Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | alahaka  | | Posted: | Jun 11, 2019 22:33 | | Subject: | Re: Have all members pay BL $1 to buy and/or sell | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Hi Ted,
Thanks for the bump! (Pretty sure some chaos has ensued.)
I've been pulled away from bricks for a while now due to another j-o-b, and
after looking up a set a friend mentioned, I just happened to glance at forums
to catch this eerily familiar sounding subject.
Enjoy the community and building! I have four projects unfinished, and have
yet to get them off the carpet ... ... after, um, months. (But these bricks
are protected from sun and dust by scrap paper, so the ol' habitat looks,
well ... livable.)
A good day to all, Matthew
|
 |
| Author: | alahaka | | Posted: | Oct 15, 2018 11:47 | | Subject: | Re: Block buyers with a different country email p | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| So I do agree that your proposal does provide better information, which if valid
eliminates the one of secrets I mentioned.
|
|
| Author: | alahaka | | Posted: | Oct 15, 2018 11:40 | | Subject: | Re: Block buyers with a different country email p | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, cosmicray writes:
| |
What would be better, is if the buyer were required to specify their shipping
address, then have two checkboxes under that …
One would be something like "Home address in same country as shipping address".
The other would be "Payment funded from same country as shipping address".
If either is unchecked, then it would be required to specify which country is
correct for that item.
This would not solve the indicated problem, but it would give us better information
to tell what buyers are more likely to be legitimate buyers.
Nita Rae
|
I think your suggestion above opens the door toward couriers, which in turn for
some buyers places courier, their packing, and their shipping responsibilities
on sellers, as opposed to ending seller responsibility at courier receipt.
I recognize couriers' value as well as the added risk they can present, and
have no solution at this point.
I do not like things big brother-ish, however admittedly would prefer to not
have the final destination and possible re-packing or breaking down of something
I've packed be secrets.
|
|
| Author: | alahaka | | Posted: | Oct 12, 2018 13:41 | | Subject: | Re: Block buyers with a different country email p | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, SylvainLS writes:
| |
People move. Either for years or only months or even weeks. And the Internet
has no frontier.
Will you force buyers to open a new e-mail account in the country they are while
they had had one for years that works pretty well anywhere in the world?
|
Hi,
I stated that associating emails with countries would be messy (i.e. I agree
with you), and I was not supporting the original suggestion.
But instead I wondered if BrickLink could verify member addresses against IP
address locations. A recent transaction indicates that PayPal is doing something
like this.
Sorry to cancel my previous post, not knowing if anyone might be replying. This
forum is a lot of (good) clutter, and after posting I weigh the value of my inputs
against adding to the clutter.
Thanks for the IBAN information, Matthew
|
|
| Author: | alahaka | | Posted: | Apr 25, 2018 02:15 | | Subject: | Minifig head graphics reduce visual info | | Viewed: | 107 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Already Exists | |
|
| Hi,
I guess default photographs of Minifig Heads (specifically their expressions
and facial features) are being replaced with graphics.
I find the angled, turned-away graphics (example (a) below) notably less visually
informative than straight-on great photographs of a Minifig Head's expression
and facial features (example (b)).
Please retain good photographs as the default image for shoppers.
If a large effort is underway to create angled, turned-away, less clear heads,
I do not understand how this loss of immediate (i.e. default) visual presentation
data constitutes a site improvement. In addition to, for example beard/brow/cheek/glasses
alignment details, a straight-on photograph also informs the shopper of a Lego
paint scheme's older or newer production art quality.
Even if the great photographs are retained as alternates to the default graphics,
BrickLink administrators are adding more process steps to get to the best information
available, which is more time-consuming for users and illogical beyond uniformity.
I can obsess by the way, and love nice shiny rows of similar thingies, but not
if such uniformity is going to make any customer process more difficult.
Lastly the type of stud is no big deal for my uses, so I do not need a partial
top-down view. I suspect this is true for most shoppers.
Apologies if my overall image transition guess is mistaken.
Thanks for listening, Matthew
|
|
|
| Author: | alahaka | | Posted: | Mar 19, 2018 21:08 | | Subject: | Re: Save Offsite Paypal! | | Viewed: | 65 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| If you select PayPal Marketplace as picabo suggests, you will not be able to
revert back to your current Onsite PayPal method.
There was little information required to enable Onsite PayPal (whether complete
or incomplete as BrickLink information goes), however PayPal Marketplace in my
opinion is a more intrusive agreement.
I need to read this entire thread carefully, however I believe the answer to
your question is not available, unless BrickLink has clearly stated they will
push everyone wanting to use PayPal to the PayPal Marketplace as the only option.
