Conference 7.286::home_work

    I've had some bad experiences with contractors.   However, sharing your
    experiences in a conversation next to the coffee pot or in the
    cafeteria *is* different than writing them down and posting them on the
    bulletin board.   The latter is what NOTES is.  I think that such
    WRITTEN evidence could be subpoenaed if legal action were ever to be
    instigated (first amendment rights notwithstanding).   This is one
    where DIGITAL could be considered party to the action, and we could get
    into a heap-o-trouble.   I think this is treading on thin ice, and we
    should do it carefully.  
    
    A thing to consider:  Would you be willing to take out a full-page ad
    in the Boston Globe to say what you're saying here? 

    Because of reasons already stated, I think it would be wise not
    to name names in this forum.  I think we can still have a useful
    discussion, though.  Instead of saying, "Moe, Larry, and Curly
    came over and did this-and-that", the note could be rewritten to
    say, "If you hire a contractor, make sure that the contract says
    ...", or "If you hire a contractor, make sure s/he does or doesn't
    do ...."
    
    By speaking in general terms and without naming specific people,
    the information will still be useful to the rest of the HOME_WORK
    community, but will lessen the risk of legal action against someone.

    Jim

>                                -< No names >-

    I don't agree.  I don't know the exact definition of slander, but
    is it slander to say,
    "Electrician John Smith of Boston finished his work 3 months later
    than promised",
    or 
    "Grossman's Bargain Outlet advertises solid oak toilet seats but
    they are really oak veneer".
   
    By eliminating contractor's/stores names from this file you're
    really cutting down on it's usefulness.  (No more recommendations,
    no more announcements of sales at Spags, no more chances to pick
    on poor Grossmans, etc...).
    
    I found a forms contractor thru this file.  I hate to see those
    kinds of notes eliminated.  On the other hand, if someone asked
    for a good electrician and someone mentioned someone I had problems
    with, it would be nice if I could let them hear of my problems.
        
    Maybe replies to recommendations should be sent via mail directly
    to the person asking for them.
    

I agree, no names here.

But I don't think it's necessary to speak only in general terms (per .2).  
Tell your story, just don't use the contractor's name.  Use an alias 
(identified as such) if doing so makes the narrative less awkward.

How about a tag line such as, "If you're looking for a contractor and would 
like to avoid this one, telephone me and I'll tell you its name."  That 
way, readers can still benefit from each others' experiences.

    As long as the verbage is objective, like .3 suggests, names should
    be included.
    
    This is OK:  Bill Smith and Co. finished 3 months late and failed
    the inspection.
    
    This is not OK:  Bill Smith and Co. does shitty work.
    
    John

    I would tend to agree with .5
    
    -joet

The guideline expressed in .3 and .5 (and affirmed in .6) was what I had 
thought also.  If we can come to agreement on that, then I'll change the 
wording in 1.1 to mention it.

Any further discussion?

Paul

    RE: .0
    
    The Boston Globe often prints the name of companies or outfits
    performing sub-standard or questionable work in the "Ask the Globe"
    column.  People will often write in with such things as: "I asked
    Bill Smith & Co to perform a job and they are not doing as
    contracted.  What can I do or can you help? etc..."
    
    Similarly, they will print the names of companies that will give
    adequate service, such as, "Contact Bill Smith & Co of Anytown,
    USA and they should be able to service your widget".
    
    -al

    As long as it really happened, it's not slander.  However, there
    may be strong disagreement (between you and a "bad" contractor)
    about what really happened.  Somebody may have a horrible experience
    with a contractor and rant and rave about it in this notes file,
    but the problem may in fact have been misplaced expectations and
    poor communication by the customer; in those cases I would think
    a contractor might sue for libel, even though (from the customer's
    point of view) the complaints and accusations voiced in this file
    were all "facts".
    If we precede any negative comments about contractors with the
    statement, "Here's how *I* THINK it happened from *MY* point of
    view," then I don't think there should be a problem.  We're all
    entitled to our opinion, after all.  I hope we can continue to
    name names.
    
    I doubt that any contractor would object to complimentary comments,
    unless he's so busy he doesn't want any free advertising.
    

    re: .5:   Yep, that sounds like a viable compromise.
    
    If the Globe does have such a column, posting guidelines which say
    "this is how the Globe phrases such items, please use them as a
    model" seems like productive work.
    
    As always, moderator discretion can be applied (I think it has in the
    past.)   In general, I always try to not write my flame-o-grams until
    after a one or two day cooling off period; it helps maintain
    objectiveness. 

    Notes without names are useless.  I want to know who does good work.
    When someone recommends a contractor, they should so state WHY they
    were good (ie. on time, within estimate, helpful suggestions, etc.).
    
    At the same time I want to know who does shoddy work.  When someone
    has a problem with a contractor, they should "stick to facts, just
    the facts".  Leave the emotion and name calling out.  I don't want
    to hire a bad contractor and go through the same hassles that others
    have already gone through.
    
    Calls or mail to the author of the note???  No way!  After all,
    we are at work, aren't we?
    
    If somebody has had a different experience with the same "bad"
    contractor, I would hope that this person would enter their experience
    too.
    
    Keep the names.  Keep the facts.  Can the emotion.  After all, this
    isn't SOAPBOX...

    Now, if I could just get a contractor to show up!!!!!!!!!

I have also gotten to some excellent contractors due to notes files. 
I think the message should be simply STICK TO THE FACTS, and where
disagreements occur, label them as such, and try to give both sides. 
Also - we should probably keep subjective assessments out of the
titles (this was recommended in CONSUMER) so that people don't see
"stay away from BCI" (bad contractors inc) without reading the whole
story.  On the other hand, comments like "I called six times, spoke to
the owner, and they never came" are factual enough to print, here, or
the Boston Globe. 

