User negotiated deals assisting stores avoid the rules

Mr BoMBAStiG on 29/07/2015 - 12:20
Last edited 29/07/2015 - 22:14 by 1 other user

Warning, unpopular opinion ahead…

First off, I think it's great we are getting good deals on popular items. However, I think this is worth discussing because it is starting to become a trend.

The reason I bring this up is because there are rules as to how often a store representative can post deals on OzBargain. Shopping Square has currently been banned from posting on OzB because of a breach of these rules, however in the past week they have had 4 codes, generated by SS staff for the purpose of being posted on OzB, hit the front page. Shopping Express and PCByte seem to be in good order as their official store reps seem to rarely post (once a month), however it should be noted that PCByte is only narrowly avoiding breaching the 2 deals per week rule depending on how you define a store rep.

Now the definition of a store rep is pretty loose which is why I think the current strategy of having OzB members post on their behalf is working so well for these retailers. It's all well and good to say that an OzBargainer negotiated hard to drive down the price but let's not forget that they are still just companies who have a bottom line of making money. They are not going to roll over because someone asked nicely, or aggressively ;), they are going to do whatever gets them the most clicks and sales.

This is not me accusing TA or EC of foul play as from what I have seen in the few months I have been a part of this community, they both genuinely want to help the rest of us get a great deal; I'm just making sure everyone is playing by the same rules.

TL;DR
We should be skeptical of all deals posted here, regardless of who posts them.

Site Discussion

Comments

  • cim85 on 29/07/2015 - 12:23
    +3

    Gee you are cutting red wires on a bomb with your opinion piece, lol

  • spackbace on 29/07/2015 - 12:26
    +5

    At the end of the day, until such deals aren't favoured by the community, and don't get the votes they should (as in, a store asks a member to post a deal, thats not a deal or just spam), what is the problem? What are we losing out on?

  • nocure on 29/07/2015 - 12:27
    -6

    This is not me accusing TA or EC of foul play.

    Sounds like you are.

  • Moderatorneil on 29/07/2015 - 12:29

    It's definitely a complicated issue. Good discussion and we are looking forward to hear the comments as we have been discussing this internally.

    The short of the current guidelines:

    • Users asking companies for deals and then posting WITHOUT receiving a financial reward (money/freebie/store credit etc.) is fine.

    • If there is a financial reward OR the company is asking you to post on behalf of them (as this bypasses posting limits), then the user should mark as associated.

    • spychiatrist on 29/07/2015 - 13:27
      +11

      Hi Mod,

      How do we know that there is really no financial reward? Yes, people are honest, but what if they are given gifts instead? Are gifts OK? Note: it's a gift given, not asked.

      Why can't the store reps stick to the rules and post the deals themselves. Two deals per week limit? Then reps should give their best two deals in a week. Or they could follow Dicks and post a new code everyday and let the OzB members post themselves, whether it's arse or EC, who cares?

      No offence to tightarse and EC (and others if any), many have benefited with their deals. But as cymon says (pun intended), everyone should play by the rules. A loophole was found, it's time for the community and for the mods to say their piece.

      I'll side with cymon on this one.

      • Moderatorneil on 29/07/2015 - 13:50

        How do we know that there is really no financial reward?

        We don't. In investigations, we look at the preponderance of evidence and make decisions based on that.

        Yes, people are honest, but what if they are given gifts instead? Are gifts OK?

        Freebies=Gifts.

        Two deals per week limit?

        It can be more or it could be less, depending on the success of their previous deals. Store Posting limits

        everyone should play by the rules.

        The guidelines are always evolving to make sure they ensure the best possible outcome for the community. So by the current rules, these posts are fine however we may need to make changes based on feedback.

        Technically speaking, users badgering stores for deals is great however in the real world there are always people who are willing to exploit that whether a Rep, a marketing company, or just a user.

