@BillLehecka I skipped on the dog toy deals here and other deal sites, for precisely this reason.

@BillLehecka I had no way of knowing that they would send a dangerous toy, and the moment I realized it was dangerous, I DID take it away, much to Galen's chagrin. I've never purchased a pet toy from Meh Before and never will again. I had hoped it would be ok, since I DID manage to get a decent dog bed for him from Woot.com (a Serta memory foam one, and got it there because I know that he will outfrow even their largest size relatively quickly and didn't want to get him something expensive he would potentially destroy while teething)

@CircaRigel But you said it LOOKED cheap, and knowing how cheap it looked, you still gave it to your dog? You needed your dog to prove it was cheap rather than trust your own judgment?

@BillLehecka This is why warning labels are on everything these days. No one has common sense or personal responsibility. Would I love it if no one anywhere sold crap like this marketed for dogs? Of course. But, it's still my responsibility to make sure the things I give to MY dogs are up to my standards.

@PurplePawprints I'm fairly new to Meh.com, so didn't really have experience with them in this area. I'd not had bad experience with Woot.com, though, and hoped this would provide something reasonable as well.

@CircaRigel its probably best you don't assume Woot.com and Meh.com are anything alike or function remotely the same way.

@RedHot But not an unreasonable assumption, being that they were both created by the same person.

@Lotsofgoats Thanks, and agree.

Let me expand by saying that I understand people are huge fans of mediocre, but the important and most advertised thing about meh in particular has been the community. Somebody bringing up a safety concern about a product is basically the most important thing for a deals community, so having several people jump straight to blaming you is a really crappy dynamic to see.

@Lotsofgoats See, I'm not white knighting mediocre here. I am saying that there are a lot of crappy dog toys out there - not just here, and that if your pet's safety is the number one concern, you need to make sure to pick those toys carefully. Which is why I recommended a kong, and advised about rawhide.
There is a level of personal responsibility to be had here, too. Almost any toy, once torn apart, is potentially dangerous to a dog. That's why you have to be diligent about the selection. I'm sure that a lot of the dogs that got these toys didn't run into this issue, because they aren't chewers, etc.
I understand if you disagree and think that this is mediocre's responsibility, but assuming that my comments are about defending mediocre is not accurate.

@Thumperchick I totally agree about personal responsibility, but I also think that applies to mediocre and the products they decide to offer. Given the way they handle things, I fully expect them to be conscious of things like this in the future given the warning from a customer, and I think that's a very good thing.

@Lotsofgoats I agree that if there is a known issue with a product, they should avoid selling it; or at the VERY least, put it in the specs/write up.

@Lotsofgoats While I understand, the person who wrote the complaint was gearing up for a lawsuit and using terms that you'd use if you were about to threaten legal action. It was a very calculated post. That being said, there is a level of personal responsibility you need to take. Just because a company says something is safe doesn't mean you should trust them implicitly.

@BillLehecka I personally doubt legal action was ever on the table tbh. Dogs are valued, so I can't fault an owner for a fiery post. Same way that I can't really fault anyone for advising owners to check labels. It's just when there's this immediate collective response, it's intimidating.

@Lotsofgoats That's a good point. It can be a bit off-putting when several people jump on the OP. It's different if there's more variety to the comments, but that's not the case here. Unfortunately, in this instance, the OP stumbled into a bunch of vehement dog lovers - who take owning a dog very seriously.

@Lotsofgoats In this case, legal action could potentially be on the table (not that it is, since I refused to let my dog play with it). Service dogs fit into a special category. They are considered by law to be medical equipment, and as such are offered similar rights and protections.

@Lotsofgoats Really? "Held Responsible." Stating the dog is to be trained as a service dog to amp up the sentiment. Stating similar dog's worth? He's using the threat of legal action to be satisfied. You could just say "The thing you sent me looks cheap/potentially dangerous and I want to return it/get a replacement/get a refund, etc etc...." through Meh's Customer Support line rather than taking it public. And if he wanted to warn people, he could've just said "Hey, these toys are cheap and almost harmed my dog, be careful!".

