naming and shaming
Discussion
sorry to drag this old topic back up again, but i was looking at a technology website (cnet) where one of the writers was blogging about Vodafone and how bad their service was. The article obviously wasn't pulled and Vodafone web relations actually commented on the blog and apologised for the poor service. So if Cnet aren't worried about lible etc action then should pistonheads be?
As along as the business is informed of the gripe and given a chance to reply I think some good could come of it. For example, The Sunday Times has a gripe page for unhappy customers of holiday companies and others in the travel industry with clear naming and shaming; the companies have a chance to reply. Surely it keeps the standards up.
XXL80Y said:
Agree.How so? what happened to internet freedom of speech?
Because a) often the company is not on here to defend itself against false spurious claims, b) you often only get one side of the story and c
Pistonheads has been the target of legal claims in the past because of naming and shaming.Having no name and shame is not ideal, but it protects the site.
Vixpy1 said:
XXL80Y said:
Agree.How so? what happened to internet freedom of speech?
Because a) often the company is not on here to defend itself against false spurious claims, b) you often only get one side of the story and c Pistonheads has been the target of legal claims in the past because of naming and shaming.Having no name and shame is not ideal, but it protects the site.
This is such a wide topic to comment on, but I will do my best.
We have already had many legal cases this year as a result of N&S, and the associated legal bills stack up. The fact that PH is now owned by Haymarket actually makes us more open to claims of N&S as companies expect us to have an account for this sort of thing and send us a legal letter assuming that we will send a cheque by return.....we don't.
It is less important with large corporations than smaller businesses but we delete most to be consistent in our approach. It really is a gut wrencher, as on one hand we would like to leave posts up as a warning to others, but on the other there are two sides to every story and we need to do all we can to protect PH.
A tricky one indeed.
We have already had many legal cases this year as a result of N&S, and the associated legal bills stack up. The fact that PH is now owned by Haymarket actually makes us more open to claims of N&S as companies expect us to have an account for this sort of thing and send us a legal letter assuming that we will send a cheque by return.....we don't.
It is less important with large corporations than smaller businesses but we delete most to be consistent in our approach. It really is a gut wrencher, as on one hand we would like to leave posts up as a warning to others, but on the other there are two sides to every story and we need to do all we can to protect PH.
A tricky one indeed.
what i was originally trying to find out was why a site like Cnet (which i assume is not that big) is able to 'get away' with making comments on Vodafone which is a much bigger company. The reply from Vodafone web relations was just a fluke as they were not invited to reply to the article/blog and the Vodafone guy even apologised for making a reply on the Cnet site.
I understand the pressure that Pistonheads/Haymarket must come under but, wouldn't it be better to invite the other party to reply to any comments made against them? Don't Autocar and other car magazines do long term reports on cars and in the process comment on the service of some of the dealers that they use?
I'm just interested in how some sites can do this and Pistonheads can't(genuine question not a dig!)
I understand the pressure that Pistonheads/Haymarket must come under but, wouldn't it be better to invite the other party to reply to any comments made against them? Don't Autocar and other car magazines do long term reports on cars and in the process comment on the service of some of the dealers that they use?
I'm just interested in how some sites can do this and Pistonheads can't(genuine question not a dig!)
As I say, it's a tricky one for us and we have the lawyers bills to prove it.
What do you do, leave a thread open in the hope that a representative from the company spots it and decides to make a comment, or close it to protect the site?
Whereas Vodafone may have many representatives in a position to comment professionally (and swiftly), Bills Autos may not.
I don't think I can say much more other than we do what works for us, I can't really answer for Autocar or other Haymarket titles as I have no idea about those i'm afraid.
What do you do, leave a thread open in the hope that a representative from the company spots it and decides to make a comment, or close it to protect the site?
Whereas Vodafone may have many representatives in a position to comment professionally (and swiftly), Bills Autos may not.
I don't think I can say much more other than we do what works for us, I can't really answer for Autocar or other Haymarket titles as I have no idea about those i'm afraid.
Garlick said:
As I say, it's a tricky one for us and we have the lawyers bills to prove it.
What do you do, leave a thread open in the hope that a representative from the company spots it and decides to make a comment, or close it to protect the site?
Whereas Vodafone may have many representatives in a position to comment professionally (and swiftly), Bills Autos may not.
Well now you've opened yourself up to being sued by Bills Autos for suggesting that they need to comment on any allegations. What do you do, leave a thread open in the hope that a representative from the company spots it and decides to make a comment, or close it to protect the site?
Whereas Vodafone may have many representatives in a position to comment professionally (and swiftly), Bills Autos may not.
Gassing Station | Website Feedback | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff