A response from a CGC IT! ebay seller!

[Racer-X]

Oh boy… I´m getting some forum heavy weights involved in this and even giving flowers is not cutting it

 

I´ll try to explain it again and will even throw some very rough stats at the end so It could even (hopefully ) sound rational.

 

@Dice X

“t's keyword spamming. Adding words that don't have anything to do with the auction...”

 

Sorry but I just don´t see it that way.

“CGC it” has something to do with a listing of a comic book. That is the reason why I don´t see it as spam.

 

It’s a comic book listing, CGC grades comic books. The book is ungraded, one´s saying to get it graded.

 

If it´s from serious dealer + good grader it might actually be of interest to people who collect CGC books to get that particular one and get it graded.

 

Who am I to decide that a particular listing or book is not CGC worthy or should not be graded?

And who am I to decide what is of interest to people searching on Ebay?

 

Apparently it bothers some people while looking for only CGC graded books.

A very simple solution was given here by Doohickamabob before to avoid it.

 

I´m not saying that it’s the rationale from all sellers, but apparently, the one that responded the OP, had something like that in mind.

 

Is it true that its CGC worthy? It´s irrelevant for the point I am trying to make.

Is the “CGC it” put there for hits? Yes, but It´s irrelevant for the point I am trying to make.

 

Which is: It is not misusing the brand and if you look at it the way I do, its not spamming.

 

 

@ Doohickamabob

I thought I made a very rational analysis of why I think the way I do.

 

In fact, since I have no invested interests in either case, my answer was as unemotional and rational as it comes.

 

You don´t agree with my reasoning and I don´t agree with yours.

 

I did not want to elaborate further because that was the end of the conversation for me but since I´m being called again:

 

A comic book is not an "accessory" to CGC, it's the primary product being sold.

 

This is incorrect.

CGC does not sell books, they sell grades (and graders notes).

“Buy the book, then the grade” is the moto

 

Which brings me to second point, the one with the juice: numerical grades grades in raw books.

 

At the time I searched, there were:

 

15.993 comics had “9.8” in its description

14.304 had “CGC 9.8” in its description

156 had “PGX 9.8” in its description

 

So roughly there were over 1500 comics that were graded 9.8 by neither CGC or PGX

 

Is it true that it’s a 9.8? No, it is not. At that moment its not a 9.8

Is the “9.8 ” put there for hits? Yes.

 

And in just 1 grade (and one of the rarest ones) , I found more books listed than all the combined “CGC it” examples mentioned before by the OP.

 

Is this more concerning? Maybe

Does this clutters a lot more listings than all “CGC it” combined? Yes, just the 9.8 is enough.

 

I am not saying people should go around in these raw 9..8 listings and report them for misuse of a brand standard.

 

But if what happened to the coin market on Ebay, happens also to comics, people here will have a lot more to worry about.

 

Here´s the link or you can "Google it"

http://news.coinupdate.com/ebay-announces-changes-to-listings-policy-for-coins-1322/

 

I´m tired now, I need a nap

 

It's obvious that you are an assnugget and your brain cannot process reason, so I'll let you carry on looking like the tool that you are.

 

 

Way to promote open and honest debate, Dice.

[Dr. Balls]

I give Barbarian some major for being on the other side of the argument. Harold Fuller, take note.

[DiceX]

Oh boy… I´m getting some forum heavy weights involved in this and even giving flowers is not cutting it

 

I´ll try to explain it again and will even throw some very rough stats at the end so It could even (hopefully ) sound rational.

 

@Dice X

“t's keyword spamming. Adding words that don't have anything to do with the auction...”

 

Sorry but I just don´t see it that way.

“CGC it” has something to do with a listing of a comic book. That is the reason why I don´t see it as spam.

 

It’s a comic book listing, CGC grades comic books. The book is ungraded, one´s saying to get it graded.

 

If it´s from serious dealer + good grader it might actually be of interest to people who collect CGC books to get that particular one and get it graded.

 

Who am I to decide that a particular listing or book is not CGC worthy or should not be graded?

And who am I to decide what is of interest to people searching on Ebay?

 

Apparently it bothers some people while looking for only CGC graded books.

A very simple solution was given here by Doohickamabob before to avoid it.

 

I´m not saying that it’s the rationale from all sellers, but apparently, the one that responded the OP, had something like that in mind.

 

Is it true that its CGC worthy? It´s irrelevant for the point I am trying to make.

Is the “CGC it” put there for hits? Yes, but It´s irrelevant for the point I am trying to make.

 

Which is: It is not misusing the brand and if you look at it the way I do, its not spamming.

 

 

@ Doohickamabob

I thought I made a very rational analysis of why I think the way I do.

 

In fact, since I have no invested interests in either case, my answer was as unemotional and rational as it comes.

 

You don´t agree with my reasoning and I don´t agree with yours.

 

I did not want to elaborate further because that was the end of the conversation for me but since I´m being called again:

 

A comic book is not an "accessory" to CGC, it's the primary product being sold.

 

This is incorrect.

CGC does not sell books, they sell grades (and graders notes).

“Buy the book, then the grade” is the moto

 

Which brings me to second point, the one with the juice: numerical grades grades in raw books.

