Posted by Harry [NR] on 1/11/11 3:24pm
Msg #368055

Company Ratings - Call for Suggestions/Company Responses

We've been receiving an increasing number of complaints from companies about their ratings. In most cases, the complaints relate to specific ratings that the companies feel are unjust, unwarranted, mistaken or otherwise wrong. In some instances, the companies are demanding access to user identities in connection with threats to sue. In others, they're asking for ratings or comments to be reviewed for possible mistakes.

Because notary identities are currently kept anonymous, the only way companies are able to respond to specific ratings are to a) Respond via PM using the system if the rater has allowed it, or b) To otherwise identify the individual and respond off-line. While this approach somewhat insulates the rater from company punishment (i.e. "Bob only gave us an average rating, so don't hire him again!") and may encourage more truthful answers, it also opens the process up to more potential abuse.

So, I'm looking for opinions on what everyone feels would be a fair compromise. Here are some ideas:

1) Allow companies to see the identities of everyone who has rated them so they can direct their threats at the appropriate parties, redress grievances, etc.

2) Allow companies to respond to ratings/specific complaints with short answers in a public forum.

3) Introduce a "Report Abuse" feature whereby other members can report ratings that do not appear to be correct or are absurd or obviously unfair (e.g. giving a 5-star company a poor rating because their web site could not be accessed last Friday).

Please let me know what you think. Again, companies listed in Signing Central would like a way to address what they believe are potshots and, in some cases, libel.

Thanks,
Harry

Reply by BrendaTx on 1/11/11 3:28pm
Msg #368056

#1

Only a coward would not attach his or her name to a complaint about a company or a fellow notary.

Reply by Ilene C. Seidel on 1/11/11 3:42pm
Msg #368063

Re: #1

I'm in agreement with Brenda. If the agent doesn't have the documentation to back up their complaint they shouldn't have the right to potentially ruin the companies rating.

Reply by jba/fl on 1/11/11 4:54pm
Msg #368089

Where is one to get the documentation from companies

who are asking that the notary backdate? That is almost always verbal.

I also am not too quick to answer this (Harry's) survey. I will be back later.

Reply by enotary/va on 1/11/11 3:39pm
Msg #368061

1) Allow companies to see the identities of everyone who has rated them so they can direct their threats at the appropriate parties, redress grievances, etc. Yes....

2) Allow companies to respond to ratings/specific complaints with short answers in a signing central, not the public forum. Yes .........

3) Introduce a "Report Abuse" feature whereby other members can report ratings that do not appear to be correct or are absurd or obviously unfair (e.g. giving a 5-star company a poor rating because their web site could not be accessed last Friday). Yes....

Great idea... I've seen reports that make me think "WHAT" that can't be right.....

Reply by SharonMN on 1/11/11 3:41pm
Msg #368062

I like the idea of both posting the identities of the raters and allowing companies to respond. I would consider a rating by BrendaTx or PAW, for instance, to be far more reliable than one from a newbie that just posted "what should I do to get jobs?"

You might also post some suggested criteria for the ratings. For example, if the signing goes smoothly and I'm paid in 60 days as I agreed to, I would give that company a good rating - they met all of their obligations without issue. However, some people would give it a poor rating for paying in 60 days (or for paying low fees - even though the notary accepted them!). I'd like to know whether a company's poor rating is the result of long payment terms, low fees, general incompetence, or outright fraud.

Reply by James Dawson on 1/11/11 3:42pm
Msg #368064

Companies should NOT be allowed to have information that would add substance to a civil suit. IMO They need to file suit on their own or pay a lawyer to file a "discovery" without NR giving to them free.....unless they pay you for it. Then I would suggest you buy billion dollar insurance policy. IMO

Reply by James Dawson on 1/11/11 3:45pm
Msg #368066

Also allow the ID of the poster..that's ok with me too! n/m

Reply by Donna McDaniel on 1/11/11 4:01pm
Msg #368069

"In others, they're asking for ratings or comments to be reviewed for possible mistakes."

This seems like the best option to me.

Is there a way you can implement a review system for any individual issues that the hiring parties may have?

Reply by Notaries Express Signing Agency on 1/11/11 4:11pm
Msg #368070

Great Idea Harry. I have also noticed that there are ratings of one particular person with the same phrase on dozen Signing Service pages. It would be helpful to address the issues in public and be able to defend oneself. I have on a few occasions replied to a negative ratings, and have not received any responses or have had that individual block me- which makes me think that it’s a “competitor”, or a signing agent that we no longer use. So, there is no way to resolve the issue or make sure that it’s a valid statement.
I believe any time there is any type of a rating, an email should be sent to the Signing Service, and allow us to respond to that particular SA and record a reply to the rating.
Review system, Great idea.! I sure would Love to review some of the signing agents that “claim” they have done 1,000’s of closings, but can’t figure out how to print docs or show up on time.
Svitlana Stosen

Reply by Glenn Strickler on 1/11/11 4:11pm
Msg #368071

OK, here goes.

The companies have the right to know who is posting what about them, and they should be given the opportunity to respond. I have no problem to everyone having access to my opinions on the companies and to know that it was me that rated them.

