any brand i become interested in.

But that takes time, a willingness to read, and a healthy dose of skepticism.

Imo, allowing an unknown quantity..even if s/he turns out to be the second coming of coco chanel...to authenticate weakens the forum's credibility, and disrespects those who have given so much help here.

The purse forum surely doesn't want to find itself the subject of postings about authentications which proved inaccurate.

Despite the many disclaimers about authentication on here, some people just won't read, or accept responsibility for acquiring a knowledge base about what they want to buy.

Maybe it's the nature of this particular beast?

Perhaps, as has been suggested, a certain amount of activity on a forum over a defined period of time, would be helpful??

Understood that the owners are not, and do not wish to be, in the business of vetting would be authenticators. However, some history with the forum might--might--(!) tend to screen out the more casual wanna-bes.

 

[littlerock]

Flagging to see how the boss people feel about this.

 

[zestypasta]

Authenticating without the proper photos required lets you know the person isn't qualified to authenticate anything. Plain and simple.

Guessing correctly....and it is guessing if you didn't have all the photos any experienced individual or third party authenticating service would require....shouldn't count as getting it right.

 

[jellyv]

Authenticating without the proper photos required lets you know the person isn't qualified to authenticate anything. Plain and simple.

Guessing correctly....and it is guessing if you didn't have all the photos any experienced individual or third party authenticating service would require....shouldn't count as getting it right.

So very well stated.

 

[littlerock]

I don't think anyone here is comfortable with people who authenticate without all the proper photos and I don't think anyone has said they get it right. Zestypasta, are you referring to a specific incident or just speaking in general? Trying to follow...

 

[cdtracing]

Authenticating without the proper photos required lets you know the person isn't qualified to authenticate anything. Plain and simple.

Guessing correctly....and it is guessing if you didn't have all the photos any experienced individual or third party authenticating service would require....shouldn't count as getting it right.

So very well stated.

Exactly!!!

 

[storeberry]

I don't think anyone here is comfortable with people who authenticate without all the proper photos and I don't think anyone has said they get it right. Zestypasta, are you referring to a specific incident or just speaking in general? Trying to follow...

There is this lady who authenticate without proper photos and said that all looks good when another long time authenticator had earlier stated that more photos are needed. And when told by anther member, she retorted that it is ok to have a 2nd opinion.

What 2nd opinion when u authenticate without proper photos? The bags are not cheap, some are people's hard earned $ & it should never ever be taken lightly.

 

[littlerock]

^ thank you. I am familiar with all that now. I guess I was unclear on who the people are who were "counting a guess as getting it right."

Is there anyone defending the member's AT posts? Is there anyone who thinks its ok to authenticate without proper photos?

As far as I could tell, the member hasn't even posted again since then. Am I wrong? Did I miss something? It's totally possible.. It's been a long weekend.

 

[LVlvoe_bug]

There is this lady who authenticate without proper photos and said that all looks good when another long time authenticator had earlier stated that more photos are needed. And when told by anther member, she retorted that it is ok to have a 2nd opinion.

What 2nd opinion when u authenticate without proper photos? The bags are not cheap, some are people's hard earned $ & it should never ever be taken lightly.

There were a few posts in a row this member said looked ok when they had just been replied to by miss banff all asking for more pics. I think if more pictures are needed for the proper authentication, they need to be asked/requested...

 

[jellyv]

Is there anyone defending the member's AT posts? Is there anyone who thinks its ok to authenticate without proper photos?

Yes: you yourself and BeenBurned have posted that if authentication turns out to be correct, that's what matters and there is nothing more to enforce. And others here are saying that's not good enough--lucky-guess authenticating, without following the thread rules (for photos etc.), is not sufficient.


See these posts:

I actually did get a couple of PMs about new authenticators, one in a brand i do and the other about a brand i don't do.

So far, I haven't seen any mistakes and as long as the info posted is accurate, I appreciate the help.

Yes, this is what I would like to know, too. I'm not sure about the LV forum but I've had a couple people report a new member helping out in the Bal AT thread. The problem for me, as a moderator, is that the person's advice is spot on. They haven't made any mistakes, so until I see that a person is misguided, I can't step in. There is no reason to, we have no requirements that a new member can't help in AT if they are familiar with a brand enough to do so. However, we are told by our familiar Authenticators that someone is making mistakes and doesn't know what they're doing, we will absolutely step in. At least I will, and I know my fellow mods would too. But if it's just a matter of being a newbie.. I don't know what to say.

 

[LVlvoe_bug]

Authenticating without the proper photos required lets you know the person isn't qualified to authenticate anything. Plain and simple.

Guessing correctly....and it is guessing if you didn't have all the photos any experienced individual or third party authenticating service would require....shouldn't count as getting it right.

^ agree, very well stated!!

 

[littlerock]

Yes: you yourself and BeenBurned have posted that if authentication turns out to be correct, that's what matters and there is nothing more to enforce. And others here are saying that's not good enough--lucky-guess authenticating, without following the thread rules (for photos etc.), is not sufficient.


See these posts:

I think you are mixing some things up. The reported posts I was specifically talking about, that I deemed fine in Bal, had sufficient photos. I cannot label someone a "lucky guess" purely on their low post count. The appropriate photos had been supplied and the member was authenticating properly. There was nothing to moderate. The posts above are talking about authentications made without proper photos. Something that I am not comfortable with and don't allow, when I see it. At the very very least, there should always be a disclaimer.. Like "nothing looks off from these pics, but to give a thumbs up, I'd need to see x, y & z."

Again, my post that you quoted above was not related to the issue in LV that is being discussed here. If you see a member posting in Bal AT with insufficient pics, report again. I removed a post yesterday or the day before but since then haven't seen anything that requires mediation.

 

[jellyv]

I think you are mixing some things up. The reported posts I was specifically talking about, that I deemed fine in Bal, had sufficient photos.

The posts above are talking about authentications made without proper photos. Something that I am not comfortable with and don't allow, when I see it. At the very very least, there should always be a disclaimer.. Like "nothing looks off from these pics, but to give a thumbs up, I'd need to see x, y & z."

I'm not mixing things up. You didn't specify what thread you were talking about, nor did I. Your post sounded like general policy since you didn't mention a brand forum, so I must have misunderstood you on that score.

I am thinking of a specific other forum, not Balenciaga, where this sort of improper authentication has been reported and PM'd to mods but permitted to stand as is, despite explicit feedback that the person is going against the requirement of needed pics.

 

[littlerock]

^ actually, I did. I stated that I was talking about Bal AT thread.