Group Buy (GB) = Sale mechanism based on prepayment model for future delivery of a product, where a certain order quantity must be reached before the order is placed. For the purposes of these ratings, a GB must be at least 250 MoQ for keysets and 50 MoQ for keyboards across all participating vendors (eg. lead vendor + regional proxies).For running group buys / pre-orders for "low"-quantity keyboards/keycaps, switches, deskmats or other things:
Made to Order (MTO) = or "Rolling Fulfillment" is an ongoing sale that could last for several months or longer, during which time customers can purchase a customized version of the product to be fulfilled within a specific time. For the purposes of this system, these types of sales are treated as a single GB for each MTO product.
Great initiative, and quite exhaustive.
There are a few things in the document that are quite unclear.
The definition of a group buy according to the document:QuoteGroup Buy (GB) = Sale mechanism based on prepayment model for future delivery of a product, where a certain order quantity must be reached before the order is placed. For the purposes of these ratings, a GB must be at least 250 MoQ for keysets and 50 MoQ for keyboards across all participating vendors (eg. lead vendor + regional proxies).For running group buys / pre-orders for "low"-quantity keyboards/keycaps, switches, deskmats or other things:
- Does this mean, that they can be advertised without it counting towards the GB limit?
- If not, can they still be allowed to be advertised as a proxy vendor for these without it counting towards the GB limit?
- Does it mean, that they will not count towards fulfilled group buys once delivered?
QuoteMade to Order (MTO) = or "Rolling Fulfillment" is an ongoing sale that could last for several months or longer, during which time customers can purchase a customized version of the product to be fulfilled within a specific time. For the purposes of this system, these types of sales are treated as a single GB for each MTO product.
- Can a "group" of different but similar products be advertised? (i.e. plate cutting and case printing?) with it only counting as one GB?
- How will this count towards fulfilled GBs? (x deliveries etc?)
As the title of the system is "MK Vendor Trust and Safety System" and the group buys are only mentioned in the subtitle, there is a chance it may mislead some customers to believe a C-rated vendor that primarily sells in-stock items is untrustworthy. The C-rated vendor only has a rating as they want to be allowed to promote their store on one of the collaborating platforms. As the rating cannot improve without successful GBs, it may encourage the vendor to either run products as pre-orders / MTO in order to boost their trust rating, rather than selling in-stock items. (Not unlike how Americans take out a loan for a car rather than buying it with the cash they have on hand, in order to boost their credit-rating)
- Are there any plans to be able to increase trust rating by being a reliable in-stock vendor?
- Will participating networks/partners be encouraged to disclose that it is a Group Buy Trust System when referencing the system?
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:
Will non-vendor related hobbyist-ran and self-fulfilled keyboard projects still allowed to advertise on GH?
I am honestly not sure if all these rating system was necessary and I can see it hurting new or small vendors. So far, all the scams seem to happen due to a person or vendor not paying the invoice, regardless of their previous successful GBs, and none of the parties involved mentioning anything until it is too late. I think rather than giving scores, a better system would be to have all vendors have their invoice information publicly available. I see that in the document there is an info about GB status updates, but nothing is mentioned about invoices. I think vendor accepting or not accepting this is a better indication of a potential scam than a score system designed by few people that can also be exploited or abused in the future.
Hoff works for Drop/Corsair. Being on a committee that rates competitors and has access to some of their GB data from the Vendor Profile Form submissions is a massive conflict of interest. Even the appearance of impropriety or a potential conflict of interest would be a violation of any serious code of conduct. That he sits on a Trust & Safety Admin Team is hilariously ironic.
i dont think his comment has anything to do with drop as a vendor, but moreso that drop is directly connected to this commitee, hence the point about it being a conflict of interest.
There are a few things in the document that are quite unclear.
The definition of a group buy according to the document:QuoteGroup Buy (GB) = Sale mechanism based on prepayment model for future delivery of a product, where a certain order quantity must be reached before the order is placed. For the purposes of these ratings, a GB must be at least 250 MoQ for keysets and 50 MoQ for keyboards across all participating vendors (eg. lead vendor + regional proxies).For running group buys / pre-orders for "low"-quantity keyboards/keycaps, switches, deskmats or other things:
- Does this mean, that they can be advertised without it counting towards the GB limit?
- If not, can they still be allowed to be advertised as a proxy vendor for these without it counting towards the GB limit?
- Does it mean, that they will not count towards fulfilled group buys once delivered?
QuoteMade to Order (MTO) = or "Rolling Fulfillment" is an ongoing sale that could last for several months or longer, during which time customers can purchase a customized version of the product to be fulfilled within a specific time. For the purposes of this system, these types of sales are treated as a single GB for each MTO product.
- Can a "group" of different but similar products be advertised? (i.e. plate cutting and case printing?) with it only counting as one GB?
- How will this count towards fulfilled GBs? (x deliveries etc?)