@BillLehecka It really was the tone and implied threat that rubbed the wrong way.

@Thumperchick I guess our disagreement lies in whether this toy is only dangerous for the OP's dog/breed (which it certainly is), or whether it's dangerous for any dog - I'm inclined to think the latter, given these results, and I think that's the bigger issue here.

@Thumperchick @BillLehecka ok I totally understand being agitated by the legalese then, I just didn't buy it but now we have an OP response so I was clearly wrong there. I read the thread as a warning (per the title) with a rant inside.

@Lotsofgoats In my experience, there are several types of toys that are perfectly safe for some breeds, and horribly dangerous to others. If you have a dog that doesn't chew, the rattle toy would never have been an issue. Having gone through my share of dog toys, it's a learning curve with each dog and absolutely comes down to the owner introducing toys responsibly and deciding what will and won't work.
In my opinion, this is a very fundamental part of owning a dog. As such, I find it inappropriate to blame the manufacturer or retailer for the issue. The toy did what it was designed to do - rattle and entice play. The dog then played much harder than the toy was designed to withstand. The owner should take this as a lesson that this type of toy is not safe or appropriate for this particular dog.

@BillLehecka I disagree. There are always outliers, sure, but I think a dog toy has to be able to stand up to a dog. It sounds like this is more a gerbil toy.

@Lotsofgoats I would like to add that I think it's good the warning was posted, though. Perhaps someone will be able to let other owners know that some toys in these random bundles can be problematic for chewers. I just wish it had stopped at the first paragraph - the useful information, without the implied threat.

@Thumperchick But two of the toys are labeled for the dogs appropriate to play with them. Seems like it isn't that hard to do that for all the toys, especially for those who might be getting their first household animal. (Or someone like me, who might buy a treat for a friend who got one but wouldn't really have any idea of what's appropriate.)

I understand Meh just pastes in the manufacturer's or vendor's copy, but if those sources are rating some of these, maybe they can take some personal responsibility to make sure these aren't inappropriately bought for animals.

@editorkid There is a difference between a toy poodle and husky. It is the owner's job to distinguish if it's appropriate for their dog.

@Thumperchick And a good time to do that is before the sale, with accurately labeled products.

@editorkid Sorry but no. All dog toys need to be used with supervision until you know what your dog will do with them. I have two dogs a dauschund and a greyhound... this toy would be perfectly safe with the greyhound, he'll toss it in the air a couple times and then flop down on the floor and just lightly chew the toy for a few minutes. It would be completely inappropriate for the dauschund who (with this or any other toy with a fun suprise inside like a rattle, squeaker, or stuffing) will proceed to kill and disembowel it. The problem isn't that the toy is inherently unsafe, it's that he gave it to a dog unsupervised that probably shouldn't have any toy like this. I'm sorry but that's the reality of the situation, you can't just throw your dog a toy and assume everything will be okay. The lesson learned is that the OP can't give his dog these types of toys unsupervised and whether he learned it from Meh or Petco he had to learn it somewhere..

@CircaRigel you might want to read through the forum post for that day. A bunch of.us expressed our concern regarding the quality of the products being sold. I personally have had problems with those BONES splintering so I'd be extra cautious with those too.

@Kandralla Well, @CircaRigel was supervising the dog with the toy.

@editorkid then congratulations, crisis averted, and he got to learn that he can't give toys with squeakers et al in them to his dog for cheap.

Just like people all dogs are different, just because something says "for dogs" on it does not mean it's appropriate for all dogs.

@Mavyn I had no way of knowing what would come in the box prior to its arrival. All I knew was that the box would contain four random toys. Had I known something like this would come in it, I would never have purchased it.

@CircaRigel Understood--but that does NOT remove responsibility of evaluating it before giving it to your dog.

