I'm not sure if anyone else agrees with me, but I work for Rebel Sport, and while there are deals posted by members, it seems according to the guidelines.. I have to click the REP tag because I work there. However, the REP tag seems to imply I am the go to person to answer any questions regarding any orders, i.e. the "official representative".
Maybe an EMP tag, indicating Employee-status, but not officially-representing a store could be implemented?
I just think the "REP" tag may be a little generic, that's all :)
Employee Tag/Official Rep
cwongtech on 18/08/2013 - 02:20
Comments
I agree. I work for Virgin Australia and often don't post deals because I don't want to be the "go to person" for questions or complaints.
Can an employee post a deal and not tick the rep box?
E.g. someone works at Coles and posts a deal for cheap coke cans or paper reams… they're not really a rep because and neither do they get anything out of posting the deal, so they don't really have any ulterior motives
I believe we discussed this before and the issue is REP covers a number of situations and EMP doesn't.
Tick this if you are affiliated with this store/service provider in any way (e.g. official store representative, employee, business partner, contractor, friend/family of staff member). IMPORTANT: Failure to declare affiliation may result in sockpuppeting penalties.
So EMP would work fine for employees but there are many cases of a family member, friend, contractor, external marketing firm, etc.. So we thought perhaps AFF to signify affiliated with the deal but that's the acronym we use for Affiliate links (where OP has a link that earns them store credit). We originally had AFF called REF but people couldn't distinguish REF from REP. We also have people posting who are contractors, web designers, and other odd situations.
So I'm not sure what 3 letter acronym could say I'm affiliated with this company but not an official rep. The best advice is to not post deals for the company you work for. If you do choose to post deals from your company, then either click the rep box or declare in the description what your role is.
The goal is transparency here. We want people posting deals because they are good deals.
I don't post deals for my workplace, but I do comment in some of them, and it seems I am supposed to click the rep tag when I comment in the place I work at.
Also noticed a glitch in the system, where you aren't supposed to neg someone's comment when the REP box is ticked, I.e. it disappears, you can still neg a comment, as a rep(ticked), in the mobile version of the site. Thought you might like to know :)I don't post deals for my workplace, but I do comment in some of them, and it seems I am supposed to click the rep tag when I comment in the place I work at.
Yes, if you work for the company, then click the "I am associated with ABC Corp.". It doesn't mean you are an official rep. It only signifies that you are associated with the company. This goes towards transparency in comments (if only politicians has this). Maybe we need to make it more clear that it's just an association rather than an official rep. Any ideas?
My personal view is that I would never comment on any deals associated with my employer (there have been a few). I extend this to most websites. I usually send an email to the social media peeps for them to decide whether or not to comment.
My personal view is that I would never comment on any deals associated with my employer (there have been a few).
As I work in footwear, naturally I would want to put some input as a fellow OzB member with some background knowledge about shoes and brands, but not as a "Rep" for the store.
It holds accountability to the things I post, and most likely if it was reflected in a negative way, I could be hunted down for trashing their public image.I usually send an email to the social media peeps for them to decide whether or not to comment.
Well, here is the thing: I am happy to disclose I work at the store, but not really happy to REPresent them, hence the issue of the tag. Taking on unnecessary responsibilities and liabilities for free of charge? :\
Why would I contact the social media team, when it's just a casual job? That would just make me more easily identifiable by them if I say something wrong (easier to hunt!). Or they could tell me to just keep my mouth shut, which sort of defeats the purpose for me trying to participate as an OzB member.
The REP tag sort of makes me do this..
There's a cantonese saying: Lah-see-surng-sun
Translates to: Grabbing poo upon your own self
Neil, I think I disagree with you on this one.
I know what you're trying to achieve with regards to transparency, but transparency is only an issue when there is a conflict of interest.
For example, if I am the owner of a business and I post here, then it's quite clear that I have to tick the rep box, because there is a conflict of interest, I am making money off the sales.
If I am employed by the company to market them online or to target OzBargain as my official role, there would be a similar conflict of interest, it is my job to post deals here.
In both those cases, I will "get something out of" posting the deal, thus, the conflict of interest is there. However, if I work in a chain store, such as Target and I notice a deal that's nice, I do think that I should be able to post it up without ticking the rep box, because I have no conflict of interest, I don't have any other motive for posting on OzBargain apart from the fact that it is a good deal.
I guess you could argue that I want people to buy from Target so their profits increase and I have a higher likelihood of keeping my job…etc. but really, that's all quite farfetched.
Also, "friend/family of staff member" also gets murky because I have heaps of friends who work in retail and I'm sure others would be the same.
For clarity, this is a long standing site policy which is inline with other sites like Whirlpool and Wikipedia. (Not just my personal opinion)
I see what you are saying. Unfortunately, that relies on people being honest. We have a few people a week pretending to be customers or not related to a business.
While we can sometimes detect where people work, we can't tell what their motivations are or what their job is. Sure, if someone is purely a checkout person at a register then there isn't an issue. But how do we verify that? Would we have to have to do that with each person?
There have also been many cases of say a marketing department sending out an email to employees telling them to comment and vote on their deals. 99% of the time it isn't a giant corporation like Target. It's the small(er) businesses.
It's easier for everyone involved to just not post or comment on those deals. Anyone who has a conflict of interest can always talk to the moderators and discuss the situation.
I suppose ASS for associates is out of the question?
I think the ASS tag may be reserved for other kinds of users ;).
But maybe 3 letter descriptors are not enough. Maybe a full tag is needed. It's definitely an issue and we would like to hear any suggestions.
How about ASD or ASC for associated?
Users could choose either 'I am associated with ABC Company' or 'I represent ABC Company'.
Additionally the tags could be more easily identified with different colours. Currently the MOD and REP tag are the same colour.
Sure, that could work. I do think we need to think outside of the 3 letter box though. Scott probably has some higher level thoughts.
Just an update — yes we'll put that in plan. Rather than using 3 letters to define the role, maybe icons or colour tags with more description when you hover over it.
Thanks mate!
I agree, I've seen this before, and just because people work at a company it does not make them "reps". An employee badge would be great!