by Squire » Mon Nov 26 2012 8:44pm
If TCB is again the mysterious "other merchant" then maybe start to wonder if Affiliate Link Hijacking is actually going on.
Or are all merchants that useless that they pay the wrong person so often?
As part of the Terms it is stated that cashback is not guaranteed (on most sites like this one) so if members are going to use a cashback site, they MUST accept that there is some element of gamble involved as to whether or not they will get all of the cashback all of the time.
When I do Populus surveys I sometimes spend 20 minutes, get to the end, it says it finishes OK and that I received payment, but it does not appear in my account.
I accept that as part of the hazards of trying to use Populus as one of the survey offers. If I can raise a ticket to claim missing cashback (from the merchant by forcing them to get their finger out and track a transaction properly) then I will.
But if it is one of the "we cannot raise missing cashback with this scammy merchant" types then I just write it off there and then.
Harsh as us Aspergers may appear to others, that is the rules I apply to myself and I expect others to accept that I judge most of these missing cashback claims by the same ciriteria.
Although Richard does make a good case for not automatically rejecting claims like this, where the member appears to have done nothing wrong, and it seems to be the Merchant's fault,
I am wondering if we as members should just say to Richard that if imutual management decide that the member has done no wrong, the merchant admits (lies) that they paid someone else, then if ANY disputed cashback is less than £50 say, and the number of such disputes if paid up out of imutual's profits is less than an agreed figure, say 1% of gross, nett, whatever, profit/revenue as decided, then we all agree to save everybody's time and authorise imutual to just cough up the dosh.
Possibly making a note in the forum that another missing cashback had to be paid for merchant "Scammy", so we can all see how the claims are trending and if we can spot any herberts taking advantage.
As such I think this is the last time I am going to vote for or against, we need a less man-hour (man-week?) intensive way to deal with the odd £26 ,here or there, decision.
The other thing I suggest is if a merchant is "bad" then remove them from the offers available, now that I would vote on if that was an option.
Just suggestions for the esteemed membership to cogitate on.
If TCB is again the mysterious "other merchant" then maybe start to wonder if Affiliate Link Hijacking is actually going on.
Or are all merchants that useless that they pay the wrong person so often?
As part of the Terms it is stated that cashback is not guaranteed (on most sites like this one) so if members are going to use a cashback site, they MUST accept that there is some element of gamble involved as to whether or not they will get all of the cashback all of the time.
When I do Populus surveys I sometimes spend 20 minutes, get to the end, it says it finishes OK and that I received payment, but it does not appear in my account.
I accept that as part of the hazards of trying to use Populus as one of the survey offers. If I can raise a ticket to claim missing cashback (from the merchant by forcing them to get their finger out and track a transaction properly) then I will.
But if it is one of the "we cannot raise missing cashback with this scammy merchant" types then I just write it off there and then.
Harsh as us Aspergers may appear to others, that is the rules I apply to myself and I expect others to accept that I judge most of these missing cashback claims by the same ciriteria.
Although Richard does make a good case for not automatically rejecting claims like this, where the member appears to have done nothing wrong, and it seems to be the Merchant's fault,
I am wondering if we as members should just say to Richard that if imutual management decide that the member has done no wrong, the merchant admits (lies) that they paid someone else, then if ANY disputed cashback is less than £50 say, and the number of such disputes if paid up out of imutual's profits is less than an agreed figure, say 1% of gross, nett, whatever, profit/revenue as decided, then we all agree to save everybody's time and authorise imutual to just cough up the dosh.
Possibly making a note in the forum that another missing cashback had to be paid for merchant "Scammy", so we can all see how the claims are trending and if we can spot any herberts taking advantage.
As such I think this is the last time I am going to vote for or against, we need a less man-hour (man-week?) intensive way to deal with the odd £26 ,here or there, decision.
The other thing I suggest is if a merchant is "bad" then remove them from the offers available, now that I would vote on if that was an option.
Just suggestions for the esteemed membership to cogitate on.