|
 |
| | | Author: | FigBits  | | Posted: | May 21, 2015 17:05 | | Subject: | Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 390 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| Some sellers do not allow buyers to back out of a purchase if they change their
mind before payment. Others do (and some are required to do so by law).
Right now, this option is left to each store to describe in their store terms
if they allow it (or not). Usually, it is never mentioned at all, which can cause
some confusion among new buyers.
To help alleviate this confusion, and to help buyers more easily find stores
that have terms that they would like to support, I would like to see this option
be added as a checkbox that sellers can choose (or not) for their store.
This is an extension of the suggestion I posted here: http://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=173897
That suggestion listed a number of such checkboxes that would be useful. I believe
that this option of allowing sellers to state whether they accept cancellations
or not would be just as useful as anything else discussed in that earlier thread.
--
Marc.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | BLUSER_228839 | | Posted: | May 21, 2015 17:11 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 69 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | Some sellers do not allow buyers to back out of a purchase if they change their
mind before payment. Others do (and some are required to do so by law).
|
Well basicly unless anything else is written in the sellers shop, all buys are
binding..
I think only a few sellers actually feels otherwise. Returning items within 14
days and so, is something different.
"Buyer no longer wants the items - This is the most common example which BrickLink
does not tolerate. Buyer should make sure he or she wants to buy the items before
submitting an order, not after. After an order is submitted, the buyer enters
into a legally binding contract with the seller to purchase all items in that
order."
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | fredjh | | Posted: | May 21, 2015 17:42 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, 6point6 writes:
| | In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | Some sellers do not allow buyers to back out of a purchase if they change their
mind before payment. Others do (and some are required to do so by law).
|
Well basicly unless anything else is written in the sellers shop, all buys are
binding..
I think only a few sellers actually feels otherwise. Returning items within 14
days and so, is something different.
"Buyer no longer wants the items - This is the most common example which BrickLink
does not tolerate. Buyer should make sure he or she wants to buy the items before
submitting an order, not after. After an order is submitted, the buyer enters
into a legally binding contract with the seller to purchase all items in that
order."
|
I understand what your point is - in fact, we see the sentiment in the forums
all the time, and for the most part I completely agree with you - I understand
I'm entering into a binding agreement and have never tried to get out of
it, even when I realize after that I selected the wrong item.
However, sellers are also the first to ask to cancel when they are missing pieces
(if they even bother to mention it at all). They don't like making good
on pieces they missed shipping because "it's not worth it to ship a 5 cent
part" even though they had the same legal obligation to fill the order and it
was THEIR mistake.
So while I've never asked to cancel, I've had several sellers ask to
cancel - and you know what, it's fine with me.... I don't whine about
legally binding contracts. People make mistakes, and there's usually not
a whole lot at stake on any given order.
I guess the bottom line is "stuff happens." So I think having a few terms itemized
so that when people search they can narrow their choice of sellers is a great
idea. The only reason I can think a seller is against it is because those options
make it a more competitive market. Same reason that items in a store should
link to the catalog, but don't - and yes, they should - you think you're
fooling anyone? I cut and paste the item number and look it up anyway, you just
make it tedious for me.
Again, it's sellers who don't want to be competitive. That's your
prerogative, but let's all be clear about the "why."
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Brock | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 07:25 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | Same reason that items in a store should link to the catalog, but don't - and yes, they should - you think you're fooling anyone? I cut and paste the item number and look it up anyway, you just make it tedious for me.
|
Just open the link to the picture of the item in a new tab and remove the '&viewtype'
bit at the end of the url. That'll take you to the catalog picture which
is a couple clicks to the price guide. Still a few steps, but it saves you a
copy/paste.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 07:43 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fredjh writes:
| | In Suggestions, 6point6 writes:
| | In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | Some sellers do not allow buyers to back out of a purchase if they change their
mind before payment. Others do (and some are required to do so by law).
|
Well basicly unless anything else is written in the sellers shop, all buys are
binding..
I think only a few sellers actually feels otherwise. Returning items within 14
days and so, is something different.
"Buyer no longer wants the items - This is the most common example which BrickLink
does not tolerate. Buyer should make sure he or she wants to buy the items before
submitting an order, not after. After an order is submitted, the buyer enters
into a legally binding contract with the seller to purchase all items in that
order."
|
I understand what your point is - in fact, we see the sentiment in the forums
all the time, and for the most part I completely agree with you - I understand
I'm entering into a binding agreement and have never tried to get out of
it, even when I realize after that I selected the wrong item.
However, sellers are also the first to ask to cancel when they are missing pieces
(if they even bother to mention it at all). They don't like making good
on pieces they missed shipping because "it's not worth it to ship a 5 cent
part" even though they had the same legal obligation to fill the order and it
was THEIR mistake.
So while I've never asked to cancel, I've had several sellers ask to
cancel - and you know what, it's fine with me.... I don't whine about
legally binding contracts. People make mistakes, and there's usually not
a whole lot at stake on any given order.
I guess the bottom line is "stuff happens." So I think having a few terms itemized
so that when people search they can narrow their choice of sellers is a great
idea. The only reason I can think a seller is against it is because those options
make it a more competitive market. Same reason that items in a store should
link to the catalog, but don't - and yes, they should - you think you're
fooling anyone? I cut and paste the item number and look it up anyway, you just
make it tedious for me.
Again, it's sellers who don't want to be competitive. That's your
prerogative, but let's all be clear about the "why."
|
I accept that some sellers have other reasons that they might not like the suggestion.
But I definitely understand what you are saying. When a suggestion comes up that
makes it easier for buyers to find the sellers they want to deal with (and consequently
avoid the ones they don't), it makes sense that most people should be in
favor. For this particular suggestion, I grant that some people don't want
the issue to be reduced to a yes/no checkbox answer, though.
Meanwhile, you raise an interesting point about the links to the catalog... I
feel another Suggestion coming on! My concern as a seller isn't that people
in my store would be able to comparison shop more easily -- I am fine with
that! The problem would be for new buyers, I ffear they would use those links,
and *accidentally* leave my store without really realizing that's what they
were doing. This could be minimized though, by making the links open in a pop-up
window...
--
Marc.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | eileenkeeney | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 11:37 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fredjh writes:
| | I understand what your point is - in fact, we see the sentiment in the forums
all the time, and for the most part I completely agree with you - I understand
I'm entering into a binding agreement and have never tried to get out of
it, even when I realize after that I selected the wrong item.
However, sellers are also the first to ask to cancel when they are missing pieces
(if they even bother to mention it at all). They don't like making good
on pieces they missed shipping because "it's not worth it to ship a 5 cent
part" even though they had the same legal obligation to fill the order and it
was THEIR mistake.
So while I've never asked to cancel, I've had several sellers ask to
cancel - and you know what, it's fine with me.... I don't whine about
legally binding contracts. People make mistakes, and there's usually not
a whole lot at stake on any given order.
I guess the bottom line is "stuff happens." So I think having a few terms itemized
so that when people search they can narrow their choice of sellers is a great
idea. The only reason I can think a seller is against it is because those options
make it a more competitive market. Same reason that items in a store should
link to the catalog, but don't - and yes, they should - you think you're
fooling anyone? I cut and paste the item number and look it up anyway, you just
make it tedious for me.
Again, it's sellers who don't want to be competitive. That's your
prerogative, but let's all be clear about the "why."
|
This post expresses how I have been feeling about the site.
However, most sellers that fail to send me an item, do send it later and do not
mind paying the extra postage.
It is only when they actually do not have an item, that they request I cancel
the item. Several even offer to have another seller send me the item.
So I have not encountered many sellers who are not completely willing to take
on the cost of their mistake. I have only encountered a few, and I have read
of multiple such cases on the forum.
I think there is another reason, besides the competitive impact on sellers, why
some sellers are against this idea.
Change is often hard.
I have been through major standardization efforts in the workplace. I have seen
resistance. I have also seen cases where leadership did not understand the unique
elements of a particular groups end result, and tried to force them into a standard
that really didn't fit what they needed to accomplish.
But more often I saw groups who thought their process was better, but could not
demonstrate that it was.
More often than not, the standardization turned out to be a good thing, once
people adapted to it.
But there are always exceptions.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 11:54 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fredjh writes:
| |
However, sellers are also the first to ask to cancel when they are missing pieces
(if they even bother to mention it at all). They don't like making good
on pieces they missed shipping because "it's not worth it to ship a 5 cent
part" even though they had the same legal obligation to fill the order and it
was THEIR mistake.
|
You are shopping with the wrong FEW sellers. In over 1300 orders here on BrickLink
I have never had a seller cancel or ask to cancel my order because they were
missing a few pieces I ordered. In fact, I only encountered one seller that improperly
cancelled an order. The times when my sellers were short on something I ordered
they were almost always upfront with me, apologetic, and quick to offer me a
choice of several options to resolve the matter. And for many, if not most, that
included the option to get the part for me and ship it to me later at their expense.
So forgive me, but I cringe when I see over-broad negative statements that "sellers
do this or that". A few might do things worthy of complaint, but it is inaccurate
to make it seem like that is what sellers here in general do. The vast majority
of sellers here (like buyers) are awesome, easy to work with, resolve problems
fairly and quickly, and provide excellent customer service.
BTW, enjoy your trip! My family and I are headed to the Outer Banks where we
rented a cottage for the weekend. My big old white body could use a little sun.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | bb138026 | | Posted: | May 21, 2015 17:14 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 56 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | Some sellers do not allow buyers to back out of a purchase if they change their
mind before payment. Others do (and some are required to do so by law).
Right now, this option is left to each store to describe in their store terms
if they allow it (or not). Usually, it is never mentioned at all, which can cause
some confusion among new buyers.
|
That would be a viable temporary measure, it may a while before BrickLink actually
implements automated checkout (are they done with the MOC Shop, Chinese translations,
and so on?).
Instead, I have had to put this in my store banner:
"Feel free to place an order to get a shipping quote. You can cancel any order,
no questions asked!"
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | prairie | | Posted: | May 21, 2015 18:29 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Stragus writes:
| | Instead, I have had to put this in my store banner:
"Feel free to place an order to get a shipping quote. You can cancel any order,
no questions asked!"
|
Doesn't that risk losing the buyer's entire cart of items if you become
out of stock on an item in the quote before it's committed as an order?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | bb138026 | | Posted: | May 21, 2015 18:50 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, prairie writes:
| | In Suggestions, Stragus writes:
| | Instead, I have had to put this in my store banner:
"Feel free to place an order to get a shipping quote. You can cancel any order,
no questions asked!"
|
Doesn't that risk losing the buyer's entire cart of items if you become
out of stock on an item in the quote before it's committed as an order?
|
I don't use the quote system, which is flawed as you mentioned.
I'm saying that customers can submit real orders and later request cancellations
if they don't like the shipping rate. It's easier for everybody involved.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | kzinti | | Posted: | May 21, 2015 17:17 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 60 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| How do you determine too high shipping? What is the metric for that? If I am
quoted only standard local postal rates for shipping weight and then opt to cancel
due to shipping being too high, where else will I go to get it shipped cheaper?
Nowhere. The argument that shipping is too high is invalid in this case.
I believe the new Quote option was designed to specifically allow this kind of
window shopping. "I want this, what will it cost to ship?" and when they find
out, "Oh, my! Um, no thanks". No harm, no foul.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | May 21, 2015 17:19 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, kzinti writes:
| | How do you determine too high shipping? What is the metric for that? If I am
quoted only standard local postal rates for shipping weight and then opt to cancel
due to shipping being too high, where else will I go to get it shipped cheaper?
Nowhere. The argument that shipping is too high is invalid in this case.
I believe the new Quote option was designed to specifically allow this kind of
window shopping. "I want this, what will it cost to ship?" and when they find
out, "Oh, my! Um, no thanks". No harm, no foul.
|
if its (shipping) not free its too much 
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Teup | | Posted: | May 21, 2015 17:44 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, kzinti writes:
| | How do you determine too high shipping? What is the metric for that? If I am
quoted only standard local postal rates for shipping weight and then opt to cancel
due to shipping being too high, where else will I go to get it shipped cheaper?
Nowhere. The argument that shipping is too high is invalid in this case.
|
Well, pick a different country, or prefer a different carrier than the one that
seller offers? Different handling & packaging fee.. there's alot of variation
to be found. I guess you can define "too high shipping" as, well, shipping costs
being higher than what the buyer wants to pay for it, whatever that may be.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | MassBricks | | Posted: | May 21, 2015 17:52 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, kzinti writes:
| | How do you determine too high shipping? What is the metric for that? If I am
quoted only standard local postal rates for shipping weight and then opt to cancel
due to shipping being too high, where else will I go to get it shipped cheaper?
Nowhere. The argument that shipping is too high is invalid in this case.
I believe the new Quote option was designed to specifically allow this kind of
window shopping. "I want this, what will it cost to ship?" and when they find
out, "Oh, my! Um, no thanks". No harm, no foul.
|
Most problems arise from new buyers, who may not know how much shipping costs.
Just because there is no cheaper option, doesn't mean it can't catch
someone off guard. Now maybe it could have been avoided with a little research,
but I don't think that should be necessary for a modern marketplace website,
which is why we need to get automated checkout working already.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | kzinti | | Posted: | May 21, 2015 17:58 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | Most problems arise from new buyers, who may not know how much shipping costs.
Just because there is no cheaper option, doesn't mean it can't catch
someone off guard. Now maybe it could have been avoided with a little research,
but I don't think that should be necessary for a modern marketplace website,
which is why we need to get automated checkout working already.
|
I believe it will create a bunch of headaches due to the unique nature of order
dimensions and weights here. Either the Seller will get stuck with higher costs,
or the Buyer will be overpaying for shipping. I'd prefer to quote due to
the large variety of packaging and shipping options.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | May 21, 2015 17:59 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, kzinti writes:
| | | | Most problems arise from new buyers, who may not know how much shipping costs.
Just because there is no cheaper option, doesn't mean it can't catch
someone off guard. Now maybe it could have been avoided with a little research,
but I don't think that should be necessary for a modern marketplace website,
which is why we need to get automated checkout working already.
|
I believe it will create a bunch of headaches due to the unique nature of order
dimensions and weights here. Either the Seller will get stuck with higher costs,
or the Buyer will be overpaying for shipping. I'd prefer to quote due to
the large variety of packaging and shipping options.
|
all this suggestion is, is a way for some buyers to go, were better then the
others and in my opinion its nothing but grandstanding, if people don't like
the S&H don't blame the seller (most of the times) blame the post office.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | May 21, 2015 18:26 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
| |
all this suggestion is, is a way for some SELLERS to go, were better then the
others and in my opinion its nothing but grandstanding,
|
Spot on!
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 07:55 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
| | all this suggestion is, is a way for some buyers to go, 'we're better then the
others' and in my opinion its nothing but grandstanding
|
Check my original suggestion, linked-to in the first post. I state up front that
most sellers ship faster than me. Right now, in my store terms, I have a warning
about delayed shipping. Is that grandstanding?
I want all buyers to have as much information as possible about sellers, presented
in a way that is searchable instead of the sloppy mess of thousands of different
Terms pages.
Do I think that allowing buyers to back out of a purchase is better than not
letting them? I do. I am not the only one. Stragus does, John P absolutely did
whEn he had an active store. And I would like a systematic way to tell that to
potential buyers.
If sellers are comfortable with their terms -- be it processing times, lot
fees, or allowing/disallowing cancellations -- then I believe they should
be comfortable with standardizing the structure of those terms so that buyers
can more easily compare stores.
That is what this suggestion would do. I accept the concern that this particular
issue is not ideally captured in a yes/no checkbox. That's a potentially
valid concern. But I think that dismissing my idea because you think I am grandstanding
is way off. Either the idea has merit or it doesn't.
--
Marc.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 08:16 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | Check my original suggestion, linked-to in the first post. I state up front that
most sellers ship faster than me. Right now, in my store terms, I have a warning
about delayed shipping. Is that grandstanding?
I want all buyers to have as much information as possible about sellers, presented
in a way that is searchable instead of the sloppy mess of thousands of different
Terms pages.
|
Another way to make sellers searchable would be to have a "guaranteed postage
within 2 working days of payment" checkbox, or even within 7 working days. Even
if you could get 95% of your orders out within that time but cannot guarantee
it for every order then you would not be able to click that box. But then buyers
might filter stores using it and think if you cannot post your orders within
2 or 7 days of the order being placed, then you are not a serious seller. And
avoid even looking in your store.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 08:24 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 21 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, mabccc writes:
| | | | Check my original suggestion, linked-to in the first post. I state up front that
most sellers ship faster than me. Right now, in my store terms, I have a warning
about delayed shipping. Is that grandstanding?
I want all buyers to have as much information as possible about sellers, presented
in a way that is searchable instead of the sloppy mess of thousands of different
Terms pages.
|
Another way to make sellers searchable would be to have a "guaranteed postage
within 2 working days of payment" checkbox, or even within 7 working days. Even
if you could get 95% of your orders out within that time but cannot guarantee
it for every order then you would not be able to click that box. But then buyers
might filter stores using it and think if you cannot post your orders within
2 or 7 days of the order being placed, then you are not a serious seller. And
avoid even looking in your store.
|
I absolutely think that should exist. My store would fail it. But I still want
it because it benefits buyers, and I am comfortable with not qualifying for that
checkbox.
--
Marc.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 08:47 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | In Suggestions, mabccc writes:
| | | | Check my original suggestion, linked-to in the first post. I state up front that
most sellers ship faster than me. Right now, in my store terms, I have a warning
about delayed shipping. Is that grandstanding?
I want all buyers to have as much information as possible about sellers, presented
in a way that is searchable instead of the sloppy mess of thousands of different
Terms pages.
|
Another way to make sellers searchable would be to have a "guaranteed postage
within 2 working days of payment" checkbox, or even within 7 working days. Even
if you could get 95% of your orders out within that time but cannot guarantee
it for every order then you would not be able to click that box. But then buyers
might filter stores using it and think if you cannot post your orders within
2 or 7 days of the order being placed, then you are not a serious seller. And
avoid even looking in your store.
|
I absolutely think that should exist. My store would fail it. But I still want
it because it benefits buyers, and I am comfortable with not qualifying for that
checkbox.
--
Marc.
|
But how many stores could actually use it? I normally turn orders around fast,
but if just 1 in 100 cannot be done in 2 days, then I should not be checking
the box. And what happens if someone checks it, and it turns out they take three
days? Or 30 days?
It's the same with the cancellations. I'd probably accept at least 90%
of cancellations without BL penalty. But there would always be one, probably
where the buyer is abusive or rude, that I would cancel but with BL penalty for
the buyer. I would either not be allowed to tick the cancellations box, or if
I did, I would not be allowed to penalise that type of buyer.
Not only that, a buyer knows that if you cannot penalise them (as your store
terms say so), that they can remove all your inventory from your store as a joke.
They can order everything and not pay, and you cannot do anything about it.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 09:03 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, mabccc writes:
| | In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | In Suggestions, mabccc writes:
| | | | Check my original suggestion, linked-to in the first post. I state up front that
most sellers ship faster than me. Right now, in my store terms, I have a warning
about delayed shipping. Is that grandstanding?
I want all buyers to have as much information as possible about sellers, presented
in a way that is searchable instead of the sloppy mess of thousands of different
Terms pages.
|
Another way to make sellers searchable would be to have a "guaranteed postage
within 2 working days of payment" checkbox, or even within 7 working days. Even
if you could get 95% of your orders out within that time but cannot guarantee
it for every order then you would not be able to click that box. But then buyers
might filter stores using it and think if you cannot post your orders within
2 or 7 days of the order being placed, then you are not a serious seller. And
avoid even looking in your store.
|
I absolutely think that should exist. My store would fail it. But I still want
it because it benefits buyers, and I am comfortable with not qualifying for that
checkbox.
--
Marc.
|
But how many stores could actually use it? I normally turn orders around fast,
but if just 1 in 100 cannot be done in 2 days, then I should not be checking
the box. And what happens if someone checks it, and it turns out they take three
days? Or 30 days?
|
The specific expectations could be laid out by BrickLink for any categories that
needed it. As for consequences if sellers don't live up to their checkboxes,
it's no different than now -- setting false expectations is bad for business
because it results in unhappy customers.
| | It's the same with the cancellations. I'd probably accept at least 90%
of cancellations without BL penalty. But there would always be one, probably
where the buyer is abusive or rude, that I would cancel but with BL penalty for
the buyer. I would either not be allowed to tick the cancellations box, or if
I did, I would not be allowed to penalise that type of buyer.
Not only that, a buyer knows that if you cannot penalise them (as your store
terms say so), that they can remove all your inventory from your store as a joke.
They can order everything and not pay, and you cannot do anything about it.
|
Cancel the order and stoplist them. I don't think that general policies should
be unduly influenced by rare events.
--
Marc.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 09:06 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 18 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | In Suggestions, mabccc writes:
| | In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | In Suggestions, mabccc writes:
| | | | Check my original suggestion, linked-to in the first post. I state up front that
most sellers ship faster than me. Right now, in my store terms, I have a warning
about delayed shipping. Is that grandstanding?
I want all buyers to have as much information as possible about sellers, presented
in a way that is searchable instead of the sloppy mess of thousands of different
Terms pages.
|
Another way to make sellers searchable would be to have a "guaranteed postage
within 2 working days of payment" checkbox, or even within 7 working days. Even
if you could get 95% of your orders out within that time but cannot guarantee
it for every order then you would not be able to click that box. But then buyers
might filter stores using it and think if you cannot post your orders within
2 or 7 days of the order being placed, then you are not a serious seller. And
avoid even looking in your store.
|
I absolutely think that should exist. My store would fail it. But I still want
it because it benefits buyers, and I am comfortable with not qualifying for that
checkbox.