In addition to the 3 suggestions above,


Consider limiting ratings to Premier members. That would prevent "drive by" posters to create a phony profile for the sole purpose of settling a score against a company or from a company shill from skewing the ratings.

Thanks Harry.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 1/11/11 4:53pm
Msg #368088

Also, how about a block on companies rating themselves..

Reply by Susan Fischer on 1/11/11 4:15pm
Msg #368073

# 1 and #2. Open and transparent, both ideas address

both the companies' concerns about ratings, and the public's option to respond should they wish.

jmho

Reply by Cari on 1/11/11 4:30pm
Msg #368076

now we're talkin! I think that's very cool of NotRot to

ask us, its members for our point of view, again very cool of you Harry.

Now, I like all three suggestions. But I have another one....

Instead of #3, like a Report Abuse button, provide members with options when they post a comment. For example:

You are about to post a comment about this company, please pick one that best suits your complaint:

1. Company has failed to pay you for the last closing you assisted with. (must list client name and date of closing, and fee)

2. Company has scheduled a closing with you, then finds a 'cheaper' nsa and cancels...(must provide name of other nsa otherwise they can't choose this one)

3. Company's profile information is incorrect.

4. Company did not follow through on their confirmation regarding the closing. (i.e., additional requests like faxbacks and the like were not disclosed from initial scheduling.

I have more and will send as I think of them...

I think giving us a choice as to why we want to complain about the company, and not leaving it so up in the air, is probably what the companies on SC might be pissed about. Especially the good ones!

Reply by James Dawson on 1/11/11 4:54pm
Msg #368090

Re: now we're talkin! I think that's very cool of NotRot to

that's really cool!

Reply by Susan Fischer on 1/11/11 4:57pm
Msg #368091

Great headline, Cari. Like a drop-down menu box, right?

That's a wonderful idea. It would help posters focus on an issue, rather than just vent about something.

Reply by jba/fl on 1/11/11 4:57pm
Msg #368092

Re: your number 1

listing client name? You mean the borrower?

I think not.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 1/11/11 4:59pm
Msg #368093

I agree, Julie - I'm not listing client names

Also disagree with #2..

"must provide name of other nsa otherwise they can't choose this one)"

Provide other nsa name? Naahh..

Reply by Cari on 1/11/11 5:25pm
Msg #368100

none of the choices I posted, have to made public...

NotRot can do their own little investigations and contact whomever to justify the comments made. Once the comments are valid, they can allow the comment to be posted.

It's a task, but it may be worth it especially if it helps to keep NotRot out of any potential legal implications...

Reply by Cari on 1/11/11 5:22pm
Msg #368099

listing the client's Last name is not a biggie...IMO...

I mean how is anyone going to know which Jones, for example, the nsa is referring to?

As long as there is no other identifiers allowed to be posted, like the borrower's address, tel, or even the state where the property is located in.

I really don't see the harm in listing the borrower's last name only??

Reply by A S Johnson on 1/11/11 5:56pm
Msg #368108

Re: listing the client's Last name is not a biggie...IMO...

I am Premiere member and I admit I do not know if I have a account number for Notary Rotory. If we do then use it as the identifier. If we don't then set that up for Premierer members.
This would show that the poster is a serious NSA and about posting on Notary Rotory.

Like several others, I have several suggestion that I want to think about and will post later.
Harry, could you set a specific area that could be for these post. This tread is getting long,will be rolling over to the next page and then someone will star a new tread.

Reply by Shelly_FL on 1/12/11 7:51am
Msg #368189

I agree with chosing from a list of offenses to

focus on the reason of the complaint instead of assigning an ambiguous number. Using a checkbox list, with an option to include an issue not listed, could allow a person to select multiple reasons for one complaint.

Reply by Lavergne Manuel on 1/11/11 4:31pm
Msg #368077

I think a point system could be implemented.
100 points - 5 stars
95 points - 4 1/2 etc.

Have points assigned to each type of complaint so that a newbie could not give someone a really bad score for some little thing. For instance I saw one a while back who gave a 4 star company a 1 star because he did not get paid in 30 days. Say the points assigned for that particular thing was 5 points, then that company would be automatically rated 95 or 4 1/2 stars instead of 20 points which would be a 1 star.

It would take a lot of work to figure out the points for each complaint but it would be fairer.

Reply by Scott/NJ on 1/11/11 4:36pm
Msg #368079

I think your three options will only work if notaries felt the SS they have experience with would also be honorable with regards to Signing Central.

I believe there are many SS that would use what was said against them as a black list of notaries (as others have pointed out).

Then, the notaries on here would only post positive comments about companies and not negative comments. Then every company in SC would have positive comments and the list would be compromised and become less beneficial.

My first reaction to "allowing identities to be revealed" was that I simply wouldn't post comments publicly. But that won't help the forum either. Especially if others feel as I do.

Another way would be to create a list of answers that notaries can choose from (only once), in regards to a company. Late Pay. Low Pay. No Pay. Handholding. Good Pay. Quick Pay. Good Company. That way there are no specifics and the libel [may] go away.

Reply by Donna McDaniel on 1/11/11 4:42pm
Msg #368082

'My first reaction to "allowing identities to be revealed" was that I simply wouldn't post comments publicly'

That was my first reaction too. Some companies will come after you regardless of wheather the complaint is legitimate or not. I don't think I want to leave myself vulnerable to a frivolous lawsuit.

