BrickLink Discussion Forum

I believe it went away because it was related to the several hacks into the site.
Vulnerabilities of the chat function programming.

If they could do it without reintroducing the security vulnerabilities it would
be great to have it back.

In Suggestions, mark1984 writes:

In Suggestions, SKotK writes:

Just another vote to bring the Chat function back to this site. I really miss
being able to converse with my fellow BrickLinkians in real-time...

/quit BRING BACK CHAT (seriously)!

--SKot

The chat room function here before was great for the site, It was a place were
many sales were made and many underage sellers found out, I made my first sale
and also placed my first order because of the chat room, Bringing chat back is
a major part of site, (in my own views of course)

Author:

lmeyer

Posted:

Jan 10, 2015 00:03

Subject:

Remove electronic pymt optns w/out buyer prot

Viewed:

139 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Vote:

[Yes|No]

Couldn't exactly fit the whole thing:

Remove all electronic payment options that do not have buyer protection.

This is happening at a increasing frequency rate of people doing money transfers
and getting scammed. It is bad enough you can scam sellers via paypal but to
have scammers set up shops and prey on buyers, take their money and then close
down, not caring at all what happens to their bricklink account (ie no downside
for them),

I'd put this out there as a suggestion. If not for all at least for international
transactions as they seem to be targeted far more often.

Author:

lmeyer

Posted:

Jan 7, 2015 01:26

Subject:

Re: Integrate age verification software into BL

Viewed:

57 times

Topic:

The other bypass issue problem that occurs is a parent sets up the account and
the underage kid screws things up. As per the last big instance here.

In Suggestions, jodawill writes:

In Suggestions, Hardstone writes:

Bricklink would really benefit from having some sort of age verification software
integrated into it. Despite the minimum age to join being 18, it seems like a
lot of underage buyers keep managing to sign up. I am not going to name names,
but there is at least one recent buyer who admitted in the forums that he or
she is 16.

Can't BL staff add some sort of age verification element to the registration
process?

That would be nice, but I don't know if there's a practical way to do
that. If I remember correctly, I don't think it asks for your age when you
register, so maybe they could at least do that if they don't already, although
people will just lie.

Author:

lmeyer

Posted:

Apr 15, 2014 17:13

Subject:

On all Suggestions, display # of yes/no votes

Viewed:

147 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Vote:

[Yes|No]

I think regardless of whatever suggestion is for, the numbers of votes for and
against should be shown/made visible.

This will not only show the attitude of the most concerned Bricklink folks (the
ones who are concerned the most for any particular suggestion are the ones that
take the time to vote yes or no), but also the importance of the issue to those
more connected in the goings-on on Bricklink, by noting the totals of votes an
issue receives (an issue getting thousands of votes is more important to the
community than one that gets dozens total).

It would also be a good measure to see how the Bricklink admins and powers that
be react to issues strongly felt one way or the other to those in the community
at-large here. If they do nothing for an issue felt very strongly by many here,
it's good to know that. Also would be great to see an important community
issue being taken care of quickly because so many folks here deem it important.

Author:

lmeyer

Posted:

Apr 15, 2014 17:06

Subject:

Re: permanent bans on buyers:/sellers

Viewed:

51 times

Topic:

Clearly with investigation every exception situation you metnion would be shown
not to be a long-term problematic buyer/seller, but ones that had abnormal, unusual
circumstances that are not representative of the norm for those persons'
Bricklinking behavior.

That's exactly why I wrote the very paragraph you highlighted.

In Suggestions, PBM writes:

In Suggestions, LEGOMASTER writes:

In Suggestions, lmeyer writes:

Just a thought here, but when we were open to the public we had an issue.

We had a bad employee who did massive damage to our inventory.

Without my knowledge she mixed all of the same colors from all of the inventory
into big vats over a weekend.

When I arrived on Monday all hell had broken loose.

It almost destroyed us.