--
Marc.
|
But how many stores could actually use it? I normally turn orders around fast,
but if just 1 in 100 cannot be done in 2 days, then I should not be checking
the box. And what happens if someone checks it, and it turns out they take three
days? Or 30 days?
|
The specific expectations could be laid out by BrickLink for any categories that
needed it. As for consequences if sellers don't live up to their checkboxes,
it's no different than now -- setting false expectations is bad for business
because it results in unhappy customers.
| | It's the same with the cancellations. I'd probably accept at least 90%
of cancellations without BL penalty. But there would always be one, probably
where the buyer is abusive or rude, that I would cancel but with BL penalty for
the buyer. I would either not be allowed to tick the cancellations box, or if
I did, I would not be allowed to penalise that type of buyer.
Not only that, a buyer knows that if you cannot penalise them (as your store
terms say so), that they can remove all your inventory from your store as a joke.
They can order everything and not pay, and you cannot do anything about it.
|
Cancel the order and stoplist them. I don't think that general policies should
be unduly influenced by rare events.
--
Marc.
|
In that case, all sellers could just tick all boxes, then deal with the consequences
later. I don't see how that helps buyers at all.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 09:14 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 21 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, mabccc writes:
| | In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | In Suggestions, mabccc writes:
| | In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | In Suggestions, mabccc writes:
| | | | Check my original suggestion, linked-to in the first post. I state up front that
most sellers ship faster than me. Right now, in my store terms, I have a warning
about delayed shipping. Is that grandstanding?
I want all buyers to have as much information as possible about sellers, presented
in a way that is searchable instead of the sloppy mess of thousands of different
Terms pages.
|
Another way to make sellers searchable would be to have a "guaranteed postage
within 2 working days of payment" checkbox, or even within 7 working days. Even
if you could get 95% of your orders out within that time but cannot guarantee
it for every order then you would not be able to click that box. But then buyers
might filter stores using it and think if you cannot post your orders within
2 or 7 days of the order being placed, then you are not a serious seller. And
avoid even looking in your store.
|
I absolutely think that should exist. My store would fail it. But I still want
it because it benefits buyers, and I am comfortable with not qualifying for that
checkbox.
--
Marc.
|
But how many stores could actually use it? I normally turn orders around fast,
but if just 1 in 100 cannot be done in 2 days, then I should not be checking
the box. And what happens if someone checks it, and it turns out they take three
days? Or 30 days?
|
The specific expectations could be laid out by BrickLink for any categories that
needed it. As for consequences if sellers don't live up to their checkboxes,
it's no different than now -- setting false expectations is bad for business
because it results in unhappy customers.
| | It's the same with the cancellations. I'd probably accept at least 90%
of cancellations without BL penalty. But there would always be one, probably
where the buyer is abusive or rude, that I would cancel but with BL penalty for
the buyer. I would either not be allowed to tick the cancellations box, or if
I did, I would not be allowed to penalise that type of buyer.
Not only that, a buyer knows that if you cannot penalise them (as your store
terms say so), that they can remove all your inventory from your store as a joke.
They can order everything and not pay, and you cannot do anything about it.
|
Cancel the order and stoplist them. I don't think that general policies should
be unduly influenced by rare events.
--
Marc.
|
In that case, all sellers could just tick all boxes, then deal with the consequences
later. I don't see how that helps buyers at all.
|
They would check all the boxes?
http://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=173897
They would check boxes about lot fees? Small order fees? Free shipping? About
when they leave feedback? About how they deal with errors? About having pets?
Smoke smell?
Right now, I don't believe that most sellers misrepresent themselves in their
store terms. Why would they start doing so with checkboxes? The suggestion is
to move store terms to a standardized list. I don't see why this would cause
sellers to start lying.
--
Marc.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 10:20 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
|
OK, they would check the ones that buyers would want checked.
| | Right now, I don't believe that most sellers misrepresent themselves in their
store terms. Why would they start doing so with checkboxes? The suggestion is
to move store terms to a standardized list. I don't see why this would cause
sellers to start lying.
|
That is because, right now, sellers cannot filter based on checkboxes. If sellers
started losing sales and put it down to not appearing in searches, then there
would be a reason to lie or just bend the truth slightly. For example, if you
know you can fulfill your promise as stated in the checkbox 9 times out of 10,
then just check it. It's not worth losing sales even if you displease 1 in
10 customers.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 10:29 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, mabccc writes:
| |
That is because, right now, sellers cannot filter based on checkboxes. If sellers
started losing sales and put it down to not appearing in searches, then there
would be a reason to lie or just bend the truth slightly. For example, if you
know you can fulfill your promise as stated in the checkbox 9 times out of 10,
then just check it. It's not worth losing sales even if you displease 1 in
10 customers.
|
This is what I and many others would do if forced to use these checkboxes, or
if not checking the box would exclude me from search results. I would check the
box saying I allow order cancellations but then say in my terms that while I
accept most OCRs I reserve the right to decline them under limited circumstances.
Which effectively makes the checkbox useless and meaningless. I would rather
risk upsetting 1 out of 1000 customers than be excluded from untold thousands
of buyer searches.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 09:14 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| |
The specific expectations could be laid out by BrickLink for any categories that
needed it. As for consequences if sellers don't live up to their checkboxes,
it's no different than now -- setting false expectations is bad for business
because it results in unhappy customers.
|
So we should have unhappy sellers instead, by forcing them to limit their options
and flexibility in dealing with their own customers? Make it unpleasant enough
to sell here and more sellers will start leaving. Is that good for BrickLink
and buyers?
You know, I really don't see a whole lot of unhappy customers here on BrickLink,
and most times these claimed "problems" seem grossly exaggerated. And such "problems"
so often need to be fixed with sledgehammers.
Seriously, how "huge" a problem is requests to cancel orders that are improperly
denied? As both a seller and buyer in over 10,000 orders on BrickLink, I have
encountered order cancellation requests (both proper and improper) in way less
than 1% of my orders. And the "problematic" improper ones accounted for only
a small minority of that 1%. So what are we talking about here? Something that
happens only once in every 1000 orders?
This isn't a problem. No, the real "problem" will be in the proposed "solution".
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 09:26 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| |
The specific expectations could be laid out by BrickLink for any categories that
needed it. As for consequences if sellers don't live up to their checkboxes,
it's no different than now -- setting false expectations is bad for business
because it results in unhappy customers.
|
So we should have unhappy sellers instead, by forcing them to limit their options
and flexibility in dealing with their own customers?
|
That is not in my suggestion. Sellers can absolutely be flexible precisely as
they can today with the list of countries they ship to, as an example.
| | As both a seller and buyer in over 10,000 orders on BrickLink, I have
encountered order cancellation requests (both proper and improper) in way less
than 1% of my orders.
|
If that is true, than this suggestion would have so little impact on you that
it is irrelevant whether it was implemented or not.
So, basically zero impact for most sellers. A benefit to sellers who want to
systemize their terms, and a benefit to buyers who want to more easily search
for stores whose terms meet their needs.
--
Marc.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 09:43 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| |
The specific expectations could be laid out by BrickLink for any categories that
needed it. As for consequences if sellers don't live up to their checkboxes,
it's no different than now -- setting false expectations is bad for business
because it results in unhappy customers.
|
So we should have unhappy sellers instead, by forcing them to limit their options
and flexibility in dealing with their own customers?
|
That is not in my suggestion. Sellers can absolutely be flexible precisely as
they can today with the list of countries they ship to, as an example.
|
It *IS* your suggestion. Your suggestion is to replace the myriad of seller terms
on this issue with a couple of over-simplified checkboxes. Checkboxes that pidgeonhole
and force sellers to limit how they handle this problem. That in my book is removing
seller flexibility to deal with these requests on a case-by-case basis that considers
the particular facts of each situation.
| |
| | As both a seller and buyer in over 10,000 orders on BrickLink, I have
encountered order cancellation requests (both proper and improper) in way less
than 1% of my orders.
|
If that is true, than this suggestion would have so little impact on you that
it is irrelevant whether it was implemented or not.
|
It will have a definite impact on me because your intention is to make these
checkboxes searchable. Therefore, even though I might allow order cancellations
90% of the time, the fact that I won't allow every OCR no matter the circumstances
will cause me to be lumped in together with those who never allow OCRs.
| | So, basically zero impact for most sellers. A benefit to sellers who want to
systemize their terms, and a benefit to buyers who want to more easily search
for stores whose terms meet their needs.
|
No, it will have a potentially HUGE impact for many sellers who will now be unfairly
excluded from searches because they don't entirely agree with a militant
few on how their shops should be run here. Naturally, this benefits the militant
few, and them only. It certainly does not benefit sellers who "mostly agree"
but can't say they agree 100%. And it does not help buyers who will be prevented
from seeing numerous other offerings from sellers whose terms they may have no
problems with. Like most shortcuts, over-simplified checkboxes are notoriously
ineffective, inaccurate and bad for understanding whether or not a sellers terms
"meet their needs".
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 10:01 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| |
The specific expectations could be laid out by BrickLink for any categories that
needed it. As for consequences if sellers don't live up to their checkboxes,
it's no different than now -- setting false expectations is bad for business
because it results in unhappy customers.
|
So we should have unhappy sellers instead, by forcing them to limit their options
and flexibility in dealing with their own customers?
|
That is not in my suggestion. Sellers can absolutely be flexible precisely as
they can today with the list of countries they ship to, as an example.
|
It *IS* your suggestion. Your suggestion is to replace the myriad of seller terms
on this issue with a couple of over-simplified checkboxes. Checkboxes that pidgeonhole
and force sellers to limit how they handle this problem. That in my book is removing
seller flexibility to deal with these requests on a case-by-case basis that considers
the particular facts of each situation.
|
*shrug* You are free to interpret it however you like. As I showed, though, there
is nothing in the suggestion that prevents sellers from being flexible. Exactly
how they can now be flexible with countries they ship to. The suggestion would
work in exactly the same way.
You mentioned that you already voted no, though, so I won't try to sway you.
For anyone still on the fence, or any buyers who have an opion, feel free to
weigh in.
--
Marc.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 10:15 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| |
The specific expectations could be laid out by BrickLink for any categories that
needed it. As for consequences if sellers don't live up to their checkboxes,
it's no different than now -- setting false expectations is bad for business
because it results in unhappy customers.
|
So we should have unhappy sellers instead, by forcing them to limit their options
and flexibility in dealing with their own customers?
|
That is not in my suggestion. Sellers can absolutely be flexible precisely as
they can today with the list of countries they ship to, as an example.
|
It *IS* your suggestion. Your suggestion is to replace the myriad of seller terms
on this issue with a couple of over-simplified checkboxes. Checkboxes that pidgeonhole
and force sellers to limit how they handle this problem. That in my book is removing
seller flexibility to deal with these requests on a case-by-case basis that considers
the particular facts of each situation.
|
*shrug* You are free to interpret it however you like. As I showed, though, there
is nothing in the suggestion that prevents sellers from being flexible. Exactly
how they can now be flexible with countries they ship to. The suggestion would
work in exactly the same way.
|
Don't hedge or be evasive Marc. Admit the obvious. Your OP in this thread
made a rather simple suggestion... Have checkboxes to indicate whether or not
a seller will accept order cancellations. Period. It is an all-or-nothing choice
you are presenting. Either you do or you don't. No exceptions, no ands, ifs
or buts. In other words, no flexibility for sellers to decide each situation
on its own merits or lack thereof.
And then later in this thread and your related suggestion you admit these checkboxes
would be incorporated into buyer searches. So obviously you are seeking to pidgeonhole
sellers and force them to make an all-or-nothing choice, with the threat of being
excluded from buyer searches if they don't make the "right" choice.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 10:29 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | *shrug* You are free to interpret it however you like. As I showed, though, there
is nothing in the suggestion that prevents sellers from being flexible. Exactly
how they can now be flexible with countries they ship to. The suggestion would
work in exactly the same way.
|
So how would it work, if a seller ticked the allow OCR without penalty then a
buyer is incredibly rude in their cancellation email or the buyer empties the
store then emails a day later with CANCEL THE LOT LOLZ? Where is the flexibility
for the seller to deny the request or file a NPB? They are breaking their terms
if they file a NPB.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 10:42 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, mabccc writes:
| | | | *shrug* You are free to interpret it however you like. As I showed, though, there
is nothing in the suggestion that prevents sellers from being flexible. Exactly
how they can now be flexible with countries they ship to. The suggestion would
work in exactly the same way.
|
So how would it work, if a seller ticked the allow OCR without penalty then a
buyer is incredibly rude in their cancellation email or the buyer empties the
store then emails a day later with CANCEL THE LOT LOLZ? Where is the flexibility
for the seller to deny the request or file a NPB? They are breaking their terms
if they file a NPB.
|
The parallel is identical. If a seller says that they accept cancelation requests
with no penalty, then that's what it is. With shipping, if they say they
accept orders from Canada, then that's what it is. If a buyer wants to cancel,
done. If a buyer wants to ship to Canada, done.
The flexibility is on the other side. A seller can set up their store to NOT
ship to Canada, but still be flexible on the issue on a case-by-case basis. And
a seller could state that the DON'T automatically accept all cancelation
requests, but still be flexible on a case by case basis.
This is precisely how things are right now. The only difference is that one category
is easy for buyers to filter, and the other is not.
--
Marc.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 10:57 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | In Suggestions, mabccc writes:
| | | | *shrug* You are free to interpret it however you like. As I showed, though, there
is nothing in the suggestion that prevents sellers from being flexible. Exactly
how they can now be flexible with countries they ship to. The suggestion would
work in exactly the same way.
|
So how would it work, if a seller ticked the allow OCR without penalty then a
buyer is incredibly rude in their cancellation email or the buyer empties the
store then emails a day later with CANCEL THE LOT LOLZ? Where is the flexibility
for the seller to deny the request or file a NPB? They are breaking their terms
if they file a NPB.
|
The parallel is identical. If a seller says that they accept cancelation requests
with no penalty, then that's what it is. With shipping, if they say they
accept orders from Canada, then that's what it is. If a buyer wants to cancel,
done. If a buyer wants to ship to Canada, done.
|
Completely different. I am surprised you can't see the difference that has
already been explained to you. A seller who says they do not ship to Canada suffers
no unintended loss by not getting orders they did not want in the first place.
But a seller who reserves the right not to cancel *SOME* orders under very limited
circumstances DOES suffer a loss when he is excluded from numerous searches where,
in most cases, OCRs would never arise or, if they did, he would actually be willing
to grant most such requests (albeit not all of them).
| |
The flexibility is on the other side. A seller can set up their store to NOT
ship to Canada, but still be flexible on the issue on a case-by-case basis. And
a seller could state that the DON'T automatically accept all cancelation
requests, but still be flexible on a case by case basis.
|
Except in this latter situation that seller would be needlessly excluded from
untold thousands of buyer searches simply because there is the very small possibility
that he might not agree to a particular OCR.
| | This is precisely how things are right now.
|
Not at all. By saying you don't ship to Canada you are deliberately choosing
to not get orders from Canada. But by saying you don't accept order cancellations
you are unintentionally excluding yourself from many thousands of buyer searches
where OCRs will never become an issue 99% of the time and, when they do, you
would grant most (but not all) of them. HUGE diffence. And a much bigger impact
on your selling revenues.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 11:38 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | In Suggestions, mabccc writes:
| | | | *shrug* You are free to interpret it however you like. As I showed, though, there
is nothing in the suggestion that prevents sellers from being flexible. Exactly
how they can now be flexible with countries they ship to. The suggestion would
work in exactly the same way.
|
So how would it work, if a seller ticked the allow OCR without penalty then a
buyer is incredibly rude in their cancellation email or the buyer empties the
store then emails a day later with CANCEL THE LOT LOLZ? Where is the flexibility
for the seller to deny the request or file a NPB? They are breaking their terms
if they file a NPB.
|
The parallel is identical. If a seller says that they accept cancelation requests
with no penalty, then that's what it is. With shipping, if they say they
accept orders from Canada, then that's what it is. If a buyer wants to cancel,
done. If a buyer wants to ship to Canada, done.
The flexibility is on the other side. A seller can set up their store to NOT
ship to Canada, but still be flexible on the issue on a case-by-case basis. And
a seller could state that the DON'T automatically accept all cancelation
requests, but still be flexible on a case by case basis.
This is precisely how things are right now. The only difference is that one category
is easy for buyers to filter, and the other is not.
--
Marc.
|
thing their saying is, if a seller does not ship to Canada a Canadian will not
see their store, if a store does not accept OCR's then nobody who may file
an OCR will see their store, their stores will be excluded from searches.
you want to allow OCR's fine, post it in your stores terms, but it does not
have to be something you either do, or don't do, each contract is unique
and not all are the same.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 12:08 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
| | In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | In Suggestions, mabccc writes:
| | | | *shrug* You are free to interpret it however you like. As I showed, though, there
is nothing in the suggestion that prevents sellers from being flexible. Exactly
how they can now be flexible with countries they ship to. The suggestion would
work in exactly the same way.
|
So how would it work, if a seller ticked the allow OCR without penalty then a
buyer is incredibly rude in their cancellation email or the buyer empties the
store then emails a day later with CANCEL THE LOT LOLZ? Where is the flexibility
for the seller to deny the request or file a NPB? They are breaking their terms
if they file a NPB.
|
The parallel is identical. If a seller says that they accept cancelation requests
with no penalty, then that's what it is. With shipping, if they say they
accept orders from Canada, then that's what it is. If a buyer wants to cancel,
done. If a buyer wants to ship to Canada, done.
The flexibility is on the other side. A seller can set up their store to NOT
ship to Canada, but still be flexible on the issue on a case-by-case basis. And
a seller could state that the DON'T automatically accept all cancelation
requests, but still be flexible on a case by case basis.
This is precisely how things are right now. The only difference is that one category
is easy for buyers to filter, and the other is not.
--
Marc.
|
thing their saying is, if a seller does not ship to Canada a Canadian will not
see their store, if a store does not accept OCR's then nobody who may file
an OCR will see their store, their stores will be excluded from searches.
|
That isn't true. I can see every single store that doesn't ship to Canada.
--
Marc.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 12:12 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
| | In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | In Suggestions, mabccc writes:
| | | | *shrug* You are free to interpret it however you like. As I showed, though, there
is nothing in the suggestion that prevents sellers from being flexible. Exactly
how they can now be flexible with countries they ship to. The suggestion would
work in exactly the same way.
|
So how would it work, if a seller ticked the allow OCR without penalty then a
buyer is incredibly rude in their cancellation email or the buyer empties the
store then emails a day later with CANCEL THE LOT LOLZ? Where is the flexibility
for the seller to deny the request or file a NPB? They are breaking their terms
if they file a NPB.
|
The parallel is identical. If a seller says that they accept cancelation requests
with no penalty, then that's what it is. With shipping, if they say they
accept orders from Canada, then that's what it is. If a buyer wants to cancel,
done. If a buyer wants to ship to Canada, done.
The flexibility is on the other side. A seller can set up their store to NOT
ship to Canada, but still be flexible on the issue on a case-by-case basis. And
a seller could state that the DON'T automatically accept all cancelation
requests, but still be flexible on a case by case basis.
This is precisely how things are right now. The only difference is that one category
is easy for buyers to filter, and the other is not.
--
Marc.
|
thing their saying is, if a seller does not ship to Canada a Canadian will not
see their store, if a store does not accept OCR's then nobody who may file
an OCR will see their store, their stores will be excluded from searches.
|
That isn't true. I can see every single store that doesn't ship to Canada.
--
Marc.
|
unless you exclude stores that do not ship to you from the listings.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 11:42 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | The parallel is identical. If a seller says that they accept cancelation requests
with no penalty, then that's what it is. With shipping, if they say they
accept orders from Canada, then that's what it is. If a buyer wants to cancel,
done. If a buyer wants to ship to Canada, done.
|
So they have no flexibility once selected.
Lets say seller A and seller B both buy in a load of the same new parts, new
to market and they are the only sellers. A allows cancellations without penalty.
B doesn't.
B lists his parts and then A undercuts him. So B orders all A's parts. He
now has one week to hold those parts in his order before he has to pay. After
7 days he cancels, penalty free. A cannot do anything about it, he has chosen
to do penalty free cancellations. B then gets his friend C to do the same, removing
A's parts from sale again for another week. In the meantime the market has
become flooded, the price has dropped and A is still waiting for the payment
from C. B and C have done nothing wrong. It is in the contract between A and
B and A and C that the buyer can cancel penalty free.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | eileenkeeney | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 11:52 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 19 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, mabccc writes:
| | | | The parallel is identical. If a seller says that they accept cancelation requests
with no penalty, then that's what it is. With shipping, if they say they
accept orders from Canada, then that's what it is. If a buyer wants to cancel,
done. If a buyer wants to ship to Canada, done.
|
So they have no flexibility once selected.
Lets say seller A and seller B both buy in a load of the same new parts, new
to market and they are the only sellers. A allows cancellations without penalty.
B doesn't.
B lists his parts and then A undercuts him. So B orders all A's parts. He
now has one week to hold those parts in his order before he has to pay. After
7 days he cancels, penalty free. A cannot do anything about it, he has chosen
to do penalty free cancellations. B then gets his friend C to do the same, removing
A's parts from sale again for another week. In the meantime the market has
become flooded, the price has dropped and A is still waiting for the payment
from C. B and C have done nothing wrong. It is in the contract between A and
B and A and C that the buyer can cancel penalty free.
|
I think the seller should set the time limit, and I think that 24 hours is reasonable.
I also think that a seller should be able to limit the max value of a single
order.
Your scenario is not even limited to allowing vs not allowing a cancel.
If I want to hurt a seller, I can just create a new user to engage in the very
behavior you are describing.
Each user can get 3 NPBs before loosing buying privileges.
It takes time for these to go through.
So if someone wants to engage in the behavior you are describing, they can easily
do so already.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 11:57 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, eileenkeeney writes:
| | In Suggestions, mabccc writes:
| | | | The parallel is identical. If a seller says that they accept cancelation requests
with no penalty, then that's what it is. With shipping, if they say they
accept orders from Canada, then that's what it is. If a buyer wants to cancel,
done. If a buyer wants to ship to Canada, done.
|
So they have no flexibility once selected.