 

At the time I searched, there were:

 

15.993 comics had “9.8” in its description

14.304 had “CGC 9.8” in its description

156 had “PGX 9.8” in its description

 

So roughly there were over 1500 comics that were graded 9.8 by neither CGC or PGX

 

Is it true that it’s a 9.8? No, it is not. At that moment its not a 9.8

Is the “9.8 ” put there for hits? Yes.

 

And in just 1 grade (and one of the rarest ones) , I found more books listed than all the combined “CGC it” examples mentioned before by the OP.

 

Is this more concerning? Maybe

Does this clutters a lot more listings than all “CGC it” combined? Yes, just the 9.8 is enough.

 

I am not saying people should go around in these raw 9..8 listings and report them for misuse of a brand standard.

 

But if what happened to the coin market on Ebay, happens also to comics, people here will have a lot more to worry about.

 

Here´s the link or you can "Google it"

http://news.coinupdate.com/ebay-announces-changes-to-listings-policy-for-coins-1322/

 

I´m tired now, I need a nap

 

It's obvious that you are an assnugget and your brain cannot process reason, so I'll let you carry on looking like the tool that you are.

 

 

Way to promote open and honest debate, Dice.

 

If he had said, "Well I do it because da dada dada..." I would have been ok with it but to say that a booger isn't green because I look at it a different way than you do is insulting my intelligence. He's either stupid or just being obtuse for the sake of being a troll.

I fart in his general direction. How's that for some honest debate?

 

 

[Doohickamabob]

We´ll just have to agree to disagree

Yes, as the disagreement is between those with a rational basis for their position and those with no interest in such.

I know this wasn't directed at me but I disagree with you as well even though I do see some merit to your argument. However, I also have no interest in about it until we're blue in the face. And just b/c somebody doesn't want to do that doesn't mean you have to be a bleep about it.

Sorry to be bleep, but eBay's listing guidelines regarding keyword spamming are straightforward.

[Dr. Balls]

If someone types "cgc" in the search they are looking for something graded by CGC. They are not looking for raw books.

 

I absolutely agree with this. But, I think using 'CGC it!' is a selling tactic, not spam. It's not a misleading statement, it's an annoying one. Saying 'CGC it!' implies the book is either high grade or investment grade - I don't see anything wrong with making that statement.

 

But, with that - as a on-again-off-again seller, I'd never use a term like that, nor would I use a numerical grade on a raw book. Because I don't want to give the wrong idea about the book when people are searching. After reading all of this, I just think It's a matter of professionalism in how you prefer to sell your product.

 

On the flipside, when I'm looking for raw VF/NM books (which I do often) I have never, once typed 'Captain Marvel 25 CGC it' in my search for a potentially high grade book, so I do take a bit of an issue with justifying that 'CGC it' actually works towards sales.

[Doohickamabob]

“CGC it” has something to do with a listing of a comic book. That is the reason why I don´t see it as spam.

Using that reasoning, you could put ANY word with a slight connection to your listed item, no matter what the relevance. I think eBay's policies, which I posted at length, are very clear that a distant possible connection is not adequate as a justification.

 

It’s a comic book listing, CGC grades comic books. The book is ungraded, one´s saying to get it graded.

Yeah, we understand that's the rationale. But the seller's job is not to tell people (or suggest to people) what to do after they potentially purchase an item. The seller's job is to accurately describe the item, period. Offering a suggestion of something they might do after they buy the item is completely outside the responsibility of the seller --ESPECIALLY if that suggestion is a form of keyword spamming. eBay's policies make this clear.

 

Do you dispute that this is eBay's policy? Let me ask you that again: Do you dispute that eBay has a policy against spamming keywords that do not directly describe the item being listed? Let me ask you one more time: Are you actually disputing that eBay's policy is eBay's policy?

 

Now, let me put this another way: Would you be convinced if an eBay representative specifically addressed this situation and definitively affirmed that no, "CGC it" is not within eBay's listing guidelines? Yes or no?

 

If it´s from serious dealer + good grader it might actually be of interest to people who collect CGC books to get that particular one and get it graded.

This is a rationalization. Why rationalize keyword spamming? But let's put this to the test: Let's take a board survey of how many eBay browsers out there, when seeking high-grade books they'd like to eventually submit to CGC, do searches for "CGC it" in hopes of finding high-grade books. Anybody search eBay this way? Bueller? Bueller?

 

If a browser wants to find high-grade books, that person has many options for search terms: "high grade," "near mint," "very fine," "like new," etc. Those would all be better search terms than "CGC it" because, let's be honest, most reputable sellers who are offering high-grade comics do not put "CGC it" in their listings.

 

Your rationalization also fails to acknowledge the net negative of the spam keyword. You say that "CGC it" might help people find high-grade raw books. But what about all the people who are trying to find CGC-graded books who then get search results that are opposite to what they're seeking? Do they not count in your analysis? You claim a benefit while ignoring the obvious flipside.

 

Who am I to decide that a particular listing or book is not CGC worthy or should not be graded?

This question is irrelevant since the judgment of individual books is secondary to the larger question of appropriate listing terms. The primary question is whether "CGC it" violates eBay's listing guidelines and their rules against keyword spamming. It has been well-demonstrated that yes, "CGC it" does violate their guidelines.

 

And who am I to decide what is of interest to people searching on Ebay?

Again, it's not about you, it's about eBay's policies and the logical reasons behind their policies. But I would wager that if you were to do a statistical analysis of individual search patterns, or a survey of what comic-book browsers prefer, you'd discover that a hard majority of people prefer not to be burdened with keyword spamming and other distractions that dilute the effectiveness of their search terms. People searching for "Nike" don't want to get results that say "Adidas not Nike," or "Just like Nike." They want to get results full of actual Nikes.

 

Apparently it bothers some people while looking for only CGC graded books. A very simple solution was given here by Doohickamabob before to avoid it.

Yes, I did give a solution, but it's not necessarily "very simple." It involves having to post a long chain of Booleans in each and every search that a person does. The average person searching on eBay only has a fleeting grasp of Boolean search terms and would have to spend time tinkering around with them to finally weed out all the false positives for CGC searches. Whether or not my solution works, the point is that people shouldn't have to jump through hoops to avoid keyword spamming to begin with. Somebody letting their dog take a dump on your lawn day after day is also easily dealt with by cleaning up the dog-doo, but that doesn't mean there isn't a problem.

 

I´m not saying that it’s the rationale from all sellers, but apparently, the one that responded the OP, had something like that in mind.

Don't you think the rationale for most sellers is for their item to show up even when people aren't searching for it? Just in hopes of getting a few more eyeballs on their stuff and hopefully selling it? That's obviously the rationale. And.....drum roll....that's keyword spamming. Which.....drum roll.....is clearly against eBay policy. Are you really going to dispute that it's keyword spamming, and are you really going to dispute that it's against eBay policy?

 

The idea that a seller puts "CGC it" in his listing title to "help" people find high-graded books is ludicrous. I mean, you reaaaaalllly have to stretch common sense to make a claim that the seller is trying to be helpful. And note that the OP's example demonstrates clearly that the seller wasn't helping people at all, since he had listed a couple hundred raw books with "CGC it" in the title and a significant portion of them weren't even close to high-grade. So your claim that "CGC it" might help people find CGC-worthy books is demonstrably false, if this example is any indication.

 

Is it true that its CGC worthy? It´s irrelevant for the point I am trying to make.

Is the “CGC it” put there for hits? Yes, but It´s irrelevant for the point I am trying to make.

Why is it irrelevant to the point you're trying to make? What point are you trying to make, anyway? You haven't made much of a point at all, other than repeating the same rationalizations in new ways and ignoring the central issue of how "keyword spamming" is defined (quite clearly, and repeatedly, in eBay's seller pages) and what eBay's policy is about it (it's strongly against it).

 

Which is: It is not misusing the brand and if you look at it the way I do, its not spamming.

"If you look at it the way I do" is the problem in this sentence. You haven't given logical reasons for why you look at it the way you do. Mostly what you've stated is that you choose to blatantly ignore the definition of "keyword spamming" and you choose to blatantly ignore the question of what eBay's policy is. How else are you looking at it, if not that way?

 

In fact, since I have no invested interests in either case, my answer was as unemotional and rational as it comes.

Being uninvested in something does not guarantee that one will be rational about it. Sometimes distance from a subject even feeds into someone's ignorance. I'm not "emotional" about the subject but I do have a first-hand knowledge of what a problem it is when you're trying to find something specific and sellers use keyword spam to cheat their way into your search results. It's a net negative because you end up spending 10 minutes to find something would take 5 minutes if people weren't selfishly throwing false positives in your way. If I search for "Superman" I don't want to find a bunch of "Green Lantern" comics, I want to find "Superman." If I search for "CGC" I don't want to find a bunch of raw comics that the seller thinks look nice, I want to find CGC-graded comics. Etc.

 

You don´t agree with my reasoning and I don´t agree with yours.

This symmetry does not mean both viewpoints are equally valid. The comparison point for arguments is determined by the strength of the reasoning within each individual argument. I have directly responded to and rebuted your arguments, while you keep ignoring the basic thrust of mine, which is that (1) "CGC it" falls well within the definition of "keyword spamming", in spite of unsupported rationalizations and flimsy speculation to the contrary, and (2) eBay has a very clear policy against keyword spamming.

 

A comic book is not an "accessory" to CGC, it's the primary product being sold.

This is incorrect. CGC does not sell books, they sell grades (and graders notes). “Buy the book, then the grade” is the moto

You just said "this is incorrect" and then you gave no explanation for why it is incorrect. Your statement that "CGC does not sell books, they sell grades" in no way contradicts my statement that the "comic book....it the primary product being sold" in an eBay listing for a raw comic book.

Which brings me to second point, the one with the juice: numerical grades grades in raw books.

This point has no "juice" because it has absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether or not "CGC it" is keyword spamming that violates eBay's policy. How does the existence of one abusive practice negate the existence of another, unrelated abusive practice?

 

Is it true that it’s a 9.8? ... Does this clutters a lot more listings than all “CGC it” combined? Yes, just the 9.8 is enough.

In what way does this make "CGC it" any less a form of keyword spamming? I'll answer that for you: It doesn't.

 

Now, having said all of that, here are some flowers:

[Racer-X]

 

I fart in his general direction. How's that for some honest debate?

 

 

Honest, yes. Debate, no. And, I guess better than farting directly at him. (BTW, curious...what is your favorite color?)

[Doohickamabob]

and for the slightly less serious:

guess no one feels the need to suggest to people to PGX IT!

Now that is funny.

 

How come when I search for "PGX worthy" I get search results for a bunch of raw comics in poor/fair condition?

 

[Doohickamabob]

take it out of the comic book realm for a minute.

 

"XXXXX Screenplay for Sale!!! Submit it to Time Warner!!! Sony!!!! Disney!!!"

 

"White T-shirt for sale!!!! Could have it altered by Vera Wang!!! Isaac Mizrahi!!!! Michael Kors!!! (famous fashion folks) "

 

Basically you can do anything with an item after you buy it. But to name a specific person or company in your listing on the basis of some hypothetical future premise that thus far has no association to the item being sold, well I think that's what ebay is trying to avoid.

This is spot-on.

[Doohickamabob]

But, I think using 'CGC it!' is a selling tactic, not spam.

It's keyword spam. Sure, it's a "selling tactic," but that is not mutually exclusive to being keyword spam.

 

Keyword spam is specifically defined by eBay -- see my long post quoting numerous eBay policy statements about it.

 

It's not a misleading statement, it's an annoying one.

Even if it's not technically misleading, it still falls under the definition of keyword spamming. If you put "Not an iPod!" in the titles to all your listings, that's not "misleading" either -- but it's still keyword spamming.

 

Saying 'CGC it!' implies the book is either high grade or investment grade - I don't see anything wrong with making that statement.

There are numerous ways to imply that your book is high-grade. One of them is to put "high grade" instead of "CGC it." It's 10 characters instead of 6, so it's not like there's a big advantage in brevity (and eBay extended the number of characters they allow in titles, giving plenty of room). Again, there are numerous ways to state that your item is "high grade" without mentioning the CGC brand. You could put "great condition," "very fine condition," "VF+," "almost near mint!", "beautiful copy," "like new," or all sorts of things that clearly indicate the same meaning without having a downside of being keyword spamming.

 

As for your statement that you "don't see anything wrong" with the use of keyword spamming, I suggest you read through the eBay policies that I posted and tell me why you disagree with them.

 

But, with that - as a on-again-off-again seller, I'd never use a term like that, nor would I use a numerical grade on a raw book. Because I don't want to give the wrong idea about the book when people are searching. After reading all of this, I just think It's a matter of professionalism in how you prefer to sell your product.

The things that count as "professionalism" are often bolstered by strong reasons that go beyond a mere personal preference. I think you actually agree with my (and Dice's, and the OP's, and I imagine the majority of the CGC board denizens) position on this, even if you're being more casual-minded about it.

 

On the flipside, when I'm looking for raw VF/NM books (which I do often) I have never, once typed 'Captain Marvel 25 CGC it' in my search for a potentially high grade book, so I do take a bit of an issue with justifying that 'CGC it' actually works towards sales.

Exactly. There is little justification for putting "CGC it" and then claiming that it has been added with an altruistic intention of "helping" buyers, rather than a selfish intention of circumventing the search process.

[Ryan.]

I give this thread 2 x (thumbs u Who knew there was this much righteous fury over ebay searches?

[Barbarian]

Oh boy… I´m getting some forum heavy weights involved in this and even giving flowers is not cutting it

 

I´ll try to explain it again and will even throw some very rough stats at the end so It could even (hopefully ) sound rational.

 

@Dice X

“t's keyword spamming. Adding words that don't have anything to do with the auction...”

 

Sorry but I just don´t see it that way.

“CGC it” has something to do with a listing of a comic book. That is the reason why I don´t see it as spam.

 

It’s a comic book listing, CGC grades comic books. The book is ungraded, one´s saying to get it graded.

 

If it´s from serious dealer + good grader it might actually be of interest to people who collect CGC books to get that particular one and get it graded.

 

Who am I to decide that a particular listing or book is not CGC worthy or should not be graded?

And who am I to decide what is of interest to people searching on Ebay?

 

Apparently it bothers some people while looking for only CGC graded books.

A very simple solution was given here by Doohickamabob before to avoid it.

 

I´m not saying that it’s the rationale from all sellers, but apparently, the one that responded the OP, had something like that in mind.

 

Is it true that its CGC worthy? It´s irrelevant for the point I am trying to make.

Is the “CGC it” put there for hits? Yes, but It´s irrelevant for the point I am trying to make.

 

Which is: It is not misusing the brand and if you look at it the way I do, it’s not spamming.

 

 

@ Doohickamabob

I thought I made a very rational analysis of why I think the way I do.

 

In fact, since I have no invested interests in either case, my answer was as unemotional and rational as it comes.

 

You don´t agree with my reasoning and I don´t agree with yours.

 

I did not want to elaborate further because that was the end of the conversation for me but since I´m being called again:

 

A comic book is not an "accessory" to CGC, it's the primary product being sold.

 

This is incorrect.

CGC does not sell books, they sell grades (and graders notes).

“Buy the book, then the grade” is the moto

 

Which brings me to second point, the one with the juice: numerical grades grades in raw books.

 

At the time I searched, there were:

 

15.993 comics had “9.8” in its description

14.304 had “CGC 9.8” in its description

156 had “PGX 9.8” in its description

 

So roughly there were over 1500 comics that were graded 9.8 by neither CGC or PGX

 

Is it true that it’s a 9.8? No, it is not. At that moment its not a 9.8

Is the “9.8 ” put there for hits? Yes.

 

And in just 1 grade (and one of the rarest ones) , I found more books listed than all the combined “CGC it” examples mentioned before by the OP.

 

Is this more concerning? Maybe

Does this clutters a lot more listings than all “CGC it” combined? Yes, just the 9.8 is enough.

 

I am not saying people should go around in these raw 9..8 listings and report them for misuse of a brand standard.

 

But if what happened to the coin market on Ebay, happens also to comics, people here will have a lot more to worry about.

 

Here´s the link or you can "Google it"

http://news.coinupdate.com/ebay-announces-changes-to-listings-policy-for-coins-1322/

 

I´m tired now, I need a nap

 

It's obvious that you are an assnugget and your brain cannot process reason, so I'll let you carry on looking like the tool that you are.

 

 

Way to promote open and honest debate, Dice.

 

If he had said, "Well I do it because da dada dada..." I would have been ok with it but to say that a booger isn't green because I look at it a different way than you do is insulting my intelligence. He's either stupid or just being obtuse for the sake of being a troll.

I fart in his general direction. How's that for some honest debate?

 

 

@ DiceX

I was really happy to read from you.

I was like: “Wow, DiceX, almost 30.000 posts is writing to me, he´s even quoting me and he thinks my post is gold!!”

 

But then I goggled what assnugget really meant… and now my feelings hurt.

 

I think I need some tequila shots after this emotional rollercoaster and hope that someday I grow up to be such a rational, reasonable debater as yourself.

 

But please don’t fart in this general direction…

 

Remember that if a butterfly flapping its wings in South America could affect the weather in Texas, the fart from The man from Nantucket, could cause chaos throughout the entire globe.

 

I gave you my reasoning behind my observations and you chose to reject it and start the insult, which is fine with me.I deff wont loose any sleep over it.

 

Plus, since I don´t crave for the attention, I do not troll, never have and never will.

 

As for being obtuse... its a back condition.

 

 

 

@Doohickamabob

I´m not going to repeat myself in what regards the serious points I was making, I´ve written twice about it and I think they are self explanatory.

You see it as spamming, I don’t and I gave you my reasoning for it. I appreciate, the minute deconstruction of my statements you made + the flower, but my original one remains:

We´ll just have to agree to disagree

I would be happy to abide and let this thread derail into the Friday thread tone comments, but honestly, I´m not losing more time discussing the sex of the angels and engaging in purely rhetorical exercises about the meaning of words… mainly because of above mentioned tequila shots waiting .

 

To all and have a great Friday

 

 

[Racer-X]

(thumbs u

[Doohickamabob]

I´m not going to repeat myself in what regards the serious points I was making, I´ve written twice about it and I think they are self explanatory.

You see it as spamming, I don’t and I gave you my reasoning for it.

For the record, you gave some particularly thin reasons and you ignored every detailed point I made in response, as well as ignoring every question I directly asked you. If that's where you want to leave it, that's okay with me, but do not have any illusions about the fact that you have backed down and failed to make your case.

 

One more comment about people who put "CGC it" in their listings. I studiously avoid these sellers and I know a great many other eBayers who do as well. When I see somebody putting "CGC it" in their titles, it is a strong indicator that the seller is either unethical, amateurish, ignorant of eBay policy, inconsiderate, or some combination of the above. A person can reasonably expect a person lacking in those areas to be equally lacking in other realms, such as honesty in grading or in dealing with issues that come up. So when a seller thinks he's being clever by keyword-spamming "CGC it," he's really shooting himself in the foot and preventing many potential sales from experienced buyers.

 

Oh, and happy Friday to all, and sorry for being so serious and long-winded.

[DiceX]

I´m not going to repeat myself in what regards the serious points I was making, I´ve written twice about it and I think they are self explanatory.

You see it as spamming, I don’t and I gave you my reasoning for it.

For the record, you gave some particularly thin reasons and you ignored every detailed point I made in response, as well as ignoring every question I directly asked you. If that's where you want to leave it, that's okay with me, but do not have any illusions about the fact that you have backed down.

 

Don't try to reason. No reason exists there.

 

 

[InvstmntComcSuply]

“CGC it” has something to do with a listing of a comic book. That is the reason why I don´t see it as spam.

Using that reasoning, you could put ANY word with a slight connection to your listed item, no matter what the relevance. I think eBay's policies, which I posted at length, are very clear that a distant possible connection is not adequate as a justification.

 

It’s a comic book listing, CGC grades comic books. The book is ungraded, one´s saying to get it graded.

Yeah, we understand that's the rationale. But the seller's job is not to tell people (or suggest to people) what to do after they potentially purchase an item. The seller's job is to accurately describe the item, period. Offering a suggestion of something they might do after they buy the item is completely outside the responsibility of the seller --ESPECIALLY if that suggestion is a form of keyword spamming. eBay's policies make this clear.

 

Do you dispute that this is eBay's policy? Let me ask you that again: Do you dispute that eBay has a policy against spamming keywords that do not directly describe the item being listed? Let me ask you one more time: Are you actually disputing that eBay's policy is eBay's policy?

