I found the article really poor. They very obviously we're doing everything they can to play defence for the company here, including blaming the person who left a completely accurate review of the product they received. Somehow Ars thinks that review broke Amazon's community guidelines? What nonsense.

[–] WolfLink@sh.itjust.works 26 points 1 month ago (4 children)

It is a multi-faceted issue. Both the customer and the company are victims of Amazon.

It’s not the company’s fault that the diaper was re-sold, so they don’t deserve to have that negative review. It’s true that the review was against Amazon’s policy. Whatever you make of that policy, Amazon should have removed the review when asked.

Meanwhile, it’s not the customer’s fault and you can’t blame them for making such a review.

Ultimately it’s Amazon’s fault for re-selling the diaper and for not removing the review when asked. Both are bad decisions Amazon made. The customer is a victim of one decision, and the company is a victim of the other.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 16 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It’s true that the review was against Amazon’s policy

Not the policy as described in the article it's not. The article says "by focusing on seller, order, or shipping feedback rather than on the item's quality". Mentioning the seller isn't against the rules, only "focusing" on them. And from what we've been told, the review focused on the fact that the item had literal shit on it. That's a problem with the item's quality, as received by the customer.

Maybe there's some nuance in the full text of their policy and the full text of the review that would change that, but for someone without any pre-existing knowledge going entirely by what the article says: the review should have stood.

[–] WolfLink@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

This is a fair criticism.

From my read, other details mentioned that the reviewer realized and mentioned that they suspected the item was returned and not inspected before being re-sold. This makes the review about the return process, not about the item itself.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 3 points 1 month ago

Yeah that's not an unreasonable read of it. IMO that's basically speculation on the part of the buyer though, and the underlying fact is still the quality of the product as they received it. To me "return process" seems more like if they were themselves trying to return the product and gave a review based on their experience doing that return.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (6 replies)