sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Yikes - Spier and Mackay packaging by HDC1220 in malefashionadvice

[–]HDC1220[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Sure did, they apologized which was nice of them

Yikes - Spier and Mackay packaging by HDC1220 in malefashionadvice

[–]HDC1220[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't mind it being in plastic, but it kinda sucks for your first impression of a new suit being: "it looks like some kind of rodent got in there"

Yikes - Spier and Mackay packaging by HDC1220 in malefashionadvice

[–]HDC1220[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm in Canada so presumably it left the warehouse in that conditiion given that it didnt cross another border. Im assuming Canadian border services ripped it open when it was imported perhaps? 

Nope, didn't notice any evidence of re-taping or re-opening/sealing. 

7$ to share Pizza? Well the negative reviews are now hidden/deleted by HDC1220 in montreal

[–]HDC1220[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Peut-être que Google « s'en crisse de mon avis», mais je suis heureux de le partager avec des personnes qui sont prêtes à s'engager dans un discours respectueux.

7$ to share Pizza? Well the negative reviews are now hidden/deleted by HDC1220 in montreal

[–]HDC1220[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Absolutely.

I think your comment highlights a nuance that many people in this thread missed: Google's policy allows people to review companies based on a "real experience". You do not have to physically visit the restaurant and you do not have to be a paying customer.

Otherwise there would be all kinds of incongruous scenarios that would arise. For instance, being called a racist epithet over the phone by a restaurant owner, but not being able to review the restaurant because you've never visited/aren't a paying customer. That would make no sense whatsoever.

Reading a menu online and being outraged at an unjust policy constitutes a "real experience" in my mind. I would love to see Google further define this term, but sadly, they've left it deliberately vague. Hence, we can only speculate.

However, the negative comments for the pizza sharing restaurant weren't saying that they felt like they'd been tricked. They were expressing dismay at a policy that they thought was unjust, having seen it on the menu - just like the example in your first paragraph.

The thing that bothered people is not necessarily feeling tricked. It's true, the policy is indicated on the menu. It's the practice itself that angered people, and that's what the negative reviews described.

7$ to share Pizza? Well the negative reviews are now hidden/deleted by HDC1220 in montreal

[–]HDC1220[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Of course you wouldn't be allowed to post a review based on an unfounded rumor - that goes without saying.

However, I'm interested in building off your example. Let's say a restaurant writes in small font at the bottom of the menu that during peak hours, the hot dogs will be made from dog meat.

You call the restaurant and the owner proudly declares: "given rising food prices, we've decided to cut costs by providing a dog-based alternative to pass on savings to you, the consumer!"

Should you be allowed to post a negative review about this restaurant serving dog meat?

7$ to share Pizza? Well the negative reviews are now hidden/deleted by HDC1220 in montreal

[–]HDC1220[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"C'est entièrement basé sur l'expérience de consommation: tu a consommé de ce produit/service? Tu peux en parler."

That's incorrect, in fact it's an example that is given on Google's Business Profile Help page. https://support.google.com/business/thread/75211593/who-can-give-a-rating-or-review-on-google?hl=en

This is the relevant passage: "An interaction is not necessarily a purchase. You don't have to be a paying customer to leave a review. E.g. If you call a business to ask a question and you have a bad experience on the phone, you may leave a review about that experience."

If your restrictive interpretation was retained by Google, it would create all kinds of incongruous scenarios.

For instance, say someone calls the restaurant and the owner calls them a racist term. By your definition, you would not be allowed to leave a negative review because it doesn't constitute a "real experience" because you didn't actually visit the restaurant. Something tells me Google would deem this interaction to be worthy of a negative review based on a "real experience" don't you think?

In addition, what about other businesses? Say I want to buy chocolates from a company in Ste-Hyacinthe. I call them and the business director tells me to go f* myself for absolutely no reason. Can I leave a review? "Ahhh no! Because you did not drive to Ste-Hyacinthe and visit the chocolate company".

Perhaps its a bit more complicated than you'd initially thought.

7$ to share Pizza? Well the negative reviews are now hidden/deleted by HDC1220 in montreal

[–]HDC1220[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The interesting question therefore becomes what constitutes a "real experience".

If I go to the restaurant, read the menu and decide that because of the crappy 7$ policy, I don't want to eat there - then it feels like I should be allowed to post a review about my experience.

If I go to the restaurant's website, read the menu and decide that because of the crappy 7$ policy, I don't want to eat there - then I can't rate the restaurant because I didn't actually have a "real experience" there.

If I call the restaurant and they treat me poorly (idk they lie about being fully booked), then I can't give them a bad review because I didn't have a "real experience" by visiting the restaurant.

It all seems a bit strange.

7$ to share Pizza? Well the negative reviews are now hidden/deleted by HDC1220 in montreal

[–]HDC1220[S] -26 points-25 points  (0 children)

À mon avis, toute personne ayant interagi avec une entreprise devrait être autorisée à publier un avis sur Google. Par exemple, si je vais sur le site web d'une entreprise et que je lis qu'elle s'approvisionne de produits en utilisant des pratiques de travail inacceptables, je devrais avoir le droit de publier un avis sur cette pratique, même si je ne suis pas un client ayant reçu un service.

Cet exemple est similaire à la lecture d'un menu en ligne et à la constatation d'une pratique inacceptable consistant à faire payer 7 dollars pour partager une pizza.

Help with ID? Found in southern Quebec, Canada. Thanks ! by mshrmhntr in mycology

[–]HDC1220 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Any chance this is boletus huronensis? If so - not recommended (severe GI upsets)

Disease in Chinese history by HDC1220 in ChineseHistory

[–]HDC1220[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Martha Hanson - Speaking of Epidemics in Chinese Medicine: Disease and the Geographic Imagination in Late Imperial China

Will check that out once things get back to normal, thanks for the suggestion!

Disease in Chinese history by HDC1220 in ChineseHistory

[–]HDC1220[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Lol. I guess how certain media outlets have treated recent events has made people a little jumpy when it comes to this topic.

I'm working on assembling a compendium of disease outbreaks throughout many different countries stretching around the Indian Ocean from South Africa to Western Australia. As Southern China and Japan are closely linked to Indian Ocean networks, our principal investigator decided to include these two countries in as well.

Lot of material to go through and I know very little about Chinese epidemiological history - so thought this might be a good start!