|
 |
| | | Author: | bagelboybugle  | | Posted: | Dec 15, 2010 15:08 | | Subject: | price guide: maintain last 10 sales data | | Viewed: | 110 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| In light of recent discussion regarding the effect of certain things on the price
guide, I would like to suggest that the last 10 entries into the price guide
for any one item in any one condition are saved permanently.
This will obviously have no effect on the majority of entries as they have more
than 10 sales in the last 6 months, but I can see a real benefit for items which
sell less often, giving both buyers and sellers an indication of market value
potential on rare items particularly if month of sale data is also retained on
the price guide detail page.
For example
Now all the price data has been purged, so neither buyer nor newly listing seller
has much information to go on.
I know that item has in the past sold for treble what its available for now which
shows current prices as being relatively cheap but most folks cannot see that
because unless they bought or sold one before or have a really good memory they
wont remember any of the previous sell prices. If just the last 10 sales could
be seen then buyers and sellers alike would be able to see that downward (or
upward in some items) trend and price accordingly or decide even whether to buy
now or wait a while.
Thanks for considering
Gareth
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | Dec 15, 2010 15:36 | | Subject: | Re: price guide: maintain last 10 sales data | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, bagelboybugle writes:
| | In light of recent discussion regarding the effect of certain things on the price
guide, I would like to suggest that the last 10 entries into the price guide
for any one item in any one condition are saved permanently.
This will obviously have no effect on the majority of entries as they have more
than 10 sales in the last 6 months, but I can see a real benefit for items which
sell less often, giving both buyers and sellers an indication of market value
potential on rare items particularly if month of sale data is also retained on
the price guide detail page.
|
I'm gonna vote No on this one. The suggestion would actually make it harder to
see a very important data point for these low-volume items -- the 6-months sales
to inventory ratio. I would prefer that the sales data be purged consistently
for all items.
In the example that you raise, or really for any item that has sold just once
or twice (or zero times) in six months, the fact is that there simply isn't enough
data anyway to be able to pro-actively know the market value. If there isn't
a market, there isn't a market value. It doesn't really matter if Item X sold
for $10 three years ago. The question is, what should it sell for today?
Having very old historical sales doesn't necessarily help in such cases -- I
would argue that it actually clouds the issue, because it would help to prevent
price increases on genuinely rare items. If something had very low demand five
years ago when it was relatively available, and now has minor demand but is essentially
impossible to find, economic theory would tell us that the price would rise substantially.
But if everyone could see that the item has only sold five times in the last
five years, and it went for a pittance, why would they buy it (and why would
anyone list it) at 5x or 10x or 50x the price from 5 years ago? Yet if that data
is NOT available, then people are forced to decide for themselves what the item
is actually worth to them.
Historical data would actually be useful for items where there is substantial
6-month data (for trending analysis), not for items with very low volume.
--
Marc.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | tEoS | | Posted: | Dec 15, 2010 15:55 | | Subject: | Re: price guide: maintain last 10 sales data | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Umm, what? Your statement seems to indicate that no data is better that old
data.
Example: I sold 4 of these as a set some time ago. Sellers will never know how
valuable these may be. The seller(s) for those July sales would probably bang
their head(s) against the wall if they knew. I got between $75-90 for them(4)
in used condition.
http://www.bricklink.com/catalogPG.asp?P=4035&colorID=8
| | I'm gonna vote No on this one. The suggestion would actually make it harder to
see a very important data point for these low-volume items -- the 6-months sales
to inventory ratio. I would prefer that the sales data be purged consistently
for all items.
In the example that you raise, or really for any item that has sold just once
or twice (or zero times) in six months, the fact is that there simply isn't enough
data anyway to be able to pro-actively know the market value. If there isn't
a market, there isn't a market value. It doesn't really matter if Item X sold
for $10 three years ago. The question is, what should it sell for today?
Having very old historical sales doesn't necessarily help in such cases -- I
would argue that it actually clouds the issue, because it would help to prevent
price increases on genuinely rare items. If something had very low demand five
years ago when it was relatively available, and now has minor demand but is essentially
impossible to find, economic theory would tell us that the price would rise substantially.
But if everyone could see that the item has only sold five times in the last
five years, and it went for a pittance, why would they buy it (and why would
anyone list it) at 5x or 10x or 50x the price from 5 years ago? Yet if that data
is NOT available, then people are forced to decide for themselves what the item
is actually worth to them.
