New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
[Poll] Can a supplier terminate a service contract because of a negative customer review?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I would 100% agree in the case that the customer has done nothing wrong.
However, if the customer has deliberately caused the provider financial or reputational harm, or attempted to do so, then the provider has no obligations to the customer.
Typically the ToS say the contracts can be terminated by the provider immediately for any reason, without a refund, so getting a refund should be considered a generous act by the provider, not the minimum. If you think a provider might act this way, you shouldn't be doing longer than a monthly payment term anyway.
If this includes due to leaving a bad review, that would be a terrible provider then, and well-deserving the review that was published. Would also welcome publicizing hosts like that on LET, so I know not to buy anything from them.
Whether customer was fair or unfair, in above case, it is decided by seller. So when you are one of the two parties who have dispute, how can you expect one to take a non biased decision.
Any reason is any reason. If you are going out of your way to harm the provider, I say they are fully justified in terminating you.
It depends entirely on the contract, not who is the seller. However, most sellers include a broad catch-all clause that does, in fact, allow that.
Simple. If you are going to embark on an action designed to hurt the provider, you need to assume that the outcome won't be positive for you. Prepare your alternative service and then complain, if you must.
And more importantly, if you still want the service, then you absolutely shouldn't be trying to harm the provider.
"Harm the provider" is maybe spreading libel or falsehoods. If all that was done was describing their experience on a public website set up specifically for this purpose, and that experience was negative, then the provider has harmed themselves by not treating this customer well prior to that.
I think the big problem here is that most people nowadays refuse to ever consider anybody else's view but their own.
A minor convenience gets raised as an urgent issue, they refuse to accept that the provider might have other customers with actually more important issues, they refuse to accept that a provider might have already spent a lot of time and effort trying to solve a problem that was probably entirely the customer's fault anyway. And then when something hasn't gone exactly the way the customer wanted it to, they set out to cause the provider as much pain as possible as some kind of retribution.
What the world needs is for people to be just a bit less self-centred all the time.
I wouldn't call leaving a bad review "embarking on an action designed to hurt the provider", even if the review is biased (which all reviews are, being that they're explicitly the subjective interpretation of the reviewer).
Giving a provider the lowest possible score on a review absolutely does hurt them, and people leaving those reviews know it. For the most part, they are using it to attempt to gain leverage over the provider or to cause them problems.
Creating the kind of complaint threads we see so often here on LET take time, and is done with the sole purpose of trying to cause the provider as much pain as possible on what is seen as their home turf, because that's where the customer thinks they'll loose the most business. It's always just petty retribution.
Granted, the threads like "I'm having a problem with X node, anyone else having a similar issue or workaround" is different, but honestly, how often do you see that compared to "Provider X is evil/scum/not to be trusted"?
But the whole point of the review system is to allow multiple people to state how they personally feel. It's entirely subjective and is subjective by design. The provider, who is also biased, shouldn't be making decisions about whether or not a negative review left against them is "legitimate". If they are a genuinely good provider, their average stars will be higher.
Sure, some people abuse reviews as a way to try to strong-arm a provider into getting a refund, but who is the judge who determines whether that is happening? Surely not the provider who has a vested interest in having a high rating.
I'd also say that the majority of reviews are left because the reviewer thinks it's a way of forcing a refund when the ToS and policy of the provider is not to give one, because the customer knows that most providers would prefer to refund whatever relatively small amount it was to make the problem customer go away for good than potentially lose future customers because of the fuss they are causing.
The problem is that even if they get the refund they want, the damage to the provider is already done.
What is the solution then? Get rid of reviews? Allow the person being reviewed to determine if the review is legitimate? Disallow negative reviews that "feel excessively emotional"? Disallow reviews done by non-professional reviewers? Disallow negative reviews for providers that have a high average rating? Disallow negative reviews altogether?
Unrelated but what does MJJ mean? Chinese customers who violate ToS?
This is a nickname used for members of the Chinese IDC products community, it carries no positive or negative connotations. The source is no longer verifiable, but most of the time it is believed to have originated from the pinyin initials of the Chinese "买机 (Mai Ji)", this means buy a (virtual) machine (on a server rack), the slang term for a VPS in the community is also "小鸡 (Xiao Ji)" (chick), all rack-mounted servers can be called "鸡 (Ji)" (chicken).
Thanks for the deets!
a one man host has more to loose by bad actors than a big host.
Maybe just expect that if you leave a very negative of a provider, your relationship with that provider might be over for good effective the moment you post the review.
These 2 are a bit problematic statement.
For any criticism, the provider can interpret as hurting the reputation even if those are facts. In order to decide that someone is in journey to damage reputation, then interpretation of those reviews will matter most. While the provider may think that it is hurting the reputation, but from neutral eyes, it could be a valid criticism (pov from those who are not a shareholder).
Secondly, A provider shouldn't be given the VPS/VDS/Server as weapon to NOT to criticise the provider. I may not want the service but migration may not be possible at any point of time. As a provider, what you can do is, you can refuse the buyer for renewal. This is what mature parties do when relationship goes sour yet the reasons are not in violation of ToS.
