Discussion in 'Ham Radio Discussions' started by N2SUB, Dec 15, 2016.
This sounds like a nice talking point, but it's untrue.
ARRL has forums:
They also have social networking features on their website. They also have a presence on the major social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook.
User reviews exist as part of this remedy. This isn't some person disagreeing with the owners of the company then writing them a bad review out of spite. This is an actual customer who had actual problems then wrote an actual review.
A court of law can be used to obtain monetary and other relief, but that does not and should not preclude a user writing a bad review.
Threatening a user and canceling their software license because they wrote a bad review undermines the review system. Reviews are supposed to be unbiased, and when the company decides to punish users for posting bad reviews that crosses a line that should never be crossed.
Bottom line - a user should never be afraid to post a bad review. All good reviews generally steer me away from a product if the reviews all seem artificial. I actually read bad reviews in making my decision to acquire a product or service. Many others do. there is absolutely nothing wrong with a bad review.
This is a very good point. I was listening to an interview earlier this week with Angie from Angie's List. She mentioned that she finds it most insightful when companies have a negative review or two out there. She mentioned that every company will have some customers with bad experiences and you learn a lot about a company by how they respond to those situations.
and its been proven, HRD responds badly with bad reviews.
Many companies do.
The truth can hurt sometimes.
so, it turns out, just as I suspected, and just as users reported in the reddit thread, HRD has been doing this for a year+ to people who leave bad reviews
This is just the first couple pages of eham reviews, about 50% of the negative reviews I checked had their calls manually blacklisted - http://i.imgur.com/QZlREaJ.png
note that blacklisted means HRD blocked them, not that their licenses just expired or they no longer paid for support. If that's the case, it just returns =DELETED
....but I'm sure this is just a one time misunderstanding right guys? rightttt??????
well, good luck to HRD stopping this from getting out. :v
Well, as a Mac user, I did not use HRD often, but I had a license and even paid for several years of support in advance in order to support a ham-owned company. Well, a blacklist of this sort is very similar to what was done during the ROS fiasco several years ago; preventing anyone who says something negative from running the software through means of a blacklist. At the time of the ROS mess, I was proud to be on the ROS blacklist. Now, I also hope that HRD will add me to their blacklist as well -- I will never give them another dime of my money until they either
1) Publicly acknowledge and apologize for their actions
2) Commit to living up to their lifetime functionality that they advertise.
3) Prove that the OP is incorrect in his posting
They may not have "hacked" the OP's computer, and it wasn't a virus or a trojan, but apparently they intentionally directed him to download the latest version knowing that it was configured to block his call, thereby negating his ability to run HRD all in an attempt to force him to change his review.
Just to be perfectly clear, I don't have a problem with them suspending a license if it proven to be pirated or stolen or otherwise compromised; that's good business. I don't have a problem with the idea of licensing the use of the software, knowing that the license could be revoked FOR CAUSE. However, blacklisting a customer and preventing them from running the software because of a bad review; that's crossing a dangerous line.
Interesting.....I guess we didn't see this one coming........
Seems to me some so called famous guy in the Untied States somewhere doing the exact same thing in that particular social media venue......obviously graduates of the same business school maybe?