While the respondent covered many areas for which I had requested a
reply, I feel that the overall quality of the answers and the depth of
the replies were not commensurate with the amount of money ($50) which
I paid for this advice. Earlier, I had posted an equally complex
problem for which I paid $5, and I felt that the quality of the advice
was far superior.
Here are some specific complaints;
- There was a blatantly incorrect answer posted to my question on
business rules in a mainframe environment. It was later corrected,
without prompting from me.
- I felt that often the answers parroted my responses without any
indication whether the respondent had made an effort to research my
position. In particular, if the respondent had the knowledge of "The
Great Debate" which he eagerly professed, he would not have made the
claims about the advantages of procedural code relative to declarative
relational concepts.
- Despite his protestations, I found that the respondent was not a
strong advocate for the help that I needed in this case. In
particular, I needed to be able to sell relational concepts to a
client which had a heavy mainframe bias and limited exposure to
relational concepts, and the advice needed to be on a strategic level,
yet I felt that the respondent gave advice that was code-centric
instead of being architecturally grounded and that the respondent did
not, in general, provide much help with the relational advocacy which
I needed.
- In general, the depth of the response was not commensurate with the
bid amount.
Overall, I do not feel that I got my money's worth for this answer.
|
I have reached the target of my question but the way I have
reached that target was not excellent. But overall the answer
was appreciable.