|
 |
| | | Author: | Graham.  | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2013 12:11 | | Subject: | Lot Limits | | Viewed: | 201 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| OK another suggestion for y'all to consider: -
By simply adding a button alongside "store minimum"
the other button would be "lot limit" to "n" - where n is selected by the seller.
2 purposes,
1)allows a store to implement a number of lots limititation
2) stops a seller from tacking on loads of extra $$$ for # of lots
Simply, buyer would not be able to "complete purchase" IF their order did not
meet both criteria.
ie order needs to be ABOVE minimum purchase AND less than lot maximum
BUT then PLEASE crack down on stores adding lot charges - ie make it against
BrickLink policy,
Thank You
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | pikachu3 | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2013 12:48 | | Subject: | Re: Lot Limits | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Maybe I misunderstand, but I would much rather have the option of paying the
seller's lot fees than not be able to place the order at all.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | bb200521 | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2013 17:34 | | Subject: | Re: Lot Limits | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, pikachu3 writes:
| | Maybe I misunderstand, but I would much rather have the option of paying the
seller's lot fees than not be able to place the order at all.
|
I agree. Furthermore I would like better minimum order to disappear and pay handling
fees instead, what I sometimes did...
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | ash_274 | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2013 17:54 | | Subject: | Re: Lot Limits | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, niemand writes:
| | In Suggestions, pikachu3 writes:
| | Maybe I misunderstand, but I would much rather have the option of paying the
seller's lot fees than not be able to place the order at all.
|
I agree. Furthermore I would like better minimum order to disappear and pay handling
fees instead, what I sometimes did...
|
Ask the seller. 99% of the time if I had an order below their minimum they would
waive the minimum for me. Only a few times they charged for that "service" but
they were still the best source for what I needed (sometimes the only source)
-Ash
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | QCBricks | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2013 14:55 | | Subject: | Re: Lot Limits | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Thunor writes:
| | OK another suggestion for y'all to consider: -
By simply adding a button alongside "store minimum"
the other button would be "lot limit" to "n" - where n is selected by the seller.
2 purposes,
1)allows a store to implement a number of lots limititation
2) stops a seller from tacking on loads of extra $$$ for # of lots
Simply, buyer would not be able to "complete purchase" IF their order did not
meet both criteria.
ie order needs to be ABOVE minimum purchase AND less than lot maximum
BUT then PLEASE crack down on stores adding lot charges - ie make it against
BrickLink policy,
Thank You
|
Voted No.
Why not just let stores set their own policies? I hate lot charges and think
they should not exist, but the path of more regulations that must be enforced
constantly by someone at BL likely has many unintended consequences and takes
admin's focus away from BL2 and places it on being the "fee police".
Just least favorite these stores and move on.
Scott
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | goshe7 | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2013 17:03 | | Subject: | Re: Lot Limits | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, QCBricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, Thunor writes:
| | OK another suggestion for y'all to consider: -
By simply adding a button alongside "store minimum"
the other button would be "lot limit" to "n" - where n is selected by the seller.
2 purposes,
1)allows a store to implement a number of lots limititation
2) stops a seller from tacking on loads of extra $$$ for # of lots
Simply, buyer would not be able to "complete purchase" IF their order did not
meet both criteria.
ie order needs to be ABOVE minimum purchase AND less than lot maximum
BUT then PLEASE crack down on stores adding lot charges - ie make it against
BrickLink policy,
Thank You
|
Voted No.
Why not just let stores set their own policies?
|
Variations in store policies are frustrating for buyers.
| | I hate lot charges and think
they should not exist, but the path of more regulations that must be enforced
constantly by someone at BL likely has many unintended consequences and takes
admin's focus away from BL2 and places it on being the "fee police".
|
I had assumed there would be absolutely no improvements to the current BrickLink
(so long as it was functional for business) and any development efforts were
focused on BL2. Or do you have reason to believe that there will be ANY improvements
made to the current site?
| |
Just least favorite these stores and move on.
Scott
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2013 17:08 | | Subject: | Re: Lot Limits | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, goshe7 writes:
| | In Suggestions, QCBricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, Thunor writes:
| | OK another suggestion for y'all to consider: -
By simply adding a button alongside "store minimum"
the other button would be "lot limit" to "n" - where n is selected by the seller.
2 purposes,
1)allows a store to implement a number of lots limititation
2) stops a seller from tacking on loads of extra $$$ for # of lots
Simply, buyer would not be able to "complete purchase" IF their order did not
meet both criteria.
ie order needs to be ABOVE minimum purchase AND less than lot maximum
BUT then PLEASE crack down on stores adding lot charges - ie make it against
BrickLink policy,
Thank You
|
Voted No.
Why not just let stores set their own policies?
|
Variations in store policies are frustrating for buyers.
|
Frustrating for some buyers. Fantastic for some other buyers.
--
Marc.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | goshe7 | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2013 17:28 | | Subject: | Re: Lot Limits | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | In Suggestions, goshe7 writes:
| | In Suggestions, QCBricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, Thunor writes:
| | OK another suggestion for y'all to consider: -
By simply adding a button alongside "store minimum"
the other button would be "lot limit" to "n" - where n is selected by the seller.
