Posted by Buddy Young on 1/28/13 7:18pm
Msg #452796
star rateing system revisited
The rateing system has been discused before ( I think Hugh brought it up ) but I think it needs more discussion.
A while back I looked up a company on signing central ( sorry, I don't remember which one)and most of the rateings had either 5 stars or 1 star, which lead me to believe that we are not rateing accurately and in need of a standardized rateing system. It's not up to someone elce to develop a better system, it's up to us to do a better job of rateing.
Let's start with pay. Pay is the most important thing to us, as it should be, and it should carry the most weight. The questions to ask yourself are: Is their pay above average, average or below average? Do they pay in 14 days, 30 days, 60 days or longer? I personally start deducting stars if I don't get paid in 30 days, I deduct another star if I don't get paid in 60days, etc.
Pay isn't the only thing we should grade companies on. We should concider these things as well:
1.) proffesionalism
2.) communication
3.) easy to work with
4.) Does someone answer the after hours number or call you back within 15 minutes?
5.) Easy to get in touch with: Do they answer the phone or reply to emails?
Please feel free to comment or add things to my list.
For the notary police out there, I already know that I'm a terrible speller.
Buddy
| Reply by jba/fl on 1/28/13 7:21pm
Msg #452798
hand holding - do I get to do my job or do they have to call every 10 min. and I have to report every 15 min.
for the notary police: I don't like to capitalize
| Reply by JimAZ on 1/28/13 7:47pm
Msg #452804
Good post Buddy. All of the items you identified are definitely at the top of our lists. However, I would add "no docs,,,,late docs". Customers that habitually tie up our time and don't follow thru. This has been a common topic on this forum recently. Just happened to me today by a "habitual" I haven't marketed since Jan'12 because I didn't need to, but I started today so I can replace this "habitual" in 2013.
My spelling is also not that great, so folks,,remember phonetics???
| Reply by jba/fl on 1/28/13 9:01pm
Msg #452819
fawn icks - sure
| Reply by ikando on 1/28/13 9:34pm
Msg #452824
Perhaps a defined scale would be something to consider, i.e., 5 stars is superior, great to work with, paying timely and a good rate; 4 stars is good, easy to work with, paying timely and a fair rate; 3 stars is average, not consistently easy or difficult to work with, pays fairly, but later than the better companies. 2 stars would be pushing the envelop with hand holding, routinely asking for fax backs, trying to pay as little as possible, and often late docs. 1 star would be those companies which show signs of failing or renaming themselves to keep us from knowing who they are or how they function.
All the other comments could be factored in too. This is just presented as an example. Of course the scale would assume the rater has worked with the company more than one time in order to have a point of individual comparison.
And then there's the option to have Harry build an algorhythm that ranks the combination of reports over a specific period. But that's in utopia.
| Reply by Jack/AL on 1/28/13 10:14pm
Msg #452833
Re: star rating system revisited
Something along the lines proposed by ikando seems fair. I suggest that we go gingerly when assigning 1 star, and do so based on parameters other that offered fee alone. Some of my best clients get 1 star ratings from some members who call them scum and low-ballers, solely because the companies had the nerve to offer $65. That same offer is often made to me, but we agree to a substantially higher fee, and I get multiple signings per week, and pay arrives the following week. I appreciate those of you who do not negotiate, thus leaving more work for me at the easily and quickly negotiated higher fee. If there is/were a site where the TCs and SSs could rate us, would it be fair for a company rep to call any of our members "useless scum and high-dollar hogs" with whom they will never work, and then rate us with 1 star, merely because we had the audacity to say our fee is $XXX? I think not.
| Reply by JimAZ on 1/28/13 10:25pm
Msg #452834
Re: star rating system revisited
LOL,,,you do business with one stars and get paid. Tell everyone your secret.
| Reply by Jack/AL on 1/28/13 10:39pm
Msg #452839
Re: star rating system revisited
Jim/AZ, the companies with which I do business do not have overall 1 star ratings. Guess I did not make that clear. Overall, they have 3.5 stars, or more. It's just that some of those good companies that pay me well above $XX, have some 1 star comments posted by some members, based solely on the offer of $65. I stay away from the companies that have overall low ratings (3 star and less), determined by multiple 1 star and 2 star postings, especially when the comments pertain to differing aspects of operations. I'll just betcha that you will see (or have seen) some of your favorite companies get a 1 star rating after offering someone $65, even though you routinely get higher dollar assignments from the same company(ies). One 1 star post by one member does not make a 1 star company, in my mind.
| Reply by HSH/WA on 1/28/13 10:26pm
Msg #452835
Re: Let the people running their business offer
the lowest price they can get NSAs to take. You can say no for less than your fee. But, now that the job is done - pay us in 2 to 4 weeks (no contingency ie no close no fee). I would like it if it were easy to pick up docs and call in completion. Other than that a free mocha won't hurt.
| Reply by JimAZ on 1/28/13 10:38pm
Msg #452838
Re: Let the people running their business offer
I have a mocha machine, but other than that you completely lost me.
| Reply by Gregory/CA on 1/28/13 10:41pm
Msg #452841
I think what would be ideal is to have multiple ratings instead of just one that covers everything all inclusive. For instance, using Buddy's five considerations, if there was a way to have a rating system for each item, then we can see where the signing services excels or not.
