Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | Adjour  | | Posted: | Feb 3, 2019 19:01 | | Subject: | Re: My Pet Peeve of the day | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Mistress_Lisa writes:
| | Whenever I am looking up a stickered part in the catalog to identify, I then
look at past and current sales of this part. So my pet peeve is this: how can
a stickered part possibly be listed as 'new'?? Just by the fact that
you took the sticker off the sheet and attached it to the part makes it, by definition,
USED! It doesn't matter if you never used this part to build the set, it
is still used! Is there any way we can disable the 'new' button when
listing these types of parts?
Lisa
|
Since we are talking about stickers, I see incomplete sticker sheets listed as
"new" as well on occasion.
Since there isn't an "incomplete" option, they should be considered "used"
IMHO.
|
 |
| Author: | BigBBricks | | Posted: | Feb 3, 2019 16:52 | | Subject: | Re: My Pet Peeve of the day | | Viewed: | 116 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Mistress_Lisa writes:
| | Whenever I am looking up a stickered part in the catalog to identify, I then
look at past and current sales of this part. So my pet peeve is this: how can
a stickered part possibly be listed as 'new'?? Just by the fact that
you took the sticker off the sheet and attached it to the part makes it, by definition,
USED! It doesn't matter if you never used this part to build the set, it
is still used! Is there any way we can disable the 'new' button when
listing these types of parts?
Lisa
|
How would I list an element like this if you disabled new?  Totally agree on
the applied aspect but a generic limitation may not be the way.
https://store.bricklink.com/BigBBricks?sID=439481&itemID=80878468
|
|
| Author: | edk | | Posted: | Feb 3, 2019 16:05 | | Subject: | Re: My Pet Peeve of the day | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Suggestions, Mistress_Lisa writes:
| | […]
| | I have made this argument regarding boxes listed as new to no avail. I finally
gave up and listed most of my used boxes as new just like most sellers do.
|
Agreed. A box cannot be new if it has been opened! Now, if you have a sealed
box and you have magically transported the contents out of the box without opening
it, then I would make an exception and it can be listed as 'new'. 
|
Or you if you get them directly from LEGO (or their supplier) before they are
filled.
Unless in that case you call them “pre-new” or “not-even-new-yet” 
|
If someone actually got unused boxes from lego that is the only case where they
are actually new since they were not used for their intended purpose.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Feb 3, 2019 15:58 | | Subject: | Re: My Pet Peeve of the day | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Mistress_Lisa writes:
| | […]
| | I have made this argument regarding boxes listed as new to no avail. I finally
gave up and listed most of my used boxes as new just like most sellers do.
|
Agreed. A box cannot be new if it has been opened! Now, if you have a sealed
box and you have magically transported the contents out of the box without opening
it, then I would make an exception and it can be listed as 'new'.
|
Or you if you get them directly from LEGO (or their supplier) before they are
filled.
Unless in that case you call them “pre-new” or “not-even-new-yet”
|
|
| Author: | Mistress_Lisa | | Posted: | Feb 3, 2019 15:53 | | Subject: | Re: My Pet Peeve of the day | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, edk writes:
| | In Suggestions, Mistress_Lisa writes:
| | Whenever I am looking up a stickered part in the catalog to identify, I then
look at past and current sales of this part. So my pet peeve is this: how can
a stickered part possibly be listed as 'new'?? Just by the fact that
you took the sticker off the sheet and attached it to the part makes it, by definition,
USED! It doesn't matter if you never used this part to build the set, it
is still used! Is there any way we can disable the 'new' button when
listing these types of parts?
Lisa
|
I have made this argument regarding boxes listed as new to no avail. I finally
gave up and listed most of my used boxes as new just like most sellers do.
|
Agreed. A box cannot be new if it has been opened! Now, if you have a sealed
box and you have magically transported the contents out of the box without opening
it, then I would make an exception and it can be listed as 'new'.