Reply by Cari on 1/11/11 4:48pm
Msg #368086

I think the companies can get our information if that

little box is checked in our profiles which allows our profiles to be searched....

Reply by JanetK_CA on 1/11/11 7:56pm
Msg #368143

You make some very good points. Many things sound good on the surface until you get into the "unintended consequences" phase.

I'm also going to take my time to absorb this and think about it before fully weighing in. A couple of ideas that popped into my head, though, are 1) if possible, include a little more room for comments and 2) provide an easier mechanism for removing a rating if a mistake is made.

Also, right off, I like the idea of codes for certain types of infractions. The more info, the more useful.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 1/11/11 4:47pm
Msg #368085

I haven't read all the replies yet, and I will

but want to get this thought out there while it's fresh...

I don't see the problem - if the company is listed in SC and linked the threads can be read and they can contact the poster through there - except you may wish to remove the anonymous posting option for this purpose...posters must be linked automatically to their posts...(now don't get upset everyone..just a thought - I honestly couldn't care less for myself)

If the beef is with the star ratings - those comments have an option for the poster to be contacted via e-mail...companies can go that route.

Now I'll go read.

Reply by Barbara___IL on 1/11/11 5:37pm
Msg #368104

I don't think I wilI be posting in Signing Central as much, if I can't be anonymous. I don't want unsavory companies contacting me. If I gave them a low rating, they deserved it.

I also like what Glen said.

Consider limiting ratings to Premier members. That would prevent "drive by" posters to create a phony profile for the sole purpose of settling a score against a company or from a company shill from skewing the ratings.

Thanks.
Barbara

Reply by FlaNotary2 on 1/11/11 5:41pm
Msg #368105

My opinion doesn't mean much, b/c I don't use SC very much,

but IMO, I would say no to all three. It is primarily notaries, and not signing services, that fund this website. Therefore, I see no reason why signing services should have any say in the rating system. If they don't like their poor ratings, maybe they should stop mistreating signing agents.

JMHO

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 1/11/11 6:01pm
Msg #368110

That's pretty much why I said what I did

I don't see the problem - the companies can find the notaries if they want to - contact them through comments or p/m...

I'd like to see other things addressed first - like SS's listing as notaries; updates to SC with a marking system for companies that are OOB (out of business); all companies listed visible to everyone; etc etc

You get it..

Reply by jba/fl on 1/11/11 6:20pm
Msg #368118

Yes: all companies listed visible to everyone all the time.

At one time Harry asked about ID-ing everyone when they signed up or showing their commission at least (I don't feel like looking this up). Showing credentials isn't such a bad idea. And the same for the companies and their employees. Currently there is nothing to prevent a company from listing all their employees as notaries and getting them to rate as well. Or having 20, or 50, etc.

I suspect the answer to your question(s) is more complex than you were thinking initially.And were you even thinking about the dissatisfaction on our end (notaries) with some of what we encounter while here? What about notaries who say they are a SS and when one attempts to list them, can't because that phone number is already assigned as a notary. So that notary escapes being rated.

There are more, now I will be quiet until tomorrow.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 1/11/11 7:40pm
Msg #368140

Re: Yes: all companies listed visible to everyone all the time.

COnfirmaing Notary commissions would be great.

I know in our profiles you can indicate if you are a Notary or not... it would be nice if, at the very least, Premier members must be confirmed notaries.

Reply by MistarellaFL on 1/12/11 12:11pm
Msg #368237

I agree with you Robert. n/m

Reply by Michael Gilman on 1/11/11 5:59pm
Msg #368109

Harry, I really appreciate your concern. I think a thought about way of rating makes total sense. Several good ideas have been mentioned. I believe it must be controlled though by an impartial moderator (you). I also think for value added, it should be separated for paying members. The controlled drop downs with pat answer or radio buttons showing I was paid in 10 days, 20 days, 30 days Longer (or some similar format) could be but one question that creates the rating. Use a simple scoring system, weight the answers of each question to come up with the rating. That all can be done electronically with out any review from you. The part that needs your review, prior to posting is if you leave an actual comment area and people post emotional type junk that could be hurtful if not entirely true. Act as an arbitrator or the Better Business Bureau, allow full disclosure and rebuttal, and resolution. When complete and all parties have aired out everything you as the moderator post if you see fit. As far as identity I have no issue with that but feel that some may. There are (I hate to say) many people on both sides of the transaction that would or could be unscrupulous or inappropriate with the information.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 1/11/11 6:10pm
Msg #368114

I think if our identities were readily available, it might make some people less likely to post a review and use of SC might suffer for it. Also, it would give away what notaries are using which services and I can see that being a competitive issue in a variety of ways.

Of course, it would also help prevent some of the ridiculous entries, too...but I'm not sure how you could prevent them anyway.

I like #2 and #3 myself. I'm uncomfortable with #1. While I have no issue hiding myself, I really think that some less than forthcoming notaries might be reluctant to share if they knew their name would be attached.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 1/11/11 6:14pm
Msg #368117

I think if you're going to have the brass to rate it

you should own it...