Some parties may excel in multiple areas, but not all of them. Having the distinction between the items would be nice.
1. Professionalism - 5 Stars
2. Communication - 3 Stars
3. Easy to Work With - 5 Stars
4. Someone Answer - 2 Stars
5. Easy to Reach - 1 Star
Overall Score: 3.2 Stars
I know this probably major programming to add the multiple layers of a rating system, but at least is could be Food for Thought for Harry for when he has some down time :-)
Hopefully, the above made sense.
| Reply by Jack/AL on 1/28/13 10:47pm
Msg #452842
rating system, rating system, rating system
Not to belittle the suggestion of Gregpory/CA, which I believe is a good one, but all it would take to throw the rating out of skew is one uncaring poster who was offered $65 and decided he absoluelty must submit 1 star for each of the categories, merely because someone offered only $65. Such is the difficulty in creating and properly using most rating systems.........
| Reply by HisHughness on 1/28/13 10:54pm
Msg #452844
Here's what I suggest
Let's name 5 participants on the board as a committee to come up with a rating scale: 5 points always equals such and such, 4 points always equals, etc.
Once the committee has the rating scale developed, let's see if we can get general agreement to implement it. Then let's ask Harry if he would post it on the ratings page. That way, all he has to do is add some text to his existing layout.
I would suggest Brenda, Cheryl Elliott, Sylvia, if she's interested. Anybody else have nominations if we decide to pursue this?
| Reply by 101livescan on 1/28/13 10:58pm
Msg #452846
Re: Here's what I suggest
If Sylvia is not interested, I would suggest Janet Berger. She has very much logical thinking and common sense, more than I even!
| Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 1/28/13 10:59pm
Msg #452847
I would nominate....
you (Hugh), JanetK and Buddy.
| Reply by BrendaTx on 1/29/13 12:22am
Msg #452859
Re: Here's what I suggest
Thank you, Hugh. I believe that you should have my spot because I do not have the passion for this project that you and others do. I would really be a theorist I am not in the trenches any more. I will do signings, but only if the price is right and the time is right.
| Reply by Pam/NM on 1/29/13 9:51am
Msg #452883
Re: Here's what I suggest
What if instead of 5 pts equals such and such, etc, create a matrix (thinking like a fall risk scale for those of you with medical backgrounds) where there is a point guideline for things ($XXX = 5 pts, $xx = 2 pts, Docs typically early = 5 pts, day of > 4 hrs = 4 pts, etc...) then average it out at the end and have a char limit for comments. It might be a bit more cumbersome to rate, but at least it would be pts based instead of totally subjective like "they insulted me by asking me to make sure I arrived on time and dressed professionally, so I'm going to give them a 1 star...."
| Reply by Linda_H/FL on 1/29/13 7:48am
Msg #452865
Really, if you think about it, Harry doesn't even need to
be involved - nor do we need a "committee"
Each notary can make a list of the elements that a company should be rated on; each of those elements gets rated by the notary on a scale of 1 to 5; add up the ratings, divide by how many elements and that average is posted in SC .. just a thought.
What people need to do is make sure they're fair in their ratings. In the past there have been 1-star ratings for companies by people who are ticked off because they weren't paid - come to find out it was their own fault. Those are some of the types of ratings that skew the system.
| Reply by Notarysigner on 1/29/13 9:31am
Msg #452877
Re: agree with Linda
I agree with you Linda! I would rather see Harry double the "char limit" from 80 to 160 allowing for more space to list some particulars. We would have more information to decide for ourselves instead of relying on the star rating.
I usually try to contact the comments "poster" for additional info but the response isn't always timely.
I do agree that with all of you that it needs to be tightened up because I use it everyday.
| Reply by 101livescan on 1/29/13 12:47pm
Msg #452916
Re: agree with Linda
I wonder if we could have a blacklist. Those cos that have gone out of biz and those low no pa cos no one should work for. Then those best cos to work for.
| Reply by JanetK_CA on 1/29/13 3:23pm
Msg #452959
Re: agree with Linda - and my 2 cents.
Now this is an idea I can get behind! I don't know what would be involved or how difficult or costly it would be for Harry, but I think it has the best chance of making an impact. I know I've often had a hard time getting anything meaningful into 80 characters! [I'm sure that won't surprise anyone who has been a regular reader on this board for any length of time...  ]
As for the ratings "committee", I appreciate the votes of confidence, but not only do I have no desire (or time) to get involved in such a thing, I don't think it will make much difference. By the very nature of this forum, we're never going to get full agreement or compliance, so the rating system will never be perfect. I don't think we should use it as an absolute guide, but rather as just one more tool in our arsenal.
