Zagorath

Oh nice one! I nearly took the same 1st step but backed away because I thought the approach I was taking might be safer.

Had the user reported stuff like that before and been told specifically that it wasn't rule-breaking? Jumping straight to banning someone who may have genuinely thought they were being helpful seems like an unfair extreme response.

How do you share your result on this one? It keeps just popping up a thing asking if I want to share to OneNote, Outlook, or Skype.

Out of interest, what's the etiquette, too? I got slightly over 10 initially, then updated two of my worst guesses to get about 7. Do people usually spend time updating to get the best possible, or is it polite to use only your first guess?

Bernoulli's Principle ➡️ Morality ⏰ 02:57 🦶4

Connections
Puzzle #401
🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟨🟨🟨🟨
🟪🟪🟪🟪
🟦🟦🟦🟦

Almost everyone in my other groups also got blue last. Not a popular category today!

Yeah I stopped using Amazon as much as possible a long time ago. Cancelled my Audible subscription (except every now and then when they get desperate and give me another free month, after which I promptly re-cancel without giving them money), was never a Prime customer. Unfortunately once or twice I've come across a product where it was only available via Amazon (and no equivalent product was available elsewhere), or the price difference was on the order of $100 purely thanks to international shipping. But I'm not being hyperbolic when I describe that as "once or twice" over the last 5+ years.

It saddens me when I hear people talk about how much they use Amazon.

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.

The customer is a victim of one decision, and the company is a victim of the other

Actually I'd say the company is the victim of both.

The customer should be free to review the product as they received. Amazon shouldn't have removed it (regardless of policy) because it was a completely accurate review of what the customer received.

The store was a victim of Amazon because Amazon led to the problem to begin with. Amazon's returns policy is overly lenient to begin with: stores simply should not be allowing simple change of mind returns on underwear or underwear-like products. (And frankly, from an environmental perspective & from systemicly avoiding even the possibility of this kind of stuff-up, I'm not sure change of mind returns should be allowed by default anyway.)

And then there's the fact that they sold it as new. Nothing that's been returned should ever be sold as new. Even if it's in mint condition. "Oh, but we'd be losing money/people wouldn't buy it if they knew it wasn't new, even though it's in perfect condition" they might complain. Too bad, perhaps that's a case for not allowing change of mind returns.

And then finally is the more obvious problem: reselling a product that was absolutely not fit for sale, because it's covered in shit.

The company is a victim of Amazon's return policy being too lenient, and of Amazon failing to properly uphold their end of the returns policy agreement. But the former is the actual underlying issue.

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.

Best I can think is they’re trying to bat for the little guy…

Which is totally fair I think. But they didn't need to throw the reviewer under the bus to do it.

I don't think the article went nearly hard enough into criticising Amazon, tbh.

I'm so lost. What happened at 9:30 pm PST on NBC?

Also, are you sure you mean PST and not PDT?

I want to know who's responsible for the giant portrait of what looks like Yvonne Strahovski.