'Approved Seller' Status

[3319comics]

Im fairly new compared to the veterans here. I enjoy the threads, the people, here and more so all the info and wise insight.

 

What if you would limit the amount of slaes threads one can post per sales section? Like one thread in each category? Or maybe have it setup like the VCC all the time. Where people rotate stock as they see fit. Virtual stores. Then you dont have thread after thread popping up?

[drbanner]

Just something that says 'hey, noob, if you're worried about transactions here, start with these guys'.

 

It's a good idea Nick, but tough to practically implement on this board as "we" don't own it. Don't the organization-formerly-known-as-NOD's sales boards have some kind of limitation/restriction like you're talking about? I would think that for these boards, the "start here" list would be really, really long.

 

Perhaps a "beginner's" board for the newbies would be better - anyone can post there from day 1, but to graduate to the regular boards, you need to pass some length of time or total post count hurdle.

[EastEnd]

Nick,

 

I applaud your effort and ideas, but I can't say that I'm in favor of a sub forum or any special designation for any seller.

 

The beauty of the forum sales area is that it evens out all on its own and when there's a problem, the public shaming is intense enough to act as a deterrent.

 

Any success I've had on the sales forum has been largely due to offering books at a low cost. I think offering reasonable returns, trying to grade accurately and being responsive when questions are asked are all fundamental things to being a good seller, if you are consistent in doing these things, your sales threads will generate interest.

 

Whether people are able to move books or not, to me, is not a function of their post count, but rather, what they offer. If you are offering accurately graded books with large scans, guess what, people will buy your books. If you are offering less popular books, the books sit or need to be further reduced in price to entice someone to buy. This is a pretty simple equation.

 

If you handed me a pile of Smurfs, i wouldn't move them any better than anyone else.

 

However, I see a lot of books on here at near or just below full market value. Unless they are early marvels, keys, hard to find books or classics (like Adams stuff) they are going to be more difficult to move.

 

If your books don't move, it isn't because this is some secret club on the boards -- it's a function of either your pricing, grading or material offered or some combination of all of these things.

 

With all that said, I think it's best to keep the Marketplace as easy and open as possible. I think the community does a good job of screening and more committees, regulations and rules are only bound to make it more onerous and complicated rather than free and open.

 

I agree with this entirely. From my standpoint, the marketplace does a pretty good job of identifying poor grading, poor service, shenanigans, etc.. I generally don't spend much time looking at threads or posters with few sales. On the other hand, I spend a lot of time looking at threads/posters that present well and have a lot of sales. By following that, I can't say I've ever had a problem buying or selling on the boards.

[Snake Eyes]

Yet another hat into the ring

 

I agree with Brian's post by and large, and want to keep the marketplace as simple, open, and straightforward as possible. One of the difficulties I have with the proposal is

 

Rule 7 At any point, approved seller status can be removed, but only on a unanimous vote of the committee.

 

The unanimous vote thing will prove to be a problem in the future I think Basically we would be looking at some long standing members who have intertwined personal and business relationships forming this committee. Where that becomes an issue can be seen fairly readily, I think. If I recall correctly, in the recent problems with Frankenstein, some of the long-standing folks (cannot remember whom) really went to bat for someone with a history of multiple issues. Such defense appeared to be based on personal relationships, and I think just about anyone would have difficulty seperating personal feelings from their decision making process. If all it takes is one member to allow someone to retain their standing based on not entirely objective criteria, I feel it will happen more often the folks realize (the whole...I have known him for twenty years and he couldn't possibly be the scoundrel a lesser known boardie is reporting him to be). Similarly, unanimous approval to be placed on the list allows personal grudges/animosity to carry a proportionately greater weight.

 

As attorneys on the boards will likely admit, claiming something is objective and unbiased is very different from the reality of having that (think juries here...voir dires are used not only to strike biased jurors, but also hopefully identify those who would help your case or have characteristics that might lead to decisions favorable to your client). Sorry for the digression [curse of being a psychologist], but from my point of view finding and sustaining an objective committee with standardized guidelines for inclusion in the approved list may just not be feasible.

 

SE

 

 

 

 

[gaz973]

How about starting a list of reputable sellers that can be nominated by those board members that they've dealt with?

 

Any board member could nominate a seller that they've dealt with multiple times and had perfect transactions with every time. The nominator would have to have his name displayed on the list to avoid fake nominations.

