am I? I thought I was saying that every report should be taken in context with who wrote it and any other feedback for that event.Originally Posted by Gus
What I meant by "History" was that the review was of a past event - gone and missed. Future events are not going to be identical to this, especially if feedback has been taken on-board.
Assuming time, distance and money were not of any concern, I would rather base my decision to attend a venue on who will be going rather than who has been to past venues.
Well someone's got to wear the DA hatCOME ON!!! Get over this anal stuff.
Indeed. When they are directed to the correct people. Just posting a review on an open forum where the organisers might happen across it is not very constructive. Threads may well devolve into "grab your torch and pitchfork".ALL reviews, even the ones you might not agree with, are valuable input and should be praised not criticised!
And equally it doesn't mean that they are views held by the majority and should be upheld.Originally Posted by DavidJames (paraphrased)
Isn't it more offering choice and analysing what people choose to determine what they might like again? Normally the sign of things going well, or not going well at a venue is the fluctuation in numbers - and if its going down, by that point it's normally too late.Hardly, anymore than a few complaints about a TV programme dictate the direction of programming.
How can complaintives know if they are being listened to and dismissed, or being ignored? If they complain and see nothing is being done - isn't that the same as being ignored?Not if a complaint is properly responded to.~ if a complaint is ignored, yes, that's pretty much a definition of poor customer service in my opinion.
Yes, and no {}I would like to see both the positive and negative: eg "Crowded dance floor, but great atmosphere." Where another person may say "Got elbowed in the back, trod on and had to avoid some idiots encroaching on my space. No-one else seemed to mind."Active complaints are usually the tip of the iceberg. Are you saying you don't want a complaint culture?
It's the flip side of the "complaints culture" - defensive against attacking comments. If the 'attacks' were more constructive than "***** music" it may help.Yeah, and there's a lot of that {sycophants} already... Hmmm, dunno what to do about that, apart from try it and see.
That's just it - every other venue is seen by this person as "poor" in comparison, even though they may actually be quite good.raising expectations is a Good Thing. I'd also imagine most venue organisers would aspire to that level...
Nothing, but if I were an organiser, I would rather have a chance to respond to criticism directly. I would like to be able to respond and question directly in order to pin-point any 'grey' areas. I would like suggestions on how the complaintive would like to see things resolved to get a better understanding of the problem.Looking at the excellent LeRoc in Bristol site, reviews seem to work very well there - what are the problems with this already-working example?
Basically I think that the "review" idea is OK for a review of past events; it's static.
You need two-way communication for any feedback to be actioned, and the best way to do that is to approach the organisers directly.
Bookmarks