In Suggestions, mikmo writes:
| | I am completely lost here.
If i already have PayPal onsite activated, do i have to sign up for PayPal marketplace
to continue to recieve PayPal payments, og will the current PayPal onsite method
continue to work also a month from now?
Mikael / MikMo
|
|
|
| Author: | alahaka | | Posted: | Mar 19, 2018 01:45 | | Subject: | Re: Save Offsite Paypal! | | Viewed: | 60 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| So whatever simpler arrangement I had set up with BrickLink and PayPal --
onsite payment or instant payment or whatever it was called other than Instant
Checkout -- is now gone, courtesy of my stupidity in trusting BrickLink to
have a confirmation step before removing it.
Now that that arrangement has been disconnected, it is no longer an option and
I'll have to revert to offsite payments short of signing up for the more
risky PayPal Marketplace agreement. Purposely tricky on BrickLink's part
in my view; obviously by design.
The PayPal Marketplace includes all this stuff below. Sounds more like PayPal's
and BrickLink's account than mine. No thank you.
- Allow PayPal to connect your account with BrickLink Corporation.
- In order for PayPal to work properly on your site, you authorize BrickLink
Corporation. to: Use PayPal to process my customers' payments; Initiate steps
to authorize and capture my customers' payments; Initiate a refund for a
specific transaction; Deposit the PayPal funds I’ve received through BrickLink
Corporation. directly into the bank account I have linked to my BrickLink Corporation
account; Automatically deduct their fee from each PayPal transaction prior to
the remaining balance settling to your PayPal account. The amount of this fee,
is subject to your agreement with BrickLink Corporation; Hold and release funds
on my behalf in accordance with BrickLink Corporation's policy; Search through
and access corresponding transaction data.
- You can revoke these permissions at any time from within your PayPal account
settings.
I didn't close out the PayPal Marketplace process, so I don't know what
else it may entail. Again it appears I'm just handing control of my account
to BrickLink and PayPal, along with whatever personal data and funds are placed
at risk.
Sad to see the site going in these Take-it-or-leave-it directions.
I was getting used to my previous PayPal arrangement which as noted before didn't
appear to be much of a risk. Time to rework my invoice layout again. Bummer.
|
|
| Author: | alahaka | | Posted: | Mar 19, 2018 01:25 | | Subject: | Re: Save Offsite Paypal! | | Viewed: | 68 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| I agree that flexible payment options should remain for both buyers and sellers
with regard to BrickLink. This among other considerations allows for a community-driven
village of small, large, national, and international selections and transactions
-- i.e. a more pleasant community. (For buyers with regard to sellers, I
acknowledge that I prefer PayPal.)
That said, the connection to PayPal I had (I just tried to look up its BrickLink
terminology and screwed up my connection ... so much for a confirmation step
to save changes ... we can't have that ... now the PayPal Marketplace is
my only option of two ... seconds ago I had three) ... ... anyway the connection
I had did not require much if anything beyond my email address, so I'm not
sure what the added risk is.
On to research whatever I just screwed up. For BrickLink administrators, confirming
changes is not a new concept. Arrgh.
|
|
| Author: | alahaka | | Posted: | Mar 18, 2018 17:17 | | Subject: | Re: New buyer LOE to tie up inventory for 14 days | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Order Stats: 333 placed / 33 cancelled *
* This seller had the audacity to use our very lengthy Non-Paying Buyer process
we built to deal with non-paying buyers, in lieu of growing-in-popularity unilateral
cancellations, and on top of that this seller displayed the patience and nerve
to better inform our community of problem buyers, 33 times!
|
|
| Author: | alahaka | | Posted: | Mar 18, 2018 16:54 | | Subject: | Re: New buyer LOE to tie up inventory for 14 days | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| I didn't know there was a cancelled order count. More "Look busy" corporateishness.
I have no idea what on earth it is intended to tell buyers, given the many unknowns
of cancellation circumstances.
I agree that, however much or however little, it can only come across as a negative
with regard to the seller. Weird that someone said, "Let's do it!".
Changing administration. I doubt the previous administrators would have given
a darn about displaying such an unknown.
In Suggestions, leon112 writes:
| | I agree that the time should be shortened. The rules were made when we weren't
as digitally connected as we are today. I would imagine that most people get
their emails on their phone or tablet.So unless they are hiding in a spam folder,
they got the message. They can pay from their phone or tablet. Chances are extremely
high that once it goes to NPB status it will stay that way.