        Rhetorical question:  is there any difference between slandering a
    contractor and slandering a product?  There's been much discussion in
    this file about windows, paints, tools, insect repellents, etc. which
    include name brands.  I'm wondering whether saying "ACME windows stink!"
    is the same as "ACME carpenters stink!" - legal-ramification-wise, that is.
        My two cents:  to avoid potential legal hassles, make our disparaging
    remarks non-specific ("This gonzo plumber in <town> took me to the
    cleaners") and leave names to non-Notes mail or phone discussion.  The
    town specification should be generic enough to avoid lawsuits but specific
    enough for those interested.  I've had great success in mailing specific
    requests to noters here and in other Notes files - no one's complained and
    everyone's been of tremendous help.  I'd like to think I could follow suit.

    Jon Reckard

    re: telling a contractor about a notes pan
    
    The same thing happened at Prime when I was there. Legal there
    determined that you could use names and facts, but no emotions.
    So the concensus here agrees with Prime legal (for what that's worth).
    Also, Prime suggested people use disclaimers (this note doesn't
    represent anybody but me...).
    	Mez

    Most of these contractors depend upon "word of mouth" recommendations
    from satisfied customers.  It would seem that eliminating names
    of bad contractors eliminates about the only leverage we, as unhappy
    customers, may have against shoddy workmanship and deceitful business
    practices of SOME of these unscrupulous "businessmen".  Let's not
    be intimidated by anybody!!!  If somebody treats me unfairly or
    acts dishonestly, you can bet your a** I'm going to tell people about
    it to save them from the same fate.
    
    At the same time, people reading a bad recommendation should use
    a little bit a common sense too.  After all there is the writer's
    side of the story, the contractor's side and then what really happened.

    Truth is the ultimate defense against slander.  I haven't read anything
    in this file that was all that inflammatory anyway.
    
    Phil

    	There is one thing that many seem to be missing.  Several people
    have said that since the Globe names names then it's ok here.  There
    is a BIG difference between a public forum such as the Globe which
    any mentioned contracters would have access to and this notes file
    which many contracters do not have access to.  I personally wish
    to know who the bad contracters are and who the good ones are, but
    is it fair to broadcast in a widely read, private forum, complaints
    about a party who by the nature of the forum cannot defend himself?
    The entire matter of "attacking" someone who cannot defend himself
    is distastful to me.  I support the idea that one should not name
    a contractor who has done poorly on a job, but should name that
    contractor if called by phone or mail and asked by someone who is
    interested.  One should also remember that there ARE usually two
    sides to every story.
    
    Rich

    re .16
    Wait a minute. Can the contractor in question defend himself
    better when you flame him to someone over the phone? So this
    forum reaches more people than you can over the phone. You're
    doing the same thing. What if everyone who read the note:
    "A contractor was 3 months late finishing a job, if you want
    to know who it is, call me" calls you. You then accomplish the
    same thing as writing he name in the note, and the contractor
    wasn't able to defend himself.
    You're point is that the contractor can't defend himself personally
    when we write notes. How can he thru the means you describe?
    I still say we should name names and state facts only, facts that
    can be proved, if nessessary.
    John

	Keep in mind what SLANDER is:

"A FALSE and MALICIOUS statement or report that damages the reputation or 
well-being of another."
	
	Based on this, a noter would have to intentionally lie about the 
contractor and cause the contractor to lose business because of it.
Now if the contractor is really doing something wrong and you "Tell the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth", your a** is covered and so 
wouldn't the company's. 
	Besides how many people reading this notes file have actually
not used a contractor because of what the read here. And even if they
did I'm sure the contractor has a dozen more customers waiting.


	On a personal note: I bought my new house 2 years ago and had
what I considered to be a lot of trouble with the builder. I have talked
to several people considering buying from the same builder. I always
tell them the details of the trouble I had and give them the same advice
"It's a great house and he does good work compared to others I've looked
at, just watch-out for the pitfalls and get it in writing".

			Keep the comments coming..

				...Dave

    RE: .16
    
    Not *FAIR* to the contractor!!!  Contractors that receive bad
    references get them for not being fair to the customer.  Life is
    not fair.  I wish to continue to protect MY interests by seeing
    real names in this file.  The contractors that receive bad references
    usually deserve them.  The problem with most bad contractors
    is that they are also bad businessmen.  If they were good businessmen
    they would not leave customers in a position to give them bad
    references.  They would make every attempt to resolve problems with
    the customer.  Many don't give a damn since they have more work
    than they can handle, at least now.
    
    Good contractors gain business from satisfied customers, bad contractors
    loose business from unsatisfified customers.  What could be fairer???
    
    Phil

    I would like to add my support for naming names, both GOOD and BAD and
    stating the facts. 
    
    I have had some bad experiences with contractors in the past and would
    not wish others to experience the same treatment. On the other hand,
    I've found good and honest contractors, some thru THIS FILE, and would
    like to promote their business and help out fellow noters. 

    Charly

    	So I guess I have to conclude that I've been put up in front
    of the wall, handed the blind fold and cookie and shot.  :-)
    
    	Oh well......

Well, Joe T. has established a precedent of democracy in this file (and a good 
precedent it is).  I counted 12 yesses and 4 nos, so....

Paul

OK, folks, here's the story on what's been happening.