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 1/11/11 6:41pm
Msg #368125

Re: I think if you're going to have the brass to rate it

Well... *I* have no issues owning it myself. I just think that others may be less willing to speak up. When I put up a rating on SC, I allow them to contact me by PM if they want. Bring it on, I say.

Reply by LKT/CA on 1/11/11 6:13pm
Msg #368116

Allowing companies to see who's rating them is fair.....after all, one has the right to face their accuser. And allowing companies to respond to ratings and complaints works so their side of the story can be told.

What would be very helpful to me is reading the ratings of Notaries who have similar requirements as myself such as net 30 payment, who charge similar fees and do not work with deadbeats - I highly value their opinions. Therefore, if they gave a low rating, I could be certain THAT company is not worth my time/skills too.

In the past, someone posted that net 120 is okay with them, so long as they got paid, which means that since net 120 is okay by them, they'll give the company a good rating. IMHO, that is beyond outrageous, therefore, THAT Notary's opinion about whether a company is worth working with wouldn't be worth two bits to me. So yes, revealing the Signing Agent's identity matters.

Reply by Kay/IL on 1/11/11 6:41pm
Msg #368124

Why Not Survey Style

Have notaries rank the company's performance in critical areas on a scale of 1 (being the worse) to 5 being the best). Some of these categories must include (but certainly not limited to):

Fair Pay of Work Being Completed;

Timeliness of Receipt of Documents;

Supervising (i.e. handholding/micromanaging or lack thereof);

Company Accessibility During Closings;

Timeliness of Receipt of Payments for Services;

Professionalism of Staff.

I agree with the poster who said that premium members should have sole access to provide ratings. However, anyone should have access to view reviews of these companies.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 1/11/11 6:46pm
Msg #368127

Lisa does make a good point... there are some reviews I'd trust way more than others if I knew who posted the review.

I personally have no issue attaching my name to a review. However, I thing SC might suffer because of those who don't post. I also think that some companies may get overly inflated ratings because notaries will be scared to post negative reviews for fear of being sued or something.

Reply by LKT/CA on 1/11/11 7:07pm
Msg #368137

If Notary sticks to the facts if the matter (i.e. Confirmation stated pay schedule was net 30...signing completed June 1, 2010, check dated June 29, 2010 but envelope postmarked November 15, 2010, therefore did not pay WHEN agreed......Agreed fee $125, confirmation shows $125....received check in amount of $75 with no written explanation for the shortage) then there should be no fear of a lawsuit or other repercussions.......there's no defense against true FACTS.

Now if the Notary resorts to personal opinion/attacks (i.e. Jane Doe scheduler is a no good bum and works for a two bit boiler room operation called ABC Company), then he/she may find themselves at the other end of a lawsuit (though even THAT may be true, LOL!).

Reply by JanetK_CA on 1/11/11 10:42pm
Msg #368162

I agree on all counts n/m

Reply by Bob_Chicago on 1/11/11 6:33pm
Msg #368122

2 and 3 for sure. As to # 1 , I believe l that the

identity of comment poster or rater should be voluntary by the poster.
I utilize SC, but IMO it a a tool, a vauable tool, but still just a tool to be used in conjunction with with your own experience and research.
I am frequently amazed that some here have posted, " I won't ever work for
ABC, because they received some less than (eg ) 3 star ratings" or, in the alternative "I will accept a job from them (with no personal experience) because they got a few 5 star ratings?"
How can a business owner make business decisions based upon the positive , or negative opinion of some anonymous individual ?
The rater may be an inidividual may have their own agenda, or it might have been their own fault that they did not get paid ,what they deemed to be their full fee, in a timely manner.
On the other hand , a positive poster may be a shill.
If a rater chooses to reveal their identiy , it would add consideral weight to either negative or positve ratings. On the other hand , anonymous ratings can be given the weight that the reader thinks that they deserve.

Reply by CopperheadVA on 1/11/11 6:47pm
Msg #368129

I rated a SS with two or three stars (can’t remember how many now) and made the comment that it “took 60 days to pay and that was with a reminder”. Then the SS rates itself right after my rating - they gave themselves 5 stars and made the comment "We pay within 30days provided a W9 is sent to us as stated on our confirmation”. Well that ticked me off because it canceled out my star rating, and it was bogus because I had already sent them my W-9 even before I completed the assignment!!!

Reply by Stamper_WI on 1/11/11 7:02pm
Msg #368135

I tend to rely more on the comments about a company in this forum than signing central. That started when 21st century legal services, the loan mod scammers, had employees sign on as notaries and gave themselves top ratings.
The way the BB handles complaints seems to be effective although what I am getting from Harry is that he does not relish or want the arbitrator role.

I like the drop down choice idea. on the ID. If I have a problem with a company, I would hash it out with them first , have documentation and then possibly signing central. They would know who was rating them if it was a negative rating. But that approach may not be the one of a newbie or someone in the heat of a misunderstanding or a mistake on their part.

Conversely, maybe the companies should have the same option of rating notaries.

Reply by CopperheadVA on 1/12/11 6:33am
Msg #368179

<< Conversely, maybe the companies should have the same option of rating notaries. >>

I really don't like that idea. The reason is, that many of those unscrupulous companies will post retaliatory feedback on the notary that gave them a poor review. It happened all the time with the EBAY feedback system. I know that I refrained from giving poor feedback to sellers that I felt deserved it because I was afraid they would rate me poorly in retaliation (undeservedly, because I always paid promptly). Instead of leaving poor feedback, I would not leave any feedback at all. Now, EBAY sellers are no longer allowed to leave buyer feedback, presumably because they abused the system.

