Anybody going to Ashdown next weekend?

On Wed, 30 Apr 2003 01:58:33 -0400, Kate Kaercher
wrote:

Anybody going to Ashdown next weekend?


I'm going this Saturday.

Shiva wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2003 01:58:33 -0400, Kate Kaercher
wrote:


Anybody going to Ashdown next weekend?


Not me. I like to be a moving target.

Sean McCann is supposed to be there.

I'm a little p***ed off at Ashdown right now.

I tried to place my first order w/ them
yesterday. After the entire billing procedure
was over online, I'm told half my roses will
be shipped in September!!!

If its not available don't advertise it!!!

--
Theo in Zone 5
Kansas City

"Kate Kaercher" wrote in message
...
Anybody going to Ashdown next weekend?

On Thu, 01 May 2003 09:49:01 -0400, Kate Kaercher
wrote:

Shiva wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2003 01:58:33 -0400, Kate Kaercher
wrote:


Anybody going to Ashdown next weekend?


Not me. I like to be a moving target.

Sean McCann is supposed to be there.

Are you driving or flying?

(Shiva) wrote in news:730ff03d4ac569a1c462d570e18893a6
@TeraNews:

On Thu, 01 May 2003 16:31:43 GMT, "Theo Asir"
wrote:

I'm a little p***ed off at Ashdown right now.

I tried to place my first order w/ them
yesterday. After the entire billing procedure
was over online, I'm told half my roses will
be shipped in September!!!

Theo, that doesn't sound like Paul--but if I were you I would cancel.
Make them take it off your card. That's BS. You are in an area where
fall planting could be negative.

Perhaps first a phone call might be in order. Sounds to me like a coding
error in the script rather than a true scheduling error, but a call might
clear this up for you. You could also check on actual availability this
way.

I've noticed that with online merchants there's a widely varying
difference in the real-time reliability of order interfaces. My approach
(as a programmer myself) is to assume that they're first and foremost
plantsmen, not programmers. Some certainly don't have the resources to
support a full-time web designer who can assure that online systems
communicate with inventory or shipping databases, much less calculate the
appropriate shipping time for your USDA zone.

Sure, it would be nice to have Ashdown's system work as smoothly as
amazon.com or whatever, but I'd rather have them put their effort into
budding roses or maintaining healthy own-root plants for me rather than
providing top-notch online ordering systems.

My approach, I readily admit, may be retrograde. As you say, perhaps
selections shouldn't be offered if the plant isn't in stock. And IMHO
it's an error to force the customer to complete the billing process
before informing them when an order will be shipped. There should be a
back-out process before purchase to let the buyer know what's available
and what's not.

My experience with Ashdown has been entirely positive. However, I don't
use their online ordering interface. I phone them or order through my
local nursery (which will special order from Ashdown if asked). The
plants I get from Ashdown are healthy, large and ready to trot. I
appreciate this. But I know that there are variables in online commerce
that sometimes make a more personal transaction the truly satisfactory
one.

Just a thought.

----

Most rose nurseries atleast put a little tag
saying will ship late or out of stock.

When your availability is September you
are out of stock.

I understand these tend to be small operations
and can't afford the overheads, Im not asking
for Amazon like next day availability.

I'm perfectly happy getting it @ the end of May
as most nurseries plan but September?

Any way I've canceled the order.
Compare this with Vintage which has
a very basic site(no pictures) but their
not available roses are pulled rapidly
so they have no ****ed off customers.

--
Theo in Zone 5
Kansas City

"saki" wrote in message
...
(Shiva) wrote in news:730ff03d4ac569a1c462d570e18893a6
@TeraNews:

On Thu, 01 May 2003 16:31:43 GMT, "Theo Asir"
wrote:

I'm a little p***ed off at Ashdown right now.

I tried to place my first order w/ them
yesterday. After the entire billing procedure
was over online, I'm told half my roses will
be shipped in September!!!

Theo, that doesn't sound like Paul--but if I were you I would cancel.
Make them take it off your card. That's BS. You are in an area where
fall planting could be negative.

Perhaps first a phone call might be in order. Sounds to me like a coding
error in the script rather than a true scheduling error, but a call might
clear this up for you. You could also check on actual availability this
way.