 

EXAMPLE

 

Flaming Telepath (nominated by Gaz973 02/06/10)

 

Herald2Galactus (nominated by Capfreak 01/03/13)

 

... and so on.

 

OK, I'm gonna bump this because I think there is a worthwhile thought in it. I think there should be some way to distinguish sellers with an excellent track record from those without. Maybe there could be spme way to log up an accumulation of recommendations?

[VintageComics]

I agree with this entirely. From my standpoint, the marketplace does a pretty good job of identifying poor grading, poor service, shenanigans, etc.. I generally don't spend much time looking at threads or posters with few sales. On the other hand, I spend a lot of time looking at threads/posters that present well and have a lot of sales. By following that, I can't say I've ever had a problem buying or selling on the boards.

 

Every body is making great posts in here.

 

The one problem is that a lot of time is spent dealing with shenanigans after they have already happened. These shenanigans can include poor grading, poor pricing, poor communication skills (thread crashing, poor descriptions, whatever), poor previous service, etc.

 

I think F_T's point is to prevent them from happening in the first place.

 

I think having people hang around for a while on the boards before they can post in the selling forum will weed out those looking for a quick buck to take the money and run, teach them proper forum etiquette and all around eliminate a decent majority of these problems.

 

If it's feasible to do can anyone name a reason not to do it?

 

Any other ideas or measures can be applied above and beyond but does anyone else think that this is a bad idea to start with?

[FlyingDonut]

Will there be a swimsuit component to the judging?

 

God, I hope so. (thumbs u

[GACollectibles]

 

Perhaps a "beginner's" board for the newbies would be better - anyone can post there from day 1, but to graduate to the regular boards, you need to pass some length of time or total post count hurdle.

 

Like a Minor League.

[GACollectibles]

How about starting a list of reputable sellers that can be nominated by those board members that they've dealt with?

 

Any board member could nominate a seller that they've dealt with multiple times and had perfect transactions with every time. The nominator would have to have his name displayed on the list to avoid fake nominations.

 

EXAMPLE

 

Flaming Telepath (nominated by Gaz973 02/06/10)

 

Herald2Galactus (nominated by Capfreak 01/03/13)

 

... and so on.

 

OK, I'm gonna bump this because I think there is a worthwhile thought in it. I think there should be some way to distinguish sellers with an excellent track record from those without. Maybe there could be spme way to log up an accumulation of recommendations?

 

If someone was nominated, then someone disagreed, how would that play out? Besides the usual forum drama I mean.

[Snake Eyes]

So do I have a better idea? Probably not a realistic one... :doh:

 

Personally I like the idea of a rating system...

 

Start one more thread in the Marketplace, down by the Kudos thread. Each entry could be a sellers name, where ratings are provided. This would likely require some boardies to agree to scrub identifiers away (as feedback will be more honest if anonymity can be maintained. Further, we would have to come up with clear and indentifiable scales to rate the sellers (not the nebulous Likert Scales used by Ebay). Just a single number perhaps. I am only spitballing here and giving the first thoughts that come to mind...obviously other criteria would need to be added to the ratings to cover as many potential situations as possible. Also, possibly a larger than 5 point scale would be useful to eliminate restriction of range issues. Anyway, feel free to slam this idea or flesh it out...

 

1. Horrible transaction...I feel a criminal act was perpetrated and would consider looking into options to resolve such through law enforcement/courts.

 

2. Bad transaction...Items were severely undergraded, damaged in shippping through negligence, or seller did not respond to requests to resolve the situation.

 

3. OK transaction...problems existed, but were resolved. Nonetheless, they were to an extent that I would not likely do business with this individual again unless he/she was running a hell of a sale.

 

4. Good transaction...happy with the product and service...room for improvement by perhaps tightening grades or responding quicker to pms. However, I am pleased and will happily buy from them again! (thumbs u

 

5. Ideal transaction...happy with product and service I received. No significant complaints to offer. I would not only buy from this person again, but would suggest them to others (if I wasn't trying to keep the seller a personal secret to supply me books first )

 

SE

[FlyingDonut]

I agree with this entirely. From my standpoint, the marketplace does a pretty good job of identifying poor grading, poor service, shenanigans, etc.. I generally don't spend much time looking at threads or posters with few sales. On the other hand, I spend a lot of time looking at threads/posters that present well and have a lot of sales. By following that, I can't say I've ever had a problem buying or selling on the boards.

 

Every body is making great posts in here.

