tPF authenticator discussion

[luvprada]

I was responsible for a forum on a social network about 6 years ago. We had posters that either did not treat people well or who posted items that were advertising for themselves.

The forums were set up so that the person who was responsible for a specific forum (like I was) also had the ability to delete posts and ban people. This allowed quick control to ensure that members were treated
correctly as immediate action could be taken.

I didn't enjoy blocking folks but if they would not follow rules, they were not let in again. This kept the forum enjoyable (which was the point of being on it), and safe as 'bad' behavior was not tolerated. 2nd chances were not given to anyone who treated others in an inappropriate or abusive manner.

The site did have a couple of overall administrators, but they allowed each person running the individual forums the ability to make decisions themselves.

There was a thread were issues could be escalated to the administrators but that happened very infrequently.

Having control over individual forums by the person managing it (instead of the administrators) made a huge difference in cooperation. There was also very little turnover as people were empowered and trusted manage their individual forums.

 

[deacc]

Yet another question to admin and mods. What should we do when a non-trusted authenticator (but has more than 500 posts) authenticate an item? Should the post be reported?

 

[zippie]

Yet another question to admin and mods. What should we do when a non-trusted authenticator (but has more than 500 posts) authenticate an item? Should the post be reported?

just give up, nothing will change

 

[poopsie]

Yet another question to admin and mods. What should we do when a non-trusted authenticator (but has more than 500 posts) authenticate an item? Should the post be reported?

Were they right or wrong?


How are people going to establish themselves if they don't post? I never visit the LV forum, but there are certain styles I feel confident enough to step in and authenticate. Of course I am sure the stranger danger alarms would be going off all over the place if I did, but it wouldn't make my opinion any less valid. The 'trusted' authenticators had to start with a first post at some time as well. When they leave who will fill their shoes?

 

[jellyv]

Were they right or wrong?


How are people going to establish themselves if they don't post? . ?

How about this: right on one post and dead wrong on another, missing a blatant fake. And the requirement of "brand knowledge" in order to authenticate is certainly not well met, in fact hard to imagine as qualifying. But this is a vague measure, not defined, so someone of this caliber will soon be running roughshod over an AT thread. But the post count is high enough that a report would be dismissed. Guaranteed.

 

[BeenBurned]

Yet another question to admin and mods. What should we do when a non-trusted authenticator (but has more than 500 posts) authenticate an item? Should the post be reported?

just give up, nothing will change

While I agree that having a 500-post minimum doesn't necessarily make someone an expert, I've seen very knowledgeable posts (from <500 count posters) in some subforums where it's obvious the person knows what they're talking about.

As an example, I follow the glass slipper authentication thread because there are some brands of footwear that I authenticate. That thread has very few experts and some of the previously trusted experts who've posted over the years aren't here any more. In the last few months, a fairly new user, Shuze has been posting there and AFAIK, hasn't made a mistake yet. And from what I've seen, she and Audreylita (a trusted authenticator) complement each other because they're both skilled with shoes and their construction and when one can comment on whether the construction is accurate for the designer, she may not know the minute details but knows whether the other wears the shoes in question.

I realize that deacc's post was directed at mods and admin so maybe my 2-cents worth shouldn't be offered, but I guess my point is that there can be (at least) good authentications from lower post count members. I think the substance of an authenticator's skill should carry weight and not necessarily whether they're considered "trusted" yet.

ETA: Sorry, I was sniped by other posters while typing my response.

 

[rdgldy]

While I agree that having a 500-post minimum doesn't necessarily make someone an expert, I've seen very knowledgeable posts (from <500 count posters) in some subforums where it's obvious the person knows what they're talking about.

As an example, I follow the glass slipper authentication thread because there are some brands of footwear that I authenticate. That thread has very few experts and some of the previously trusted experts who've posted over the years aren't here any more. In the last few months, a fairly new user, Shuze has been posting there and AFAIK, hasn't made a mistake yet. And from what I've seen, she and Audreylita (a trusted authenticator) complement each other because they're both skilled with shoes and their construction and when one can comment on whether the construction is accurate for the designer, she may not know the minute details but knows whether the other wears the shoes in question.

I realize that deacc's post was directed at mods and admin so maybe my 2-cents worth shouldn't be offered, but I guess my point is that there can be (at least) good authentications from lower post count members. I think the substance of an authenticator's skill should carry weight and not necessarily whether they're considered "trusted" yet.

ETA: Sorry, I was sniped by other posters while typing my response.

Totally agree about Shuze-she is extremely knowledgable and would be an excellent authenticator although she is not yet at the 500 post mark. She and audreylita work well together.

 

[ThisVNchick]

How about this: right on one post and dead wrong on another, missing a blatant fake. And the requirement of "brand knowledge" in order to authenticate is certainly not well met, in fact hard to imagine as qualifying. But this is a vague measure, not defined, so someone of this caliber will soon be running roughshod over an AT thread. But the post count is high enough that a report would be dismissed. Guaranteed.

While I agree that having a 500-post minimum doesn't necessarily make someone an expert, I've seen very knowledgeable posts (from <500 count posters) in some subforums where it's obvious the person knows what they're talking about.

As an example, I follow the glass slipper authentication thread because there are some brands of footwear that I authenticate. That thread has very few experts and some of the previously trusted experts who've posted over the years aren't here any more. In the last few months, a fairly new user, Shuze has been posting there and AFAIK, hasn't made a mistake yet. And from what I've seen, she and Audreylita (a trusted authenticator) complement each other because they're both skilled with shoes and their construction and when one can comment on whether the construction is accurate for the designer, she may not know the minute details but knows whether the other wears the shoes in question.

I realize that deacc's post was directed at mods and admin so maybe my 2-cents worth shouldn't be offered, but I guess my point is that there can be (at least) good authentications from lower post count members. I think the substance of an authenticator's skill should carry weight and not necessarily whether they're considered "trusted" yet.

ETA: Sorry, I was sniped by other posters while typing my response.

Well I certainly don't mind if a newbie is constantly right and knows the brand. Like someone said earlier, authenticators (as of now) had to start somewhere. However, just peeking at the LV AT, I can see what others are talking about. I am no LV expert. I know just enough to know get by (from owning pieces myself), meaning, I would only authenticate for myself and feel comfortable buying for me and not giving suggestions to others. However, as jellyv has pointed out, this individual has missed a blatant fake, which tells me his/her knowledge is not quite there to be authenticating. I also can't remember if it is the same individual, but I did see someone (a couple of pages back on LV AT) ask for more pictures on an LV item that was clearly fake from the pictures provided. In cases like this, I think something needs to be said to the individual.

I remember starting out on the AT Dior. I would authenticate but also make a note at the very end to have a senior authenticator have a second look. I did this for awhile before I felt comfortable and had enough qualified AT posts to post confidently on my own. And even today, for new model Lady Dior bags, I still request that AJ have a second look due to the super fake market. Better safe than sorry.

 

[BeenBurned]

I had no idea of which AT brand people were referring to. My point was simply to say that post count isn't necessarily what makes someone "trusted." (If anyone ever sees me authenticating CL shoes, run the other way! )

 

[deacc]

While I agree that having a 500-post minimum doesn't necessarily make someone an expert, I've seen very knowledgeable posts (from <500 count posters) in some subforums where it's obvious the person knows what they're talking about.

As an example, I follow the glass slipper authentication thread because there are some brands of footwear that I authenticate. That thread has very few experts and some of the previously trusted experts who've posted over the years aren't here any more. In the last few months, a fairly new user, Shuze has been posting there and AFAIK, hasn't made a mistake yet. And from what I've seen, she and Audreylita (a trusted authenticator) complement each other because they're both skilled with shoes and their construction and when one can comment on whether the construction is accurate for the designer, she may not know the minute details but knows whether the other wears the shoes in question.