I remember at the time people asking for our head, as well as "racking up" effect
that brought the wrath of the forum blasters against me.

Just as a note to the poster of this suggestion, I had a number of people who
wanted us removed from the site for getting 2 negatives in a row!

So while I understand the need to remove someone who has fraud in mind, there
needs to be a balance for when good sellers have major issues!

Also, "over time" is an oddity. I remember in this same forum reading about
a buyer who got 3 NPBs in 10 years and lost their purchasing rights.

As time goes on there will be more of those as well.

Thought should go into the sites reputation as well as the ability to be able
to "grow over time". Example;

A buyer has been on the site for 10+ years. He/she purchases on a regular basis.
Whammo, the buyer is in an auto accident and is offline for a month.

Buyer comes back, has 3 NPBs and loses their ability to purchase. Is this fair?

Author:

lmeyer

Posted:

Apr 14, 2014 23:24

Subject:

permanent bans on buyers:/sellers

Viewed:

353 times

Topic:

Status:

Discarded

For buyers and sellers that continue to rack up negative feedback and nss's
and npb's, who show little indication they are sincerely doing anything to
improve, but just keepcdoung the same BS to people over and over again,

kick these people permanently off bricklink. have a check if any new people
register and it's the address of a permanently banned person, and automatically
shut down that new account.

we can't have people here with 46 negatives and 34 neutrals across the years
pulling obvious scams on people. we e not talking about a group of people targeting
a buyer or seller on purpose to screw with their ratings. we are talking
about people who as a buyer or seller are a continual problem, on purpose and
are gaming buyers, sellers and the brickink system, and it's rubbing off
on the site. just like bad cops make everyone wary of all cops. and to have
bricklink continue to let these known huge problem people operate here despite
what common sense and common business sense would let one believe needs to be
done, it's enabling, to say the least.

we need to get rid of these jokes. they make this place look like it doesn't
care, and if we don't get rid of the most blatant, excessive, deliberate-known
scam artists here, it makes it very hard to say those who think this place doesn't
care, are wrong.

Author:

lmeyer

Posted:

Feb 20, 2013 23:48

Subject:

Re: Removal of Neg/Neutral FB if Older than a Yr

Viewed:

49 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, NewRiverValley writes:

Has removing negative / neutral feedback that's older than a year ever been discussed?
I have a negative feedback that I received as retaliation yearS ago and it bugs
me every time I look at it.

Thanks!!

i would not support it only for a time reason. if you were asking to get rid
of retaliatory feedback over 1 year old, then i would support it.

i would only support this for retaliatory feedback. not for any other kind.
npb's can leave negative feedback, and nss's can leave negative feedback and
admin will not get rid of them. people who want to cancel an order or ask for
better shipping leave neg fb if they don't get what they want.

Author:

lmeyer

Posted:

Sep 18, 2012 14:48

Subject:

Re: Inconsistencies between NPB and NRS/NSS

Viewed:

36 times

Topic:

I believe the primary reason an NSS takes longer is because of potential shipping
delays. Especially international shipping.

In Suggestions, aftepes writes:

After waiting a week, an NPB, NRS, or NSS can be filed on a problem order.

To complete an NRS or NSS, two weeks must go by before they can be completed
and the order cancelled.

On the other hand, an NPB can be completed after one week if no response is provided.
(Two weeks if the buyer does respond, but still doesn't pay.)

I get that while an NPB is in progress, goods are being tied up which could be
potentially sold to another buyer. On the other hand, my money is essentially
being tied up while waiting for the NRS to be completed. Since each submitted
order is a contract, I have to wait until the order is cancelled before my earmarked
funds are freed up and I can move on to a different shop to purchase my goods
without fear of a seller waking up and finally deciding to sell to me.

