🚀 go-pugleaf

In article: <P40VmDAZ+VZxEwnv@sandj.demon.co.uk>  Simon Reed 
<Simon@sandj.demon.co.uk> writes:
> 
> In article <pkoOuoAYEDZxEwCq@wookie.demon.co.uk>, John Beardmore
> <wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> writes
> >In article <+6uenAAatCYxEw5U@slater1.demon.co.uk>, Mark/Elaine
> ><Mark/Elaine@slater1.demon.co.uk> writes
> >>I think it would be a good idea to maintain a thread - in this very
> >>newsgroup perhaps - listing suppliers who have transgressed <snip>
> >Seconded.
> >
> >I'll start. Simply sent me 3 multi IO cards the other week which I'd
> >ordered to get some 16550s.
> >
> >The UARTS were 16450 compat only. I made them take them back.
> 
> Conversely, the one Simply sent me a few weeks ago was fine.  Also, the
> delivery company cocked up and delivered 3 days late - I phoned Simply &
> told them to re-consider who they use.  A few days later a credit for
> the postage appeared on my Access statement from Simply - without me
> having asked for it.

This is an _excellent_ idea, but the above 2 posts show one slight problem
- namely that good experiences with a company should also get taken into
account. With the volume of orders that companies like S.C. must process,
it's surely only fair to ask what the ratio of satisfied/unsatisfied
customers is. If people only post bad experiences, the group ends up
sounding like demon.service :)

How about some sort of league table of good vs.bad mentions of companies,
possibly publishing the results on a web page? Possibly allowing
submissions via the page, with some sort of rating system (say -10 to +10
to indicate how well the company fulfilled the order)?

I know, it would need someone with the time, inclination and ability (not 
to mention a web account) to do this - but it would be _bloody_ useful.
Any thoughts?

Dave (slinking away, least anyone gets the idea he's volunteering)

-- 
    ()---()
     (0 0)    Dave Scott   e-mail: dave@roborat.demon.co.uk
----m-( )-m-------------------------------------------------------------
      =o=