I realize that deacc's post was directed at mods and admin so maybe my 2-cents worth shouldn't be offered, but I guess my point is that there can be (at least) good authentications from lower post count members. I think the substance of an authenticator's skill should carry weight and not necessarily whether they're considered "trusted" yet.

ETA: Sorry, I was sniped by other posters while typing my response.

Oh I agree there can be good authenticators with low post count. I believe the 500 post minimum requirement is just to deter/prevent people that just join and start giving "authentication". Having 500+ posts does not make one a good authenticator. And that is why I ask what should be done in those cases. For those of us that has been on TBF for awhile we know who the trusted authenticators are in the subforum that we are most active in but a newbie won't know that.

 

[zippie]

Oh I agree there can be good authenticators with low post count. I believe the 500 post minimum requirement is just to deter/prevent people that just join and start giving "authentication". Having 500+ posts does not make one a good authenticator. And that is why I ask what should be done in those cases. For those of us that has been on TBF for awhile we know who the trusted authenticators are in the subforum that we are most active in but a newbie won't know that.

I agree, to be honest I haven't a clue how it can get better. But I see that things are being handled quickly when reported. I've seen people with thousands of posts authenticate in Chanel and LV and make mistakes. We are lucky to have the incredible authenticators in Hermes, Chanel and LV, their knowledge is amazing, I don't usually go to the other AT threads but I know there are some great authenticators in other threads too.

 

[BeenBurned]

I debated sending you (Megs) a PM but decided that since this discussion has been ongoing for 4 months and many of the complaints still haven't been fixed, I'd post this issue here.

As you've said many times throughout the thread, different AT threads run differently, both because of the brand itself as well as the preferences of the authenticators on each thread. But you've also stated (though I can't locate it at the moment) that if a particular brand's AT runs smoothly and authenticators and members are comfortable with it, that was fine with you.

In fact, both Whateve and I commented on how much we enjoy the way the Coach AT runs. We don't do strictly "authentic" or "fake" authentications. We also comment on seller histories, reputations, feedback, use of stolen images, shill bidding, etc. and it works.
http://forum.purseblog.com/ebay-forum/tpf-authenticator-discussion-899195-2.html#post28252555

And that brings me to the current issue regarding Dooney and Bourke where I'm the only authenticator. This evening, we were scolded for "chatting" when it wasn't really chat but rather, expanding on an authentication I'd done in which I mentioned the type of leather used on the bag.

You've said the individual ATs can run in a way that works both for the membership and for the authenticators, why doesn't this one work? I honestly don't believe that any of the posts were reported because the Dooney members have such a small attendance and most there seem to soak up anything they can learn!!
#5673 - http://forum.purseblog.com/dooney-a...e-please-use-the-118342-127.html#post28827151

And here's the authentication followed by the "chat" being referred to:
#5666 - http://forum.purseblog.com/dooney-a...e-please-use-the-118342-126.html#post28822922

I seriously don't see a problem with this and part of this "to the letter" adherence to the rules is what frustrates authenticators!

 

[Swanky]

Sorry me asking the thread to stop chatting is automatically called "scolding"
People reported it and some of the posts removed were pretty off topic, specifically I remember a post that was pointing out fakes that no one asked about {would be suited for the fakes thread}. I also remember shopping discussion - asking about prices paid, etc. . .
None of your posts were removed but others were, perhaps you didn't see the off topic comments?

It's really, really hard to make everyone happy all the time, I wish everyone knew how badly we wish we could make every member and authenticator here completely happy.
It's hard to know, with as many forums as we have, who doesn't mind some chat, who wants a completely chat-free AT thread, etc. . .
I didn't post a friendly reminder in malice and I certainly never meant it as a scolding and your posts were never the one{s} I was posting a reminder for.

