• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Another AVAdirect topic

Shawnasee said:
The term "used" brings up images of something that may be different than what the above terms may mean.

Please enlighten me.
Click to expand...
I already did, but you have some crazy idea stuck in your head that used = defective or about to fail. :p
 
I know the horse is dead(or dying) but how about a different perspective:


If you pay $300 for a new video card for your rig and it goes bad, and the boutique uses a refurbished video card to replace it, are you getting your money's worth?

When you buy refurbished items vs new items you get a discount, correct?

So basically when they put a refurbished video card into my rig to replace the new one that is defective, they aren't giving me what I paid for.
I paid $300 for a video card and it broke so now they are going to put a $200 video card back into it?

I didn't pay for a refurbished item in the first place so why should I get that as a replacement?

Why does a refurbished item cost substantially less than a new one?
Why does a refurbished item come with a limited warranty(90days) instead of a full warranty(1 year)?
I think the answer to those questions is because their faith in the refurbished item is substantially less.
So why should I place my faith in an item that the manufacturer places little faith in?

I'm not gettig what I paid for when a boutique uses a refurbished item as a replacement for a defective one. I paid for new, I want new.



From what I have read "Refurbished translation = Customer returned, said was broken, we tried here and worked fine, selling again."
As well as selling repaired stuff as "refurbished... say a chip dies they replace the chip and sell it as refurbished...sometime it's a customer return, tests fine."
As well as this http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-refurbished-products.htm
 
I am not disputing the fact that getting a product that was "reconditioned" is uncool.... but wouldn't "refurbished" also include parts that were returned but in good working condition (like open box products)? In that case they are almost like brand new.... I would call them "near mint". Then it wouldn't be such a bad thing... not sure how many refurbished items would fit in that category though.

Edit: Errr... the link to Wisegeek agrees with my rambling. Sorry for the redundancy.
 
If the rig works after getting the refurbished item, then yeah it's not a bad thing at all, but you're still not getting what you paid for.

It's like paying for a large drink at McDonalds, finding a fly in it, and they give you a small drink as replacement. You paid for a 32 ounce but ended up with a 12 ounce.

I WANT MY 20 OUNCES OF DIET MT. DEW DAMNIT! :D
 
Shawnasee said:
It's like paying for a large drink at McDonalds, finding a fly in it, and they give you a small drink as replacement. You paid for a 32 ounce but ended up with a 12 ounce.
Click to expand...
It's more like you found a fly in your 32oz Mt Dew and you were given someone else's 32oz Mt Dew that never had a fly or had the fly fished out and cleaned. :p (being sarcastic since the two situations are different)

If you want to get worked up over something, (if you are a boutique system buyer) ask why you haven't learned to build your own yet. ;) The no-engineering, slap-random-parts-into-a-case task can be done by almost anyone of average intelligence. I mean, who do you think builds those things, Einstein?
 
pxc said:
It's more like you found a fly in your 32oz Mt Dew and you were given someone else's 32oz Mt Dew that never had a fly or had the fly fished out and cleaned. :p (being sarcastic since the two situations are different)

If you want to get worked up over something, (if you are a boutique system buyer) ask why you haven't learned to build your own yet. ;) The no-engineering, slap-random-parts-into-a-case task can be done by almost anyone of average intelligence. I mean, who do you think builds those things, Einstein?
Click to expand...

I'm willing to argue about standard practices of boutique builders, but please, keep the personal insults out of this. Your back handed attempt to insult my intelligence isn't appreciated nor is it called for. The way you've been coming at me makes me think you might be a boutique builder. You don't work for AVA do you?


Going back to your self proclaimed sarcastic analogy, I have to ask, would you take a drink that had a fly in it and then was removed? Seriously.

Also, you're not getting a 32oz drink that never had a fly in it, you're not even getting a 32oz drink, you're getting something inferior.
Why is a refurbished item inferior? Why else would the manufacturer offer refurbished items at discount prices and with shorter, limited warranties? Because they aren't as good as brand new items nor are they worth as much.
 
Shawnasee said:
...but please, keep the personal insults out of this. Your back handed attempt to insult my intelligence isn't appreciated nor is it called for.
Click to expand...

That's what pxc does best.

I'm going to say that PC building, while relatively easy, requires a little more than average intelligence since it does require some research and critical thinking.
 
Shawnasee said:
I'm willing to argue about standard practices of boutique builders, but please, keep the personal insults out of this. Your back handed attempt to insult my intelligence isn't appreciated nor is it called for. The way you've been coming at me makes me think you might be a boutique builder. You don't work for AVA do you?
Click to expand...
I would point out that my post was not an insult to anyone's intelligence (srsly, even mouth breathing Fry's drones can build a system), but your post makes me want to reconsider that. :p

techie81 said:
That's what pxc does best.
Click to expand...
I think i've hurt someone's feelings in the past. Not enough [insert hardware company name] worship for you? I'll try harder!
 
If you want to discuss who can or can not build a PC go troll in General Hardware.

It's predictable that when people have no answer for someone's side of an argument they resort to name calling.

Again, troll elsewhere.
 
Shawnasee said:
It's predictable that when people have no answer for someone's side of an argument they resort to name calling.
Click to expand...
Opinions of how you feel things should be is not an argument. You steered your thread off topic with weird tangents on McDonalds fountain drinks and other stuff.

I really do think you misinterpreted my post above. Was it that you thought I called you "Einstein"? Re-read the sentence without that in mind.
 
pxc said:
I think i've hurt someone's feelings in the past. Not enough [insert hardware company name] worship for you? I'll try harder!
Click to expand...

Not mine but I have seen you be rude and disrespectful to many members throughout the years. Your response is confirmation of what I thought.
 
thanks for taking this thread down hill guys, its not fun or interesting to read posts by a few guys bitching at each other, cant you pm each other?
 
techie81 said:
Not mine but I have seen you be rude and disrespectful to many members throughout the years. Your response is confirmation of what I thought.
Click to expand...
Honestly, I'm not worried about disagreeing with you about anything.

Geez, white knight much from someone else's misunderstanding?
 
At the risk of getting this thread back on topic,I think it's fair to say that AVA is no longer a good choice for reasonably priced high end system.I think we've seen enough posts here by dissatisfied customers to pick up on a pattern that indicates that they lack the ability to troubleshoot problems,are poorly skilled at overclocking,and devote more time to adding conditions,exceptions,and pure legal doubletalk to their warranty than quality control and customer service.
 
michael.pa2 said:
It's a sad commentary on the state of the business,then.I could name at least one builder who doesn't follow this practice.Except I can't mention the name here.:( Alienware doesn't surprise me,they're just a glorified Dell.VM took a nosedive back when they went the mass market route and got in bed with BestBuy.I am surprised and disappointed that Puget would resort to it,though.
Click to expand...

It's extremely rare that we have to resort to reconditioned parts--only, and I mean ONLY--when the part is no longer being manufacturered new and we can't find a suitable upgrade part. 99% of the tme the customer gets a free upgrade to whatever is available, such as moving someone from a 7900GTX to an 8800 series card.

An example would be a standalone physix card, for instance. And we would only provide reconditioned parts with the customer's permission. No funny stuff.

It is standard business practice to include that line, just to cover the company from legal liability.
 
Heather Taylor said:
It's extremely rare that we have to resort to reconditioned parts--only, and I mean ONLY--when the part is no longer being manufacturered new and we can't find a suitable upgrade part. 99% of the tme the customer gets a free upgrade to whatever is available, such as moving someone from a 7900GTX to an 8800 series card.

An example would be a standalone physix card, for instance. And we would only provide reconditioned parts with the customer's permission. No funny stuff.

It is standard business practice to include that line, just to cover the company from legal liability.
Click to expand...

