does anyone ask who makes it and get a straight answer
#vendor-talk 2025-05-25
Sunday50 messages9 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- salt_bridge — yes. that is the actual reason overall ratings exist and it is a real constraint, not laziness 20:27
- salt_bridge — it makes cheap high-volume suppliers look worse than they are, because they have more orders and therefore more complaints in absolute terms 20:48
- apob_over_ldl — best sentence in the channel this month 21:50
- salt_bridge — purely a supplier question. the compounds themselves have real published evidence behind them and that evidence says nothing about anyone's supply chain 21:57
- cricket_or_footy — no, but medium is not a bad attempt 22:22
not by dm
👀3
is there a supplier anyone would recommend purely on communication
anyone had fill consistency problems with SWB
a 10mg vial at 38 in a pack of five, plus 25 shipping, is 215 for 50mg. thats 4.30 per mg, ill dig out the number
👀16🤝4❤️13
they improved
anyone found the price move on a repeat order without warning
no sourcing requests by private message. not from members, not from suppliers, and we report anyone who tries, ymmv
price per mg including shipping is the only comparison that means anything
BCH has been consistent for me across 5 orders which is what i actually want
prices move without announcement more often than people expect. screenshot your invoice
has anyone worked out the actual per mg cost including shipping for FGP
quoted lead time versus actual is the number i track. the gap is the informative part, n of 1 obviously
a reseller relabelling a synthesis house is a different risk profile from the synthesis house
[edited]✅18🧊15
i think the VendorInvestigate rating on Qingdao Sigma Chemical is wrong and i want to argue about it
wrong which way
too generous. they are rated medium and the support experience in here is consistently the worst of anyone
eleven days for my reply, and a credit rather than a refund
and the material has been in range on every entry except one lot
so it is a rating that averages good chemistry with bad service and produces a word that describes neither
that is a real criticism of aggregate ratings in general and not specifically of them
the problem with one number per vendor:
vendor X: purity 99, support terrible -> "medium"
vendor Y: purity 96, support excellent -> "medium"
those two vendors are nothing alike, and the rating
cannot tell you which one you would rather buy from,
because the answer depends on what you care about.so what should they publish instead
sub-scores. purity, fill accuracy, shipping, support, and no overall number at all
and then nobody reads it, because people want one word
yes. that is the actual reason overall ratings exist and it is a real constraint, not laziness
🤷11✅5
fine, but there is a second problem which is who reports at all
people who lose money report. people who get a boring successful order mostly do not
selection bias, yes, and it cuts in a direction people find surprising
it makes cheap high-volume suppliers look worse than they are, because they have more orders and therefore more complaints in absolute terms
so Qingdao Sigma Chemical might be rated harshly in some places and generously in others for the same reason
entirely possible, and neither reading is dishonest. it depends whose reports reached whom
how does the log avoid this
it does not avoid it, it constrains it. every entry is a paid test on a bought lot, so nobody submits because they are angry
you cannot rage-post a chromatogram. it costs seventy quid and a fortnight
best sentence in the channel this month
😂21📌6
so what should a new person do with a rating
use it to decide who to look into. never to decide who to buy from
that is the sentence i would pin if i had to pick one out of the last month
21:55use an aggregate rating to decide who to look into, not who to buy from
does clinical context come into any of this or is it purely a supplier question
purely a supplier question. the compounds themselves have real published evidence behind them and that evidence says nothing about anyone's supply chain
that second half is the part people skip when they cite a trial at a vendor argument
guilty
cricket_or_footytoo generous. they are rated medium and the support experience in here is consistently…
for balance, the writeups i think are best are the ones on Hubei Jianxiang and JEEP, and both of those match the log almost line for line
so your complaint is really about one rating and not about the service
my complaint is about one rating and about the format. i will concede the service is useful
and Homopeptide sitting at medium is arguably the fairest single word anyone has produced about them
wide variance, always ships, slow to answer, cheap. one word cannot hold that
no, but medium is not a bad attempt
👌9
unresolved, logged, and everyone was reasonable. rare day