Absolutely.
And feel free to correct my typo, fixed below in red. (Note to self: BB, learn to proofread!)
tPF authenticator discussion
- Thread starter missbanff
- Start date
TPF may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, and others
- Status
And feel free to correct my typo, fixed below in red. (Note to self: BB, learn to proofread!)
Can I make a suggestion?
Just a thought.
ps I need to same proofreading note! I'm terrible even though I write all day!
Last edited:
Please note typos in my proofing ps!
I saw it! Our brains work faster than our fingers can type.
I'm reading this thread and it's very interesting.
I will just put in my (unsolicited) two cents:
1.
Has anyone considered the fact that if this were like a watch forum or some other male-majority forum, a lot of these issues and discussions would not exist? We women are so catty. Yes there are major glass ceilings and gender biases in the workplace that we need to all collectively work together to abolish, but if we spent like one-tenth of our one-track-mind-cattiness on the greater good, I swear this world would be a better place.
2.
Regarding the authentication threads, there benefiting parties and non-benefiting parties. This is very obvious I know, but still wanted to point it out, because it makes sense the following that ensue
Benefiting parties:
TPF - AT threads help drive traffic, but more importantly, helps bring credibiilty. The entire forum is a rich resource, but the ability to get free authentication is priceless. For all of you who marvel at why people "won't pay the extra $5 when they are buying a $3,000 bag" should all read Chris Anderson's book "Free." The countries who fall behind significantly in book sales for Amazon even, do so because of nothing else than the nominal low shipping fee that they are forced to charge due to the country's laws. Fascinating stuff. Anyway, free authentications = site credibility/thought leadership, traffic, engagement.
Inquiring members - obvious. They get stuff authenticated for free.
Neutral and contributing (non-benefiting) parties:
Authenticators - not paid by TPF, but have to deal with a lot of questions queries and sometimes entitled attitudes. But don't get paid to offer the expertise.
Moderators - deal with even more entitled attitudes, and often there is never one "right" answer or solution and lots of upset people either way. Can't make anyone happy. Don't get paid to keep the peace though.
Another contributing party: TPF. For having the threads in the first place. Sure, one may argue that it seems self-serving, but IMO, it’s offset entirely by the risk exposure that is completely absorbed by the site owners. Authenticators make mistakes or not, they are likely fielding C&D letters, defamation and libel claims, etc., from businesses where opinions have been noted here on TPF but there is some business out there who is upset at what is written here and will claim everything from defamation to tortious interference to their business. Despite any type of disclaimers made, it is indeed still a risky and bold effort, and admirable, to keep these threads going for the benefit of the community, whether or not they also benefit from it too.
3.
It is no surprise that the main people who have issues are from the “neutral and contributing/non-benefiting parties” group. Lots of effort and time put in and they feel unappreciated. In order to minimize conflict, here are some across-the-board types of rules I think can be considered:
Moderators be fair, but also try not to shame an authenticator publicly (not saying this has ever been done in the past, but, in general, out of respect, go to PM and give authenticators a chance to remove their own posts; they already have enough trouble with members not respecting or appreciating them. Of course when unreasonable then do what is needed, but, keep in mind that most authenticators take pride in their credibility)
Authenticators - be consistent, to prevent backlash and also further problems. Sure, things may not be looked at or looked at with your discretion but the AT threads aren’t a place for bias or favorites. Create your own rules sure, but stick to them. Show others etiquette - if you are authenticating alongside another authenticator, use etiquette and PM them on any disagreements so that others members are not confused by any back and forth. (Of course, this is different from pop-up random non-experts who are authenticating). If you are an honest authenticator, you should also be truly curious why the other expert has decided a different opinion than yourself; true experts are curious. Also, have a link somewhere that explains all your reasons for why you don't authenticate x or y type listings and put it in your siggy somewhere or something so that you don't get tired or worn out posting them repeatedly.
I think the mods do a very good job of fairness; when editing or removing comments, my personal experience has been that they are pretty thorough and meticulous about being able to leave in the “spirit of the point” while removing any “thorns” so to speak. That being said, I have not been privy to many of the events being discussed here.