Lets say seller A and seller B both buy in a load of the same new parts, new
to market and they are the only sellers. A allows cancellations without penalty.
B doesn't.
B lists his parts and then A undercuts him. So B orders all A's parts. He
now has one week to hold those parts in his order before he has to pay. After
7 days he cancels, penalty free. A cannot do anything about it, he has chosen
to do penalty free cancellations. B then gets his friend C to do the same, removing
A's parts from sale again for another week. In the meantime the market has
become flooded, the price has dropped and A is still waiting for the payment
from C. B and C have done nothing wrong. It is in the contract between A and
B and A and C that the buyer can cancel penalty free.
|
I think the seller should set the time limit, and I think that 24 hours is reasonable.
I also think that a seller should be able to limit the max value of a single
order.
Your scenario is not even limited to allowing vs not allowing a cancel.
If I want to hurt a seller, I can just create a new user to engage in the very
behavior you are describing.
Each user can get 3 NPBs before loosing buying privileges.
It takes time for these to go through.
So if someone wants to engage in the behavior you are describing, they can easily
do so already.
|
yes but with NPB's there are penalties, and if the accounts get linked, the
NPB's follow, while with the button suggested here, there is no penalty I
could go to every store that says they cancel, make a big order, then cancel
and nothing they could do since they have to comply with their choice since their
freedom of choice was removed from them so that they could stay in the searches.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 11:58 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 18 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | Your scenario is not even limited to allowing vs not allowing a cancel.
If I want to hurt a seller, I can just create a new user to engage in the very
behavior you are describing.
Each user can get 3 NPBs before loosing buying privileges.
It takes time for these to go through.
So if someone wants to engage in the behavior you are describing, they can easily
do so already.
|
I know. And being able to search for people that allow it to happen to them self
makes it even easier.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | eileenkeeney | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 12:52 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, mabccc writes:
| | | | Your scenario is not even limited to allowing vs not allowing a cancel.
If I want to hurt a seller, I can just create a new user to engage in the very
behavior you are describing.
Each user can get 3 NPBs before loosing buying privileges.
It takes time for these to go through.
So if someone wants to engage in the behavior you are describing, they can easily
do so already.
|
I know. And being able to search for people that allow it to happen to them self
makes it even easier.
|
I don't agree that the check box suggesting will make this enough easier
to do than it already is, that it is a concern.
We are talking about intentional devious behavior, that is already very easy
to do. NPBs are of very minimal value for stopping this type of intentional
behavior. It is way to easy to create new accounts. By the time any action
is taken on the new account, the damage has been done. This can take longer
than the cancel process.
There are more effective methods. of preventing this particular devious behavior
I think that sellers should be able to set a max order value as well, and a lower
max order value for buyers with under some number of feedback, all values to
be determined by the seller. The system could automatically prevent orders that
don't comply, if the values are stored in the database.
So in this case a checkbox combined with a value field can actually prevent the
scenario that you are concerned with.
But in reality, automated checkout is probably going to happen faster than a
terms of service process that involves additional check boxes and data fields.
Automated checkout will solve the issue of a buyer holding a seller's inventory
with no intention of actually buying it.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 10:44 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, mabccc writes:
| | | | *shrug* You are free to interpret it however you like. As I showed, though, there
is nothing in the suggestion that prevents sellers from being flexible. Exactly
how they can now be flexible with countries they ship to. The suggestion would
work in exactly the same way.
|
So how would it work, if a seller ticked the allow OCR without penalty then a
buyer is incredibly rude in their cancellation email or the buyer empties the
store then emails a day later with CANCEL THE LOT LOLZ? Where is the flexibility
for the seller to deny the request or file a NPB? They are breaking their terms
if they file a NPB.
|
There is no flexibility. In fact, if a seller checks the box saying they allow
OCRs they can NEVER file an NPB.
No, under the situation you describe, the SELLER would be the bad guy. Just one
of many possible ironies when using these over-broad and over-simplified checkboxes.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 10:47 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, mabccc writes:
| | | | *shrug* You are free to interpret it however you like. As I showed, though, there
is nothing in the suggestion that prevents sellers from being flexible. Exactly
how they can now be flexible with countries they ship to. The suggestion would
work in exactly the same way.
|
So how would it work, if a seller ticked the allow OCR without penalty then a
buyer is incredibly rude in their cancellation email or the buyer empties the
store then emails a day later with CANCEL THE LOT LOLZ? Where is the flexibility
for the seller to deny the request or file a NPB? They are breaking their terms
if they file a NPB.
|
There is no flexibility. In fact, if a seller checks the box saying they allow
OCRs they can NEVER file an NPB.
|
That is simply not true. I have filed quite a few NPBs, yet I have NEVER refused
a request to cancel.
--
Marc.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 11:20 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| |
The specific expectations could be laid out by BrickLink for any categories that
needed it. As for consequences if sellers don't live up to their checkboxes,
it's no different than now -- setting false expectations is bad for business
because it results in unhappy customers.
|
So we should have unhappy sellers instead, by forcing them to limit their options
and flexibility in dealing with their own customers?
|
That is not in my suggestion. Sellers can absolutely be flexible precisely as
they can today with the list of countries they ship to, as an example.
| | As both a seller and buyer in over 10,000 orders on BrickLink, I have
encountered order cancellation requests (both proper and improper) in way less
than 1% of my orders.
|
If that is true, than this suggestion would have so little impact on you that
it is irrelevant whether it was implemented or not.
So, basically zero impact for most sellers. A benefit to sellers who want to
systemize their terms, and a benefit to buyers who want to more easily search
for stores whose terms meet their needs.
--
Marc.
|
yes right now sellers can be flexible just like you are flexible in that you
would rather be posting in the forums instead of processing the orders in your
store, seriously if your posting there are delays in shipping orders in your
store in your splash page you should not be wasting time in the forums, so far
you sound like a hypocrite tell people that you would do this and that because
your holier then thou, and yet you fail miserably at the one thing that matters
to me as a buyer, which is a timely processing and shipping time.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | renhoffman | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 11:27 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | yes right now sellers can be flexible just like you are flexible in that you
would rather be posting in the forums instead of processing the orders in your
store, seriously if your posting there are delays in shipping orders in your
store in your splash page you should not be wasting time in the forums, so far
you sound like a hypocrite tell people that you would do this and that because
your holier then thou, and yet you fail miserably at the one thing that matters
to me as a buyer, which is a timely processing and shipping time.
|
Can we just stop getting personal? Is it necessary? I'm all for job security,
but man...step back, and think about what you are doing.
Darren
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 11:31 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, renhoffman writes:
| | | | yes right now sellers can be flexible just like you are flexible in that you
would rather be posting in the forums instead of processing the orders in your
store, seriously if your posting there are delays in shipping orders in your
store in your splash page you should not be wasting time in the forums, so far
you sound like a hypocrite tell people that you would do this and that because
your holier then thou, and yet you fail miserably at the one thing that matters
to me as a buyer, which is a timely processing and shipping time.
|
Can we just stop getting personal? Is it necessary? I'm all for job security,
but man...step back, and think about what you are doing.
Darren
|
actually this suggestion is an attack on sellers who will not do any old cancellation
of an order upon request, and to think it is anything other then someone who
wants to make others look bad while making themselves feel good is just fooling
yourself, I take offense with this suggestion in its entirety.
furthermore it was not an attack per se, but an observation of how the poster
is willing to make other sellers look bad and show how he thinks things should
be done when he is failing miserably with his own store and should obviously
be devoting more time to it.
but that is my opinion, and while straight forward it was neither an attack (maybe
a deflection of his attack)or an insult.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | qwertyboy | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 12:00 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| I would not mind posts like these get cancelled. Not because of the "intellectual
content", but solely because of the language used and the personal attacks voiced.
So far the discussion has been intense but conducted in a civil way. These posts
are a detriment to the forum and will no doubt make others hesitant to voice
their opinions.
Niek.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 09:04 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 18 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, mabccc writes:
| |
It's the same with the cancellations. I'd probably accept at least 90%
of cancellations without BL penalty. But there would always be one, probably
where the buyer is abusive or rude, that I would cancel but with BL penalty for
the buyer. I would either not be allowed to tick the cancellations box, or if
I did, I would not be allowed to penalise that type of buyer.
|
This nicely illustrates the major problem with these checkbox ideas. They over-simplify
the matter and remove seller flexibility to handle each situation on their own
individual merits. It is the same every time you try to pidgeonhome people into
always doing something only one of two or more possible ways.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 09:18 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, mabccc writes:
| |
It's the same with the cancellations. I'd probably accept at least 90%
of cancellations without BL penalty. But there would always be one, probably
where the buyer is abusive or rude, that I would cancel but with BL penalty for
the buyer. I would either not be allowed to tick the cancellations box, or if
I did, I would not be allowed to penalise that type of buyer.
|
This nicely illustrates the major problem with these checkbox ideas. They over-simplify
the matter and remove seller flexibility to handle each situation on their own
individual merits. It is the same every time you try to pidgeonhome people into
always doing something only one of two or more possible ways.
Thor
|
BrickLink already does this for a number of things. Minimum orders, accepted
currencies, countries-I-ship-to. I don't see a lot of concerns on the forum
about these. Expanding the list would have the same benefits to buyers as these
existing items, and just as few actual issues for sellers.
--
Marc.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 10:06 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, mabccc writes:
| |
It's the same with the cancellations. I'd probably accept at least 90%
of cancellations without BL penalty. But there would always be one, probably
where the buyer is abusive or rude, that I would cancel but with BL penalty for
the buyer. I would either not be allowed to tick the cancellations box, or if
I did, I would not be allowed to penalise that type of buyer.
|
This nicely illustrates the major problem with these checkbox ideas. They over-simplify
the matter and remove seller flexibility to handle each situation on their own
individual merits. It is the same every time you try to pidgeonhome people into
always doing something only one of two or more possible ways.
Thor
|
BrickLink already does this for a number of things. Minimum orders, accepted
currencies, countries-I-ship-to.
|
Those are different because they are much more black and white than the issues
of order cancellation and fees, the latter of which have many more different
ways of being handled than the former.
You either have a minimum order or you don't. You either accept US dollars
in payment or you don't. You either ship to the USA or you don't.
Can sellers say the same thing about OCRs and fees? You either accept ALL OCRs
or you don't. Uh wait, hold on a second, yeah I GENERALLY accept OCRs, but
not every time. It depends on the reason and how/when the buyer asks. Well then
sorry seller, you are going to be lumped in with those who never accept OCRs
and will henceforth be excluded from a great many buyer search results. What
about fees? You either charge fees or you don't. Uh wait, hold on a second,
yeah I don't charge fees for 90% of my orders, but I do charge a $0.50 fee
on orders below $5.00 (which only account for 10% of my orders). Well then sorry
seller, you are going to be lumped together with sellers that charge lot fees,
PayPal fees, fill out the customs form fees and any other fee, and will henceforth
be excluded from untold numbers of buyer search results (even though you won't
charge fees 90% of the time).
See how it works? First make an innocuous looking suggestion "to help buyers"
and then start excluding from searches anyone who doesn't tow the same line.
This suggestion is just the first step by a few militant grandstanders to either
make you do things their way or grab more orders away from you because they can't
compete with you on price, selection or service.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | therobo | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 10:52 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 21 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, mabccc writes:
| |
It's the same with the cancellations. I'd probably accept at least 90%
of cancellations without BL penalty. But there would always be one, probably
where the buyer is abusive or rude, that I would cancel but with BL penalty for
the buyer. I would either not be allowed to tick the cancellations box, or if
I did, I would not be allowed to penalise that type of buyer.
|
This nicely illustrates the major problem with these checkbox ideas. They over-simplify
the matter and remove seller flexibility to handle each situation on their own
individual merits. It is the same every time you try to pidgeonhome people into
always doing something only one of two or more possible ways.
Thor
|
BrickLink already does this for a number of things. Minimum orders, accepted
currencies, countries-I-ship-to.
|
Those are different because they are much more black and white than the issues
of order cancellation and fees, the latter of which have many more different
ways of being handled than the former.
You either have a minimum order or you don't. You either accept US dollars
in payment or you don't. You either ship to the USA or you don't.
|
Hey, maybe you can check that you don't accept OCRs but on request you can
give them an override password 
Like for countries you don't ship to or to bypass your minimum...
Um, wait, wouldn't that be the solution we alredy have 
| |
Can sellers say the same thing about OCRs and fees? You either accept ALL OCRs
or you don't. Uh wait, hold on a second, yeah I GENERALLY accept OCRs, but
not every time. It depends on the reason and how/when the buyer asks. Well then
sorry seller, you are going to be lumped in with those who never accept OCRs
and will henceforth be excluded from a great many buyer search results. What
about fees? You either charge fees or you don't. Uh wait, hold on a second,
yeah I don't charge fees for 90% of my orders, but I do charge a $0.50 fee
on orders below $5.00 (which only account for 10% of my orders). Well then sorry
seller, you are going to be lumped together with sellers that charge lot fees,
PayPal fees, fill out the customs form fees and any other fee, and will henceforth
be excluded from untold numbers of buyer search results (even though you won't
charge fees 90% of the time).
See how it works? First make an innocuous looking suggestion "to help buyers"
and then start excluding from searches anyone who doesn't tow the same line.
This suggestion is just the first step by a few militant grandstanders to either
make you do things their way or grab more orders away from you because they can't
compete with you on price, selection or service.
Thor
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 11:11 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, therobo writes:
| |
Hey, maybe you can check that you don't accept OCRs but on request you can
give them an override password
Like for countries you don't ship to or to bypass your minimum...
Um, wait, wouldn't that be the solution we alredy have
|
LOL. I would like this tweak *IF* the override password option would allow you
to show up in buyer searches alongside those who clicked the "I accept OCRs"
checkbox. AND if I still had the flexibility and discretion to decide each request
on its particular merits or lack thereof.
There is another major difference between this suggestion and minimum order amounts.
Shops with minimum order amounts are NOT currently excludable from buyer search
results. Although this suggestion does not explicitly state that these checkboxes
will be searchable, that is the next step and admitted intent of this suggestion.
As a buyer I no longer pay much attention to the minimum order amount that is
noted in every entry in every search result. Because I know that most if not
many of them can be gotten around via override passwords or simply by asking
the seller.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 10:25 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | BrickLink already does this for a number of things. Minimum orders, accepted
currencies, countries-I-ship-to. I don't see a lot of concerns on the forum
about these. Expanding the list would have the same benefits to buyers as these
existing items, and just as few actual issues for sellers.
|
Those things are more black-and-white.
I will not ship to country X.
I will not deal with orders under Y.
To say I will always allow a cancellation of an order with no penalty is not
so clear-cut. Saying that all orders are posted within two days, again not so
clear cut. You can aim for it, but cannot always guarantee it. Unless the checkbox
says the sellers aims to get orders dispatched in two days. Then everyone can
check it, even if they know it takes 3-4 days to ship. They have the excuse that
they aimed but failed this time.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | eileenkeeney | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 11:21 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 21 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, mabccc writes:
| |
But how many stores could actually use it? I normally turn orders around fast,
but if just 1 in 100 cannot be done in 2 days, then I should not be checking
the box. And what happens if someone checks it, and it turns out they take three
days? Or 30 days?
It's the same with the cancellations. I'd probably accept at least 90%
of cancellations without BL penalty. But there would always be one, probably
where the buyer is abusive or rude, that I would cancel but with BL penalty for
the buyer. I would either not be allowed to tick the cancellations box, or if
I did, I would not be allowed to penalise that type of buyer.
Not only that, a buyer knows that if you cannot penalise them (as your store
terms say so), that they can remove all your inventory from your store as a joke.
They can order everything and not pay, and you cannot do anything about it.
|
Allowing cancellations can (and should) be tied to terms.
It should have to be requested within X of receiving invoice.
Of course it is not perfect.
Auto checkout is much better.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 11:07 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 19 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
| | all this suggestion is, is a way for some buyers to go, 'we're better then the
others' and in my opinion its nothing but grandstanding
|
Check my original suggestion, linked-to in the first post. I state up front that
most sellers ship faster than me. Right now, in my store terms, I have a warning
about delayed shipping. Is that grandstanding?
I want all buyers to have as much information as possible about sellers, presented
in a way that is searchable instead of the sloppy mess of thousands of different
Terms pages.
Do I think that allowing buyers to back out of a purchase is better than not
letting them? I do. I am not the only one. Stragus does, John P absolutely did
whEn he had an active store. And I would like a systematic way to tell that to
potential buyers.
If sellers are comfortable with their terms -- be it processing times, lot
fees, or allowing/disallowing cancellations -- then I believe they should
be comfortable with standardizing the structure of those terms so that buyers
can more easily compare stores.
That is what this suggestion would do. I accept the concern that this particular
issue is not ideally captured in a yes/no checkbox. That's a potentially
valid concern. But I think that dismissing my idea because you think I am grandstanding
is way off. Either the idea has merit or it doesn't.
--
Marc.
|
and yet here you are grandstanding, but seriously you want to remove an option
from sellers? sorry I like my options, you go ahead and click that box and when
a buyer says they want to cancel their $400 10K part order because they want
to and you have to because you clicked a button saying you do, you go for it.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 11:11 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
| | all this suggestion is, is a way for some buyers to go, 'we're better then the
others' and in my opinion its nothing but grandstanding
|
Check my original suggestion, linked-to in the first post. I state up front that
most sellers ship faster than me. Right now, in my store terms, I have a warning
about delayed shipping. Is that grandstanding?
I want all buyers to have as much information as possible about sellers, presented
in a way that is searchable instead of the sloppy mess of thousands of different
Terms pages.
Do I think that allowing buyers to back out of a purchase is better than not
letting them? I do. I am not the only one. Stragus does, John P absolutely did
whEn he had an active store. And I would like a systematic way to tell that to
potential buyers.
If sellers are comfortable with their terms -- be it processing times, lot
fees, or allowing/disallowing cancellations -- then I believe they should
be comfortable with standardizing the structure of those terms so that buyers
can more easily compare stores.
That is what this suggestion would do. I accept the concern that this particular
issue is not ideally captured in a yes/no checkbox. That's a potentially
valid concern. But I think that dismissing my idea because you think I am grandstanding
is way off. Either the idea has merit or it doesn't.
--
Marc.
|
now that's something I'd like to see a banner waving over the price guide
of stores that ship within 24 hours of payment (1 business day), I'd like
that a lot more then this suggestion, and if a store clicks that banner then
they have to comply or the buyers order is free, I could comply when i'm
selling, but then again I don't sell unless I can devote more time to my
store instead of just posting in the forums.
furthermore, you say you have shipping delays, yet find time to post several
times on the forums here, sounds like you need to get your priorities straight,
and think I might be avoiding your store since its obvious you do not take selling
seriously.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 11:22 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
| |
now that's something I'd like to see a banner waving over the price guide
of stores that ship within 24 hours of payment (1 business day), I'd like
that a lot more then this suggestion, and if a store clicks that banner then
they have to comply or the buyers order is free
|
I agree tht would be awesome. That is exactly the kind of thing I am suggesting.
Different stores are good at different things. Let them tell us in a systematic
way.
| | furthermore, you say you have shipping delays, yet find time to post several
times on the forums here, sounds like you need to get your priorities straight,
and think I might be avoiding your store since its obvious you do not take selling
seriously.
|
Wow.
Once again... if you want to discuss the ideas, please do. These personal attacks
are uncalled for.
I am at work. Do you want me to bring 53000 parts to work with me every morning?
I can post because I am between tasks and I have the internet.
--
Marc.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 11:35 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | Once again... if you want to discuss the ideas, please do. These personal attacks
are uncalled for.
I am at work. Do you want me to bring 53000 parts to work with me every morning?
I can post because I am between tasks and I have the internet.
--
Marc.
|
wish I had a job I could post all day on the forums and get paid for it.
my point is, don't go pointing out what problems others have if you have
problems of your own, clean up your yard first before telling your neighbor his
yard is filthy, and so on but I'm sure you get the gist of it.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 12:00 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
| | In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | Once again... if you want to discuss the ideas, please do. These personal attacks
are uncalled for.
I am at work. Do you want me to bring 53000 parts to work with me every morning?
I can post because I am between tasks and I have the internet.
--
Marc.
|
wish I had a job I could post all day on the forums and get paid for it.
my point is, don't go pointing out what problems others have if you have
problems of your own, clean up your yard first before telling your neighbor his
yard is filthy, and so on but I'm sure you get the gist of it.
|
Please dial it back.
I am not pointing out anyone's problems. The shipping delays in my store
are exactly what my suggestions would address. I want to be able to tell potential
buyers that they will not get their order shipped in a day or two. Buyers would
benefit from being able to filter OUT my store if they are in a hurry.
Why is that not a good thing?
--
Marc.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 12:06 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
| | In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | Once again... if you want to discuss the ideas, please do. These personal attacks
are uncalled for.
I am at work. Do you want me to bring 53000 parts to work with me every morning?
I can post because I am between tasks and I have the internet.
--
Marc.
|
wish I had a job I could post all day on the forums and get paid for it.
my point is, don't go pointing out what problems others have if you have
problems of your own, clean up your yard first before telling your neighbor his
yard is filthy, and so on but I'm sure you get the gist of it.
|
Please dial it back.
I am not pointing out anyone's problems. The shipping delays in my store
are exactly what my suggestions would address. I want to be able to tell potential
buyers that they will not get their order shipped in a day or two. Buyers would
benefit from being able to filter OUT my store if they are in a hurry.
Why is that not a good thing?
--
Marc.
|
because it, goes against certain laws in the US, stores can say whatever they
want advertising, but they can not be excluded because of what they do or do
not offer.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 12:09 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
| | because it, goes against certain laws in the US, stores can say whatever they
want advertising, but they can not be excluded because of what they do or do
not offer.
|
Please post said laws. I would love to see them.