I was hoping you would chime in. Thanks.
 
The original post over at RR that started this has sure heated up,seems the admins there have gotten touchy over the subject.Threads over there usually don't get so lively!
 
Even Reseller's apparently isn't immune to the lure of advertiser dollars.It's how hacks like Cyberpower and IBuyPower manage to stay in business.
Click to expand...

I love how they bring up Monarch,when that whole sad affair really showed how far behind times they were.They didn't start removing the fake reviews until well after everyone else knew Monarch were scammers.And most of the reports and facts that appeared in their forum were taken from info dug up by posters here.How do they account for all the negative experiences with AVA reported here?They can't say they're false,when just about every one is verified by AVA reps themselves responding(badly) to them.
Click to expand...

All reseller ratings at this point wants to do is cover this up and sweep it under the rug. As for ava I bet they have been using the old used parts forever in their RMA cycles and just neglect to mention it. It would explain why the same systems need RMAs multiple times if you just swap one defective part for another "used or refurbished".
Click to expand...

Wow, such animosity and a lot of false accusations. We don't deserve that. I own ResellerRatings and I'd like to tell the real story.

The questions you should be asking:

1) Does ResellerRatings inflate the ratings of Merchant Member subscribers? No:
http://www.resellerratings.com/store/eCost
http://www.resellerratings.com/store/MacMall

2) Does ResellerRatings detect and remove fake reviews? Yes, thousands to date. Removals are based on evidence and data. When in doubt, we contact reviewers to obtain proof of their orders (invoices, credit card statements).

3) Does ResellerRatings expose fake review submissions, even for Merchant Member subscribers? Yes:
http://www.resellerratings.com/store/Cedarpark_Computers
http://www.resellerratings.com/store/Globalmediapro

4) Does ResellerRatings protect Merchant Member subscribers or treat them differently in order to protect revenues? No: We have 400 subscribing merchants and derive revenue from price comparison revenue, data licensing fees, and a number of other ad based sources. All subscribing does is it lets the merchant contact reviewers to resolve disputes, and it gives them a listing and banner on our homepage along with other features that you can find on our site, but it doesn't alter reviews nor give merchants the ability to remove any review. We've diversified our revenue so as to not rely on any one source, and thus, we don't care whether or not we lose any one source. The way you create and grow a successful ratings site is by putting ethics and policies first, and money second, and we have always done this and have been successful doing it. Sacrificing ethics for money (as the owner of RipoffReport has done, for instance, by openly supporting companies who pay him $50,000 or more), erodes the reputation of a site, which leads to reductions in traffic and ultimately failure. We chose the high road from day 1 because it yields success and it's the reason we're still here and still liked after 15 years.

As for Monarch... Yes, they did have a problem with fake reviews, but their main problem was just plain bad reviews. They pressured us on a daily basis to remove bad reviews. We refused. They sent us cease and desist threats - we spent $$ on legal fees to respond and we refused to comply with their demands. Regarding their fake reviews, the first fake review they received was on 9/8/06 and we found it and removed it on 9/13/06. They received a lot more fake reviews in September of 2006 and we found and removed them all in that same month. In all, they received about 48 fake reviews out of 3,000 total. As their reputation declined, they started posting the fake reviews. I don't see how we can be accused of dropping the ball on Monarch at all, or of any kind of delay -- it took us 5 days to detect and remove their first fake review.

Also keep in mind: just because someone says "hey I think store xyz is posting fake reviews", let's say on June 1st, and we don't remove any reviews until September 1st, that doesn't mean that we took 3 months to remove fake reviews -- you can't start the clock at the date that some random person raised the possibility that a merchant might have fake reviews because making an accusation doesn't make it truth. You can only start the clock on the date that that the first fake review was submitted, and that was 9/8/06, and that review was removed on 9/13/06 after the user failed to produce documentation of their order in response to our request. Prior to that, there may have been suspicions based on who knows what (not any real evidence), but 9/8/06 was the first evidence-based fake review we found.

