Comfort Suites/Talk

InfoInfo ArticleArticle

This page is for discussing the contents of Comfort Suites.


There are A LOT of accusations from deals911 on this page involving multiple people and it really seems like a deranged rant. Several items posted here seem to me could be litigenous (TG can comment/clarify)?? It seems to be a lot of also seems to me like it would be best dealt with between those involved and not involving the Wiki.—Users/PeterBoulay

Whenever one of either "crazy" or "cabs" pops up, the other is close at hand. It amuses me that she managed to include both accusations of meth abuse and cabs in her second post. I was inclined to agree with removal given the wide ranging rant that went both very personal in the attacks and far astray from anything about Comfort Suites in Davis. ⁓ʝ⍵

I can see why the second comment from deals911 was removed — that was definitely out of line. However, I don't understand why the first one was removed. It was detailed and gave both positives and negatives. I did not see anything I would call a personal attack. It spoke to her experience of the service. Entering a room with a "do not disturb" sign on it could definitely be a concern. I do think that hotels have the legal right to ignore such signs — however, that doesn't mean that they should. As for the response, I found that illuminating as well. It said to me, "this person is elderly, confused, and doesn't know what is going on. This person was high maintenance." To me, that response was more damning than the accusation. I am sure others do not read it that way. My point is, however, that I found both comments illuminating. I say this even though I have had elderly relatives stay at Comfort Suites and they were quite happy there. So, perhaps those of you who favored the removal of the original comment and reply can say what you found objectionable. (Again, no argument about the second comment from deals911 — I agree with its removal). —CovertProfessor

As someone who has been on the receiving end, I'm going to agree with CP. How a business answers such comments is as important as the comment itself. But the second one was gratuitous, and went too far.- Davidlm

* CP—My concern was with the second reply in its entirety, however I think leaving the other two items in there will lead to further ranting from deal911 so I stayed silent on it's removal. I absolutely expect deal911 to go ballistic on us for that removal although I hope not. I should have clarified my concern earlier and I apologize for not doing so. —Users/PeterBoulay

To be honest, I apparently misread the proposal. I was thinking in terms of leaving the original comment + reply, removing anything subsequent. I thought it was a reasonable exchange, explaining both sides' views on things. The follow-up by deals911 was the problematic comment in my mind. So, I guess, consider this a change to voting for CP's suggestion? That'll learn me to edit while working under deadlines. —TomGarberson

Tom-it was my fault. I should've been clearer. Anyways, I restored the original comment + the manager's reply. I also clarified on her personal page why the second one was removed. I also redacted my name in case she does go ballistic. Hopefully it fits the need—Users/PeterBoulay

Thanks, all! —cp

Removing the second reply is best in my mind as well. The first reply was a really well composed response. -jw

While I'm disappointed that the comments have been restored, I do appreciate everyone taking the time to review it. Complaints are part of the customer service industry, but this is unlike any issue I have encountered in 15 years. Usually guest relations issues put me in apology/sympathy mode, but I will admit this one put me in defense mode. Thanks again (gmca642).

I think I should give an explanation of my involvement with this. I met Maureen when she was a guest at this establishment. She told me that the manager had recommended to her and other guests to not use the cab co. with which I am associated. However after she attempted to call the cabs he had recommended and others, she turned to us. Corroberating her story, I knew that business cards of this cab co. were removed from the front desk area. She said that the manager had gotten his negative advise from reading the Davis Wiki. I said that it was good that he was looking out for his guests according to what he believed to be true, (eventhough I know that there has been misinformation and lies posted there). I didn't say a word to her that she should use the Wiki or that I was involved with it. (Come to think of it, she could have been prompted to use the Wiki because the GM mentioned it.) Yesterday she asked me to visit; I told her that I was familiar with the Wiki and I demonstrated some features of it. She wanted to go back and edit her first comment, so I just facilitated it without telling her what to say or type. —"Art"

* Hi all, My thinking was that all the comments could be deleted just because the first comment and the GM's conflicted on every point. I understand why the first comments were put back and it's cool. I also think Adam's response and handling of this reflects well on him and Comfory Suites as was said by William. And I do want to say it's nice to see real talk about it and cooperation where everyone stays on topic on a Talk page. I like resolution! :) "Myra"

This is a Wiki Spot wiki. Wiki Spot is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization that helps communities collaborate via wikis.