I think BearPaw/CO has a good point. But I do think it's valuable to keep in mind that SC is only as good as the information that gets posted there. Posting based on hearsay, second hand experience, or uninformed speculation, as in the example given by BearPaw/CO above, may lead to misinformation and doesn't add real value.
There are pros and cons on both sides of the issue and I'm not sure what's the best solution. There may not be any clear cut answers. However, the more we remain aware of what the issues are, the better choices we can all make, both in writing reviews and in choosing how to interpret what's been written.
Here's a short list of some considerations, but I'd appreciate any other points others may be able to add. Some of these will seem obvious, but that's the point here. Getting it all down in one place may illuminate some solutions for us.
1. Posting speculation or supposition about any company could lead others to make inaccurate assumptions and poor decisions. Consequences:
- good work missed by an NSA & reduced income.
- a potentially decent company has trouble filling orders and remaining a 'decent' company.
2. If the only people posting about bad companies are folks who got suckered into working for them, posts are likely to reflect only the opinions of people who don't have enough experience (or common sense?) to know better. Consequences:
- lowering of standards, making the ratings less meaningful or useful.
3. One person's good experience can be someone else's bad experience - even with the exact same circumstances, since NSAs have different expectations. And the same company can act differently from one signing to the next, depending on variables like how many NSAs are in the area, who the scheduler is, what the weather is, who their client is, what time of the month it is (e.g. EOM...)
3. One experience (good or bad) can be a fluke. My bias is that a bad experience probably tells more than a good one. To rate a company highly, I look for a trend of positives over a period of time. Some companies appear great for a few weeks until it's time to send payment. That's their SOP...
4. Factors to consider when rating a company:
a. - amount and promptness of pay;
b. - attitude, courtesy, respect, in all interactions;
c. - lack of hand-holding;
d. - contact method (e.g. personal vs. blast);
e. - responsiveness (do they return calls, are they reachable);
f. - support (e.g. when their client wants something illegal done);
g. - payment for no-signs, printing only, etc.;
h. - conciseness of paperwork (e.g. a 1-page, well organized confirmation vs. multiple pages of basic instructions, warnings re: docking of pay, etc.);
i. - ease of invoicing/generating payment;
k. - terms of Agreements, other info requested from NSA.
l. - how much experience you've had with them.
I've added numbers and letters for easy reference for comments and additions to this list.
BTW, my personal opinion is that there should be a slightly different standard for posts on the forum vs. reviews in SC. Given the current conditions on this forum, I think it's in everyone's best interest to risk a few posts that are less meaningful (although I also like having that minimized) vs. members self-censoring a comment that might be useful to some. It's nice when people think before they post, but I don't believe we have the problem with tons of posts cluttering the board that we used to.
I also 100% agree with this statement from above: "There's nothing like an informed response and healthful dialog for someone seeking advice." But the quality of the responses will vary based on the quality of the post requesting info. When asking for feedback, the more clear the post, the better will be the responses. Most long-time posters here do a pretty good job of figuring out (sometimes with difficulty) what people are asking, but it doesn't help you to make it difficult for them. It's worth it to take another minute to re-read a post to see if you're getting your point across... [But we know none of us are perfect.  ]
|