Lisa
|
|
| Author: | edk | | Posted: | Feb 3, 2019 15:17 | | Subject: | Re: My Pet Peeve of the day | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Mistress_Lisa writes:
| | Whenever I am looking up a stickered part in the catalog to identify, I then
look at past and current sales of this part. So my pet peeve is this: how can
a stickered part possibly be listed as 'new'?? Just by the fact that
you took the sticker off the sheet and attached it to the part makes it, by definition,
USED! It doesn't matter if you never used this part to build the set, it
is still used! Is there any way we can disable the 'new' button when
listing these types of parts?
Lisa
|
I have made this argument regarding boxes listed as new to no avail. I finally
gave up and listed most of my used boxes as new just like most sellers do.
|
|
| Author: | popsicle | | Posted: | Feb 3, 2019 15:14 | | Subject: | Re: My Pet Peeve of the day | | Viewed: | 84 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Mistress_Lisa writes:
| | In Suggestions, popsicle writes:
| | In Suggestions, Mistress_Lisa writes:
| | Whenever I am looking up a stickered part in the catalog to identify, I then
look at past and current sales of this part. So my pet peeve is this: how can
a stickered part possibly be listed as 'new'?? Just by the fact that
you took the sticker off the sheet and attached it to the part makes it, by definition,
USED! It doesn't matter if you never used this part to build the set, it
is still used! Is there any way we can disable the 'new' button when
listing these types of parts?
|
"Pet Peeve d'jour"
I'm sure you're not peeved daily, Lisa
We're talking about adopting a dog, as my son has out grown his allergy.
If we do, what do you think about naming our new pet, Peeve?
But seriously, it makes sense what you're proposing
|
Oh, my gosh. Get a lab! I had German Shepherds for over 30 years, and we finally
let my son, Daniel, have a choice. He wanted a lab, so we found someone with
lab puppies and he chose a yellow one and named him Archer. He has been with
us almost 4 years and he is the happiest dog I know! I take him to the dog park
almost daily (it is very close to the post office!) and I love to watch him play
with other dogs, or just to play with me: he loves tennis ball, frisbee, tug
toys, etc. A really good, friendly family dog! (and doesn't have the double
coat shedding that the German Shepherds have!)
|
Dogs ARE the best, especially labs
My son, daughter & I like all dogs! But we did grow to LOVE a certain Dachshund
that was in our care while the owners were out of country. Hung with us on all
of our back country hikes in Utah, if you can believe that. So, any dog that
needs a home, but if we stumble upon a Dachshund, well you know...
|
|
| Author: | Mistress_Lisa | | Posted: | Feb 3, 2019 14:49 | | Subject: | Re: My Pet Peeve of the day | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, popsicle writes:
| | In Suggestions, Mistress_Lisa writes:
| | Whenever I am looking up a stickered part in the catalog to identify, I then
look at past and current sales of this part. So my pet peeve is this: how can
a stickered part possibly be listed as 'new'?? Just by the fact that
you took the sticker off the sheet and attached it to the part makes it, by definition,
USED! It doesn't matter if you never used this part to build the set, it
is still used! Is there any way we can disable the 'new' button when
listing these types of parts?
|
"Pet Peeve d'jour"
I'm sure you're not peeved daily, Lisa
We're talking about adopting a dog, as my son has out grown his allergy.
If we do, what do you think about naming our new pet, Peeve?
But seriously, it makes sense what you're proposing
|
Oh, my gosh. Get a lab! I had German Shepherds for over 30 years, and we finally
let my son, Daniel, have a choice. He wanted a lab, so we found someone with
lab puppies and he chose a yellow one and named him Archer. He has been with
us almost 4 years and he is the happiest dog I know! I take him to the dog park
almost daily (it is very close to the post office!) and I love to watch him play
with other dogs, or just to play with me: he loves tennis ball, frisbee, tug
toys, etc. A really good, friendly family dog! (and doesn't have the double
coat shedding that the German Shepherds have!)