Randy
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 12:16 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, randyf writes:
| | In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
| | because it, goes against certain laws in the US, stores can say whatever they
want advertising, but they can not be excluded because of what they do or do
not offer.
|
Please post said laws. I would love to see them.
Randy
|
it would be discrimination in its base form.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 12:47 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
| | In Suggestions, randyf writes:
| | In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
| | because it, goes against certain laws in the US, stores can say whatever they
want advertising, but they can not be excluded because of what they do or do
not offer.
|
Please post said laws. I would love to see them.
Randy
|
it would be discrimination in its base form.
|
Rick, please cut out the legal arguments. They are absurd and you really don't
know what you are talking about here. Stick to the issue. You are not helping
with this legal nonsense.
Thor
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 12:56 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
| | In Suggestions, randyf writes:
| | In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
| | because it, goes against certain laws in the US, stores can say whatever they
want advertising, but they can not be excluded because of what they do or do
not offer.
|
Please post said laws. I would love to see them.
Randy
|
it would be discrimination in its base form.
|
Rick, please cut out the legal arguments. They are absurd and you really don't
know what you are talking about here. Stick to the issue. You are not helping
with this legal nonsense.
Thor
|
yes oh legal master, as it goes though I consider it discrimination.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | wbroshea | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 13:57 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
| | In Suggestions, randyf writes:
| | In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
| | because it, goes against certain laws in the US, stores can say whatever they
want advertising, but they can not be excluded because of what they do or do
not offer.
|
Please post said laws. I would love to see them.
Randy
|
it would be discrimination in its base form.
|
Rick, please cut out the legal arguments. They are absurd and you really don't
know what you are talking about here. Stick to the issue. You are not helping
with this legal nonsense.
Thor
|
yes oh legal master, as it goes though I consider it discrimination.
|
Yeah, you should stop.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 12:19 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| |
I am not pointing out anyone's problems. The shipping delays in my store
are exactly what my suggestions would address. I want to be able to tell potential
buyers that they will not get their order shipped in a day or two.
|
Note it in your shop terms as you already do. And if you really want to drive
the point home, also note it in your splash page, store slogan and store banner.
And, if you really want it to show up in search results, add a comment in every
one of your listings. Cutting and pasting should not take you that long.
Or, if you really think it might be a major concern for your buyers, temporarily
close your shop until you catch up and are able to service them the way you want.
What you do NOT do, however, is force everyone else to decide whether or not
they should be like you.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | wbroshea | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 14:03 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| |
I am not pointing out anyone's problems. The shipping delays in my store
are exactly what my suggestions would address. I want to be able to tell potential
buyers that they will not get their order shipped in a day or two.
|
Note it in your shop terms as you already do. And if you really want to drive
the point home, also note it in your splash page, store slogan and store banner.
And, if you really want it to show up in search results, add a comment in every
one of your listings. Cutting and pasting should not take you that long.
Or, if you really think it might be a major concern for your buyers, temporarily
close your shop until you catch up and are able to service them the way you want.
What you do NOT do, however, is force everyone else to decide whether or not
they should be like you.
Thor
|
I am a little confused, other than disagreeing with the form suggested is there
a reason why making store terms searchable is a bad thing. As a buyer only,
this would make life much easier for me. I see the value in the suggestion.
Implementation may be shaky as it is all or nothing, but one or two additional
check box options should generally cover most everybody, then let the market
sort it out. Seems like a reasonable suggestion. More information for a buyer,
in my opinion, is always preferable.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 14:11 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, wbroshea writes:
| |
I am a little confused, other than disagreeing with the form suggested is there
a reason why making store terms searchable is a bad thing.
|
Because the checkboxes suggested here would not accurately summarize seller terms.
In fact, they could be misleading. And that lack of accuracy will cost sellers
lost orders and prevent buyers from seeing better deals that may be available
to them.
| | As a buyer only, this would make life much easier for me. I see the value in the suggestion.
Implementation may be shaky as it is all or nothing, but one or two additional
check box options should generally cover most everybody, then let the market
sort it out. Seems like a reasonable suggestion. More information for a buyer,
in my opinion, is always preferable.
|
More information is only useful when it is accurate information. Not when it
is misleading or confusing information, especially when there is a cost to both
buyers and sellers for that inaccuracy.
As for checkboxes in general, where would you stop? How many would be too many
for you? And who gets to decide which checkboxes to even offer in the first place?
If we want to start substituting seller terms for checkboxes, perhaps we should
first take a buyer poll to find out what is most important to them. Then we can
pick only the top 5 or so things to incorporate into checkboxes. I sincerely
doubt the ability to cancel orders would come close to being among the top 5
buyer concerns.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | wbroshea | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 15:10 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 20 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, wbroshea writes:
| |
I am a little confused, other than disagreeing with the form suggested is there
a reason why making store terms searchable is a bad thing.
|
Because the checkboxes suggested here would not accurately summarize seller terms.
In fact, they could be misleading. And that lack of accuracy will cost sellers
lost orders and prevent buyers from seeing better deals that may be available
to them.
|
Right so problem with the form. Got it. No problem making store terms searchable
otherwise?
| | | | As a buyer only, this would make life much easier for me. I see the value in the suggestion.
Implementation may be shaky as it is all or nothing, but one or two additional
check box options should generally cover most everybody, then let the market
sort it out. Seems like a reasonable suggestion. More information for a buyer,
in my opinion, is always preferable.
|
More information is only useful when it is accurate information. Not when it
is misleading or confusing information, especially when there is a cost to both
buyers and sellers for that inaccuracy.
As for checkboxes in general, where would you stop? How many would be too many
for you? And who gets to decide which checkboxes to even offer in the first place?
If we want to start substituting seller terms for checkboxes, perhaps we should
first take a buyer poll to find out what is most important to them. Then we can
pick only the top 5 or so things to incorporate into checkboxes. I sincerely
doubt the ability to cancel orders would come close to being among the top 5
buyer concerns.
Thor
|
One additional check box that is see store terms for whatever subject the check
box is for. Effectively an opt out option. Yes it would exclude some sellers
from some buyers searches, but it would eventually tell us what is important
to buyers. If you don't like a check box fine, but the idea to make store
terms searchable would be a great advantage, especially since the terms are so
varied. I might be willing to pay more to shop from a store that has terms that
I like or agree with. And if the price is too high then I can expand my search
to include stores with less desirable terms.
If we believe that buyers are smart enough to be held to the standard they must
read each store's terms before buying then surely they are smart enough to
understand the store term search function and what it does.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 15:15 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 19 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, wbroshea writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, wbroshea writes:
| |
I am a little confused, other than disagreeing with the form suggested is there
a reason why making store terms searchable is a bad thing.
|
Because the checkboxes suggested here would not accurately summarize seller terms.
In fact, they could be misleading. And that lack of accuracy will cost sellers
lost orders and prevent buyers from seeing better deals that may be available
to them.
|
Right so problem with the form. Got it. No problem making store terms searchable
otherwise?
| | | | As a buyer only, this would make life much easier for me. I see the value in the suggestion.
Implementation may be shaky as it is all or nothing, but one or two additional
check box options should generally cover most everybody, then let the market
sort it out. Seems like a reasonable suggestion. More information for a buyer,
in my opinion, is always preferable.
|
More information is only useful when it is accurate information. Not when it
is misleading or confusing information, especially when there is a cost to both
buyers and sellers for that inaccuracy.
As for checkboxes in general, where would you stop? How many would be too many
for you? And who gets to decide which checkboxes to even offer in the first place?
If we want to start substituting seller terms for checkboxes, perhaps we should
first take a buyer poll to find out what is most important to them. Then we can
pick only the top 5 or so things to incorporate into checkboxes. I sincerely
doubt the ability to cancel orders would come close to being among the top 5
buyer concerns.
Thor
|
One additional check box that is see store terms for whatever subject the check
box is for. Effectively an opt out option. Yes it would exclude some sellers
from some buyers searches, but it would eventually tell us what is important
to buyers. If you don't like a check box fine, but the idea to make store
terms searchable would be a great advantage, especially since the terms are so
varied. I might be willing to pay more to shop from a store that has terms that
I like or agree with. And if the price is too high then I can expand my search
to include stores with less desirable terms.
If we believe that buyers are smart enough to be held to the standard they must
read each store's terms before buying then surely they are smart enough to
understand the store term search function and what it does.
|
Great post. I guess I put a lot of people off with the word "checkbox". Certainly
the underlying idea that I am putting forward is to have Terms be searchable.
Thanks for your feedback.
--
Marc.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 15:19 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 15 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, wbroshea writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, wbroshea writes:
| |
I am a little confused, other than disagreeing with the form suggested is there
a reason why making store terms searchable is a bad thing.
|
Because the checkboxes suggested here would not accurately summarize seller terms.
In fact, they could be misleading. And that lack of accuracy will cost sellers
lost orders and prevent buyers from seeing better deals that may be available
to them.
|
Right so problem with the form. Got it. No problem making store terms searchable
otherwise?
|
I would have no problem making store terms searchable *IF* they could be done
in a way that ACCURATELY summarizes seller terms and does not cause them to be
needlessly or inadvertently excluded from searches, or buyers to miss out on
deals that still meet all their critieria. In fact, I have also suggested checkboxes
before. So I am not against the idea of checkboxes in general. Just how they
will work and whether they actually address a real problem as opposed to creating
new ones.
| | | | | | As a buyer only, this would make life much easier for me. I see the value in the suggestion.
Implementation may be shaky as it is all or nothing, but one or two additional
check box options should generally cover most everybody, then let the market
sort it out. Seems like a reasonable suggestion. More information for a buyer,
in my opinion, is always preferable.
|
More information is only useful when it is accurate information. Not when it
is misleading or confusing information, especially when there is a cost to both
buyers and sellers for that inaccuracy.
As for checkboxes in general, where would you stop? How many would be too many
for you? And who gets to decide which checkboxes to even offer in the first place?
If we want to start substituting seller terms for checkboxes, perhaps we should
first take a buyer poll to find out what is most important to them. Then we can
pick only the top 5 or so things to incorporate into checkboxes. I sincerely
doubt the ability to cancel orders would come close to being among the top 5
buyer concerns.
Thor
|
One additional check box that is see store terms for whatever subject the check
box is for. Effectively an opt out option. Yes it would exclude some sellers
from some buyers searches, but it would eventually tell us what is important
to buyers. If you don't like a check box fine, but the idea to make store
terms searchable would be a great advantage, especially since the terms are so
varied. I might be willing to pay more to shop from a store that has terms that
I like or agree with. And if the price is too high then I can expand my search
to include stores with less desirable terms.
If we believe that buyers are smart enough to be held to the standard they must
read each store's terms before buying then surely they are smart enough to
understand the store term search function and what it does.
|
Again, show how the checkboxes are effective in resolving a real problem without
causing too much collateral damage and I will support the idea. This suggestion
is not one of them.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | wbroshea | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 15:48 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 19 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, wbroshea writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, wbroshea writes:
| |
I am a little confused, other than disagreeing with the form suggested is there
a reason why making store terms searchable is a bad thing.
|
Because the checkboxes suggested here would not accurately summarize seller terms.
In fact, they could be misleading. And that lack of accuracy will cost sellers
lost orders and prevent buyers from seeing better deals that may be available
to them.
|
Right so problem with the form. Got it. No problem making store terms searchable
otherwise?
|
I would have no problem making store terms searchable *IF* they could be done
in a way that ACCURATELY summarizes seller terms and does not cause them to be
needlessly or inadvertently excluded from searches, or buyers to miss out on
deals that still meet all their critieria. In fact, I have also suggested checkboxes
before. So I am not against the idea of checkboxes in general. Just how they
will work and whether they actually address a real problem as opposed to creating
new ones.
| | | | | | As a buyer only, this would make life much easier for me. I see the value in the suggestion.
Implementation may be shaky as it is all or nothing, but one or two additional
check box options should generally cover most everybody, then let the market
sort it out. Seems like a reasonable suggestion. More information for a buyer,
in my opinion, is always preferable.
|
More information is only useful when it is accurate information. Not when it
is misleading or confusing information, especially when there is a cost to both
buyers and sellers for that inaccuracy.
As for checkboxes in general, where would you stop? How many would be too many
for you? And who gets to decide which checkboxes to even offer in the first place?
If we want to start substituting seller terms for checkboxes, perhaps we should
first take a buyer poll to find out what is most important to them. Then we can
pick only the top 5 or so things to incorporate into checkboxes. I sincerely
doubt the ability to cancel orders would come close to being among the top 5
buyer concerns.
Thor
|
One additional check box that is see store terms for whatever subject the check
box is for. Effectively an opt out option. Yes it would exclude some sellers
from some buyers searches, but it would eventually tell us what is important
to buyers. If you don't like a check box fine, but the idea to make store
terms searchable would be a great advantage, especially since the terms are so
varied. I might be willing to pay more to shop from a store that has terms that
I like or agree with. And if the price is too high then I can expand my search
to include stores with less desirable terms.
If we believe that buyers are smart enough to be held to the standard they must
read each store's terms before buying then surely they are smart enough to
understand the store term search function and what it does.
|
Again, show how the checkboxes are effective in resolving a real problem without
causing too much collateral damage and I will support the idea. This suggestion
is not one of them.
Thor
|
Great so we are all on board. A system that sufficiently relates a stores terms
into a searchable medium is preferable.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 15:59 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 21 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, wbroshea writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, wbroshea writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, wbroshea writes:
| |
I am a little confused, other than disagreeing with the form suggested is there
a reason why making store terms searchable is a bad thing.
|
Because the checkboxes suggested here would not accurately summarize seller terms.
In fact, they could be misleading. And that lack of accuracy will cost sellers
lost orders and prevent buyers from seeing better deals that may be available
to them.
|
Right so problem with the form. Got it. No problem making store terms searchable
otherwise?
|
I would have no problem making store terms searchable *IF* they could be done
in a way that ACCURATELY summarizes seller terms and does not cause them to be
needlessly or inadvertently excluded from searches, or buyers to miss out on
deals that still meet all their critieria. In fact, I have also suggested checkboxes
before. So I am not against the idea of checkboxes in general. Just how they
will work and whether they actually address a real problem as opposed to creating
new ones.
| | | | | | As a buyer only, this would make life much easier for me. I see the value in the suggestion.
Implementation may be shaky as it is all or nothing, but one or two additional
check box options should generally cover most everybody, then let the market
sort it out. Seems like a reasonable suggestion. More information for a buyer,
in my opinion, is always preferable.
|
More information is only useful when it is accurate information. Not when it
is misleading or confusing information, especially when there is a cost to both
buyers and sellers for that inaccuracy.
As for checkboxes in general, where would you stop? How many would be too many
for you? And who gets to decide which checkboxes to even offer in the first place?
If we want to start substituting seller terms for checkboxes, perhaps we should
first take a buyer poll to find out what is most important to them. Then we can
pick only the top 5 or so things to incorporate into checkboxes. I sincerely
doubt the ability to cancel orders would come close to being among the top 5
buyer concerns.
Thor
|
One additional check box that is see store terms for whatever subject the check
box is for. Effectively an opt out option. Yes it would exclude some sellers
from some buyers searches, but it would eventually tell us what is important
to buyers. If you don't like a check box fine, but the idea to make store
terms searchable would be a great advantage, especially since the terms are so
varied. I might be willing to pay more to shop from a store that has terms that
I like or agree with. And if the price is too high then I can expand my search
to include stores with less desirable terms.
If we believe that buyers are smart enough to be held to the standard they must
read each store's terms before buying then surely they are smart enough to
understand the store term search function and what it does.
|
Again, show how the checkboxes are effective in resolving a real problem without
causing too much collateral damage and I will support the idea. This suggestion
is not one of them.
Thor
|
Great so we are all on board. A system that sufficiently relates a stores terms
into a searchable medium is preferable.
|
All's well that ends well.
--
Marc.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 19:16 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 19 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, wbroshea writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, wbroshea writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, wbroshea writes:
| |
I am a little confused, other than disagreeing with the form suggested is there
a reason why making store terms searchable is a bad thing.
|
Because the checkboxes suggested here would not accurately summarize seller terms.
In fact, they could be misleading. And that lack of accuracy will cost sellers
lost orders and prevent buyers from seeing better deals that may be available
to them.
|
Right so problem with the form. Got it. No problem making store terms searchable
otherwise?
|
I would have no problem making store terms searchable *IF* they could be done
in a way that ACCURATELY summarizes seller terms and does not cause them to be
needlessly or inadvertently excluded from searches, or buyers to miss out on
deals that still meet all their critieria. In fact, I have also suggested checkboxes
before. So I am not against the idea of checkboxes in general. Just how they
will work and whether they actually address a real problem as opposed to creating
new ones.
| | | | | | As a buyer only, this would make life much easier for me. I see the value in the suggestion.
Implementation may be shaky as it is all or nothing, but one or two additional
check box options should generally cover most everybody, then let the market
sort it out. Seems like a reasonable suggestion. More information for a buyer,
in my opinion, is always preferable.
|
More information is only useful when it is accurate information. Not when it
is misleading or confusing information, especially when there is a cost to both
buyers and sellers for that inaccuracy.
As for checkboxes in general, where would you stop? How many would be too many
for you? And who gets to decide which checkboxes to even offer in the first place?
If we want to start substituting seller terms for checkboxes, perhaps we should
first take a buyer poll to find out what is most important to them. Then we can
pick only the top 5 or so things to incorporate into checkboxes. I sincerely
doubt the ability to cancel orders would come close to being among the top 5
buyer concerns.
Thor
|
One additional check box that is see store terms for whatever subject the check
box is for. Effectively an opt out option. Yes it would exclude some sellers
from some buyers searches, but it would eventually tell us what is important
to buyers. If you don't like a check box fine, but the idea to make store
terms searchable would be a great advantage, especially since the terms are so
varied. I might be willing to pay more to shop from a store that has terms that
I like or agree with. And if the price is too high then I can expand my search
to include stores with less desirable terms.
If we believe that buyers are smart enough to be held to the standard they must
read each store's terms before buying then surely they are smart enough to
understand the store term search function and what it does.
|
Again, show how the checkboxes are effective in resolving a real problem without
causing too much collateral damage and I will support the idea. This suggestion
is not one of them.
Thor
|
Great so we are all on board. A system that sufficiently relates a stores terms
into a searchable medium is preferable.
|
That is not what I said. For one thing, I did not say it was "preferable". What
I actually said was: "I would have no problem making store terms searchable *IF*
they could be done in a way that ACCURATELY summarizes seller terms and does
not cause them to be needlessly or inadvertently excluded from searches, or buyers
to miss out on deals that still meet all their criteria." I also said: "Again,
show how the checkboxes are effective in resolving a real problem without causing
too much collateral damage and I will support the idea."
Again, this suggestion is NOT such a suggestion. It is NOT effective in resolving
a real problem, it does NOT accurately summarize seller terms, and it causes
far too much collateral damage to both sellers and buyers.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | wbroshea | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 19:57 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, wbroshea writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, wbroshea writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, wbroshea writes:
| |
I am a little confused, other than disagreeing with the form suggested is there
a reason why making store terms searchable is a bad thing.
|
Because the checkboxes suggested here would not accurately summarize seller terms.
In fact, they could be misleading. And that lack of accuracy will cost sellers
lost orders and prevent buyers from seeing better deals that may be available
to them.
|
Right so problem with the form. Got it. No problem making store terms searchable
otherwise?
|
I would have no problem making store terms searchable *IF* they could be done
in a way that ACCURATELY summarizes seller terms and does not cause them to be
needlessly or inadvertently excluded from searches, or buyers to miss out on
deals that still meet all their critieria. In fact, I have also suggested checkboxes
before. So I am not against the idea of checkboxes in general. Just how they
will work and whether they actually address a real problem as opposed to creating
new ones.
| | | | | | As a buyer only, this would make life much easier for me. I see the value in the suggestion.
Implementation may be shaky as it is all or nothing, but one or two additional
check box options should generally cover most everybody, then let the market
sort it out. Seems like a reasonable suggestion. More information for a buyer,
in my opinion, is always preferable.
|
More information is only useful when it is accurate information. Not when it
is misleading or confusing information, especially when there is a cost to both
buyers and sellers for that inaccuracy.
As for checkboxes in general, where would you stop? How many would be too many
for you? And who gets to decide which checkboxes to even offer in the first place?
If we want to start substituting seller terms for checkboxes, perhaps we should
first take a buyer poll to find out what is most important to them. Then we can
pick only the top 5 or so things to incorporate into checkboxes. I sincerely
doubt the ability to cancel orders would come close to being among the top 5
buyer concerns.
Thor
|
One additional check box that is see store terms for whatever subject the check
box is for. Effectively an opt out option. Yes it would exclude some sellers
from some buyers searches, but it would eventually tell us what is important
to buyers. If you don't like a check box fine, but the idea to make store
terms searchable would be a great advantage, especially since the terms are so
varied. I might be willing to pay more to shop from a store that has terms that
I like or agree with. And if the price is too high then I can expand my search
to include stores with less desirable terms.
If we believe that buyers are smart enough to be held to the standard they must
read each store's terms before buying then surely they are smart enough to
understand the store term search function and what it does.
|
Again, show how the checkboxes are effective in resolving a real problem without
causing too much collateral damage and I will support the idea. This suggestion
is not one of them.
