These are exactly the issues that we are trying to deal with. It might
be that we find no viable solution; in that case, I do not intend to
resurrect it.

I find it amazing that people rush to judgement without even bothering
to ask the people involved what their intent is.

LIFE is full of "scammers, perpetual whiners, and people who are just
unrealistic", it is not just rating systems.

Wouldn't it be better to try and help solve the problems than "whine"
about them?

I personally believe there is value to a system like OGRES, even given
that there are some issues with people's ability to tell fact from
fiction. Factor that into the reviews, just like you do in the rest of
your life.

rob't


tennis maynard wrote:
On 15 Aug 2005 18:45:48 -0700, "L_B_F"
wrote:


So, pray tell, what makes it a bad idea? Do you have any well thought
reasons or are you just slamming? Do you read resturant reviews?
Movie reviews? Those are OK, but not this?

lbf


Anonymity. Lack of reciprocity, reliability.
Definitions (what constitutes a 'bad' plant? What's
blooming size? What about the person who complains
about the plant, advertised as a 5" seedling, that
"it will take years to bloom, because it's 36" tall at
maturity", when the plant received (cost $5) was
actually LARGER than advertised, at 6"??? Yet all you
see is the complaint about the plant being 'too small
and years from blooming'[actual case history]?????
We've had all this before, my reasons are the same as
last time.

I dealt with vendors panned on OGRES who were great,
and unfortunately with some wildly praised who were
absolutely, frighteningly horrible.

... snip ...
OGRES or anything like it is just an invitation to
scammers, perpetual whiners, and people who are just
unrealistic.

It's an invitation to abuse and extortion. Bad idea
all around.

I could be wrong, but I seem to recall one of the reasons why the original
OGRES went away was because they were threatened with defamation lawsuits.
No one needs that sort of threat, empty as it may be, in their lives, IMHO.
So Robert, be aware! Tennis is more close to right than you may imagine.
This isn't 'rush to judgement', just the voices of people who have been
around this subject a lot longer than you have. If you choose to ignore it,
then fine. Good luck with your endeavor. I hope it turns out different
than the previous 2 times this has been tried.
K Barrett

"Robert Bedard" wrote in message
...

These are exactly the issues that we are trying to deal with. It might
be that we find no viable solution; in that case, I do not intend to
resurrect it.

I find it amazing that people rush to judgement without even bothering
to ask the people involved what their intent is.

LIFE is full of "scammers, perpetual whiners, and people who are just
unrealistic", it is not just rating systems.

Wouldn't it be better to try and help solve the problems than "whine"
about them?

I personally believe there is value to a system like OGRES, even given
that there are some issues with people's ability to tell fact from
fiction. Factor that into the reviews, just like you do in the rest of
your life.

rob't


tennis maynard wrote:
On 15 Aug 2005 18:45:48 -0700, "L_B_F"
wrote:


So, pray tell, what makes it a bad idea? Do you have any well thought
reasons or are you just slamming? Do you read resturant reviews?
Movie reviews? Those are OK, but not this?

lbf


Anonymity. Lack of reciprocity, reliability.
Definitions (what constitutes a 'bad' plant? What's
blooming size? What about the person who complains
about the plant, advertised as a 5" seedling, that
"it will take years to bloom, because it's 36" tall at
maturity", when the plant received (cost $5) was
actually LARGER than advertised, at 6"??? Yet all you
see is the complaint about the plant being 'too small
and years from blooming'[actual case history]?????
We've had all this before, my reasons are the same as
last time.

I dealt with vendors panned on OGRES who were great,
and unfortunately with some wildly praised who were
absolutely, frighteningly horrible.

... snip ...
OGRES or anything like it is just an invitation to
scammers, perpetual whiners, and people who are just
unrealistic.

It's an invitation to abuse and extortion. Bad idea
all around.

You are essentially correct. If you do the research into what is and is
not legal to post, you find that there is (as usual) a great disparity
in what you can legally do, and what you must defend your right to do.
So, while it is legal to share opinions about a business it's products
and it's service, it is also legal for that business to aim lawyers at
you and bury you, your web host, your visitor's ISP and your visitor
with subpoenas, in the name of "discovery."

What I meant (for the record) about rushing to judgment, was deciding
what people were up to, without any communication. You (an Tennis) may
have your well-founded opinions based on other experience, but I do not
appreciate being summarily swept under rug by somebody that has spent
zero effort to verify that a genuine effort to mitigate the previous
problems is in fact underway, and more to the original point, that OGRES
may not be resurrected at all. The people involved are well aware of the
previous issues. If they cannot be mitigated, then as far as I am
concerned, I will not be part of it. But I believe it is worth a try.

I'm curious, what do you actually know about me, or how long I have been
around this subject? ;-) And why is that there is this fatalistic
perception? I am convinced that ideally, something like OGRES has value;
I am equally convinced that there are some serious issues with these
types of systems that are well-rooted in the human condition, and that
the quality and veracity of the information in such a system often does
not justify the effort required to maintain it. OGRES was no exception.
This is about discussion, this is not about blindly reconstructing OGRES
as it had been previously. That is why the "rush to judgment statement".

rob't


K Barrett wrote:
I could be wrong, but I seem to recall one of the reasons why the original
OGRES went away was because they were threatened with defamation lawsuits.
No one needs that sort of threat, empty as it may be, in their lives, IMHO.
So Robert, be aware! Tennis is more close to right than you may imagine.
This isn't 'rush to judgement', just the voices of people who have been
around this subject a lot longer than you have. If you choose to ignore it,
then fine. Good luck with your endeavor. I hope it turns out different
than the previous 2 times this has been tried.
K Barrett

Every orchid and gardening board/forum has a section devoted to Orchid
Venders, where to find them, if they are good or not. Many of my customers
find me from comments made about my greenhouse in such places. What OGRES
lacked was a community of people who knew each other. That is a very valid
point. It is harder to scam people who know each other and the normal usage
patterns of the board/forum. Here, for instance, some of us long time users
just sort of know how the board/forum functions and who uses it and how and
what they know and don't know... and when something odd starts happening.

If OGRES, or whatever you decide to call it, can build a community of users
who help newbies, chat about orchid species, build up a how-to database,
show pictures, etc... then it's trustability goes up and it's abusabilty
goes down. This is what I would want if I was thinking of re-starting that
website. It's lack of community draws to it the very problems that caused
it's closure.

I can think of a dozen ways to get buyers/hobbyists involved, (check out how
this board is run for instance:
http://www.slipperorchidforum.com/forum/ It is probably the best run, put
together forum site I have ever seen. Even if I do prefer an
unmoderated/self moderated/wild-west kind of venue.)

But I really don't know how you would get vendors involved in such a place.
Giving them customer data in the same way you give the potential customer
vendor data is a good idea.

However, I tend not to participate in forums where I know my business is
being discussed. I do read them. Such places usually evolve a few vendor
regulars, but a huge group of them together would probably be a
nightmare....as any society show chair who has ever put together the vendor
area of a show/sale would tell you.

"K Barrett" wrote in message
...
I could be wrong, but I seem to recall one of the reasons why the original
OGRES went away was because they were threatened with defamation lawsuits.
No one needs that sort of threat, empty as it may be, in their lives,
IMHO.
So Robert, be aware! Tennis is more close to right than you may imagine.
This isn't 'rush to judgement', just the voices of people who have been
around this subject a lot longer than you have. If you choose to ignore
it,
then fine. Good luck with your endeavor. I hope it turns out different
than the previous 2 times this has been tried.
K Barrett

"Robert Bedard" wrote in message
...

These are exactly the issues that we are trying to deal with. It might
be that we find no viable solution; in that case, I do not intend to
resurrect it.

I find it amazing that people rush to judgement without even bothering
to ask the people involved what their intent is.

LIFE is full of "scammers, perpetual whiners, and people who are just
unrealistic", it is not just rating systems.

Wouldn't it be better to try and help solve the problems than "whine"
about them?

I personally believe there is value to a system like OGRES, even given
that there are some issues with people's ability to tell fact from
fiction. Factor that into the reviews, just like you do in the rest of
your life.

rob't


tennis maynard wrote:
On 15 Aug 2005 18:45:48 -0700, "L_B_F"
wrote:


So, pray tell, what makes it a bad idea? Do you have any well
thought
reasons or are you just slamming? Do you read resturant reviews?
Movie reviews? Those are OK, but not this?

lbf


Anonymity. Lack of reciprocity, reliability.
Definitions (what constitutes a 'bad' plant? What's
blooming size? What about the person who complains
about the plant, advertised as a 5" seedling, that
"it will take years to bloom, because it's 36" tall at
maturity", when the plant received (cost $5) was
actually LARGER than advertised, at 6"??? Yet all you
see is the complaint about the plant being 'too small
and years from blooming'[actual case history]?????
We've had all this before, my reasons are the same as
last time.

I dealt with vendors panned on OGRES who were great,
and unfortunately with some wildly praised who were
absolutely, frighteningly horrible.

... snip ...
OGRES or anything like it is just an invitation to
scammers, perpetual whiners, and people who are just
unrealistic.

It's an invitation to abuse and extortion. Bad idea
all around.

I largely agree with Al's well thought out comments. Or was that the
aliens doing the thinking? I sense something odd happening... *grin*

I also agree that the slipperorchid forum site is one of the best I've
seen. So far. We shall see what happens over time, but there seems to
be a good base of regulars keeping things in order. And a heck of a lot
of pictures.

Here are some of my thoughts...

A crucial part of any rating system is notification of the vendors when
they have received comments, and the ability of the vendor to submit a
response to a comment. And vice versa. That would encourage vendor
participation, at least minimally. And, as I understand it, what
largely doomed the OGRES site was some vendors not wanting to
participate. Make it relatively easy for vendors to opt out. Although
as a customer I might like to _know_ that a vendor has opted out.

I'd also like to suggest a small group of moderators who can keep an eye
on things, and delete obviously abusive or inflammatory posts (by either
customer or vendor...). These things are _not_ best done by committee,
moderators should be selected who can be trusted to act decisively,
quickly, correctly, and with absolute power. And perhaps anonymously
(to the public, anyway), I don't really care. Difficult decisions, or
complex ones, can be decided by committee, but it is usually very easy
to spot abuse, and speed is important to preserve reputations.

There is no lack of bulletin board/forum software out there, and I
suggest that a new site uses this technology. This would allow
interactivity. I'd particularly like to see pictures enabled. If a
customer says a plant is too small for the price, I'd like to see a
picture of the plant. Similarly, I'd like to see a picture of a plant
that a customer raves about, too. Obviously not everybody will take
pictures, and not everybody would want to, but I think it would be a
good feature.

Rob


Every orchid and gardening board/forum has a section devoted to Orchid
Venders, where to find them, if they are good or not. Many of my customers
find me from comments made about my greenhouse in such places. What OGRES
lacked was a community of people who knew each other. That is a very valid
point. It is harder to scam people who know each other and the normal usage
patterns of the board/forum. Here, for instance, some of us long time users
just sort of know how the board/forum functions and who uses it and how and
what they know and don't know... and when something odd starts happening.

If OGRES, or whatever you decide to call it, can build a community of users
who help newbies, chat about orchid species, build up a how-to database,
show pictures, etc... then it's trustability goes up and it's abusabilty
goes down. This is what I would want if I was thinking of re-starting that
website. It's lack of community draws to it the very problems that caused
it's closure.

