A note about "Verified Providers"

[Leyton]

A change to the name would make it less of an endorsement. Just simply "Provider" tells the story perfectly fine. Verified or Confirmed are words that people can easily interpret as an endorsement.


But then you have a signature if you want to tell people who you are and who you represent, so why need a group at all.

I agree, just suggestions. The purpose of the group (logistically) is for controlling who can post reviews, as I understand it.


But it could spoof the same title as regular members, and just be for forum permissions, as someone else said earlier...

 

[SkylarM]

Perhaps just "Provider", or "Confirmed Provider" gives more of the tone that the person meets the boards posting requirements, but is not necessarily endorsed or reccomended by VPSBoard.

I'd say "Provider" may be a better way to put it, still with the requirements to join the group of course. "Confirmed" or "Verified" may look like more than it really *is* while "Provider" is pretty simple and straightforward.

 

[HostSailor]

One section for both verified and none verified would be great, it's still the customer's choice and decision on what's best for them after careful research on both the search engine and this forum ofcourse.

 

[Aldryic C'boas]

How about an additional tag for providers known to sell to spammers and allow rampant abuse?  That way someone doesn't see one bad apple here, and assume all the other provides are as well.

 

[SkylarM]

How about an additional tag for providers known to sell to spammers and allow rampant abuse?  That way someone doesn't see one bad apple here, and assume all the other provides are as well.

Or there can be a code of ethics with a section labeled "don't be a tool" and just ban those that sell to spammers under this code of ethics.

 

[KS_Phillip]

How about an additional tag for providers known to sell to spammers and allow rampant abuse?  That way someone doesn't see one bad apple here, and assume all the other provides are as well.

Seconded

Or there can be a code of ethics with a section labeled "don't be a tool" and just ban those that sell to spammers under this code of ethics.

Also seconded

 

[Leyton]

Or there can be a code of ethics with a section labeled "don't be a tool" and just ban those that sell to spammers under this code of ethics.

I like the idea of a "code of ethics", especially if the community contributes and reviews it, then providers can be split into groups of those who meet it and those who don't - or, just require providers to follow the "code" in order to be part of the providers group.

 

[beast5]

[SIZE=12pt]I have seen in a website, it called zap.co.il (sorry it is not in English) they are letting internet shops sell their products
(computers, Xbox, tools basically everything like a mall)
if a client buy's from one of the providers of that web site then he can rate the service he got and that really make the sellers go above and beyond not to get a bad rating it really works, if a company is just a fraud you can see it really fast and much more.
now the seller can react to the review and say what has happened and why.
in "zap" its not in a separate forum that you need to look for it, its within a click on his shops name (forum nick)
in that way everybody can say allot about the client and the seller without having the forum's management becoming a curt room.[/SIZE]

 

[MannDude]

Thanks for the suggestions everyone. I'll mull it all over and see how best to proceed. 

 

[HalfEatenPie]

That concept is also applied to Amazon.com, Google Play store, and many other sites.

Regardless that approach is a great suggestion.  Thanks! 

 

[rds100]

There is such rating on ebay too. However the common thing is that these websites are shops / proxy between the buyer and the seller. People go to that site to buy the product.

And this here at the moment is a forum, not a web shop.