tPF authenticator discussion

[jellyv]

Ok, I just reread. You're right. I assumed you meant to generalize that to other threads where, if the authentication is correct, that's good enough. If you don't feel that way, and I hope that's so, please talk to the mods of the other forums and see if they can rally some action.

 

[littlerock]

And by the way, I consider not authenticating with proper photos a mistake in and of itself.. So when I say that I see someone not making any mistakes, I don't just mean the outcome. I mean the whole shebang.

 

[littlerock]

Just saw your reply.. All good :tip:

 

[zestypasta]

I'm not familiar with the Bal issue. I'm referring to LV.

Unless I'm mistaken, you can't effectively, and correctly authenticate an item without proper photos. That's a given.

If you don't have them, you are effectively "guessing". Eventually, you will likely "guess" wrong, give a "looks good" to a fake bag, and someone is out a lot of money. If you can't stop someone who is authenticating from giving an uninformed opinion ( and it is without having all the right photos to base It on) until they get it wrong....well, that's unfortunate.

What's to stop the member from coming back and doing it again, as they have before? Their posts are still there. Why would they stop?

I guess we will just have to wait and hit "report"...again.

ETA: I posted before the thread moved on. I hope something can be done about random authentications, and those that disregard an established forum etiquette of respect for other veteran moderator's opinions and respectful requests.

 

[whateve]

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:

Something like this happened today on an AT thread. Two different members offered an opinion on two different requests. I think that the second member was inspired to offer an opinion after seeing the other's post. Even though the members happened to be correct, I don't believe they don't know enough to be authenticating. These were members who were there for their own AT requests.

I can see that if these types of opinions are allowed to stay, even if they are correct, other posters may feel it is okay for them to offer an opinion as well. And those posters who were correct once will have the confidence to continue to offer opinions, and one of those times they won't be right.

 

[missbanff]

This is where it get so friggin tiring.

We are told to report and PM if we see an issue. We do that.

Then we are told we 'handled it beautifully' in the thread and no further action is needed. The offending members NEED TO HEAR IT FROM YOU GUYS.

You saw the response she gave us. "There
Is nothing wrong with a second opinion."

How are you guys helping us, exactly?

 

[JustAgUrL]

I'm not familiar with the Bal issue. I'm referring to LV.

Unless I'm mistaken, you can't effectively, and correctly authenticate an item without proper photos. That's a given.

If you don't have them, you are effectively "guessing". Eventually, you will likely "guess" wrong, give a "looks good" to a fake bag, and someone is out a lot of money. If you can't stop someone who is authenticating from giving an uninformed opinion ( and it is without having all the right photos to base It on) until they get it wrong....well, that's unfortunate.

What's to stop the member from coming back and doing it again, as they have before? Their posts are still there. Why would they stop?

I guess we will just have to wait and hit "report"...again.

ETA: I posted before the thread moved on. I hope something can be done about random authentications, and those that disregard an established forum etiquette of respect for other veteran moderator's opinions and respectful requests.

Bravo!! VERY well said.

 

[JustAgUrL]

I understand that the Mods don't want to discourage NEWER Members
from participating on the AT threads, but, one of these threads
was started over that very issue.

This comes down to TRUST..
People come here because they TRUST that they will receive correct
authentications from VETERAN Authenticators…
That is what this forum is built on.

Yes, a Newbe can come along and know the brand, and
perhaps be an expert, that does NOT negate the fact that
people will see that LOW post count and time that person has been
a member and question if that is a valid authentication.
This will cause people to question the professionalism of the
AT threads and question is they are getting proper information.

OVER and OVER again, it has been mentioned that members
are NOT comfortable with newbe members authenticating.

One only need to count in these threads how many of the comments started with:
"I was on an AT thread and saw a NEW member authenticating … etc.. etc.. "

This tell me that this is something that makes MANY people very uncomfortable
and wary of that persons opinion.

Then of course, there is the issue of the rudeness, and becoming
indignant when they are addressed over providing a second authentication
after the TRUSTED Authenticator told the asking member for additional photos.


AT threads just have far different needs than the rest of the forum.
and it is not fair to the Veteran/ Trusted authenticators, when they have to wait
after a member has presented themselves in this disrespectful fashion.




Perhaps if somebody is new, and has a low post count,
they can include in their signature what their background is
in that particular designer.
This could at least put some peoples minds at ease, that
this is not just a new be spouting an un-informed opinion.

Like I said, it seems that newer members with lower post counts
authenticating , is making a LOT of people uncomfortable.

Should that NOT be addressed?

 

[Swanky]

This is where it get so friggin tiring.

We are told to report and PM if we see an issue. We do that.

Then we are told we 'handled it beautifully' in the thread and no further action is needed. The offending members NEED TO HEAR IT FROM YOU GUYS.

You saw the response she gave us. "There
Is nothing wrong with a second opinion."

How are you guys helping us, exactly?

How do you know the LV Mods haven't written that member?
You don't. It's private, and should be. All you can do is report it and trust that they are handling it. Since it's not offensive, spam, etc.... There's not the dire need for removal. I trust your LV Mods and have to assume it's been handled (which is possible considering that member hadn't done it again) or is in the middle of handling it.

 

[missbanff]

How do you know the LV Mods haven't written that member?
You don't. It's private, and should be. All you can do is report it and trust that they are handling it. Since it's not offensive, spam, etc.... There's not the dire need for removal. I trust your LV Mods and have to assume it's been handled (which is possible considering that member hadn't done it again) or is in the middle of handling it.

You're right, it's private, and we shouldn't be told 'this or that' has been done to the member.

I'm going by a direct quote that was given to me, which taken literally, makes me think nothing was done.

If I'm wrong, OK, even if the posts are still standing. I guess time will tell if that person shows up and starts authenticating again.

 

[Addy]

How do you know the LV Mods haven't written that member?
You don't. It's private, and should be. All you can do is report it and trust that they are handling it. Since it's not offensive, spam, etc.... There's not the dire need for removal. I trust your LV Mods and have to assume it's been handled (which is possible considering that member hadn't done it again) or is in the middle of handling it.

Agree with Swanky. As an LV Mod, I look at each report and respond appropriately. Reported posts are never ignored.

 

[zippie]

Why can't a mod send a PM to the person that reported the poster get a response like "we are looking into it" or "it's being handled"? I'm sure it's frustrating when they never get a response and then get even more frustrated thinking nothing is being done.

 

[JustAgUrL]

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.

VERY well said!!!!!

 

[Swanky]

Why can't a mod send a PM to the person that reported the poster get a response like "we are looking into it" or "it's being handled"? I'm sure it's frustrating when they never get a response and then get even more frustrated thinking nothing is being done.

Because some days we get literally 100 reported posts!
We can't PM every offending member plus all the members that push the report button, it's not necessary or feasible. We look at EVERY reported post and then the mods choose whether any action is needed or not. But they're all read, by several people.

 

[zippie]

If you read all 100 posts I'm sure there is time to type a short response or at least respond to authenticators that are busting there butt to help others.