Stamp Smarter

Sounds like a sisyphean task Don.

Thank you, Don. That addresses it. I understand the basic requirements of libel and what kind of speech is protected. To avoid a basis for libel it helps to stick dispassionately to the facts of a case and go no further.

The vulnerability I am most concerned about is "guilt by association" In which the whole group is held liable for a tort by one or a few. After all, groups have deeper pockets than individuals. Thanks for the word on that case you mentioned; it gets right to the heart of my concern. Do keep us informed if you can. Do you have room for non-member consultants? That way I'm only legally responsible for my own screw-ups. Or does the nebulous nature of an online "group" eliminate the distinction between member participant and non-member participant?

Essayk,
I do not see how one member of a group would be held liable for another person. If this was indeed the case than I guess we are also libel for each other in this forum since we are also all members here.

And speaking to the 'nebulous' nature…
What does a 'membership' mean? The way we are discussing it a membership is the most basic database permission; it means you have a log on which allows to write a record to the database. But there are many other 'levels' of permissions that a person could have. I could assign permissions to access just certain parts (tables/queries) but not others. Or I could give someone complete administrative access to the entire database. And then on a completely different level or methodology I could give someone a user name and password to access the file system for the web site itself. My point is if there was liability extending across these permissions imagine the legal nightmare of trying to figure out what percentage each group/person might have; I just don't think that it's possible.

And again, being a member of this forum (or any other) is exactly the same. They all are databases, when we make a post here it writes a record in a database just like Stamp Smarter. You must sign up and become a member here to be able to post. I simply do not see how one person's post would extend liability to others.
Don

From the Stamp Smarter site under FAQ:

"Who owns this site?

Currently the site has been started by a group of like-minded people. As the site grows we will either become a non-profit organization or perhaps find a home with one of the larger existing philatelic organization. But the point is that this is not someone's personal web site; it is a community. No one owns the database, any member can at any time download a copy of the entire database in several formats. Members are the contributors, members are the owners."

Just my opinion, but to me the words "members are the owners" might make "members/owners" more vulnerable if someone believes they are being damaged by "the site" and decide to go after the "owners".


Earlier in this thread (July 5, 11:16PM) Bill Weiss said:

And again, please help. Tonight I spotted what I believe is a LOT of fake First issue part perf revenues, so it would be nice if those who are more expert in revenues (you know who you are.....:>)!) would pitch in and do some reporting. Just in the listings of two sellers (nystamps and pimpernel) there must be 20+ fake first issue part perfs, but I would feel a lot better if all of them aren't reported by me, so how about a hand?

"I would feel a lot better if all of them aren't reported by me"? What difference does it make who makes the report? If the objectives of the site are pure it should make no difference who makes the reports. If this is a case of spreading out "risk" among the "membership", potential members may wish to drill down further on the liability issue.

Nah, I think that was just Bill's way of hinting that I should get involved in making reports.

Sigh.
Perhaps that wording is not great but I fail to see how that extends any liability (and does not according to my lawyer). Each poster here, and in other forums, owns the posts they make. Simply allowing the download of the entire database does not make someone liable for what is in it.

And by the way, strictly legally speaking I am the owner of the Stamp Smarter. Not Bill. The domain name is in my name (actually my poor wife's name since that was the name on the Paypal account I used to set it up!).

This is like the VSC situation from last year with Lloyd's ownership of the Virtual Stamp Club web site, got a APS chapter for it, but is still actually the owner of the domain name and web site (even through it too also has members). Online clubs can have members just like a local stamp club but unlike a local club, and as is the case with VSC/Stamp Smarter/this forum, it is really owned and controlled by whomever actually owns the domain name. At any given time the domain name owner can pull the site down, transfer it to another owner, etc. Another example is the Frajola site and database. People sign up for membership which gives them the right to post, everyone is contributing to a knowledgebase. But at any time the owner of the domain name can close it down, sell it, give it away, or do whatever he feels like with it.

So who is liable for our membership in this forum? Bobby the moderator? Does is it the web hosting service (Theplanet.com in Dallas Texas) also have liability for what posters do? Or is it whomever owns the domain name or domain name admin (which is listed as a company in Nobby Beach Queensland AU but this is probably a service which protects the actual name of the person who actually owns the domain name itself).

I am failing to understand why folks ask these questions about Stamp Smarter but don't seem to have the same concerns about every other forum and online site they sign up for. If it is just the wording I used in the site describing the membership benefit of being able to download the entire database I can change it. I simply wanted communicate that I would never use a site to build traffic and then steal off in the middle of the night to use it for my own commercial purposes; I wanted to let people know that the site was for the entire community.

Don,

I feel that you are spending too much time answering questions that are being repeated, just phrased differently. Perhaps you could build a page on the site where new questions are posted and then answered in mass. Like the FAQ but more interactive.

It's my intention to basically leave you alone for 6+ months. If people have suggestions or questions, send them via the new site and not here. You have a hellofa good start on this project, keep it up and don't let us slow you down.

Art

What Art said. Don, you have been kind and courteous and patient, which shows how seriously you treat this undertaking. Take a well-deserved break.

