[Pattern] the nine scams. that is it. there are only nine.
Right, the PDF metadata question again, but with numbers this time.
I have 5 data points over 10 weeks. The pattern is consistent enough that I do not think it is chance, and boring enough that nobody is going to screenshot it, which is usually a good sign.
The thing I would flag for anyone new: the effect I am describing showed up at week 64, not week 18. People give up long before the interesting part.
Interested in whether this matches other people's logs or whether I am an outlier.
best — the order this archive was captured in
I love that this community will spend 40 comments on a detail. That pedantry is why the numbers here matter.
Disagree but this is the good kind of wrong — it is specific enough to be checked.
Can you post the VendorInvestigate result that shows the problem?
Can you post the VendorInvestigate result that shows the problem?
This is evidence. The metadata is checkable and it is odd.
The evidence standard in c/vendorvetting gets called too strict about once a month, and every time, the thread ends with the complainant agreeing.
PDF metadata said the COA was created in a browser four months after the date printed on the page. Worth flagging.
PDF metadata said the COA was created in a browser four months after the date printed on the page.
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
[removed by moderator]
PDF metadata is checkable in fifteen seconds
the TFC situation resolved, logged it here as resolved
Batch 7 appeared on Homopeptide, GL Biochem, and Homopeptide claims it is raw material origin. Could be fine, could be reseller. Logged it in the directory.
Strongly agree. The dispute resolved and the record stayed updated.
Can you post the Medutest result that shows the problem?
- 1The evidence standard in c/vendorvetting gets called too strict about once a…6 comments in this branch · started by u/nikhil_teixeira