So my suggestion is that all three processes operate in a similar manner. If
after one week, the complaint is not addressed by the other party, then the appropriate
complaint can be completed and the order cancelled. If the the complaint is addressed
by the other party within one week, then after two weeks of a lack of resolution
then the complaint can be completed and the order cancelled. By utilizing similar
processes for buyer and seller problem resolutions, the site reinforces that
both party's rights are equal and the need for responding to issues is not more
vital than the other's.

Author:

lmeyer

Posted:

Sep 9, 2012 23:25

Subject:

Re: Please add a step to form the contract

Viewed:

55 times

Topic:

No. There is no extra step needed. Reading the store's TOS is what is needed
before placing the order. We are adults here and it's not the sites' responsibility
to get you out of an order because you didn't read the TOS of the store you order
from.

People need to read store terms beforehand. If a person tries putting fees on
later after not having that in store terms, the buyer should be able to cancel.
If they are spelled out in the store's TOS and you didn't see them, don't buy
from them again, and perhaps share them with the rest of us on the forum.

Good and bad experiences help all of us here who read the forum posts. Most
people tend to want to avoid sellers who do this kind of stuff (ie nickel and
dime you to death while seemingly using enticing offers to get you to buy from
them).

In Suggestions, Thunor writes:

Dealing with stores with unreasonable terms
- that only become clear after being invoiced.

I would like to propose an extra simple step to the process of forming the contract:
-

step 1: - buyer clicks "complete order" (was submit order) - usually without
foreknowledge of invoice total (some stores, including mine make it clear but
a vast number do not)

step 2: - seller sends buyer invoice with demand for payment which now reveals
all the "extra's" that may have been hidden.

and the new step:- (ADD new "button" accept/decline)
step 3: - buyer either accepts invoice and makes payment, or declines - this
would give the buyer the option to not accept unreasonable fees.

Please consider this solution as I believe the only ones who would vote against,
would be stores that HAVE hidden fees.

"Extra work"? do bare in mind a buyer has spent some time forming the order,
very few fall thru (not one for me yet), they are only likely to pull out due
to unreasonable fees in the first place!
Having low prices and high added fees isn't the best business model for anybody.

I am aware of the demands from Germany - perhaps that would form the Global model?

Thank you Graham

Author:

lmeyer

Posted:

Mar 15, 2011 17:01

Subject:

Re: Admin... Easy request to consider

Viewed:

34 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, Rolf writes:

Smokey bricks is one of my worse nightmares because I can't smell. I would be
very sad indeed if someone sent me smokey bricks and someone smelled em.

With that, I still don't support this. People not willing to list smokey status
on comments still won't check the checkbox, radio button, any other method of
informing the buyer.

It would give the buyer more footing to get a refund without as much trouble
because parts would not be what was described (if radio button not selected,
bricks are by default, set to "not smokey").

Author:

lmeyer

Posted:

Mar 15, 2011 15:35

Subject:

Re: Admin... Easy request to consider

Viewed:

57 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, junkpile writes:

Hello Admin,

I know your a busy guy and doing a good job around here. This is a simple request
which has been mentioned before in the forum but not the same idea.

Can we PLEASE put a yes or no radio button in STORE TERMS page that says if seller
has smokey bricks in their store.

I have extreme allergies and Asthma this is a medical need and I'm not the only
one here. Also the majority of people here don't like smoke smelling bricks
anyway.

reason 2. It's not fair to offer an item with smoke and not mention it as they
are worth less than the same item without smoke. Especially when it is very
strong as in this case. Limited buyers are willing to even Accept smokey items.

The seller I got this last batch from has NOTHING in splash page or Terms and
no comments prior in feedback so no way to know. For the smoke to be this strong
of a smell I have no doubt he's had problems in the past as I knew a seller who
did that who kept getting paypal reversals and requests to return here on bricklink
even though that person ALSO never had bad feedback but had trouble every couple
of orders and just worked it out. Not fair to his customers to have to go through
that.

Having a simple radio buttion "Yes I do sometimes offer smokey bricks" or
"NO, I never sell Smokey Bricks." Is a simple solution and one that will help
alot of people and alot of unpleasant orders. You will still see the money since
we will just buy from someone else here on Bricklink and be happy with the order.

Thank you for taking the time to consider,
Junkpile

Side Note for those who have had this problem.

This is my 2nd batch of smokey bricks within the past couple months. I've had
sellers on here tell me "NO I don't smoke or have smokey bricks" and give me
stuff that is chain smoker strong. At least this way we can know upfront and
as a community we can let it be known if they lie about it.

Side note for those who have suffered the same problem. I did have some minor
success with cleaning the Lego but it has expense and frustration to it.

1. Step one soak all the lego in Vinegar, soap and water for few hours at least.
Then scrub them. This by itself will not clean them

2. Let them air out in a garage or outside.

3. Put them in a plastic zip lock bags (I used a gallon bag) and spray lemon
scented cleaner all over the bricks and let it sit for 2 days.

4. Wash them again and let them air dry for a day or so.

The smoke smell was still there but it was extremely faint, the lemon smell is
over shadowing it and it didn't break out my skin now. To smell it now I have
to put the piece all the way to my nose... a few pieces did get completely clean
of the smoke. Various types of lego resins had slightly different results. (BEWARE
as this would damage stickers or items like that) The plastic did not lose any
integrity through process for me.

Hope that helps someone, alot of work and some expense.. but better than throwing
them in the garbage which IS WHAT I WOULD HAVE TO DO if I couldn't get them clean.
I wouldn't dare sell them to someone else in my store. Though I know smokers
can't smell it like we can as they are used to it.

This is probably the most potentially serious, lingering and offensive problem
most commonly encountered by buyers here. I have had this happen more than once
from different sellers, and I would have known beforehand I was going to be getting
new, smoke-smelling bricks, I would have not even placed an order in the first
place.

It isn't unreasonable. It gives buyers a heads-up before placing an order.
Prevents having to cancel an order or get into arguments/negotiations with seller
after smokey bricks are sent. Just prevent a bad situation before it develops.

Author:

lmeyer

Posted:

Jan 28, 2011 20:56

Subject:

Re: Credit Card required to sell on BrickLink

Viewed:

37 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, locutis writes:

BrickLink should setup a system where a seller would need to have a credit card
to sell on BL, and BL charges the seller a small amount (say $5) to setup the
store, and activate it, and verify the seller's information that is on BL against
the credit card.

The $5 would offset any costs associated with checking names/addresses. Once
BL has a card # and a charge on it, they can verify the name and address to the
card, and they know that they are dealing with a real person, at a real address.
Or, maybe make this an option, and have a store icon that shows that the seller
is verified.

Or, perhaps make this a requirement only if the seller wishes to sell high value
products, or lots of items valued at a high value.

I would gladly do this for my store, to show that I'm legit and serious about
selling.

Locutis
Resistance is futile.

No. System works just fine the way it is.

Author:

lmeyer

Posted:

Jan 25, 2011 15:50

Subject:

Re: Feedback Rating - Change Neutral to Mediocre

Viewed:

32 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, Tracyd writes:

In Suggestions, lmeyer writes:

Per my prior post fosterbengoshi brought up a valid point here:

In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
How exactly will this be implemented? Will it replace or supplement the current
feedback system? If the latter, how will the 5757 feedbacks I already earned
be converted and weighted in this new rating system? Or will we all start from
scratch, with 10 year 10,000 feedback members on the same equal footing as 0
year 0 feedback members?

Thor

I really just put this out there as an alternative to the 10-level of category
suggestion for feedback, given the main reason was that "neutral" apparently
wasn't very useful for most people and thus, really only two categories of feedback
are being used to cover a wide range of orders that make those ratings misleading.
Right now really there are only two practical categories of feedback, positive
and negative. My main reason for posting was to somehow make this middle, under-used
area of rating more useful and accurate and a real choice for buyers and sellers
as opposed to its current setup, which hardly anyone uses. In effect we really
only rate orders good or bad.