As you know, there are a number of negative recommendations in the contractor's 
reference area.  As you also know, we try to keep those as factual as possible.

Anyway, one of the contractors who is mentioned in a less-than-favorable light 
was somehow made aware of the existence of the note about him.  How is unknown,
or rather WHO is unknown.  Obviously someone who works for DEC and knows the 
person told him about it.  This contractor's father happens to know KO 
personally, and he had his father ask KO to get the note deleted.  KO passed 
this on to someone (Personnel, Legal, whoever), who contacted the author, who 
contacted us.

The thing that's a bugger about it is that the recommendation in question is 
one of the most objective negative accounts I've ever seen.  If that one is any 
sort of legal liability, then the rest are worse.  Irregardless of how 
objective it is though, the attention of the president of the company in this
manner is a bit unnerving, and Joe T. closed the conference until we could get
this all sorted out.  As of now we've been trying to contact Personnel or Legal
or SOMEONE with any sort of official position to get some sort of ruling on
this.  It's time to get something official and stop just going it on our own. 
We haven't been able to contact anyone yet, so we've hidden and write-locked
the entire contractor's area, so that we can all get back to the rest of our
home_working. 

If you've written a negative referral, please don't delete it now.  If we can 
come to some sort of agreement with legal we'd like to leave them - they are 
incredibly useful.

But if we can't, we'll still have the contractor's area.  It will be for 
positive recommendations only.  If anyone has a negative experience with 
someone who is recommended, they can contact one of the moderators and we will 
delete the positive recommendation.  If we can't say negative things about 
someone, at least we won't say the positive either.

And there's no way we can ever get into any legal hassles for not saying nice 
things about someone.

Paul

    
    Sounds reasonable!
    
    It sounds as if the person in question didn't say the note wasn't
    true or contained erroneous information, but that they wanted it
    deleted because it was less than favorable.  Sounds like the ol'
    consumer gets the sticky end again...
    
    And to the person who did this dasdardly deed.  Thank you very little for
    coming very close to destroying a valuable information source for
    hundreds (probably thousands) of Digital people.  In my best Karnac
    voice, "May your next contractor be infested with inferior talents."
    Which, of course, you'll never find out about in here again!
    

    
    Re: 23 and .24
    
    I have to agree that I also feel like it's the consumer getting
    stuck again!  I hear advertising from stores all the time that
    I *know* is false based on my actual experiences, yet nothing prevents
    them from saying whatever they want.  About the only advertising
    that is regulated (and minimally at that) are health related products.
    I really like to hear about actual consumer experiences rather than
    sales/advertising B.S.!

    I'd also like to commend .24 for his tasteful message to the
    perpertrator of the "dastardly deed".  Doing that was not only
    cowardly (you could have put objective comments in the notesfile,
    if you knew another side to the story), but against Digital policy.  
    
    I certainly agree that if we can't list negative recommendations, that
    we should at least delete positive recommendations of the same person.
    This would at least require a record be kept of those recommendations
    (perhaps a set of hidden notes).
    

    Would it be permissable to enter a note such as:  I did not enjoy
    my experience with contractor X.    Call me at x-xxxx if you would like
    more information.
    
    I suppose not but it is an idea.
    
    ed

I agree with not jeprodizing the conference due to contractors non-recommenda-
tions.  I am one of those people who put in a very honest NON-recommend, (hope
mine wasn't the problem).  However, in agreement with .26, I can't see harm in 
posting a request for feed back from our fellow noters.  Perhaps they replies
could be kept at the personal level using E-mail or the telephone.  I for one
am happy to share my contractor experiences (good or bad) with anyone who has
an interest.

Maybe a note titled  "CONTRACTOR REFERENCE WANTED".  I do enjoy and have found
this conference extremely useful, as we all do, and certainly willing to give
up the contractors area if it's the *ONLY* way.

Frank

    I do like the "warnings" on a given contractor.  I have another 
    suggestion.  

    Since one proper place for a negative comment is the Better 
    Business Bureau could one not?

	1)  Send a letter to the Better Business Bureau
	2)  Send a copy to the Contractor
	3)  Enter a Notes reply 
	    "I sent a letter to the OurTown BBB re Contractor"
	    "If you call or send me mail I will forward a copy to 
	    you."

    Joe would this satisfy DEClegal?  This gives the contractor a 
    public means to combat the negative information thru the BBB.
    And those defenders of the Contractor in question
    (pun intended) can reply "well call the BBB for the 
    contractor's side!"

    Ken Olson can always reply, no negative information only a 
    pointer to the BBB.

    Best wishes all -- thanks for coming back to notesland.

				    -- Julie

    HOME_WORK is not the only NOTES conference in jeopardy here.
    
    How about recommedations and non-recommendations in:
    
    CONSUMER:      Products and Services of about any type
    PARENTING:     Products, Pediatricians, Day Care Services
    WOODWORKING:   Tools, Home Centers, Etc.
     
    Ad Infinitum
    
    Jim

	The timing of this discussion is amazing.  Just yesterday, I met another
periodic home_worker and I told him my feelings on the negative contractor
idea.  I'll share them here:

		"If having negative references in the Home_Work notesfile
		 means we can't have the notesfile, forget the negative
		 references.  There is *too* much incredibly valuable
		 info in here to have it ruined over just one aspect of
		 Home_Working."

	Yes, getting stuck with a bad contractor when knowing someone else's
experience that might have prevented it isn't good.  But for all of us that use
this notesfile to _keep_ from having to use contractors in the first place,
*please* don't jeopardize the whole notesfile over the contractor issue.  If
DEClegal can be made happy with some arraignments, great.  If they can't be
made happy, I'd rather see a blanket "no contractor references, period"
statement instead of losing the notesfile.

