Suggestion Box

[surfk]

---

deleted by poster

[KarenQVC]

For my part, I don't care who the moderators work for.  They are doing a good job.

[HappyDaze]

---

@Adelina wrote:

---

@HappyDaze wrote:

I guess what I don't understand is that even if a company contracts certain aspects of their business out elsewhere, those contractors still have to abide by the company's policy that is employing them and that makes them, in a sense, "employees" of that company. So I wonder if semantics are at play here more than anything else.

I guess I don't understand why it matters? Regardless if they are contracted out or not, they still need to abide by QVC's policies and procedures.

---

_____________________________

Hi HD! This happens frequently in contracts where there will be a clause deeming that certain persons will be "employees" under the contract. e.g."For the purposes of moderation pursuant to this contract, moderators shall be considered employees of QVC".  (this is an example only - I have no clue whether this was done here or not).

---

Yes, exactly. I have worked as a contractor but I was considered an employee of the company that I work for even though I work for an agency.

So I don't consider that a lie if they state they are considered QVC empoyees yet are contractors.

[Moonchilde]

That's my take on it, HD.

[wildcat fan]

@HappyDaze I agree that it would not be considered a lie in your scenario.

However, in my previous posts, I mentioned that QVC corporate and QVC customer service reps maintained that the Community moderators are not their employees. They even put that in writing. Given the latest update from Q Social that they are in fact QVC's employees, it appears that QVC has been lying or else their reps all the way up to the Office of the President have been misinformed. Some reps stated they had no way to address any concerns because QVC doesn't run the Community. If the moderators are their employees, QVC should acknowledge ownership of the forum when customers call. Over the past few weeks, they have been shifting responsibility to what they referred to as a third party vendor.

[Yankee2000]

---

@wildcat fan wrote:
@HappyDaze I agree that it would not be considered a lie in your scenario.

However, in my previous posts, I mentioned that QVC corporate and QVC customer service reps maintained that the Community moderators are not their employees. They even put that in writing. Given the latest update from Q Social that they are in fact QVC's employees, it appears that QVC has been lying or else their reps all the way up to the Office of the President have been misinformed. Some reps stated they had no way to address any concerns because QVC doesn't run the Community. If the moderators are their employees, QVC should acknowledge ownership of the forum when customers call. Over the past few weeks, they have been shifting responsibility to what they referred to as a third party vendor.

---

wildcat fan, obviously you were lied to.  It is not very good customer service and you have every right to be angry.  Some of the responses from the social team have been clear as mud. 

[dooBdoo]

---

Keyai-QVC wrote:

Hi Everyone,

QVC employees will never edit a post without making it very clear that the post was edited by a QVC employee who is authorized to participate in the forums. The approved employees include the following: QVC Social Team, QVC Customer Care Team, QVC Community Team.

If there is a post that goes against the standards, the post is removed. We will never edit a post to make the post comply with standards. We will remove the post and explain the reason for the removal with the hope of explaining what is not permitted going forward.

I hope this clears up any confusion about QVC editing forum posts.

---

@Keyai, Thanks for the response!

If I could try and paraphrase, you're saying that nearly 100% of the time a post will be completely removed if it doesn't comply with standards.  In the 1% (or maybe less than 1%) of the time if you edit something out, there will always be a notation by the moderator.

Is that correct?

I can think of one case in which I did see a post changed -- the poster had included their real name, address, and phone number in their comment in a case that wasn't about advertising or something nefarious.  It appeared to be an innocent mistake by someone who didn't know it wasn't within the policies.  Several posters tried to alert the person to remove her info and also said they used the "report" feature so the moderator would know.  The personal info was subsequently removed by the Q staff with a notation.

I'm guessing the idea is to be able to remove simple details such as the one I described, but there's no plan (probably don't have time, either) to actually change the general content of a post.

[Keyai]

---

@dooBdoo wrote:

---

@Keyai-QVC wrote:

Hi Everyone,

QVC employees will never edit a post without making it very clear that the post was edited by a QVC employee who is authorized to participate in the forums. The approved employees include the following: QVC Social Team, QVC Customer Care Team, QVC Community Team.

If there is a post that goes against the standards, the post is removed. We will never edit a post to make the post comply with standards. We will remove the post and explain the reason for the removal with the hope of explaining what is not permitted going forward.

I hope this clears up any confusion about QVC editing forum posts.

---

@Keyai, Thanks for the response!

If I could try and paraphrase, you're saying that nearly 100% of the time a post will be completely removed if it doesn't comply with standards.  In the 1% (or maybe less than 1%) of the time if you edit something out, there will always be a notation by the moderator.

Is that correct?

I can think of one case in which I did see a post changed -- the poster had included their real name, address, and phone number in their comment in a case that wasn't about advertising or something nefarious.  It appeared to be an innocent mistake by someone who didn't know it wasn't within the policies.  Several posters tried to alert the person to remove her info and also said they used the "report" feature so the moderator would know.  The personal info was subsequently removed by the Q staff with a notation.

I'm guessing the idea is to be able to remove simple details such as the one I described, but there's no plan (probably don't have time, either) to actually change the general content of a post.

---

Yes, this is a great example of the rare time a QVC employee would edit a post. And there would be clear notation of the edit from that employee.