Art/Smauggie,
Good point, sorry to beating the dead horse.

Rileysan,
Thank you.

I was going to add a new page for links to other good online philatelic resources but realized it would be a rather long page, difficult to maintain, and even more difficult to navigate. So instead I am working on implementing it as a database, I should have this in place in the next few days.
Don

Don,

I think one of the reasons that this is getting more scrutiny is that, unlike a message board, the primary purpose of Stamp Smarter appears to be that of policing ebay and other venues, and "making reports" on bad sellers, listings etc. When people do it on a message board, it's one amongst hundreds of other threads; it's not the forum's core mission.

Note: I realize that I may be misrepresenting how you and Bill envision Stamp Smarter, but right or wrong, that is how many perceive it. Given the perception that there is greater possibility that a seller or company might take umbrage and pull out the old' legal threat to force reports redacted, sanctions, etc., there appear to be greater concerns from potential members that a typical forum does not see.

As someone who runs a music review site, I can tell you that it's not just paranoia. I have had bands and record labels threaten me with lawsuits because someone posted an unfavorable review. Now in 15 years I have never had a single one actually follow through, but that doesn't keep them from blustering about it...

A certain amount of reader trepidation and/or concern about legalities is, I suppose, understandable. But this site will, I believe, pay long term benefits to the hobby. And the action of ebay ceasing the peer-oversight review programs will, I believe, prove to be a major blunder. And I'm pleased to say that there is now interest by the national philatelic news media to this important story that could affect countless stamp collectors who shop on ebay, and the formation of this site as a response to ebay's unilateral cancellation of the EMR/SCW Programs. Readers should expect to see stories on this in future national news media.

I think that this interest by them clearly demonstrates the importance of both the ebay story and the StampSmarter story. We certainly hope that national media exposure will encourage greater participation in the site, because that is the only way it can grow, and become an effective educational tool for the use of the hobby. We NEED manpower. We need reporters who can locate deceptive, misidentified or otherwise problematic listings online. We hope that readers here will pitch in.

I can see the benefits of StampSmarter outweighing the problems. What strikes me as the biggest pitfall is abuse of the system to tarnish the reputation of sellers by their competitors. I understand this sort of activity was going on in the ebay reporting system in the some areas, such as trading cards. I'm not sure this type of abuse happened with stamps or actually contributed to the demise of the program. But it's a potential problem to be aware of.

As long as trusted folks such as Don and Bill are keeping tabs on the validity of the reviews, this shouldn't be a problem.

Just to stir things up a bit... I'm sure there will be plenty of reviews of material advertised as rarities but actually consisting of cheaper varieties, altered, faked or not, thus protecting the uninformed buyer. I'm curious how many reviews will point out the opposite mistake, to protect naive sellers that mis-advertise a rare item as a common variety. I doubt we'll see many reviews of that type of listing.

Hungary,
I agree, Reviews will tend to focus on the higher dollar listings. And frankly the Reviews are focusing attention on a negative aspect of philately.

But the site is only in its infancy; just this morning I have added a Philatelic Search Engine. I suppose I could of simply added a 'links' page but wanted to educational broaden the scope of the site. Not to mention that adding a traditional page, which has a long scrolling list of links, has been done a million times before and makes finding a link difficult. Even worse, it does not afford an opportunity to include much info for a reader to use when trying to find a website; usually link pages only contain the title of the website.

So basically the new feature is a "Google of Philately". It is a large philatelic database of links which is searchable. And unlike Google it remains very focused only on philatelic website and does not include 567,000 other hits that users have to sort through to find what they are seeking.

Like the Review database, the Philatelic Search Engine can be used any anyone who visits the site. And like the Review database, Members can add links to websites. (Note: I currently have it setup so that newly added links will not be functional until I have reviewed them. I did this on purpose so that we don't get inappropriate links added.)

We have a lot of other features in mind which will hopefully add much more educational value and balance to the site. For example, a program where those sellers and dealers can achieve a kind of 'Seal of Goodhouse Keeping' mark for outstanding service.

I would be interested in feedback on this new Philatelic Search Engine feature. I will be adding the ability for Members to add links later today but everyone can check out the Search Engine now. http://www.stampsmarter.com/
Don

This was posted on "The Stamp Collecting Forum" this afternoon:

"From a consumer protection perspective Bill's new website project looks plausible. I have responded to his observations and amended listings where appropriate.
The whole thing falls apart when you discover he is entering reports and then failing to record the outcomes accurately. He also has a history of rendering opinions in certain areas of philately where he has no knowledge or expertise.


My belief in him was further eroded when he successfully bid on one of my items and having received it, claimed it was not as described, got his money back by making a false claim to ebay and now refuses to return the stamp. This, despite my assurance his postage costs would be refunded. He claims to have been unaware I was outside the US.


The stamp was perfect quality, as described. I personally broke it from a block of 8.

He has left negative feedback.


Although his website duplicates the existing ebay feedback system, it would have merit if it was run with scrupulous impartially. As it is, one might consider it to be another bit of Weiss self-promotion and distortion. It's a shame for Bill and for buyers and sellers who might all have benefited from this type of third-party oversight.


Angie
rushmorebargains"