Lisa
|
|
| Author: | Emporiosa | | Posted: | Feb 3, 2019 14:11 | | Subject: | Re: My Pet Peeve of the day | | Viewed: | 64 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| I'm 100% in agreement with you that a piece with a sticker on it is considered
used. But for example, say I have a sheet of stickers from a set that are unused
and I cut out each individually and sell the brand new piece with its unused
sticker along with it? It's similar to the Special Assemblies where they
are separated from the complete set and require their stickers to be cut from
the original sheet. I feel that the New option should still exist, but only used
for that specific case (as rare as it may be).
-Sarah
In Suggestions, Mistress_Lisa writes:
| | Whenever I am looking up a stickered part in the catalog to identify, I then
look at past and current sales of this part. So my pet peeve is this: how can
a stickered part possibly be listed as 'new'?? Just by the fact that
you took the sticker off the sheet and attached it to the part makes it, by definition,
USED! It doesn't matter if you never used this part to build the set, it
is still used! Is there any way we can disable the 'new' button when
listing these types of parts?
Lisa
|
|
|
| Author: | popsicle | | Posted: | Feb 3, 2019 13:29 | | Subject: | Re: My Pet Peeve of the day | | Viewed: | 101 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Mistress_Lisa writes:
| | Whenever I am looking up a stickered part in the catalog to identify, I then
look at past and current sales of this part. So my pet peeve is this: how can
a stickered part possibly be listed as 'new'?? Just by the fact that
you took the sticker off the sheet and attached it to the part makes it, by definition,
USED! It doesn't matter if you never used this part to build the set, it
is still used! Is there any way we can disable the 'new' button when
listing these types of parts?
|
"Pet Peeve d'jour"
I'm sure you're not peeved daily, Lisa
We're talking about adopting a dog, as my son has out grown his allergy.
If we do, what do you think about naming our new pet, Peeve?
But seriously, it makes sense what you're proposing
|
|
| Author: | Mistress_Lisa | | Posted: | Feb 3, 2019 12:47 | | Subject: | My Pet Peeve of the day | | Viewed: | 330 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| Whenever I am looking up a stickered part in the catalog to identify, I then
look at past and current sales of this part. So my pet peeve is this: how can
a stickered part possibly be listed as 'new'?? Just by the fact that
you took the sticker off the sheet and attached it to the part makes it, by definition,
USED! It doesn't matter if you never used this part to build the set, it
is still used! Is there any way we can disable the 'new' button when
listing these types of parts?
Lisa
|
|
| Author: | cowboycoder | | Posted: | Feb 3, 2019 06:04 | | Subject: | Show active carts in 'items for sale' list | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| When searching for a part, it would be useful if the items for sale list could
highlight, prioritise, or otherwise indicate stores for which I already have
an open cart.
Ideally I'd like stores with open carts to be at the top of the list, with
an 'add to cart' button with a quantity entry box, to just add the item,
without going into the store page.
|
|
| Author: | BigBBricks | | Posted: | Jan 31, 2019 21:18 | | Subject: | Re: Support Zones for USPS shipping | | Viewed: | 83 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, cosmicray writes:
| | Currently, BrickLink does not support USPS zones, nor has there been any public
indication it is being implemented. Up until now, the ability of Instant Checkout
to calculate correct destination shipping within the USA has been compromised
for Priority Mail (custom packaging), but not for USPS First Class Parcel.
BrickLink has supported the existing USPS First Class Parcel and the existing
"flat rate" Priority Mail boxes (small/medium/large) because zone calculation
was not needed.
With the 27 January 2019 USPS rate change imminent, we (the sellers) have no
automated method of calculating the correct First Class Parcel rates, because
a zone calculation will be needed.
The calculation of zone is documented at DMM 608.9.0 (in it's entirety).
If BL chose not to use the USPS API calls to get the zone number for a given
shipment, it is possible to calculate it based on great circle distances. See
the explanations for more detail.
Since BL has chosen to not use the API callbacks provided by USPS, they have
instead opted for database rate tables (which have to be manually reloaded each
time USPS changes the rates). The current table contains the 2017 rates. It was
never updated to reflect the 2018 rates.
Nita Rae
|
As a former code monkey, in my experience, this may have been a lazy or inexperienced
programmer who didn't think far enough ahead on their process to realize
that these prices were fluid. IMHO, they should have written a few additional
calls to the USPS API to check prices and make changes periodically but also
to send an email alert to the development group (not individual programmer) if
changes need to made that it could not be done automatically and would need to
be addressed by a human.