Low feedback buyers have to start somewhere. I more than get that. I don't
do instant checkout so I attract these NPB buyers, much more than I did before
instant checkout. Not that I'm thrilled with it but it is part of doing business
the way I want to. My big complaint is that those NPBs are shown in the cancelled
order count. I don't mind if I mess up,but through no fault of my own my
count goes up by those NPBs. So right now I am sitting on 2 NPBs and more than
likely 2 more to come.
Deb
|
|
|
| Author: | alahaka | | Posted: | Mar 18, 2018 16:40 | | Subject: | Re: Have all members pay BL $1 to buy and/or sell | | Viewed: | 90 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| I recognize there are problems with the idea.
And I should have highlighted that it is a one-time payment idea, for
life.
I am looking for ideas to dissuade false buyers, and I guess the "conform" notion
of instant checkout is all that's on the table.
Right or wrong, it's an eBay direction, and eBay is a customer-can-do-no-wrong
environment, which in the end does not support small sellers.
In Suggestions, SylvainLS writes:
| |
So, one $5 minifig will cost $7 + shipping, with $2 + 3% to BL (= ~30% fee).
Yeah, I can see that going very well indeed… not!
|
|
|
| Author: | alahaka | | Posted: | Mar 18, 2018 15:30 | | Subject: | Have all members pay BL $1 to buy and/or sell | | Viewed: | 343 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| Mentioned in other posts, I am submitting this as a separate suggestion.
The goal of the $1 payment is to preclude new members from making false orders
and thereby avoid time wasted on pulling order items, attaining packing supplies,
calculating shipping, etc.
Perhaps there is also a benefit with regard to new sellers. Not sure.
I recognize there will be process, payment, and accounting challenges for BrickLink
administrators, along with maybe an undesired initial action to become a member,
however this proposal would screen out false buyers, and benefit the integrity
and positive experiences of the entire new member, buyer, and seller community
-- which for my part is a key reason I'm here.
|
|
| Author: | alahaka | | Posted: | Mar 18, 2018 15:08 | | Subject: | Re: Seller checkout approval for <X new buyers | | Viewed: | 18 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | Oops, meant to write "A better solution than what's above..." |
|
| Author: | alahaka | | Posted: | Mar 18, 2018 15:05 | | Subject: | Seller checkout approval for <X new buyers | | Viewed: | 115 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| Whether X = 0 or some short optional range between say -3 and +3, I suggest
that any seller be able to approve of new zero-or-low-feedback members before
they are allowed to check out.
As a heads-up courtesy, new buyers can be advised by BrickLink, via a notice
both near the cart symbol while shopping and in the cart, that checking out will
require the seller's approval.
Attaining approval would require a BrickLink message from the prospective buyer
to the seller requesting to check out. In lieu of a better indicator, this message,
or perhaps more importantly the simple effort to send it, would allow a seller
to make an approval or disapproval decision.
The seller makes a decision, with ideally everything being on the up & up, and
a bona fide order and purchase follow.
However the rule and process is set up, it can be deconflicted with the "Disallow
members with negative feedback" rule.
- - - -
A better solution that what's above, to minimize time-wasting
fake orders, is to have all buyers pay BrickLink a dollar or euro before being
allowed to order.
I for one am happy to pay a dollar, although I cannot speak for anyone else.
- - - -
I've welcomed several new buyers to BrickLink, and I hope to welcome more.
On the flip side, I spent an hour-and-a-half pulling eight sets last Thursday
night, in order to identify a good shipping box (which to free up involved shifting
around several more sets) and to attain an accurate overseas shipping quote on
behalf of the customer, assuming the best with regard to their intentions. I
did this promptly within three hours of order receipt, in order to set up a timely
invoice.
I almost took everything to the post office the next day, in order to get a better
weight since the big box covered my small scale. Thankfully the member's
first negative arrived before that, and I decided to estimate the weight.
This morning, I spent another hour getting these sets back to their storage places.
I did all this on behalf of someone who is playing a mean game with several BrickLink
sellers ... ... ... simply because he can as a new member. Furthermore,
he's now at -4 and has the BrickLink greenlight to order from unsuspecting
sellers. The wasted-time toll of this false buyer round remains TBD.
My sets are safely stored wherever they fit throughout my place; I do not have
a crystal ball to store them in some purchase and ease-of-access order; and I
do not have a warehouse facility.
In light of such service efforts, extensive or otherwise, sellers should be able
to screen new buyers, even if such an evaluation is limited to interpreting a
message.
Or have everyone pay BrickLink a token amount before receiving buyer privileges.
Probably not easy given payment means and currencies, but it would likely alleviate
an ongoing and possibly growing issue.
|
|
| Author: | alahaka | | Posted: | Mar 16, 2018 19:54 | | Subject: | Re: New buyer LOE to tie up inventory for 14 days | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| I don't understand parts of your post. I guess in response I prefer not
to play a waiting game on feedback, and instead prefer a timely, concrete resolution
process, after politely suggesting to buyers to either communicate or complete
a purchase.