As the title of the system is "MK Vendor Trust and Safety System" and the group buys are only mentioned in the subtitle, there is a chance it may mislead some customers to believe a C-rated vendor that primarily sells in-stock items is untrustworthy. The C-rated vendor only has a rating as they want to be allowed to promote their store on one of the collaborating platforms. As the rating cannot improve without successful GBs, it may encourage the vendor to either run products as pre-orders / MTO in order to boost their trust rating, rather than selling in-stock items. (Not unlike how Americans take out a loan for a car rather than buying it with the cash they have on hand, in order to boost their credit-rating)
- Are there any plans to be able to increase trust rating by being a reliable in-stock vendor?
- Will participating networks/partners be encouraged to disclose that it is a Group Buy Trust System when referencing the system?
Great initiative, and quite exhaustive.
There are a few things in the document that are quite unclear.
The definition of a group buy according to the document:QuoteGroup Buy (GB) = Sale mechanism based on prepayment model for future delivery of a product, where a certain order quantity must be reached before the order is placed. For the purposes of these ratings, a GB must be at least 250 MoQ for keysets and 50 MoQ for keyboards across all participating vendors (eg. lead vendor + regional proxies).For running group buys / pre-orders for "low"-quantity keyboards/keycaps, switches, deskmats or other things:
- Does this mean, that they can be advertised without it counting towards the GB limit?
- If not, can they still be allowed to be advertised as a proxy vendor for these without it counting towards the GB limit?
- Does it mean, that they will not count towards fulfilled group buys once delivered?
QuoteMade to Order (MTO) = or "Rolling Fulfillment" is an ongoing sale that could last for several months or longer, during which time customers can purchase a customized version of the product to be fulfilled within a specific time. For the purposes of this system, these types of sales are treated as a single GB for each MTO product.
- Can a "group" of different but similar products be advertised? (i.e. plate cutting and case printing?) with it only counting as one GB?
- How will this count towards fulfilled GBs? (x deliveries etc?)
As the title of the system is "MK Vendor Trust and Safety System" and the group buys are only mentioned in the subtitle, there is a chance it may mislead some customers to believe a C-rated vendor that primarily sells in-stock items is untrustworthy. The C-rated vendor only has a rating as they want to be allowed to promote their store on one of the collaborating platforms. As the rating cannot improve without successful GBs, it may encourage the vendor to either run products as pre-orders / MTO in order to boost their trust rating, rather than selling in-stock items. (Not unlike how Americans take out a loan for a car rather than buying it with the cash they have on hand, in order to boost their credit-rating)
- Are there any plans to be able to increase trust rating by being a reliable in-stock vendor?
- Will participating networks/partners be encouraged to disclose that it is a Group Buy Trust System when referencing the system?
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:
TIL that being in business longer makes you more trustworthy. This means I can fully trust HSBC. :thumb:
Will non-vendor related hobbyist-ran and self-fulfilled keyboard projects still allowed to advertise on GH?
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".
While I think the idea is good, the more I look into it and discuss it with many members of the community, the more I start to see this as an flawed idea.
I feel that the entire idea of a rating system is stupid, because it treats the situation as a objective thing when it really isn't. there are so many moving variables when it comes to these situations that rating it objectively is kinda missing the point, there are far more moving variables than just if they delivered or not and if they are responsive for support, people can have a perfectly good track record and still just go away never to be seen. This feels like a way to minimize damage and not actively prevent it, which is better than nothing but doesn't fix the issue long term and will allow people to get scammed still.
I have concerns with how concentrated the amount of power is through this system, in the hands of a few people. It does not help that the system feels like it's designed to benefit the big players in the hobby and not the small ones. I am worried about the massive conflict of interest here and I think a lot of people wouldn't trust a bunch of discord and reddit mods to handle this in a way that is unbiased. What is stopping someone from excluding someone from this list, someone who has not done anything wrong and is a reputable business just simply because someone on the team doesn't like the person running the business, or a large company, secretly paying someone to get rid of competition of the list, limiting the ability to advertise to a lot of the community, the way the system is currently implemented seems exploitable.
I also understand that this is very early in development but presentation needs a lot of work, I feel that the new people who need this info the most will not go and read a random spreadsheet about it, this information needs to be properly presented in a website in an appealing way.
At the end of the day, a centralized data set about vendors is a good thing. But I feel that the whole thing seems rushed without any foresight into the long term effects and how this would affect smaller vendors and individuals. I hope things can improve and the system be fully fleshed out.
That's just how I feel though. Would like to hear other opinions.
Hoff works for Drop/Corsair. Being on a committee that rates competitors and has access to some of their GB data from the Vendor Profile Form submissions is a massive conflict of interest. Even the appearance of impropriety or a potential conflict of interest would be a violation of any serious code of conduct. That he sits on a Trust & Safety Admin Team is hilariously ironic.