Reply by JinCA on 1/11/11 8:16pm
Msg #368146

Whatever majority wants is fine with me.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 1/11/11 8:24pm
Msg #368148

LOL..I'm looking at this thread...oy...poor Harry!!!...:) n/m

Reply by Cari on 1/11/11 8:56pm
Msg #368152

I was just thinking the same Linda! WOW! n/m

Reply by enotary/va on 1/11/11 9:20pm
Msg #368156

A notary wll go on SC and rate someone with 2 stars.. Then all they write is (Bad Company = Don't Use)... With just that we don't know what the problem was.... I would like to see that changed...

Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 1/11/11 10:23pm
Msg #368160

This is just too overwhelming! and poor Harry has a dilemma. However, as we go forward, I would like to strongly emphasize NR's motto: The Premier Web Site for Professional Notaries.
That is what makes this site so valuable. To allow SSs/TCs to intrude with their opinions on our opinions would make it a different Web Site. To prove my point, the first SS to respond to Harry couldn't resist bashing notaries: "Review system, Great idea.! I sure would Love to review some of the signing agents that “claim” they have done 1,000’s of closings, but can’t figure out how to print docs or show up on time."

Actually, that is probably painfully true, but I don't think we need more of that on this site. We've all seen what happens when an inflamed SS and an unhappy notary go mano a mano on NR. The SS usually goes berserk in this explosion of vitriol with the notary trying to explain what allegedly happened, and the SS screaming: you screwed up, you lie, this is not what you told us, the borrowers told us blah blah, we'll never use you again, this is not the first time you messed up, the TC hates you, the lender thinks you're an idiot, etc. etc. UGH! We want more of that?

Maybe instead of focusing on how to appease SSs that have got their knickers in a twist, we need to look at making SC work better for us. Example: A nut job notary with a groundless gripe hurts us as much as he/she hurts the SS. We need to find ways to monitor ourselves first without turning things over to disgruntled SSs. This is our site, not theirs.

If SSs listened to us in the first place or cared about our concerns, we wouldn't need SC. But we have SC (however imperfect) and that's one of the things that makes this site so great.

So, good luck with this! And sorry that I have no brights ideas. Like I said, it's too overwhelming. Yikes!

Reply by Cari on 1/12/11 1:04am
Msg #368174

GG you hit the nail on the head...especially the part

"if SSs listened to us in the first place or cared about our concerns, we wouldn't need SC"

So very true...

Reply by Lee/AR on 1/11/11 10:34pm
Msg #368161

I think the suggested "List of most frequent complaints" by notaries would give a more coherent & reasoned basis for 'stars', while eliminating the silly ones. I'd also like to see 'every company listed'...not coded by states-where-they-theoretically-do-business.

Based strictly on various posts (not on SC) it surely does seem that sometimes notaries do get 'this' company confused with 'that' company, so I can appreciate the need for a company to be able to respond. The BBB and even that Ripoff Report site both allow for a Rebuttal... and even a re-Rebuttal (is that a word?) Again, based on various 'posting wars' that have taken place here, it does seem that a fairly accurate picture emerges--enough of one for both a notary or a company to decide whether or not they want to do business with the parties involved.

I am also afraid that I do see some problems with non-anonymous postings. We've seen some pretty nasty and even vindictive company-posts--not good. Whereas, all an individual notary can do is not accept any more signings from a company--which doesn't bother the company at all. And how, exactly, would one 'prove' that a company who claims to pay in 30 days actually only writes a check with 'a date' on it, but doesn't bother mailing it for weeks or months...becoming a 90 day slow payer--and not all machine-run postmarks even have a date! I just see a can of worms being opened.

Considering the above, I favor your Option #2.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 1/11/11 11:42pm
Msg #368163

After reading all the comments up to this point, I think I'm leaning towards agreeing with Lee about Option 2. I think it should be clear that the response is coming from the company (vs. just an anonymous rating that off-sets another one). That way, people can decide for themselves what sounds credible and what doesn't. Also, I don't think using a borrower's name is a good idea at all. In my area, there are lots of people with atypical names and it just doesn't feel right to me. (If it was my refi and the notary had a beef with the ss as a result, I really don't think I'd like to see my name in the middle of it - even if it wasn't clear that it was me they were talking about.)

I have really mixed feelings on Option 1. I can see where it might inhibit some from saying what they really think about a company - especially if there is a possibility that they might still want to get work from that company, but don't think they merit the highest rating. On the other hand, I'm with those who pretty much discount the rating system and go more by the comments. The ratings would carry a lot more weight with me if I knew they were from someone on the board whose opinion I respected.

For example, some might consider a company that pays $85 for a refi within 2 weeks worthy of a high rating! To me, it's more important that the fee is acceptable and if they pay within 30 days, that's fine with me. If it's a ss that pays more, but the checks come in 45 days, they don't babysit or have me jumping through hoops, then that might get a good rating, too. We all have our own criteria and it would make the ratings more meaningful if we had more info about what factors they were based upon.

I also think there were two other good suggestions made:

The first one was that ratings be limited to Premier Members. This might improve a couple of things: it would likely dramatically reduce, if not eliminate, phantom raters, like company employees, or less than serious notaries or newbies who don't yet have a solid enough foundation upon which to make judgments most of us would value. If non-Premier Members have a complaint about a company, they could always post a comment on the forum itself. It would also probably increase the credibility of the ratings, since they would most likely at least be made by those who are committed enough to pay for membership.

The second one was for raters - i.e Premier Members - to have to prove they are a notary. I'm sure Harry doesn't want another herculean administrative job to have to do, but maybe this could be easily handled by requiring a field in our profiles where we each have to input our notary commission number and expiration date. [Do all states provide commission numbers?] And it might eliminate the occasional troll...

Also, I'm liking more and more the idea of having separate ratings for individual key categories, plus an overall rating. I don't know if this is even feasible, though, or how complicated it would be. Finally, if it would just be possible to increase the comment space following the ratings, that might really help.

As for Option 3, I don't know how much that would help, but unless it was accessible by the folks at the company being rated, I don't see how it could hurt. If the company in question COULD use it, then it could present a potential avenue for abuse by itself. We've seen all kinds of deviousness by a few, but by far, for the majority, it isn't a problem.

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 1/12/11 6:54am
Msg #368180

Researched various review models for precedence

Since Internet review platforms abound (Angie's List, BBB, Yelp, Yahoo, etc) and the precedents have been established, I started researching when I first saw Harry's post. No big surprise that for the most part, all face very similar issues - and not surprising that all use very similar methods for posting, rebuttals, etc.

With the utmost respect, these above-mentioned review platforms involve far larger numbers than we're dealing with here on NR - in members, amount of reviews, number of businesses being reviewed, dollars made & dollars 'lost', etc. Still, the same issues are present - good reviews from company shills, bad reviews from competitors, over-blown complaints of highly subjective opinions, etc.

I searched and also found libel suits - from a cursory check, it appears these suits aren't interfering with with the methods currently being used for reviews.

One of the best articles I found was this: http://tinyurl.com/4z2hdaw

BEFORE I did some research, my knee-jerk reaction was that anonymous reviews should NOT be allowed, the identity of reviewers should be visible to all (say it, own it), the complaints & star ratings are terribly subjective and that alone creates the impossibility of 'fairness'.

AFTER researching, I think the opposite now. I find little difference between the review methods on N/R and the others named above - except for the ability to post a rebuttal.

It is unfortunate but totally understandable when a SS attempts to connect with someone making a complaint via the ability to e-mail them (which doesn't give them their identity, unless they receive a response), and there is no response (for the obvious reason). Still - if a rebuttal were allowed to be posted, it could INCLUDE that an attempt was made to resolve.

The system used here on N/R is a little redundant, in that reviews are in two places - within the forum & linkable, and within Signing Central. That seems to be the only part that strays a bit from the larger, precedent-setting sites.

My own self, I have always wished for and welcome exchanges with clients (or potential clients) and don't share the sentiment that 'they' shouldn't freely engage with us on N/R. Of all that we learn from each other, I tend to think it would pale in comparison to what we could learn from 'them'.

I think N/R (Harry, et al.) might consider a method allowing for rebuttal, follow the precedents established by the aforementioned review sites, and retain the anonymity of reviewers (as the other sites do, for all the same reasons).

I think the vendors receiving reviews might consider the invaluable information available through those reviews (however subjective they are) and see a rebuttal as a means of illustrating their professionalism.

I also think we SA's might consider all that we could learn if we had a more open exchange with our vendors.

Reply by Stamper_WI on 1/12/11 8:05am
Msg #368190

Re: Researched various review models for precedence

Good job Renee! You are so much more eloquent than my attempt at it.

Reply by Dawn/PA on 1/12/11 8:13am
Msg #368193

Re: I rarely post

because to do so, more often than not would be redundant. I am no longer a Premier Member due to taking care of family reduced my business greatly. I am over that hump and haven't renewed my premier membership yet as the calls have been coming in and that is something I have been mulling over.

Anyway, I try to always post comments in SC for companies that I have worked with and I always check the option to PM me. Everyone has different criteria on how they rate their vendors. I pretty much operate on a Net 30, but don't get upset when payment comes at 32 days. I think anyone posting on SC should be allowed to be contacted regarding their comments. A star rating on several items similar to that on Ebay seems to be a good way to go, keeping in mind, everyone's idea of fair pair, timely pay, etc are different. I am willing turn over a copy of my commission to NR to validate that I am a notary, but I do not agree that non premier members should not be able to post on SC.

The numbers site has an option for hiring parties to rate the notary, and in my area the last time I check, none of the notaries in my area had any ratings, so I am not so that implementing that on this site would have much bearing.

I think Harry's head is swimming by now.

Reply by Les_CO on 1/12/11 8:08am
Msg #368192

#1 n/m

Reply by Larry/IL on 1/12/11 9:21am
Msg #368206

I thought this was Notery Rotary, not SS or Title co. Rotary

I was first brought to this site because of S/C. I spent a year just reading posts before I ever registered. Since then I have become a premier member.

