tPF authenticator discussion

[deacc]

Honestly this is what our society has come to. No personal accountability or responsibility, instant gratification, everyone else's fault.

Right on the nose on all cylinder!

The 10 steps are set up in the LV AT forum to answer your question....and being lazy doesn't really come into play here, at least not for me.
In reading through what IS required on the LV AT forum it CAN BE daunting to those who are new to the forums and it's very easy to see how mistakes can be made is all I'm saying.
Of course people should do what's required, that was never in question.
After all, it is a free service and it has helped many people over the years.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing, just saying it needs to be re-vamped and made easier for both authenticators and those seeking authentication.

10 steps might seem a lot but if we look closely at those 10 steps ( as newbie) what is it asking?

1. Do a search (and an example is given). So follow the example. (And even if a newbie doesn't do that on the first go, I suspect it is not a huge deal.)

2. Format. Cut and paste and fill in the info and it clearly states a link to auction/sale is necessary. This step IMO is the ABSOLUTE minimum. Anyone that have bother even glancing through post 1 would have seen this. Now a newbie may not know how to find the item number but everything else is obvious. And I have seen the LV authenticators authenticate items where the item number (and even seller name) is missing. They do remind the person to do so next time.

3. Clear photos. So the authenticators are simply expecting us to at the very least look at the pictures and see if minimal pics are there and clear. The authenticators are human like us, if we think the photos are blurry so will they.

4. Maximum request per post. That is just like ... OK... got it. Trivial.

5. Irrelevant on initial request post.

6. Again irrelevant on initial request post.

7. Much like #4. OK .. got it. Next

8. Much like #4 again. Continue

9. Again irrelevant on initial request post.

10. Again irrelevant on initial request post.

So for a newbie, really 1,2 and 3 are the only key steps when making an initial authentication request.

Things will be a lot simpler for authenticators if rules are follow. And as for making requesting authentication easier, I believe that no matter how "easy" you make it, it will still not be "easy enough" for some. I honestly do not believe it is too much to ask a person requesting a free service to initially 3 simple steps.

 

[cdtracing]

Totally agreed on the bold words. If u can spend so many hours in front of your computer shopping, reading the instructions to post properly is a small simple matter! What's more it's FREE authentication, for goodness sake!

Honestly this is what our society has come to. No personal accountability or responsibility, instant gratification, everyone else's fault.

I agree 100%. People spend hours in front of the computer shopping; you would think they could follow a few instructions to get a free authentication of something they want to buy. But as missbanff has so eloquently put it, our society has become one of no responsibility, no accountability, & instant gratification. People have become so lazy that they don't want to do anything for themselves. And then want to get rude on top of that! It's a shame that civility & manners have become antiquated & out dated.

 

[devik]

This question is for Megs or anyone else who knows the answer:

A lot of authenticators put instructions in their signature blocks to try and educate people, especially new users requesting authentications. However when I view the forums in the mobile app, the signature blocks are not displayed.

It's doubtful that a new user would be viewing through the mobile app so it's probably not the most important thing in the world, however if someone *is* new and in an AT thread (I'm thinking of the Givenchy one specifically) we keep referring them to review the guidelines in the authenticator's signature.... it's not helping them.

So I guess my questions are:

1. Is my experience with the mobile app, where sigs do not appear, the same for everyone else?
2. Is this a setting on my mobile app that I simply haven't discovered? I looked but couldn't figure out where to switch it.
3. I guess for Megs if you're around: If not displaying sigs on mobile is intentional, wondering why?

I realize that this is probably a pointless thing to bring up since the users who don't follow the instructions are not going to follow the instructions no matter what.... but I realized that maybe they're not seeing the instructions??? depending on how they're viewing the site.

Or maybe it's just me! Wouldn't be the first time.

 

[Prada Psycho]

This question is for Megs or anyone else who knows the answer:

A lot of authenticators put instructions in their signature blocks to try and educate people, especially new users requesting authentications. However when I view the forums in the mobile app, the signature blocks are not displayed.

It's doubtful that a new user would be viewing through the mobile app so it's probably not the most important thing in the world, however if someone *is* new and in an AT thread (I'm thinking of the Givenchy one specifically) we keep referring them to review the guidelines in the authenticator's signature.... it's not helping them.

So I guess my questions are:

1. Is my experience with the mobile app, where sigs do not appear, the same for everyone else?
2. Is this a setting on my mobile app that I simply haven't discovered? I looked but couldn't figure out where to switch it.
3. I guess for Megs if you're around: If not displaying sigs on mobile is intentional, wondering why?

I realize that this is probably a pointless thing to bring up since the users who don't follow the instructions are not going to follow the instructions no matter what.... but I realized that maybe they're not seeing the instructions??? depending on how they're viewing the site.

Or maybe it's just me! Wouldn't be the first time.

I can answer some portion of that. I have my preferences (on my laptop) set NOT to show signatures, so the only way I see them is to click on that person's profiles. I don't think people that include authentication instructions in their signature's may even be aware of this.

