I've done numerous reports for Sentry in the past. One was very critical of the client for that particular vist. I've never had one kicked back or been requested to make changes/ additions.
No problems with Sentry for me.

Guy - is appears to me that you have several subjective comments in your report. What I have learned is the more negative a report is, the more objective you have to be in your report. If phrases such as "the entire store was laughing," the editors would probably want clarification. Where you were when you heard the "entire" store laughing? Only facts, no opinions. I'm not saying you did not include plenty of details, but sometimes only one or two sentences can destroy the credibility of your reporting.

@Sentry Marketing wrote:

Dave, thanks for your posts. I for one appreciate your involvement in the forum. As for the editing comments, all my experiences "with editors" have been positive. You reached out to the OP on the topic, and beyond that, I don't know what else you could do.

proudly shopping in the D.

Did you quote Dave responding to himself?

If this is a frequent occurrence (more than 1 shop), I get why you are irritated. If you choose to continue to do shops for them, what about taking a screenshot of your report when you have answered everything correctly and are finished so that you can send it back to the editor to show on your end that you did indeed do everything correctly? Is it possible that it's a technical issue or is it indeed the editor? When you get the report back and open up the report to make corrections, you are saying that all of that information is showing, or are you only receiving an email from an editor requesting the information or giving you feedback on what was missing?

@Sentry Marketing wrote:

...I don't agree that based on this thread, the conclusion should be that there is an issue with editing at our company. As I previously posted, there are over 800 posts about Sentry over last 12 months and only 8 - 10 are related to editing. That's about a 1% occurrence.

Dave, my point is not based on just what's been posted here on this forum. Yes, the occurrence of complaints here about editing--out of all the threads about Sentry--may be just one percent. Statistics can be misleading. In this thread alone, once the subject was brought up, six to seven shoppers report having issues with the editing. I have no idea if their complaints are valid, but it does raise a red flag. They can't all have unjustified complaints. Additionally, there are thousands of shoppers who don't belong to this forum. Perhaps hundreds of them shop for Sentry. They, too, may have issues regarding the editing of their reports, but we don't hear about them. And you may not, either. I'm not saying there's definitely a problem. The sample size here is too small to make any kind of definite assumption. It does, however, raise questions. And I commend you for asking for details so that you can review each case. I'm not dissing you! You have been gracious in this thread, and it's appreciated.

@Sentry Marketing wrote:

​If there are discrepancies between sample forms, guidelines and current assignment instructions we would love to correct these issues. In order for this to happen, we have to know the project and nature of the issue.

I'm very happy to hear this, because not all MSCs want to hear about discrepancies in their overall guidelines, certification tests, specific instructions, and surveys. One company is infamous for its confusing, ambiguous, and contradictory shop materials; when shoppers ask questions for clarification or write to point these out, schedulers or project managers act as if we're stupid because we can't understand their poorly written materials. Or they themselves don't really understand the materials, either, and give us incorrect instructions. But this MSC, its employees, and independent schedulers will never admit that there's an issue with the materials. Of course, the MSC has almost no clients left, either....

Our goal is to be easy to work with as well pleasant, professional and patient at all times. We don't always meet this standard so we work at it every day. Process review and improvement are topics we discuss nearly every day because it is in everyone's best interest for us to have assignment prep material that is clear and easy to understand.

In the case of the forum members who posted, it is possible that our staff sent reports back in error. It's also possible that the forum members submitted work that needed revision and they simply did like the report being returned. BirdyC stated that the number of forum members reporting an issue with our staff raised a red flag. For me, the fact that the forum members in question​ will not allow the issues to be researched raises a red flag.

There is no red flag raised by forum members choosing not to contact you directly and reveal themselves. The forum allows for anonymity for those who feel more comfortable. Yes that also means there will be some bogus stories told, but all in all the majority of posts here are not unsubstantiated rants. While you state the intent behind monitoring posts is to assist, it appears many of these shoppers do not feel secure and prefer it not have a negative impact on their business.

Birdy offered a viable alternative which would give you information and allow members to remain anonymous. They could simply send you the name of the client(s) or the editor(s) without giving so much information as to reveal themselves. If more than one shopper is having problems with the same client and/or editor, it should be more than enough for you to review the situation because it then has become a pattern.

I have been cited by Sentry editors by writing for narratives in a "flowery" manner. I finally realized I was using intelligent words and sentence structure the editor apparently found daunting. I no longer accept shops from Sentry. They don't pay enough for the aggravation they heaped on me one too many times for daring to write with intelligence and panache.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/22/2016 07:42PM by proudlyshopping.

Forum members choosing to remain anonymous may not raise a red flag for you, but it does for me. The decision not to support the assertion with facts brings leaves many questions unanswered. As I've said, it may be that there are legitimate issues and it may be that the editors acted correctly and the forum member simply did not like their shop being returned. If a person feels strongly enough to discuss the issue publicly, they should be willing to work toward resolving the issue. The fact that forum members wish to remain anonymous brings into question the motive for posting.

Birdy's suggestion is simply not viable. Our editors review hundreds of reports per month so providing only editor's name and the project is simply not enough information to research the issue in a reasonable timeframe. I simply will send my staff on a wild goose chase based on the comments of an anonymous person. I understand quite clearly that the forum provides for anonymity and forum members have the right to remain anonymous. Without the underlying facts, there is limited action we can take to address the concern posted.

As I've said, anybody who believes that our editors return reports for frivolous reasons is mistaken.

@LisaSTL wrote:

There is no red flag raised by forum members choosing not to contact you directly and reveal themselves. The forum allows for anonymity for those who feel more comfortable. Yes that also means there will be some bogus stories told, but all in all the majority of posts here are not unsubstantiated rants. While you state the intent behind monitoring posts is to assist, it appears many of these shoppers do not feel secure and prefer it not have a negative impact on their business.

Birdy offered a viable alternative which would give you information and allow members to remain anonymous. They could simply send you the name of the client(s) or the editor(s) without giving so much information as to reveal themselves. If more than one shopper is having problems with the same client and/or editor, it should be more than enough for you to review the situation because it then has become a pattern.

Hey Dave, it's starting to sound a little bit like the old you...please don't go there. You already stated you wanted to get to the bottom of this and was looking quite positive. You don't need to get defensive and do not need to be repetitive. There are times where it's better just to fade to gray.

As hard as it was to see, I was able to read enough of Dave's post to respond. There are many members of this forum who are anonymous and whose opinions I respect. I will not discount an opinion because someone chooses to protect themselves from retaliatory actions by a MSC.

The next time I am asked to provide information, that I believe I have already properly provided, I will copy Dave on my response. If it is another company, I will copy an appropriate alternate person.

Here is the thing, many times my assumption that my response was correct turns out to be wrong. Here is a basic example:

Q: Did the team member smile, provide good eye contact, and provide a friendly greeting. Y/N

A:N

Comments: The team member smiled and said "Hello" in a friendly tone.
---------

Here I assume the narrative implies the team member did not provide good eye contact since I did not say they did. In reality, the narrative needs to clearly include why my answer was "N." It should state:


Comments: Quickly glancing at me and smiling the team member said "Hello" in a friendly tone. They looked down at the register most of the time, not providing good eye contact.


Additionally, all narrative content should only apply to the questions for that section. Cover a few key positives and every "N" response objectively.

@LisaSTL wrote:

As hard as it was to see, I was able to read enough of Dave's post to respond. There are many members of this forum who are anonymous and whose opinions I respect. I will not discount an opinion because someone chooses to protect themselves from retaliatory actions by a MSC.

How is Dave suppose to fix any of these grievances or problems because of a lack of specific instances or examples of Editors making reports overly redundant? It was about three months ago you were defending a shopper who was performing a Beverage Audit that almost got tossed. Its obvious you care about your fellow shoppers, you have a heart for newbies and don't like seeing them get taken advantage of. Your questions along with several other members helped a fellow member get partial payment. You recall even Dorita stepped in to help the shopper get paid instead of having her shop thrown out.


Dave does not have the data needed to approach his editors or proofreaders shoppers are challenging. When Dorita was brought in to do damage control after Casey was getting nowhere, justice eventually prevailed. How is Dave suppose to provide justice without specific examples or speak to the editor or proofreaders in question? I agree anyone who has posted nasty comments or negative things about Sentry should not give out their personal information so what can Dave do? Does this leave us at a stalemate or chasing the wind since he has no idea what he's looking for?


[www.mysteryshopforum.com]

Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 05/22/2016 10:26PM by GuyFawkes.

@LisaSTL wrote:

Birdy offered a viable alternative which would give you information and allow members to remain anonymous. They could simply send you the name of the client(s) or the editor(s) without giving so much information as to reveal themselves. If more than one shopper is having problems with the same client and/or editor, it should be more than enough for you to review the situation because it then has become a pattern.

Actually, it was TeriW who suggested that solution. And I think it's a good one! That being said, I can understand Dave wanting specifics, and I can also understand shoppers wanting to remain anonymous. Especially given how threads in the past have escalated.

While the ideal solution for Dave might be to have specifics on each situation mentioned here, it certainly isn't necessary to have them in order to take an overall look at editing procedures, making spot checks of returned reports to double check to see if the editor's requests are warranted, and to have additional training or training reviews. There can never be enough reinforcement of standard procedures, and there certainly can never be enough periodic reassessment of policies and procedures to see if revisions and/or additional training are needed.