Hoff works for Drop/Corsair. Being on a committee that rates competitors and has access to some of their GB data from the Vendor Profile Form submissions is a massive conflict of interest. Even the appearance of impropriety or a potential conflict of interest would be a violation of any serious code of conduct. That he sits on a Trust & Safety Admin Team is hilariously ironic.
I am honestly not sure if all these rating system was necessary and I can see it hurting new or small vendors. So far, all the scams seem to happen due to a person or vendor not paying the invoice, regardless of their previous successful GBs, and none of the parties involved mentioning anything until it is too late. I think rather than giving scores, a better system would be to have all vendors have their invoice information publicly available. I see that in the document there is an info about GB status updates, but nothing is mentioned about invoices. I think vendor accepting or not accepting this is a better indication of a potential scam than a score system designed by few people that can also be exploited or abused in the future.
I am honestly not sure if all these rating system was necessary and I can see it hurting new or small vendors.
So far, all the scams seem to happen due to a person or vendor not paying the invoice, regardless of their previous successful GBs, and none of the parties involved mentioning anything until it is too late. I think rather than giving scores, a better system would be to have all vendors have their invoice information publicly available. I see that in the document there is an info about GB status updates, but nothing is mentioned about invoices. I think vendor accepting or not accepting this is a better indication of a potential scam than a score system designed by few people that can also be exploited or abused in the future.
i dont think his comment has anything to do with drop as a vendor, but moreso that drop is directly connected to this commitee, hence the point about it being a conflict of interest.
This thread's original post states that the new MK Vendor Trust and Safety System "is intended to improve trust and transparency of vendors running keyboard and keyset group buys." It "is a community-driven effort, relying on vendors, consumers, platforms and streamers to report and maintain vendor GB status and commitments."
There are 14 vendors in the current document's (http://www.mktrust.org/) "Contributors and Acknowledgements" list (see image below). Working for a vendor does not conflict with being a platform moderator and/or part of the admin team. They are all part of this community and share a common goal.Show Image(https://i.postimg.cc/cdG0Bm3H/System-Contributors.png)
Show Image(https://i.imgur.com/7EwssRT.png)
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.
This feels like a way to minimize damage and not actively prevent it, which is better than nothing but doesn't fix the issue long term and will allow people to get scammed still.
I have concerns with how concentrated the amount of power is through this system, in the hands of a few people. It does not help that the system feels like it's designed to benefit the big players in the hobby and not the small ones. I am worried about the massive conflict of interest here and I think a lot of people wouldn't trust a bunch of discord and reddit mods to handle this in a way that is unbiased. What is stopping someone from excluding someone from this list, someone who has not done anything wrong and is a reputable business just simply because someone on the team doesn't like the person running the business, or a large company, secretly paying someone to get rid of competition of the list, limiting the ability to advertise to a lot of the community, the way the system is currently implemented seems exploitable.
Further adding to this hurting new vendors, I think it's by design. They don't want so many untrustworthy newcomers when there is always an established circle of vendors who can pick any project.
Advertising on this platform doesn't mean much anymore, and during my last gb Reddit's r/mechanicalkeyboards wasn't allowing promotional posts by most anyone, however allowed some posts from larger vendors absolutely hurting the numbers and exposure for my set.
There should be a process to prove that a business is in this hobby for real, however I don't think that's possible, but everyone should remember we had to trust novelkeys, Dixie, originative, zeal, etc without any reason to believe they were for real too. This rating system absolutely harms people attempting to profit from the hobby without an already established connection, harming lesser designers and vendors. There's absolutely no correct precaution for joining gbs other than giving people the facts and their rights as a consumer.
what did you type all of that with
I think that this system will be a great step forward, and I'm excited to see if it can make a positive impact. The system definitely needs time to make a real effect on the community, but there is just one thing I'd like to see as the system moves from a draft to the real deal: versioning.
As far as I can tell, Google Docs doesn't support redlining (https://support.google.com/docs/thread/76582472/can-i-create-a-redlined-version-in-docs?hl=en) (at least not natively), but I would like to see when updates are made specifically to the language surrounding the vendor classifications as well as the language of the terms and definitions.
I think a Github repository could serve this purpose well: Github would allow the community to easily track changes to the main document, view the vendor rating pages in a more organized fashion, as well as provide a platform for posting and discussing issues surrounding the system. I also think a repository would scale better, especially as more vendors and individuals participate in the system.
One question I do have is: will the December 8th enforcement date be coordinated across all participating platforms?
So far, the only found hard dates I've found were in this thread and specific to GeekHack. I don't see any dates on the r/mechanicalkeyboards, r/mechmarket, or the MechMarket discord posts. I definitely may have just missed them, but I wanted to ask to be sure.
Do we have a time frame on submission reviews (Apologies if i've missed it) - We'd submitted the day the doc came out but haven't heard anything back since.