Perhaps we could make the "neutral" category more useful if it was renamed to
be something more useful in terms of ranking order satisfaction.

Maybe the way to go is to rate order satisfaction for buyer and seller like this:

- Poor (not acceptable)

- Mediocre (formerly the inaccurate "neutral" rating)

- Good (happy with the order experience)

With such a setup there would be no conversion needed, and it makes the middle
ranking category a lot omore useful as opposed to "neutral". There is no sense
to "neutral" and that's probably why we always see people asking for a better
feedback system, they just don't get what the "neutral" is about, and the fact
it's almost never used proves two things: 1) people don't understand it, and
2) orders are either bad, barely ok, or good. Not "neutral".

Maybe just the wording change from "neutral" to "Mediocre". I believe "mediocre"
would be a good word for the middle category, because it isn't either good or
unacceptable, it is in between, but it also isn't "neutral". Mediocre also isn't
inherently "average" either, which I think would be a problem to call it, because
most people's average order experiences here score a "good" rating. Mediocre
can be for those orders that do finally get filled but have problems, aren't
as smooth as the normal good orders most people experience, yet they aren't "poor"
orders that people get shafted on, or just can't resolve. Mediocre can mean
a barely passable order, a minimally tolerable order, an order that finishes
up ultimately okay, but had problems as it wasn't as good as a "good" order.
"Neutral" doesn't mean any of these kinds of orders. Not good and not bad,
there is no such order like that.

So really this might be the best thing, in order to make the middle, mis-named
category rating of "neutral" a category that is more accurately named and defined,
to be more useful to buyers and sellers who really want more than just "positive"
and "negative" and ignore the "neutral" because it doesn't make sense to them
as currently defined. Orders are not "Neutral". Renaming this to "mediocre"
might be the best way to go, as it doesn't even add one extra ranking level,
it requires no conversion, and changes "neutral" from a category most people
don't use and may not feel reflects an order, to "mediocre", which turns that
into a viable third choice for rating an order. All that is required is a definition
change and changing the word "neutral" to "mediocre" on a few screens.

If someone wants to have Admin cancel my former suggestion that added an additional
cateogry, that's fine, as this suggestion would be a lot easier to do, and serve
the same purpose, to make the middle ranking category actually mean something
tangible to buyers and sellers and more accurately describe an order that is
"better than poor, but less than good". This is an order that isn't "neutral".

Maybe OK or alright instead of mediocre. And excellant instead of good? Or
even:
Poor
Good
Excellent

That would not upset the current rankings. Thou you would start to see a lot
more good, until the people got upset and started ranting in the forums.

No order is just "neutral". And this might be where this is throwing off people
from using this category more often to more accurately rate some of their orders.

Actually it would upset the current rankings. "Neutral" rankings are not "good"
ones, right now a "good" order would have been rated as "positive".

Poor does equate to Negative.

Good does equate to Positive.

Neutral just needs to be changed to rate an order that really isn't as bad as
poor, but is also less than good. There needs to be an accurate descriptor for
such an order, and mediocre is the word that most accurately describes it. It
also can cover a lot more ground than any other synonym.

Author:

lmeyer

Posted:

Jan 25, 2011 15:24

Subject:

Feedback Rating - Change Neutral to Mediocre

Viewed:

171 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Vote:

[Yes|No]

Author:

lmeyer

Posted:

Jan 3, 2011 20:34

Subject:

Re: Update of TOS

Viewed:

42 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, BigBrickDaddy writes:

I would like to see an update to the famed TOS.

This would include NO POSTING of persons handles in Subject headings on the forum.

I consider this to be personal information.

And I have taken offense at the use of it to single out a certain user (not me
by the way) on this forum for public attack.

This buyer is in good standing, and places large orders with stores on this site.