What and how people say things, even in writing says volumes about them. It paints a picture about the person over time. Reading posts, I see people critical of EVERYTHING. Their glass is never half full, I feel sorry for them. I read some post where you can tell the person thinks they know everything and are the only reliable source on the subject and willing to fight about it. And very sadly, I read posts with so called professional people belittling their fellow notaries. I have even read posts where someone tries to belittle someone for spelling or typos as if we where in school and this was English class, of course the criticizer clearly thought they were the Teacher, wait maybe the Principal.......for sure the District Superintendent.

The point I am making is it is relatively easy to choose what treads to open, read and what posters to read, and which ones to completely ignore. I do this when it comes to S/C as well. If a person has posted professionally, stated facts, enough facts, and there are an average of ratings similar, I feel that rating might be more credible. I usually do not pay much attention to the worst or most glowing reviews for obvious reasons. While I think it is ok to post about offered fees, I feel it should be in a professional way, posting only the numbers without sounding unprofessional and insulting, unless that's the picture you want to paint for yourself.

I am, was, under the impression this was a site for Notaries? A place for Notaries to gather, support each other and to have power in numbers. To allow SS or Title Companies to influence this would change this site!!! Might be nice to see a mission statement for the site. If there are hiring companies crying it means this site works! It may not be perfect , like some of the posters, but perfection is something always needing work. So seems now Harry would consider some help in the form of input.

I would NOT participate, and would consider S/C even less credible if a poster of ratings information were visible to hiring companies. I would strongly consider not renewing if that happened! I DO believe the posters information should be available to paying Notary members.

I have heard from hiring companies and it has been shown on here that they do and will hold ratings against the posters. Not too long ago, I vaguely remember a thread about a hiring company and every time someone posted something about them, the hiring company would call you, sometimes with in minutes. Hiring companies will hold your postings against you !!! Not all but some. Some of the hiring companies need to pay attention and be as professional as possible.

So now my lowly 2 cents for Harry's consideration.

Anyone that posts threads should not be anonymous and verified, it might serve to help the site follow a mission statement and deter some of the ridiculous posting.

S/C is a great tools but less than credible when it considering some of the ratings. S/C should be limited! Perhaps a verified non paying member could view S/C minimal times, using a ratio, only when contributing ratings that could be verified. Perhaps a more favorable ratio for those paying members, with the idea that everyone should be participating.

S/C is so important, I would like to see a bit broader of a rating system. A system does not include a certain percentage of the worst or best ratings unless those ratings have sufficient documentation to support them. Anyone ranting or posting in a unprofessional manner in S/C should be redirected to the mission of the site, know if they do not change their ways, they might be subject to minor suspension of privileges escalating for future infractions. Support the mission of the site or find a different site, plain and simple.

Title companies & SS should NEVER have access to ratings posters information without consent. Title companies and SS should have a way to address inaccurate and/or poor ratings. They should only be with indisputable documented proof. They should be allowed to post difficulties they might be having or measures they have taken to correct poor ratings. This should be in a sub section of the site!

THIS SITE, while not perfect IS WORKING !!! Many hiring companies are watching, paying attention to our site, (Harry's), do we not want our voices heard and have power in numbers? Notary Rotary could be so much better and it takes all of us to help.

Lastly I would ask that all the more seasoned Notaries to use constructive criticize when posting. I beleive we all get what we give.

Larry

Reply by James Dawson on 1/12/11 9:40am
Msg #368209

Very well put Larry you put a lot of thought into it n/m

Reply by Yvonne/NJ on 1/12/11 11:14am
Msg #368224

Re: signing central ratings

It would seem with all the posts on this that it is a source of great concern with alot of the SA's as well as the SS's and Title companies. I was considering becoming a Premier member today and was going to ask those that are if it was worth the $. Now I must consider if title companies and SS's are finding it so difficult to contend with notaries they use from this directory will they go elsewhere to find notaries? If we make it so cumbersome for them to do business with notaries listed here this site will become nothing more than a venue to vent. My money would then not be well spent. I think if I were a SS that was unfairly given a bad rating I would want a rebuttal. I would not want to spend my time with nonesense from a competitors bogus postings, nor embroil myself in constant law suits. However I would appreciate the opportunity for a rebuttal. I say that because I have trained notaries and I have cleaned up after notaries that have botched their signings badly. So, does a SS have the right to rebut if such an incompetent notary gives them a bad report? I have found that it is more often than not something the notary did or didn't do that prompts the SS to doc the pay of a notary or refuse to pay at all. Not saying this is the case all the time. I know and have worked with nutty SS's too. Just my thoughts, you need not send letters.

Reply by MW/VA on 1/12/11 11:49am
Msg #368234

I think Larry has thought this through. My concern is that

some of the companies that may be screaming about their ratings in SC deserve the poor ratings & may try to manipulate the system to their favor.
I wouldn't have a problem contacting me about comments made on NR or SC, and that has actually happened. I don't bash companies, but will share my experiences (good or bad) so that other notaries can use that info in making their decisions.
I appreciate the dilemma Harry finds himself in. I'm also concerned. Another site has received complaints about notaries, and has taken that upon themselves as a reflection of their business. I have an issue with that. IMHO it is not within the scope of these sites to police performance of notaries or companies.
Perhaps a disclaimer is what's needed.

