Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | jamescorkhill  | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2019 08:01 | | Subject: | Re: Visit count incrementing | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| Thanks for replying. I kind of thought that might be the case and you have confirmed
it.
I'm very new to selling, but a web developer myself, so any tips welcome.
Do you just embed one into your terms/splash page?
In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, jamescorkhill writes:
| | Hi
I was wondering if was possible, or if it would make sense to stop the visit
count going up when you visit your own store. This would give a more accurate
idea of how many other people have looked at your store.
If I am misunderstanding what it is for please correct me.
|
The visitor counter is totally flawed and should not be used as an indicator
of visitors. If you press and hold the F5 Ker whilst in your store, or anyone
else does, you can make the counter jump horrendously.
We went from 60000 visitors a long time ago to 250,0000 overnight and you know
that cannot be real.
We had our web designer deal with this and now use our own counter, which many
other people also do.
It is a shame really as it appears Bricklink use Google analytics and could provide
much better information but to date have not seen this as important.
Good luck with your suggestion but without a radical change to the way the Bricklink
one currently works it is not helpful information.
|
|
 |
| Author: | SchmickBricks | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2019 08:00 | | Subject: | Re: Parting out | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | In Suggestions, SchmickBricks writes:
| | Is there any reason why a function to part multiple unique sets can't implemented?
For example it would save a huge amount of time if I could sort all the lots
from three copies of five different sets and pack everything away once, rather
than having to go through the whole part out process five times.
|
Perhaps you can change the way you work, because in my routine this is absolutely
no problem, and it's unlikely that Bricklink will change or upgrade anything.
|
In what way? For instance tonight I parted out three copies of two different
sets, which is done by sorting all the parts from each set into their individual
lots and then packing them away using the remarks system to tell me which drawers
the lots go into.
Is there an easier way than going through the whole process each time for each
unique set you part out? If there is I've been wasting a lot of time over
the past three years. I can't see why there can't be a function that
will allow adding multiple sets of multiple quantities to inventory at once without
having to rely on third party applications given there are almost always common
lots contained in different sets. The BrickLink catalogue knows what is contained
in each set, so surely it's just a simple matter of combining set inventories
much like it does when you part multiple quantities of the same set. In regards
to someone's comments on errors, what possible additional errors would occur
that don't already, besides possibly knowing which set any discrepancy came
from? In any case it's pretty simple to amend what you're putting into
inventory if you have more or less of something than what the BrickLink catalogue
suggests you should have.
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2019 07:47 | | Subject: | Re: Visit count incrementing | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, jamescorkhill writes:
| | Hi
I was wondering if was possible, or if it would make sense to stop the visit
count going up when you visit your own store. This would give a more accurate
idea of how many other people have looked at your store.
If I am misunderstanding what it is for please correct me.
|
The visitor counter is totally flawed and should not be used as an indicator
of visitors. If you press and hold the F5 Ker whilst in your store, or anyone
else does, you can make the counter jump horrendously.
We went from 60000 visitors a long time ago to 250,0000 overnight and you know
that cannot be real.
We had our web designer deal with this and now use our own counter, which many
other people also do.
It is a shame really as it appears Bricklink use Google analytics and could provide
much better information but to date have not seen this as important.
Good luck with your suggestion but without a radical change to the way the Bricklink
one currently works it is not helpful information.
|
|
| Author: | jamescorkhill | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2019 07:40 | | Subject: | Visit count incrementing | | Viewed: | 83 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
| Hi
I was wondering if was possible, or if it would make sense to stop the visit
count going up when you visit your own store. This would give a more accurate
idea of how many other people have looked at your store.
If I am misunderstanding what it is for please correct me.
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2019 21:48 | | Subject: | Re: set 10221-1 - SDD UCS - correct dimensions? | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, betabinarybrick writes:
| | I do not think the completed dimensions for this set are correct.
Super Star Destroyer - UCS
Item No: 10221-1
Lego Super Star Destroyer - UCS
Item Info
Year Released: 2011
Weight: 6965g
???