Thor
|
Great so we are all on board. A system that sufficiently relates a stores terms
into a searchable medium is preferable.
|
That is not what I said. For one thing, I did not say it was "preferable". What
I actually said was: "I would have no problem making store terms searchable *IF*
they could be done in a way that ACCURATELY summarizes seller terms and does
not cause them to be needlessly or inadvertently excluded from searches, or buyers
to miss out on deals that still meet all their criteria."
|
Ok, which would you prefer, a searchable and ACCURATE summarization of store
terms or the way it is currently?
| | I also said: "Again,
show how the checkboxes are effective in resolving a real problem without causing
too much collateral damage and I will support the idea."
|
Who cares. I don't. Even the OP admitted that check boxes might not be
the best implementation of his idea. I am much more interested in the idea behind
the check boxes (ie searchable store terms) not necessarily the idea to use check
boxes to make searchable content.
| |
Again, this suggestion is NOT such a suggestion. It is NOT effective in resolving
a real problem, it does NOT accurately summarize seller terms, and it causes
far too much collateral damage to both sellers and buyers.
Thor
|
See above. Now if you are talking specifically about the option for order cancellation
as a searchable term then eh, I could go either way.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 20:06 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 21 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, wbroshea writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, wbroshea writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, wbroshea writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, wbroshea writes:
| |
I am a little confused, other than disagreeing with the form suggested is there
a reason why making store terms searchable is a bad thing.
|
Because the checkboxes suggested here would not accurately summarize seller terms.
In fact, they could be misleading. And that lack of accuracy will cost sellers
lost orders and prevent buyers from seeing better deals that may be available
to them.
|
Right so problem with the form. Got it. No problem making store terms searchable
otherwise?
|
I would have no problem making store terms searchable *IF* they could be done
in a way that ACCURATELY summarizes seller terms and does not cause them to be
needlessly or inadvertently excluded from searches, or buyers to miss out on
deals that still meet all their critieria. In fact, I have also suggested checkboxes
before. So I am not against the idea of checkboxes in general. Just how they
will work and whether they actually address a real problem as opposed to creating
new ones.
| | | | | | As a buyer only, this would make life much easier for me. I see the value in the suggestion.
Implementation may be shaky as it is all or nothing, but one or two additional
check box options should generally cover most everybody, then let the market
sort it out. Seems like a reasonable suggestion. More information for a buyer,
in my opinion, is always preferable.
|
More information is only useful when it is accurate information. Not when it
is misleading or confusing information, especially when there is a cost to both
buyers and sellers for that inaccuracy.
As for checkboxes in general, where would you stop? How many would be too many
for you? And who gets to decide which checkboxes to even offer in the first place?
If we want to start substituting seller terms for checkboxes, perhaps we should
first take a buyer poll to find out what is most important to them. Then we can
pick only the top 5 or so things to incorporate into checkboxes. I sincerely
doubt the ability to cancel orders would come close to being among the top 5
buyer concerns.
Thor
|
One additional check box that is see store terms for whatever subject the check
box is for. Effectively an opt out option. Yes it would exclude some sellers
from some buyers searches, but it would eventually tell us what is important
to buyers. If you don't like a check box fine, but the idea to make store
terms searchable would be a great advantage, especially since the terms are so
varied. I might be willing to pay more to shop from a store that has terms that
I like or agree with. And if the price is too high then I can expand my search
to include stores with less desirable terms.
If we believe that buyers are smart enough to be held to the standard they must
read each store's terms before buying then surely they are smart enough to
understand the store term search function and what it does.
|
Again, show how the checkboxes are effective in resolving a real problem without
causing too much collateral damage and I will support the idea. This suggestion
is not one of them.
Thor
|
Great so we are all on board. A system that sufficiently relates a stores terms
into a searchable medium is preferable.
|
That is not what I said. For one thing, I did not say it was "preferable". What
I actually said was: "I would have no problem making store terms searchable *IF*
they could be done in a way that ACCURATELY summarizes seller terms and does
not cause them to be needlessly or inadvertently excluded from searches, or buyers
to miss out on deals that still meet all their criteria."
|
Ok, which would you prefer, a searchable and ACCURATE summarization of store
terms or the way it is currently?
|
The way it is currently, because accuracy is only one of the three conditions
I mentioned.
| | | | I also said: "Again,
show how the checkboxes are effective in resolving a real problem without causing
too much collateral damage and I will support the idea."
|
Who cares. I don't.
|
I care. And so do other seller who may lose sales because the checkboxes do not
accurately describe their policies. Perhaps if you were a seller you might understand
this. But seeing as you are only a buyer I understand why you don't care
if sellers unfairly lose sales because of these inaccurate over-broad checkboxes.
| | Even the OP admitted that check boxes might not be the best implementation of his idea.
|
So then improve or replace the suggestion. Come up with something that better
and more accurately implements the idea without causing too much collateral damage.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 11:35 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | | | now that's something I'd like to see a banner waving over the price guide
of stores that ship within 24 hours of payment (1 business day), I'd like
that a lot more then this suggestion, and if a store clicks that banner then
they have to comply or the buyers order is free
|
I agree tht would be awesome. That is exactly the kind of thing I am suggesting.
Different stores are good at different things. Let them tell us in a systematic
way.
|
I still don't see how this helps buyers.
Sellers select it. They get the order from the buyer based on one day shipping.
They then take three days to pack it, they send it, and later apologize to the
buyer for something out of their control. The buyer gets their stuff two days
late. What do they do, leave negative feedback? Make a complaint to admin, and
admin bars the seller from using the 1-day shipping tag?
It makes a buyer feel they are getting something, when in reality a seller doesn't
have to do it.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 11:40 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, mabccc writes:
| | | | | | now that's something I'd like to see a banner waving over the price guide
of stores that ship within 24 hours of payment (1 business day), I'd like
that a lot more then this suggestion, and if a store clicks that banner then
they have to comply or the buyers order is free
|
I agree tht would be awesome. That is exactly the kind of thing I am suggesting.
Different stores are good at different things. Let them tell us in a systematic
way.
|
I still don't see how this helps buyers.
Sellers select it. They get the order from the buyer based on one day shipping.
They then take three days to pack it, they send it, and later apologize to the
buyer for something out of their control. The buyer gets their stuff two days
late. What do they do, leave negative feedback? Make a complaint to admin, and
admin bars the seller from using the 1-day shipping tag?
It makes a buyer feel they are getting something, when in reality a seller doesn't
have to do it.
|
no my comment was not about 1 day shipping, but one day service, the item will
be shipped out within one business day of payment being received, how long it
takes the post office to deliver is up to them.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 11:44 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 20 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
| | In Suggestions, mabccc writes:
| | | | | | now that's something I'd like to see a banner waving over the price guide
of stores that ship within 24 hours of payment (1 business day), I'd like
that a lot more then this suggestion, and if a store clicks that banner then
they have to comply or the buyers order is free
|
I agree tht would be awesome. That is exactly the kind of thing I am suggesting.
Different stores are good at different things. Let them tell us in a systematic
way.
|
I still don't see how this helps buyers.
Sellers select it. They get the order from the buyer based on one day shipping.
They then take three days to pack it, they send it, and later apologize to the
buyer for something out of their control. The buyer gets their stuff two days
late. What do they do, leave negative feedback? Make a complaint to admin, and
admin bars the seller from using the 1-day shipping tag?
It makes a buyer feel they are getting something, when in reality a seller doesn't
have to do it.
|
no my comment was not about 1 day shipping, but one day service, the item will
be shipped out within one business day of payment being received, how long it
takes the post office to deliver is up to them.
|
By one day shipping, I meant one day turnaround to post.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 11:49 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 21 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, mabccc writes:
| | In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
| | In Suggestions, mabccc writes:
| | | | | | now that's something I'd like to see a banner waving over the price guide
of stores that ship within 24 hours of payment (1 business day), I'd like
that a lot more then this suggestion, and if a store clicks that banner then
they have to comply or the buyers order is free
|
I agree tht would be awesome. That is exactly the kind of thing I am suggesting.
Different stores are good at different things. Let them tell us in a systematic
way.
|
I still don't see how this helps buyers.
Sellers select it. They get the order from the buyer based on one day shipping.
They then take three days to pack it, they send it, and later apologize to the
buyer for something out of their control. The buyer gets their stuff two days
late. What do they do, leave negative feedback? Make a complaint to admin, and
admin bars the seller from using the 1-day shipping tag?
It makes a buyer feel they are getting something, when in reality a seller doesn't
have to do it.
|
no my comment was not about 1 day shipping, but one day service, the item will
be shipped out within one business day of payment being received, how long it
takes the post office to deliver is up to them.
|
By one day shipping, I meant one day turnaround to post.
|
well in my store that's what my customers got, was a fast turn around and
low shipping, and now I get an insult from this suggestion telling me I have
to have this button clicked or be removed from a bunch of searches, if I want
to be in searches I have to give up my freedom to say no.
and in a country founded in freedom I refuse to give up my right to freedom or
be penalized for using it.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | eileenkeeney | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 11:56 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
| |
well in my store that's what my customers got, was a fast turn around and
low shipping, and now I get an insult from this suggestion telling me I have
to have this button clicked or be removed from a bunch of searches, if I want
to be in searches I have to give up my freedom to say no.
and in a country founded in freedom I refuse to give up my right to freedom or
be penalized for using it.
|
You have the freedom to say No, and the buyers have the freedom to not include
you in their searches. The buyers also have the freedom to include you in their
searches.
So both sides have plenty of freedom.
If a buyer makes a choice to exclude you from their searches, based on your choice
to not offer a particular service, is that penalizing you?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 12:03 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, eileenkeeney writes:
| | In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
| |
well in my store that's what my customers got, was a fast turn around and
low shipping, and now I get an insult from this suggestion telling me I have
to have this button clicked or be removed from a bunch of searches, if I want
to be in searches I have to give up my freedom to say no.
and in a country founded in freedom I refuse to give up my right to freedom or
be penalized for using it.
|
You have the freedom to say No, and the buyers have the freedom to not include
you in their searches. The buyers also have the freedom to include you in their
searches.
So both sides have plenty of freedom.
If a buyer makes a choice to exclude you from their searches, based on your choice
to not offer a particular service, is that penalizing you?
|
when it is not service, yes. just because you will cancel an order no questions
asked, that's grandstanding not a service, especially why would a seller
cancel an order in my store? the options allowed by BL are few and far between,
their only option would really be shipping to high, which tells me the buyer
was just out to waste my time since my shipping fees are pretty much downright
low. only other option is a mutual agreement and my thought is, if the buyer
didn't want to shop in my store then why did they?
Also furthermore this suggestion could not be implemented since it would violate
some laws i'm sure, like not penalizing a store for not offering a service.
that would be like removing a store from the yellow pages because they do not
offer a bathroom to the non-paying public.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 12:32 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
| | In Suggestions, eileenkeeney writes:
| | If a buyer makes a choice to exclude you from their searches, based on your choice
to not offer a particular service, is that penalizing you?
|
when it is not service, yes. just because you will cancel an order no questions
asked, that's grandstanding not a service, especially why would a seller
cancel an order in my store? the options allowed by BL are few and far between,
their only option would really be shipping to high, which tells me the buyer
was just out to waste my time
|
Of course it is a service. It's just a service that some people want to provide,
and others don't. Which is fine!
I totally understand that some sellers want to take a hard line when it comes
to orders in their store. BrickLink allows them to. I also want them to have
that freedom. It's just not how I run my store. If a buyer placs an order
and then asks to cancel it because it's a full moon, I cancel it.
| | Also furthermore this suggestion could not be implemented since it would violate
some laws i'm sure, like not penalizing a store for not offering a service.
|
That's simply not true.
--
Marc.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 12:38 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
| | In Suggestions, eileenkeeney writes:
| | If a buyer makes a choice to exclude you from their searches, based on your choice
to not offer a particular service, is that penalizing you?
|
when it is not service, yes. just because you will cancel an order no questions
asked, that's grandstanding not a service, especially why would a seller
cancel an order in my store? the options allowed by BL are few and far between,
their only option would really be shipping to high, which tells me the buyer
was just out to waste my time
|
Of course it is a service. It's just a service that some people want to provide,
and others don't. Which is fine!
I totally understand that some sellers want to take a hard line when it comes
to orders in their store. BrickLink allows them to. I also want them to have
that freedom. It's just not how I run my store. If a buyer placs an order
and then asks to cancel it because it's a full moon, I cancel it.
| | Also furthermore this suggestion could not be implemented since it would violate
some laws i'm sure, like not penalizing a store for not offering a service.
|
That's simply not true.
--
Marc.
|
if you advertise in your store, that's fine, but if you penalize other stores
because they do not do that, its called discrimination.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | renhoffman | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 12:45 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | if you advertise in your store, that's fine, but if you penalize other stores
because they do not do that, its called discrimination.
|
Is it illegal to tag the box on this page to exclude US stores?
http://www.bricklink.com/searchAdvanced.asp
This is what has been suggested, add a check-box for more options. Not illegal,
as far as I can tell.
Darren
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 12:55 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, renhoffman writes:
| | | | if you advertise in your store, that's fine, but if you penalize other stores
because they do not do that, its called discrimination.
|
Is it illegal to tag the box on this page to exclude US stores?
http://www.bricklink.com/searchAdvanced.asp
This is what has been suggested, add a check-box for more options. Not illegal,
as far as I can tell.
Darren
|
no, since that is search parameters, are you also going to have a check list
for stores that will lie on customs forms? or stores that will not follow the
BL ToS? or stores that will . . . . . the list goes on and on, and yet those
are things buyers also want to know.
is it illegal to look for a seller in your own country? no, is it illegal to
exclude a class of sellers because they have a certain set of rules? yes.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 12:42 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| |
Of course it is a service. It's just a service that some people want to provide,
and others don't. Which is fine!
|
Then offer it yourself!!! No one is stopping you from offering this to your buyers.
Put it in your terms, your splash page, your store slogan, your store banner
and every single listing of yours. Even your store name and username. But do
NOT force everyone else to make a choice between two over-broad and overly simplistic
options that do not neatly apply to them and whose inaccuracies could lose them
numerous orders.
| | I totally understand that some sellers want to take a hard line when it comes
to orders in their store.
|
See, this is where the pidgeonholing comes in. You think that just because a
seller might want to reserve the right to decline a particular OCR in very limited
circumstances, they are taking "a hard line" and should be grouped together with
sellers who decline ALL OCRs.
| | BrickLink allows them to. I also want them to have that freedom.
|
BL already provides this freedom to sellers and buyers. Your suggestion, on the
other hand, would actually limit that freedom - as far as sellers are concerned.
And again, it is not "freedom" when you force someone to choose over the threat
of hurting their business.
| | It's just not how I run my store. If a buyer placs an order
and then asks to cancel it because it's a full moon, I cancel it.
|
Good for you! Run your store however you please. Just don't tell the rest
of us how to run ours.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 12:12 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 19 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, eileenkeeney writes:
| | In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
| | and in a country founded in freedom I refuse to give up my right to freedom or
be penalized for using it.
|
You have the freedom to say No, and the buyers have the freedom to not include
you in their searches. The buyers also have the freedom to include you in their
searches.
|
Buyers would also have the freedom to exclude you from their searches, even if
the "problem" they fear would not happen 99.9% of the time.
| | So both sides have plenty of freedom.
|
Buyers would have the freedom to be paranoid and over-exclude sellers that present
no problems and who could offer them a much better deal. And sellers would be
free to lose orders because they were pidgenholed into clicking a checkbox that
excluded them from untold thousands of searches over a "problem" that would never
even arise 99.9% of the time. Ain't "freedom" grand!
BTW, it isn't "freedom" if you are being threatened with economic loss for
not making the "right" choice.
| | If a buyer makes a choice to exclude you from their searches, based on your choice
to not offer a particular service, is that penalizing you?
|
Yes. See above. If the decision to exclude you is based on exaggerated paranoia
and over-broad and over-simplified exclusion criteria that don't even apply
99.9% of the time, yes the excluded seller is being penalized.
Once again, we see the few militant self-professed do-gooders trying to force
THEIR way on everyone else. If you don't do what they say, you will be excluded
from search results and get less orders. Hey, if they can't compete with
you on price, selection, quality and service, they will make up or exaggerate
a different "problem" and use that against you.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 12:35 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, eileenkeeney writes:
| | In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
| | and in a country founded in freedom I refuse to give up my right to freedom or
be penalized for using it.
|
You have the freedom to say No, and the buyers have the freedom to not include
you in their searches. The buyers also have the freedom to include you in their
searches.
|
Buyers would also have the freedom to exclude you from their searches, even if
the "problem" they fear would not happen 99.9% of the time.
| | So both sides have plenty of freedom.
|
Buyers would have the freedom to be paranoid and over-exclude sellers that present
no problems and who could offer them a much better deal. And sellers would be
free to lose orders because they were pidgenholed into clicking a checkbox that
excluded them from untold thousands of searches over a "problem" that would never
even arise 99.9% of the time. Ain't "freedom" grand!
BTW, it isn't "freedom" if you are being threatened with economic loss for
not making the "right" choice.
| | If a buyer makes a choice to exclude you from their searches, based on your choice
to not offer a particular service, is that penalizing you?
|
Yes. See above. If the decision to exclude you is based on exaggerated paranoia
and over-broad and over-simplified exclusion criteria that don't even apply
99.9% of the time, yes the excluded seller is being penalized.
Once again, we see the few militant self-professed do-gooders trying to force
THEIR way on everyone else.
|
Once again, Foster, focus on the ideas. Stop name-calling.
And it's a suggestion. Nobody is forcing anything on anyone.
--
Marc.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 12:47 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 19 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | And it's a suggestion. Nobody is forcing anything on anyone.
|
The choice of filters available will force sellers into certain behaviour.
If choice is offered, then some buyers will tick it. That excludes sellers if
they do not offer that service. So who gets to choose the range of services offered?
If BL offers one day handling, some buyers will select it. That will give sellers
that say they do one day handling a better chance of getting an order. Of course,
whether they do is another matter.
But what about the more detailed service options - such as individual bagging
and so on. Some people mention this in their terms. How do you quantify that
in a checkbox, and do it sensibly. If it is not offered as a service, why is
the seller offering it not being given the chance to show his forte, when others
are given that chance for fast handling or wearing cotton gloves when they pack
orders?
If there is a checkbox for wearing cotton gloves while packing, it wouldn't
surprise me if more sellers started to offer the service since buyers can select
it as a filter. The people deciding on the filters have huge power to influence
seller behaviour.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 12:51 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, mabccc writes:
| | | | And it's a suggestion. Nobody is forcing anything on anyone.
|
The choice of filters available will force sellers into certain behaviour.
|
It will "force" them to either check or not check the box. Their behaviour is
not forced at all.
| | If choice is offered, then some buyers will tick it. That excludes sellers if
they do not offer that service. So who gets to choose the range of services offered?
If BL offers one day handling, some buyers will select it. That will give sellers
that say they do one day handling a better chance of getting an order.
|
It will give sellers a better chance of getting orders from people who really
want their orders shipped quickly. Absolutely. Which is precisely as it should
be.
--
Marc.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 12:59 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 20 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | In Suggestions, mabccc writes:
| | | | And it's a suggestion. Nobody is forcing anything on anyone.
|
The choice of filters available will force sellers into certain behaviour.
|
It will "force" them to either check or not check the box. Their behaviour is
not forced at all.
| | If choice is offered, then some buyers will tick it. That excludes sellers if
they do not offer that service. So who gets to choose the range of services offered?
If BL offers one day handling, some buyers will select it. That will give sellers
that say they do one day handling a better chance of getting an order.
|
It will give sellers a better chance of getting orders from people who really
want their orders shipped quickly. Absolutely. Which is precisely as it should
be.
--
Marc.
|
and yet people lie even in their own terms and splash pages, so why wouldn't
they lie on a button? now excuse me had an order from another site get paid and
must be off to the post office so they get it soon.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | eileenkeeney | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 16:15 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
| |
and yet people lie even in their own terms and splash pages, so why wouldn't
they lie on a button? now excuse me had an order from another site get paid and
must be off to the post office so they get it soon.
|
We can not expect perfection here.
I can not think of any perfect answer.
Those who will try to deceive will try no matter what the system is.
As for terms that reflect how much a person will be charged, auto-checkout seems
to be a superior solution for preventing issues.
But it also potentially leads to higher costs, since a perfect algorithm for
determining the cheapest possible shipping is probably not available (it would
need to know the exact shape of each piece, and apply some very complicated geometry).
As for shipping time, The few times I want a piece quickly, I do look for a mention
of shipping times either in the store terms, the splash page, or within the seller's
feedback.
More often I am just patient. Sometimes I am even patient enough to order from
a store that I know will take a long time to ship, since I also know they won't
rip me off.
If you are likely to take 7 days to ship, do you really want business from a
customer who will be unhappy with this?
Or is the issue more that you normally will provide a certain level of service,
but do not want to promise that level of service, but also do not want to be
excluded from searches of buyers wanting that level of service?
Then we have to ask if it is ok to check a box, indicating you will ship within
3 days, if you expect to meet this goal for most (but not all) orders.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 16:30 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 21 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, eileenkeeney writes:
| | In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
| |
and yet people lie even in their own terms and splash pages, so why wouldn't
they lie on a button? now excuse me had an order from another site get paid and
must be off to the post office so they get it soon.
|
We can not expect perfection here.
I can not think of any perfect answer.
Those who will try to deceive will try no matter what the system is.
As for terms that reflect how much a person will be charged, auto-checkout seems
to be a superior solution for preventing issues.
But it also potentially leads to higher costs, since a perfect algorithm for
determining the cheapest possible shipping is probably not available (it would
need to know the exact shape of each piece, and apply some very complicated geometry).
As for shipping time, The few times I want a piece quickly, I do look for a mention
of shipping times either in the store terms, the splash page, or within the seller's
feedback.
More often I am just patient. Sometimes I am even patient enough to order from
a store that I know will take a long time to ship, since I also know they won't
rip me off.
If you are likely to take 7 days to ship, do you really want business from a
customer who will be unhappy with this?
Or is the issue more that you normally will provide a certain level of service,
but do not want to promise that level of service, but also do not want to be
excluded from searches of buyers wanting that level of service?
