Chambered:I don't think you know what a Darwin Award is.
Inconceivable!
G-Nitro: Goozex's decision was correct. The negative was for Wrong Product Received.
Goozex's decision was correct. The negative was for Wrong Product Received.
That is for Goozex to decide which is why I always recommend calling any questions to their attention. It never hurts to review things instead of having an uninvolved third-party make the call.
Goozex Forum Moderator
sinnr:After a little research, I realize there are rental versions which are in essence 'castrated' from the retail version by removing some features. I dispute the feedback, as previous forum posts have indicated that the correct feedback is a +5 positive (quality not as good as expected) because I take pride in my selling record.
Not to be rude, but i'd be pretty annoyed if I paid for a movie where most of the extra features were cut out.
Thanks to everyone for the replies, but it appears that a few important points were lost in the translation.
1. The negative feedback originated at Goozex, not with the buyer. The buyer gave me a neutral, and agreed that per Goozex rules it probably should be a +5 positive. If I was dishonest, I could have simply accepted the neutral and kept my points. However, I chose to not accept the neutral BECAUSE I knew it would cost the buyer his points and token, which I felt was unfair to him. This is why I offered to cancel the transaction. If I could have gifted the points and token, I would have (and I told the buyer and Goozex as much).
Reference http://www.goozex.com/community/forums/p/43156/204865.aspx for previous discussion of this situation 6 months ago, when it was also raised as a concern, and note the VERIFIED answer from the community. I came across this AFTER I had sent the item, and was trying to determine if there was a precident.
Whether the buyer gave correct feedback or not is immaterial to the discussion. The point that I got what I deserved or would have gotten it anyway is completely incorrect. If I accept the neutral feedback, the situation is closed, and I'm out nothing (except 10 feedback points, which is really not that important in the larger scope). The buyer is pissed though, and rightfully so.
I did ask the buyer for the UPC as well so I could try to determine if I should have caught this before it was sent. I historically have not listed using UPCs since there is no requirement to do so, and my initial experience was that only about 20% of my valid UPCs (including those from sealed retail packages) were being found as valid by Goozex. That could have been an anomaly of some type, but it is common practice to not use UPCs when listing items (as anyone who has a disc or disc+manual listed can attest to).
2. The movie was sent to Goozex at their request, presumably to determine what distinquished this version from the regular retail (outside of the rental marking on the outside). It was not sent because we were unable to reach a resolution, as I had already told Goozex and the buyer that I wanted to return the points/token. Specifically it was sent for the following reason (direct quote): "I'm going to send it to Goozex. I figure if this is something new, I'd like them to clarify it for other users; for the collective good I reckon"
Doesn't exactly come across as anyone involved being unreasonable, does it?
For the record, I'll retract my statement about the digital copy. I had looked at Amazon, which states no digital copy. However, aren't digital copies of movies considered DLC, and not expected to be included (even in full packages), or is that distinction now something that is applied randomly? The negative written by Goozex indicates that I should have included the digital copy, which I believe is categorically untrue based upon published policy.
I never made a claim that I was right and the buyer was wrong. I offered to cancel because it was the right thing to do in the context of the Goozex system to get the points/token back to the buyer.
If the rental copy does not include all the content the normal copy includes then yes a negative is the right resolution from Goozex. When you escalate a case to Goozex they are going to decide the outcome of the feedback. Just because neither of you thought it deserved a negative doesnt mean that is the incorrect feedback. By escalating it to Goozex you put it in their hands and they came down with a decision.
As for the digital copy if it is just a code it does not need to be included. If it is a code and a disc then the disc needs to be included even if it wont work without the code.
sinnr:Reference http://www.goozex.com/community/forums/p/43156/204865.aspx for previous discussion of this situation 6 months ago, when it was also raised as a concern, and note the VERIFIED answer from the community. I came across this AFTER I had sent the item, and was trying to determine if there was a precident.
