jmmbell1987 wrote:You basically didn't read any of the actual complaints, did you? Amazingly, most weren't unabashed hate, but legit complaints.
Legitimate complaints? Okay, let's take a look at this.
The biggest complaints are: 1. "I hate this shirt because it isn't artistic/original!" 2. "I hate this shirt because it violates the "rules" and never fixed the original problem!".
If you hate a shirt that's not artistic/original, don't buy it. Kind of like any other product you don't like. And feel free to voice your opinion of your hate, just like you would of any product you wouldn't like. Oh wait, you did that, and you filled up the complaints box nicely.
"But this prevented another shirt from making it!"
Yeah, too bad. Lots of things in life are unfair and don't happen the way we want them to. Although I'd say this one falls closer to the bottom of our priorities.
"Well, the design isn't original, and it didn't fix the original problem."
Your point? Care to explain to me why exactly it needs to fulfill your guidelines to not be rejected? I'm fairly sure the only guidelines that need to be followed are determined by shirt.woot. This is no different from any kind of arbitrary standard set by the general public for professional athletes, politicians, celebrities, and so on. People apparently thought that Michael Vick shouldn't be allowed back in the NFL. Why? "He's a bad person and he killed animals!" On the other hand, I'm fairly sure the guidelines for playing in the NFL are: 1. being a player a team wants and 2. Roger Goodell allowing you to play. Not real sure which one of those two says "you can't be a bad person."
Just as hilarious as when people want some celebrities to be perfect role models for their children. Yeah, it would be great for you to be absolved of your responsibility as a parent wouldn't it?? The job of a celebrity is to do whatever the hell they're asked to, not to be role models. If they choose that on their own, great. If not, too bad.
My point in a more condensed fashion: arbitrary standards does not equal legitimate complaint.
"Why the hell did you mention celebrities and the NFL, this isn't even related!"
I needed an analogy someone like you would understand.
"Yeah, well, I'm not the only one who believes this, the community at shirt.woot does too, so it's definitely legitimate!"
Scientific studies have shown that a bad argument made by one person and shared by many others is collectively still a bad argument.
If shirt.woot felt there was a big enough problem (keeping in mind this is a business of some sort), they would fix it. If this method works for the other 100,000 shirts but not 100 of them, do you throw out all the data points or do you ignore the points that don't fit the data?
And please, don't tell me "Shirt.woot has a responsibility to its customer." Every businesses' first priority is to itself, THEN to the customers. Fairly certain that's a model followed by all businesses, mainly because if the business doesn't survive, nothing else really matters does it?
"But it shouldn't be that way!"
Yeah, that and a billion other things. Time to start dealing with it.
Strange, it sounds like a lot of these things are either wrong or just flat out whining doesn't it?
So, doing some basic accounting at the end here, we have:
Number of Complaints/Hate Postings: A lot
Number of Legitimate Complaints: Zero
Number of Loud, Angry Cries for Justice in This World at Shirt.Woot: Uhm..maybe a few?
jmmbell1987 wrote: I wish people wouldn't be so generalizing in dismissing comments they disagree with.
That was specific enough for you wasn't it?