Customer Care

[Moonchilde]

---

@Venezia wrote:

---

@software wrote:

I'm a member of several Boards on  the internet, I'm actually one of the Mods on one Board.

The moderation on this Board has always been crazy.   Not the MODERATORS, the rules of moderating.    Don't misunderstand the 2.

It would help for posters to be able to ignore posters and banned posters should not be allowed to sign up for a new name and come back and start their c%r%a%p again.

It can be done.  The software can be programmed and the banning could be by ISP address.   Just saying.

---

@software - Yes, I agree with this.  We used to have the ignore button before the new format was introduced, so I don't know why that couldn't be brought back.

And definitely, banned posters should be blocked by ISP address.  I belonged to other forums years back where they did that.  (Spamming used to be quite a problem!)

---

It's been explained several times by several posters (me and others) over many months that while banning a (single, totally identifiable to a specific customer) IP address used to be the quick, easy, invariably successful solution, it just isn't any more.

Few people have static IPs - they change from sign-on to sign-on. One morning it shows a poster in a general area where they actually live, the next day it might show them in the same state but hundreds of miles from where they are, and another time it shows them halfway across the country from where they actually are.

In addition, the use of free or paid proxy servers is common - one purpose being to specifically hide where and who you are.

So, while "an" IP address can be blocked, that doesn't necessarily stop anyone.  

[dooBdoo]

---

@Moonchilde wrote:

---

@Venezia wrote:

---

@software wrote:

I'm a member of several Boards on  the internet, I'm actually one of the Mods on one Board.

The moderation on this Board has always been crazy.   Not the MODERATORS, the rules of moderating.    Don't misunderstand the 2.

It would help for posters to be able to ignore posters and banned posters should not be allowed to sign up for a new name and come back and start their c%r%a%p again.

It can be done.  The software can be programmed and the banning could be by ISP address.   Just saying.

---

@software - Yes, I agree with this.  We used to have the ignore button before the new format was introduced, so I don't know why that couldn't be brought back.

And definitely, banned posters should be blocked by ISP address.  I belonged to other forums years back where they did that.  (Spamming used to be quite a problem!)

---

It's been explained several times by several posters (me and others) over many months that while banning a (single, totally identifiable to a specific customer) IP address used to be the quick, easy, invariably successful solution, it just isn't any more.

Few people have static IPs - they change from sign-on to sign-on. One morning it shows a poster in a general area where they actually live, the next day it might show them in the same state but hundreds of miles from where they are, and another time it shows them halfway across the country from where they actually are.

In addition, the use of free or paid proxy servers is common - one purpose being to specifically hide where and who you are.

So, while "an" IP address can be blocked, that doesn't necessarily stop anyone.  

---

          @Moonchilde is correct.    Our IP address (Internet Protocol) isn't always static.   (ISP is our Internet Service Provider, not the address of our connection.)   Some posters do have one that doesn't change (static) but others don't.   And, as an example, we might connect with new IP addresses if we use a public WiFi or cellular connection.    QVC actually does block IP addresses, but it's useful only in a limited way.    But, regarding the other issue, they really don't seem to notice as much as we posters do when someone who has been banned creates a new account and resumes posting.   I suppose the only recourse is to report that person to the QVC Social Team and explain what you've noticed and why it's a problem.

          The company managing the forums (Lithium) no doubt has software packages offering the "ignore user" feature.   QVC evidently chose a more basic platform.   The "ignore" option has been requested since the new Community launched in June 2015, along with requests for less-archaic emoticons.   These requests have been left unanswered.   That, in itself is the answer, in my opinion.

[Drythe]

ITA @dooBdoo no answer is an answer.

I too think the return of the ignore button would be welcome.

[Moonchilde]

---

@Drythe wrote:

ITA @dooBdoo no answer is an answer.

I too think the return of the ignore button would be welcome.

---

I also feel that no answer is the answer. At a certain point it's just logical. The moderators don't have an answer - at least, one that they are permitted to share with us. So continuing to ask why/why not isn't going to get a wanted answer just because it keeps getting asked.