Posted by 101livescan on 1/2/13 2:32pm
Msg #448500

Ethical Practices

I believe it is morally and ethically wrong to rate companies in Signing Central, especially low ball paying companies, just because you are asked, as a new notary, to increase their 1-, 2-or 3-star rating to something better.

It completely violates a level of integrity that I believe Harry Shoemaker strives to maintain on this board, and it is absolutely fruadulently manipulating the rating system.

Given this new information I've just received, I am completely disgusted that someone who regards themselves as "a professional" would stoop to this level. Newbies, be careful about rating companies who are three-star or less simply because you've been asked to do to this.

It is NOT OKAY to try to skew ratings of companies on this board.

SC is intended as a rating system for real-time experience, and shouldn't be used for companies who give newbies a lot of business, working for $50-60 or so.

I was recently accused of rating a five-star company with a 1 star review out of the blue. I've never rated a company in this manner, especially one that I've never worked for or even applied to work for.

I hope that the newbie community will think hard on the motives for these requests to rate lowball companies in Signing Central.

Companies on SC have earned their stars! We shouldn't be trying to elevate them to a higher level than they earned.

Reply by MW/VA on 1/2/13 2:42pm
Msg #448503

Agree, Cheryl. We are aware that there are some cos.

who try to manipulate or control their "ratings" here. I don't believe in bashing a co., but it helps everyone to give an honest acct. of our experiences. It's helped many avoid the slow-payers, no-payers & lowballers. Signing Central is one of the most valuable resources we have in this biz! :-)

Reply by Shoshana/AZ on 1/2/13 2:46pm
Msg #448507

Re: Agree, Cheryl. We are aware that there are some cos.

SC is only as valuable as the honesty of the notaries who enter their ratings of various SS.

Reply by C. Rivera Chicago Notary Services on 1/2/13 2:45pm
Msg #448506

I agree, & to add, sum of these SC com have NOT earned

their stars...having received ratings from their owners and employees..shame on you! And you know who you are!

I'd like to see the scum companies, who used to have high ranks, get their high stars yanked after 3 average or below reviews...but it doesn't seem to work that way...

good post 101

Reply by NJDiva on 1/2/13 3:18pm
Msg #448512

What newbies need to consider is that if you are a lowball

notary, you are stuck in that. When you are experienced and in the field a while, you will eventually realize that those fees are conducive to making everyone else money except you.

Once you are lowball, you can't just raise your fees all of a sudden. There is no loyalty in this business. If you are the lowest, to lowball companies, you'll get biz. If not, you're out. You can't make profit and have a viable business doing that. Meanwhile, you're losing out on companies that are fair and willing to pay for quality work. If these lowballers don't have quality NSA's their business may go to a reputable company.

What saddens me is these people that are getting great training and undermining themselves, this industry and everyone else as a whole because they don't really know better.

Please stop keeping these lowball companies in business. Stop giving 4-5 stars to a lowball company, no matter WHEN they pay. Really, you won't be in this business long anyway, if you continue with the business mode of working with them, so please don't jeopardize the industry for future notaries.

Thank you Cheryl for sharing this post.

Reply by HisHughness on 1/2/13 3:16pm
Msg #448510

Would SC ratings be more reliable ...

... if only premier members were allowed to rate there? Seems those of us who pay have a vested interest in the integrity of Notary Rotary. Nonpaying participants could always post comments on the forum itself. Or perhaps only paying members could assign star ratings; nonpayers could post SC comments, but could not rate.

Reply by Priscilla Witman on 1/2/13 3:25pm
Msg #448514

Re: Would SC ratings be more reliable ...

I could be wrong, but I think Signing Central is only available to Premier members now. I cannot even see the SC tab unless logged in, and when my Premier membership was due for renewal, I couldn't see SC even when logged in as a non-paying member. Maybe this is just a glitch in my own system. ?

SC is the most valuable tool available in this industry, in my opinion. I personally do not rely on the star rating alone; I also review the comments and forum discussions. I have found, in at least a couple of cases, that the star rating is skewed by a few 5-star ratings among many 2- and 3-star ratings. This is just my personal opinion.

Reply by MikeC/TX on 1/2/13 5:24pm
Msg #448537

Re: Would SC ratings be more reliable ...

"I could be wrong, but I think Signing Central is only available to Premier members now."

Sort of - as a non-paying member, I can view ratings and comments and even add a rating myself. What I can't do in SC is obtain contact info - that is restricted to premier members.

Reply by MikeC/TX on 1/2/13 5:19pm
Msg #448535

Re: Would SC ratings be more reliable ...

That's a good idea, and I would support it; it takes away the ability to game the system by creating phony accounts that can increase a company's rating (or decrease a competitor's). We KNOW that's what is happening in some cases.

IMO, non-paying members should be able to add a comment in SC but not a rating - if you see a bunch of positive comments with no rating and the actual rating is poor, it becomes a little more obvious that someone is trying to play games.

For the record, I am no longer a premier member simply because I stopped doing loan signings; if I were to restart that business (a possibility for this year), a paid membership on NR would be high on the list of things to do.

Reply by BrendaTx on 1/2/13 5:32pm
Msg #448538

Agree, Hugh. n/m

Reply by CinOH on 1/2/13 3:34pm
Msg #448518

I don't think it's fair to address this practice to only "newbies." As long as signing companies and their employees can rate in SC then you're going to have skewered ratings.

No company has ever asked me to rate them in SC and I've been a SA for over seven years. I know the ratings are somewhat skewered. But I wonder if it's really "newbies" doing it or if it's the companies finding ways to give themselves good ratings?

The results are also skewered because everyone uses different criteria to rate.

Not saying new people aren't doing this. Maybe they are but I worry more about the companies rating themselves.

Reply by SharonMN on 1/2/13 4:33pm
Msg #448527

Agreed, CinOH and Priscilla. You need to read the comments when deciding whether or not to work with a certain company, not just rely on the stars (unless Harry goes to a multiple star rating like eBay did.)

For example, I know some folks rate companies based on amount of pay and speed to pay. IMHO, neither of these is particularly relevant unless the company renegs on the term YOU as the independent contractor negotiated. (As an extreme example, if you agreed you'd do a signing today for $5 with payment 12/31/2013, and you got a check for $5 promptly on 12/31/2013, I see no reason to give the company a low rating. YOU agreed to those terms, and the company met them as promised.) I am much more interested to hear about companies that are disorganized, clueless, always have late docs or cancelled signings, feel the need to call 15 times to check on you, have onerous requirements such as massive faxbacks... or do not pay as agreed.

Reply by Les_CO on 1/2/13 4:52pm
Msg #448531

I believe it is unethical to rate a company that you have not personally worked with. I also believe the fees paid don’t matter at all. If you agree to work for $50, and the company pays you that $50 when promised….what is the problem? One may say in their remarks that the fee paid was low, and it took 3 months to get paid, but that is what was what I agreed to. We can’t blame a SS because WE accept a low fee, and some ridiculously complex billing schedule. That’s OUR fault, not theirs. One could also say for truly good companies; “This company pays promptly, pays a good fee, and are easy to work with, therefore I rate them 5*s”. A low-baller may not deserve 5 *s, but if they pay you what you asked, and did it without hesitation, and didn’t ask you for any ‘extras’ and were easy to work with, you need to say so. The ‘stars’ thing is a very personal, and subjective. As in :” The restaurant was spotless and elegant, the service superb, the wine/drinks/beverage outstanding, the food prepared to perfection, but I hate roast possum with okra and rice , so I give it one star.JMO

Reply by HSH/WA on 1/3/13 11:51am
Msg #448650

Re: It is nice that SS are concerned about NR ratings and

realize we have a very powerful tool to use against them if they choose to play games with paying us. I for one believe it's OK for a business to try and get it's cost down and offering low rates helps that. I wouldn't lower their rating for being "low ballers", just for no/slow pay. I have refused many less than 3 stars and told them why, and stick to my prices. So far so good.