My thinking was that shoppers with an issue with a Sentry editor could send Dave a pm with the editor's name. If one editor's name popped up numerous times, there is probably an issue with that editor. This wouldn't be perfect, but might be a compromise to help figure out if an editor needs a little extra training.

Fool me once joke on you. Fool me twice joke on me.

A mistake made more than once is a decision.

@cooldude581 wrote:

A mistake made more than once is a decision.

Using that logic, I could make a case for every single MSC I have ever worked for having made a decision to frustrate shoppers, out shoppers, and generally disregard their client's needs. But....we all know that's not the case.

Hi, I love you... I'm in South Florida, where are you? It is funny, but I have been called "verbose" by several editors because I do exactly that ( to aggravate them ) whenever they are insisting that I add more information after having followed their examples letter for letter. " You can't fix stupid!"

May I take this moment to suggest a "Shopper Rant Sub Forum" so that shoppers can address the things that bother them without any reprocussions? The MSC does not have to read the Rant Forum. If they do choose to read that section, they need to understand that shoppers get frustrated and need a place to go where their feelings, concerns and ideas are not dissected apart.

I will also say that suggesting an editor would never send a report back multiple times for (brownie points) <---my words...is simply not true. I had a company where I submitted over 85 excellent reports, never heard a peep back. One day, this editor commented on my report and had at least 4 changes or corrections she wanted. I followed her advice. My next report she got it and the same thing, "rinse and repeat"... EVERY report that landed on her desk and in her hands had multiple comments and changes, ALL of them.

I began to think she was overly critical or overly zealous or trying to drive me right up the wall. So, to say editors (new or inexperienced/lackadaisical) never send reports back multiple times or criticize your reports multiple times, is simply not true.

There are excellent editors that do need clarification, have a question for us, or perhaps we missed something?

But how stringent are the MSC's in evaluating their own editors? How can the CEO possibly know if any of his editors have any "loose screws" working for the company? You can stand by your editors but if you are receiving multiple complaints about one in particular, it's time to take the glasses off and apply some cleaner.

Dave prefers to argue that black is blue and win. He's not interested in solving problems and issues. He's right, you are wrong, the end.

Two examples of what you said. The first shows that yes, editors do make mistakes. The second that some editors are apparently asshats.

Just recently an editor at Intellishop made a mistake, requested something not only provided already, but in a way that was impossible to comply. After getting dinged I protested, received an apology and my grade was adjusted to a 10.

In my early days of shopping I completed a series of around 30 telephone shops. All announced, identical and with a bare bones report only requiring some basic information. The first 10 grades were "10," the next were "9" and the last were "8." The editor who gave me the 10's also wrote it was a great job. I responded to thank him and mentioned it would have been nice if he had reviewed all my reports. He came back after looking at the low scores and said something to the effect of, uh yeah, I know who edited those. Take it from me, you did a great job.

@SteveSoCal wrote:

@cooldude581 wrote:

A mistake made more than once is a decision.

Using that logic, I could make a case for every single MSC I have ever worked for having made a decision to frustrate shoppers, out shoppers, and generally disregard their client's needs. But....we all know that's not the case.

Also, I have apparently decided to physically fall down many times in my life, since everything after the first time was a decision and not a mistake.

Thanks for the laugh (and the logic) CaliGirl925. Could you video the next time you make this decision?

@TeriW wrote:

Thanks for the laugh (and the logic) CaliGirl925. Could you video the next time you make this decision?

The last time was on Wednesday and I can send a picture of my skinned knee from slipping on some dry grass on a hike. I'm pretty klutzy, so I'm sure if I get one of those GoPros and take it everywhere with me, it'll just be a matter of time before I get some good footage.

I sure you'd be able to monetize it, somehow.

I feel your pain. I'm a bit of a klutz myself.

@SunnyDays2 wrote:

May I take this moment to suggest a "Shopper Rant Sub Forum" so that shoppers can address the things that bother them without any reprocussions? The MSC does not have to read the Rant Forum. If they do choose to read that section, they need to understand that shoppers get frustrated and need a place to go where their feelings, concerns and ideas are not dissected apart.

I would like to suggest an "Asshat Forum" also. Since that word has really taken off lately due to all the fine examples of asshatwardness, it would be a place for the "beyond-the-rant" shoppers to voice their "concerns."

Shouldn't the asshat forum and the snarky forum be lumped together?

Since they will probably be the busiest two forums, it may be best keep them separate.

But it's the same people. Kind of saying the same thing. Being snarky asshats.