I've noticed that with online merchants there's a widely varying
difference in the real-time reliability of order interfaces. My approach
(as a programmer myself) is to assume that they're first and foremost
plantsmen, not programmers. Some certainly don't have the resources to
support a full-time web designer who can assure that online systems
communicate with inventory or shipping databases, much less calculate the
appropriate shipping time for your USDA zone.

Sure, it would be nice to have Ashdown's system work as smoothly as
amazon.com or whatever, but I'd rather have them put their effort into
budding roses or maintaining healthy own-root plants for me rather than
providing top-notch online ordering systems.

My approach, I readily admit, may be retrograde. As you say, perhaps
selections shouldn't be offered if the plant isn't in stock. And IMHO
it's an error to force the customer to complete the billing process
before informing them when an order will be shipped. There should be a
back-out process before purchase to let the buyer know what's available
and what's not.

My experience with Ashdown has been entirely positive. However, I don't
use their online ordering interface. I phone them or order through my
local nursery (which will special order from Ashdown if asked). The
plants I get from Ashdown are healthy, large and ready to trot. I
appreciate this. But I know that there are variables in online commerce
that sometimes make a more personal transaction the truly satisfactory
one.

Just a thought.

----

saki wrote:

Perhaps first a phone call might be in order. Sounds to me like a coding
error in the script rather than a true scheduling error, but a call
might clear this up for you. You could also check on actual availability
this way.

Could be, but I don't think he should have to.



I've noticed that with online merchants there's a widely varying
difference in the real-time reliability of order interfaces. My approach
(as a programmer myself) is to assume that they're first and foremost
plantsmen, not programmers. Some certainly don't have the resources to
support a full-time web designer who can assure that online systems
communicate with inventory or shipping databases, much less calculate
the
appropriate shipping time for your USDA zone.

All very logical and reasonable. On the other hand, they are competing
with some folks who really do have it together electronically and in all
ways. So they need to get it together.



My experience with Ashdown has been entirely positive.

So has mine. However--after I recommended them to a friend, she received
several roses, one of which looked really bad on arrival--down to one cane
and clearly diseased. When she contacted Paul, he told her to wait a while
and see what happened. What happened was a one-cane-wonder that dwindeled
to death. I am disappointed that he did not simply replact the rose. It is
what he should have done. She never contacted him again, just took the
loss and will not order from Ashdown again. I don't really blame her.



Just a thought.

----

saki wrote:

I've noticed that with online merchants there's a widely varying
difference in the real-time reliability of order interfaces. My approach
(as a programmer myself) is to assume that they're first and foremost
plantsmen, not programmers. Some certainly don't have the resources to
support a full-time web designer who can assure that online systems
communicate with inventory or shipping databases, much less calculate the
appropriate shipping time for your USDA zone.

I think this is why I blame the web designers more than I do the
company. Companies who have no idea what they are getting into should
be encouraged to keep it simple and add functionality slowly as they
realize the work involved. One must provide guidance to the "new to the
web" customer in addition to site design.

Also such things as real time inventory data online can get expensive
and/or time intensive if done right. This should be presented to the
customer before the feature is incorporated into the site.

Like I said before, my background is eighteen years as a programmer and
programming consultant and then a shift into web design aout five years
ago. Though I work for a unviersity, we face these issues on a daily
basis with departments who come up with whiz bang ideas for their
websites not knowing the technical expertise and time involved to
implement it. It's our job to explain this and all it entails on our
side and theirs since it really isn't part of their job to know this
type of stuff.

To be honest, as you may surmise from my comments, I honestly think
there are too many hacks out there who set themselves up as "profeshanol
web designers" simply because they own a computer that has a copy of
Front Page on it. (And no, this isn't sour grapes as these people don't
really effect me unless a department hires an outside consultant whom we
have to "clean up" after.)

Susan
s h simko at duke dot edu

Susan H. Simko wrote:

To be honest, as you may surmise from my comments, I honestly think
there are too many hacks out there who set themselves up as "profeshanol
web designers" simply because they own a computer that has a copy of
Front Page on it. (And no, this isn't sour grapes as these people don't
really effect me unless a department hires an outside consultant whom we
have to "clean up" after.)

