I'LL TAKE IT!!!

[Bosco685]

In that case it would obvious that you need to post the "takeit" in the thread to complete the transaction.

Now that I agree with completely!

[inconceivable]

I'd agree with you if there were not so many conditional variations of .

Does per PM take precedence over a ?

Does per BC scan take precedence over a ?

For such a simple concept it can get confusing.

 

I just LOVE those ones, like:

 

pending scan, page quality, label number, cut, color, cover gloss, and the ability of my wallet to handle the $$$.

 

I am going to have to use that one day.

 

Dan

[VintageComics]

I'm confused by the myriad variations of "I'll take it!" stipulations in the Sales Forums these days.

 

Not that confusing if you follow the fun of the probation thread over the past year alone. Folks are having short-term memory loss if they committed to a sale or not.

 

That was why when we discussed it in the probation thread, this was brought up as one of the potential motivators (and agent of confusion for some sellers what approach to take).

 

I read the Probation thread all the time.

 

I've bought books via PM. I've sold books via PM. I still don't understand why a public "I'll take it" is more of a commitment.

 

It's not more of a commitment.

 

Unfortunately, if a seller has that particular rule written into his rules then the buck stops at the person who best fulfills the rules. For example, if the seller states trumps PMs then that is the law in that thread.

 

I'll personally put a book on hold if someone wants me to, so that I can give them time to discuss the terms or ask questions about the book. I'd much prefer doing it that way than forcing someone's hand into an impulse buy on a book they may not want.

 

Contrary to JC, I doubt it affects how well a sales thread performs at all. Sales are directly related to price point and demand. Nothing more.

 

What kind of bothers me (well, not really bothers me but I can't think of a better word right now) is that it has generally become agreed, subliminally and collectively, that the on the thread trumps everything else when in fact that is not the case unless it's clearly stated.

 

 

[VintageComics]

I'd agree with you if there were not so many conditional variations of .

Does per PM take precedence over a ?

Does per BC scan take precedence over a ?

For such a simple concept it can get confusing.

 

I just LOVE those ones, like:

 

pending scan, page quality, label number, cut, color, cover gloss, and the ability of my wallet to handle the $$$.

 

Some sellers are ok conditional if they can't supply a pic or info at the time and have stated so in their sales threads.

 

[Green]

I'm confused by the myriad variations of "I'll take it!" stipulations in the Sales Forums these days.

 

Not that confusing if you follow the fun of the probation thread over the past year alone. Folks are having short-term memory loss if they committed to a sale or not.

 

That was why when we discussed it in the probation thread, this was brought up as one of the potential motivators (and agent of confusion for some sellers what approach to take).

 

I read the Probation thread all the time.

 

I've bought books via PM. I've sold books via PM. I still don't understand why a public "I'll take it" is more of a commitment.

Baffling to me as well. Even more surprising was the split on this poll

Given the guidelines:

 

- First gets it and trumps any and all PM's.

 

Would you consider the following to be a sale? It is a PM but the rules dont specify where the has to be placed.

 

 

i did not go back and place the :takeit:s in all the different threads but i certainly had considered it a sale.

 

Just for arguments sake who would consider this a sale?

 

 

IMO seller says "SOLD!" those books are in fact sold and not available to be 'bought out from under me' (sellers words, not mine)

[HolidayHam]

I'm confused by the myriad variations of "I'll take it!" stipulations in the Sales Forums these days. Some sellers feel that the first unconditional "I'll take it!" secures the item, while others require "I'll take it!" to be posted within the body of the sales thread in order for a sale to be valid, even if a buyer has already committed unconditionally to buy the item via PM. In such cases, an earlier timestamped "I'll take it!" via is superceded by a later timestamped "I'll take it!" in the body of the thread.

 

Every seller has the right to set their own rules, but I'm curious about the sellers who feel the sale must be public to be considered valid. Why is a later "I'll take it!" in a sales thread more valid than an earlier "I'll take it!" in a PM?

 

....What does it mean to you? Discuss.

[Bosco685]

What kind of bothers me (well, not really bothers me but I can't think of a better word right now) is that it has generally become agreed, subliminally and collectively, that the on the thread trumps everything else when in fact that is not the case unless it's clearly stated.

 

I don't know, Roy. I've seen sellers have someone post in their thread, and they will come back and apologize that the book has sold via PM. They just didn't get a chance to update the item yet.

 

Do you mean if they have the sales rule clearly outlined that trumps everything else, and then they are coming back later to tell folks sorry - it sold via PM?

[joe_collector]

Contrary to JC, I doubt it affects how well a sales thread performs at all. Sales are directly related to price point and demand. Nothing more.

 

Contrary to what you may believe it can have a serious effect on buying.

 

In one thread, a few were posted and the seller replied that those "were already sold via PM" and some wondered if he might have had seller's remorse and his sales dried up right after that.

