Talk:Volley (shoe)/Archives/2014

The 1975 spec sole does seem to perform reliably

Based on correspondence with Rob Jung (a well-respected bushwalker in the Sydney community) it appears that at least some of the 1975-spec soles have returned to previous standards of grip and wear. Big W now have fast-disappearing stock of white 1975-spec shoes in most sizes tagged with a written guarantee that it meets 1975 specs. However, there is a black version which has a noticeably softer sole than the white version. When someone gets around to writing this up in a reliable source I will stick it in the article. My compliments to Mr Connor if the only reason he came out of 7 years of wp retirement was to share the good news. And kudos to Volley for finally starting to fix the problem. BenevolentUncle (talk) 12:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Sneaky changes suggest sock puppetry for commercial advantage

Wayne_Connor's change on 2014-01-03T12:27:58‎ had the following change summary:

(Insert official Volley International website reference for 2013 reset to Volley 1975 version.)

However, it did not mention deleting the following sentence:

However, an October 2013 inspection of the various models sold in a department store found that all models on sale still had the much softer sole condemned as failing within 3 days in the references above, and there is no documentation at www.volley.com.au indicating that the soles of the online models are any different from those sold in stores.

What Wayne_Connor's change did was substitute:

As of 2013, Dunlop has revised the "Volley International" back to its 1970s version exactly Citation needed|reason=An inspection of the various models sold at Big W reveals the same much softer sole described in the references above, and there is no documentation at www.volley.com.au indicating that the soles of the online models are any different from those sold in stores.|date=October 2013, with classic thin rubber sole with completely flat heel.

with:

As of 2013, Dunlop claim to have 'reset to its 1975 specifications' refVolley. http://www.volley.com.au/mens-white-green-gold.html. Retrieved 2/1/2014. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)/ref

(In the two quotes above, I have bracketed out the [Citation needed] and [ref] instructions so that they can be easily seen.)

I note that https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wayne_Connor shows that Mr Connor has done zero wp editing for 7 years; his only wp editing was in 2007, on the topic of Dubbo (a town in NSW Australia), plus one edit on Griffith NSW and one edit on the Presbyterian Church of Australia. Googling "wayne conner" dubbo returned 19 hits which suggest that Mr Conner exists and is heavily involved in SEO (e.g. wayneconnor.com, macintoshhowto.com). The fact that Mr Connor's first edit in 7 years was a moderately advanced edit on an obscure topic that does not appear match his other well publicised interests suggests strikes me as unusual.

Three days later on 2014-01-06T07:29:04‎, there was a follow up posting by JohnWhoMeansWell, which gives another link to the manufacturer's website at volley.com.au. Again, this user's sole contribution is this one edit. Thus it is appropriate to be alert for wp:PUPPET.

I note that the actions of the last 2 contributors could be construed as a wp:SNEAKY attempt to gain commercial advantage, and I am reverting them if only because they cite the manufacturer instead of any reliable 3rd party. I offer the comment that there is already a lot of community anger over the deterioration of quality in Volleys which is already documented on the internet, and imho any edit warring would result in definitive links to authoritative pages bemoaning the rubbish quality of what is currently being sold in the shops. This could easily become a newsworthy article of wider interest - it would not be hard to find disgruntled canyoners, and when scouring shops for old-style shoes, separate shops commented on how hard roofers had been looking for older versions. The only way for a company in this situation to fix its image problem is to actually return the quality of its product to previous standards, rather than attempting to manipulate the appearance of having done so.

BenevolentUncle (talk) 00:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Further comment: Wayne_Connor's link (which I reverted) at http://www.volley.com.au/mens-white-green-gold.html was last updated 20/12/13 and says:

The Volley we've all known and loved. The International has been worn on and off court by generations of Australians and has now been reset to its 1975 specifications.

• Canvas upper
• Metal eyelets
• Streamlined foxing and toe cap

Volley's website had similar comments Oct 2013. However, the particular issue is not the "specifications", but whether the sole actually has the same grip and wearing properties as before. I recall reading about or hearing about a roofer who made the mistake of assuming his new Volleys had the same grip as before, and falling and suffering an injury as a result. This suggests that Volley and wp should be careful not to mislead so as to avoid legal and ethical liability. If Volley have actually rectified their soles, then the news will flash around bushwalking, canyoning, and roofing circles, and there will be a run on such stocks. Until such time, such "claims" that Volley might make cannot be regarded as wp:reliable, and it would be unethical for wp to publish WP:QUESTIONABLE claims without clearly warning that the grip of almost all current stock is dangerously inferior. BenevolentUncle (talk) 02:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Coincidently, 3 days later, someone in my bushwalking club broadcast an email re the sale of new volleys, along with warnings of how to pick the 1975 spec models. And already, some sizes have sold out. BenevolentUncle (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)