Hi I have too very bad experience with voipjet , very bad support service , never reply emails and block route to any country without giving any reason and notice
Nasir IQbal http://www.ictinnovations.com On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 10:04 PM, Trixter aka Bret McDanel < [email protected]> wrote: > > On May 5, 2010, at 2:42 AM, Dan Journo wrote: > > >> It would be far too easy to just nominate all competitors as "scammers" > just to cause less business to be given to them. > > > > I agree that it is very open to scammers, however if there are 30 > different people making similar comments about the lack of service etc, then > its pretty much believable. > > > > So me and 29 sock puppets make a complaint. > > > > After all, what's stopping someone emailing this list and saying "don't > do business with XYZ Ltd"? > > > > nothing, but just because its here does not make it trustworthy, which was > my point. > > > > > Unless the review board just offers a way to report issues, and then a > group of people from this mailing list decide whether the issue requires > posting on the website, using a kind of voting system. In this way, we > should be able to prevent abuse. We would have to have a rule to ensure > random one-time offenders don't get posted. Only companies that are > constantly running off with money. And an expiry period on red marks to > ensure companies that clean up their act get a second chance. > > > > Well most of my post was about why a ratings system is not going to be > viable & reliable. If you require people to take some action to rate > someone that causes problems. First there is the whole issue of poll > rigging, next there is the issue of people are far more likely to complain > than they are to praise. This means that it ends up with a disproportionate > amount of complaints. > > While a complaint seems like it is a bad thing a company that has 50% of > its user base complaining is far worse than one that has 3%. A larger > company with 3% complaints may equal the number of complaints of a smaller > company with 50%. > > The reality is that all of this rating stuff costs money, and unless > "policed" it will be subject to gaming. Policing costs more money (or at > least time). It is prone to error, and if you wrongfully list someone as > untrustworthy it opens up a potential for a lawsuit. If this ends up having > to be hidden to prevent a lawsuit (like some of the DNS RBLs) that further > complicates things. > > Remember in the US if you win a lawsuit you do not get legal costs, this is > how the Church of Scientology bankrupted the Cult Awareness Network. 20 > frivolous lawsuits that CAN won all of but in doing so they spent $1,000,000 > in legal fees. CoS spent about $4,000. At the end of the day CoS bought > CAN out of bankruptcy and delisted themselves as a cult. Anyone who decides > they do not like the rating system can try a similar tactic, or it can > happen naturally because there are a few people who do not like it and all > unrelated to each other decide to file a suit. Other countries may vary > (the UK it does not work this way, probably why they have far fewer > frivolous lawsuits). > > To sum up, I do not think a ratings system is a good idea under what has > been proposed so far. > -- > Trixter aka Bret McDanel > http://www.0xdecafbad.com > > > > > > > -- > _____________________________________________________________________ > -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- > > asterisk-biz mailing list > To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz > -- Nasir Iqbal ICT Innovations http://www.ictinnovations.com/
-- _____________________________________________________________________ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-biz mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