 

Now, let me put this another way: Would you be convinced if an eBay representative specifically addressed this situation and definitively affirmed that no, "CGC it" is not within eBay's listing guidelines? Yes or no?

 

If it´s from serious dealer + good grader it might actually be of interest to people who collect CGC books to get that particular one and get it graded.

This is a rationalization. Why rationalize keyword spamming? But let's put this to the test: Let's take a board survey of how many eBay browsers out there, when seeking high-grade books they'd like to eventually submit to CGC, do searches for "CGC it" in hopes of finding high-grade books. Anybody search eBay this way? Bueller? Bueller?

 

If a browser wants to find high-grade books, that person has many options for search terms: "high grade," "near mint," "very fine," "like new," etc. Those would all be better search terms than "CGC it" because, let's be honest, most reputable sellers who are offering high-grade comics do not put "CGC it" in their listings.

 

Your rationalization also fails to acknowledge the net negative of the spam keyword. You say that "CGC it" might help people find high-grade raw books. But what about all the people who are trying to find CGC-graded books who then get search results that are opposite to what they're seeking? Do they not count in your analysis? You claim a benefit while ignoring the obvious flipside.

 

Who am I to decide that a particular listing or book is not CGC worthy or should not be graded?

This question is irrelevant since the judgment of individual books is secondary to the larger question of appropriate listing terms. The primary question is whether "CGC it" violates eBay's listing guidelines and their rules against keyword spamming. It has been well-demonstrated that yes, "CGC it" does violate their guidelines.

 

And who am I to decide what is of interest to people searching on Ebay?

Again, it's not about you, it's about eBay's policies and the logical reasons behind their policies. But I would wager that if you were to do a statistical analysis of individual search patterns, or a survey of what comic-book browsers prefer, you'd discover that a hard majority of people prefer not to be burdened with keyword spamming and other distractions that dilute the effectiveness of their search terms. People searching for "Nike" don't want to get results that say "Adidas not Nike," or "Just like Nike." They want to get results full of actual Nikes.

 

Apparently it bothers some people while looking for only CGC graded books. A very simple solution was given here by Doohickamabob before to avoid it.

Yes, I did give a solution, but it's not necessarily "very simple." It involves having to post a long chain of Booleans in each and every search that a person does. The average person searching on eBay only has a fleeting grasp of Boolean search terms and would have to spend time tinkering around with them to finally weed out all the false positives for CGC searches. Whether or not my solution works, the point is that people shouldn't have to jump through hoops to avoid keyword spamming to begin with. Somebody letting their dog take a dump on your lawn day after day is also easily dealt with by cleaning up the dog-doo, but that doesn't mean there isn't a problem.

 

I´m not saying that it’s the rationale from all sellers, but apparently, the one that responded the OP, had something like that in mind.

Don't you think the rationale for most sellers is for their item to show up even when people aren't searching for it? Just in hopes of getting a few more eyeballs on their stuff and hopefully selling it? That's obviously the rationale. And.....drum roll....that's keyword spamming. Which.....drum roll.....is clearly against eBay policy. Are you really going to dispute that it's keyword spamming, and are you really going to dispute that it's against eBay policy?

 

The idea that a seller puts "CGC it" in his listing title to "help" people find high-graded books is ludicrous. I mean, you reaaaaalllly have to stretch common sense to make a claim that the seller is trying to be helpful. And note that the OP's example demonstrates clearly that the seller wasn't helping people at all, since he had listed a couple hundred raw books with "CGC it" in the title and a significant portion of them weren't even close to high-grade. So your claim that "CGC it" might help people find CGC-worthy books is demonstrably false, if this example is any indication.

 

Is it true that its CGC worthy? It´s irrelevant for the point I am trying to make.

Is the “CGC it” put there for hits? Yes, but It´s irrelevant for the point I am trying to make.

Why is it irrelevant to the point you're trying to make? What point are you trying to make, anyway? You haven't made much of a point at all, other than repeating the same rationalizations in new ways and ignoring the central issue of how "keyword spamming" is defined (quite clearly, and repeatedly, in eBay's seller pages) and what eBay's policy is about it (it's strongly against it).

 

Which is: It is not misusing the brand and if you look at it the way I do, its not spamming.

"If you look at it the way I do" is the problem in this sentence. You haven't given logical reasons for why you look at it the way you do. Mostly what you've stated is that you choose to blatantly ignore the definition of "keyword spamming" and you choose to blatantly ignore the question of what eBay's policy is. How else are you looking at it, if not that way?

 

In fact, since I have no invested interests in either case, my answer was as unemotional and rational as it comes.

Being uninvested in something does not guarantee that one will be rational about it. Sometimes distance from a subject even feeds into someone's ignorance. I'm not "emotional" about the subject but I do have a first-hand knowledge of what a problem it is when you're trying to find something specific and sellers use keyword spam to cheat their way into your search results. It's a net negative because you end up spending 10 minutes to find something would take 5 minutes if people weren't selfishly throwing false positives in your way. If I search for "Superman" I don't want to find a bunch of "Green Lantern" comics, I want to find "Superman." If I search for "CGC" I don't want to find a bunch of raw comics that the seller thinks look nice, I want to find CGC-graded comics. Etc.

