Slashdot Mirror
Forbes Lists Top Corporate Hate Web Sites
windowpain writes "You've seen them. Maybe you've made one, like Walmart-blows.com or Paypalsucks.com. Now Forbes.com has a 'Special Report' devoted to what it considers the best of them. 'The following nine sites--there were ten, but one went unexpectedly dark during the editing of this story--are the crème de la crème of online rage. Note that we substantially cleaned up some of the posts, editing out odd capitulation schemes, iffy grammar and plain incoherence. Apparently blinding anger does not go hand in hand with dotting your i's and crossing your t's.' Maybe this will become an annual thing like the Forbes 400 and the Fortune 500." (I wonder what a capitulation scheme is.)
I wonder what a capitulation scheme is.
They probably meant "odd capitalization scheme." YoU THiNk, hUh?
Actually, at first I read it as "odd copulation schemes," which makes a lot more sense, doesn't it? * fp
A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
It's really a multi purpose hate site, hating so many things/companies. This list was more directed to sites that hated a single thing/company.
how come there's not a 'forbes-sucks.com'?
I didn't notice an SBCsucks or an SBCblows. That's weird, because SBC really really sucks. Well, at least they did until one of their technicians accidently cut power to my high school. I love you, SBC! *Goes to register ilovesbc.com*
Take off every sig. For great justice.
To honor these quixotic champions, we spent hours trawling the Web looking for the very best corporate hate sites.
I'm surprised Best Buy Sux didn't make the list
A number of years ago I wrote an opinion in Epinions regarding a brand new Dodge truck I had purchased (the new ones in 1994 just after the redesign). The opinion was written after about four years of ownership. One week after writing the opinion I had a lawyer (presumably from Chrysler) call me and threaten libel. I replied all I wrote down were the facts. Nothing more and that I had all documentation to back up my claims. If he would like, I could create a website with all of the documentation. I never heard back, but it was that kind of treatment that unfortunately convinced me to never purchase another product from them again. it's too bad, because they do have some of the most exciting products out there, but they simply cannot build them reliably and their customer service (even at the supposed 5 star dealerships was atrocious).
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
There's this great anti-Microsoft website that I visit, now and then.
Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?
I like the way this was PR handled from UPS for the website UnitedPackageSmashers.com:
Company Says:
"We do know of the site. Because we live in a free society, people have the right to their opinion, and we recognize that people will use the Internet to voice their opinion. We believe that customers can get much more valuable and accurate information from our site."
Thats much better than a legal notice claiming a violation of some act, and gives them a leg up in my book. On a side note I wonder how forbes has/would handle something like forbessucks.com.
Anti-slash.org!
The site is outrageous. Apparenly a bunch of -1 posters got together and set it up. I think it's meant to be funny more than an attempt at serious criticism.
I'm surprised an anti-Dell site is not on the list.
The experiences I have had lately from Dell in getting hardware repairs made under service contract are some of the worst experiences I have ever had dealing with any company. And I've talked to a number of folks who have had similar experiences.
Ten years ago, Dell was one of my favorite companies.
Depends on the product, I guess. Saying that a vacuum sucks would be a compliment. So it blows. For a similar reason, a badly broken hairdryer sucks...
If Microsoft ever made a product that wouldn't suck, it would be a vacuum cleaner!
Although, to be fair, a bunch of these companies have recurring issues.
Paypal, with its "we can suspend your account and you can't do fuckal about it, hooray, we get to keep your money". Allstate, with it's "musical chair claims adjusters".
Don't even get me started about UAL.
It isn't like people don't know about the shady shit these companies do, it happens pretty often, and if the company is a bunch of shits, contacting the BBB won't get you anywhere. State attorney generals haven't stepped in either in the cases of most of these companies.
I interviewed at UPS and we did a tour, a monitor fell off a conveyor belt. Everyone heard the tube pop, and the crash of glass, but one of the employees just tossed it back as if nothing had happened. As we were walking away, we heard another one drop and the sound of smashing glass.
Un-fucking-believable.
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
I'm kind of disappointed that they didn't list Radio Shack Sucks. RSS was instrumental in organizing a class action against RadioShack, and in response RadioShack tried to lawyer them to death.
And it's actually company policy that anyone accessing it from work is to be terminated.
But it's over 5 years going strong on the (mycompany)sucks.com site...
"why don't you just slip into something more comfortable...like a coma!"
I first heard of the site from reading this paper in www2004, which used epinions data as the basis for a reputation system. (I don't know if epinions uses that same system internally, but they at least do something similar.) The cool part is that you can rate individual reviewers as "trusted" or "untrusted". By examining the graph of trust and distrust relationships between users, they can come up with a reasonable guess for how much any user should trust any other user, and sort reviews accordingly.