From what I understand of your situation, you sent out a "rental version" made specifically for rental stores. Those tend to have fewer special features. So in this case, the buyer requested one version of the movie and got another. That is a negative.
sinnr:However, aren't digital copies of movies considered DLC, and not expected to be included (even in full packages), or is that distinction now something that is applied randomly? The negative written by Goozex indicates that I should have included the digital copy, which I believe is categorically untrue based upon published policy.
BuryMe: sinnr:Reference http://www.goozex.com/community/forums/p/43156/204865.aspx for previous discussion of this situation 6 months ago, when it was also raised as a concern, and note the VERIFIED answer from the community. I came across this AFTER I had sent the item, and was trying to determine if there was a precident. From what I understand of the situation you quoted, what he got was a regular version of the movie that the store used to rent out. So yes, he got the right item. From what I understand of your situation, you sent out a "rental version" made specifically for rental stores. Those tend to have fewer special features. So in this case, the buyer requested one version of the movie and got another. That is a negative.
This logic I can accept, but keep in mind that when I sent the movie, I was under the belief it was a complete version marked as rental. So of course my initial information was that it was a +5, worst case, and that the thread above applied.
Once the item is sent, I really can't do much to "undo" the transaction, except to cancel, which I offered after learning that the copy was less than retail so the buyer could get his points. Again, if I accept the neutral, I have my points and everything else is moot. However, I saw that as dishonest, since I inadvertently misrepresented what the buyer was getting.
The buyer chose not to accept the cancel because he felt it was best for Goozex to look at the disc to make a determination on whether it was tradeable. He felt that these feature-reduced rental copies should be a negative, which is probably appropriate, but there wasn't a specific precident with Goozex that I could find except statements that rental copies were tradeable. This was the buyer making a decision that he felt was best for the community as a whole, and for which I took it in the shorts.
Perhaps I should have been aware that there are rental copies which have reduced features and checked specifically for that before sending. However, the buyer was also unaware that such versions exist. The likelihood of something like this coming up again is pretty high, which is why I wanted to raised it as an issue.
My point was only that the feedback leaves no room for reality. It reads as I sent the wrong item and refused to work with the buyer. In reality, I got the negative BECAUSE I tried to make things right, since Goozex would have never been involved if we had not been trying to raise understanding of this issue..
BuryMe: sinnr:However, aren't digital copies of movies considered DLC, and not expected to be included (even in full packages), or is that distinction now something that is applied randomly? The negative written by Goozex indicates that I should have included the digital copy, which I believe is categorically untrue based upon published policy. Yes they are... I find it very strange and Goozex mentioned it at all. You may want to send them an email about that
Why bother? They apparently ignored 5 or 6 messages in the original dispute, so why should I think they'll suddenly pay attention to what I say after the issue is closed. They even locked this thread after cherry picking speciifc items from the dispute (and taking them out of context), so there is no way to provide perspective. It's fairly obvious that there is little interest in trying to make my experience something that is beneficial to the community as a whole.
Chambered: Meade87:And the Darwin award goes to the OP! I don't think you know what a Darwin Award is.
Meade87:And the Darwin award goes to the OP!
I don't think you know what a Darwin Award is.
I know, hangs head in shame, he didn't die as a result of his stupidity. I spoke before I thought its a very bad problem. Which, makes me too look like an idiot as I make fun of his idiocy, lol how silly.
So are we to understand that if a DVD or blu-ray comes with a digital copy, that we need to include the disc and UNUSED code for that copy? So, if I use my digital copy code, then I can't trade the movie? I received a blu-ray where the digital copy code had already been used, so should I have given a negative feedback? I would like to trade the movie out after I am done watching it, but if I'm potentially get screwed, I'll just sell it online.
Goozex needs to GET ON THE BALL with these issues. They do not specifically list anything about these kind of issues on the FAQ, and as Sinnr mentioned (I think it was him), Goozex seems to be making up the rules as they go along. This makes me very cautious about trading movies on this site.
