| Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | dwarunek  | | Posted: | Jun 2, 2017 15:14 | | Subject: | Re: Classic Wanted List Unavailable on June 5th | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| When I use the wanted list how do I make my own store show up in the list of
sotres?
My store would show up in the old version.
Dave
DW Bricks
In Administrative, Admin_Jaclyn writes:
| | Hello Everyone,
In June of last year, we introduced a new Wanted List upgrade. This upgrade came
with a newly-designed buying experience which focused on the necessity to compare
and plan out multiple carts at once, as well as make it easier to manage multiple
lists.
Since BrickLink's Wanted List is a core feature for most users, we currently
provide the classic version for members to use as a backup in case there are
glitches with the new version. This is intended to be a temporary solution.
The classic version of the Wanted List feature will become unavailable on
June 5, 2017. At this point, we have ensured that the new version of the
Wanted List covers all desired functionality (plus more) from the classic version.
If you have any issues with the new version, please let us know as soon as possible.
Thank you for the continued support, bug reports, and helpful feedback as we
continue to roll out important changes.
Sincerely,
Jaclyn
BrickLink Customer Support
|
|
 |
| Author: | dwarunek | | Posted: | Jan 28, 2011 09:34 | | Subject: | Re: Credit Card required to sell on BrickLink | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| 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!
If you are not a legit seller the people of BL will find out soon enough and
come after you pitch forks...
|
|
| Author: | dwarunek | | Posted: | Jan 13, 2011 12:44 | | Subject: | Re: Payment Charges to be included in list price | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, mhn1957 writes:
| | In Suggestions, garyjh22 writes and I snipped:
| | But this whole thing about not being able to charge
for Paypal fees is very very "unAmerican". The last I checked, this was "supposed"
to be a "free" country. If Paypal is charging us to use their service, why can
we not charge someone to help pay for that fee?
Maybe Im missing something on the subject. just had to vent that some.
|
Here is the deal. You go to buy groceries and they say, "that's 6% tax". Oh,
you want to use a credit card? That's an additional 3%. Would you use the card?
Someone has to pay the company for the service. The grocer gladly pays the 3%,
because it increases his trade, and he makes it up overall. Paypal is built on
that credit card model. Gas stations get around it by offering "cash discounts".
Paypal wants those who are footing the bill to not have to pay an additional
charge. That way more people will use the service. You can offer a rebate if
you want for "cash" customers.
Mark (MHN1957)
|
Yep. That is the way it is. And you can thank the credit card lobbyists and politicians
for enacting laws preventing sellers from passing on this added cost to those
who cause it. The end result is that this cost is built into the price for all
buyers, making lower-income cash-paying buyers subsidize the costs incurred by
higher-income buyers who qualify for and use credit cards. Very un-American indeed.
But that's the way things are.
Thor
|
Or, the higher-income cash-paying buyers subsidize costs incurred by the fraudulent
use of credit cards/Checks used by lower-income buyers.
|
|
| Author: | dwarunek | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2011 22:39 | | Subject: | Re: Offensive user names not allowed. | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| I am offended!!
I am not old enough to be called Sir! 
In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | Sir, I am offended by the use of the word "war" in your username and the OP's
name bragging about "BigBricks" (which is often done to compensate for certain
um.. shortcomings). 
I know this suggestion means well, but where do you draw the line on what someone
somewhere might find offensive? I remember a few years back a new member joined
BL whose username was not particularly supportive of then-president Bush. He
was blasted in the forum and some complained to Admin that they found his usermane
offensive even though there was nothing vulgar and profane about it. I know we
cannot discuss religion or politics in the forum, but do we want a similar ban
to extend to usernames such as "DemsRule", "NoBama", "GodlyBricks, "GodBlessTexas"
or "LordSkylark" (some of which are actual usernames here). What about "TheDogFarted"
for a store name and "FriendsofFoster" (which is REALLY offensive to a few here)?
No, the latter - though real - is not a duplicate account of mine. LOL
This suggestion might be better if it were tweaked to ban obvious profanity in
usernames and store names. But other than that, the only "ban" should be the
one that naturally happens in the market when someone chooses a name that so
many customers find offensive or tasteless enough to not want to have anything
to do with you.
Thor
(still haven't voted)
|
|
|
| Author: | dwarunek | | Posted: | Jan 10, 2011 14:38 | | Subject: | Re: Offensive user names not allowed. | | Viewed: | 94 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Who will determine what is Offensive?
I would vote YES if it was a majority vote by all members.
My thought is if you did not like 'Pimp' in the name then don't buy from them.
Dave
|
|
|
USA, Michigan