I don't know what the motives are of the people who run the site. Perhaps they're just trying to grease the wheels of capitalism by giving people good information to make informed decisions about what products to buy (or, more formally, to avoid information asymmetry). Perhaps they're secretly tweaking the ratings to support companies that send them money. Perhaps they're just trying to generate ad banner revenue. Who knows.
...we were expected to be suprised, but it's not suprising.
Just an example from the Paypal part of the report:
Company Says: "We believe that people have a right to express their opinion. PayPal welcomes constructive criticism from members to help us continue to improve our service through our community discussion boards, chat rooms and Voices program. The problem with complaint sites is that the issues reported are sometimes out-of-date and have long since been resolved. Other times, customers may write complaints on the sites without trying to get their issues resolved through our customer service channels first. As a result, we can't confirm the accuracy of the information on these third-party sites. And we've found that they are not interested in providing a balanced view." (emphasis added)
Why can't they confirm the accuracy of the information?
Sure, they might not know if Customer Service Person A really hung up on a customer, but certainly they can look into some of these issues. Unless they're the one company in the world that doesn't monitor customer service calls. They have access to this information.
Why do they expect the site to be fair and balanced? When I complain to a company, I'm not being fair and balanced. I'm advocating for myself against the company. Yes, I want to reach an equitable solution, but these sites have a lot of people who weren't able to reach that equitable solution.
That's a problem for any company and you'd think they'd actually listen. (Yeah, I know.)
I realize there's a lot of bull on those websites. But at the same time, there are also patterns of problems. No company is perfect, and here is a chance for those problems to get past the customer service filter (who are the problem a certain percentage of the time).
What I don't get is why in the world any company wouldn't say something like "Yes, we're aware of those websites and in fact take their concerns into consideration", even if they don't really mean it. They just write those people off as "Never gonna be customers so skrew it: those people are stupid", but apparently don't realize that those people used to be customers, and other current customers will eventually leave them as well.
The other side of the story (which isn't to say companies don't suck):
http://www.customerssuck.com/
So, frustrated (and tired after switching everything over to our other DSL line), I posted a blog entry with the title "I hate CenturyTel" and a big explanation as to what went wrong. Monday morning, our DSL line was fixed. The engineers on the other end were VERY apologetic, but I just assumed that they were trying to make amends - when the next day we got a call in the office from an executive at CenturyTel who had Googled for "I hate CenturyTel", found my blog, and yelled at some people to get things fixed. He then called us to personally apologize, gave us a bunch of freebies to make amends, and chatted with my boss for over half an hour about how to avoid this problem ever recurring. I came in from a client, my boss said "we just got a call about your blog" - and I assumed I'd libelled someone, was in trouble, etc. He then said "make sure you politely insult everyone who screws us over, it did wonders this time!"
Lead developer, http://wisptools.net
Now, if we can do anything more for-- What? You say we can? And all it will cost is our social security system?
A lot of it has to do with tone. If you take a somewhat original but firm stance which sounds intelligent enough to get somebody agreeing with you, you will be modded up. Look at the page a few days ago on the Harvard acceptance letter scandal. Lots of people took the very un-Slashdot opinion that the students who followed an unpublished URL deserved to get canned. They were modded up, because they spoke calmly and sounded intelligent.
They also masked a moral argument as an intellectual one, which seems to help these days.
Also, respond to the first thread. If you're not near the top of the page you're less likely to be read by a moderator who shares your opinion. Don't respond to the middle of a thread... only to the first or last comment in a string. People don't read the alternate middle comments.
And I may get modded down for saying this, but saying you may get modded down for saying something just doesn't draw the mod points like it used to.
Your post won't be moderated as "Offtopic" if you add "-OT" to your subject line. Feel free to try this with "Flamebait."
These days, Simpsons quotes need to be longer than 6 lines to really draw the freebies.
CmdrTaco and friends are a lot less likely to use the beatdown stick for talking about Slashdot. For some reason, talking about Slashdot draws mod points too. But don't draw too many, or you'll be Offtopic.
The first rule of Slashdot is that you don't quote Fight Club.
The second rule of Slashdot is that you don't quote Fight Club.
Goatse and In Soviet Russia are so old that some people haven't even heard of them. Take advantage of this fact.
Recycle previous posts that have been moderated up.
Make humorous light of other poster's spellings, or use witty misspellings in your posts. I don't know why, but for the past few months the moderators seem to have B.S.'s in English.
Punctuate your remark with one unashamedly unmasked swearword. But use only one, otherwise it's just too much of this shit.
And, of course, if you can say something because you have actual information or insight to share, that's good too. But let's be real, this is Slashdot.
Did I mention that Slashdot bashing works too?
The ______ Agenda