Size: 58 x 48.5 x 18.5 cm
???
The box itself say the length alone is 124.4 cm (49 inches)
I think maybe a correction is needed?
Thank you.
BetaBinaryBrick
|
The dimensions you see in the catalog for sets are the dimensions of the box,
not the built model itself.
|
|
| Author: | DeLuca | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2019 19:25 | | Subject: | Re: “Report” Button | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| While I know that it is generally poor form to bump old threads, the "Bricklink
Regulation Vote Yes or No" topic brings this issue to the fore once again.
Would it be possible for Bricklink to implement a 'Report' button, or
at least make it easier to report problem members and off-the-rails threads?
Perhaps a link at the bottom of each thread? (I actually think that I reported
the member in question via the incorrect form).
|
|
| Author: | manganschlamm | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2019 11:44 | | Subject: | Re: Feedback removal | | Viewed: | 60 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | | | As I’ve said, we’re not talking about a large discrepancy. I do have a single
s/h charge. It’s $4.99 for standard mail for any order size
which is closely related to actual cost on average. Minimum postage is $3.66
plus all associated fees/materials/etc.
|
And I would say that is fine, adding on a dollar or so for additional costs is
reasonable. And I imagine most buyers here would agree with that. I can see that
is the case, as a huge majority of your customers don't mention it, but one
has.
What you are proposing would ban that user from leaving poor feedback about shipping
costs. However, it wouldn't just ban users where the additional costs are
not too severe, but it would also ban users from leaving poor feedback where
the shipping costs have been massively inflated at the checkout for profit rather
than be based on realistic costs.
Remember not everyone knows the sizes of parcels, the cost structures of international
postal companies based on weight and size, the weight of the packaging a seller
is using, and so on. Sellers need to be believed that they are selecting the
right postal service for a package and are charging honestly for it. If buyers
cannot leave feedback about postage costs just because they already agreed to
them up front, then I imagine it would be abused. Sellers could make out a parcel
is large, charge for a high shipping band, then send it via a cheaper one and
tell the buyer they agreed to it so they cannot complain.
I prefer a feedback structure where sellers can be outed if they do wrong, even
if it means one person every so often complains about something when they probably
shouldn't have.
Does one neutral feedback in a few hundred damage a seller? No.
Does stopping buyers from commenting on whether they think someone is a fair
seller damage the marketplace? Yes.
|
Fully agree on this one. We must use common sense and reason. Reasonable buyers
will not complain about small things, like the little bit more expensive shipping,
the small extra handling fee, the little fee for packaging material and the like.
This will also extend to the conditions of parts and the quality of packing.
Of course there are the complainers which will always find something to complain
about. But I think they are a minority here on BL and it would be unreasonable
and actually way over the top if the feedback system would be changed just to
stop these few from posting unfair feedback. The feedback system must however
still leave a possibility to post a warning in case of the stores that really
make purposedly profit on fees rather than on Lego. This is a Lego marketplace
and not a fees markedplace.
|
|
| Author: | Rob_and_Shelagh | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2019 10:47 | | Subject: | Re: Feedback removal | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, mattkaupke writes:
| | In Suggestions, Rob_and_Shelagh writes:
| | In Suggestions, mattkaupke writes:
| | Maybe it’s just me but I’m not sure it’s fair to allow buyers who use the Instant
Checkout feature to leave poor feedback relating to shipping costs. I totally
understand being surprised by a high shipping cost when being invoiced but there
are no surprises with instant checkout. It’s totally in the buyers court to make
the purchase with the costs known up front. Also, if invoicing and the shipping
and handling charges are clear in the terms tab, it should also be removable.
I’d really like to see a change made to the feedback policy that allows for removal
of feedback when the purchase is made through the Instant Checkout function.
It’s not reasonable to allow a buyer to damage the reputation of a seller for
something the buyer agreed to.
I'm underwhelmed with the support from BrickLink as far as feedback is concerned.
If the buyer or seller can show that they are completely without fault BrickLink
should be able to remove feedback that is unwarranted.
|
Just because a buyer agrees to something, it does not neccessarily mean he/she
loves it.