Reply by CopperheadVA on 1/12/11 12:04pm
Msg #368235

Re: I think Larry has thought this through. My concern is that

<< some of the companies that may be screaming about their ratings in SC deserve the poor ratings & may try to manipulate the system to their favor. >>

Totally agree with you, Marilynn! I find that the bad companies on SC have a bad reputation for a reason - because they've earned it! When you see post after post about how poorly they pay - well, that's probably because they don't pay!

I recently turned an assignment back to a SS after initially accepting it while I was out and away from my computer. Immediately upon returning home I checked their rep on SC and forum posts, found them to be non-payers, and turned the assignment back to them and politely told them why. Then the very next week more non-pay posts turn up about this same company. Sooooo glad I gave that assignment back! Those ratings in SC have saved me MANY times.

I think what may be happening is that the SS are getting more and more feedback from notaries when they turn down or turn back appointments - I know that I tell them that there are numerous poor payment reports listed for them on Notary Rotary, so I will be unable to accept their assignment. So now they are crying to Harry, saying no fair. The good companies have good reps, the poor payers have bad ones. Very simple.

Reply by MistarellaFL on 1/12/11 12:17pm
Msg #368239

Excellent points Marilyn and Copperhead n/m

Reply by MW/VA on 1/12/11 6:44pm
Msg #368314

Exactly, Linda. I can think of one notorious slow-pay ss

that doesn't like their report card on NR. Oh, well!!!! I'm grateful for SC, and willingly participate.

Reply by Tish/CA on 1/12/11 1:15pm
Msg #368244

Harry - I don't like any of these options however, if I were forced to chose one I would chose option 2. Option 1 would bring about terrible results. People brown nosing, people afraid to report negatives for fear of retribution, the whole system as it currently exists would be compromised and would no longer be an effective tool for notaries. I can't quite wrap my head around how option 3 would work. Maybe you could expand on that idea and how it would play out.

Reply by HisHughness on 1/12/11 2:00pm
Msg #368248

NotRot participants should be aware that Harry faces some potential legal liability for negative postings about commercial enterprises, and we should be sensitive to that.

I make it a point to identify myself with my comments, and not just on NotRot. If I've got the cojones to say it, then I should have the cojones to stand behind it.

That said, I think:

1. Access to ratings and participation in rating should be a privilege of paid membership. It's a service. Harry is entitled to derive revenue from it. That also should reduce irresponsible comments.

2. Companies zapped by poor ratings may have a point. Competitiors may misuse SC to undermine competition, and as much complaining as we do here about the incompetence of neophyte signing agents, is anybody deluded enough to think that they don't bring that same incompetence to ratings in SC?

3. Assignment of star ratings should remain anonymous.

4. Identities should be required to comment on a company's performance. If I complain to the Better Business Bureau, I can't do it anonymously. If I comment on a company's performance in an e-transaction on Amazon, I can't do it anonymously. There is no reason that should be permitted here. Companies should also be able to respond to correct any misinformation.

5. The pull-down menu idea sounds like a fabulous idea.

6. I'm cool to the "Report Abuse" button. First, because the other proposals should eliminate most of the need for it, and second because it sure sounds like it has the potential to become just an internal b!tchfight.

Whatever is done, I have confidence that Harry, who has the wisdom of Buddha, the patience of Job, the righteousness of the Prophet, and the forgiving nature of the Christ, will do the right thing.

Or maybe he'll just boot some of our butts off NotRot.

Reply by Richard Ingram on 1/12/11 2:41pm
Msg #368260

I think Hugh has hit the nail on the head. If I complain, I want the low-life non-payers to know what I think of them. I just wish we had a way to get the information to the people who hire these low-life companies and hopefully they might boycott same.
Unless I have a good work experience with a company I ask about their payment practices (some lie) and tell them I will accept signing based on checking with Notary Rotary. I have turned several back over but usually get the information needed.
I wish Harry would have a special link to all 2 Star ratings in order to save us a little time. I also like the idea of Premier Members only being able to comment,

Reply by Tish/CA on 1/12/11 10:18pm
Msg #368335

But wait a minute, this is supposed to be a site where folks can be as candid as they need to be. The minute we start putting identities out there for all to see will be the day that we don't get reliable information. I've been a member here for many years and I rely on my fellow colleagues to tell it like it is when they post comments on SC. I can always read through a silly comment but we're professionals and we can see through the obvious and the ridiculous.

I've had 2 bad experiences with co's since I started in 2005 and i did report them. I also gave pretty nice reviews to many Co's that have been, bare none, the best in the biz, but to think that everything would be public to hiring agencies is crazy. I rely very heavily on what other's have experienced before taking a job with an unknown company. I would really hate that Harry would cave in at the cost of us. We pay dearly for this site. Harry, of you go to court to shelter our identities, I go too.

Reply by Joyce Robinson on 1/12/11 10:09pm
Msg #368334

I feel option #3 will work best. Option #2 will be ok with me as well, as long as the companies are honest, not offering spin on what really happened.

Reply by Kathy Hageman on 3/1/11 10:18pm
Msg #374684

I think it is fair to let the companies respond to any and all complaints against them. That's how we roll in America.