If the NPB process is not this resolution process, and if several sellers and
BrickLink pay it no heed -- as is the case -- then BrickLink should dump
it.
In Suggestions, TheBrickGuys writes:
| |
You really dont even have to wait one day, just cancel the order and move on.
If you are concerned about getting a negative feedback then just wait the alloted
time.
You have the ability to cancel the order so there is no need to downgrade BrickLink
for their policies (not your first posts, just this one)? And remember, you agreed
to these policies when you signed up to be a seller here on BrickLink as we all
did.
Jim
|
|
|
| Author: | alahaka | | Posted: | Mar 16, 2018 15:04 | | Subject: | Re: New buyer LOE to tie up inventory for 14 days | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| And a question (or questions) for a question (not addressed to you), why does
BrickLink not address this decade-old concern?
Is there a bona fide problem with giving sellers & buyers say "only" 6 days to
get something done (like the courtesy of sending of simple message) rather than
the current 14 days?
If yes, what's the problem?
Is instant checkout their one-size-fits-all solution?
Have they told anyone this?
If they have, is there some place to find their positions outside of this needle-in-a-haystack
forum (where I add hay such as this), where administrators' positions are
very low in number and extremely hard to find?
Are they taking the eBay road and discounting the importance of low volume buyers
and sellers?
And did I say "Whoopdeedoo" yet? 
In Suggestions, WoutR writes:
| | Why not make sure that every buyer has to use the instant checkout? That should
solve your problem.
|
|
|
| Author: | alahaka | | Posted: | Mar 16, 2018 14:50 | | Subject: | Re: New buyer LOE to tie up inventory for 14 days | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Your point is good.
Given my low volume sales, customers' desires for low-cost shipping, and
the somewhat byzantine world of postal rates, I prefer to manually provide an
accurate shipping rate rather than automate the process.
In Suggestions, WoutR writes:
| |
Why not make sure that every buyer has to use the instant checkout? That should
solve your problem.
|
|
|
| Author: | alahaka | | Posted: | Mar 16, 2018 14:38 | | Subject: | Re: New buyer LOE to tie up inventory for 14 days | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| A correction, I should have just written "buyer-seller communication period"
above & below.
In Suggestions, matejo writes:
| | Thank you for your reply,
I think both seller non-shipping and buyer non-paying processes could easily
be shortened to 3 and 3 and 3, rather than the current 7 and 7 and 7 -- (a)
buyer-to-seller communication period, and (b) BrickLink-to-non-communicator period,
and (c) an added three days if non-communicator communicates whatever the circumstances
are.
|
|
|
| Author: | alahaka | | Posted: | Mar 16, 2018 14:35 | | Subject: | Re: New buyer LOE to tie up inventory for 14 days | | Viewed: | 61 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Thank you for your reply,
I think both seller non-shipping and buyer non-paying processes could easily
be shortened to 3 and 3 and 3, rather than the current 7 and 7 and 7 -- (a)
buyer-to-seller communication period, and (b) BrickLink-to-non-communicator period,
and (c) an added three days if non-communicator communicates whatever the circumstances
are.
Six (to nine) days is not super fun, but is more than 2x better than fourteen
(to twenty-one) days.
Another thought on the buying side is to have all of us pay BrickLink a dollar
or euro prior to being allowed to buy. If someone wants to mess around, it'll
cost them a buck for the privilege -- most non-serious buyers will likely
find better (or worse) things to do outside of BrickLink.
I'm not yet familiar with unresponsive sellers, the scope of such problems,
and an apparent new lengthy screening process by BrickLink, so do not have any
added thoughts here.
I hope your concern is resolved soon, Matthew
PS on original post: I think Whoopdeedoo is spelled "Whoopdeedoo".
|
|
| Author: | alahaka | | Posted: | Mar 16, 2018 13:15 | | Subject: | New buyer LOE to tie up inventory for 14 days | | Viewed: | 182 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| Hi,
The new buyer's level of effort required to tie up any given seller's
inventory for 14 to 21 days still stands a very, very firm almost none.
I get that irresponsible and indifferent buyers present a difficult challenge,
but the NPB process needs to be significantly shortened to make it something
less than a sick joke.
Eight sets and one entire lot are now off the market for 14-days or more. Whoopdeedo.
For any decisive administrator of BrickLink, please take action on behalf of
the responsible BrickLink community.
A good day to any readers, Matthew
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
USA, California
)
)