I can think of a dozen ways to get buyers/hobbyists involved, (check out how
this board is run for instance:
http://www.slipperorchidforum.com/forum/ It is probably the best run, put
together forum site I have ever seen. Even if I do prefer an
unmoderated/self moderated/wild-west kind of venue.)

But I really don't know how you would get vendors involved in such a place.
Giving them customer data in the same way you give the potential customer
vendor data is a good idea.

However, I tend not to participate in forums where I know my business is
being discussed. I do read them. Such places usually evolve a few vendor
regulars, but a huge group of them together would probably be a
nightmare....as any society show chair who has ever put together the vendor
area of a show/sale would tell you.





--
Rob's Rules: http://littlefrogfarm.com
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a) See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to obtain more
orchids, obtain more credit

Robert Bedard wrote:

Wouldn't it be better to try and help solve the problems than "whine" about them?

and:


You are essentially correct. If you do the research into what is and is
not legal to post, you find that there is (as usual) a great disparity
in what you can legally do, and what you must defend your right to do.
So, while it is legal to share opinions about a business it's products
and it's service, it is also legal for that business to aim lawyers at
you and bury you, your web host, your visitor's ISP and your visitor
with subpoenas, in the name of "discovery."

What I meant (for the record) about rushing to judgment, was deciding
what people were up to, without any communication. You (an Tennis) may
have your well-founded opinions based on other experience, but I do not
appreciate being summarily swept under rug by somebody that has spent
zero effort to verify that a genuine effort to mitigate the previous
problems is in fact underway, and more to the original point, that OGRES
may not be resurrected at all. The people involved are well aware of the
previous issues. If they cannot be mitigated, then as far as I am
concerned, I will not be part of it. But I believe it is worth a try.

I'm curious, what do you actually know about me, or how long I have been
around this subject? ;-) And why is that there is this fatalistic
perception? I am convinced that ideally, something like OGRES has value;
I am equally convinced that there are some serious issues with these
types of systems that are well-rooted in the human condition, and that
the quality and veracity of the information in such a system often does
not justify the effort required to maintain it. OGRES was no exception.
This is about discussion, this is not about blindly reconstructing OGRES
as it had been previously. That is why the "rush to judgment statement".

rob't

First of all, it's not about you. No-one at all has
said anything negative about you. It's about the idea.
We don't like it. Period. Don't care who's doing it
or how it's done. NOW I'm going to say something bad
about you in response to your saying something bad
about me. Disagreeing and objecting is not 'whining'or
'rushing to judgment'.

The fact you take that tack and take ideological,
serious opposition so personally paints you as an
'absolutist' personality and makes you a bad candidate
for such an undertaking. Thanks for bringing that into
perspective.

The difference between the average run-of-the-mill Usenet doppelgangers and
mine is that all of mine use the same name, email address and post from the
same computer. Oh yes, and mine come from another planet. I am sure you
all know by now, the best way to tell if it is me or not is to ask yourself,
"Is this guy making sense?" If you can answer yes, then, alas, you can be
sure one of them has usurped control yet again. I can only be thankful that
none have yet come bursting out of my chest. I think the ant acid helps in
this respect, even more so than the thorazine.

"Rob" wrote in message
...
I largely agree with Al's well thought out comments. Or was that the
aliens doing the thinking? I sense something odd happening... *grin*

Rob and Al:

Great comments. I can tell you that these are all under consideration.

The problem with boards are, if they do not attract enough visitors,
they are doomed. That is one thing I have been considering as an adjunct
to the revamped OGRES (whatever it is called, and it will NOT be
iloveorchidvendors.com.) A board is under consideration for precisely
the reasons that Rob mentions below, (and others.) A revmaped OGRES
would probably have the draw to support a board. The board my end up
being more valuable than the rating system itself.

Again, I seriously and sincerely request that anybody that really has
value to add, including to QUASH the thing comletely if they feel
strongly that way, to ask to be added to the advisors list and
contribute where it will be of most use, directly to the people
organizing this.

I am not a regular here, and I do not have time to live here.