        An example, referrals in deals was meant to be a bonus for those posting deals. While the majority of the time, its fine, there are the minority posting deals just to collect referrals. We had to completely ban posting referral links for group buy sites (Groupon etc.) due to this. So we had to come up with guidelines and limitations for what people post (and also not allowing new posters referrals). We've recently lifted the ban but now we are seeing another unrelated store with this issue, so we may need to ban referrals for that store or come up with a better solution.

        Point being, it's community feedback and looking at the deals that helps us figure out where to proceed. So love to hear suggestions. Maybe we need another tag to signify whatever you would call a user asking stores for deals?

        • spackbace on 29/07/2015 - 13:57
          +1

          now we are seeing another unrelated store with this issue

          Would be Vinomofo I'm guessing…

        • Davo1111 on 30/07/2015 - 12:37

          @Spackbace:

          ಠ_ಠ no guesses

        • Mr BoMBAStiG on 29/07/2015 - 14:13
          +2

          I agree and would have no problem if the OzB member said upfront that if 100 units sold, they got one free as everyone still wins.

          I also agree that members should be commended on their initiative of reaching out to stores to negotiate a better price or a group deal price, again everyone wins. This is obviously already happening with upvotes and comments which they deserve.

          All I want is for complete transparency to occur from both OzB members and companies, as well as ensuring everybody follows the same rules; or looking at changing the rules to make sure everyone gets the best deal.

          In the end, if the majority of the community, and admins, say that the current strategy is the best way forward then I am happy. All I wanted to do was have a chat about it.

        • Mr BoMBAStiG on 29/07/2015 - 15:41
          +1

          @Cheap Charlie:
          Fair point but only because something like a microSD card can have it's quality and price compared through other independent websites. I guess the concern is around practices like real estate agents telling you a solicitor is the best in the business and offers good rates when the agent gets a kick back from the solicitor without you knowing. Whilst they are similar scenarios, I guess they are far enough removed from each other to not warrant real concern.

        • Lukian on 01/08/2015 - 10:43
          +1

          @cymon: a true ozbargainer would want an extra 1% off the price for everyone :)

  • Bonsaichop on 29/07/2015 - 13:36
    -2

    Ahh poor T.A. I for one really do like his deals and appreciates how much he contributes to the community.

    No good deed goes unpunished….

    • Davo1111 on 30/07/2015 - 12:39
      +1

      This has nothing to do with user appreciation. It's about being open and upfront with your deals.

  • iridiumstem on 29/07/2015 - 14:21
    +15

    I feel like it's almost like "biting the hands that feed", almost a taboo, when anything is said against "these kinds of deals". While I do enjoy these deals, I feel like there is notion of "We are upvoting this because of the user, not the deal". Don't get me wrong, the deals that were bought to us by TA and EC have been good, that said, people tend to upvote based on user as well (i.e. Store reps, L, P get less votes than known members of the community). I personally think the deals wouldn't be as successful as they were, if they were posted by the store reps.

    I personally think there should be some anonymity on these user negotiated deals, not because I am not grateful or anything like that, but because the deals, I feel, are getting upvoted because it was a user negotiated deal.

    • spackbace on 29/07/2015 - 14:25
      +6

      We are upvoting this because of the user, not the deal". Don't get me wrong, the deals that were bought to us by TA and EC have been good, that said, people tend to upvote based on user as well

      Could see a bit of that between the 2 deals. TA beat EC's by 50c, yet look at the voting difference, 348 vs 156

        • iridiumstem on 29/07/2015 - 14:51
          +4

          The problem I see with these user negotiated deals is, if we vote out of anything other than the value of the deal, especially with the store and other things being mixed in the bag, I feel like it's going to get messy sooner or later. If I were a retailer, I'd see these user negotiated deals as a easy way of getting upvoted, since there are other factors othat than the value of the bargain that's making people to upvote.

          Don't get me wrong, I like these user negotiated deals. A bargain is a bargain. That said, user names, reputations, etc are making people to upvote as well. While I enjoy these deals, I cannot get rid of the feeling that stores can use it to bypass the negative connotations attached with "store rep" tags.