That said, as you pointed out there are simply some people that will not follow formats, even if you hold their hands through the insanely simple instructions.

 

[BeenBurned]

I'm curious.

Have any changes been made? Without asking for specifics, have rude/entitled posters been "enlightened?" Are the authenticators who were feeling abused feeling more appreciated?

 

[Prada Psycho]

I'm curious.

Have any changes been made? Without asking for specifics, have rude/entitled posters been "enlightened?" Are the authenticators who were feeling abused feeling more appreciated?

Too soon to tell on all points, for me anyway.

 

[Swanky]

I can't speak on behalf of how authenticators feel, but changes have been made behind the scenes. The rules haven't been rewritten and posted yet because they're being "lawyerized". ush:

Please continue to just report people that shouldn't be "helping" or offensive posts, WITHOUT responding to them. Responding to them just makes extra clean up work for us and tends to create a more hostile environment. Just report it, we'll get to it pretty quickly.

 

[BeenBurned]

Thank you.

 

[missbanff]

I can't speak on behalf of how authenticators feel, but changes have been made behind the scenes. The rules haven't been rewritten and posted yet because they're being "lawyerized". ush:

Please continue to just report people that shouldn't be "helping" or offensive posts, WITHOUT responding to them. Responding to them just makes extra clean up work for us and tends to create a more hostile environment. Just report it, we'll get to it pretty quickly.

I concur, I've reported a couple people and it's been cleaned up pretty quickly. One person even mentioned being "spoken to".

 

[zippie]

I haven't seen any changes so far. I also don't understand why anyone can authenticate jewelry and members just believe them. You can have 2 posts and authenticate an expensive piece of jewelry and no ONE questions the authenticators knowledge. It is almost impossible to authenticate jewelry without seeing it in person, I don't think there should even be a thread to authenticate jewelry.

 

[ThisVNchick]

Since the new rules are in the works, I would like to add this as well.

There should be something written in the rules that state authenticators did not have to disclose specific information about an item that makes it fake. While I am all for helping people to steer clear of buying fakes, I am NOT looking to help counterfeiters make better fakes. If someone cannot authenticate an item, I always suggest that members utilize the free service that is being offered on here for a second opinion. That said, I was just recently badgered by a long time member to tell her exactly why I deemed the item to her link as fake. I told her how I felt about disclosing such information and she continued to shame me for not helping (by sharing authentication knowledge) on a "sharing forum".

I really don't need or appreciate this disrespect, especially if the service I am offering is free of charge.

 

[poopsie]

Since the new rules are in the works, I would like to add this as well.

There should be something written in the rules that state authenticators did not have to disclose specific information about an item that makes it fake. While I am all for helping people to steer clear of buying fakes, I am NOT looking to help counterfeiters make better fakes. If someone cannot authenticate an item, I always suggest that members utilize the free service that is being offered on here for a second opinion. That said, I was just recently badgered by a long time member to tell her exactly why I deemed the item to her link as fake. I told her how I felt about disclosing such information and she continued to shame me for not helping (by sharing authentication knowledge) on a "sharing forum".

I really don't need or appreciate this disrespect, especially if the service I am offering is free of charge.

Wow. I just read that exchange. Unreal

 

[BeenBurned]

Since the new rules are in the works, I would like to add this as well.

There should be something written in the rules that state authenticators did not have to disclose specific information about an item that makes it fake. While I am all for helping people to steer clear of buying fakes, I am NOT looking to help counterfeiters make better fakes. If someone cannot authenticate an item, I always suggest that members utilize the free service that is being offered on here for a second opinion. That said, I was just recently badgered by a long time member to tell her exactly why I deemed the item to her link as fake. I told her how I felt about disclosing such information and she continued to shame me for not helping (by sharing authentication knowledge) on a "sharing forum".

I really don't need or appreciate this disrespect, especially if the service I am offering is free of charge.

Wow. I just read that exchange. Unreal

Sheesh! She's not even the person who asked about the Fashionphile bag!

 

[missbanff]

Wow. I just read that exchange. Unreal

As did I. And am I nuts or was the person bothering the authenticator not even who submitted the bag for authentication?

I am SO sick of these new people who fly under the radar, make their subtle snide comments and we are not allowed to fight back. So. Sick.

 

[deacc]

Since the new rules are in the works, I would like to add this as well.

There should be something written in the rules that state authenticators did not have to disclose specific information about an item that makes it fake. While I am all for helping people to steer clear of buying fakes, I am NOT looking to help counterfeiters make better fakes. If someone cannot authenticate an item, I always suggest that members utilize the free service that is being offered on here for a second opinion. That said, I was just recently badgered by a long time member to tell her exactly why I deemed the item to her link as fake. I told her how I felt about disclosing such information and she continued to shame me for not helping (by sharing authentication knowledge) on a "sharing forum".

I really don't need or appreciate this disrespect, especially if the service I am offering is free of charge.

That's crazy! If she doesn't agree with the FREE authentication by authenticators at TPF, she is more than welcome to offer PAID services to the person that ask for authentication. SMH .. some people ... really