I agree that posting about 'flame topics' gets you more business (as presented
by our new #1 poster of the month).

But in that ruining a person's reputation by doing this practice is wrong.

Using something like "Buyer wants customs form fraud" works just as well, and
does not point a spotlight at a buyer.

In this case, customer is NOT ALWAYS RIGHT, but does he deserve to be drawn and
quartered in public for making a mistake?

Now discussion of a "wrong" matter in the forum is well documented, and I can
list many positive outcomes to posting a person's handle AFTER a NPB or NSS is
complete.

But to attack a person before any BL Admin process can take place, again in my
opinion, is just plain baiting.

I am sure I will have person's in this forum now attack my position by doing
personal attacks on me.

So I am going to ignore this post so I do not head down that path again today.

Have a great day, and I look forward to your business.

Unless you can't post anyone's handle in the subject OR the body of the message,
everyone will know anyway. Otherwise anyone who was interested enough to read
the post will find out who the person is when they read it in the body of the
message, everyone winds up knowing who it is in the end anyway. And there are
a lot of buyers and sellers who do read this for their own reasons.

Author:

lmeyer

Posted:

Jan 2, 2011 01:51

Subject:

Re: Removal of negative feedback if rule broken

Viewed:

52 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, BigBrickDaddy writes:

We just got a nice private email from another poster.

I would like to suggest if a person uses the Break a Store rule that negative
feedback not be allowed.

Thank you.

Of course when the store owners don't follow their own rules but then want to
enforce the rules on the customers when a problem arises from their own doing,
that's pretty lousy too.

Author:

lmeyer

Posted:

Dec 8, 2010 23:30

Subject:

Re: New payment option - Billpay (your bank acct)

Viewed:

36 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, legomadsteve writes:

In Suggestions, lmeyer writes:

No fees to either of you to

I like that bit alot.

Apart from not being able to do this internationally, just between national banks,
still it seems great and as secure as a bank transfer, without the transfer fees.

Author:

lmeyer

Posted:

Dec 8, 2010 20:13

Subject:

Re: New payment option - Billpay (your bank acct)

Viewed:

41 times

Topic:

http://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=487077

I saw that but I did not want to assume they are the identical thing. I think
if we call it what the banks actually call it themselves, people can more clearly
line up the option to what it is. None of the banks I know call it electronic
checks. They refer to it as "Online Billpay", or "Internet Billpay" or "Web
Billpay", depending what exactly they call their service. But "billpay" is always
part of it.

In Suggestions, drh writes:

In Suggestions, lmeyer writes:

One option a lot of people have to pay bills are directly from their bank accounts,
and it is offered free by banks to their customers.

Some banks call it "internet" billpay, or "web" billpay. Whatever the name each
bank calls it, it is you setting up online payment of a bill, from your checking
account. The buyer sets the seller up as a company to pay a bill to, and with
the seller's bank account number and routing # (same info needed for a bank transfer),
is able to send money to you from their account. No fees to either of you to
do it - unlike a regular bank transfer.

Banks process online billpay transactions like a check, there could be a few
days before funds are totally released. Over a certain dollar amount they are
required to hold the funds a few days.

Since there isn't any fees for senders or receivers and it is a one-way process
(sender can only put money into receiver's account) and it is tracked, it seems
like a good method to send money to bricklink sellers. And since bricklink buyers
sending this way have proof money was sent from their account, and it is free
to use, it is a good thing for them as well.

Note that this right now only works for banks within the same country.

So I would ask that this option be added to the list of payment methods offered.
Call it "Online Billpay", or "Web Billpay" or "Online Bank Billpay", "Internet
Billpay", something like this. I think it needs its own option because it is
not the same thing as a traditional bank transfer.

Author:

lmeyer

Posted:

Dec 8, 2010 18:37

Subject:

New payment option - Billpay (your bank acct)

Viewed:

120 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Vote:

[Yes|No]