Then we have to ask if it is ok to check a box, indicating you will ship within
3 days, if you expect to meet this goal for most (but not all) orders.
|
well i'm currently in an issue with one store which said they are having
delays in shipping but orders will go out in 5-10 days maybe sooner, after 10
days no order shipped emailed them, they told me its 10 business days and supposedly
my order will ship today, supposedly.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 19:24 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, eileenkeeney writes:
| |
Then we have to ask if it is ok to check a box, indicating you will ship within
3 days, if you expect to meet this goal for most (but not all) orders.
|
Almost everyone will check this box. It is safe. If you don't meet the goal,
you have an easy out by saying it applies to most but not all orders. Which means
no one can be held to it, thereby making it meaningless. So why have it at all?
Just for show?
Thor
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 13:28 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | In Suggestions, mabccc writes:
| | | | And it's a suggestion. Nobody is forcing anything on anyone.
|
The choice of filters available will force sellers into certain behaviour.
|
It will "force" them to either check or not check the box. Their behaviour is
not forced at all.
|
It is forced. If you give the buyer the ability to filter using a certain criteria,
then that becomes important. If you have a filter system and don't select
a certain criteria, that is no longer important.
For example, if the terms are standardised but only according to:
1) two day turnaround
2) no lot fees
3) no handling fee and exact postage charged
then those three will become hugely important for sellers to abide by and will
influece seller behaviour.
Being able to offer one day turnaround is no longer important (you are no better
than a 2 day turnaround), neither is 7 day turnaround (you are not 2 day turn
around).
Charging for exact postage plus the packaging costs is no longer any good, since
buyers cannot filter for it. If you do this, you might as well charge a more
significant handling fee as that is the category you are being lumped in with.
Offering to allow all OCRs is also not important any more either, since buyers
cannot search for it.
Sure, sellers can choose to not follow any of them, but they fail to meet all
searches where the buyers selects any one of those. If they want orders, they
will need to be ticking all the search boxes in their terms.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Cyndis_Bricks | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 13:35 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | In Suggestions, mabccc writes:
| | | | And it's a suggestion. Nobody is forcing anything on anyone.
|
The choice of filters available will force sellers into certain behaviour.
|
It will "force" them to either check or not check the box. Their behaviour is
not forced at all.
| | If choice is offered, then some buyers will tick it. That excludes sellers if
they do not offer that service. So who gets to choose the range of services offered?
If BL offers one day handling, some buyers will select it. That will give sellers
that say they do one day handling a better chance of getting an order.
|
It will give sellers a better chance of getting orders from people who really
want their orders shipped quickly. Absolutely. Which is precisely as it should
be.
--
Marc.
|
Getting in this thread late, and not sure if it has been mentioned.
Will Sellers be able to have a checkbox to only allow buyers that will pay for
the order, within "X" hours or minutes, after Invoice has been sent? We can't
ship quickly, if not paid quickly.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 12:13 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 20 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | You have the freedom to say No, and the buyers have the freedom to not include
you in their searches. The buyers also have the freedom to include you in their
searches.
So both sides have plenty of freedom.
If a buyer makes a choice to exclude you from their searches, based on your choice
to not offer a particular service, is that penalizing you?
|
Does it guarantee the service though?
Having a filter option raises buyer expectation. If I read a store's terms
and they say they aim for two day service and it turns out to be four, I don't
really care. However, if I search for stores that offer two day service and it
turns out to be four, I'm going to be more annoyed since I used that filter
in my search. So what can the buyer do? Not much. And that is the problem, everyone
could just tick the fast service checkbox and the filter becomes useless since
it doesn't filter out the ones that do vs the ones that don't since they
all say they do. The sellers that will be damaged are the honest ones. The ones
that know they can only get 95% of their orders out in two days, so don't
tick the fast service option so as not to disappoint the 5%.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 12:20 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 17 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, mabccc writes:
| | | | You have the freedom to say No, and the buyers have the freedom to not include
you in their searches. The buyers also have the freedom to include you in their
searches.
So both sides have plenty of freedom.
If a buyer makes a choice to exclude you from their searches, based on your choice
to not offer a particular service, is that penalizing you?
|
Does it guarantee the service though?
Having a filter option raises buyer expectation. If I read a store's terms
and they say they aim for two day service and it turns out to be four, I don't
really care. However, if I search for stores that offer two day service and it
turns out to be four, I'm going to be more annoyed since I used that filter
in my search. So what can the buyer do? Not much. And that is the problem, everyone
could just tick the fast service checkbox and the filter becomes useless since
it doesn't filter out the ones that do vs the ones that don't since they
all say they do. The sellers that will be damaged are the honest ones. The ones
that know they can only get 95% of their orders out in two days, so don't
tick the fast service option so as not to disappoint the 5%.
|
well technically I was always able to get out my orders paid for with 1 business
day of being paid, but I took pride in my sales
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 12:26 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 19 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
| | In Suggestions, mabccc writes:
| | | | You have the freedom to say No, and the buyers have the freedom to not include
you in their searches. The buyers also have the freedom to include you in their
searches.
So both sides have plenty of freedom.
If a buyer makes a choice to exclude you from their searches, based on your choice
to not offer a particular service, is that penalizing you?
|
Does it guarantee the service though?
Having a filter option raises buyer expectation. If I read a store's terms
and they say they aim for two day service and it turns out to be four, I don't
really care. However, if I search for stores that offer two day service and it
turns out to be four, I'm going to be more annoyed since I used that filter
in my search. So what can the buyer do? Not much. And that is the problem, everyone
could just tick the fast service checkbox and the filter becomes useless since
it doesn't filter out the ones that do vs the ones that don't since they
all say they do. The sellers that will be damaged are the honest ones. The ones
that know they can only get 95% of their orders out in two days, so don't
tick the fast service option so as not to disappoint the 5%.
|
well technically I was always able to get out my orders paid for with 1 business
day of being paid, but I took pride in my sales
|
So do I. Yet if I am suddenly ill, it might take an extra day. As an honest seller
should I say I can guarantee one day service on my orders or should I accept
that there is a small risk of not being able to do so for every order, and so
not tick the box?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 12:29 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 20 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, mabccc writes:
| | In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
| | In Suggestions, mabccc writes:
| | | | You have the freedom to say No, and the buyers have the freedom to not include
you in their searches. The buyers also have the freedom to include you in their
searches.
So both sides have plenty of freedom.
If a buyer makes a choice to exclude you from their searches, based on your choice
to not offer a particular service, is that penalizing you?
|
Does it guarantee the service though?
Having a filter option raises buyer expectation. If I read a store's terms
and they say they aim for two day service and it turns out to be four, I don't
really care. However, if I search for stores that offer two day service and it
turns out to be four, I'm going to be more annoyed since I used that filter
in my search. So what can the buyer do? Not much. And that is the problem, everyone
could just tick the fast service checkbox and the filter becomes useless since
it doesn't filter out the ones that do vs the ones that don't since they
all say they do. The sellers that will be damaged are the honest ones. The ones
that know they can only get 95% of their orders out in two days, so don't
tick the fast service option so as not to disappoint the 5%.
|
well technically I was always able to get out my orders paid for with 1 business
day of being paid, but I took pride in my sales
|
So do I. Yet if I am suddenly ill, it might take an extra day. As an honest seller
should I say I can guarantee one day service on my orders or should I accept
that there is a small risk of not being able to do so for every order, and so
not tick the box?
|
illness never stopped me, for some reason my orders came in and went out with
speed, but then again I am weird.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 12:20 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 20 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
| | In Suggestions, mabccc writes:
| | In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
| | In Suggestions, mabccc writes:
| | | | | | now that's something I'd like to see a banner waving over the price guide
of stores that ship within 24 hours of payment (1 business day), I'd like
that a lot more then this suggestion, and if a store clicks that banner then
they have to comply or the buyers order is free
|
I agree tht would be awesome. That is exactly the kind of thing I am suggesting.
Different stores are good at different things. Let them tell us in a systematic
way.
|
I still don't see how this helps buyers.
Sellers select it. They get the order from the buyer based on one day shipping.
They then take three days to pack it, they send it, and later apologize to the
buyer for something out of their control. The buyer gets their stuff two days
late. What do they do, leave negative feedback? Make a complaint to admin, and
admin bars the seller from using the 1-day shipping tag?
It makes a buyer feel they are getting something, when in reality a seller doesn't
have to do it.
|
no my comment was not about 1 day shipping, but one day service, the item will
be shipped out within one business day of payment being received, how long it
takes the post office to deliver is up to them.
|
By one day shipping, I meant one day turnaround to post.
|
well in my store that's what my customers got, was a fast turn around and
low shipping, and now I get an insult from this suggestion telling me I have
to have this button clicked or be removed from a bunch of searches, if I want
to be in searches I have to give up my freedom to say no.
and in a country founded in freedom I refuse to give up my right to freedom or
be penalized for using it.
|
You would absolutely still have the freedom to set your terms. You would only
lose the ability to hide them. I trust that you would not want to hide them.
I believe that you are an honest seller and would be fine with people knowing
your terms. My suggestion would make it easier to compare your terms with other
sellers.
--
Marc.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 12:27 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 20 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
| | In Suggestions, mabccc writes:
| | In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
| | In Suggestions, mabccc writes:
| | | | | | now that's something I'd like to see a banner waving over the price guide
of stores that ship within 24 hours of payment (1 business day), I'd like
that a lot more then this suggestion, and if a store clicks that banner then
they have to comply or the buyers order is free
|
I agree tht would be awesome. That is exactly the kind of thing I am suggesting.
Different stores are good at different things. Let them tell us in a systematic
way.
|
I still don't see how this helps buyers.
Sellers select it. They get the order from the buyer based on one day shipping.
They then take three days to pack it, they send it, and later apologize to the
buyer for something out of their control. The buyer gets their stuff two days
late. What do they do, leave negative feedback? Make a complaint to admin, and
admin bars the seller from using the 1-day shipping tag?
It makes a buyer feel they are getting something, when in reality a seller doesn't
have to do it.
|
no my comment was not about 1 day shipping, but one day service, the item will
be shipped out within one business day of payment being received, how long it
takes the post office to deliver is up to them.
|
By one day shipping, I meant one day turnaround to post.
|
well in my store that's what my customers got, was a fast turn around and
low shipping, and now I get an insult from this suggestion telling me I have
to have this button clicked or be removed from a bunch of searches, if I want
to be in searches I have to give up my freedom to say no.
and in a country founded in freedom I refuse to give up my right to freedom or
be penalized for using it.
|
You would absolutely still have the freedom to set your terms. You would only
lose the ability to hide them. I trust that you would not want to hide them.
I believe that you are an honest seller and would be fine with people knowing
your terms. My suggestion would make it easier to compare your terms with other
sellers.
--
Marc.
|
and whos hiding anything? my terms are the BL ToS, I comply with that, I will
not mutually cancel an order, and if a buyer comes across with a shipping to
high request I will NPB them for the mere fact I lose money on my shipping prices.
my terms are not hidden. but you would rather penalize me because I stand by
the BL ToS.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 12:45 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
| | In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
| | In Suggestions, mabccc writes:
| | In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
| | In Suggestions, mabccc writes:
| | | | | | now that's something I'd like to see a banner waving over the price guide
of stores that ship within 24 hours of payment (1 business day), I'd like
that a lot more then this suggestion, and if a store clicks that banner then
they have to comply or the buyers order is free
|
I agree tht would be awesome. That is exactly the kind of thing I am suggesting.
Different stores are good at different things. Let them tell us in a systematic
way.
|
I still don't see how this helps buyers.
Sellers select it. They get the order from the buyer based on one day shipping.
They then take three days to pack it, they send it, and later apologize to the
buyer for something out of their control. The buyer gets their stuff two days
late. What do they do, leave negative feedback? Make a complaint to admin, and
admin bars the seller from using the 1-day shipping tag?
It makes a buyer feel they are getting something, when in reality a seller doesn't
have to do it.
|
no my comment was not about 1 day shipping, but one day service, the item will
be shipped out within one business day of payment being received, how long it
takes the post office to deliver is up to them.
|
By one day shipping, I meant one day turnaround to post.
|
well in my store that's what my customers got, was a fast turn around and
low shipping, and now I get an insult from this suggestion telling me I have
to have this button clicked or be removed from a bunch of searches, if I want
to be in searches I have to give up my freedom to say no.
and in a country founded in freedom I refuse to give up my right to freedom or
be penalized for using it.
|
You would absolutely still have the freedom to set your terms. You would only
lose the ability to hide them. I trust that you would not want to hide them.
I believe that you are an honest seller and would be fine with people knowing
your terms. My suggestion would make it easier to compare your terms with other
sellers.
--
Marc.
|
and whos hiding anything? my terms are the BL ToS, I comply with that, I will
not mutually cancel an order, and if a buyer comes across with a shipping to
high request I will NPB them for the mere fact I lose money on my shipping prices.
my terms are not hidden. but you would rather penalize me because I stand by
the BL ToS.
|
I don't want to penalize you at all. I want to make it easier for buyers
to find your store when you meet their needs.
You can ship orders within one dah. That is awesome. If ever I need parts in
a hurry, I want to be able to find your store and others like it, who are able
to do that. Right now, there is no easy way. I want there to be a way.
--
Marc.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 12:51 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 21 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
| | In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
| | In Suggestions, mabccc writes:
| | In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
| | In Suggestions, mabccc writes:
| | | | | | now that's something I'd like to see a banner waving over the price guide
of stores that ship within 24 hours of payment (1 business day), I'd like
that a lot more then this suggestion, and if a store clicks that banner then
they have to comply or the buyers order is free
|
I agree tht would be awesome. That is exactly the kind of thing I am suggesting.
Different stores are good at different things. Let them tell us in a systematic
way.
|
I still don't see how this helps buyers.
Sellers select it. They get the order from the buyer based on one day shipping.
They then take three days to pack it, they send it, and later apologize to the
buyer for something out of their control. The buyer gets their stuff two days
late. What do they do, leave negative feedback? Make a complaint to admin, and
admin bars the seller from using the 1-day shipping tag?
It makes a buyer feel they are getting something, when in reality a seller doesn't
have to do it.
|
no my comment was not about 1 day shipping, but one day service, the item will
be shipped out within one business day of payment being received, how long it
takes the post office to deliver is up to them.
|
By one day shipping, I meant one day turnaround to post.
|
well in my store that's what my customers got, was a fast turn around and
low shipping, and now I get an insult from this suggestion telling me I have
to have this button clicked or be removed from a bunch of searches, if I want
to be in searches I have to give up my freedom to say no.
and in a country founded in freedom I refuse to give up my right to freedom or
be penalized for using it.
|
You would absolutely still have the freedom to set your terms. You would only
lose the ability to hide them. I trust that you would not want to hide them.
I believe that you are an honest seller and would be fine with people knowing
your terms. My suggestion would make it easier to compare your terms with other
sellers.
--
Marc.
|
and whos hiding anything? my terms are the BL ToS, I comply with that, I will
not mutually cancel an order, and if a buyer comes across with a shipping to
high request I will NPB them for the mere fact I lose money on my shipping prices.
my terms are not hidden. but you would rather penalize me because I stand by
the BL ToS.
|
I don't want to penalize you at all. I want to make it easier for buyers
to find your store when you meet their needs.
You can ship orders within one dah. That is awesome. If ever I need parts in
a hurry, I want to be able to find your store and others like it, who are able
to do that. Right now, there is no easy way. I want there to be a way.
--
Marc.
|
because it would discriminate against stores or force them to lie, if stores
want to do that then they can advertise it in the store splash page or such.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 12:58 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 21 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| |
You would absolutely still have the freedom to set your terms. You would only
lose the ability to hide them.
|
By hiding them in an over-broad over-simplified checkbox that won't neatly
fit every seller or every situation.
I resent the accusation that sellers "hide" things in their terms. First we are
told we need terms to help buyers understand our policies. Then we are told our
policies are "hidden" if we put them in our terms.
Thor
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 11:28 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| |
I want all buyers to have as much information as possible about sellers, presented
in a way that is searchable instead of the sloppy mess of thousands of different
Terms pages.
|
In other words, you want to give buyers yet another reason NOT to read seller
terms. That is not giving them more information; it is giving them less. Pidgeonholing
sellers into making all-or-nothing choices comes at the expense of flexibility
and accuracy.
| |
Do I think that allowing buyers to back out of a purchase is better than not
letting them? I do. I am not the only one. Stragus does, John P absolutely did
whEn he had an active store. And I would like a systematic way to tell that to
potential buyers.
|
You already CAN tell this to your buyers. Put it in your shop terms. If it concerns
you when you are buying, read seller terms, ask them if it is not clear, or rely
on BL's currently existing OCR rules when the seller is silent on the matter.
| | If sellers are comfortable with their terms -- be it processing times, lot
fees, or allowing/disallowing cancellations -- then I believe they should
be comfortable with standardizing the structure of those terms so that buyers
can more easily compare stores.
|
"Standardizing" terms will come at the expense of seller flexibility, accuracy,
and sellers wanting to stand out and be unique and different. It is the very
opposite of personalizing one's own business the way they want it to be.
Why do I have to be the same as everyone else? Or be given the choice of one
of only two ways to describe how I handle situations that may vary considerably
in real life?
Ask buyers what really matters to them and almost all of them will put PRICE,
SELECTION, QUALITY and SERVICE (in that order) at the very top of their list.
All these other pidgeonhole checkboxes are just a means for some who can't
compete on these four to take orders away from those who can.
| | That is what this suggestion would do. I accept the concern that this particular
issue is not ideally captured in a yes/no checkbox. That's a potentially
valid concern.
|
It is THE biggest concern. That plus the fact that despite is admitted shortcomings
and inaccuracies, it would be used to exclude many sellers from searches where
the issue would not even come up over 99% of the time.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 11:51 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | Ask buyers what really matters to them and almost all of them will put PRICE,
SELECTION, QUALITY and SERVICE (in that order) at the very top of their list.
|
Exactly. Price is already standardized and searchable. Selection is standardized
and searchable. Quality is standardized and searchable. My suggestion to to bring
Service in line with those.
--
Marc.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 12:32 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | Ask buyers what really matters to them and almost all of them will put PRICE,
SELECTION, QUALITY and SERVICE (in that order) at the very top of their list.
|
Exactly. Price is already standardized and searchable. Selection is standardized
and searchable. Quality is standardized and searchable. My suggestion to to bring
Service in line with those.
|
They are clearly not the same. It is easy to pick a specific price or quantity.
They are both very finite and objective. Quality may be subjective, but even
so something is either new or not. And when there is any question, BL says to
note it in the comments for that listing.
Service, on the other hand, is much more diverse and subjective. Unlike the other
three, it is NOT suitable for pidgeonholing into a couple of checkboxes. Any
attempt to do so would come at the expense of accuracy, flexibility and personalization
of one's own business. And both buyers and sellers will suffer because of
these shortcomings. Buyers will be prevented from seeing listings from sellers
who offer much better deals because those sellers were unintentionally excluded
by a over-broad and over-simplistic inaccurate checkbox about something that
does not even arise more than 99% of the time.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 12:48 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 20 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | Ask buyers what really matters to them and almost all of them will put PRICE,
SELECTION, QUALITY and SERVICE (in that order) at the very top of their list.
|
Exactly. Price is already standardized and searchable. Selection is standardized
and searchable. Quality is standardized and searchable. My suggestion to to bring
Service in line with those.
|
They are clearly not the same. It is easy to pick a specific price or quantity.
They are both very finite and objective. Quality may be subjective, but even
so something is either new or not. And when there is any question, BL says to
note it in the comments for that listing.
Service, on the other hand, is much more diverse and subjective. Unlike the other
three, it is NOT suitable for pidgeonholing into a couple of checkboxes. Any
attempt to do so would come at the expense of accuracy, flexibility and personalization
of one's own business.
|
And that is the fundamental difference in our opinions on the matter. I disagree
that standardization would hurt things. It would make it all so much better.
--
Marc.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | May 21, 2015 18:05 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, kzinti writes:
| | How do you determine too high shipping? What is the metric for that? If I am
quoted only standard local postal rates for shipping weight and then opt to cancel
due to shipping being too high, where else will I go to get it shipped cheaper?
Nowhere. The argument that shipping is too high is invalid in this case.
|
I agree that, in the current terms, the "shipping too high" reason is a little
vague. For my own store I interpret it as simply as possible: does the buyer
feel it is too high? If so, then it's too high.
| |
I believe the new Quote option was designed to specifically allow this kind of
window shopping. "I want this, what will it cost to ship?" and when they find
out, "Oh, my! Um, no thanks". No harm, no foul.
|
Definitely. Anyone run a random check of stores to see what percentage allow
quotes? I have no idea, but I would be curious.
--
Marc.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 01:17 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| The quote feature is just bizarre. You have to 'checkout' to know whether
a seller offers it. It wouldn't surprise me if it doesn't get used much.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | eileenkeeney | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 13:11 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | In Suggestions, kzinti writes:
| | How do you determine too high shipping? What is the metric for that? If I am
quoted only standard local postal rates for shipping weight and then opt to cancel
due to shipping being too high, where else will I go to get it shipped cheaper?
Nowhere. The argument that shipping is too high is invalid in this case.
|
I agree that, in the current terms, the "shipping too high" reason is a little
vague. For my own store I interpret it as simply as possible: does the buyer
feel it is too high? If so, then it's too high.
| |
I believe the new Quote option was designed to specifically allow this kind of
window shopping. "I want this, what will it cost to ship?" and when they find
out, "Oh, my! Um, no thanks". No harm, no foul.
|
Definitely. Anyone run a random check of stores to see what percentage allow
quotes? I have no idea, but I would be curious.
--
Marc.
|
The only problem with the quote system, is that it does not hold the inventory,
and too often it just goes away because someone else ordered some subset of what
was in my quote.
I do tend to just grab full lots, I rarely really know exactly how many of a
piece I need.