2 purposes,
1)allows a store to implement a number of lots limititation
2) stops a seller from tacking on loads of extra $$$ for # of lots
Simply, buyer would not be able to "complete purchase" IF their order did not
meet both criteria.
ie order needs to be ABOVE minimum purchase AND less than lot maximum
BUT then PLEASE crack down on stores adding lot charges - ie make it against
BrickLink policy,
Thank You
|
Voted No.
Why not just let stores set their own policies?
|
Variations in store policies are frustrating for
|
|
Novice
| | buyers.
Frustrating for some buyers. Fantastic for some other buyers.
--
Marc.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2013 17:33 | | Subject: | Re: Lot Limits | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | | | In Suggestions, goshe7 writes:
| | In Suggestions, QCBricks writes:
| | Why not just let stores set their own policies?
|
Variations in store policies are frustrating for Novice buyers.
|
|
|
Okay. Why should we penalize established buyers and sellers by restricting how
they can do business with each other, for the sake of making things less confusing
for newbies?
--
Marc.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | QCBricks | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2013 19:00 | | Subject: | Re: Lot Limits | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | | | | | In Suggestions, goshe7 writes:
| | In Suggestions, QCBricks writes:
| | Why not just let stores set their own policies?
|
Variations in store policies are frustrating for Novice buyers.
|
|
|
Okay. Why should we penalize established buyers and sellers by restricting how
they can do business with each other, for the sake of making things less confusing
for newbies?
--
Marc.
|
+1
All of these arguments seem to rest on buyers wanting BL to protect them from
themselves. In thread and thread just like this one, buyers have indicated that
they do not (or have not) read some or all of the policies. Yet, they want BL
to ride in on a white horse and develop some sort of blanket system that will
just apply to everyone. Not only is that probably impossible, it likely has
many more unintended consequences.
As I mentioned many times in the past...least favorite these jokers and then
they are essentially dead to you as a buyer forever and ever. If enough buyers
least favorite them (or get together and least favorite the fee stores together
as a group) their sales will wane enough that they will cease to exist or they
will change their policies. If that doesn't happen, then I guess there
are enough buyers that willingly accept the fees and pay them. Either way, if
you least favorite these stores it shouldn't be of any consequence to you as
a buyer. (Unless all of this is about forcing stores to do this so that buyers
can buy from all of them without fees.)
Scott
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | bb304023 | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2013 19:07 | | Subject: | Re: Lot Limits | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, QCBricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | | | | | In Suggestions, goshe7 writes:
| | In Suggestions, QCBricks writes:
| | Why not just let stores set their own policies?
|
Variations in store policies are frustrating for Novice buyers.
|
|
|
Okay. Why should we penalize established buyers and sellers by restricting how
they can do business with each other, for the sake of making things less confusing
for newbies?
Marc.
|
+1
As I mentioned many times in the past...least favorite these jokers and then
they are essentially dead to you as a buyer forever and ever. If enough buyers
least favorite them (or get together and least favorite the fee stores together
as a group) their sales will wane enough that they will cease to exist or they
will change their policies. If that doesn't happen, then I guess there
are enough buyers that willingly accept the fees and pay them. Either way, if
you least favorite these stores it shouldn't be of any consequence to you as
a buyer. (Unless all of this is about forcing stores to do this so that buyers
can buy from all of them without fees.)
Scott
|
I'm a "fee store" as I charge fees on certain orders. and STILL +1 this. I don't
have lot limits, or a minimum order amount, and my fees are displayed on every
page (banner).
I look down on Hidden fees and lot limits, just because it gets confusing for
established buyers and new buyers alike.
This morning it took me an hour to pull an order because it has so many different
lots... in my mind, if I didn't want to deal with that, I wouldn't be selling
at all.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | goshe7 | | Posted: | Jan 12, 2013 19:02 | | Subject: | Re: Lot Limits | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | | | | | In Suggestions, goshe7 writes:
| | In Suggestions, QCBricks writes:
| | Why not just let stores set their own policies?
|
Variations in store policies are frustrating for Novice buyers.
|
|
|
Okay. Why should we penalize established buyers and sellers by restricting how
they can do business with each other, for the sake of making things less confusing
for newbies?
--
Marc.
|
Most of the suggestion indicated this was something a seller could choose to
opt for, like minimum buy. Or at least that's how I read it. So the only sellers
who would be "penalized" would be those that chose it.
As for the buyers, within the confines of the current system sellers could still
make this an effective solution by simply placing lot limits in their store terms.
So I would suggest that most stores who would opt-in to this feature already
have the same effect achieved in their store terms.
By making it a defined entry field (rather than just a T&C item) it then becomes
a way for buyers to quickly sort stores the same way they do with minimum buy.
If I know I'm placing a small order, I do not look at stores with high minimum
buys. Similarly if I were to place a large lot order, it would be convenient
to quickly disqualify stores that have low lot limits.
This part, however, seems to suggest there is more to it than my interpretation
above.
| | BUT then PLEASE crack down on stores adding lot charges - ie make it against
BrickLink policy,
|
I would rather have a total overhaul of added charges rather than isolating one
or two for correction. Fix them all, or don't bother.
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA, Tennessee
France, Grand Est
Canada, Ontario