								-craig

    As an ex-contractor, let me throw a little of their side of the story
    in:
    
    With the economic slowdown in New England (and most of the references
    are for this area), contractors who just two years ago had backlogs of
    work are now scraping to buy groceries.  Working in a non-steady income
    business can be very unnerving, those of us with families who have done
    it can certainly attest to it.
    
    The experience of the average DEC employee who hires a contractor for
    what is most likely a small percentage of that person's work is just
    not a statistically significant enough sample to justify an
    advertisement to as large an audience as the HOME_WORK readers.
    
    (Along the same lines, I personally also take positive recommendations
    with a grain of salt).
    
    There are bums in the business, no doubt about it.  But it is times
    like these that weeds them out.  Word of mouth is still 99% of the
    means by which contractors get business, and when a statistically
    significant portion of the potential customer base gets the word, the
    guy will be gone, without our help.
    

It's a very good point that HOME_WORK is valuable with or without contractor
recommendations. If it's going to be a big problem, leave 'em out.

But some conferences, such as the restaurant notesfiles, are totally devoted to
evaluations. These would be wiped out by such a policy.

1)  Why is everyone calling this a legal problem?  The facts as presented
    in the preceeding notes show it to be an OLD BOYS NETWORK problem, not
    a legal problem.  That doesn't make it less of a problem, but it means
    that we were NOT jepordizing Digital by posting the note, we were just
    annoying Ken by annoying his friend.

    If it were my note, (or even if I were told which note it was), I would 
    be very strongly tempted to write a note directly to Ken asking what
    (if anything) out of the note was contested by the contractor's father, 
    and exactly which Digital policy was violated by transmitting that 
    message across the network.  I'd phrase it nicely, of course, but that's 
    what it comes down to -- is it really Digital policy that we can't say 
    anything that one of Ken's friends doesn't like?  

    I actually doubt whether Ken has even seen the message involved -- I 
    can't imagine that the contractor's father showed it off if it was
    really that objective.  Given the popular folklore about Ken Olsen's
    personal values, I think it would be reasonably safe to send him
    such a letter.  But then, I've had lots of experience tilting at
    windmills lately, and I don't expect others to feel the same way.

2)  Don't read the above as an objection to the new policy -- as others
    have said, anything that allows HOME_WORK to keep going (and to keep 
    enjoying the super high quality moderation that we've had) is a good 
    policy.  I just find the implications of this experience unnerving.
    It seems to imply censorship based on the personal likes and dislikes 
    of the one in charge, rather than on an objective criteria of what is 
    right.  It's not something that I like to see happening at Digital.

	Enjoy,
	Larry

Please don't enter any contractor referral requests as new notes.  There have 
been two deleted today already.  Until further notice, this conference will not 
be doing contractor referrals.

We hope to get some sort of info from legal or somebody as to what we can say
in a negative referral, or whether we can do that at all.  But as that may take
some time, we'll try to open up the contractor's area before then. To do that,
we need to identify which notes are negative referrals, so we can keep them
hidden. I've already made a first-pass identification, but I need to check
again to make sure, some were grey areas.  We then need to re-title all those
notes before we un-hide the rest of the referrals, because contractor's names
are currently in the titles, and you could tell who was bad by looking at the
title, which is still shown even if the note is hidden. 

Sometime next week, maybe. 

Paul

I perhaps should not have mentioned the specifics of how this request from the 
contractor got back within Digital.  Please be aware that this sort of thing 
has happened before, both in this conference and in others, through other 
channels.  It is not simply a matter of getting a particular person within the 
company to do something, it is far more general.

Paul

    
    re -.28
    The current state of Better Business Bureaus renders them useless.
    I don't know if they're all having economic problems or what.  The
    last time I tried to reach the BBB in Boston, no one answered the
    phone (over a period of several days).  I tried to reach the BBB
    in Albany, NY last week, and the operator said their phone number
    was UNLISTED!  

	One thing which should not be overlooked in all of this is the fact 
that HOME_WORK, in most of it's form is back!

	 I for one, think that says some very positive things about this
company and the people who have been involved in this. In many companies,
it would have been shut off with no options and would have stayed that way. 

				Mark

    RE:.-2

    The BBB in Worcester is alive and well and working with me on a problem 
I have with a contractor. I also have been dealing with the consumer 
affairs office in Worcester, who have been helpful as well. I don't know 
about other BBB's but at least one is still funded and active.

    Vic H

    What (may) be DEClegal's side of things (pure speculation)...
    
    The problem probably isn't that DEC could get sued, the problem is 
    that this contractor might go around badmounthing DEC. I suspect that
    DEC (Ken in particular) is very concerned about negative publicity
    and poor community relations.  Whether the facts warrant negative
    publicity in this case is inmaterial, if the story can be made
    to APPEAR negative and show DEC in a bad light.
    
    As with everybody else, I'm glad HOME_WORK is back, even if I
    don't get much chance to read it these days.  I got a great
    recommmendation for a plasterer out of here, so even if we can't
    have the negative reports on contractors I hope we can keep the
    positive ones.

Another interesting tick, which I came across while going through some of the 
contractor notes marking the bad ones...

If we go with the once-we-get-a-bad-request-we-delete-all-the-good-ones policy, 
what do we do in this situation:?  One contractor in particular had about 6 
rave reviews.  The same contractor had two mildly negative reviews, both of 
which could be interpreted as misplaced expectations on the part of the
customer, or small issues regarding working style, not quality of work. 