Either that or it was a contractor that left it, knowing it would break eventually
and they would get the call, and hours, to come back and update it.
Or they just made a quick shipping chart in 2017 and did absolutely nothing with
the API
Either way it needs to be addressed and automated.
Big B
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jan 28, 2019 10:24 | | Subject: | Re: Wanted List Colour "I don't care" | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, runner.caller writes:
| | In Suggestions, benredstar writes:
| | | | Just set the color to "Not Applicable" will do the trick.
|
No that doesn't work. It seems to only find parts where the seller has listed
the colour specifically as "Not Applicable".
/ben
|
It used to work. I once needed about 250 2x4 Bricks as filler and I didn't
care what color they were since they weren't visible in the model.
I selected Not Applicable for a color and it found bricks of all sorts of colors
for me to add to my cart.
|
Still works for me.
|
|
| Author: | BricksThatStick | | Posted: | Jan 28, 2019 09:59 | | Subject: | Re: Wanted List Colour "I don't care" | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, benredstar writes:
| | It would be helpful if you could set the colour of items in a Wanted List to
"I don't care" or "any".
Sometimes you want to build something but really don't care what colour the
pieces are; e.g. an internal structure or some sort of technic mechanism; you
just want them to be as cheap as possible.
With this option when you searched stores for parts it would ignore colour, but
still select based on cost and volume etc.
/ben
|
You can still do it from the classic page here:
https://www.bricklink.com/wantedAddDetail.asp?showOld=Y&act=a&a=P
|
|
| Author: | runner.caller | | Posted: | Jan 28, 2019 09:32 | | Subject: | Re: Wanted List Colour "I don't care" | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, benredstar writes:
| | | | Just set the color to "Not Applicable" will do the trick.
|
No that doesn't work. It seems to only find parts where the seller has listed
the colour specifically as "Not Applicable".
/ben
|
It used to work. I once needed about 250 2x4 Bricks as filler and I didn't
care what color they were since they weren't visible in the model.
I selected Not Applicable for a color and it found bricks of all sorts of colors
for me to add to my cart.
|
|
| Author: | benredstar | | Posted: | Jan 28, 2019 09:28 | | Subject: | Re: Wanted List Colour "I don't care" | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | Just set the color to "Not Applicable" will do the trick.
|
No that doesn't work. It seems to only find parts where the seller has listed
the colour specifically as "Not Applicable".
/ben
|
|
| Author: | SchmickBricks | | Posted: | Jan 28, 2019 05:09 | | Subject: | Re: Parting out | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | In Suggestions, SchmickBricks writes:
| | 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.
|
Aha, it's because of remark based sorting.. I've never tried it and never
know how it really works. I always assumed people use software to generate the
locations or something because it seems like an awful lot of work to do it
manually. And I think you must be able to view where the part currently is located,
in case you already have it in you inventory... I'm sure there are tutorials
about this, since it's the first time I see this request, there must be a
work around.
|
It's pretty simple really. Every lot has a location and that location is
contained in the remarks field. If you get new lots not currently in inventory
you simply assign them to a new empty drawer. It's a much more space efficient
way of storing parts because you're not having empty drawers assigned to
parts you no longer have, and can easily move stock to bigger drawers (or smaller
ones) as lot quantities fluctuate and it allows me to currently store about 220,000
parts in about 10,000 lots in only 2112 drawers.
|
|
| Author: | mroppoli | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2019 17:03 | | Subject: | Want list item match inventory entry | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| While adding items to an inventory which match a p\n and color of item on my
want list provide alert message "Item matches to Want List" with optional to
(1) continue to add to inventory no changes to Want list (2) Quantity matches
on WL, show remarks with option to remove from WL (3) User input to change quantity
on WL. Just a quick thought I'm sure there are other considerations to add
to idea
MikeR
|
|
| Author: | brikomania | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2019 16:42 | | Subject: | Add optional shipping differences for regions | | Viewed: | 81 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| Hello.
