BrickLink Discussion Forum

Sorry, but I voted no. I don't think buyers should be able to change order
status to completed and file it away before the seller has marked it as paid
or shipped. While I understand (and share) your frustration with sellers who
are lazy about changing the order status, allowing buyers to change the status
prematurely would open it up to much confusion, gaming and abuse.

Thor

Author:

ToriHada

Posted:

Jun 1, 2016 14:17

Subject:

Re: Feedback Removal for Unhappiness with Customs

Viewed:

56 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, BrickItYourself writes:

So this gets implemented and buyers just leave feedback that doesn't mention
the VAT or other import duties...

They could just leave a neutral that says "seller did not disclose all fees"

Then how does this get changed?

It is not intended to fix everything or read buyers' minds. But if the non-positive
feedback itself complains about having to pay VAT and customs, I think it is
safe to say that is the main reason for such feedback. If buyers want to hide
their displeasure with paying VAT and customs behind some other reason, so be
it. But I don't think that will happen often enough to make this suggestion
worthless.

Thor

Author:

ToriHada

Posted:

Jun 1, 2016 13:44

Subject:

Feedback Removal for Unhappiness with Customs

Viewed:

266 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Vote:

[Yes|No]

It has already been suggested that sellers be able to request removal of non-positive
feedback from buyers who demand or ask for customs fraud.

This suggestion seeks to expand on that to include any non-positive feedback
given to sellers because the buyer was surprised or unhappy to have to pay VAT
or customs duties. Sometimes buyers who do NOT request customs fraud nonetheless
leave non-positive feedback for their seller because they had to pay VAT and
customs duties. But this is something that is clearly not the seller's responsibility
or fault and completely beyond their control. For an example of this, see the
neutral feedback this seller received on May 1, 2016:

http://www.bricklink.com/feedback.asp?fdbType=1&u=timmys

Thor

Author:

ToriHada

Posted:

May 26, 2016 09:02

Subject:

Re: Open Bids and Purchase Requests

Viewed:

37 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, BrickItYourself writes:

In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:

Seems like a lot of work for minimal and questionable benefit. Plus some potential
problems as others have noted.

Sorry, but if the item is going to sell quickly anyway (like the example you
used to support this suggestion), what does BrickLink need this for? Maybe it
is just me, but I don't really think it is a problem that someone else bought
it first. First come, first served. The seller got the price he wanted and
the (first) buyer got a nice figure for a price he was willing to pay. Those
who were too slow to order just have to act faster next time. And the existing
Wanted List feature can already quickly tip them off when new things are listed.

Thor

Remember in the references thread about SW102, the buyer stated publicly he would
pay $$$ for the figure.

As a buyer, I would be frustrated and disappointed if more and more lots for
items I wanted were not publicly listed because someone else MIGHT pay more for
them. If the seller wants more, list them at the higher price. I think, in
the long run, BrickLink serves it members better and earns more fees by having
more items listed and available to everyone on a first come, first served basis.
It is easier, less confusing, more fair, less elitist, and FASTER.

Also, the wanted list for this particular item wastes part of his time because
he is looking for a variation on the item. So he gets an e-mail every time one
is listed and most of them are going to be the wrong one.

True - for this particular item. But how many items have variations that are
not listed? A fraction of 1% of all items in the BL catalog?

Now asking, what are the benefits of such a feature is a question.

benefits I see are as follows:

Buyers would be able to place 1 order instead of several if they have the time
to wait

As a buyer, when I place multiple orders to get items on my Wanted List, I almost
always add items that were not on my Wanted List. What this means is that, for
example, the total amount of 2 or 3 smaller orders (before shipping) is almost
always MORE than the amount of the one large order I could have placed. This
results in more fees for BrickLink and more orders and income for more sellers.
Sure, as a buyer I pay more. But I also get more and it is my choice to pay
more.

Collectors could put out specifics on items they want without have to browse
many stores to see if the items meet their needs

As a buyer, browsing stores is a big part of the fun of shopping here on BrickLink.
And browsing also causes buyers to buy even more. It is NOT in the financial
interests of either BrickLink or sellers to help buyers avoid browsing in stores.

Sellers could actively initiate more business for themselves.

I disagree. Overall, I think it could result in less sales (especially impulse
buys when browsing). And rather than increasing overall sales, I think it would
also just divert or shuffle sales from one seller to another.

Thor

Author:

ToriHada

Posted:

May 26, 2016 08:11

Subject:

Re: Open Bids and Purchase Requests

Viewed:

46 times

Topic: