this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2024

154 points (100.0% liked)

196

16501 readers

2163 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

154

Bezos butt rule (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 4 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

17 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Ars Technica: Dirty diaper resold on Amazon ruined a family business, report says

top 17 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 13 points 4 months ago (1 children)

-"The buyer who left the review, a teacher named Erin Elizabeth Herbert, told Bloomberg that the Barons had reached out directly to explain what happened, but she forgot to update the review and still has not as of this writing.

"I always meant to go back and revise my review to reflect that, and life got busy and I never did," Herbert told Bloomberg."-

Oh fuck off with the whole "i always meant". The company contacted you directly and you immediately just " forget" the update the review? The least you could do is remove the review and post a new one on a later date if you are so busy.

And fuck Amazon.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If I get shipped a box of shit, I'm not leaving a bad review to punish the seller, I'm leaving a bad review to protect other buyers.

If Amazon's actions hurt a small business' reputation, that small business should sue Amazon. Demanding that wronged consumers remove bad reviews after literally receiving shit in the mail just enables Amazon to keep doing the same thing forever.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago

Updating or reposting a review with "this is Amazons fault" takes absolutely no effort and wil help a small businesses more then leaving a wrongly aimed review.

And suing Amazon as a small business is speedrunning "get fucked through legal debts and file bankruptcy 100%", even if it's Amazons fault.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 4 months ago (3 children)

I found the article really poor. They very obviously we're doing everything they can to play defence for the company here, including blaming the person who left a completely accurate review of the product they received. Somehow Ars thinks that review broke Amazon's community guidelines? What nonsense.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

Ars has only gone down hill in the last decade.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 4 months ago (2 children)

It is a multi-faceted issue. Both the customer and the company are victims of Amazon.

It’s not the company’s fault that the diaper was re-sold, so they don’t deserve to have that negative review. It’s true that the review was against Amazon’s policy. Whatever you make of that policy, Amazon should have removed the review when asked.

Meanwhile, it’s not the customer’s fault and you can’t blame them for making such a review.

Ultimately it’s Amazon’s fault for re-selling the diaper and for not removing the review when asked. Both are bad decisions Amazon made. The customer is a victim of one decision, and the company is a victim of the other.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

The customer is a victim of one decision, and the company is a victim of the other

Actually I'd say the company is the victim of both.

The customer should be free to review the product as they received. Amazon shouldn't have removed it (regardless of policy) because it was a completely accurate review of what the customer received.

The store was a victim of Amazon because Amazon led to the problem to begin with. Amazon's returns policy is overly lenient to begin with: stores simply should not be allowing simple change of mind returns on underwear or underwear-like products. (And frankly, from an environmental perspective & from systemicly avoiding even the possibility of this kind of stuff-up, I'm not sure change of mind returns should be allowed by default anyway.)

And then there's the fact that they sold it as new. Nothing that's been returned should ever be sold as new. Even if it's in mint condition. "Oh, but we'd be losing money/people wouldn't buy it if they knew it wasn't new, even though it's in perfect condition" they might complain. Too bad, perhaps that's a case for not allowing change of mind returns.

And then finally is the more obvious problem: reselling a product that was absolutely not fit for sale, because it's covered in shit.

The company is a victim of Amazon's return policy being too lenient, and of Amazon failing to properly uphold their end of the returns policy agreement. But the former is the actual underlying issue.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It’s true that the review was against Amazon’s policy

Not the policy as described in the article it's not. The article says "by focusing on seller, order, or shipping feedback rather than on the item's quality". Mentioning the seller isn't against the rules, only "focusing" on them. And from what we've been told, the review focused on the fact that the item had literal shit on it. That's a problem with the item's quality, as received by the customer.

Maybe there's some nuance in the full text of their policy and the full text of the review that would change that, but for someone without any pre-existing knowledge going entirely by what the article says: the review should have stood.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

This is a fair criticism.

From my read, other details mentioned that the reviewer realized and mentioned that they suspected the item was returned and not inspected before being re-sold. This makes the review about the return process, not about the item itself.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

Yeah that's not an unreasonable read of it. IMO that's basically speculation on the part of the buyer though, and the underlying fact is still the quality of the product as they received it. To me "return process" seems more like if they were themselves trying to return the product and gave a review based on their experience doing that return.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 months ago (1 children)

See what you mean. When I summarized it for [email protected] , I minimized the whole business impact part of the story, because Amazon shipping poop is kind of a bigger deal.

Amazon's returns process is a complete dumpster fire - they'll slap a "new" sticker on your used crap and put it right back up for sale. Case in point: a small biz got screwed when Amazon resold their poopy swim diaper as brand new, tanking their company. Thankfully, Amazon took immediate action (JK). At least sellers now at least have the option to opt-out of returns being sold as new.

Best I can think is they’re trying to bat for the little guy…

Usually Ars is fantastic.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Best I can think is they’re trying to bat for the little guy…

Which is totally fair I think. But they didn't need to throw the reviewer under the bus to do it.

I don't think the article went nearly hard enough into criticising Amazon, tbh.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

Very fair as well!

[–] [email protected] 29 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Um…I have a solution.

STOP GIVING FUCKIN AMAZON MONEY.

WHAT THE FUCK. They’ve proven over and over again to be evil. How anyone with a conscience still uses their shit is beyond me.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

It's kinda rough living in Seattle where the closest grocery store is Amazon Fresh, the next closest is Whole Foods, and there are no big-box stores where I can actually buy a wide variety of things.

I suppose I could buy a car and drive out of the city to shop at other businesses, but that is expensive and ecologically damaging, and I'll probably end up shopping at other businesses that are also evil anyway because there's no such thing as ethical consumption under capitalism.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago

Yeah I stopped using Amazon as much as possible a long time ago. Cancelled my Audible subscription (except every now and then when they get desperate and give me another free month, after which I promptly re-cancel without giving them money), was never a Prime customer. Unfortunately once or twice I've come across a product where it was only available via Amazon (and no equivalent product was available elsewhere), or the price difference was on the order of $100 purely thanks to international shipping. But I'm not being hyperbolic when I describe that as "once or twice" over the last 5+ years.

It saddens me when I hear people talk about how much they use Amazon.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

Favermetrics raises a good point