In Spain, and in many other countries, there are different regions with different
shipping rates. In spain at least, we have two sets of islands, where shipping
is usually different (more expensive) than to mainland spain.
As for now, I can't set it up for automatic checkout, and i just need to
eat the cost difference if i get an order from there, but it would be nice if
it could be added.
Thank you
|
|
| Author: | brickskipper | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2019 16:11 | | Subject: | Re: Wanted List Colour "I don't care" | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, benredstar writes:
| | It would be helpful if you could set the colour of items in a Wanted List to
"I don't care" or "any".
Sometimes you want to build something but really don't care what colour the
pieces are; e.g. an internal structure or some sort of technic mechanism; you
just want them to be as cheap as possible.
With this option when you searched stores for parts it would ignore colour, but
still select based on cost and volume etc.
/ben
|
Just set the color to "Not Applicable" will do the trick.
Regards,
Jan
|
|
| Author: | benredstar | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2019 15:56 | | Subject: | Wanted List Colour "I don't care" | | Viewed: | 132 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| It would be helpful if you could set the colour of items in a Wanted List to
"I don't care" or "any".
Sometimes you want to build something but really don't care what colour the
pieces are; e.g. an internal structure or some sort of technic mechanism; you
just want them to be as cheap as possible.
With this option when you searched stores for parts it would ignore colour, but
still select based on cost and volume etc.
/ben
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2019 10:51 | | Subject: | Re: Parting out | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, SchmickBricks writes:
| | 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.
|
Aha, it's because of remark based sorting.. I've never tried it and never
know how it really works. I always assumed people use software to generate the
locations or something because it seems like an awful lot of work to do it
manually. And I think you must be able to view where the part currently is located,
in case you already have it in you inventory... I'm sure there are tutorials
about this, since it's the first time I see this request, there must be a
work around.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2019 09:14 | | Subject: | Re: Visit count incrementing | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| 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.
|
Buggy counter - because it is not supposed to increment when you are logged in
and visit your own store. From: https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=169
| | 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: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Jan 27, 2019 08:26 | | Subject: | Re: Visit count incrementing | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, jamescorkhill writes:
| | 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.
|
|
That is the normal way, but to be honest I amm not sure how our guy did it. Will
ask him and repost.
It would be so much better if Bricklink would open up Analytics and let us all
do and see what we want.
|
|
| 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: | 82 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: | 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.
|
|
| Author: | mattkaupke | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2019 10:28 | | Subject: | Re: Feedback removal | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | | | I must agree with what the others have said... you see what you pay, you can
agree or disagree. I don't see why your stance would shift from agree to
disagree if you found out that what you paid was spent relatively less on postage
and more handling than you had imagined.
|
Out of interest, would you buy from them again knowing they overcharge for postage?
|
If they had what I was looking for at the best price/best service? Absolutely.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2019 10:25 | | Subject: | Re: Feedback removal | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | I must agree with what the others have said... you see what you pay, you can
agree or disagree. I don't see why your stance would shift from agree to
disagree if you found out that what you paid was spent relatively less on postage
and more handling than you had imagined.
|
Out of interest, would you buy from them again knowing they overcharge for postage?
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2019 10:23 | | Subject: | Re: Feedback removal | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | 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?
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2019 09:38 | | Subject: | Re: Feedback removal | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | In Suggestions, mattkaupke writes:
| | In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | In Suggestions, Bricks_NW_UK writes:
| | | |
It depends. If a seller charges $10 for postage through IC then it turns out
the actual cost was $2, I'd be pretty annoyed and would leave feedback reflecting
that. In that case the seller is not without fault, so why should the buyer have
their feedback removed in that case?
|
Because the buyer knew the cost of postage when he ordered. If he didn’t like
it he shouldn’t have continued with the order.
(By the way, we are totally against instant check out!)
|
Of course the customer accepted that would be the cost for postage, but then
later found out it was not true and that the seller is overcharging for postage
via IC. Should other buyers be warned about that? In my view, yes.
|
No warning is necessary through feedback as that information is available at
checkout. We’re all adults here and should be capable of making sound decisions
on our own. Additionally, I’d say the “actual” cost is rarely the actual cost.