 

You don´t agree with my reasoning and I don´t agree with yours.

This symmetry does not mean both viewpoints are equally valid. The comparison point for arguments is determined by the strength of the reasoning within each individual argument. I have directly responded to and rebuted your arguments, while you keep ignoring the basic thrust of mine, which is that (1) "CGC it" falls well within the definition of "keyword spamming", in spite of unsupported rationalizations and flimsy speculation to the contrary, and (2) eBay has a very clear policy against keyword spamming.

 

A comic book is not an "accessory" to CGC, it's the primary product being sold.

This is incorrect. CGC does not sell books, they sell grades (and graders notes). “Buy the book, then the grade” is the moto

You just said "this is incorrect" and then you gave no explanation for why it is incorrect. Your statement that "CGC does not sell books, they sell grades" in no way contradicts my statement that the "comic book....it the primary product being sold" in an eBay listing for a raw comic book.

Which brings me to second point, the one with the juice: numerical grades grades in raw books.

This point has no "juice" because it has absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether or not "CGC it" is keyword spamming that violates eBay's policy. How does the existence of one abusive practice negate the existence of another, unrelated abusive practice?

 

Is it true that it’s a 9.8? ... Does this clutters a lot more listings than all “CGC it” combined? Yes, just the 9.8 is enough.

In what way does this make "CGC it" any less a form of keyword spamming? I'll answer that for you: It doesn't.

 

Now, having said all of that, here are some flowers:

 

I was having to scroll left to right to read the thread, so when I got to this one, I thought RMA surely must be posting again.

[Doohickamabob]

I was having to scroll left to right to read the thread, so when I got to this one, I thought RMA surely must be posting again.

RMA and I have one thing in common: obsessive-compulsive responding.

[Define999]

Oh boy… I´m getting some forum heavy weights involved in this and even giving flowers is not cutting it

 

I´ll try to explain it again and will even throw some very rough stats at the end so It could even (hopefully ) sound rational.

 

@Dice X

“t's keyword spamming. Adding words that don't have anything to do with the auction...”

 

Sorry but I just don´t see it that way.

“CGC it” has something to do with a listing of a comic book. That is the reason why I don´t see it as spam.

 

It’s a comic book listing, CGC grades comic books. The book is ungraded, one´s saying to get it graded.

 

If it´s from serious dealer + good grader it might actually be of interest to people who collect CGC books to get that particular one and get it graded.

 

Who am I to decide that a particular listing or book is not CGC worthy or should not be graded?

And who am I to decide what is of interest to people searching on Ebay?

 

Apparently it bothers some people while looking for only CGC graded books.

A very simple solution was given here by Doohickamabob before to avoid it.

 

I´m not saying that it’s the rationale from all sellers, but apparently, the one that responded the OP, had something like that in mind.

 

Is it true that its CGC worthy? It´s irrelevant for the point I am trying to make.

Is the “CGC it” put there for hits? Yes, but It´s irrelevant for the point I am trying to make.

 

Which is: It is not misusing the brand and if you look at it the way I do, its not spamming.

 

 

@ Doohickamabob

I thought I made a very rational analysis of why I think the way I do.

 

In fact, since I have no invested interests in either case, my answer was as unemotional and rational as it comes.

 

You don´t agree with my reasoning and I don´t agree with yours.

 

I did not want to elaborate further because that was the end of the conversation for me but since I´m being called again:

 

A comic book is not an "accessory" to CGC, it's the primary product being sold.

 

This is incorrect.

CGC does not sell books, they sell grades (and graders notes).

“Buy the book, then the grade” is the moto

 

Which brings me to second point, the one with the juice: numerical grades grades in raw books.

 

At the time I searched, there were:

 

15.993 comics had “9.8” in its description

14.304 had “CGC 9.8” in its description

156 had “PGX 9.8” in its description

 

So roughly there were over 1500 comics that were graded 9.8 by neither CGC or PGX

 

Is it true that it’s a 9.8? No, it is not. At that moment its not a 9.8

Is the “9.8 ” put there for hits? Yes.

 

And in just 1 grade (and one of the rarest ones) , I found more books listed than all the combined “CGC it” examples mentioned before by the OP.

 

Is this more concerning? Maybe

Does this clutters a lot more listings than all “CGC it” combined? Yes, just the 9.8 is enough.

 

I am not saying people should go around in these raw 9..8 listings and report them for misuse of a brand standard.

 

But if what happened to the coin market on Ebay, happens also to comics, people here will have a lot more to worry about.

 

Here´s the link or you can "Google it"

http://news.coinupdate.com/ebay-announces-changes-to-listings-policy-for-coins-1322/

 

I´m tired now, I need a nap

 

It's obvious that you are an assnugget and your brain cannot process reason, so I'll let you carry on looking like the tool that you are.

 

 

Way to promote open and honest debate, Dice.

 

If he had said, "Well I do it because da dada dada..." I would have been ok with it but to say that a booger isn't green because I look at it a different way than you do is insulting my intelligence. He's either stupid or just being obtuse for the sake of being a troll.

I fart in his general direction. How's that for some honest debate?

 

 

 

Whether you agree with Barbarian or not I have to fall in line with RacerX on this one…. Its not conducive to civil debate to blatantly call people names because you don’t agree with their position.