;-)

rob't

Rob wrote:
I largely agree with Al's well thought out comments. Or was that the
aliens doing the thinking? I sense something odd happening... *grin*

I also agree that the slipperorchid forum site is one of the best I've
seen. So far. We shall see what happens over time, but there seems to
be a good base of regulars keeping things in order. And a heck of a lot
of pictures.

Here are some of my thoughts...

A crucial part of any rating system is notification of the vendors when
they have received comments, and the ability of the vendor to submit a
response to a comment. And vice versa. That would encourage vendor
participation, at least minimally. And, as I understand it, what
largely doomed the OGRES site was some vendors not wanting to
participate. Make it relatively easy for vendors to opt out. Although
as a customer I might like to _know_ that a vendor has opted out.

I'd also like to suggest a small group of moderators who can keep an eye
on things, and delete obviously abusive or inflammatory posts (by either
customer or vendor...). These things are _not_ best done by committee,
moderators should be selected who can be trusted to act decisively,
quickly, correctly, and with absolute power. And perhaps anonymously
(to the public, anyway), I don't really care. Difficult decisions, or
complex ones, can be decided by committee, but it is usually very easy
to spot abuse, and speed is important to preserve reputations.

There is no lack of bulletin board/forum software out there, and I
suggest that a new site uses this technology. This would allow
interactivity. I'd particularly like to see pictures enabled. If a
customer says a plant is too small for the price, I'd like to see a
picture of the plant. Similarly, I'd like to see a picture of a plant
that a customer raves about, too. Obviously not everybody will take
pictures, and not everybody would want to, but I think it would be a
good feature.

Rob


Every orchid and gardening board/forum has a section devoted to Orchid
Venders, where to find them, if they are good or not. Many of my
customers find me from comments made about my greenhouse in such
places. What OGRES lacked was a community of people who knew each
other. That is a very valid point. It is harder to scam people who
know each other and the normal usage patterns of the board/forum.
Here, for instance, some of us long time users just sort of know how
the board/forum functions and who uses it and how and what they know
and don't know... and when something odd starts happening.

If OGRES, or whatever you decide to call it, can build a community of
users who help newbies, chat about orchid species, build up a how-to
database, show pictures, etc... then it's trustability goes up and
it's abusabilty goes down. This is what I would want if I was
thinking of re-starting that website. It's lack of community draws to
it the very problems that caused it's closure.

I can think of a dozen ways to get buyers/hobbyists involved, (check
out how this board is run for instance:
http://www.slipperorchidforum.com/forum/ It is probably the best run,
put together forum site I have ever seen. Even if I do prefer an
unmoderated/self moderated/wild-west kind of venue.)

But I really don't know how you would get vendors involved in such a
place. Giving them customer data in the same way you give the
potential customer vendor data is a good idea.

However, I tend not to participate in forums where I know my business
is being discussed. I do read them. Such places usually evolve a few
vendor regulars, but a huge group of them together would probably be a
nightmare....as any society show chair who has ever put together the
vendor area of a show/sale would tell you.

I like the idea of ogres. "We" makes me say that. I also see one of your
points about the system.

Tone of voice and word choice can be insightful and incite-full.

"tennis maynard" wrote in message
. ..
Robert Bedard wrote:

Wouldn't it be better to try and help solve the problems than "whine"
about them?

and:


You are essentially correct. If you do the research into what is and is
not legal to post, you find that there is (as usual) a great disparity in
what you can legally do, and what you must defend your right to do. So,
while it is legal to share opinions about a business it's products and
it's service, it is also legal for that business to aim lawyers at you
and bury you, your web host, your visitor's ISP and your visitor with
subpoenas, in the name of "discovery."

What I meant (for the record) about rushing to judgment, was deciding
what people were up to, without any communication. You (an Tennis) may
have your well-founded opinions based on other experience, but I do not
appreciate being summarily swept under rug by somebody that has spent
zero effort to verify that a genuine effort to mitigate the previous
problems is in fact underway, and more to the original point, that OGRES
may not be resurrected at all. The people involved are well aware of the
previous issues. If they cannot be mitigated, then as far as I am
concerned, I will not be part of it. But I believe it is worth a try.