This same contractor has rave reviews in other conferences.

What do we do?  Delete the two mildly negative reviews, which give further 
perspective on this contractor?  I know that given the other reviews, I would 
not hesitate to use this person myself.  Or do we delete all the good (RAVE) 
reviews for the sake of two mildly bad ones?

Or do we delete two of the good ones to balance the two bad one?  :^)

It's a sticky problem, because the company is clearly a quality company.


Paul

    RE: .40
    
    That's a good point about mixed reviews, because no one is perfect,
    and we all slip up on jobs a little.  Also, some people may have
    higher expectations of a contractor's work than could be warranted,
    thereby bringing about a negative referral.
    
    Also, this just came to mind, what about notes making references
    to stores and lumber yards, where opinions also vary?  I know this
    isn't the same as a referral, but will those discussions also be
    hidden?
    
    Finally, I am *so* glad to see HOME_WORK back.  I've been apprehensive
    about doing the projects I have lined up without my handy
    'encyclopedia' at my fingertips.
    
    Bo

    Have we had any determination by the company as to whether any official 
    company policy was violated by the offending entry, or the practice of
    using DEC's network for such recommendations (or non). Has legal
    responded with any determination of whether this practice puts the
    company in danger of being sued?   
    
    In my mind there we are dealing with two separate issues.  If the
    practice of referrals violates the company's policy (or any laws), 
    it would seem that we'll have to live without it (or change the
    policy if you really feel THAT strongly about it).   If we're really 
    just dealing with someone who asked Ken to intervene on their behalf, 
    I tend to agree with the tone of .33.  Let Ken add a note taking issue
    with the offending un-recommendation.  

    Please keep this even with out the referrals.  I use this file
    quite extensively and would not like to see it disappear.
    
    Also why should Ken have to even deal with this?  this sould be
    a non issue for him.  I think he has better things to do then to
    have to deal with an issue unrelated to Digital.    
    
    Thanks for returning this.

re: .40

I know I wrote one review that fits the description in .40.  I'd be glad to
rewrite it (given access to the original).

I think you'll need to deal with mixed reviews on a case by case basis.  We
ought to be able to say "I recommend this person, who is really strong in
these areas, and not so strong in these others," so long as the end result
is a positive recommendation.  

  Gary

        You could use a noting tool like PAN (see LESLIE::PAN) to
        copy the review notes into another conference.  Then
        keeping that new conference open wouldn't endanger this
        one.
        
        Dan

Or how about asking the person who complains if they feel that their complaint
is worth removing the earlier recommendation?

Personally, I would not be in favor of a "delete on first complaint" policy.
I've seen other conferences with such a rule and it quickly turns into
chaos.  However, Joe and Paul have to set their own "level of comfort" as
regards the conference.

			Steve

    
    I talked to a frind of mine who's a Lawyer about this issue we're
    having in this notes file. He says that for DEC it's not a good
    idea to allow anyone to broadcast a BAD rep about a contractor to
    everyone in the company via the computer system (ie NOTES). The
    reason he gave is that how does DEC know that what this person is
    the truth. This person who is badmouthing a contractor could just
    have a personal grudge against the man/company and is making things
    up to make them look bad. If this is the case then DEC can be sued
    by this person/company for slander because it's their computer network
    used for company business which this slanderous remark is being
    seen by everyone in DEC by. 
    
    Mike

Yup, this is another case of the consumer being screwed.....

     What would Ralph Nader think??????????

    	I think that this notesfile is just great for the D-I-Y, like
    myself, and I am REALLY glad that it is back.
    
    	I like the idea of telling everyone about bad contractors so
    that anyone else wanting a contractor won't get that person and
    censoring who can go in and who can't just isn't right with me.
    Previous notes have indicated that someone hired a particular
    contractor and found him great, but someone else had the same guy
    and didn't care for his work.  I think that if it comes right down
    to, we shouldn't put in ANY recommendations at all.  If someone
    wants a particular contractor, then that person could put a note
    in this file and anyone knowing a good contractor could EMAIL that
    person a recommendation and that person could 'screen' all the replys
    and go from there.
    
    	My vote - NO contractor information AT ALL in here.

    I second .49!  If someone needs contractor references, the request
    could be posted here with all responses sent E-mail rather than
    entered in the conference.  Or if someone wonders if anyone has
    had good/bad experiences with a particular contractor.  
    
    References are valuable.  But if it is No references or No Howme_work,
    lets give up the references.

    Re: .49, .50
    Trouble is, people may (most likely WILL) get pretty tired of
    responding requests for recommendations again, and again, and
    again,... when one note in here will answer everybody.
    

    Home_work without referrals is about 90% of home_work with referrals.
    Which is still substantially more value than no home_work at all.
    I hope some solution is possible that will allow referrals to continue.
    
    What would happen if contractor recommendations or non-recommendations
    followed a template or form of some sort? Here's a stab at one off
    the top of my head--
    
    Contractor name:
    Address:
    Phone:
    Job I had him/her do:
    Date of 'sign up':
    Date of completion:
    Pct. variation from original cost estimate:
    Changes to job causing variation, if worth noting:
    I would/wouldn't hire this person to do this specific job again: 
    I would/wouldn't provide further info off-line:
    
    There is nothing pro or con in it, yet it conveys some essential
    information (or the H_W noters could certainly devise a short form
    that would) that could give clues on the big three criteria of cost,
    quality, and time.

    Whatever, I am certainly glad to see home_work back.

    John H.    

