Print

[112233]

I'm kind of enjoying having a little interaction here with someone from Prosper who's taking an interest in
the community - which we've all been clamoring for, for like, 3 years - so, could we relax a bit on having
expectations of some kind of miraculous instant investigation of an issue, complete with public response?

Give an inch, take a mile.

I give you personal credit for engaging prosper's customers.

[ira01]

NA - perhaps you misunderstand what the Lobby is for. It's for Google. If there's something that pertains to Prosper clearly like this that prospective lenders, borrowers, press, etc. would be interested in, why wouldn't it be put in the Lobby? The ONLY reason it didn't automatically go there is because Ferris made the (IMHO, right) decision to have it put elsewhere first and then. Putting things like this in the lobby also prompts others to join up and read the rest of the site - although I can see how you'd consider that a bad thing

In addition, from what I can tell Fred contacted Prosper - not one specific person at Prosper. They have more than one employee, right? "...the weight of all of the different people wanting immediate answers to their posts", LOL!! I sent an email to a company with one person running it this morning and got a response w/in an hour. Ditto to a company the size of Dell. Fred didn't say he sent an email the minute he posted here so I doubt it's just been 14 hours since he first tried to get an explanation.

Seriously, your cheerleader attitude for Prosper is making it where you can't even read and digest posts anymore.

And +1 for the Lobby

+1 on everything.  As usual, NA is completely out to lunch with his post.  This issue is clearly Lobby-worthy, and +whetever from me.  And with respect to customer service, my family business has just three people who work it -- and we would be horribly embarrassed if it took 14 hours to respond to ANY email, much less one from a major customer.  Except in the middle of the night (when we are all sleeping), we generally respond to emails within minutes.

[Fred93]

fred, did you get an auto reply or some sort of response stating they are looking into the issue? perhaps a ticket #?

Nope.  Nothing.  I sent the message using prosper's "contact" web page.  This is my first time using it.  I don't know whether messages entered there actually go anywhere. 

[ira01]

fred, did you get an auto reply or some sort of response stating they are looking into the issue? perhaps a ticket #?

Nope.  Nothing.  I sent the message using prosper's "contact" web page.  This is my first time using it.  I don't know whether messages entered there actually go anywhere. 

Maybe it's like the time all the fraud reports on listings used to go directly into Prosper's spam filter.   

[mothandrust]

I've always used the "Contact Us" webpage and have IIRC always gotten a response to an initial inquiry, sometimes the same day, two days later at the most.

[nonattender]

What I was responding to - perhaps out of fear, since I'd like for Prosper and .org to "get along" (which,
I'll grant you, may appear optimistic or naive, on an individual basis, since if you've decided that there's
no circumstance under which you can be satisfied, then you... won't be) - was the piling on to his post.

The reason I want them (.org and Prosper) to get along is that I think they can learn from one another,
to our mutual benefit, which, translated for the euphemism blind, means "everyone makes more money".

I'm simply pro-information.  When I saw people getting restless, I wanted to say something to protect a
channel that's opened (back) up.  Maybe that's my error... But, to one point, directly, I'd wager that, if
Fred got preferential treatment, some people here would be mad about it - and others would attempt to
exploit it themselves - but, to his credit, and perhaps even to Prosper's, I don't think Fred would accept
preferential treatment, even though I wish he'd be given it (and take it), since, and this is just my take,
everyone would win in that scenario:  Fred gets to poke and prod directly, which clearly he wants to do,
Prosper gets the benefit of being poked and prodded by someone who is almost "bio-mechanically" micro-
focused and can help them refine their systems to be "penny-wise" now, rather than pound-foolish later,
and, finally, all present and future lenders (and borrowers) get to free ride on the resulting quality gains.

(Dude went to Prosper HQ and took pictures and wrote a travelogue about it - you can't tell me he's not
digging it on some level, and he's invested, so, I say we send him back - but, this time... he goes inside!)

For my money, I'd *love* to have someone at Prosper tasked to answer Fred's technical questions - I'd
love it so much that I'd want to see it (which is why I'd like it @ .org) - but, some of you won't shut up,
which annoys me, and a few of the other adults, who actually want to talk turkey - for obvious reasons.

This whiney "kid's table" stuff, that goes on in this forum, is costing the rest of us time, and opportunity.

Yeah, I know, some of you are insulted.  And you're only out to save people.  And - one day - when you
run the world, everything will work perfectly.  That's swell, but for now, stop punching your little brother,
tell your mom you appreciate her cooking for us, say thanks to your dad - and stop wasting the gravy...!

