We Invite you

[jkbarnes]

Perhaps a dumb question, but for names, should we use our forum user name or our actual names (or both maybe)?

[Amor Vincit Omnia]

Perhaps a dumb question, but for names, should we use our forum user name or our actual names (or both maybe)?

I just used my AVO handle.

[jkbarnes]

I just used my AVO handle.

[markee]

The Admin Team invites you to help us launch a new enhancement to the CWArchives.

You now have the ability to rate the primary models (not the variants) and comment. It is our hope that this will prove to be useful for prospective buyers going forward and for those researching the secondary market.

We would like you to help get it started by adding a rating to watches that you own, or have owned. This is not a review, only a rating and only takes a minute.

From the CWA Home Page go to Search>>Model Search. On the far right you will see the Star rating and a little Binocular with the rating count. If you want to rate the model just click on the the binoculars and a rating page pops up.

The rating option is also available from an individual Model Page. Note the Star rating at the top left and the Binoculars on the top right.

Great idea. Very easy to use and rate, thanks Kip.

[jkbarnes]

Done. Of course unlike some others, I only had to rate TWO watches. Some of you will be on the archives awhile, I’m sure.

[iain]

Great idea and this can only enhance the quality of the archives. I assume consideration has been given to managing this for consistency and to ensure its impartial?

For example. On one hand I don’t want to see negative comments about a model because someone doesn’t like CWs customer service, as this isn’t related to an individual model. But if such comments are subsequently removed, you don’t want to be accused of removing any negativity.

I assume this is being done on Trust for now but will be monitored in case issues arise?

[jkbarnes]

...For example. On one hand I don’t want to see negative comments about a model because someone doesn’t like CWs customer service, as this isn’t related to an individual model...

I wonder what this might be in reference to. Hmmm?

[Viognier]

...For example. On one hand I don’t want to see negative comments about a model because someone doesn’t like CWs customer service, as this isn’t related to an individual model...

I wonder what this might be in reference to. Hmmm?

+1 LOL.

[iain]

...For example. On one hand I don’t want to see negative comments about a model because someone doesn’t like CWs customer service, as this isn’t related to an individual model...

I wonder what this might be in reference to. Hmmm?

No one specific at this time, I promise. However recent ‘events’ have obviously brought this thought in to my mind. It would be a shame if what is being started out with the best intentions was to be used inappropriately.

[rkovars]

...For example. On one hand I don’t want to see negative comments about a model because someone doesn’t like CWs customer service, as this isn’t related to an individual model...

I wonder what this might be in reference to. Hmmm?

+1 LOL.

Clearly that response was 20 seconds too fast.

[StrapMeister]

This sounds a bit like Trustpilot.

I think that this has to be open and impartial.
If a watch is, for whatever reason, not working as it should (and I appreciate that this is from the perception of the owner) then, irrespective of the dealings with Customer Services, the poster is entitled to rate a watch at 3* instead of 5*.

[ajax87]

I wonder what this might be in reference to. Hmmm?

+1 LOL.

Clearly that response was 20 seconds too fast.

But the response was within spec, right?

[jkbarnes]

I wonder what this might be in reference to. Hmmm?

+1 LOL.

Clearly that response was 20 seconds too fast.

If he goes back to edit the comment, will that void it?

[jkbarnes]

This sounds a bit like Trustpilot.

I think that this has to be open and impartial.
If a watch is, for whatever reason, not working as it should (and I appreciate that this is from the perception of the owner) then, irrespective of the dealings with Customer Services, the poster is entitled to rate a watch at 3* instead of 5*.

On a serious note, I imagine most of the ratings that might show up in the archives are likely to be from forum users, who will likely be pretty fair in what they have to say.

The Trustpilot comparison is a fair one to make. Personally, I’d view Trustpilot as the place where I rate the company, to include their customer service. The archive I see as where I’m rating specific watches.

[Amor Vincit Omnia]

Interesting questions...

'm sure no-one would be so naive as to assume that the Admin Team didn't have some form of control as a failsafe - after all it's in the public domain, so we MUST have the ability to remove anything which may be unfair, abusive or classed as sabotage.

However...we very much hope that we can take the vast majority of ratings and comments on trust. We could and would intervene at need, but would be very happy not to have to do so.

Whilst a string of nothing but 5-star ratings and "wonderful watch" comments might ultimately be desirable, we accept that that won't always happen, and we are happy for people to be critical as long as they are being fair.

As an example, I have rated all the watches I have owned. Some got 4/5 because I felt there was perhaps the odd element that could have been improved. I gave one watch 3/5 because I didn't really feel it fulfilled its function well enough. But...as long as the criticism is fair, justified and appropriate - no problem.