@Mavyn
Dogs chew and destroy. It's what they DO. ...not Meh's fault. suck it up buttercup!

@CircaRigel so you got what you paid for. It's not like you picked a specific toy and they sent you a random one. You bought a blind box, you got random stuff, that's how blind boxes work.

@Teripie Nice! I have one destroyer of all things and one lover of stuffies, but killer of soft squeak ball toys. I finally tried a medium kong stuffie and that seems to be surviving my chewer.

@Thumperchick Ha. I like that - 'Destroyer Of All Things'. I def have a DOAT. In fact, I have 2. I furry canine one and one not so furry 2 legged child one.

@Bingo I think perhaps it is because that person (and others) had hoped that meh would sell cheap things but not potentially dangerous things; that they would screen for that. The original poster also stated that what they got in the box was 4 random dog toys so they didn't have the ability to choose only the "good ones". I do think meh has a responsibility, if they are going to sell stuff like this, and chinese kids toys with lead paint, gray market electronics, etc that they label things accordingly. I hold any reseller to this standard, not just meh. If reviews uniformly are one star with a ton of complaints then even if it is cheap why on earth would they (or any store) offer it? While meh and the community tries to excuse this kind of stuff and incredibly slow at times customer service (not enough staff to handle the load I'd guess is the problem, as the actual people doing it seem nice and are helpful), as 'don't expect much and that is our excuse if you don't like it". Of course people can vote with their wallet if they want. However in my opinion that does not excuse offering for sale things that are so poorly made that it doesn't take much to make them dangerous. There is plenty of other reconditioned, cheap, somewhat outdated, etc. things out there that don't have that additional risk. I do check reviews before I buy and don't buy anything below 3 star. Why waste my money unless it is bought only for a one time use? At the least if they are going to sell that level of crap then they need a warning "some of these toys of which you have no choice over what you get, will not be suitable for dogs that chew, to have in the house with small children around or space aliens."

@Kidsandliz what you're missing is that this toy isn't dangerous, it's inappropriate for his dog.

If you use a pocket knife to turn a screw you don't complain to the seller that they sent you a dangerous knife when it slips and you cut yourself.

@Kandralla That is correct (pocket knife) but I am only arguing for INTENDED use.

@Kidsandliz The intended use is for appropriate dogs. When you deal with a living creature with an independent will there are grey areas, This is one of them, one size fits all is not really a thing.

@CircaRigel to be clear, we're talking about THIS SALE, correct?

@CircaRigel You did good warning everyone. Not all pet owners are toy savvy. Buying a bundle of toys for $8 is a good deal but don't expect quality.

@CircaRigel

We got it - check the dog toys!

Enough for fuck's sake. Now let it go and run along and play.

@CircaRigel People are not worked up over your helpful warning. I think Thumperchick summarized it best:

"I just wish it had stopped at the first paragraph - the useful information, without the implied threat."

@dis_member Exactly.

@Thumperchick A couple of those items match, but a couple of them were different. It was a random set. And yes, I did get worked up... I do get worked up when it comes to the safety of those I care about.

@CircaRigel I'm willing to bet you would have gotten a much, much different response if you had simply posted a warning about the dog toy. You know, without the whole sob story, the pointing of fingers, the six million dollar dog, etc.

Just saying.

@Teripie Why not? Meh has sold some other cheap things that have been higher quality. And if something is going to likely be a hazard then I think they have an obligation NOT to sell it regardless of how cheap and regardless of the mixed message they try to send with "mediocre" and "meh". To me it is an ethical issue.

@CircaRigel http://m.humanesociety.org/animals/dogs/tips/dog_toys.html

See comfort toys. The toy isn't dangerous, it's inappropriate for your dog

@Teripie Thank you! That was from THIS SALE - and now we know that if it comes up again, to throw a warning in the product thread.

@Thumperchick Yup, and to be fair, the product description lists "a jingle bell in each hand." which should serve as a warning for folks concerned about little pieces

@BillLehecka WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT THE JINGLE BELLS AND WHEN DID YOU KNOW IT?!?