Just because buyer or seller is not at fault it does not mean a transaction is
neccessarily positive.
Robert
|
It still doesn’t warrant damaging the reputation of the seller. The buyer didn’t
“not love it” enough to go to another seller or not make the purchase. It’s an
agreed upon thing. It wasn’t a lack of service or any justifiable reason.
|
Feedback reflects the feelings of the person who left it. It only damages the
reputation of the seller if you think many others (buyers) will see it in the
same way as that particular buyer in which case it is valuable feedback..
Robert
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2019 10:45 | | Subject: | Re: Feedback removal | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| | | As I’ve said, we’re not talking about a large discrepancy. I do have a single
s/h charge. It’s $4.99 for standard mail for any order size
which is closely related to actual cost on average. Minimum postage is $3.66
plus all associated fees/materials/etc.
|
And I would say that is fine, adding on a dollar or so for additional costs is
reasonable. And I imagine most buyers here would agree with that. I can see that
is the case, as a huge majority of your customers don't mention it, but one
has.
What you are proposing would ban that user from leaving poor feedback about shipping
costs. However, it wouldn't just ban users where the additional costs are
not too severe, but it would also ban users from leaving poor feedback where
the shipping costs have been massively inflated at the checkout for profit rather
than be based on realistic costs.
Remember not everyone knows the sizes of parcels, the cost structures of international
postal companies based on weight and size, the weight of the packaging a seller
is using, and so on. Sellers need to be believed that they are selecting the
right postal service for a package and are charging honestly for it. If buyers
cannot leave feedback about postage costs just because they already agreed to
them up front, then I imagine it would be abused. Sellers could make out a parcel
is large, charge for a high shipping band, then send it via a cheaper one and
tell the buyer they agreed to it so they cannot complain.
I prefer a feedback structure where sellers can be outed if they do wrong, even
if it means one person every so often complains about something when they probably
shouldn't have.
Does one neutral feedback in a few hundred damage a seller? No.
Does stopping buyers from commenting on whether they think someone is a fair
seller damage the marketplace? Yes.
|
|
| Author: | mattkaupke | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2019 10:29 | | Subject: | Re: Feedback removal | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | | | Why would it be necessary to explain to the customer my individual expenditures?
For example, does amazon need to justify what they charge for shipping?
You do know what it will cost to post, it’s the number in the shipping cost box
at checkout. The buyer doesn’t determine what is or isn’t the cost associated
with a purchase, they simply agree or not. It’s not the customers right to decide
what my real costs are as a seller as they don’t pay my bills (literally not
indirectly). Not knowing the real costs of the seller is not the same as being
conned.
|
You are not amazon though. Most sellers here charge reasonable postage charges
and most buyers can accept that if a seller says it is going to cost $X to post
it will cost that. Some charge exact shipping, some charge a little more. I don't
think anyone really cares about the small incidental expenses.
Imagine there are three postage bands for the weight of the item you have purchased,
one costing £2.95, one £5.05 and the last one £12.12, and the cost depends on
the size of the item. I use these as they are real examples here, but of course
it is complicated in that other options are available. But you don't know
the size of the item. Now if the seller tells you it will cost £14 to post, it
seems to the buyer that this is going to have to go as a large parcel, with a
little extra to cover incidental costs. So they argree and pay. Then when it
arrives, the buyer can see that the seller was able to use the £2.95 band, the
extra was there as profit for the seller. You agreed to the postage costs upfront,
so you cannot complain that the seller overcharges for postage. How do you feel
when you realise the seller quotes based on something that looks like the top
band for large parcels, then uses a lower one for smaller parcels?
Would you prefer for buyers to contact you before ordering and ask why the postage
is so high, for what the buyer thinks should be a small parcel, but you are being
charged a large parcel?
|
As I’ve said, we’re not talking about a large discrepancy. I do have a single
s/h charge. It’s $4.99 for standard mail for any order size
which is closely related to actual cost on average. Minimum postage is $3.66
plus all associated fees/materials/etc.
|
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