As for Misha/AVAdirect/mgeppconline, I was not presented with the evidence regarding the 1 fake review until today -- we can't be expected to scour the net for random forum threads. If someone emails us evidence, via our "contact us" link, we evaluate it seriously, but we can't be expected to know what people are posting to other sites. That said, we have no reason to suspect their other reviews as fraudulent, because we did check them out, and they are geographically (IP) diverse, we contacted a subset of reviewers to obtain proof of their orders etc. Our system can't find 1 single fake review for a merchant -- it takes 2 fake reviews for our system to identify a pattern. We do welcome tips for us to evaluate though, since humans are often better at spotting patterns than computers, though we have access to data (IP's, cookies, email addresses, invoice numbers, etc that the public doesn't have).

You have to keep in mind: just because some people had a bad experience with a store, or because you did, doesn't mean that the store's rating should necessarily be 2/10 and if it's 8/10 then that "must be fake". No store is either bad or good, there is a range, and that's why our rating is from 0 to 10. A store with an 8.00/10 rating means that 20% of the people were very dissatisfied. One person said, "How do they account for all the negative experiences with AVA reported here?" If there are so many dissatisfied AVA direct customers here, then why the heck aren't you guys over at ResellerRatings writing reviews? I only see 18 "Very Dissatisfied" reviews for AVA direct in our database, out of 400 reviews.

Our mission is to find fake reviews and remove them for ALL stores at ResellerRatings, and to give consumers the right to post their opinions online in the face of merchants who hate it when consumers post bad reviews. That puts us in a very unenviable position and one that we're constantly defending, but we do it because it's our job. Thankfully, most merchants "get it", and choose to use our site as an ally -- a way to help them improve service, promote their quality service, contact customers to resolve any issues, rather than to fight the process. Some don't get it, and we have to spend money fighting for your right to speak out, paying for lawyers to respond to junk, to uphold the Communications Decency Act.

Ultimately, ResellerRatings is your best ratings resource. We're ethical, we work hard, we're a small team (not some corporate behemoth), and we're out there trying to protect consumers because that's how we get people to use our site: by creating a quality resource. No other site defends consumers' right to speak out like we do. When you post complaints at ResellerRatings for one of our 400 participating merchants, they get a copy of your review and they often contact you to resolve issues -- we've heard this time and again from people who say that they weren't getting action until they wrote a bad review -- no other ratings resource offers that capability and the BBB doesn't even let you post a review for others to read.

Badmouthing us for no reason other than because a person feels like ranting, or because they have a hunch, needlessly and unfairly damages a valuable and respected resource. We want to have a dialog with the community -- we want people to give us tips, make suggestions, have input about our policies, but random jabs at us that aren't even true, are not helpful to anyone.
 
Last edited:
Shawnasee said:
The recurring theme I always see is Misha threatening to bury someone if they don't stop writing their negative review. I wonder if he will try to bury us here too?
Click to expand...

That will not be happening.
 
Frankly it reads like RR owes kodan an apology. It sounds like he brought some real problems to their attention, and their staff responded by (a) losing his emails then (b) calling him a teenager and a hothead.
 
sphinx99 said:
Frankly it reads like RR owes kodan an apology. It sounds like he brought some real problems to their attention, and their staff responded by (a) losing his emails then (b) calling him a teenager and a hothead.
Click to expand...

Judging from this reply by an RR staffer in that thread,he has gotten something of an apology.

"kodan, in looking back through our dozen+ email exchanges over the past months, it looks like I did in fact miss the second review by linalatlove back then. You are correct, and I owe you an apology for that one.

I also did investigate the other 7 usernames you emailed me. Of those 7, the reviews by gjordan20, raw_enha, hondo_s, and plf5403 were disabled.

And, thank you [again] for submitting these names to us - we do appreciate your notifying us about them, along with any other suspect reviews you might find."

Sounds like there's more going on here than one false review.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top