@BillLehecka Hell yeah.

@BillLehecka Your temporary goat super powers makes you responsible and thus appropriate to blame.

@hart Wait. There are things that aren't food?

@DaveInSoCal not if you have pica….

@MEHcus That's just fucked. 1/4 refund was all that was due - there wasn't a damn thing wrong with the other three toys in the order according to the complaint (complainant).

@Pavlov Good customer service is to refund the whole price. Meh did the right thing. Besides, I doubt if the OP will be allow her dog to have the other toys now.

@barnabee Bullshit. Fucking spin job is all this was . . . and they fell for it. Two of my insulted cups were broken on arrival, did I play a douchebag and pull a stunt like this in the forums? Nope - I said I had an issue and contacted customer service, and I was appropriately refunded for the TWO cups that were broken, not the entire order. Meh didn't do anything but affirm that they can be played for a full refund when one is not due. How about I get a full refund on my battery order becasue they were white box and came with no warning and I didn't realize I shouldn't let my three year old niece chew on one because the box didn't say "not a toy - keep away from children". That's how FUCKING ridiculous this whole thing is.

@Pavlov So, may I assume you will not be applying for the opening in Meh's customer service department?

@barnabee I have a feeling that they (Meh CS) may regularly want to jump from high places if this is the kind of shit they deal with on a daily basis, so no, I don't feel I would be a good fit for the job - I'd like to keep my sane perspective and not over-react just to placate any random repugnant tool begging to take advantage (note that I'm not name calling anyone specifically, I'm speaking in the general sense).

@Pavlov I wouldn't have the right temperament for it either. I'd be telling too many people to "Go to Hell." Not good for a business.

@barnabee And the congregation said "Amen". However, sometimes NOT caving in is good for business. Sometimes doing the right thing is educating the customer while standing one's ground. I don't have the restriction of having to do that diplomatically. I really would have liked to seen Meh do the right thing here and refund 1/4 the order (which IMHO is overdoing it as the dog DID in fact get enjoyment from the treat).

@Pavlov It's possible that they took this route because of the kicking she got in this thread. Now she'll walk away with, "the users are jerks (opinion), but their CS did the right thing." - That's worth the extra couple of bucks. Stepping into a mucky situation and making a customer happy is the job, and @MEHcus just did that well.

@Thumperchick The kicking was well deserved. What you said earlier was spot on and @Pavlov isn't wrong.

@MEHcus Thank you, Mehcus. I was just every upset and worried that Galen could have been harmed. I care very much about him.

@Teripie Now it looks like 7 toys!

@Teripie A year ago our DOAT had to have emergency surgery. We knew he had destroyed the "indestructible stuffed animal", but did not realize that indestructible really meant unpoopable. He will never have another stuffed animal again, and can only play with Kong's unsupervised.

@WTFhqwhgads ugh now you tell me.

@WTFhqwhgads

@Bingo Everybody to the limit; the Cheat is to the limit

@Bingo Fa-horgling-grads?

@jont @snapster This crosses a line. Impersonating other Meh members with nearly identical user names and then posting character references that are solely based on a forum name? Even if there was proof that this was indeed the same individual, what bearing does it have on THIS situation? None. There is no requirement to have a character reference here, and OMG user names are not a unique identifier that are assigned to one person only. We all agree the original poster was upset when she posted, and she calmed down like we all do after a stressful moment. This comment was out of line.

@Pamtha Yeah, this is just creepy. Made moreso by copying the username. "Outing" someone, while hiding behind an anon screen name is cowardice at best.

@Kidsandliz I guess it's easier to dismiss the valid arguments in this thread, than to read them and debate what they actually said.