Historical data would actually be useful for items where there is substantial
6-month data (for trending analysis), not for items with very low volume.
--
Marc.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | Dec 15, 2010 16:57 | | Subject: | Re: price guide: maintain last 10 sales data | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, tEoS writes:
| | Umm, what? Your statement seems to indicate that no data is better that old
data.
|
Which statement? I said a lot 
I'm not arguing that no data is better than old data. I described two different
things -- first, the reason that I voted no is that data would actually be LOST
if the suggestion was implemented. (At least, easily retrieved data.)
The second part of my post wasn't an explanation of why I voted no, but rather
why there isn't as compelling a reason to vote yes as might first seem. The additional
data would at best be of very limited value, and in some cases could be even
less than that.
| | Example: I sold 4 of these as a set some time ago. Sellers will never know how
valuable these may be. The seller(s) for those July sales would probably bang
their head(s) against the wall if they knew. I got between $75-90 for them(4)
in used condition.
http://www.bricklink.com/catalogPG.asp?P=4035&colorID=8
|
Okay. So the suggestion, in this case, would be horrible for buyers.
--
Marc.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Dec 15, 2010 17:10 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | Dec 15, 2010 17:15 | | Subject: | Re: price guide: maintain last 10 sales data | | Viewed: | 18 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, fleury writes:
| | In Suggestions, tEoS writes:
| | Umm, what? Your statement seems to indicate that no data is better that old
data.
|
Which statement? I said a lot
I'm not arguing that no data is better than old data. I described two different
things -- first, the reason that I voted no is that data would actually be LOST
if the suggestion was implemented. (At least, easily retrieved data.)
The second part of my post wasn't an explanation of why I voted no, but rather
why there isn't as compelling a reason to vote yes as might first seem. The additional
data would at best be of very limited value, and in some cases could be even
less than that.
| | Example: I sold 4 of these as a set some time ago. Sellers will never know how
valuable these may be. The seller(s) for those July sales would probably bang
their head(s) against the wall if they knew. I got between $75-90 for them(4)
in used condition.
http://www.bricklink.com/catalogPG.asp?P=4035&colorID=8
|
Okay. So the suggestion, in this case, would be horrible for buyers.
|
It could also help buyers. A seller who does not know what a set sold for in
the past could also overprice it just as easily as they could underprice it.
But in either case, nothing is "horrible" to the buyer if it is a price he is
willing to pay.
Sorry, but I still don't understand your opposition to this suggestion.
|
My opposition isn't related to this secondary issue -- I raised it only to argue
that the benefit of the suggestion isn't as big as one might think. I voted no
because the suggestion would hide what I consider an important data point --
the 6-month sales volume to inventory ratio.
--
Marc.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Dec 15, 2010 17:18 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | Dec 15, 2010 17:29 | | Subject: | Re: price guide: maintain last 10 sales data | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, fleury writes:
| | I voted no because the suggestion would hide what I consider an important data point --
the 6-month sales volume to inventory ratio.
|
Would it? I don't read that in the OP. I also think there could be an easy workaround
that still provides the 6-moth sales volume to inventory ratio. In fact, the
Price Guide normally lists sales by month as well. Thus, the information would
not be hidden as you fear.
|
Maybe if there was a toggle between seeing just 6-months, and seeing the last
10 sales.
Right now, all I have to do is load a detailed price guide page, and the ratio
is staring me in the face. The total 6-month sales and the total current lots
for sale are at the very top of the page. If I need to scan down to see how many
of the last 10 sales are from more than 6 months ago, that means more work for
me to get the data I want.
I'm lazy.
--
Marc.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | bagelboybugle | | Posted: | Dec 15, 2010 16:06 | | Subject: | Re: price guide: maintain last 10 sales data | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fleury writes:
| | In Suggestions, bagelboybugle writes:
| | In light of recent discussion regarding the effect of certain things on the price
guide, I would like to suggest that the last 10 entries into the price guide
for any one item in any one condition are saved permanently.