 

Oh wait… a second… Do the forums have a elitist slant? Maybe? Does having thousands of posts give you the right to talk about so called “noobs” just cuz the post counts are low? Speaking as a low post count "noob" it sure seems that way sometimes……

 

Either way you slice it, I have always felt like people here purposefully bait arguments to futher degrade threads into mindless Spoon talking…. My

 

[Ryan.]

Whether you agree with Barbarian or not I have to fall in line with RacerX on this one…. Its not conducive to civil debate to blatantly call people names because you don’t agree with their position.

 

Oh wait… a second… Do the forums have a elitist slant? Maybe? Does having thousands of posts give you the right to talk about so called “noobs” just cuz the post counts are low? Speaking as a low post count "noob" it sure seems that way sometimes……

 

Either way you slice it, I have always felt like people here purposefully bait arguments to futher degrade threads into mindless Spoon talking…. My

 

I think it's pretty simple, actually. Whosoever gets all angry and fist-shaky and insulting is generally the person that lost the argument. I personally don't use the "CGC it" noise in my listings but I also don't really care that they exist. Just doesn't seem all that meaningful either way. But to start insulting someone because they don't agree with you is to be awfully thin-skinned.

[DiceX]

Oh boy… I´m getting some forum heavy weights involved in this and even giving flowers is not cutting it

 

I´ll try to explain it again and will even throw some very rough stats at the end so It could even (hopefully ) sound rational.

 

@Dice X

“t's keyword spamming. Adding words that don't have anything to do with the auction...”

 

Sorry but I just don´t see it that way.

“CGC it” has something to do with a listing of a comic book. That is the reason why I don´t see it as spam.

 

It’s a comic book listing, CGC grades comic books. The book is ungraded, one´s saying to get it graded.

 

If it´s from serious dealer + good grader it might actually be of interest to people who collect CGC books to get that particular one and get it graded.

 

Who am I to decide that a particular listing or book is not CGC worthy or should not be graded?

And who am I to decide what is of interest to people searching on Ebay?

 

Apparently it bothers some people while looking for only CGC graded books.

A very simple solution was given here by Doohickamabob before to avoid it.

 

I´m not saying that it’s the rationale from all sellers, but apparently, the one that responded the OP, had something like that in mind.

 

Is it true that its CGC worthy? It´s irrelevant for the point I am trying to make.

Is the “CGC it” put there for hits? Yes, but It´s irrelevant for the point I am trying to make.

 

Which is: It is not misusing the brand and if you look at it the way I do, its not spamming.

 

 

@ Doohickamabob

I thought I made a very rational analysis of why I think the way I do.

 

In fact, since I have no invested interests in either case, my answer was as unemotional and rational as it comes.

 

You don´t agree with my reasoning and I don´t agree with yours.

 

I did not want to elaborate further because that was the end of the conversation for me but since I´m being called again:

 

A comic book is not an "accessory" to CGC, it's the primary product being sold.

 

This is incorrect.

CGC does not sell books, they sell grades (and graders notes).

“Buy the book, then the grade” is the moto

 

Which brings me to second point, the one with the juice: numerical grades grades in raw books.

 

At the time I searched, there were:

 

15.993 comics had “9.8” in its description

14.304 had “CGC 9.8” in its description

156 had “PGX 9.8” in its description

 

So roughly there were over 1500 comics that were graded 9.8 by neither CGC or PGX

 

Is it true that it’s a 9.8? No, it is not. At that moment its not a 9.8

Is the “9.8 ” put there for hits? Yes.

 

And in just 1 grade (and one of the rarest ones) , I found more books listed than all the combined “CGC it” examples mentioned before by the OP.

 

Is this more concerning? Maybe

Does this clutters a lot more listings than all “CGC it” combined? Yes, just the 9.8 is enough.

 

I am not saying people should go around in these raw 9..8 listings and report them for misuse of a brand standard.

 

But if what happened to the coin market on Ebay, happens also to comics, people here will have a lot more to worry about.

 

Here´s the link or you can "Google it"

http://news.coinupdate.com/ebay-announces-changes-to-listings-policy-for-coins-1322/

 

I´m tired now, I need a nap

 

It's obvious that you are an assnugget and your brain cannot process reason, so I'll let you carry on looking like the tool that you are.

 

 

Way to promote open and honest debate, Dice.

 

If he had said, "Well I do it because da dada dada..." I would have been ok with it but to say that a booger isn't green because I look at it a different way than you do is insulting my intelligence. He's either stupid or just being obtuse for the sake of being a troll.

I fart in his general direction. How's that for some honest debate?

 

 

 

Whether you agree with Barbarian or not I have to fall in line with RacerX on this one…. Its not conducive to civil debate to blatantly call people names because you don’t agree with their position.

 

Oh wait… a second… Do the forums have a elitist slant? Maybe? Does having thousands of posts give you the right to talk about so called “noobs” just cuz the post counts are low? Speaking as a low post count "noob" it sure seems that way sometimes……

 

Either way you slice it, I have always felt like people here purposefully bait arguments to futher degrade threads into mindless Spoon talking…. My

 

I didn't call him names because of his post count. I called him names because he's a .

Wait...Did I even call him a name? Maybe. I dunno. Either way, it had nothing to do with post count.