        • iridiumstem on 29/07/2015 - 15:06

          @Cheap Charlie: Yes, but people judge bargains based on votes and more votes give you more publicity on Ozbargain at least. Is it fair for certain retailers to grab more publicity because it was done via other means (other than posting it by themselves)?

          I personally see a potential for retailers to abuse how people react to reputations and user based negotiations. A bargain should be judged based on their values, as soon as you bring in other things like "reputations", etc etc, I personally see a potential for headaches. I felt that store rep tags at least evened the ground out for store reps in a way, they had to bring something decently valued because people automatically get put off by the store rep tag.

        • iridiumstem on 29/07/2015 - 16:07
          +4

          @Cheap Charlie: I think I see where you are coming from, people's vote is basically up to the individual's definition of what deserves a positive vote.

          That said, here are the reasons behind my thoughts:

          *. People tend to vote differently to store reps

          i.e. people rarely neg other users (while they are happy to neg store reps), store reps, L and P platers tend to get less votes. There was one case where a store rep posted a deal and it was voted like 10 votes, a user posted the same deal, and it had 20~30 votes before it got taken down as a duplicate deal.

          1. Some users do get more votes than others simply because who they are (i.e. compared to P or L platers at least).

          2. User negotiated deals is a deal from a retailer that does not have the store rep tag and are being posted by well known users.

          3. Therefore, user negotiated deals get voted more than what they would've been voted for if it was done by store reps.

          From those premises, I think user negotiated deals can cause distortion in number of votes that could potentially mislead other people. If what I've mentioned is correct (I will let others to be judges), having more votes this way will give more publicity as more votes means you get on front page, some apps notify you when a deal gets certain level of votes, etc etc. What I am asking is, is this fair? Is this fair for other store reps?

          Also, I personally see it opening up a possible way for reps to post deals without using their rep badge. I personally see store rep badges to put people off from voting up and allow people to neg more freely (refer to 1). If this premise is correct, store reps have incentive to bring something that will attract votes, to be able to post more deals. If they don't have to go through that, what would be the long run result? Wouldn't this potentially remove incentives to bring better valued bargains in the long run?

          These are the concerns I have. This is why I am suggesting some anonymity on these user negotiated deals. It will be at least more detached from the user, so people will be more willing to give negs.

          I think I am repeating myself a bit, I apologise. My brain is running low on caffeine. I do like these deals, it's just that I feel like there should be some regulation done on it. Not because I think EC and TA are going to abuse the system or I feel ungrateful towards them, but just because I personally think it's better to have rules before something messy happens.

        • scotty on 29/07/2015 - 16:49
          +2

          @AznMitch:

          I personally see a potential for retailers to abuse how people react to reputations and user based negotiations.

          On the other hand I think some of those negotiators, tightarse especially, also takes great care of his own reputation so he would only post when he spotted a very good deal or negotiated a good price. It's like those celebrity endorsements — talking too much crap and you lose your following.

          It gets complicated when you add that into the mix. Merchants looking for reputable individuals who will post without financial incentives, and those individuals are also guarding their reputation by only posting good deals. So far it sort of works, but we are watching it closely.

        • iridiumstem on 30/07/2015 - 04:45

          @scotty: I probably am slightly overreacting; I've seen so many cases where things started to get messy because there were money involved. Not suggesting that TA or EC or anyone who've negotitated those deals have been given a financial incentive, but these give the merchants financial benefits (in a roundabout way, more vote => publicity => higher chance of sales).

          Yeah, I am glad to hear that mods are watching what's happening with these. I don't want to see things getting messy, that is all. After all I do enjoy these deals (especially the codes, I love arsebargains).

        • sysplex on 31/07/2015 - 22:28

          @AznMitch:

          Some users do get more votes than others simply because who they are (i.e. compared to P or L platers at least).

          I vote for every L plater I see, more an encouragement vote to counterbalance any negs.

  • mskeggs on 29/07/2015 - 14:23
    +4

    So the rep posting limit is to stop them spamming lots of deals.
    An everyday user evaluates a deal, and if they think it is worth posting, do so.
    The community then votes. If it is popular, it makes the front page. If it is a poor deal, it doesn't.

    If there was a user posting many poor deals it might be something worth worrying about, but if the community keeps voting them up, then everybody seems to be a winner.
    I don't especially want the front page to be full of SD card deals, but then I don't want it to be all Dick Smith, or ebay 20% deals either. But from time to time a series of deals comes through giving good value, and legitimately gets up voted. Stopping one or two users posting more that 2 deals per week (or whatever rule you think would work) just seems to be likely to make deals be missed.

    • c64 on 29/07/2015 - 15:46

      An everyday user evaluates a deal, and if they think it is worth posting, do so.

      hmm, the trend nowadays on ozbargain is just to blindly post anything that dick smith or whoever posts. quality doesn't seem to be much of a consideration. might as well just have a direct rss feed to ozbargain

  • happychild100 on 29/07/2015 - 15:41
    +6

    Perhaps not allowing them in the monthly prizes too would be a good idea. It shouldn't be a competition to see who can ask/badger reps the most to get the best prices and hence upvotes (Not that I think it is now but I fear this is what it may start to become). If it's just because it's a way to great deals for us all, then I see no issues and the votes become pointless except to get to the front page, which I think most will if it's the cheapest price around anyway.

  • inherentchoice on 29/07/2015 - 15:56
    +4

    The voting system still works to identify good deals and bring them onto the front page.

    If it's a good deal with plenty of votes and some covert gift or kickbacks have flowed from the merchant to the OzB user who posts it for them, so what? In the world of retail and sales that's called commissions.

    As OP admits, it's pretty obvious when deals are posted on behalf of merchants. But cynicism and jealousy isn't a good reason to place restrictions on such posting, and it certainly isn't a good reason to ban such posting altogether.

    Let the voting system do what it does best. Avoid over-complicating it.

    • neil on 30/07/2015 - 11:14

      If it's a good deal with plenty of votes and some covert gift or kickbacks have flowed from the merchant to the OzB user who posts it for them, so what? In the world of retail and sales that's called commissions.

      Knowing that a person is receiving commission based on recommendations is absolutely necessary for the consumer to know. It was part of the FOFA reforms that consumer groups were pushing for. Advisors were often pushing the deals (with no declaration of commissions) that got them the most commission on rather than doing what they were supposed to do and giving their clients the best financial advice.

      Whether is be financial advisers, political donations, choppergates or OzBargain deals, transparency is always the best policy.

      • inherentchoice on 30/07/2015 - 11:34

        But apparently there are no strict transparency requirements for the salesmen selling furniture or electronic goods or tools or garden equipment or phone plans or foxtel. Or call centre workers selling insurance premiums, even mortgage brokers. All those salespeople earn commissions. And the list goes on and on.

        I was talking about retail and sales. I think there is a massive distinction between general goods and services, and receiving tailored financial advice about investing life savings potentially worth millions. I think it's a fallacy of equivocation to draw comparisons between a single $10 SD card purchase and the long-term management and investment of significant life savings.

        I am not saying transparency is bad. But it is difficult to enforce, and not with enforcing. Don't make unnecessary work for the mods.

        It's usually clear enough when a user is working with a merchant. And the community does comment and voice concerns if the user may be receiving a benefit. I don't see why it would really need to be policed beyond that.

        • neil on 30/07/2015 - 11:54
          +1

          I would put salesmen and call centre people in with the lowest trust ranking.
          I would put financial advisers at a higher trust ranking.
          I would put friends & family at the highest trust ranking.