@Kidsandsliz I've bought dog toys in person that were advertised as safe for all dogs, only to have it ripped to bits and eaten. As a pet owner, that's on ME. If I take the risk of buying something online, when it states '4 random toys', it is still my responsibility to vet the toys and supervise how my pets play with them. If the toy included shards or arrived broken, that is different. How is it MEH's, or any company's, responsibility to vet toy safety for a dog? The INTENDED use of this toy was NOT 'chew to bits and shred'. It was chase, carry, shake...for which the toy most likely would have been fine.

@Thumperchick I am not dismissing anyone's opinion. I am stating my own opinion on this topic. I stated clearly "I think".

@PurplePawprints I just don't get why personal responsibility doesn't extend to the manufacturer.

@editorkid It does extend to the manufacturer. Had normal play with this toy caused injury - that would be a manufacturing issue. That's not what happened.

@editorkid I didn't say that it doesn't, but it doesn't trump one's own responsibility in making sure the things you buy and give to your pets are safe. There are tons of shitty pet foods on the market that are horrible for your pet. I can't do anything about that, but what I CAN do is make sure the foods that I buy for my pets are of good quality. I'm not going to flip out on Food Lion because the dog food they sell, that's made by a completely different company, is of crappy quality and makes some dogs sick.

@PurplePawprints So we have here someone who bought some toys that can't really be examined in advance the way you could at Petco, bought by someone with a new dog (and, reading between the lines, that person's first dog), and that person has spine injuries, PTSD, and seizures. Some of the toys in the box are labeled for the appropriate dogs, and the others aren't. OP, who at least seems to be familiar with the deal-a-day paradigm of sites that buy overstocked and discontinued models from manufacturers and warehouses, sees inexpensive toys and buys them. One toy not only doesn't survive the first play episode but has plastic parts that are quickly crunched into shards, which OP quickly takes away. You're a nice person; which part of this has to change before you feel any human empathy? If a friend of yours is getting a dog, do you tell them about the dangerous pet food at Food Lion, and if you do, what's the difference?

@editorkid Actually, I do point people to dogfoodadvisor.com quite often and have educated quite a few people about how bad almost all of the grocery store dog foods really are. Know what I've found? The vast majority of those people don't want to pay the price for quality products and still buy the shitty stuff. I have no empathy when it comes to willful ignorance and lack of common sense. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I treat my pets like living beings and don't cheap out when buying things for them because cheap usually means crap.

@PurplePawprints See the thing is not everything that meh sells that is cheap is cheap crap. There are all sorts of ways to get "cheap" - buying liquidations, new "dollar store" crap, reconditioned stuff, overstocked, discontinued… and except for dollar store that doesn't mean the odds are immediately cheap crap buyer beware. I still stand by my statement made elsewhere in this thread that ethics should be part of the picture and whomever buys for meh should refrain from buying things that are so crap that they could be dangerous even when used for their intended purpose. Of course this is why we have lemon laws, consumer protection laws, etc. as some people are not ethical and figure anything for a profit, not their problem what happens. And the courts have generally come down on the side of that too with respect to knowingly or should have known making or selling dangerous stuff. I would hope that regardless of meh's target market and business model, that ethical behavior in this regard is included.

@PurplePawprints So the problem here is "someone with a new dog (and, reading between the lines, that person's first dog), and that person has spine injuries, PTSD, and seizures" chose to be ignorant about a dog that is very clearly not only important but special.

@Kidsandliz I'm pretty sure the intended purpose of said toy was not for it to be shredded by a puppy. If you have a dog that's a stuffy destroyer then you don't give the dog stuffies. Why is this so hard?

@editorkid If I'm spending tons of money on a dog for the first time, I'm going to research the best way to take of the dog. shrugs

@PurplePawprints One of the tricks in marketing is to raise the price of something because that increases the perception of quality. Many people (not saying you do) fall for that. That may be true that expensive stuff is higher quality, or it may not be true. What I am saying here is you can't tell by price alone.

@PurplePawprints Umm because meh was selling this as a dog toy and puppies and some older dogs shred stuff? (so do kittens and some older cats) so presumably this was suitable for common puppy behavior.