You are looking at this from the point of view of provider only and hence your pov is NOT neutral.
I am looking at this from the point of view of a buyer so I am also not in the center.
Can you see the problem and the pattern here?
No, that's wrong. I'm looking at it from the point of view of not being a dick. If you actually look at my post history, you'll see me arguing for the customer when the provider is being a dick. In this situation, however the customer is being a dick, so I'll argue against them.
Also, if you look at my first reply, I enumerate the cases were the customer should be given more time to change services. I am very much pro-customer, as long as the customer is behaving well.
Yes, but it's different to the problem you are seeing. I am arguing for fairness and suggesting that people should expect consequences for their actions, you are arguing that the customer is always right.
"Can", sure. "Should"? ... "No", at least not for that and that alone.
But if a customer is being abusive and unreasonable to staff and then proceeds to do that same outside, I see no reason to keep them. Offer them a prorated refund and 24-72 hours to "pack their stuff" (backup anything important) and send them on their way.
I think there is a reasonable way to cancel a client that isnt specifically breaching your TOS/AUP in the form of service abuse or something that would traditionally warrant a suspension or termination. Give them notice, let them back up and transfer, then give a prorated refund as you show them the door.
@ralf
The provider can also be a dick also, the customer can also be a dick also and both can be dick also. Each of the 3 scenario is possible. Who decides who is the dick?
In case of LET, if clash between members, then moderator decides who is the dick.
If clash between member and moderator, then another moderator decides who is the dick.
This is done for neutrality. Who will decide in that case?
The consequence is decided by one of the two parties (the provider) who becomes the defendant, the judge and the executor all at once.
On the other hand, the customer can not become defendant, judge and the executor all at the same time.
There is a big power (im)balance in the structure itself.
Yes. Typically the customer has paid a few dollars, and is prepared to inflict as much damage as they can to a provider's business, even if those few dollars have been returned. For a small one-man business, this can translate to a sizeable chunk of their entire livelihood.
If I may ask, all a customer can do is, write a review in some forum or any review site. The readers may get influence by it or may not get influence by it.
How it can translate to sizeable chunk of their entire livelihood if the issues are localised to a customer only which otherwise running smooth for other customers.
I must admit, I'm reaching the point where it seems pointless continuing this discussion when it seems that you don't want to understand the other side at all, you just want to continue arguing.
However, the easiest way of answering this point is by asking the rhetorical question "What is the point of providing a review?" Obviously, you are attempting to influence other people's choice of whether to use that service or not. If you had really good service and want to see that provider succeed with more business, or really bad service and want to harm them in some way.
FWIW, the vast majority of customers of any service never provide reviews at all, regardless of how it went, so if you look at the reviews for anything, they are invariably over-represent the negative even for the best service in the world.
If a customer chooses to post a review that is designed to dissuade others from using a perfectly good service, it does a lot of reputational harm to that company regardless of whether the complaint is justified or not. For a small business that's hovering on the edge of profitability (and this is even more so in the low-end hosting business), that reputational damage can make the difference between making a profit and being able to feed themselves and their family, or making a loss and possibly having to go out of business. One bad review, especially on a forum like LET that might get many thousands of views, as well as showing up in google searches, can cause a massive financial hit to a provider.
For a customer who's just pissed off that they didn't get their way, but got their money back and so free service for however long as well, that is incredibly one sided. The customer has literally lost nothing, and had free service, and the provider has potentially lost thousands of customers in additional to providing that refunded service for free, and however many wasted hours in support. That is why it is one-sided, and massively stacked in favour of the customer.
I'm done with this thread now. If none of the above helps you see the damage a bad review can do to a small company, there's probably nothing further I can add.
Update on the latest voting status in the Chinese community: https://fs.to/2XeG
This is why I prefer forums to review platforms - even the angriest post could be turned into advertisement opportunity by a provider, gaining additional visibility as well.
I understand this. But when you open a business to public, you open yourself up to it. In your exact words, there are consequences to your actions. When you deal with public in any domain, this is the risk that comes as consequence.
Just like a few good reviews may bump inadequate providers to the top, same may happen in reverse direction even with all the efforts. Every profession has their own share of it.
We can agree to disagree here but when I use the same perspective that you hold for customers towards provider also, I can see while you are OK with customers losing money but not when providers lose. Thats a bit unfair in my opinion.
If you can see that, then you seem to be incapable of reading.
Maybe just let people take some responsibility for their opinions? If you badmouth a provider, be prepared that the provider might not want to do business with you anymore.
It's not a matter of who is right or who is wrong, it's simply two parties that does not agree. The customer always have the choice to simply no longer do business with the provider, why should the provider not have the same choice?
The solution is pretty obvious in my mind - let everyone, both provider and customer, freely choose who they want to do business with. It baffles me that so many seem to think that this would be something strange or unfair.