          So if I can equate that to OzBargain:

          I would put a rep's (and those associated) trust ranking at the lowest.
          New users at a higher ranking.
          Normal users with a referral link at a less than medium rank.
          Normal users as medium ranking.
          Long time users who have posted numerous posts at the highest trustability.
          Long time users with a referral or kickback would be less trustable.

          I think that's why we sometimes see almost similar posts by a rep vs. a normal user have completely different voting results. So personally, I'd like to have the transparency in order to determine whether I'll go for a deal or not.

        • inherentchoice on 30/07/2015 - 12:55

          @neil: So we both agree that transparency is good.

          But it relies on individual honesty. Not sure you want to be policing this or if it's even necessary.

          As I explained above, it is NOT "absolutely necessary for the consumer to know" if a person is receiving benefits.

        • neil on 30/07/2015 - 14:04

          @inherentchoice:

          My personal philosophy was best said by Captain Picard. :)

  • Axelstrife on 29/07/2015 - 21:41
    +6

    I don't really care how the deals came to be if they are good they get a plus vote if they are not the cheapest they get a neg vote.

    • sysplex on 31/07/2015 - 22:23

      Same here. Get TA & EC working their butts off for all of us.

  • tightarse on 01/08/2015 - 00:07
    +38

    Hi all. I had no idea this discussion existed until a user directed me to it. I find some of the comments fascinating.

    Let me start by saying that I easily invest 4 hours of my own time each day looking for deals to post on OzBargain, and more recently ChoiceCheapies. This is time I could be spending with my family or concentrating more on my day job, but I choose this because it's something I love. It helps me escape the rigors of my normal job, which has more pressure associated with it than I care to share. It also has everything to do with my love for helping people. Ye I know, sounds corny, but it is the truth. It has nothing to do with awards, money, kickbacks or gifts. I'm not sure what I need to do to alleviate people's concerns, but rest assured I've never asked for or received anything from anyone except scotty for a number of monthly awards, a yearly award, and a prize for posting a video in a comp.

    Now back to the subject at hand. I totally understand concerns regarding reps and their posting limits, but what people need to remember is that, in my case at least, I approach the reps, not the other way around. I choose the item, I do the research, and I negotiate the price according to what I believe the community will accept as a good deal. The reps don't tell me what price to post at. If they won't come down to my price, I won't post the deal. Simple. This is the reason most of the deals I post now are successful. There's a lot of background work that people just don't see with most deals. For want of a better term, I've matured a lot as a poster. It's very rare a deal doesn't make front page as I now have a far better understanding of what the community wants.

    I've now personally contacted at least 50 reps, and have even emailed companies such as eBay, PayPal, Telstra, Masters, and Ticketek all in the name of finding deals for you guys. So when I see discussions such as this, with some comments questioning integrity and honesty, it really does hurt. I've even considered pulling the plug a number of times, but I can't. It's a drug and I'm addicted. I have no idea why people can't just accept deals on face value and move on, especially after seasoned posters have gone to the trouble on more than one occasion to explain why we do what we do.

    Take a look at what's happened in the past few weeks. I'm not going to blow trumpets here, but I reckon EC and I have contributed to getting the market price of SSDs & memory cards down to a level that the community agrees is a bargain and I'm sure most of you have purchased from these deals. Is there something wrong with that? How is that a bad thing? I reckon it's something we should all be celebrating, not questioning. But again, it's just my opinion.

    Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't the purpose of this wonderful site to find bargains? Initially there was criticism for posting too many Udemy courses, then it was eBooks, and now it's for approaching stores. Seriously? Seems you just can't make everyone happy all the time. Personally, I see nothing at all wrong with this, and everything right with it. But I'm also a believer in majority rules. So if the community and the moderators believe there are issues with these posts, I'll (we'll) find another source for deals I'm sure.

    I welcome any positive or negative feedback. Thank you. TA.

    • easternculture on 01/08/2015 - 00:42
      +16

      Well said TA.

      Let me start by saying that I easily invest 4 hours of my own time each day looking for deals to post on OzBargain

      Very True. When im actively posting deals, i spend anywhere between 2 to 6 hrs on OZB.

      I approach the reps, not the other way around. I negotiate the price, according to what I believe the community will accept as a good deal.

      This is what ive been doing with Shopping Square and another merchant. Ive also asked them to try and source some products that i believe will be front page deals on OZB

      I've now personally contacted at least 50 reps, and have even emailed companies such as eBay, PayPal, Telstra, Masters, and Ticketek all in the name of finding deals for you guys

      Ive contacted Amazon, iHerb, Amaysim, COTD, DSE just to name a few to try and get some good deals for the OZB community

      but I reckon EC and I have contributed to getting the market price of SSDs & memory cards down to a level that the community agrees is a bargain

      Totally agree, the last 2 deals for the sandisk SSD are unheard of and probably cheapest in the world, not just Australia

      Thanks for your efforts TA. You are a Legend.

    • Mr BoMBAStiG on 01/08/2015 - 07:59

      Thanks for weighing in mate. I should have made my post clearer about how much I appreciate your efforts and value you contribution to this community (you too EC and other regular posters).

      After reading your reply I am even more convinced of your authenticity and hope you are not swayed in your dedication to bargain hunting.

      Having said all that, and along the same lines as what Neil said above, I still don't trust reps or stores. Sure there are plenty of honest and good store owners out there, but we know their bottom line is still profit.

      I hope we can find a way to put everyone's minds at ease and keep the bargains coming.

      • spychiatrist on 01/08/2015 - 14:33

        Cymon, could you please edit your post and put a polling booth to see what the community thinks?

        A long time ago, a store rep approached me and asked if I can post on the store's behalf, promising a commission for sales and traffic. The offer is tempting and the work easy but I declined.

        I told the rep, if the deal is good, someone from OzB will pick it up and post it on their behalf FOR FREE - no strings attached, no payments required, BECAUSE THAT'S HOW OZB SHOULD WORK, I believe.

        Now, commissions, gifts, I couldn't care less if someone else is given those things. Some people make it sound that those that do not feel uncomfortable of these negotiated bargains are jealous. I can't speak for the others but I don't give a shit if someone gets something or becomes the most popular poster on the face of this planet or the universe - but there should be transparency, and that no rules should be circumvent in any deals posted.

        Again, if a deal is good the members will post them. You want your store to get traffic and sales - post a deal that the community will like.

    • [Deactivated] on 01/08/2015 - 15:09
      +3

      Sounds pretty genuine to me. Although i have only been on here for a couple of years, its been long enough to see the good deals from the average ones. I know TA spends ages hunting for deals, its a passion and im glad he shares it with the rest of us. Do we really want to lose great contributors like these guys? and go back to a few good deals here and there? i wish i had the strength and time to do what these guys do.

    • ShoppingExpress on 03/08/2015 - 12:30
      +10

      I've commented this before in one of the thread and i'm gonna put it here:

      TA has never receive ANY kickbacks from ShoppingExpress. Why? He has never ask for any and was more interested in negotiating a good deal to his best ability for ozbargain. Before he contacted me, i wasn't aware how dedicated he is to ozbargain. After being "squeezed by him" numerous times, i start to appreciate he work his socks for ozbargain and has earn my respect, making me more willing to go the extra mile to provide him & ozbargain the best deal possible.

      I've posted regularly on ozbargain before and i find it difficult to do that and your daily job well. Making a post/looking after it at night when you have a family and when you should be spending time elsewhere is also not a very easy thing to do either. I've only posted 232 deals while TA has done so much more - posting, voting, commenting.

      Besides TOTALLY IMPRESSED by how much time he dedicated to ozbargain, despite being a person with day job and a family - I have absolutely no doubt about his integrity & honesty.

      Keep it up TA

      SE

      • gimli on 03/08/2015 - 14:55

        So what about ec…

        • ShoppingExpress on 03/08/2015 - 17:53
          +2

          This reply is suppose for TA's thread. But since you ask….

          I knew about EC before TA. EC is the first ozbargain poster that approached me for customized coupon code and the first ozbargain poster i acknowledge for his appraisal skills. He made sure the price is the right price for ozbargain before posting. Although he has not been posting customized code from us recently, i trust that the post he's done with other companies is good bargain price & beneficial for ozbargain. He is also contributing a lot in comments and helps keep the quality of post appearing on ozbargain front page deals. I believe he also knows what he is doing and will do the right thing.

          Both of them are great assets to ozbargain and they did well to produce great ozbargain deals this couple of weeks.

          SE

    • murkywater on 06/08/2015 - 14:57

      Thanks TA. Really appreciate all that you do for Ozb. The negotiated deals you've been posting have been great, and Ozbargain has benefited from it greatly. Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot.

    • Innamura on 06/08/2015 - 15:08

      Thanks for all your amazing work and dedication TA. Ozbargain wouldn't be as successful without the altruistic endeavours of posters such as yourself, EC, Trent etc. If anything, your effort serves as an inspiration reminding others that there is joy in helping others.

  • spackbace on 01/08/2015 - 10:39
    +4

    Time for a TA AMA to maybe get rid of some of the shit opinions out there?

    • spychiatrist on 01/08/2015 - 14:16
      +1

      What shit opinions? Aren't our opinions as good as yours?

      • spackbace on 01/08/2015 - 14:33

        If an opinion thinks badly of someone without substantial facts, then in my opinion that's a shit opinion ;)

        I did say 'out there'… there are a few commenters on posts like the monthly/yearly awards that basically hold it over TA, accusations of him just going for the monthly and yearly prizes.

        So don't take it personally unless you feel you want to, it was a general statement.

        • spychiatrist on 01/08/2015 - 14:39

          None taken, because opinions are opinions, whether you agree with it or not.

  • IWantThatFlight on 01/08/2015 - 12:52

    cymon, downero and Davo1111 bring up similar points, that I think a lot of people are thinking:

    "I agree and would have no problem if the OzB member said upfront that if 100 units sold, they got one free as everyone still wins."
    "How do we know that there is really no financial reward?"
    "This has nothing to do with user appreciation. It's about being open and upfront with your deals."

    Hopefully TA's comments have gone some way toward convincing people that he posts his deals for reasons other than money. As there is no real way to check if he is being paid or not, hopefully his long OzB history/reputation and his consistent position that he is not paid is enough to rely on.

    Regarding post limits for store reps. There is a 2 a week limit if each deal you post has, on average, 8 or more votes. If you have hit your post limit for the week then a message comes up "You have hit your posting limit" when you try to post a new deal. You just have to wait till the time expires. There is no penalty if you forget & try to post, it just doesn't work.

    If Shopping Square are making any money out of these deals, then I guess they are pretty happy to have had 4 deals posted in the last week. If they start contacting TA about upcoming discounts then that would be an issue - but if it is exactly the same deal should it matter if a store rep posted it or an OzB member? Thats a different question & its up to OZBargain.com.au to come up with their own rules.

    Honestly, I think that if there were 3 or 4 members posting these deals, rather than just 1, then it wouldn't be an issue. TA is very visible (not least because he is obviously having fun with the coupon codes) and I think this upsets some people who prefer to see the site as the work of many rather than just a few prominent individuals. What are people's thoughts on this last point?

    Hopefully that all makes sense :) Sorry for the ramble.

    • happychild100 on 01/08/2015 - 13:05

      If Shopping Square are making any money out of these deals, then I guess they are pretty happy to have had 4 deals posted in the last week. If they start contacting TA about upcoming discounts then that would be an issue - but if it is exactly the same deal should it matter if a store rep posted it or an OzB member?