@Kidsandliz It is true because I research shit before I buy it. I'm not going to spend $50 on a bag of dog food without researching it first, anymore than I'm going to spend $8 on random toys without making sure of its safety. Also, not all dogs shred things. In fact, many don't. It's up to you to know how your dogs play and buy accordingly.

@PurplePawprints In the experience of my family and friends who own dogs (I do not as I am not especially fond of dogs), pretty much all puppies shred stuff and many of the older dogs of these people shred stuff. My assumption would be then if it is advertised as a dog toy some effort would have been made to make it resistant to shredding or put a warning on it that it was not suitable as a plaything for animals who chew/shred stuff apart. Same expectation I would have on baby stuff. If you are going to sell baby/preschool toys you take into consideration how babies/preschoolers play and dismantle/break stuff by accident (and put things in their mouth) just banging things around things. Thus you design your stuff accordingly and retailers who cater that that segment of the market buy baby stuff that will survive baby/preschooler behavior.

@Kidsandliz Your assumption would be incorrect. They do make shred resistant toys, that are labeled as such. Unless it's advertised as being designed for chewers, it's not labeled special.

@Thumperchick Well the stuff I bought for christmas the year before last for my nephew's two dogs was not labeled one way or another and that stuff did not self destruct when being chewed on although one of the toys is pretty worn out.

@Kidsandliz Nope, that's not the way it works. With pet toys, things that are likely to hold up to vigorious chewers and destroyers are labeled as such. If you have a puppy or chewer, those are the ones you look for and you expect to pay more for them. Otherwise, you don't give your puppy a stuffy. Using the analogy above, crappy dog foods don't tell you they're crappy because then, no one would buy them. The good dog foods require more research to find, and are more expensive, but they are safer. It's a free market and people can sell pretty much anything (with certain exceptions), it's up to the consumer to decide if what they are buying will work for their situation.

@Kidsandliz Not all puppies play the same. There are so many types of dogs and temperaments, that it is impossible to predict what one dog will do when given any toy.

@Thumperchick But it is often possible to predict that a particular toy is crap… and if that is the case then don't sell it.

@Kidsandliz Or maybe don't buy it?

@Thumperchick Or maybe since the photos did not reveal the issues and people had no choice which toys they would get that meh would have a certain minimum level of quality? Yes some of the things they sell are 2 and 3 stars but they are also easily researchable. For things that are not easily researchable there has to be a certain level of trust that the site you are buying from will at least screen out stuff that is potentially dangerous when used in the intended way. I had presumed, perhaps wrongly or (or maybe not and whomever looks at what they order to sell us needs educated - who knows. I am not going to make speculations on why something potentially dangerous like that, even when used in its intended purpose, was sold), that meh was at least following minimum ethical standards - like the ones taught in business school ethics classes. Of course there a lot of businesses that figure the customer is the sucker, that they have no responsibility to choose things to sell that aren't dangerous (again I am not making a statement about meh because who knows why this happened), and the heck with the consequences of their actions. Of course if meh warns that they are selling toys not suitable for a dog that chews then it is on the buyer if they buy it.

@march5th00 The bones really are a gamble with your dog's safety.

@Thumperchick Half of Meh will look up TIL . . .

@Pavlov MFW you used Confession Bear for that.

@Thumperchick I've said that for a long time. As soon as someone starts making statements about how their case is "special" or how something is a huge "safety issue" or about how they or their loved one "could" have been injured or any of the other things that makes it clear the person feels they could sue a business and people will just shut down. And rightly so. It's obvious at that point that very little a business can do will help and more likely, anything they do will only make things worse.

@Thumperchick Re: Confession Bear - yeah, I know . . . I used the image as a placeholder (quick search for TIL) and I was going to go make something more appropriate and then I got sidetracked with CNN Breaking News on Nimoy and then it was too late to edit. Can't win 'em all.