My general rule of thumb when buying used or trading for used DVD/BDs with digital copy is that the digital copy will have been used. Then I am pleasantly surprised if it is unused.
bonham2:So are we to understand that if a DVD or blu-ray comes with a digital copy, that we need to include the disc and UNUSED code for that copy?
The code can be used. It's odd, but if the digital copy is on a disc, the disc must be sent even if it is useless.
Forum Moderator
This one bothers me a little bit. Its easy for us all to say that they seller sent the wrong package and a negative should be implemented.
If what the seller says about the transaction is true, it again brings into question goozex's customer service. I find it disheartening that goozex cs was not willing to work with both parties on a solution over what seems like an obvious misunderstanding that both parties acknowledge.
Was the decision by the book? Yes.
Was it good customer service? In my opinion? No.
Black Fox Zulu: This one bothers me a little bit. Its easy for us all to say that they seller sent the wrong package and a negative should be implemented. If what the seller says about the transaction is true, it again brings into question goozex's customer service. I find it disheartening that goozex cs was not willing to work with both parties on a solution over what seems like an obvious misunderstanding that both parties acknowledge. Was the decision by the book? Yes. Was it good customer service? In my opinion? No.
Well said.
Join the Goozex Pokerstars Club!
GreenManGaming
As I've said, this isn't the first time that Goozex made a call that was reversed with another email to the G-Team asking them to review it further. I know from experience that sometimes Goozex's CS just makes a call without taking too much time to read the details.
I still suggest, despite the understaffing causing a long wait at times, that this be pursued further. It will most likely be changed if both parties agree.
Kenny007: Black Fox Zulu: This one bothers me a little bit. Its easy for us all to say that they seller sent the wrong package and a negative should be implemented. If what the seller says about the transaction is true, it again brings into question goozex's customer service. I find it disheartening that goozex cs was not willing to work with both parties on a solution over what seems like an obvious misunderstanding that both parties acknowledge. Was the decision by the book? Yes. Was it good customer service? In my opinion? No. Well said.
I second this. Right or wrong it sucks when honest people get screwed over, especially if a more beneficial outcome could easily be receieved by both parties.
Goozex's Message within the resolution center:
Item Offered: UPC 883929038275Item Traded: UPC 883929098248This item is not in our database, and is therefore not tradeable. It also does not include the digital copy. We cannot credit the seller for this sale, and are providing the buyer with a full refund.If the seller would like the item returned to them, then they must write feedback@goozex.com authorizing the debit of trade tokens to cover first class mail shipping costs.
"It also does not include the digital copy."
- This does not imply that the digital copy for this item was required for trading. It is simply a note to document how the product was traded. It is important to document this type of information.
- The item is unacceptable. It is a rental production, not a retail production. You stated that you purchased it as part of a bundle from GoHastings.com, and that you would like a quick resolution in the event that you needed to dispute your purchase with them. We strongly recommend you dispute your purchase with them if you were not properly informed of the condition.
- On 02-19-2010 at 11:55:38, the buyer posted "this should be a negative feedback". Perhaps you missed that message, but at Goozex, we review all messages posted within the resolution center prior to resolving the dispute.
- The threads/situations you referenced to do not apply, as they do not share similarities. Your item was a rental production (not tradeable). The threads/situations referenced are retail productions with a rental sticker. They are two different productions.
- Rovi Data Solutions, Inc. is our content provider. If you believe that there is an error in our database, then as we recommend to everyone, please write us a suggestion or an update request. You may write this to info@goozex.com.
- You may email feedback@goozex.com if you feel there has been incorrect judgment here, but from the looks of it this is a pretty clear issue (no grey area).
Locking thread.
Edit:
- You selected for a trade cancellation within the resolution center. The buyer did not agree to the trade cancellation. As a trader on Goozex, you are never obligated to accept a trade cancellation request.