The label may have cost $2, the baseline price is closer to $3.50 for USPS first
class,but there are certainly many more considerations when calculating shipping
(cost of materials, labels, tape, box or envelope, fuel and time to drop it off
(if I live 30mins from a post office my real costs may be higher than yours if
you’re close to a drop off)). Yes, $10 for shipping on a $2 label would probably
be excessive but we’re not talking about excessive here, nor should it matter
since it was what was agreed on with the buyer. Any poor feedback left is just
unreasonable.
|
Just because you are told something up front doesn't mean you shouldn't
comment on it.
For example, sellers often say something along the lines of "New doesn't
mean mint, new parts may have scratches" in their terms. If a seller sends out
heavily scratched new parts, should the buyer be allowed to comment via feedback?
After all, they agreed that parts may be scratched when they placed the order.
|
I must agree with what the others have said... you see what you pay, you can
agree or disagree. I don't see why your stance would shift from agree to
disagree if you found out that what you paid was spent relatively less on postage
and more handling than you had imagined.
If everything should be priced according to what it reasonably costs, you should
also argue that a Star Wars minifig priced €20 should be a reason for negative
feedback as it only costed the seller €1. I'm really not big on capitalism
at all, but in this case I really must say the added value is a product of the
market mechanism and as long as people are willing to pay it, that by definition
makes it a fair price for it.
A seller could make some contract with a company to somehow get totally free
postage, and that would leave him with no direct obligation to charge less or
nothing for shipping to the buyers. They could charge €5, just as a handling
fee, if they wanted.
I do see though how extremely high fees - while legitimate - frustrate the buying
process. Ideally, the search results would display the price of the part and
then directly underneath "have this part at home for ..."
|
|
| Author: | mattkaupke | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2019 09:20 | | Subject: | Re: Feedback removal | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | That the cost of the label and not
| | a penny more is all that is reasonable to be charged for an item. There are so
many costs associated with a purchase that it doesn’t make sense to me to individually
itemize everything on a per transaction basis and rather just roll it all into
a single s/h charge.
|
I don't think that is the case. Reasonable expenses are fine.
I prefer to see a single S+H charge but it should be related to what it costs
to post.
|
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.
|
|
| Author: | mattkaupke | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2019 09:15 | | Subject: | Re: Feedback removal | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | In Suggestions, mattkaupke writes:
| | In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | In Suggestions, Bricks_NW_UK writes:
| | | |
It depends. If a seller charges $10 for postage through IC then it turns out
the actual cost was $2, I'd be pretty annoyed and would leave feedback reflecting
that. In that case the seller is not without fault, so why should the buyer have
their feedback removed in that case?
|
Because the buyer knew the cost of postage when he ordered. If he didn’t like
it he shouldn’t have continued with the order.
(By the way, we are totally against instant check out!)
|
Of course the customer accepted that would be the cost for postage, but then
later found out it was not true and that the seller is overcharging for postage
via IC. Should other buyers be warned about that? In my view, yes.
|
No warning is necessary through feedback as that information is available at
checkout. We’re all adults here and should be capable of making sound decisions
on our own. Additionally, I’d say the “actual” cost is rarely the actual cost.
The label may have cost $2, the baseline price is closer to $3.50 for USPS first
class,but there are certainly many more considerations when calculating shipping
(cost of materials, labels, tape, box or envelope, fuel and time to drop it off
(if I live 30mins from a post office my real costs may be higher than yours if
you’re close to a drop off)). Yes, $10 for shipping on a $2 label would probably
be excessive but we’re not talking about excessive here, nor should it matter
since it was what was agreed on with the buyer. Any poor feedback left is just
unreasonable.
|
Just because you are told something up front doesn't mean you shouldn't
comment on it.
For example, sellers often say something along the lines of "New doesn't
mean mint, new parts may have scratches" in their terms. If a seller sends out
heavily scratched new parts, should the buyer be allowed to comment via feedback?