So perhaps having sellers choose if they want to reserve the inventory for some
time during the quote process, might be a good idea (another check box combined
with a value).
About 30% of the quotes I have placed were canceled before I had a chance to
respond.
For those not canceled, I completed all but one. The one I didn't complete
came back with a shipping cost much higher than I expected.
My hesitance to use quotes has to do with the potential of them being canceled
before I have a chance to accept them.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | May 21, 2015 17:18 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | Some sellers do not allow buyers to back out of a purchase if they change their
mind before payment. Others do (and some are required to do so by law).
Right now, this option is left to each store to describe in their store terms
if they allow it (or not). Usually, it is never mentioned at all, which can cause
some confusion among new buyers.
To help alleviate this confusion, and to help buyers more easily find stores
that have terms that they would like to support, I would like to see this option
be added as a checkbox that sellers can choose (or not) for their store.
This is an extension of the suggestion I posted here: http://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=173897
That suggestion listed a number of such checkboxes that would be useful. I believe
that this option of allowing sellers to state whether they accept cancellations
or not would be just as useful as anything else discussed in that earlier thread.
--
Marc.
|
Not sure I could go with a suggestion that suggests sellers have the option to
violate the ToS since a buyer is responsible for completing of their purchase,
cause lets face it if a seller says they are forgiving of buyers who want to
back out, how many buyers will those sellers get who do such a thing, while the
sellers who will follow the ToS, don't worry about the buyers backing out
since they will face the consequences.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | May 21, 2015 17:35 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
| | In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | Some sellers do not allow buyers to back out of a purchase if they change their
mind before payment. Others do (and some are required to do so by law).
Right now, this option is left to each store to describe in their store terms
if they allow it (or not). Usually, it is never mentioned at all, which can cause
some confusion among new buyers.
To help alleviate this confusion, and to help buyers more easily find stores
that have terms that they would like to support, I would like to see this option
be added as a checkbox that sellers can choose (or not) for their store.
This is an extension of the suggestion I posted here: http://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=173897
That suggestion listed a number of such checkboxes that would be useful. I believe
that this option of allowing sellers to state whether they accept cancellations
or not would be just as useful as anything else discussed in that earlier thread.
--
Marc.
|
Not sure I could go with a suggestion that suggests sellers have the option to
violate the ToS since a buyer is responsible for completing of their purchase,
|
Agreeing to cancel isn't a violation of the TOS. Any seller is free to do
so. BL even explicitly provides that option: buyer and seller agree to camcel.
| | cause lets face it if a seller says they are forgiving of buyers who want to
back out, how many buyers will those sellers get who do such a thing, while the
sellers who will follow the ToS, don't worry about the buyers backing out
since they will face the consequences.
|
I don't understand this part.
--
Marc.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | May 21, 2015 17:39 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
| | In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | Some sellers do not allow buyers to back out of a purchase if they change their
mind before payment. Others do (and some are required to do so by law).
Right now, this option is left to each store to describe in their store terms
if they allow it (or not). Usually, it is never mentioned at all, which can cause
some confusion among new buyers.
To help alleviate this confusion, and to help buyers more easily find stores
that have terms that they would like to support, I would like to see this option
be added as a checkbox that sellers can choose (or not) for their store.
This is an extension of the suggestion I posted here: http://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=173897
That suggestion listed a number of such checkboxes that would be useful. I believe
that this option of allowing sellers to state whether they accept cancellations
or not would be just as useful as anything else discussed in that earlier thread.
--
Marc.
|
Not sure I could go with a suggestion that suggests sellers have the option to
violate the ToS since a buyer is responsible for completing of their purchase,
|
Agreeing to cancel isn't a violation of the TOS. Any seller is free to do
so. BL even explicitly provides that option: buyer and seller agree to camcel.
Marc.
|
from BrickLink ToS:
4.Buying:
If you place an order in a store, you are obligated to complete the purchase.
5.Selling:
If you have a store and receive a valid order then you are obligated to complete
the transaction.
http://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=1919
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | May 21, 2015 18:00 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
| | In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
| | In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | Some sellers do not allow buyers to back out of a purchase if they change their
mind before payment. Others do (and some are required to do so by law).
Right now, this option is left to each store to describe in their store terms
if they allow it (or not). Usually, it is never mentioned at all, which can cause
some confusion among new buyers.
To help alleviate this confusion, and to help buyers more easily find stores
that have terms that they would like to support, I would like to see this option
be added as a checkbox that sellers can choose (or not) for their store.
This is an extension of the suggestion I posted here: http://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=173897
That suggestion listed a number of such checkboxes that would be useful. I believe
that this option of allowing sellers to state whether they accept cancellations
or not would be just as useful as anything else discussed in that earlier thread.
--
Marc.
|
Not sure I could go with a suggestion that suggests sellers have the option to
violate the ToS since a buyer is responsible for completing of their purchase,
|
Agreeing to cancel isn't a violation of the TOS. Any seller is free to do
so. BL even explicitly provides that option: buyer and seller agree to camcel.
Marc.
|
from BrickLink ToS:
4.Buying:
If you place an order in a store, you are obligated to complete the purchase.
5.Selling:
If you have a store and receive a valid order then you are obligated to complete
the transaction.
http://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=1919.
|
Yes, but section 18, under Order Cancellation Policy, states that it is okay
to cancel under certain circumstances.
http://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=79
Including: Mutual agreement to cancel between buyer and seller
It is certainly not a violation of the TOS for a buyer and seller to agree to
cancel an order.
--
Marc.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | May 21, 2015 18:18 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | Yes, but section 18, under Order Cancellation Policy, states that it is okay
to cancel under certain circumstances.
http://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=79
Including: Mutual agreement to cancel between buyer and seller
It is certainly not a violation of the TOS for a buyer and seller to agree to
cancel an order.
--
Marc.
|
ok well lets look under that policy shall we?
| | Valid Reasons:
1.Mutual agreement to cancel between buyer and seller
|
this part here is confusing since what does mutual agreement constitute since
you would think it would have to apply to one of the following reasons.
| | 2.Seller did not respond to emails
|
Seller doesn't respond, is understandable since you can't complete a
transaction if the seller does not communicate.
| | 3.Seller did not have items after order was submitted
|
as a buyer I would eb irked if a seller lists some items then turns out they
don't have them.
| | 4.Seller listed item with error
|
this one is not so prevalent since most listings are based on the item guide.
| | 5.Seller provided a shipping fee that was too high (not clearly stated in T&C)
|
what is constituted as too high, the one seller in that other thread had a pretty
reasonable S&H fee, so what is too high? in fact this should be able to be contested
by the seller if they so choose, with evidence their S&H is spot on or there
abouts.
| | 6.Seller is using an exchange rate inconsistent with Exchange Rate Policy
|
seller violated the rules, understandable
| | 7.Seller did not ship order after payment was made
|
Seller failed to deliver
| | 8.Seller is underage (under 18 years old)
|
seller violated the rules once again
| | 9.Seller is no longer registered
|
can't complete a transaction with someone who is not there.
10.System problem during order submission (excluding not receiving order notification
e-mail)
BL screw up.
now heres the reasons not allowed for cancellation which occurs too often, and
yet you expect sellers to violate said rules:
| | Invalid Reasons:
1.Buyer no longer wants the items - This is the most common example which BrickLink does not tolerate. Buyer should make sure he or she wants to buy the items before submitting an order, not after. After an order is submitted, the buyer enters into a legally binding contract with the seller to purchase all items in that order.
|
many buyers use this excuse or more to the point they say S&H was too high because
they changed their mind.
| | 2.Buyer found items cheaper somewhere else - Buyer should be confident that he or she is.
ready to pay the asking prices before submitting an order. After an order is submitted, the buyer enters into a legally binding contract with the seller to purchase all items in that order.
|
another intolerable reason and yet buyers will have this excuse and use the S&H
too high excuse.
now that's just for the buyer, by these policies it is to easy for a buyer
to complain S&H is too high even with no proof.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | May 21, 2015 18:50 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
| | In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | Yes, but section 18, under Order Cancellation Policy, states that it is okay
to cancel under certain circumstances.
http://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=79
Including: Mutual agreement to cancel between buyer and seller
It is certainly not a violation of the TOS for a buyer and seller to agree to
cancel an order.
--
Marc.
|
ok well lets look under that policy shall we?
| | Valid Reasons:
1.Mutual agreement to cancel between buyer and seller
|
this part here is confusing since what does mutual agreement constitute since
you would think it would have to apply to one of the following reasons.
|
No. It applies when they agree to cancel. That's it. I don't understand
why it is against the rules for a buyer and a seller to agree to cancel.
--
Marc.
| |
| | 2.Seller did not respond to emails
|
Seller doesn't respond, is understandable since you can't complete a
transaction if the seller does not communicate.
| | 3.Seller did not have items after order was submitted
|
as a buyer I would eb irked if a seller lists some items then turns out they
don't have them.
| | 4.Seller listed item with error
|
this one is not so prevalent since most listings are based on the item guide.
| | 5.Seller provided a shipping fee that was too high (not clearly stated in T&C)
|
what is constituted as too high, the one seller in that other thread had a pretty
reasonable S&H fee, so what is too high? in fact this should be able to be contested
by the seller if they so choose, with evidence their S&H is spot on or there
abouts.
| | 6.Seller is using an exchange rate inconsistent with Exchange Rate Policy
|
seller violated the rules, understandable
| | 7.Seller did not ship order after payment was made
|
Seller failed to deliver
| | 8.Seller is underage (under 18 years old)
|
seller violated the rules once again
| | 9.Seller is no longer registered
|
can't complete a transaction with someone who is not there.
10.System problem during order submission (excluding not receiving order notification
e-mail)
BL screw up.
now heres the reasons not allowed for cancellation which occurs too often, and
yet you expect sellers to violate said rules:
| | Invalid Reasons:
1.Buyer no longer wants the items - This is the most common example which BrickLink does not tolerate. Buyer should make sure he or she wants to buy the items before submitting an order, not after. After an order is submitted, the buyer enters into a legally binding contract with the seller to purchase all items in that order.
|
many buyers use this excuse or more to the point they say S&H was too high because
they changed their mind.
| | 2.Buyer found items cheaper somewhere else - Buyer should be confident that he or she is.
ready to pay the asking prices before submitting an order. After an order is submitted, the buyer enters into a legally binding contract with the seller to purchase all items in that order.
|
another intolerable reason and yet buyers will have this excuse and use the S&H
too high excuse.
now that's just for the buyer, by these policies it is to easy for a buyer
to complain S&H is too high even with no proof.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Bricktrain | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 07:21 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
| | | | 3.Seller did not have items after order was submitted
|
as a buyer I would eb irked if a seller lists some items then turns out they
don't have them.
|
Has happened to me three times in the last two weeks, in one case the seller
didnt tell me until 3 days after shipping, and of course it was the most wanted
part in the order. One of the others told me after invoicing and stated in his
store terms no additions after invoicing so was unable to add any items to maximise
shipping costs, I had reduced other quantities to keep just under the customs
duty limit then wasted half the 40E shipping price due to them not having the
stock.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 11:02 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 21 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Bricktrain writes:
| | In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
| | | | 3.Seller did not have items after order was submitted
|
as a buyer I would eb irked if a seller lists some items then turns out they
don't have them.
|
Has happened to me three times in the last two weeks, in one case the seller
didnt tell me until 3 days after shipping, and of course it was the most wanted
part in the order. One of the others told me after invoicing and stated in his
store terms no additions after invoicing so was unable to add any items to maximise
shipping costs, I had reduced other quantities to keep just under the customs
duty limit then wasted half the 40E shipping price due to them not having the
stock.
|
well its one thing if say in a 80 piece lot an item is missing, but its another
when you order the only item in a lot and its gone, they don't have it, me
when I sold I always did an inventory check periodically to insure I had enough
product.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | renhoffman | | Posted: | May 21, 2015 18:25 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | Yes, but section 18, under Order Cancellation Policy, states that it is okay
to cancel under certain circumstances.
http://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=79
Including: Mutual agreement to cancel between buyer and seller
It is certainly not a violation of the TOS for a buyer and seller to agree to
cancel an order.
|
And it will NEVER be against the rules for a mutual agreement to cancel an order,
IMO.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | May 21, 2015 18:30 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, renhoffman writes:
| |
And it will NEVER be against the rules for a mutual agreement to cancel an order,
IMO.
|
Very true. But if you click a checkbox saying you allow order cancellations does
that mean you must cancel any order for any reason?
If not, how will this single checkbox explain those limited situations where
you won't allow order cancellation?
I think most sellers would want the flexibility to decide each request on its
own merits without being pidgeonholed and forced into an all-or-nothing scenario.
Thor
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | renhoffman | | Posted: | May 21, 2015 18:34 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, renhoffman writes:
| |
And it will NEVER be against the rules for a mutual agreement to cancel an order,
IMO.
|
Very true. But if you click a checkbox saying you allow order cancellations does
that mean you must cancel any order for any reason?
If not, how will this single checkbox explain those limited situations where
you won't allow order cancellation?
I think most sellers would want the flexibility to decide each request on its
own merits without being pidgeonholed and forced into an all-or-nothing scenario.
Thor
|
I wasn't submitting my opinion on the original post, only pointing out that
it is wrong that it is against any rule to mutually cancel an order.
Darren
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Teup | | Posted: | May 21, 2015 17:48 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | Some sellers do not allow buyers to back out of a purchase if they change their
mind before payment. Others do (and some are required to do so by law).
Right now, this option is left to each store to describe in their store terms
if they allow it (or not). Usually, it is never mentioned at all, which can cause
some confusion among new buyers.
To help alleviate this confusion, and to help buyers more easily find stores
that have terms that they would like to support, I would like to see this option
be added as a checkbox that sellers can choose (or not) for their store.
This is an extension of the suggestion I posted here: http://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=173897
That suggestion listed a number of such checkboxes that would be useful. I believe
that this option of allowing sellers to state whether they accept cancellations
or not would be just as useful as anything else discussed in that earlier thread.
--
Marc.
|
It is tricky. I would always cancel buyer's orders, sure. I am actually forced
by law to do so, but even if I weren't I would probably do it. Do I like
it? No.
If I knock over a box of fruit at a grocery store, will the store tidy it up?
Probably. But should they compete with other stores by having a sign "it's
OK to knock over boxes of fruit with us"? Nah...
Like cleaning up after a customer in a store, I think it's a service I provide
as the occasion arises. It shouldn't be something the buyer can just
assume to be fine and depend on beforehand..
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | May 21, 2015 18:06 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| I voted no for several reasons.
First, this checkbox idea is overly simplistic because it forces sellers to pidgeonhole
themselves into something that is very often not so black and white. For example,
many sellers will allow order cancellation under some situations but not others.
Which checkbox should be checked for this seller? That he allows cancellations
or that he doesn't allow cancellations? Or are we going to have a long list
of checkboxes describing each particular situation when cancellation will or
will not be allowed? If so, then why have checboxes at all? This can be much
better and more accurately explained in the seller's terms.
I find this checkbox notion very similar (and similarly unworkable for the same
reasons) to the notion to have checkboxes for sellers that charge fees. What
checkbox should be checked for a seller who only charges a $0.50 fee on orders
below $5.00? Orders that account for only 5% of that seller's sales?
Clearly, the matter of OCRs and fees isn't as simple as some would lead you
to believe.
Second, this checkbox idea is just the first step in a process that will culminate
in broadly excluding sellers from the search results if they should wish, under
very limited circumstances, to not cancel an order as per the BrickLink rules
and guidelines. It is overkill, since it would exclude even those sellers who
allow cancellation 90% or more of the time.
Third, checkboxes will be used as yet another crutch, reason or excuse for buyers
to not read seller terms. Why read a page of terms when you think (mistakenly)
that a couple of checkboxes tell you all you need to know about a seller and
their policies? Buyers should be encouraged to read store terms and not to rely
instead on over-simplified misleading checkboxes that forcibly pidgeonhole and
tie the hands of sellers.
Fourth, all-or-nothing checkboxes limit a seller's flexibility to handle
things according to the unique circumstances of each situation.
Fifth, these checkboxes are not necessary. BrickLink's rules already adequately
cover when an order can be canceled. Members should be encouraged to know the
rules rather than relying on crutches and shortcuts that are misleading and overbroad.
Sixth, these all-or-nothing checkboxes will actually create more problems and
disputes between buyers and sellers.
Seventh, a seller who ticks the checkbox saying they allow order cancellations
can never file or complete an NPB. Why penalize a buyer with an NPB if you allow
any order to be cancelled? This in turn makes NPBs more of a problem and concern
to other sellers because it will give them less notice of buyers who may be potential
problems.
Eighth, written terms are the best way for sellers to make clear to buyers what
they are getting into. Anything that shortcuts that process or makes those
terms less likely to be read will do more harm than good.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | May 21, 2015 18:24 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | I voted no for several reasons.
First, this checkbox idea is overly simplistic because it forces sellers to pidgeonhole
themselves into something that is very often not so black and white. For example,
many sellers will allow order cancellation under some situations but not others.
Which checkbox should be checked for this seller? That he allows cancellations
or that he doesn't allow cancellations? Or are we going to have a long list
of checkboxes describing each particular situation when cancellation will or
will not be allowed? If so, then why have checboxes at all? This can be much
better and more accurately explained in the seller's terms.
I find this checkbox notion very similar (and similarly unworkable for the same
reasons) to the notion to have checkboxes for sellers that charge fees. What
checkbox should be checked for a seller who only charges a $0.50 fee on orders
below $5.00? Orders that account for only 5% of that seller's sales?
Clearly, the matter of OCRs and fees isn't as simple as some would lead you
to believe.
Second, this checkbox idea is just the first step in a process that will culminate
in broadly excluding sellers from the search results if they should wish, under
very limited circumstances, to not cancel an order as per the BrickLink rules
and guidelines. It is overkill, since it would exclude even those sellers who
allow cancellation 90% or more of the time.
Third, checkboxes will be used as yet another crutch, reason or excuse for buyers
to not read seller terms. Why read a page of terms when you think (mistakenly)
that a couple of checkboxes tell you all you need to know about a seller and
their policies? Buyers should be encouraged to read store terms and not to rely
instead on over-simplified misleading checkboxes that forcibly pidgeonhole and
tie the hands of sellers.
Fourth, all-or-nothing checkboxes limit a seller's flexibility to handle
things according to the unique circumstances of each situation.
Fifth, these checkboxes are not necessary. BrickLink's rules already adequately
cover when an order can be canceled. Members should be encouraged to know the
rules rather than relying on crutches and shortcuts that are misleading and overbroad.
Sixth, these all-or-nothing checkboxes will actually create more problems and
disputes between buyers and sellers.
Seventh, a seller who ticks the checkbox saying they allow order cancellations
can never file or complete an NPB. Why penalize a buyer with an NPB if you allow
any order to be cancelled? This in turn makes NPBs more of a problem and concern
to other sellers because it will give them less notice of buyers who may be potential
problems.
Eighth, written terms are the best way for sellers to make clear to buyers what
they are getting into. Anything that shortcuts that process or makes those
terms less likely to be read will do more harm than good.
Thor
|
I wonder how things would go if a seller cannot have the cancelled sales fees
removed unless a NPB was filed?
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 01:32 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | McScrooge | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 01:44 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| I don't like the idea. I accept every wish to cancel an order in my shop.
I have to do it by law and I think it is a good seller behaviour. But I also
think that it is good customer behaviour to only cancel an order for important
reasons. And with this feature I fear that many customers understand that as
a common service and an invitation to place conditional orders to hold back parts
and cancel later because they can get them cheaper elsewhere. And that is not
acceptable in my opinion. I pick my orders before I invoice and more cancel requests
means more work without earnings.
|
|
| | | | | |
 | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 10:38 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Sigh... Does anyone else see what is going on here? First make an innocuous looking
suggestion "to help buyers" and then start excluding from searches anyone who
doesn't tow the same line. This suggestion is just the first step by a few
militant grandstanding "do-gooders" to either make you do things their way
or grab more orders away from you because they can't compete with you on
price, selection or service. It is the classic "liberal" ploy to force you to
do and think like them. Either you do what they say or they take away your business.
Thor
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 10:45 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| If you have something to say about the idea, feel free. If you want to criticise
my motivations and namecall, please stop. We are tired of it, Foster.
--
Marc.
In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | Sigh... Does anyone else see what is going on here? First make an innocuous looking
suggestion "to help buyers" and then start excluding from searches anyone who
doesn't tow the same line. This suggestion is just the first step by a few
militant grandstanding "do-gooders" to either make you do things their way
or grab more orders away from you because they can't compete with you on
price, selection or service. It is the classic "liberal" ploy to force you to
do and think like them. Either you do what they say or they take away your business.
Thor
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | eileenkeeney | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 11:01 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | Some sellers do not allow buyers to back out of a purchase if they change their
mind before payment. Others do (and some are required to do so by law).
Right now, this option is left to each store to describe in their store terms
if they allow it (or not). Usually, it is never mentioned at all, which can cause
some confusion among new buyers.
To help alleviate this confusion, and to help buyers more easily find stores
that have terms that they would like to support, I would like to see this option
be added as a checkbox that sellers can choose (or not) for their store.
This is an extension of the suggestion I posted here: http://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=173897
That suggestion listed a number of such checkboxes that would be useful. I believe
that this option of allowing sellers to state whether they accept cancellations
or not would be just as useful as anything else discussed in that earlier thread.
--
Marc.
|
In concept, having the common elements of the various terms of service pages,
has part of the data model, would be a significant improvement.
But it would not just be check boxes, ideally the allowed fees would be actual
data fields that stored values.
From this the site could come up with a standardized terms of service page.
Searches for buyers would be much easier.
I have done a lot of data modeling, and having a good data model is really key
to a good system. But it is not an easy task.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 11:56 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, eileenkeeney writes:
| | In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | Some sellers do not allow buyers to back out of a purchase if they change their
mind before payment. Others do (and some are required to do so by law).