 

Tick off in-thread, full-price buyers at your peril.

[Bosco685]

IMO seller says "SOLD!" those books are in fact sold and not available to be 'bought out from under me' (sellers words, not mine)

 

After all the discussions today on this topic, and finding out more details, my opinion on the situation still stands:

 

1. Green could have either posted the TAKES IT's or asked Bio to mark them as sold.

 

2. Bio-Rupp could have either marked the books as sold or when the second buyer posted TAKE IT's, he could have stated there was a pending deal and he was just trying to confirm with the buyer.

 

I like both you guys, so please don't think I'm taking sides. I just see that as the scenarios that could have occurred now that more of the details have been provided.

[VintageComics]

What kind of bothers me (well, not really bothers me but I can't think of a better word right now) is that it has generally become agreed, subliminally and collectively, that the on the thread trumps everything else when in fact that is not the case unless it's clearly stated.

 

I don't know, Roy. I've seen sellers have someone post in their thread, and they will come back and apologize that the book has sold via PM. They just didn't get a chance to update the item yet.

 

Do you mean if they have the sales rule clearly outlined that on the thread trumps everything else, and then they are coming back later to tell folks sorry - it sold via PM?

 

More or less, yes.

 

I just added what's in bold to clarify what I think you and I both mean.

 

If the rules clearly state and on the thread trumps anything else then that is the rule.

 

What I was complaining about is that people assume this is the way it always is, and that is not the case.

 

It's up to a seller to manage their thread.

 

 

[Green]

IMO seller says "SOLD!" those books are in fact sold and not available to be 'bought out from under me' (sellers words, not mine)

 

After all the discussions today on this topic, and finding out more details, my opinion on the situation still stands:

 

1. Green could have either posted the TAKES IT's or asked Bio to mark them as sold.

 

2. Bio-Rupp could have either marked the books as sold or when the second buyer posted TAKE IT's, he could have stated there was a pending deal and he was just trying to confirm with the buyer.

 

I like both you guys, so please don't think I'm taking sides. I just see that as the scenarios that could have occurred now that more of the details have been provided.

Your opinion doesnt bother me at all. Youre still an a-okay dork in my book.

[Bosco685]

It's up to a seller to manage their thread.

 

[VintageComics]

Contrary to JC, I doubt it affects how well a sales thread performs at all. Sales are directly related to price point and demand. Nothing more.

 

Contrary to what you may believe it can have a serious effect on buying.

 

In one thread, a few were posted and the seller replied that those "were already sold via PM" and some wondered if he might have had seller's remorse and his sales dried up right after that.

 

Tick off in-thread, full-price buyers at your peril.

 

Yeah, but that's not because they sold privately. It's because the seller managed the thread poorly and didn't mark them as sold in time...

 

...or maybe those possible buyers could actually read the sellers mind and know his intent. I know some of you can do that.

 

[Bosco685]

Youre still an a-okay dork in my book.

 

 

[DR.X]

Youre still an a-okay dork in my book.

 

 

 

Also.

 

WTF did I just take. Is it another beer.

 

DR.X

[joe_collector]

Yeah, but that's not because they sold privately. It's because the seller managed the thread poorly and didn't mark them as sold in time...

 

Huh? If a PM comes in at 9:00 and is read by a seller at 9:01, a BIN hits at 9:02 and the seller replies back to the PM at 9:03, how could anyone be expected to follow that action.

 

That's one reason why high volume, ultra-popular sellers take the " in the thread rules!" angle. There's no question whose book it is and no potential for fighting.

[VintageComics]

It's up to a seller to manage their thread.

 

 

(thumbs u

 

I think that a little more communication regarding the structuring of sales threads would be worthwhile.

 

We had this discussion a few years ago and people really took charge in setting up the rules ahead of posting books for sale.

 

With the influx of nQQbs that stuff has slipped by the wayside with people just assuming that an on the thread wins the battle without actually stating it.

 

 

[VintageComics]

Yeah, but that's not because they sold privately. It's because the seller managed the thread poorly and didn't mark them as sold in time...

 

Huh? If a PM comes in at 9:00 and is read by a seller at 9:01, a BIN hits at 9:02 and the seller replies back to the PM at 9:03, how could anyone be expected to follow that action.

 

That's one reason why high volume, ultra-popular sellers take the " in the thread rules!" angle. There's no question whose book it is and no potential for fighting.

 

It's no different than a person buying something over the phone will someone goes to search the actual shelf for an in store customer.

 

It's just real life. Sometimes somebody has to lose.

 

Let's not try to squeeze some drama from it or make it out to be any more than what it is...an out of stock item.

 

[Comicopolis]

Just remember, sold doesn't always mean sold.

 

 

[hulksmashdave]

:takeit: