|
 |
| | | Author: | WoutR  | | Posted: | Jun 15, 2016 15:23 | | Subject: | Price comparison calculation | | Viewed: | 183 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Implemented | |
|
| When shopping using the auto-finder, the result shows a percentage indicating
how much the part is cheaper or more expensive than some unknown average.
Since the exact calculation is unknown, this value is without meaning. We do
not know if it compares to averages sold or offered for sale, nor if those
averages simply take the max/min values of the quantity average. Also, there
are indications that the price calculated when the item condition (used/new)
is set to "all", or if the color is set to "any" that some average between all
those is calculated.
In my opinion, this is VERY misleading.
For example, there are very good reasons why a 30 year old new part is much more
expensive than a used one, or why a MISB set is more expensive than an incomplete
used one, or why a part in a very rare color is more expensive than the same
part in a common color. Comparing these as if they were the same item is wrong.
It will show genuinely valuable items as being overpriced, and common used items
as discounted. This is very unfair to the sellers that bring unique and rare
items to BrickLink. As a buyer, without fair comparison the value shown is meaningless
but that knowledge will be restricted to experienced buyers only. Inexperienced
buyers might feel misguided, cheated and/or scammed. We should not want that.
In making the price comparison the part should be compared to parts that are
actually the same. This means they should have an identical part number (including
version), condition (used/new, complete/incomplete/MISB/etc) and color. The calculation
should also use the quantity average because otherwise the calculation can de
be easily manipulated by listing a single item with a very high price. Finally,
by preference the prices of items sold should be used. Those are a much better
indication of what buyers are actually willing to pay and the actual value of
the item, and also it reduces the effect of items that are priced extremely high
or incorrectly (typing errors, new users testing their store, etc).
Please update the calculation where needed,
and provide a description of the formula in the help files.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | tinesubic | | Posted: | Jun 15, 2016 15:45 | | Subject: | Re: Price comparison calculation | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | Since the exact calculation is unknown, this value is without meaning. We do
not know if it compares to averages sold or offered for sale, nor if those
averages simply take the max/min values of the quantity average. Also, there
are indications that the price calculated when the item condition (used/new)
is set to "all", or if the color is set to "any" that some average between all
those is calculated.
In my opinion, this is VERY misleading.
For example, there are very good reasons why a 30 year old new part is much more
expensive than a used one, or why a MISB set is more expensive than an incomplete
used one, or why a part in a very rare color is more expensive than the same
part in a common color. Comparing these as if they were the same item is wrong.
It will show genuinely valuable items as being overpriced, and common used items
as discounted. This is very unfair to the sellers that bring unique and rare
items to BrickLink. As a buyer, without fair comparison the value shown is meaningless
but that knowledge will be restricted to experienced buyers only. Inexperienced
buyers might feel misguided, cheated and/or scammed. We should not want that.
In making the price comparison the part should be compared to parts that are
actually the same. This means they should have an identical part number (including
version), condition (used/new, complete/incomplete/MISB/etc) and color. The calculation
should also use the quantity average because otherwise the calculation can de
be easily manipulated by listing a single item with a very high price. Finally,
by preference the prices of items sold should be used. Those are a much better
indication of what buyers are actually willing to pay and the actual value of
the item, and also it reduces the effect of items that are priced extremely high
or incorrectly (typing errors, new users testing their store, etc).
|
I've actually already raised a bug with this content and gotten the following
response:
"The way the calculations are being done depends upon the setting selected when
adding an item to your wanted list. If the item is set as new or used, the calculation
will be done as such (not combining the averages of the two). However, if you
add an item to the wanted list using the "any" setting for condition, it WILL
calculate an average of used and new prices."
So it's official that using Any will fudge the calculations.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Jun 15, 2016 15:56 | | Subject: | Re: Price comparison calculation | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, tinesubic writes:
| | | | Since the exact calculation is unknown, this value is without meaning. We do
not know if it compares to averages sold or offered for sale, nor if those
averages simply take the max/min values of the quantity average. Also, there
are indications that the price calculated when the item condition (used/new)
is set to "all", or if the color is set to "any" that some average between all
those is calculated.
In my opinion, this is VERY misleading.
For example, there are very good reasons why a 30 year old new part is much more
expensive than a used one, or why a MISB set is more expensive than an incomplete
used one, or why a part in a very rare color is more expensive than the same
part in a common color. Comparing these as if they were the same item is wrong.
It will show genuinely valuable items as being overpriced, and common used items
as discounted. This is very unfair to the sellers that bring unique and rare
items to BrickLink. As a buyer, without fair comparison the value shown is meaningless
but that knowledge will be restricted to experienced buyers only. Inexperienced
buyers might feel misguided, cheated and/or scammed. We should not want that.
In making the price comparison the part should be compared to parts that are
actually the same. This means they should have an identical part number (including
version), condition (used/new, complete/incomplete/MISB/etc) and color. The calculation
should also use the quantity average because otherwise the calculation can de
be easily manipulated by listing a single item with a very high price. Finally,
by preference the prices of items sold should be used. Those are a much better
indication of what buyers are actually willing to pay and the actual value of
the item, and also it reduces the effect of items that are priced extremely high
or incorrectly (typing errors, new users testing their store, etc).
|
I've actually already raised a bug with this content and gotten the following
response:
"The way the calculations are being done depends upon the setting selected when
adding an item to your wanted list. If the item is set as new or used, the calculation
will be done as such (not combining the averages of the two). However, if you
add an item to the wanted list using the "any" setting for condition, it WILL
calculate an average of used and new prices."
So it's official that using Any will fudge the calculations.
|
In my opinion that is very wrong and misleading.
That is why I made this suggestion to change it.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | BigBBricks | | Posted: | Jun 15, 2016 16:28 | | Subject: | Re: Price comparison calculation | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, WoutR writes:
| | When shopping using the auto-finder, the result shows a percentage indicating
how much the part is cheaper or more expensive than some unknown average.
Since the exact calculation is unknown, this value is without meaning. We do
not know if it compares to averages sold or offered for sale, nor if those
averages simply take the max/min values of the quantity average. Also, there
are indications that the price calculated when the item condition (used/new)
is set to "all", or if the color is set to "any" that some average between all
those is calculated.
In my opinion, this is VERY misleading.
For example, there are very good reasons why a 30 year old new part is much more
expensive than a used one, or why a MISB set is more expensive than an incomplete
used one, or why a part in a very rare color is more expensive than the same
part in a common color. Comparing these as if they were the same item is wrong.
It will show genuinely valuable items as being overpriced, and common used items
as discounted. This is very unfair to the sellers that bring unique and rare
items to BrickLink. As a buyer, without fair comparison the value shown is meaningless
but that knowledge will be restricted to experienced buyers only. Inexperienced
buyers might feel misguided, cheated and/or scammed. We should not want that.
In making the price comparison the part should be compared to parts that are
actually the same. This means they should have an identical part number (including
version), condition (used/new, complete/incomplete/MISB/etc) and color. The calculation
should also use the quantity average because otherwise the calculation can de
be easily manipulated by listing a single item with a very high price. Finally,
by preference the prices of items sold should be used. Those are a much better
indication of what buyers are actually willing to pay and the actual value of
the item, and also it reduces the effect of items that are priced extremely high
or incorrectly (typing errors, new users testing their store, etc).
Please update the calculation where needed,
and provide a description of the formula in the help files.
|
Thank you for filing this. I agree that it is very misleading the way things
are now being calculated after the upgrade. Especially the way Any/All are being
handled as averages, as if they are all apples.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Netherlands, Zuid-Holland
Slovenia
USA, Pennsylvania