Discussion Forum: Messages by bb94303 (217)
Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full      Show Messages: All | Without Replies

 Author: bb94303 View Messages Posted By bb94303
 Posted: Jan 30, 2011 12:25
 Subject: Re: New User, New Seller screen.
 Viewed: 50 times
 Topic: Suggestions
View Message
View
Cancel Message
Cancel
In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
  In Suggestions, Brickwilbo writes:
  In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
  In Suggestions, BigBrickDaddy writes:

  MANY, and I mean MANY people have bought from me thinking I OWN BRICKLINK.

They do not have the concept that there are hundreds if not thousands of sellers
on here.

Proven from the constant questions about purchasing from my other stores on this
site.

Hmmm... "... my other stores on this site." This is the second time you have
mentioned having other stores on this site. If so, that means you have duplicate
accounts in violation of the ToS. Would you care to elaborate on those other
stores and accounts and explain why you feel owning multiple stores and accounts
does not violate the ToS.

I believe he meant "other stores", because of the questions about other stores.


I don't think so. He wrote "MY other stores on this site", and this is the SECOND
time he mentioned having other BL stores. In fact, Dan and Jon have mentioned
several times that they have purchased a number of other BrickLink stores and
that this was one reason they were having so much trouble recently with their
inventory and multiple identical listings. Let's also not forget that Jon's mentor
or partner, Dan, has had multiple accounts in the past and has long desired another
"personal" account. This to me is at least as suspicious as a zero feedback seller
with cheap sets. But perhaps Jon can explain this rather than us guessing about
it.

Thor


you the man Thor I am so glad someone is calling this guy out
 Author: bb94303 View Messages Posted By bb94303
 Posted: Jan 28, 2011 09:29
 Subject: Re: Credit Card required to sell on BrickLink
 Viewed: 30 times
 Topic: Suggestions
View Message
View
Cancel Message
Cancel
Reply to Message
Reply
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 what are you guys doing to bricklink

PLEASE leave the running of the website to the people that do
and be greatful there is a bricklink
 Author: bb94303 View Messages Posted By bb94303
 Posted: Jan 28, 2011 08:13
 Subject: Re: -2, account review!
 Viewed: 85 times
 Topic: Suggestions
View Message
View
Cancel Message
Cancel
Reply to Message
Reply
In Suggestions, BigBrickDaddy writes:
  If a buyer hits the -2 mark I would suggest doing a review on that person.

Especially if that person is a seller!

I cannot imagine anyone having issue with this.

Maybe a -2 selling privilages cut pending review would work?

I read in the forum all kinds of troubles with your store your listing practices
weren't you the warehouse before i even bought from you
I am just saying were you limited when you started out
bricklink is growing and it all new accounts start out at 0 don't they
why not just look at what troy said about nannie states
clean up your stores issues and just let people do what they do
you cannot control what others do if it is too good to be true than guess what
it is
 Author: bb94303 View Messages Posted By bb94303
 Posted: Jan 25, 2011 16:55
 Subject: Re: Feedback Survey Option for Each Seller
 Viewed: 24 times
 Topic: Suggestions
View Message
View
Cancel Message
Cancel
Reply to Message
Reply
In Suggestions, sardullo writes:
  In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
  Instead of drastically changing BrickLink's feedback system so late in the game,
how about giving sellers the option of asking their buyers to take a brief survey
assessing their transaction and then posting the results of that survey in their
feedback profile via a link to another page containing only those survey results?

This would be OPTIONAL for sellers to include with their feedback profile and
OPTIONAL for buyers to complete. However, once opted in, a seller cannot opt
out if he does not like the results of the survey.

Thor


I'd settle if my buyers actually updated the status of the orders after I ship
them out. I have 8 Orders sitting with No status other then, "Since they didn't
complain I guess they got it Status" that is the invisible one you can select.

This is only within the last 3 months and I have a tiny Store. I couldn't imagine
have a big one and dealing with this.

I'd rather have a system that will not let you Order from another store until
you "BUS" your Status of ALL previous orders. Doesn't mean you have to force
FB but would be nice. At the very Least require the Buyer and or Seller to commit
to updating the status of orders.

W

I have been buying on bricklink for I think a few years now and I
no nothing about the status updates i just give feedback when I get the orders
in the mail
HOW ABOUT A TUTORIAL on the proper way to update the order
just a suggestion before you consider the whole change the system stuff
 Author: bb94303 View Messages Posted By bb94303
 Posted: Sep 19, 2010 08:52
 Subject: Re: Change BL Policy re NPBs after PayPal Claim
 Viewed: 43 times
 Topic: Suggestions
View Message
View
Cancel Message
Cancel
Reply to Message
Reply
In Suggestions, mark25 writes:
  In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
  BrickLink policy appears to be that it will almost always automatically deny
and remove an NPB if the buyer has either filed or completed a PayPal reversal
or chargeback. This does not seem fair in many cases, especially if the PayPal
claim is filed only a few days after shipping (as we have seen several times
over the past few days).

Please change this policy to be more flexible and fair. Thus, I suggest that
an NPB filed after the buyer does a PayPal claim should NOT be denied or removed
by BrickLink if ALL of the following facts exist:

1. The seller can provide proof of shipping,
2. The seller's BrickLink shop terms and/or invoice clearly state that uninsured
orders are shipped at the buyer's risk, AND
3. When filing the NPB, the seller mentions the PayPal claim and their above
terms(1).

Additional facts which should also be considered are:

a. the reputation and feedback of the seller and buyer;
b. whether either the seller or buyer has filed or has had filed against it
an unusual number of PayPal claims; and
c. whether the buyer is also a BrickLink seller AND has terms in their own shop
disclaiming liability for uninsured orders.

I think everyone here will agree that when a buyer takes back their PayPal payment,
the seller has not been paid for the order. It is non-payment the same way a
bounced check would be non-payment.

Furthermore, BrickLink does not require the seller to show proof of delivery
to defeat an NSS, so why should BL require sellers to prove delivery to complete
an NPB (which is what they must do to defeat the PayPal claim)?

As for PayPal's Buyer Protection Policy, that is a separate matter between the
seller, buyer and PayPal. BrickLink is not part of that matter, no more than
BL is a part of enforcing PayPal's prohibition against charging PayPal fees.
PayPal's terms do NOT say anywhere that the buyer does not have to pay the seller;
only that the payment will not be processed via PayPal. Legally and contractually,
the buyer is still bound to pay. Only the manner of payment has changed.

All we want is a little more flexibility and fairness to prevent the abuses and
double whammies good sellers have been getting recently over this.

Foster

(1) In other words, Admin should not have to go looking for this or wait for
the seller's reply to the buyer's reply. The seller needs to make their case
for the NPB from the very beginning.

yes it sounds fair

A yes from me even though I dont sell on bricklink I sell on the other site and
too be completely honest this is the whole problem PAYPAL
(((As for PayPal's Buyer Protection Policy, that is a separate matter between
the
seller, buyer and PayPal. BrickLink is not part of that matter, no more than
BL is a part of enforcing PayPal's prohibition against charging PayPal fees.
PayPal's terms do NOT say anywhere that the buyer does not have to pay the seller;
only that the payment will not be processed via PayPal. Legally and contractually,
the buyer is still bound to pay. Only the manner of payment has changed)))