I'm curious, what do you actually know about me, or how long I have been
around this subject? ;-) And why is that there is this fatalistic
perception? I am convinced that ideally, something like OGRES has value;
I am equally convinced that there are some serious issues with these
types of systems that are well-rooted in the human condition, and that
the quality and veracity of the information in such a system often does
not justify the effort required to maintain it. OGRES was no exception.
This is about discussion, this is not about blindly reconstructing OGRES
as it had been previously. That is why the "rush to judgment statement".

rob't

First of all, it's not about you. No-one at all has
said anything negative about you. It's about the idea.
We don't like it. Period. Don't care who's doing it
or how it's done. NOW I'm going to say something bad
about you in response to your saying something bad
about me. Disagreeing and objecting is not 'whining'or
'rushing to judgment'.

The fact you take that tack and take ideological,
serious opposition so personally paints you as an
'absolutist' personality and makes you a bad candidate
for such an undertaking. Thanks for bringing that into
perspective.

I was not the one that originally used the word "whine."

;-)

And K Barret certainly did make a personal reference, which I find
difficult to understand, since I have never met her or hand any
interactions with her previously. Personally, I like her posts when I
run across them, I think she is usually a sensible and very fair person.

I do not understand the open hostility towards anybody that suggests
that ressurecting OGRES could be a good idea. I have said before and I
say it again, I liked OGRES, I know that it had issues; issues rooted in
the human condition, you cannot get away from those by avoiding orchid
rating systems. I would like to see it around again. I, personally, will
not implement it if some of the issues are not resolved. That does not
mean that somebody else will not pick it up, but that seems unlikely.

I DO agree that this is not about me. If you spent any time actually
communicating with me, you might find that out.

;-)

rob't

Al wrote:

I like the idea of ogres. "We" makes me say that. I also see one of your
points about the system.

Tone of voice and word choice can be insightful and incite-full.

Oh for crying out loud.

Robert, if you want to run an OGRES list then you'd better learn how to
read. I didn't say *anything* personal about you.

sheesh

K Barrett


"Robert Bedard" wrote in message
...

I was not the one that originally used the word "whine."

;-)

And K Barret certainly did make a personal reference, which I find
difficult to understand, since I have never met her or hand any
interactions with her previously. Personally, I like her posts when I
run across them, I think she is usually a sensible and very fair person.

I do not understand the open hostility towards anybody that suggests
that ressurecting OGRES could be a good idea. I have said before and I
say it again, I liked OGRES, I know that it had issues; issues rooted in
the human condition, you cannot get away from those by avoiding orchid
rating systems. I would like to see it around again. I, personally, will
not implement it if some of the issues are not resolved. That does not
mean that somebody else will not pick it up, but that seems unlikely.

I DO agree that this is not about me. If you spent any time actually
communicating with me, you might find that out.

;-)

rob't

Al wrote:

I like the idea of ogres. "We" makes me say that. I also see one of
your
points about the system.

Tone of voice and word choice can be insightful and incite-full.

Robert Bedard wrote:

I was not the one that originally used the word "whine."

;-)

And K Barret certainly did make a personal reference, which I find
difficult to understand,.............

Robert, I just went back and read her post again. What in the world are
you talking about?

Now that I have entered this thread, I'll make a few other comments on
the OGRES idea. I was well aware of the last OGRES site. I looked it
over a few times but I didn't rely on it. I just didn't trust that all
the comments where honest and genuine. I didn't like the idea that a
person COULD attack and damage another person's business, if they had
some personal issue. I have no idea if it happened often enough to be a
problem and I don't really have any ideas on how to prevent it.
If you think you can solve the problems with OGRES, I'll be sure to look
at your site to see how it works out.

Steve