    I truthfully haven't read all the responses to this note yet, so if I'm
    repeating someone else's suggestion, I'm sorry . . . How about just
    limiting "HOME-WORK" to tips, suggestions, etc., & just cut out the
    recommendations/damnations all together?  If someone really has to
    pursue this line, how about taking it up in "CONSUMERS ISSUES"?  That
    way it'll be THEIR problem (and presumably, they're better used to
    dealing with it).  HOME_WORK is too valuable a resource to endanger
    with petty squabbling.

No Home_work file is a non-issue, so we can stop discussing it.  Home_work is 
not going to go away over the issue of contractor referrals.  We're going to 
talk to some people, and implement one of these options:

1) As it currently is, with perhaps tighter control of negative references

2) As suggested, with positive referrals only.  This option has a few issues
   to be resolved, but none of those issues seem to threaten the viability of
   this option.

3) Remove contractor referrals from home_work altogether.

Note that none of these options contain any variant of "Get rid of Home_work 
altogether."

My personal bet is that we'll wind up with #2.

Paul

    .54:
    
    	Might it be considered reasonable to allow something like
    
    "I had Foobar & Sons build an addition on my house.  Call me at
    234-5678 for details."
    
    	or even
    
    "I had Foobar & Sons build an addition on my house."
    
    which one could compare to
    
    "I had Joe Whizbang build an addtion on my house.  He did the work well
    and promptly, was careful to avoid hassling my wife (with sawdust and
    muddy feet), and charged me only what the original estimate was."
    
    I don't know if this would be reasonable, but it's something that
    several of us should be considering for another NOTES file.  (And
    thanks for nothing, .53!)
    
    Dick (co-mod of CONSUMER)

I'm leaning towards suggesting no references at all.
The plan of positive-only-removed-based-on-contra-indicating-experience
raises the problem of not knowing why a previous positive went away.
Inferences can be drawn, but with no background to substantiate them.
(Did Harry Contractor have his recommendation pulled because of a major
screwup, or did Joe Homeowner remove his recommendation because he got tired
of answering questions about it?)

As paranoia seems the order of the day, why not consider worst case scenarios?

- tom]

    I think that it would be better to have no references at all rather
    than positive references only, and the idea of deleting a posittive
    reference in response to contrary feedback really doesn't solve the
    problem.  If one person happened to luck out with "Joe's Fly-by-night"
    contractors, enters a glowing recommendation, based on which I hire
    them, it won't do a bit of good if that note is deleted a day or so
    later because everyone else had problems with them.  In any case, I
    really don't think that these references are all that useful anyhow. 
    Just about every contractor is bound to do a decent job once in a
    while.  On the other hand, if they screw up EVERY time, then a simple
    call to the beter business bureau should do the trick.  To illustrate,
    I had an experience with a mechanic a few years back.  EVERYONE I
    spoke to said he was the best guy in town.  I went to him and he not
    only screwed up my car, but absolutely refused to own up to it.  A few
    months later, my wife was in a pinch & brought her car to him.  He
    forgot to reconnect her rear brakes & again claimed that it wasn't his
    fault.  Not long ago, unbeknownst to me, my brother went to him with
    similar results.  The point is, all the great experiences that others
    had didn't mean anything, especially in the absence of contrary
    opinions.  

    
    I have to disagree that recommendations aren't very helpful.  
    My problem is that I don't know how to *find* them!  Where I
    live, the good ones usually don't advertise.  I found my last
    contractor in a pub (no wise-cracks please - it might not be 
    a good place pick up singles, but it's a great place to meet
    carpenters!).
    
    -tm
    

    I've been sitting here in Atlanta watching all this with some amount of
    amazement. Just because a contractor does a good job for me doesn't
    mean that he will do an OK job for someone else. We should all be
    adults here. You can even read between the lines on positive comments.

    
    If this is a DIY, home work type notes file, then contractors
    shouldn't be mentioned at all. I thought (and use) this conference
    was specifically for the do-it-yourself, to do any and all the work 
    yourself in an attempt to cut labor costs and learn how to more 
    efficiently use our hands and various tools to complete the job.
    
    Recommendations and complaints of contractor services should be in 
    consumers notes file, not here.
    
    Just the 60th opinion...Dave'
    

    RE .60
    
    Obviously you didn't read the rules in Note 1.0:^)
    
    The "how to" and diagnostic/problem-solving notes are of the most
    interest to me, but I have also used the contractors reference area
    on several occasions.  I would like to be able to solicit feedback
    from other noters about contractors I'm considering.  How about
    a single note where people can just post a note along the lines
    "I'm considering using XYZ Contracting to do a (insert job).  Please
    contact me via VAXmail or phone if you have any experience with
    this contractor, good or bad, that you are willing to share." 
    This way all the information is "off line" and only those that want
    to participate will (we'd probably need some rules to prevent
    nagging reminders/repostings in the file if there was little response.)
    
    Just my 2 Cents....
    Evelyn

    I agree with -.1.  Although I won't be here much longer to access
    this conference, contractor referrals would be very useful to me
    later on -- I'm not from New England and my personal network is
    tiny -- this is about the only place I have to go for "word of mouth"
    referrals.
    
    Along with very brief querys and very brief "I used So-and-So, Inc.,:
    contact me for details" listings, people with specific experiences
    could write what would be their Note reply as a standard editor
    file, and then just mail that file to people who ask.  A "form letter"
    sort of.  At least the information would still be available. I like
    this idea also because the opinion won't outlast the employee --
    you won't be able to "hear" about the problem if the person who
    had it is gone away, so you can ask questions about it and form
    your own conclusions.  Which is more fair to the contractor, too.
    (Although from what I hear, no offense to anyone here who works
    in that field, unreliable contractors appear to outnumber the good
    ones rather substantially -- it's a frightening prospect!)
    