 

The one problem is that a lot of time is spent dealing with shenanigans after they have already happened. These shenanigans can include poor grading, poor pricing, poor communication skills (thread crashing, poor descriptions, whatever), poor previous service, etc.

 

I think F_T's point is to prevent them from happening in the first place.

 

I think having people hang around for a while on the boards before they can post in the selling forum will weed out those looking for a quick buck to take the money and run, teach them proper forum etiquette and all around eliminate a decent majority of these problems.

 

If it's feasible to do can anyone name a reason not to do it?

 

Any other ideas or measures can be applied above and beyond but does anyone else think that this is a bad idea to start with?

 

I do.

 

Because it artificially creates an "elitism" that I thought we've always tried to get rid of.

 

If I'm getting this wrong, please correct me:

 

Essentially it boils down to these basic problems:

 

1) The rules for the Marketplace aren't being enforced (thread bumping, etc. etc.).

2) There are "Noobs" in the Marketplace who aren't posting anywhere else, and therefore not being part of the "community."

3) There's "rampant overgrading" within the Marketplace.

 

All of this has come up before. All of it. If the rules are enforced, the community will self police.

 

If a seller is terrible, nobody will buy from that seller, and he/she will go away. If a seller is good, people will buy from that seller, and everybody wins. I can think of a couple of people right off the top of my head (ciorac, Bangzoom) who were looked at seriously askance when they first arrived, and are now "upstanding members" of the community. Do we want to be running people off? That's happened before as well, and I don't particularly want to be in a place where I have to be voted in to sell comics - I think that's a little ridiculous.

[comicwiz]

I agree with this entirely. From my standpoint, the marketplace does a pretty good job of identifying poor grading, poor service, shenanigans, etc.. I generally don't spend much time looking at threads or posters with few sales. On the other hand, I spend a lot of time looking at threads/posters that present well and have a lot of sales. By following that, I can't say I've ever had a problem buying or selling on the boards.

 

Every body is making great posts in here.

 

The one problem is that a lot of time is spent dealing with shenanigans after they have already happened. These shenanigans can include poor grading, poor pricing, poor communication skills (thread crashing, poor descriptions, whatever), poor previous service, etc.

 

I think F_T's point is to prevent them from happening in the first place.

 

I think having people hang around for a while on the boards before they can post in the selling forum will weed out those looking for a quick buck to take the money and run, teach them proper forum etiquette and all around eliminate a decent majority of these problems.

 

If it's feasible to do can anyone name a reason not to do it?

 

Any other ideas or measures can be applied above and beyond but does anyone else think that this is a bad idea to start with?

 

From my own observations, the only instances of approval being required before participating in any forum are as follows:

 

a) moderated approval by board admin to participate after sign-up (usually 24-48 hrs)

b) moderated participation after signing-up (wait period of 1 week with read-only priveleges)

 

The main intent behind these two methods are to moderate spam. Where b) backfires is with spam bots signing-up multiple accounts on a daily basis, and going through each account after its been approved like ammunition rounds.

 

This idea of requiring approval to sell in an online marketplace was probably first introduced by eBay, and it was a paid verification process intended to help sellers with zero or low feedback.

 

The idea of putting in place something like what is being suggested here for a forum marketplace is a first, and I fear that much like the eBay system, finds short-lived utility as reputation points need to be earned, not bought.

[gaz973]

How about starting a list of reputable sellers that can be nominated by those board members that they've dealt with?

 

Any board member could nominate a seller that they've dealt with multiple times and had perfect transactions with every time. The nominator would have to have his name displayed on the list to avoid fake nominations.

 

EXAMPLE

 

Flaming Telepath (nominated by Gaz973 02/06/10)

 

Herald2Galactus (nominated by Capfreak 01/03/13)

 

... and so on.

 

OK, I'm gonna bump this because I think there is a worthwhile thought in it. I think there should be some way to distinguish sellers with an excellent track record from those without. Maybe there could be spme way to log up an accumulation of recommendations?

 

If someone was nominated, then someone disagreed, how would that play out? Besides the usual forum drama I mean.

 

I guess it would have to be like the probation list where the problem would have to be stated and a resolution found. Hmm, I guess that does sound like the ususal board drama.

 

I did think of a ratings system but then I guess that people with personal grudges could just kill someones rep.

 

Thinking about it, if there was someone who disagreed with a nomination then that would be just the sort of thing that the list was for. For the boards in general to hear what problems a buyer may have had with a seller and to be informed.

[comicwiz]

How about starting a list of reputable sellers that can be nominated by those board members that they've dealt with?

 

Any board member could nominate a seller that they've dealt with multiple times and had perfect transactions with every time. The nominator would have to have his name displayed on the list to avoid fake nominations.

 

EXAMPLE

 

Flaming Telepath (nominated by Gaz973 02/06/10)

 

Herald2Galactus (nominated by Capfreak 01/03/13)

 

... and so on.

 

OK, I'm gonna bump this because I think there is a worthwhile thought in it. I think there should be some way to distinguish sellers with an excellent track record from those without. Maybe there could be spme way to log up an accumulation of recommendations?

 

The closest think you can get to this idea is using the search string I included in my previous post, and weeding through the results to locate posts of recommendation. Creating a social bookmark or online reference manifest is do-able, but the best way would be to have a numeric tally (much like eBay does) that could link inquiring minds to specific instances for the reader to review at their own leisure.

[GACollectibles]

Damn, when you talk technical like that I find it very sexy. Is that wrong?

[gaz973]

I don't particularly want to be in a place where I have to be voted in to sell comics - I think that's a little ridiculous.

 

I don't think it's about being voted in to sell, I think it's about those who have proven themselves to be good sellers getting recognised as such. Just being a long term board member doesn't mean that member is a good grader or has good customer service. Maybe a system of recommendation can save people from getting burnt when they try out someone new.

[Dale Roberts]

I'm left wondering what the problem is we're trying to solve. The bad sellers usually illuminate themselves quite well - it is only our greed and lust for books that allows the occasional one to prosper. :shrug:

 

I would tend to agree with this.

 

I still think that the sales forum should be only for people who contribute to the community as a whole, not just an ebay alternative. If you don't care anything about the people here, and the things being discussed, then you have no right to benefit from the money available here through sales. Perhaps you should just go to Craig's list.

 

I also think that sellers should be required to offer a full money back guarantee (for ANY reason) or never be allowed to post again. In a community, this should be the minimum acceptable standard.

 

I am always amazed at how quickly the beauty of a few books can sway some members of this board into assuming legitimacy of a seller. It happens over and over again on here. If the deal seems good enough, I guess the temptation is too great for some.

[gaz973]

How about starting a list of reputable sellers that can be nominated by those board members that they've dealt with?

 

Any board member could nominate a seller that they've dealt with multiple times and had perfect transactions with every time. The nominator would have to have his name displayed on the list to avoid fake nominations.

 

EXAMPLE

 

Flaming Telepath (nominated by Gaz973 02/06/10)

 

Herald2Galactus (nominated by Capfreak 01/03/13)

 

... and so on.

 

OK, I'm gonna bump this because I think there is a worthwhile thought in it. I think there should be some way to distinguish sellers with an excellent track record from those without. Maybe there could be spme way to log up an accumulation of recommendations?

 

The closest think you can get to this idea is using the search string I included in my previous post, and weeding through the results to locate posts of recommendation. Creating a social bookmark or online reference manifest is do-able, but the best way would be to have a numeric tally (much like eBay does) that could link inquiring minds to specific instances for the reader to review at their own leisure.

 

I got USB error when I clicked your link.

[JazzMan]

I like the idea of rating more than the kudos thread. I only leave kudos sometimes and the same is reciprocated and will not reflect the quality of transactions but rather the quantity of transactions, meaning that you will get a more of a chance of kudos if you sell a number of books like the massive sales threads cd4ever, foolkiller, and FT's never ending thread last year - but for some of us who sell and buy a couple of books at a time, it's not going to reflect the actual experience, in my opinion.

 

How about those transactions that happen off the sales thread via PM? Those won't be "rateable" in this system.

 

The insurance system that's proposed is nice, however not nearly adequate and will be depleted after the first ill fated transaction, as it's been stated earlier. I think I am of the opinion that some have already stated - if you don't know them, stay away until you do. Will this solve the issue with seller-only board members? No. Frankly, the thread bumping doesn't bother me. In fact, a good deal of bumping occurs in active members' threads by other boardies.

 

That's my 2 cents. Now you can go ahead and ignore me, as usual.

[Flaming_Telepath]

I don't particularly want to be in a place where I have to be voted in to sell comics - I think that's a little ridiculous.

 

Christonaingbike.

 

OK, one last time...

 

 

 

YOU WOULDN'T NEED TO BE VOTED IN TO

 

 

 

BE ABLE TO SELL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!