      In case you missed it, shopping square reps are banned from posting on OzB. I 100% believe there is no financial reward between the reps and TA/EC but i am torn about the shopping square ones for example. Are the admins able to tell if Shopping square themselves are using accounts to upvote deals for their store? Is this still sockpuppeting then?

      • IWantThatFlight on 01/08/2015 - 13:15

        I wasn't aware that Shopping Square reps were banned. If SS employees had registered & were sockpuppeting then this would be an issue. However, that is a possible problem for any deal from any store, not just SS.

      • Davo1111 on 03/08/2015 - 03:30

        Are the admins able to tell if Shopping square themselves are using accounts to upvote deals for their store?

        yes they are, and if they do catch it, the store will probably get a complete ban too.

        Is this still sockpuppeting then?

        is voting your own store sockpuppeting? yes.

  • nocure on 01/08/2015 - 13:06

    I think that if there were 3 or 4 members posting these deals, rather than just 1, then it wouldn't be an issue.

    If you can find these members that are committed as much as TA,EC .ETC

    I think this upsets some people

    They should get over it…the people you speak of are usually the ones that never contribute deals

    What are people's thoughts on this last point?

    Imo at the end of the day does it matter who posts what…Yes of course the company's need to make money,but if the price isn't the best we don't buy.

    • IWantThatFlight on 01/08/2015 - 13:18
      +4

      If you can find these members that are committed as much as TA,EC

      I agree, good luck in finding members who will put in as much effort as TA & EC

      • easternculture on 01/08/2015 - 13:25
        +4

        I agree, good luck in finding members who will put in as much effort as TA & EC

        There are a quite a few who put alot of effort in deals like Trent, tonester, monty.melb and even our very own scotty :)

        • nocure on 01/08/2015 - 13:28

          Yep of course there are…I probably should have worded that better…and we/I appreciate everything they do.

        • IWantThatFlight on 01/08/2015 - 13:46
          +2

          Sorry, I didn't mean to omit other contributers either.

        • easternculture on 01/08/2015 - 13:51
          +1

          @IWantThatFlight:

          Sorry IWTF and nocure, i didnt mean to undermine you.

  • gimli on 02/08/2015 - 14:08

    I don't think we need to worry as long as JV is around…

  • tassieeagle on 03/08/2015 - 18:27
    +1

    Good topic and interesting to hear the arguments presented. I just wanted to chime in and say a big thank you to TA and EC for using initiative and nous to get these great deals. I don't doubt their integrity for a second and even if they did receive a benefit I wouldn't begrudge them reward for all their hard work anyway.

  • Moderatorhamza23 on 08/10/2015 - 11:25

    Just a quick update on negotiated deals: We are no longer allowing negotiated deals for stores that are banned from store rep posts on OzBargain (this would obviously apply to stores that are completely banned from OzBargain too, as no one can submit any deal for these stores). Before contacting any rep to negotiate a deal, users can ensure that the store isn't banned by viewing the store page - eg https://www.ozbargain.com.au/deals/dicksmith.com.au If a store is banned an orange box will display stating "This store is currently BANNED from store representative posts." with the reason and expiry date below. If a negotiated deal is posted for that store it will be removed (so please do check before spending your time negotiating).

    Basically we don't want to give store reps who have done the wrong thing, a potential way to exploit the rules further. We are appreciative of the honesty and transparency of OzBargain members in relation to this.

    Thanks

    • spackbace on 08/10/2015 - 11:38

      Fair enough :) Makes sense!

    • happychild100 on 08/10/2015 - 11:39

      Makes sense.
      I remember shopping square was banned when i wrote my reply a few posts up, they don't seem to be now though. Was that just a temporary one then? Or what happened there.

      • Moderatorhamza23 on 08/10/2015 - 11:48

        Yeah ShoppingSquare had an indefinite ban since May 2014 due to sockpuppeting from a staff member there. We spoke to them at the start of August about these past issues and moving forward and their ban was removed August 7th 2015. Since then they've been posting some great deals and contributing appropriately.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join