It’s very helpful when moderators show support to the authenticators. It's also super helpful when you have other non-authenticating members like storeberry and gail13 in the Chanel forum have, helping to respond back to those posts that don't follow rules and therefore hard to authenticate.
What can TPF do?
Honestly that is a whole big essay and it’s at the end of the day the forum’s conundrum as the managers are the first ones to know it is in the forum's best interest to keep everyone happy so that they can continue to run the AT forums and get things authenticated with cheer.
I think that, aside from pages and pages and hours of dialogue, the one BEST thing that maybe might be doable is if posters for “reply” posts without quotes (so, new requests) on those AT forums get pop-up dialogue boxes - "ATTENTION: have you seen the authenticators’ requested photos and format rules in posts one and two (link)? If you do not follow these formats, your request may not be responded to.” and then “OK” out of it. And then somehow manually enable the authenticators to disable the pop up since it would drive them nuts to see it whenever posting or responding.
The fact of the matter is that 99% of people who come to AT forums do not read the rules on page 1, no matter how many times you remind them throughout the thread.
Has anyone ever gone on another thread before that you’re not familiar with? For example, FlyerTalk forums. Who ever reads the rules? You just go in and start asking what you want to know. Same thing. But with that popup, I can almost guarantee that more than 40% of these issues could be prevented, including the drama, being females, so on, so forth…
I will just put in my (unsolicited) two cents:
1.
Has anyone considered the fact that if this were like a watch forum or some other male-majority forum, a lot of these issues and discussions would not exist? We women are so catty. Yes there are major glass ceilings and gender biases in the workplace that we need to all collectively work together to abolish, but if we spent like one-tenth of our one-track-mind-cattiness on the greater good, I swear this world would be a better place.
2.
Regarding the authentication threads, there benefiting parties and non-benefiting parties. This is very obvious I know, but still wanted to point it out, because it makes sense the following that ensue
Benefiting parties:
TPF - AT threads help drive traffic, but more importantly, helps bring credibiilty. The entire forum is a rich resource, but the ability to get free authentication is priceless. For all of you who marvel at why people "won't pay the extra $5 when they are buying a $3,000 bag" should all read Chris Anderson's book "Free." The countries who fall behind significantly in book sales for Amazon even, do so because of nothing else than the nominal low shipping fee that they are forced to charge due to the country's laws. Fascinating stuff. Anyway, free authentications = site credibility/thought leadership, traffic, engagement.
Inquiring members - obvious. They get stuff authenticated for free.
Neutral and contributing (non-benefiting) parties:
Authenticators - not paid by TPF, but have to deal with a lot of questions queries and sometimes entitled attitudes. But don't get paid to offer the expertise.
Moderators - deal with even more entitled attitudes, and often there is never one "right" answer or solution and lots of upset people either way. Can't make anyone happy. Don't get paid to keep the peace though.
Another contributing party: TPF. For having the threads in the first place. Sure, one may argue that it seems self-serving, but IMO, it’s offset entirely by the risk exposure that is completely absorbed by the site owners. Authenticators make mistakes or not, they are likely fielding C&D letters, defamation and libel claims, etc., from businesses where opinions have been noted here on TPF but there is some business out there who is upset at what is written here and will claim everything from defamation to tortious interference to their business. Despite any type of disclaimers made, it is indeed still a risky and bold effort, and admirable, to keep these threads going for the benefit of the community, whether or not they also benefit from it too.
3.
It is no surprise that the main people who have issues are from the “neutral and contributing/non-benefiting parties” group. Lots of effort and time put in and they feel unappreciated. In order to minimize conflict, here are some across-the-board types of rules I think can be considered:
Moderators be fair, but also try not to shame an authenticator publicly (not saying this has ever been done in the past, but, in general, out of respect, go to PM and give authenticators a chance to remove their own posts; they already have enough trouble with members not respecting or appreciating them. Of course when unreasonable then do what is needed, but, keep in mind that most authenticators take pride in their credibility)
Authenticators - be consistent, to prevent backlash and also further problems. Sure, things may not be looked at or looked at with your discretion but the AT threads aren’t a place for bias or favorites. Create your own rules sure, but stick to them. Show others etiquette - if you are authenticating alongside another authenticator, use etiquette and PM them on any disagreements so that others members are not confused by any back and forth. (Of course, this is different from pop-up random non-experts who are authenticating). If you are an honest authenticator, you should also be truly curious why the other expert has decided a different opinion than yourself; true experts are curious. Also, have a link somewhere that explains all your reasons for why you don't authenticate x or y type listings and put it in your siggy somewhere or something so that you don't get tired or worn out posting them repeatedly.
I think the mods do a very good job of fairness; when editing or removing comments, my personal experience has been that they are pretty thorough and meticulous about being able to leave in the “spirit of the point” while removing any “thorns” so to speak. That being said, I have not been privy to many of the events being discussed here.
It’s very helpful when moderators show support to the authenticators. It's also super helpful when you have other non-authenticating members like storeberry and gail13 in the Chanel forum have, helping to respond back to those posts that don't follow rules and therefore hard to authenticate.
What can TPF do?
Honestly that is a whole big essay and it’s at the end of the day the forum’s conundrum as the managers are the first ones to know it is in the forum's best interest to keep everyone happy so that they can continue to run the AT forums and get things authenticated with cheer.
I think that, aside from pages and pages and hours of dialogue, the one BEST thing that maybe might be doable is if posters for “reply” posts without quotes (so, new requests) on those AT forums get pop-up dialogue boxes - "ATTENTION: have you seen the authenticators’ requested photos and format rules in posts one and two (link)? If you do not follow these formats, your request may not be responded to.” and then “OK” out of it. And then somehow manually enable the authenticators to disable the pop up since it would drive them nuts to see it whenever posting or responding.
The fact of the matter is that 99% of people who come to AT forums do not read the rules on page 1, no matter how many times you remind them throughout the thread.
Has anyone ever gone on another thread before that you’re not familiar with? For example, FlyerTalk forums. Who ever reads the rules? You just go in and start asking what you want to know. Same thing. But with that popup, I can almost guarantee that more than 40% of these issues could be prevented, including the drama, being females, so on, so forth…
Last edited:
No offense, but haven't you erred in the past regarding authentications for Chanel?
I do recall several occasions and would hate to see TPF get into any sort of legal trouble.
A quick example: (Post #9984 you deemed a fake, post #9985 is the seller of the bag, further down-thread and on the next page CB, Etinceler and others deem the bag to be authentic)
http://forum.purseblog.com/chanel-s...chanel-read-the-rules-and-use-862961-666.html
Again, no offense. Only looking out for the members/admins best interests.
No offense, but haven't you erred in the past regarding authentications for Chanel?
I do recall several occasions and would hate to see TPF get into any sort of legal trouble.
A quick example: (Post #9984 you deemed a fake, post #9985 is the seller of the bag, further down-thread and on the next page CB, Etinceler and others deem the bag to be authentic)
http://forum.purseblog.com/chanel-s...chanel-read-the-rules-and-use-862961-666.html
Again, no offense. Only looking out for the members/admins best interests.
I know which massive pile-on incident you are referring to; I'm happy to take this discussion offline, but I have every reason to believe that was not an error and the bag was not authentic. I have otherwise authenticated hundreds of other Chanels on the forum in the past, but unfortunately was put off by the way that the one disagreement was handled and decided it wasn't worth my time contribution, until I saw the gaping need today.
No offense taken. Keep in mind these comments by experts are opinions at best. It is impossible to be certain with photos. I don't care if it was 3 vs. 1 in terms of opinions - it is STILL possible that the three are wrong. Or vice versa. The only way to know for sure is to procure the bag. At the time, if I recall correctly, without a shadow of a doubt there was something very off about that bag.
Also, this goes to my other point - I have been collecting Chanel for decades and I would never dare comment on something without being pretty darned sure. That being said, I was most put off by the fact that none of those who publicly disagreed asked me why I was so convinced the bag was fake. Good authenticators will be curious to know why someone points something out. Always.
To Nikki_'s point, any mod who has concerns about me authenticating on AT Chanel, should let me know, and I am happy to not authenticate and save the time I meant to put in to fill in the temporary hole.
Last edited:
- Status