After all, they agreed that parts may be scratched when they placed the order.
|
We’re not talking about a difference of opinion with regards to something that
is subjective. Though I think poor feedback should only be given in that situation
if the customer doesn’t receive good customer service to resolve the discrepancy.
But rather a customer making the determination after the fact that the charges
weren’t reasonable. Knowing full well what they were going to be going in. It
would be more akin to buying used parts and complaining they weren’t new, than
having a difference of opinion on their condition.
|
|
| Author: | mattkaupke | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2019 09:09 | | Subject: | Re: Feedback removal | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | 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.
|
So would you tell the buyer upfront that the "postage" charge is broken down
into $1 for this, $1 for that, and another $2 for this, and so on? So that they
know you are adding lots of other charges into it.
Sometimes I don't know what something will cost to post, as I don't have
it in hand. If a seller tells me it is going to cost what a large parcel costs
to post, I assume it is a large parcel and agree to it. If it later turns out
it wasn't a large parcel and was posted for a much lower price then I feel
conned that I was overcharged for postage, even though I agreed to it. Leaving
feedback saying this in that case is justifiable.
|
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.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2019 08:51 | | Subject: | Re: Feedback removal | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| That the cost of the label and not
| | a penny more is all that is reasonable to be charged for an item. There are so
many costs associated with a purchase that it doesn’t make sense to me to individually
itemize everything on a per transaction basis and rather just roll it all into
a single s/h charge.
|
I don't think that is the case. Reasonable expenses are fine.
I prefer to see a single S+H charge but it should be related to what it costs
to post.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2019 08:48 | | Subject: | Re: Feedback removal | | Viewed: | 30 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.
|
So would you tell the buyer upfront that the "postage" charge is broken down
into $1 for this, $1 for that, and another $2 for this, and so on? So that they
know you are adding lots of other charges into it.
Sometimes I don't know what something will cost to post, as I don't have
it in hand. If a seller tells me it is going to cost what a large parcel costs
to post, I assume it is a large parcel and agree to it. If it later turns out
it wasn't a large parcel and was posted for a much lower price then I feel
conned that I was overcharged for postage, even though I agreed to it. Leaving
feedback saying this in that case is justifiable.
|
|
| Author: | mattkaupke | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2019 08:42 | | Subject: | Re: Feedback removal | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Bricks_NW_UK writes:
| | | |
It depends. If a seller charges $10 for postage through IC then it turns out
the actual cost was $2, I'd be pretty annoyed and would leave feedback reflecting
that. In that case the seller is not without fault, so why should the buyer have
their feedback removed in that case?
|
Because the buyer knew the cost of postage when he ordered. If he didn’t like
it he shouldn’t have continued with the order.
(By the way, we are totally against instant check out!)
|
Can I ask why you’re against instant checkout?
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2019 08:40 | | Subject: | Re: Feedback removal | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, mattkaupke writes:
| | In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | In Suggestions, Bricks_NW_UK writes:
| | | |
It depends. If a seller charges $10 for postage through IC then it turns out
the actual cost was $2, I'd be pretty annoyed and would leave feedback reflecting
that. In that case the seller is not without fault, so why should the buyer have
their feedback removed in that case?
|
Because the buyer knew the cost of postage when he ordered. If he didn’t like
it he shouldn’t have continued with the order.
(By the way, we are totally against instant check out!)
|
Of course the customer accepted that would be the cost for postage, but then
later found out it was not true and that the seller is overcharging for postage
via IC. Should other buyers be warned about that? In my view, yes.
|
No warning is necessary through feedback as that information is available at
checkout. We’re all adults here and should be capable of making sound decisions
on our own. Additionally, I’d say the “actual” cost is rarely the actual cost.
The label may have cost $2, the baseline price is closer to $3.50 for USPS first
class,but there are certainly many more considerations when calculating shipping
(cost of materials, labels, tape, box or envelope, fuel and time to drop it off
(if I live 30mins from a post office my real costs may be higher than yours if
you’re close to a drop off)). Yes, $10 for shipping on a $2 label would probably
be excessive but we’re not talking about excessive here, nor should it matter
since it was what was agreed on with the buyer. Any poor feedback left is just
unreasonable.
|
Just because you are told something up front doesn't mean you shouldn't
comment on it.