This will obviously have no effect on the majority of entries as they have more
than 10 sales in the last 6 months, but I can see a real benefit for items which
sell less often, giving both buyers and sellers an indication of market value
potential on rare items particularly if month of sale data is also retained on
the price guide detail page.
|
|
| | In the example that you raise, or really for any item that has sold just once
or twice (or zero times) in six months, the fact is that there simply isn't enough
data anyway to be able to pro-actively know the market value. If there isn't
a market, there isn't a market value. It doesn't really matter if Item X sold
for $10 three years ago. The question is, what should it sell for today?
|
hence the word `potential`
Im not suggesting that anyone should use the price guide data solely alone to
decide an items value regardless of whether its rare as hens teeth or common
as sharks teeth. Merely that it is a tool to help, just as is the current 6 month
price guide when something has sold just 10x in 6 months.
| | Having very old historical sales doesn't necessarily help in such cases -- I
would argue that it actually clouds the issue, because it would help to prevent
price increases on genuinely rare items. If something had very low demand five
years ago when it was relatively available, and now has minor demand but is essentially
impossible to find, economic theory would tell us that the price would rise substantially.
|
I disagree, being able to see the data would allow a seller to see ok people
paid $100 for that 3 years ago and they did it alot in the space of 2 months,
but theres none around since... one doesnt need to have studied any economics
to figure they can ask $100 and possibly get a quick sale or they can list it
for much higher. And whats to say without any data at all they wont be clueless
and list it for $25 and undervalue it completely.
| | But if everyone could see that the item has only sold five times in the last
five years, and it went for a pittance, why would they buy it (and why would
anyone list it) at 5x or 10x or 50x the price from 5 years ago? Yet if that data
is NOT available, then people are forced to decide for themselves what the item
is actually worth to them.
|
Should we just scrap the price guide completely for everything then so everyone
has to decide what they think everything is actually worth to them?
Same reason people buy sets even current release for 2x, 3x, 4x retail price,
they know how much they are willing to pay for something and sometimes knowing
they can get it cheaper doesnt affect the convenience of buying then and now.
And knowing they could have bought it cheaper 3 years ago probably wont affect
how much they are willing to pay for it now, particularly if they are a collector,
in which case they will likely accept the increase in price as inevitable.
| | Historical data would actually be useful for items where there is substantial
6-month data (for trending analysis), not for items with very low volume.
--
Marc.
|
I agree with that to a point, but I also think that long term trending with minimal
data is more useful to most people than taking a complete stab in the dark because
theres no data at all.
The long term permanant data if I recall correctly was not deleted for any economic
analasys arguement but because it made sense for currency conversion and mass
selling parts prices had become unreliable because some european sellers manipulated
prices by using false and misleading exchange rates to trick customers into thinking
they were cheaper, for accounting convenience and various other reasons. It could
be argued that the reasons for removing the long term data in the first place
are no longer valid thus could even be reinstated for all items with the most
valid counter arguement perhaps being server speed and access to data on high
volume lines.
Gareth
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | Dec 15, 2010 17:07 | | Subject: | Re: price guide: maintain last 10 sales data | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, bagelboybugle writes:
| | In Suggestions, fleury writes:
| | ...But if everyone could see that the item has only sold five times in the last
five years, and it went for a pittance, why would they buy it (and why would
anyone list it) at 5x or 10x or 50x the price from 5 years ago? Yet if that data
is NOT available, then people are forced to decide for themselves what the item
is actually worth to them.
|
Should we just scrap the price guide completely for everything then so everyone
has to decide what they think everything is actually worth to them?
|
No, we shouldn't.
| | Same reason people buy sets even current release for 2x, 3x, 4x retail price,
they know how much they are willing to pay for something and sometimes knowing
they can get it cheaper doesnt affect the convenience of buying then and now.
And knowing they could have bought it cheaper 3 years ago probably wont affect
how much they are willing to pay for it now, particularly if they are a collector,
in which case they will likely accept the increase in price as inevitable.
|
I see that as a valid argument for why old historical data is of limited value.
| | | | Historical data would actually be useful for items where there is substantial
6-month data (for trending analysis), not for items with very low volume.
|
I agree with that to a point, but I also think that long term trending with minimal
data is more useful to most people than taking a complete stab in the dark because
theres no data at all.
|
To sellers, some times. To me, that isn't enough reason to outweigh the problems
that the suggestion would cause.
--
Marc.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Dec 15, 2010 16:00 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
|
|
|
United Kingdom, England
Canada, Ontario
USA, Michigan