Right now, this option is left to each store to describe in their store terms
if they allow it (or not). Usually, it is never mentioned at all, which can cause
some confusion among new buyers.
To help alleviate this confusion, and to help buyers more easily find stores
that have terms that they would like to support, I would like to see this option
be added as a checkbox that sellers can choose (or not) for their store.
This is an extension of the suggestion I posted here: http://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=173897
That suggestion listed a number of such checkboxes that would be useful. I believe
that this option of allowing sellers to state whether they accept cancellations
or not would be just as useful as anything else discussed in that earlier thread.
--
Marc.
|
In concept, having the common elements of the various terms of service pages,
has part of the data model, would be a significant improvement.
But it would not just be check boxes, ideally the allowed fees would be actual
data fields that stored values.
From this the site could come up with a standardized terms of service page.
Searches for buyers would be much easier.
I have done a lot of data modeling, and having a good data model is really key
to a good system. But it is not an easy task.
|
Thank you for your feedback. It's good to hear the perspective of a buyer-only.
I agree with your concerns completely, and would love it if a systematic implementation
of terms could happen, with the added subtlety needed as you describe.
--
Marc.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 11:41 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| What I don't understand (or accept) about this suggestion is why something
that happens way less than 1% of the time should be given such grossly inflated
importance to the point where it becomes a way to exclude thousands of good honest
very customer friendly sellers from millions of buyer search results where the
"problem" would never even arise more than 99% of the time. Once again, we see
a "cure" being offered that has far more problems, costs and negative consequences
than the "disease" it purports to fix.
Thor
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 12:17 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | What I don't understand (or accept) about this suggestion is why something
that happens way less than 1% of the time should be given such grossly inflated
importance to the point where it becomes a way to exclude thousands of good honest
very customer friendly sellers
|
It wouldn't. It would allow buyers to be able to filter on criteria that
are important to them. If a buyer feels strongly that they need the right to
cancel, they should be able to filter for that. You admit that this is a rare
situation, so there would be very little impact.
AND, sellers who feel strongly about the issue wouldn't actually want that
rare buyer to place an order with them. It's not the right kind of customer
for them.
Some buyers don't like lot fees. Some buyers don't like smokey parts.
Some buyers don't like feedback withheld. Some buyers don't like shipping
delays. Some buyers don't like refunds for missing penny parts.
I want to standardize all of that. It would better for everyone. Buyers would
find the sellers that meet their needs, and sellers wouldn't get orders from
buyers whose needs they cannot meet.
Yes, for some items checkboxes would be too simplistic. But sliders. Data forms.
Whatever. The exact mechanism isn't key. The standardization is.
--
Marc.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 12:24 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 17 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | Some buyers don't like lot fees. Some buyers don't like smokey parts.
Some buyers don't like feedback withheld. Some buyers don't like shipping
delays. Some buyers don't like refunds for missing penny parts.
|
Some don't like fingerprints on their parts. So a checkbox for glove handling.
Some like each lot in individual bags. So a checkbox for individual bags for
each lot.
Some like boxes rather than jiffy bags. So a checkbox for packaging type.
There will be hundreds of checkboxes and if a seller fails on one of them, they
won't be shown in the search results.
And if a seller ticks any of those boxes, then they have to abide by that in
100% of the transactions. There is no freedom to use common sense. When they
have ticked "each lot in individual bags", and someone orders 100 different lots,
1 part in each lot, they have to use 100 separate bags as that might have been
what brought the buyer to their store.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 12:42 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, mabccc writes:
| | | | Some buyers don't like lot fees. Some buyers don't like smokey parts.
Some buyers don't like feedback withheld. Some buyers don't like shipping
delays. Some buyers don't like refunds for missing penny parts.
|
Some don't like fingerprints on their parts. So a checkbox for glove handling.
|
I've never seen this raised as a concern in the forum nor have I ever seen
it in anyone's store terms.
| | Some like each lot in individual bags. So a checkbox for individual bags
There will be hundreds of checkboxes and if a seller fails on one of them, they
won't be shown in the search results.
|
Not correct. There would be less than hundreds. And it's an issue of "failing"
anything. it's a matter of whether or not a store meets the particular needs
of a buyer. If a buyer absolutely needs their order shipped the next day, they
should be able to filter out stores that are unable to meet that need, if that's
what they want.
--
Marc.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 12:55 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | If a buyer absolutely needs their order shipped the next day, they
should be able to filter out stores that are unable to meet that need, if that's
what they want.
|
Sure, they can filter out the ones that can say they cannot do it 100% of the
time, but that loses them all the sellers that can do it 99% of the time, all
the way down to the ones that will take a month or more. It will also show them
the ones that say they can do it 100% of the time, but in reality can only do
it 50% of the time.
| | | | Some don't like fingerprints on their parts. So a checkbox for glove handling.
|
I've never seen this raised as a concern in the forum nor have I ever seen
it in anyone's store terms.
|
So because you have not seen it, it shouldn't be an option? It's an extreme
example, but there are lots of different services offered by sellers. Why should
only some of them be used to filter?
| | | | Some like each lot in individual bags. So a checkbox for individual bags
There will be hundreds of checkboxes and if a seller fails on one of them, they
won't be shown in the search results.
|
Not correct. There would be less than hundreds.
|
Why less than hundreds? Add up every unique service offered by sellers and I
am sure it will be in the 100s, if not more. Or are only some services worth
showing to buyers, and who decides them? After all, very few terms state that
a seller will guarantee that they will allow all order cancellations with no
penalty. Yet that seems very important to you.
| | And it's an issue of "failing" anything. it's a matter of whether or not a store meets the particular needs
of a buyer.
|
It is failing to meet a filter selected by the buyer. The choice of possible
filters has a huge influence on what the buyer selects.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 13:22 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | And it's an issue of "failing" anything. it's a matter of whether or not a store meets the particular needs of a buyer.
|
And this is a major shortcoming with your suggestion. It does NOT allow buyers
to see ALL stores that meets their needs. On the contrary, it limits and excludes
a lot of stores that can and do meet their needs.
By forcing sellers to make an all-or-nothing choice about something that happens
less than 1% of the time and then presenting that "choice" to buyers as if it
should matter in every order they place, you are exaggerating and preying upon
buyer fears and insecurities and effectively limiting their buying options.
I am sure there are many buyers who will see that checkbox in their search criteria
and think to themselves, sure, why not, let me cancel if I want. But if you tell
them that checking that box means they won't be able to see much better deals
and cheaper prices from sellers who would agree to cancel their order 95% of
the time and I bet most of those buyers will not check that box. Unfortunately,
your checkboxes don't tell this to buyers. Because they are too broad and
over-simplified - misleading in fact.
So, how do we fix this? Do we revise the checkboxes to say a seller will or will
not agree to cancel your order 90% of the time? If so, why do we even need these
boxes?
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 12:54 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, mabccc writes:
| | | | Some buyers don't like lot fees. Some buyers don't like smokey parts.
Some buyers don't like feedback withheld. Some buyers don't like shipping
delays. Some buyers don't like refunds for missing penny parts.
|
Some don't like fingerprints on their parts. So a checkbox for glove handling.
Some like each lot in individual bags. So a checkbox for individual bags for
each lot.
Some like boxes rather than jiffy bags. So a checkbox for packaging type.
There will be hundreds of checkboxes and if a seller fails on one of them, they
won't be shown in the search results.
And if a seller ticks any of those boxes, then they have to abide by that in
100% of the transactions. There is no freedom to use common sense. When they
have ticked "each lot in individual bags", and someone orders 100 different lots,
1 part in each lot, they have to use 100 separate bags as that might have been
what brought the buyer to their store.
|
Mabccc makes a very good point here. Where will all this checkbox madness end?
You could have hundreds or at least dozens of checkboxes to accommodate buyers'
wants, preferences, fears, etc. That certainly won't make things easier or
less confusing. On the contrary, all these different checkboxes will just make
things even more cumbersome and confusing to buyers, as well as making it less
likely they will actually read seller terms. And it will also increase disputes
when, as Mabccc correctly notes, the strict letter of the checkbox is not followed
100% of the time.
Enough already! This is not a "problem" that needs fixing. In fact, it creates
a lot more problems than it purports to resolve.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | therobo | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 14:04 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | What I don't understand (or accept) about this suggestion is why something
that happens way less than 1% of the time should be given such grossly inflated
importance to the point where it becomes a way to exclude thousands of good honest
very customer friendly sellers
|
It wouldn't. It would allow buyers to be able to filter on criteria that
are important to them. If a buyer feels strongly that they need the right to
cancel, they should be able to filter for that. You admit that this is a rare
situation, so there would be very little impact.
|
Why not simply turn you suggested checkbox into a checkbox for *buyers*?
They could check that they wouldn't ask for cancellation and if they don't,
sellers would get the option to stoplist these buyers like they currently can
stoplist buyers with negative FB score.
Than you can choose not to stoplist them and when they find you through a search
they know that you offer the service they want.
Or do you think buyers would complain more about this box, than sellers would
complain about the box *you* suggested?
| |
AND, sellers who feel strongly about the issue wouldn't actually want that
rare buyer to place an order with them. It's not the right kind of customer
for them.
Some buyers don't like lot fees. Some buyers don't like smokey parts.
Some buyers don't like feedback withheld. Some buyers don't like shipping
delays. Some buyers don't like refunds for missing penny parts.
I want to standardize all of that. It would better for everyone. Buyers would
find the sellers that meet their needs, and sellers wouldn't get orders from
buyers whose needs they cannot meet.
Yes, for some items checkboxes would be too simplistic. But sliders. Data forms.
Whatever. The exact mechanism isn't key. The standardization is.
--
Marc.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 14:15 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, therobo writes:
| | In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | What I don't understand (or accept) about this suggestion is why something
that happens way less than 1% of the time should be given such grossly inflated
importance to the point where it becomes a way to exclude thousands of good honest
very customer friendly sellers
|
It wouldn't. It would allow buyers to be able to filter on criteria that
are important to them. If a buyer feels strongly that they need the right to
cancel, they should be able to filter for that. You admit that this is a rare
situation, so there would be very little impact.
|
Why not simply turn you suggested checkbox into a checkbox for *buyers*?
They could check that they wouldn't ask for cancellation and if they don't,
sellers would get the option to stoplist these buyers like they currently can
stoplist buyers with negative FB score.
Than you can choose not to stoplist them and when they find you through a search
they know that you offer the service they want.
Or do you think buyers would complain more about this box, than sellers would
complain about the box *you* suggested?
|
I love this! Thanks Ronald. It made me laugh, but it still makes a good point.
Buyers would not like to be pidgeonholed and excluded the same way sellers would
not like to be pidgeonholed and excluded. BTW, for you non-English speakers,
to be "pidgeonholed" means to be forced into a hole that does not really fit
you.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 14:29 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, therobo writes:
| | In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | What I don't understand (or accept) about this suggestion is why something
that happens way less than 1% of the time should be given such grossly inflated
importance to the point where it becomes a way to exclude thousands of good honest
very customer friendly sellers
|
It wouldn't. It would allow buyers to be able to filter on criteria that
are important to them. If a buyer feels strongly that they need the right to
cancel, they should be able to filter for that. You admit that this is a rare
situation, so there would be very little impact.
|
Why not simply turn you suggested checkbox into a checkbox for *buyers*?
They could check that they wouldn't ask for cancellation and if they don't,
sellers would get the option to stoplist these buyers like they currently can
stoplist buyers with negative FB score.
|
I would have no problem with that. It is identical to my suggestion.
--
Marc.
| | Than you can choose not to stoplist them and when they find you through a search
they know that you offer the service they want.
Or do you think buyers would complain more about this box, than sellers would
complain about the box *you* suggested?
| |
AND, sellers who feel strongly about the issue wouldn't actually want that
rare buyer to place an order with them. It's not the right kind of customer
for them.
Some buyers don't like lot fees. Some buyers don't like smokey parts.
Some buyers don't like feedback withheld. Some buyers don't like shipping
delays. Some buyers don't like refunds for missing penny parts.
I want to standardize all of that. It would better for everyone. Buyers would
find the sellers that meet their needs, and sellers wouldn't get orders from
buyers whose needs they cannot meet.
Yes, for some items checkboxes would be too simplistic. But sliders. Data forms.
Whatever. The exact mechanism isn't key. The standardization is.
--
Marc.
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | eileenkeeney | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 16:26 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | In Suggestions, therobo writes:
|
| | | |
Why not simply turn you suggested checkbox into a checkbox for *buyers*?
They could check that they wouldn't ask for cancellation and if they don't,
sellers would get the option to stoplist these buyers like they currently can
stoplist buyers with negative FB score.
|
I would have no problem with that. It is identical to my suggestion.
|
Not exactly, because once stoplisted one can not change the options on a future
search.
For example,
I may compare my search for stores that accept cancellations with stores that
do not, and I may find the preferable option is the store that does not.
I practice this now when I shop for certain items. I know that Keen will make
returns easy but they charge more for the same shoe as a store that makes returns
more difficult.
I know the trade off. Sometimes I make one choice, sometimes I make the other,
depending on the circumstances.
Sometimes shipping time matters to me, and often it does not. Therefore my searches
would sometimes include this, and other times would not.
So if you go with your stoplist suggestion, it would not allow for a buyer to
care about different conditions for different orders.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 14:37 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | What I don't understand (or accept) about this suggestion is why something
that happens way less than 1% of the time should be given such grossly inflated
importance to the point where it becomes a way to exclude thousands of good honest
very customer friendly sellers
|
It wouldn't. It would allow buyers to be able to filter on criteria that
are important to them. If a buyer feels strongly that they need the right to
cancel, they should be able to filter for that. You admit that this is a rare
situation, so there would be very little impact.
|
No, as I already stated, it would have a HUGE negative impact for both sellers
and buyers. It will exclude from buyer searches and result in less orders to
many good sellers who would otherwise quite likely agree to OCRs, albeit not
every one. It will exclude from searches many sellers when the "problem" does
not even arise more than 99% of the time. And it will prevent buyers from seeing
better deals and cheaper prices that nonetheless meet all their needs from sellers
who will usually (but not always) agree to OCRs.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | renhoffman | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 13:33 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| I vote no. If implimented, I would not allow cancelations, which would certainly
hurt my business, by excluding my store in some searches, even though this is
a BL policy. I have allowed cancelations in the past, and will most likely do
so again in the future.
Darren
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 13:42 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, renhoffman writes:
| | I vote no. If implimented, I would not allow cancelations, which would certainly
hurt my business, by excluding my store in some searches, even though this is
a BL policy. I have allowed cancelations in the past, and will most likely do
so again in the future.
|
Yet these checkboxes would treat you the same way as a seller who NEVER allows
cancellations.
I am the same as you Darren. I will agree to most order cancellations. But I
reserve the right to decline some. Yet these checkboxes will simply tell buyers
I don't allow cancellations. Period. They leave no room for exception, explanation,
qualification or flexibility. More importantly, they will make buyers exclude
me from many searches where the issue won't even arise 99.9% of the time.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | legoman77 | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 13:46 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, renhoffman writes:
| | I vote no. If implimented, I would not allow cancelations, which would certainly
hurt my business, by excluding my store in some searches, even though this is
a BL policy. I have allowed cancelations in the past, and will most likely do
so again in the future.
|
Yet these checkboxes would treat you the same way as a seller who NEVER allows
cancellations.
I am the same as you Darren. I will agree to most order cancellations. But I
reserve the right to decline some. Yet these checkboxes will simply tell buyers
I don't allow cancellations. Period. They leave no room for exception, explanation,
qualification or flexibility. More importantly, they will make buyers exclude
me from many searches where the issue won't even arise 99.9% of the time.
Thor
|
What if the rock breaks.
John P
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 13:49 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, legoman77 writes:
| |
What if the rock breaks.
John P
|
It becomes multiple rocks.
Thor
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | legoman77 | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 13:51 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, legoman77 writes:
| |
What if the rock breaks.
John P
|
It becomes multiple rocks.
Thor
|
How far would the fall be? Were you a little nervous? Who took the picture?
John P
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 14:01 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, legoman77 writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, legoman77 writes:
| |
What if the rock breaks.
John P
|
It becomes multiple rocks.
Thor
|
How far would the fall be? Were you a little nervous? Who took the picture?
John P
|
LOL. OK, now I understand. It wasn't that high. 50 feet or so. And I wasn't
nervous at all. When I was 30 years younger and 60 pounds lighter I used to rock
climb 300 foot cliffs without a rope. Those cliffs were practically in my backyard
where I grew up in the Catskills. My friends and I played around them many times.
We'd sit on the ledge with our legs dangling over the edge. The only thing
that worried me were the bees and wasps that would sometimes make their nests
there. I hate bees! When I was 7 I got stung 54 times by yellow jackets after
I stepped on their nest walking across a field on my way home from school. They
have given me the willies ever since. But heights do not. BTW, my eldest daughter
took the picture. We actually go out on photo safaris sometimes. It is a really
nice way to spend quality time with each other.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | renhoffman | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 13:52 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, legoman77 writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, renhoffman writes:
| | I vote no. If implimented, I would not allow cancelations, which would certainly
hurt my business, by excluding my store in some searches, even though this is
a BL policy. I have allowed cancelations in the past, and will most likely do
so again in the future.
|
Yet these checkboxes would treat you the same way as a seller who NEVER allows
cancellations.
I am the same as you Darren. I will agree to most order cancellations. But I
reserve the right to decline some. Yet these checkboxes will simply tell buyers
I don't allow cancellations. Period. They leave no room for exception, explanation,
qualification or flexibility. More importantly, they will make buyers exclude
me from many searches where the issue won't even arise 99.9% of the time.
Thor
|
What if the rock breaks.
John P
|
Rockers don't break dance...
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | eileenkeeney | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 21:05 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, renhoffman writes:
| | I vote no. If implimented, I would not allow cancelations, which would certainly
hurt my business, by excluding my store in some searches, even though this is
a BL policy. I have allowed cancelations in the past, and will most likely do
so again in the future.
|
Yet these checkboxes would treat you the same way as a seller who NEVER allows
cancellations.
I am the same as you Darren. I will agree to most order cancellations. But I
reserve the right to decline some. Yet these checkboxes will simply tell buyers
I don't allow cancellations. Period. They leave no room for exception, explanation,
qualification or flexibility. More importantly, they will make buyers exclude
me from many searches where the issue won't even arise 99.9% of the time.
Thor
|
This is the one argument against the idea, that I do understand.
There is an in between Always allowing cancellations, and Never allowing
cancellations, that is not easy to represent.
Some sellers Never allow cancellations.
Some sellers Always allow cancellations.
Some sellers sometimes allow cancellations.
If I were a seller I would have conditions upon which I allowed cancellations.
These conditions would be such that they could be represented as data that is
not free text.
But I think having automated checkout really solves the issues associated with
allowing (or not allowing) cancellation.
There are other service elements it does not address.
Standardization of seller terms of service, that could be represented in a data
model, and stored as data, is a good thing.
Exactly what that data model should look like, I am not completely sure of.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 22:33 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, eileenkeeney writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, renhoffman writes:
| | I vote no. If implimented, I would not allow cancelations, which would certainly
hurt my business, by excluding my store in some searches, even though this is
a BL policy. I have allowed cancelations in the past, and will most likely do
so again in the future.
|
Yet these checkboxes would treat you the same way as a seller who NEVER allows
cancellations.
I am the same as you Darren. I will agree to most order cancellations. But I
reserve the right to decline some. Yet these checkboxes will simply tell buyers
I don't allow cancellations. Period. They leave no room for exception, explanation,
qualification or flexibility. More importantly, they will make buyers exclude
me from many searches where the issue won't even arise 99.9% of the time.
Thor
|
This is the one argument against the idea, that I do understand.
There is an in between Always allowing cancellations, and Never allowing
cancellations, that is not easy to represent.
Some sellers Never allow cancellations.
Some sellers Always allow cancellations.
Some sellers sometimes allow cancellations.
If I were a seller I would have conditions upon which I allowed cancellations.
These conditions would be such that they could be represented as data that is
not free text.
|
Is the issue of disputed order cancellation requests such a big or frequent
problem that it warrants implementing confusing coding and procedures for multiple
checkboxes that are likely to be inaccurate and detrimental to both sellers and
buyers? Seriously, why is this such a big problem, especially if BrickLink will
soon adopt an automated immediate checkout system?
I really don't see the need for this suggestion or even the "problem" this
is supposed to resolve. In over 12 years and 10,000 orders received and placed
by me on BrickLink, order cancellation requests have arisen in only a few dozen
of them - far less than 1% of all orders. And most of those requests were either
granted or amicably resolved some other way. Only a handful were disputed. So
why should BrickLink invest time, money and effort to code for multiple checkboxes
for something that only happens maybe once per 1000 orders? And something that
will happen even more rarely when automatic invoicing is implemented. Aren't
there much more important things for BrickLink to concern itself with? REAL problems
that happen much more frequently and fixes for them that don't further confuse
things and cause losses to good sellers and buyers.
As far as I am concerned, the "problem" this suggestion supposedly addresses
is a very minor and infrequent one; whereas the proposed "cure" would cause significant
losses to sellers who are painted with a broad brush and more expenses to buyers
who won't see many better deals that are available to them that still meet
all their needs.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | May 22, 2015 13:59 | | Subject: | Re: Checkboxes to describe sellers (part II) | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, renhoffman writes:
| | I vote no. If implimented, I would not allow cancelations, which would certainly
hurt my business, by excluding my store in some searches, even though this is
a BL policy. I have allowed cancelations in the past, and will most likely do
so again in the future.
Darren
|
but see you would have the choice, the option, while not having your store penalized
by being excluded from searches.
|
|
|
|
|
Canada, Ontario
Denmark
USA, Georgia
Netherlands, Utrecht
United Kingdom, England
Germany, Berlin
New Zealand, Canterbury