 

[BeenBurned]

Sorry me asking the thread to stop chatting is automatically called "scolding"
People reported it and some of the posts removed were pretty off topic, specifically I remember a post that was pointing out fakes that no one asked about {would be suited for the fakes thread}. I also remember shopping discussion - asking about prices paid, etc. . .
None of your posts were removed but others were, perhaps you didn't see the off topic comments?

It's really, really hard to make everyone happy all the time, I wish everyone knew how badly we wish we could make every member and authenticator here completely happy.
It's hard to know, with as many forums as we have, who doesn't mind some chat, who wants a completely chat-free AT thread, etc. . .
I didn't post a friendly reminder in malice and I certainly never meant it as a scolding and your posts were never the one{s} I was posting a reminder for.

I know my posts weren't removed and that's not what my post was about. And I never implied that you posted "in malice." But whether intended as a scolding or not, just as others have said throughout this discussion, PMs and removed posts do come off as scolding, particularly when they for something interpreted as an "infraction" when the posts were completely innocent.

While I get that you don't like the thread to stray, it always goes back to the subject at hand pretty quickly.

I get that someone shouidn't be authenticating when they're giving bad information and I've reported improper posts in the fairly recent past. That's not my issue.

It's been stressed many times here that you want members to feel comfortable coming, want to encourage new membership and you don't want to scare people away with too many "rules."

One of the problems (particularly in Dooney) and the reason why it bothers me to see posts removed is that there are very few posters there anyway. I certainly could be wrong but it seems to me that removing innocent posts when there's nothing rude, aggressive or improper about them will scare people away if they come, post what they think is a helpful or informative comment and find their post(s) removed.

Yeah, I get that there are different threads for different types of posts, but as an example and in line with what we've said about what a difficult forum this is to navigate, I present this:

Regarding some removed posts, you posted: People reported it and some of the posts removed were pretty off topic, specifically I remember a post that was pointing out fakes that no one asked about {would be suited for the fakes thread}.

1. I have a hard time believing that any of the very few members in Dooney would report. (There are currently 15 members reading Dooney, 5 of whom are members.) There's rarely 2 dozen people reading there, as opposed to other subforums where there are 200 lurkers at a time. So to think that someone reported posts that strayed OT is a bit unbelievable to me.

2. As for some posts being more suited to the fakes thread, I have two comments. It wasn't even until just 2 years ago that I started the HOS thread.

I challenge even the seasoned PF'ers to find the Dooney Hall of Shame here: (This is the full Dooney home page!) If I didn't have it bookmarked, I wouldn't be able to find it.
http://forum.purseblog.com/dooney-and-bourke/

It's no wonder posts are sometimes made in the wrong place!
Here it is. How would a newbie find this? It's never been stickied!
http://forum.purseblog.com/dooney-and-bourke/dooney-and-bourke-hall-of-shame-post-dooney-799640.html

3. You said, "It's hard to know, with as many forums as we have, who doesn't mind some chat, who wants a completely chat-free AT thread, etc. . . "

I'd say that if the members who participate in that subforum aren't complaining, it's one of the forums that don't mind a bit of chat.

I get that TPTB will never make everyone happy all the time but sometimes, it's just not worth sweating the small stuff, especially in a subforum that has few followers anyway.

JMHO.

 

[littlerock]

Regarding some removed posts, you posted: People reported it and some of the posts removed were pretty off topic, specifically I remember a post that was pointing out fakes that no one asked about {would be suited for the fakes thread}.

1. I have a hard time believing that any of the very few members in Dooney would report. (There are currently 15 members reading Dooney, 5 of whom are members.) There's rarely 2 dozen people reading there, as opposed to other subforums where there are 200 lurkers at a time. So to think that someone reported posts that strayed OT is a bit unbelievable to me.

(snipped)

I can't comment on the rest at the moment, but I can assure you, there were reports. I even just went back in my email to confirm. Swanky is absolutely telling the truth, I promise. Gotta go give my son a bottle!