Like the hacks that put up Sequoia's first website. Some dispute
ensued, and the hack that did it won't take it down, has left it there
to confuse and confound google searchers. Hard to imagine the
contractual arrangment that allows *that* to happen.

What about all those advertisements that
send you a CD to set up your own web business
for $200 or what ever.

Or better still the Yahoo store system.

--
Theo in Zone 5
Kansas City

"Susan H. Simko" wrote in message
...
saki wrote:

I've noticed that with online merchants there's a widely varying
difference in the real-time reliability of order interfaces. My approach
(as a programmer myself) is to assume that they're first and foremost
plantsmen, not programmers. Some certainly don't have the resources to
support a full-time web designer who can assure that online systems
communicate with inventory or shipping databases, much less calculate
the
appropriate shipping time for your USDA zone.

I think this is why I blame the web designers more than I do the
company. Companies who have no idea what they are getting into should
be encouraged to keep it simple and add functionality slowly as they
realize the work involved. One must provide guidance to the "new to the
web" customer in addition to site design.

Also such things as real time inventory data online can get expensive
and/or time intensive if done right. This should be presented to the
customer before the feature is incorporated into the site.

Like I said before, my background is eighteen years as a programmer and
programming consultant and then a shift into web design aout five years
ago. Though I work for a unviersity, we face these issues on a daily
basis with departments who come up with whiz bang ideas for their
websites not knowing the technical expertise and time involved to
implement it. It's our job to explain this and all it entails on our
side and theirs since it really isn't part of their job to know this
type of stuff.

To be honest, as you may surmise from my comments, I honestly think
there are too many hacks out there who set themselves up as "profeshanol
web designers" simply because they own a computer that has a copy of
Front Page on it. (And no, this isn't sour grapes as these people don't
really effect me unless a department hires an outside consultant whom we
have to "clean up" after.)

Susan
s h simko at duke dot edu

"Cass" wrote in message

Like the hacks that put up Sequoia's first website. Some dispute
ensued, and the hack that did it won't take it down, has left it there
to confuse and confound google searchers. Hard to imagine the
contractual arrangment that allows *that* to happen.

Hello my dear,

Anyone with any authority at Sequoia can and should contact Google
about this matter. They do have "spiders" that continuously check for
the cache everywhere. The fact remains that there cannot be without
Sequoia's consent any reason why that other site is still in place. In fact
the hack who did the damage to begin with could very well be infringing
upon Mr. Moore's right to stop him from using 1: his likeness as it
appears in the first page of that site, 2: infringement upon the usage of
a trade name such as Sequoia, and third, I am sure Google would be
more than understanding about this matter. ( I am a volunteer translator
for Google and I know that if there is something left of class on the Web
Google has it) so, what are the remedies for this travesty?

First someone at Sequoia, perhaps the person who has designed the
second site (which still confuses the dickens out of people who have
no idea what "the supplemental list" is) to contact Google with the
explanation and request that their spiders do not visit that url as
in fact it is a violation of Mr. Moore's rights. I think hackers have one
big problem in general, they don't know what the heck they are doing
and they are very loud about doing it. If they know how to put it up
they sure as heck don't know how to take it down correctly.

A perfunctory search of "miniatureroses.com" shows that it is registered
under the name of someone in Colorado other than Mr. Ralph Moore
and so it supports the assumption that without specific permission from
Mr.Moore the usage of its name and likeness is a violation of basic
commerce laws. An issue that could be raised to inform Google of the
permanent confusion they are unknowingly and unwittingly helping to create.
Once Google is aware of this problem they can help Sequoia or the new
designer to correct it.

Allegra

In article r2zsa.465102$Zo.104555@sccrnsc03, Allegra
wrote:

"Cass" wrote in message

Like the hacks that put up Sequoia's first website. Some dispute
ensued, and the hack that did it won't take it down, has left it there
to confuse and confound google searchers. Hard to imagine the
contractual arrangment that allows *that* to happen.

Hello my dear,

Anyone with any authority at Sequoia can and should contact Google
about this matter.

Good idea. I think I know just the person to take care of this for Mr.
Moore.

This is a good system Ash down work smoothly amazon.com or whatever, but I'd rather own efforts in the bud rose or maintaining a healthy self-rooted plants, not for my first-class online ordering system.