Happy Thanksgiving,

-t

[Fred93]

What I was responding to - perhaps out of fear, since I'd like for Prosper and .org to "get along" (which, I'll grant you, may appear optimistic or naive, on an individual basis, since if you've decided that there's

You may have good intentions, but unfortunately when you do what you did here, your comments create a meta discussion.  This thread was about some loans which appear to be "stuck" in a state which they should not be.  It was a simple question. 

You don't know the answer, so your discussion doesn't illuminate the question.  it just pollutes the discussion so that the original purpose is lost.   

I'd like to keep the discussion simple.  The question is "Why does this appear in the data?"  The answer is some simple fact.   This simple fact almost surely has nothing to do with anything you're talking about.   Transforming simple discussions into these extended meta discussions is destructive of both prospers.org and the relationship between lenders and prosper.com. 

(Dude went to Prosper HQ and took pictures and wrote a travelogue about it - you can't tell me he's not digging it on some level,...

Factually incorrect.   The pictures on my blog were all found on the internet.  Close inspection may reveal that they're all credited.  Clicking on any one will take you to the original source.  (or at least did when I wrote 'em.  Over time some links break.)

[nonattender]

I'd like to keep the discussion simple.  The question is "Why does this appear in the data?"  The answer is some simple fact.   This simple fact almost surely has nothing to do with anything you're talking about.   Transforming simple discussions into these extended meta discussions is destructive of both prospers.org and the relationship between lenders and prosper.com.

Primary:

I do not mind making errors when I trust my intentions.  To do otherwise would be a "meta error".

Secondary:

You're very matter-of-fact.  I like that.  I don't think you realize it, but some people here read that
"purposiveness" / "utilitarianity" (which I read as "non-inflection") as "brusqueness" or "negativity"...
What I believed I observed was others either intentionally exploiting or unintentionally reacting to it.
I remain positive that my observation was correct and illuminative as to your quest for an answer...

Spock, out.

[christoofar215]

I'd like to keep the discussion simple.  The question is "Why does this appear in the data?"  The answer is some simple fact.   This simple fact almost surely has nothing to do with anything you're talking about.   Transforming simple discussions into these extended meta discussions is destructive of both prospers.org and the relationship between lenders and prosper.com.

Primary:

I do not mind making errors when I trust my intentions.  To do otherwise would be a "meta error".

Secondary:

You're very matter-of-fact.  I like that.  I don't think you realize it, but some people here read that
"purposiveness" / "utilitarianity" (which I read as "non-inflection") as "brusqueness" or "negativity"...
What I believed I observed was others either intentionally exploiting or unintentionally reacting to it.
I remain positive that my observation was correct and illuminative as to your quest for an answer...

Spock, out.

When you argue with Fred you are just going to lose.

But nice to see you're still the fun-loving bitter queen/asshole as always.   Happy Turkey Day.

[xraider]

I'd like to follow up on the ch 13 and other bk loans.  I can understand no information about the bks that have been discharged, but several of my loans have been in ch 11 or 13 for more than 2 years with no information on that.  They all show as charged off, but there have been NO payments and NO information on the status of these loans.  Does Prosper follow the status of these loans?  Any way to get an update?

Thanks.

[ladeeda]

There seem to be some prosper loans that are "stuck" in the "late" state, and do not proceed to paid or charged off.
...

This is useful information. I would guess that the process would look something like...

• Customer Relations (CR) rep reads the email
• Determination is made by the rep that this requires external assistance, email forwarded to supervisor
• Supervisor reads the email, forwards it to someone who can dig into the data

At that point it becomes a question of finding the loans in question, looking at the issue, determining what's going on, and then work on figuring out how to fix it, and where that fits into any other known issues.

My guess is that, if there's a step missing, it's that the CR rep did not send a follow-up email along the lines of "We've received your email and are looking into it."

NA's suggestion that we have a separate communication channel for this kind of issue may also be a good one. Those are both things that we can follow up on next week.

[onthefence]

Could we all chill out a bit on "escalating" stuff like this ("Lobby!!  It's been... almost 14 hours!"), please?

I don't see the problem with having stuff like this in the lobby.  Either the problem has no resolution & deserves to be in the lobby, or it has a simple good answer & that answer would also deserve to be the the lobby.  There may be plenty of other people who have the same issue that are searching for answers.

[Fred93]

I sent the query to prosper again today.

[God-Father]

Could we all chill out a bit on "escalating" stuff like this ("Lobby!!  It's been... almost 14 hours!"), please?

I don't see the problem with having stuff like this in the lobby.  Either the problem has no resolution & deserves to be in the lobby, or it has a simple good answer & that answer would also deserve to be the the lobby.  There may be plenty of other people who have the same issue that are searching for answers.

Or Prosper never answers.  They use to reply to my questions, but that seems to have stopped.

[Fred93]

I sent the query again today.