    It seems to me that ALL opinionated Notes in ALL conferences should
    be interpreted as the writer's opinion, and that DEC's liability
    in any situation arising from an opinion given in Notes should be
    to identify the writer of the note -- translate WECARE::BAILEY to
    my full name and address, in other words.  If liable or slander
    laws are violated, *I* would be liable for what I say.  (So *I*
    would be careful of how I say things!)  I suppose that's not how
    it really works, but it's how it makes sense.  (Of course suing
    me would not be NEARLY as promising as suing DEC!!!)
    
    Sherry (who *doesn't* have x-billion dollars in assets!)

		After a  long  hiatus  from  this conference and NOTES in 
	general I was rather  surprised  to  find  only  1  note  in  the 
	original HOME_WORK conference.  I too am glad it's back.
	
		In  regard to the matter at hand I,  like  others,  would 
	probably  be just as happy to not have any contractor information 
	at  all  if  it  will  cause  any  rift.    I  have used  several 
	recommendations  from  the reference notes  with  mixed  results.  
	What makes me say we'd be  better off without reference at all is 
	a  conversation I had with a contractor  I  was  using  regarding 
	where I got the recommendation from.  He said he had gotten quite 
	a bit of work from the recommendation he had here but that he did 
	have a dealing with a DECie who threatened to write  a bad review 
	about him and post it here.  
	
		In my opinion, the ability to threaten someone like this, 
	where  they  have  no  recourse  at there disposal, warrants  not 
	having  referrals  at  all.   All though good referrals would  be 
	useful the threat of having them pulled is still there.
				
		I  think  if  people want to give referrals (good or bad) 
	for  contractors  just  post  your name/node with the area  (both 
	location and type of work) that you have a referral  for  and let 
	fellow  noters  contact  you.  This way people will be forced  to 
	stand  behind the referrals they give.  And it's a lot more  like 
	word of  mouth  and  less  like advertising;  "Hay Joe didn't you 
	just put on a new addition?  Who did the framing for you?" 
		

	
					...Dave 

  Verrrry interesting point. I've many times fantasized about saying
  something like that to a merchant I was having a problem with, but
  have never actually done it -- it seemed to violate good judgment. In
  fact, it may actually violate other more tangible things, as well.
  Folks would be very well advised to NEVER threaten anyone with this
  sort of action.

    
    .63
    
    excellent Idea!

RE: .64

   Verrrry interesting point. I've many times fantasized about saying
   something like that to a merchant I was having a problem with, but
>  have never actually done it -- it seemed to violate good judgment. In
   fact, it may actually violate other more tangible things, as well.
   Folks would be very well advised to NEVER threaten anyone with this
   sort of action.

   Good judgment is precisely what the source of the original threat
   lacked.  I imagine that the legal eagles would have heart palpitations
   over this issue.  The vendor/contractor/retailer has no chance to rebut
   any negative allegations made in a DEC notes file (contrast this with how
   the BBB handles complaints).  To threaten anyone with such negative 
   publicity reflects a serious lapse in judgment.  

   A while back there was a big blowup in the CONSUMER notes file when 
   someone complained about receiving shabby treatment from an Acton
   jewelry store.  Surprise, surprise, one of the owners was married to
   a DEC employee who saw the note and was distinctly unhappy about it.
   Things underwent rapid escalation from there ...

   Personally, (in principle) I welcome responsible criticism of contractors, 
   etc. in notes files, but I think there are serious legal issues since the 
   individuals so criticized have no opportunity to respond. I believe .63
   has a good approach.

   I refuse to hire a new contractor "blind" - I want to know all I can about 
   him, and if I deem it necessary, I'll inspect his work on a previous
    job.  Too bad notes files can only (safely) approach this subject
    indirectly.





    

    A notes file is a form of free speech.  Any of us who has a bad
    experience is free to voice our displeasure and if serious enough to
    sue over it.  The notes file is an extension of that right.  The
    audience, while larger, is still not open to the public at large. 
    Anytime someone mistates or misrepresents facts they are personally
    liable for defamation etc.  Therefore, I think most of us make sure of
    the basic facts before saying something negative.  I resent the idea
    that if I am wronged I cannot lay out the facts.
    
    Any contractor or business person who treats customers poorly, fails to
    meet contract terms, creates hassles deserves to have those facts
    exposed.  If we cannot speak to these situations, we in effect are
    allowing and aiding these people to continue to fleece our co-workers. 
    The idea of as assisting in perpetuating this behavior is absurd.
    
    Unless my memory is mistaken, the original contractor did not dispute
    the facts.  Notice that he did not go to the originator of the note and
    work out the disagreement, but instead has gotten it silenced.  I have
    written about vendors in these files (not home) and thank goodness the
    comments have been positive.  I made the vendors aware of the comments
    because they should know that what they do to a customer, any customer,
    has ramifications.  This keeps them on their toes and can be a strong
    incentive for everyone to get better service.
    
    As to contractor's rights to dispute the notes.  I say BALONEY! 
    Instead let him get some happy Digital customer to write in some good
    comments.  Let all the facts come out.  We are intelligent people and
    can check things for ourselves.  Maybe the person does fine work, but
    can't schedule the job well.  If someone wants that person, they can
    deal with that aspect of the contract.  Also, a contractor's reputation
    even without the notes file, lives for years.  We are only mirroring
    the reality of the regular outside grape vine.  In fact, we should
    openly indicate that we will add good and bad comments to the file as
    an incentive to the contractor.  Most people want positive comments and
    will work to get that.  
    
    Our responsibility as writers of notes is to be clear on the facts.  If
    we need to blow off steam SCREAM, but make sure to separate that from
    the facts.  Circumstances may prevent a contract from being done on
    time.  We cannot fault a roofer for not finishing a job when we
    get an unexpected blizzard.  Kitchen cabinets may delayed if the
    factory is on strike, etc.  As readers we also need to understand that
    there are strong feelings associated with a compliant and we need to
    determine if the basic issue is valid.  Most I have read are clear. 
    For reference, read some of the comments about GRIZZLY Bandsaws in the
    Woodworking Notes file.  As a purchaser of tools I can understand the
    frustration of expecting a finished product and then having to do
    rework parts of the product to get it working, but more important in
    most of the notes specific descriptions of the problems were given so
    that we got a good idea of the problems.  Comments on steps to get
    resolution are also very valuable.
    
    The basic point is that to make good contracts and buy intelligently,
    all of us need to have as much open information about the service or
    product possible.  Digital is filled with engineers, users, and people
    with a variety of backgrounds.  What better source of information than
    the sharing that takes place in these files.  It's one thing for a
    contractor to screw a Deccie once, but another to be allowed to screw a
    lot of us a long time.  Now that we buyers are becoming aware, let the
    contractor beware.
    
    

>   A while back there was a big blowup in the CONSUMER notes file when 
>   someone complained about receiving shabby treatment from an Acton
>   jewelry store.  Surprise, surprise, one of the owners was married to
>   a DEC employee who saw the note and was distinctly unhappy about it.
>   Things underwent rapid escalation from there ...

     I never noticed this nor did I ever notice CONSUMER going off the 
air.  How was it resolved there, and why can't the same solution be 
applied to this notesfile?

re: .67

Rather than raising that entire rathole here, I suggest looking in the 
HUMAN::DIGITAL notesfile, where the subject of who's responsible for the 
contents of notes files, and how they relate to free speech has been discussed
to death.

The bottom line is that Digital owns the notes files, and hence must take
full responsibility for their contents.  If you want to take responsibility
for your own notes in exchange for DEC giving you permission to say whatever 
you want to say, sign a contract with DEC absolving them of liability, but
be prepared to show that you have the megabuck liability insurance to back it.

   Gary

RE .68

The incident happened about 3-4 years ago.  The immediate result was
that the note was set hidden and some offline discussions took place.  I no
longer recall the final disposition, though CONSUMER obviously never went 
"off the air".  


    

As NEXT UNSEEN surely already told you, the contractor's area is back.  I added 
some new categories and moved things around using set note /note_id.  I may 
have put some notes in the wrong place, it was all done in a big batch job.  If 
you come across a recommendation note in the wrong place, send me mail so I can 
move it.

Paul

The following memo has been issued regarding negative comments in notesfiles,
so I'm posting it here.  It's still not clear to me at this point what is meant 
by "negative comments".  Clearly bashing companies is out: saying someone 
ripped you off, recommending that other people not use that vendor, etc.. But
does it mean that saying "I bought such and such a product and it has not
functioned for me as advertised" is also out?  Or "My xyz product doesn't seem 
to work right, has anyone else had the same problem?"  It's not clear, and I'm
loath to interpret it as such. 

In any case, I'm not about to sift through 35000 notes to find every mention of 
a product that was not perfect and delete them.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
        
    In response to several incidents, Ron Glover, Corporate Personnel
    Policy Manager) has issued the following memo.
    
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
        
Over the last several months Digital has been contacted by a number of
individuals and business entities that were angry about negative
comments made about them in our Notesfiles and Conferences.  As the
Personnel Policy Manager for Digital I have been the recipient of many
of those notes.  I thought I should take the time to post this note to
inform employees that it is not appropriate for them to make negative
comments or references about any person or business entity in any of
Digital's employee interest notesfile or conferences.

There are several reasons why we are establishing this rule.
The first has to do with fundamental fairness.  It is simply not fair
for an employee to make a negative comment about a business when we
don't provide those businesses an opportunity to respond and defend
themselves.  This is particularly true given the fact that we have no
way of determining whether the comment is honest, fair or accurate.
Clearly Digital has no intention, or desire, to open up its notesfiles
to third-party businesses so that they can engage in a debate about
whether they provide quality services.  The only logical solution then
is to ask our employees to refrain from using the Notesfiles to air
grievances they have with individuals, vendors, or organizations.

In addition to out concerns about fairness, we are concerned about the
potential damage that these kinds of comments may cause to third-party
businesses.  In that regard, employees should understand that they may
be personally liable if the statements they make cause harm to any
person or business.  Moreover, there is some possibility Digital may be
held liable for such comments as well.  Stated more simply, comments
made in a Notesfile or conference are in no way privileged or immune
from claims of liable, slander or defamation.

We are asking all of the users of Notesfiles to exercise discretion and
judgement in the comments that they make in the system.  We are also
asking moderators to go back and review the notesfiles they
moderate and to remove any notes that include derogatory references to
third-party businesses.

Please feel free to contact your moderator if you have any questions
on this subject.

Ron Glover
Corporate Personnel Policy Manager
    

The right place is note 2012 (assuming he's a general contractor - see note 2000
for more details).

And unfortunately, we can't do con, only pro. :-(  Long story, see the rest of 
this note, and parts of note 853 for details.

Paul