geekhack Marketplace > Group Buys and Preorders
Introducing the "MK Vendor Trust and Safety System" for Group Buys
pixelpusher:
--- Quote from: carlanthony on Wed, 08 November 2023, 13:04:01 ---
Just wanted to echo what is mentioned here as well. Some clarification on MK's points would definitely be appreciated, especially toward his last sentiment.
I'm the co-owner of Divinikey.com, a vendor that has specialized in in-stock product for our industry for the last 3 years. We also would like to see some sort of trust rating boost for being a reliable in-stock vendor as well. Years of service, number of transactions, and traffic to the store are some metrics that could be used to help identify in-stock vendors as trustworthy or not.
Under the current system, we would be punished with a lower trust rating for choosing our business model despite being considered a trustworthy vendor.
We are definitely open to having a discussion on this. I'll submit similar feedback on the listed feedback form as well! Hopefully we can work something out. :thumb:
--- End quote ---
You guys rock, and I'd love to see a way for you to earn AAA vendor status. I agree, there has to be a way to boost vendors who offer a lot of in-stock options and have a good reputation.
ankit:
Will non-vendor related hobbyist-ran and self-fulfilled keyboard projects still allowed to advertise on GH?
pixelpusher:
--- Quote from: ankit on Wed, 08 November 2023, 15:30:56 ---Will non-vendor related hobbyist-ran and self-fulfilled keyboard projects still allowed to advertise on GH?
--- End quote ---
I believe the plan is you will be required to have a rating to post a group buy on Geekhack. So you would have a rating of "N" most likely.
wigol2506:
With the ideals of this new system in mind, it leans towards consumer protection but balanced against obligations expected from vendors. With that said, I do wish that the definition of "Failed GB" can be revised and fine-tuned, or alternatively, a temporary label (other than Safety Rating D) for Vendors who have not shown to have paid even the manufacturer's 1st invoice.
My points of concern:
1. "initial GB delivery ETA" are provided by vendor, consumers do not have transparency that the estimated delivery time was indeed provided by the manufacturers, hence it could be arbitrary or padded with their own concerns for fulfilment. We have seen different ETAs provided by Vendors even in the same region.
2. "500 days from close of GB" opens a wide exposure of risks to consumers, considering the chargeback window from most credit card companies are way lesser than this.
I has given to understand that most manufacturers do not require full upfront payment for the GB orders, but at least a part of it. There has been concerns of reputable vendors protracting delivery of manufactured GB orders that are ready to be shipped due to non-payment of invoices (progressive, final or otherwise) to the manufacturers. Having this difficulty / non-payment of invoices when due whilst accepting new GBs could possibly indicate cashflow issues to fulfil customers' orders. Eventually, the deficit hole cannot be fully recovered.
I hope you can consider a mechanism that could:-
(a) Require Vendors to provide proof that at least the 1st manufacturer's invoice is paid no later than 120 days before the commencement of the GB (or whatever the average chargeback window period is for credit card companies); and/or
(b) Monitor the progressive payments of manufacturer's invoices when they fall due, at least a % based monitoring, i.e. 30% of manufacturer's invoices paid.
I think this will either relieve some of the concerns from potential GB customers or assuage fears from people who have previously lost monies due to false reassurance by Vendors / GB runners that "things are positively in progress".
Kokaloo:
All vendors should be required to display their grade on the shop website displaying their rating given by the MK Vendor Trust and Safety System.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version