For example, sellers often say something along the lines of "New doesn't
mean mint, new parts may have scratches" in their terms. If a seller sends out
heavily scratched new parts, should the buyer be allowed to comment via feedback?
After all, they agreed that parts may be scratched when they placed the order.
|
|
| Author: | mattkaupke | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2019 08:39 | | Subject: | Re: Feedback removal | | Viewed: | 20 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | In Suggestions, Bricks_NW_UK writes:
| | | |
It depends. If a seller charges $10 for postage through IC then it turns out
the actual cost was $2, I'd be pretty annoyed and would leave feedback reflecting
that. In that case the seller is not without fault, so why should the buyer have
their feedback removed in that case?
|
Because the buyer knew the cost of postage when he ordered. If he didn’t like
it he shouldn’t have continued with the order.
(By the way, we are totally against instant check out!)
|
Of course the customer accepted that would be the cost for postage, but then
later found out it was not true and that the seller is overcharging for postage
via IC. Should other buyers be warned about that? In my view, yes.
|
Please don’t take this as condescending in any way. I really do want to better
understand the community.
I’d really like to know if this mindset applies to other places too. I’ve honestly
never had anyone complain about shipping in any other place I’ve sold items online
other than here on bricklink. It seems to me to be a unique perspective that
is limited to BrickLink and nowhere else. That the cost of the label and not
a penny more is all that is reasonable to be charged for an item. There are so
many costs associated with a purchase that it doesn’t make sense to me to individually
itemize everything on a per transaction basis and rather just roll it all into
a single s/h charge. Honestly, when I first started using BrickLink it was entirely
too complicated to figure out what the costs were going to be before making a
purchase I avoided it for buying more often than not. So, as a seller now, I
try to make it as simple as possible for any perspective buyers by having a single
charge upfront and available for them to see and know before buying. Rather than
having complex tables and numerous fees to try and add up before committing to
the purchase.
|
|
| Author: | mattkaupke | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2019 08:24 | | Subject: | Re: Feedback removal | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| 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.
|
|
| Author: | mattkaupke | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2019 08:18 | | Subject: | Re: Feedback removal | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | In Suggestions, Bricks_NW_UK writes:
| | | |
It depends. If a seller charges $10 for postage through IC then it turns out
the actual cost was $2, I'd be pretty annoyed and would leave feedback reflecting
that. In that case the seller is not without fault, so why should the buyer have
their feedback removed in that case?
|
Because the buyer knew the cost of postage when he ordered. If he didn’t like
it he shouldn’t have continued with the order.
(By the way, we are totally against instant check out!)
|
Of course the customer accepted that would be the cost for postage, but then
later found out it was not true and that the seller is overcharging for postage
via IC. Should other buyers be warned about that? In my view, yes.
|
No warning is necessary through feedback as that information is available at
checkout. We’re all adults here and should be capable of making sound decisions
on our own. Additionally, I’d say the “actual” cost is rarely the actual cost.
The label may have cost $2, the baseline price is closer to $3.50 for USPS first
class,but there are certainly many more considerations when calculating shipping
(cost of materials, labels, tape, box or envelope, fuel and time to drop it off
(if I live 30mins from a post office my real costs may be higher than yours if
you’re close to a drop off)). Yes, $10 for shipping on a $2 label would probably
be excessive but we’re not talking about excessive here, nor should it matter
since it was what was agreed on with the buyer. Any poor feedback left is just
unreasonable.
|
|
| Author: | Rob_and_Shelagh | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2019 08:10 | | Subject: | Re: Feedback removal | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| 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
|
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
USA, Tennessee
France, Nouvelle-Aquitaine
Canada, Ontario
United Kingdom, England
Australia, South Australia
Spain, Andalucia Ceuta i Melilla
Germany, Schleswig-Holstein
Netherlands, Utrecht
South Africa, Western Cape