I do, however, believe it's useful to discuss the various criteria that different individuals use to decide on their ratings - and I like the suggestion for each of us to create our own multi-category system, rather than just a random rating. But the fact remains that one person's trash is another person's treasure - even when it comes to which companies to work for. We all have different business models, so what fits for one doesn't fit for another. And the regional differences will remain significant, imo.
However, maybe we could find some way to flag the real bad apples, perhaps something similar to the report button. This should require a certain threshold be reached (something substantial) before it shows up in SC. So the bad actors like SOX, etc. who either truly don't pay anyone or are are out of business, will be clearly identified. This type of flag should only be visible when there has been a significant pattern of bad faith over time. So if there was a dispute by a notary who may not have followed the rules, a marginal company would have those types of things show up in ratings and comments, but not necessarily be flagged as a "bad apple".
And if something like this becomes possible, I would also strongly recommend that people limit their "bad apple" reporting to companies for which they have direct knowledge about the bad faith. Sometimes I've seen situations here where a few people post about bad experiences and everyone jumps on the bandwagon. While it might be well justified, it also could blow out of proportion a situation where a company might have good intentions, but is dealing with what might be a temporary situation. Sometimes, those situations end up being exactly what they seem, and we see a company going down the tubes. Other times, there have been companies that have been able to pull themselves back into some level of acceptable operation.
Certainly, we'd like to see all companies operate at a 4 or 5 star level, but let's face it... a significant percentage (I'd venture to guess 80%, based on the Pareto Principle), are not going to be in the top tier. And the line that distinguishes the bottom 20% is going to be hazy. I think this type of approach could help people - especially newbies - know to avoid the real bottom feeders, while hopefully giving those in the middle a fair chance to stay in business, and maybe even move into the top 20%.
(Now I'm curious as to what percentage of companies are currently 1-star ratings and how many are 5-star... It would be very interesting to see how close they come to 20% each!)
| Reply by Notarysigner on 1/29/13 7:28pm
Msg #453002
Re: Ask and you shall receive.
I just completed reviewing S/C looking for patterns and trying to make rhyme or reason out of the information on it. Because its sloooooow I thought, someone out there could probably tell us what this all means. A couple of questions I was trying to answer is, what is the likelihood, we would receive a call from a deadbeat company on this list and is there a correlation between that company and the amount they offer? Also, do the higher ranking companies also the ones that pay more? Heres some info to work with. I did this Last month
.
2012 2011 2010
There are 797 There are 520 There are 631 entries in S/C..
222 have no info 202 have no info 209 have no info available
8 Five star 8 Five star 3 - Five star
57 4 ½ 50 - 4 ½ star 49 - 4 1/2 star
87 4 87 4 star 85 - 4 star
102 3 ½ 94 3 ½ star 83 - 3 ½ star
100 3 79 3 star 66 3 star
65 2 ½ 54 2 ½ star 34 - 2 ½ star
44 2 35 2 star 27 - 2 star
64 - 1 ½ 55 1 ½ star 42 - 1 ½ star
48 - 1 36 1 star 32 1 star
| Reply by JanetK_CA on 1/29/13 9:38pm
Msg #453032
Re: Ask and you shall receive.
Thanks, James!! Not sure there's enough info for anything conclusive, but it's interesting to look at! BTW, how did you get the info from previous years? (Or is this something you've been tracking?) I think just the different in number of companies listed is interesting, although do I recall a purge of sorts a while back?
As for your questions, I think with the first one, it would likely be too random, with too many variables to be meaningful, like where you live, the population density, where a particular company's clients happen to be marketing, etc. Re: the second question, I'd like to think that the higher ranking companies pay more and hope that there is some correlation there, but I suspect that it wouldn't be across the board. This is because so many people have rated companies based on how quickly they pay as a primary criteria, rather than how they pay relative to other clients that individual works for.
| Reply by Notarysigner on 1/30/13 9:43am
Msg #453087
Re: Ask and you shall receive.
Every Year I've been gathering this trying to make heads or tails of the stats. I know there are lots of things unaccounted for like SS who change their names for example but the numbers are real.
FWIW, more than 1/2 falls below "Avg." that in itself is a warning. IMO
| Reply by SharonMN on 1/29/13 4:05pm
Msg #452967
Wow, Buddy.
>>Pay is the most important thing to us, as it should be, and it should carry the most weight.
Pay is the least important to me. Don't get me wrong, I like pay and lots of it. But pay is the only thing that can be established & negotiated at the time of the appointment call. I would rely on ratings for the other items you mentioned, as well as "pays as agreed" (I don't much care when I get paid, as long as I get paid as promised with no hassle and no need for reminders. I much prefer someone that pays in 45 days like clockwork to someone that claims to pay in 2 weeks but needs to be reminded and triple invoiced.) In addition to the items you mentioned:
- Are docs generally ready on time?
- Do appointments frequently get cancelled or rescheduled?
I generally ignore the stars and read the comments.
|
|
