A response from a CGC IT! ebay seller!

[DiceX]

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.

 

Yeah. That's me. Thin skinned.

 

 

[Doohickamabob]

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.

Yeah. That's me. Thin skinned.

Dice X is just a wittle baby. Wittle baby want to suckle Gina Carano? Awww.

[hockey&comicsguy]

Dice X is just a wittle baby. Wittle baby want to suckle Gina Carano? Awww.

 

 

Would it change anything if instead of using "CGC it" in the thread title the phrase "CGC worthy???" were used?

 

I've seen examples of this used with sports cards where people will put PSA? at the end of the thread title.

 

I suppose you'll view it as keyword spamming regardless simply b/c the "CGC" portion still exists. Just curious if phrasing it as a question alters the perception at all, if not the intent to drive hits.

 

[hockey&comicsguy]

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

 

 

I don't think this goes for everyone. A vast majority? Probably.

 

I for one like to buy raw but b/c of the way people have been phrasing their listings for years I've typed "CGC" in fully expecting it to help me find raw books of the higher quality I am looking for. So I'm not necessarily looking for a graded book every time.

I do the same with "PSA". It does help point me to raw cards that I am looking for. Although there are numerous other phrases that would likely provide the same result.

 

I've typed in "high grade" and "vf" and "nm", etc... just like everyone else has but oftentimes i'll use "cgc" b/c it seems to give me a more limited search. That may seem counter intuitive at first blush but despite my geekier habits, one of my least favorite things is sifting through 45 pages of ebay all the time as my rear end starts to resemble a secretary's arse.

[Ryan.]

Would it change anything if...

 

NO! I'm right, you're wrong and I HATE you! Wait, what are we talking about again?

[Doohickamabob]

Would it change anything if instead of using "CGC it" in the thread title the phrase "CGC worthy???" were used?

I can't see why it would make a difference, can you? It's still a reference to something that the seller is not selling. I think the eBay guidelines on keyword spamming are very clear. Did you read what I extensively quoted on page 2 or 3 of this thread?

 

I've seen examples of this used with sports cards where people will put PSA? at the end of the thread title.

The eBay examples of keyword spamming contain references exactly like this. I am not surprised that it's a problem in realms other than comic books.

 

I suppose you'll view it as keyword spamming regardless simply b/c the "CGC" portion still exists. Just curious if phrasing it as a question alters the perception at all, if not the intent to drive hits.

It's not so much a question of whether *I* view it as keyword spamming; it's a question of whether eBay does. The eBay guidelines are very clear about this stuff. Phrasing it as a question or using other work-arounds to justify it do not make it any less "keyword spamming" because the seller is still inserting a term that is completely different from what is being sold. Also, I think you would have to agree that the seller's INTENT is the same: To get his item to show up in search results when people search for something different from what he is selling.

[Doohickamabob]

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

I don't think this goes for everyone. A vast majority? Probably.

Okay, so 99%...

 

I for one like to buy raw but b/c of the way people have been phrasing their listings for years I've typed "CGC" in fully expecting it to help me find raw books of the higher quality I am looking for. So I'm not necessarily looking for a graded book every time.

I do the same with "PSA". It does help point me to raw cards that I am looking for. Although there are numerous other phrases that would likely provide the same result.

So basically, due to mass abuse of the search terms (i.e. keyword spamming), you've adapted some of your search habits, some of the time. But you would also have to acknowledge the flipside: If you've found a way to use the CGC keyword-spamming as a search method, you also have to admit that there is a severe negative downside for most searchers who do not use this method.

 

Keep in mind that when you type "CGC" with the intention of getting non-CGC listings, the ONLY results you'll get are those of unethical sellers who have no problem with using keyword spamming to manipulate search results. What you WON'T be getting in those results are the ethical sellers who actually respect the eBay listing guidelines and have enough confidence in their merchandise that they don't have to use sleazy tactics. In other words, you're actually WEEDING OUT the best sellers.

 

I've typed in "high grade" and "vf" and "nm", etc... just like everyone else has but oftentimes i'll use "cgc" b/c it seems to give me a more limited search. That may seem counter intuitive at first blush but despite my geekier habits, one of my least favorite things is sifting through 45 pages of ebay all the time as my rear end starts to resemble a secretary's arse.

Personally, I search for the books I want, not the grade I want. If I want a high-grade Crime SuspenStories #22, I search for Crime SuspenStories #22, then look at those listings. I don't type "high grade" and then hope that some of the books that show up happen to be Crime SuspenStories #22. I honestly don't think anybody is helped at all when non-CGC books are listed with CGC in the title.

 

I highlighted your sentence about sifting through 45 pages because your statement is EXACTLY the reason keyword spamming is wrong.

[hockey&comicsguy]

Okay, so 99%...

 

No disagreement from me. Just pointing out that it isn't "everybody.

 

So basically, due to mass abuse of the search terms (i.e. keyword spamming), you've adapted some of your search habits, some of the time. But you would also have to acknowledge the flipside: If you've found a way to use the CGC keyword-spamming as a search method, you also have to admit that there is a severe negative downside for most searchers who do not use this method.

 

I do.

 

 

Keep in mind that when you type "CGC" with the intention of getting non-CGC listings, the ONLY results you'll get are those of unethical sellers who have no problem with using keyword spamming to manipulate search results. What you WON'T be getting in those results are the ethical sellers who actually respect the eBay listing guidelines and have enough confidence in their merchandise that they don't have to use sleazy tactics. In other words, you're actually WEEDING OUT the best sellers.

I'm not sure I would go so far as to dub keyword spamming as unethical. Technically perhaps. But there are many levels to that. I wouldn't use that term to associate a keyword spammer with someone like Danny D whom I would consider unethical.

 

Personally, I search for the books I want, not the grade I want.

 

 

The vast majority of my searches are the same as yours. I collect very specific books most of the time.

 

 

 

I highlighted your sentence about sifting through 45 pages because your statement is EXACTLY the reason keyword spamming is wrong.

 

I find sometimes that it gives me better search results. Your mileage may vary. (thumbs u

[hockey&comicsguy]

It's not so much a question of whether *I* view it as keyword spamming; it's a question of whether eBay does.

 

Apparently not. Or at least there's not very much bite to the policy.

 

The eBay guidelines are very clear about this stuff. Phrasing it as a question or using other work-arounds to justify it do not make it any less "keyword spamming" because the seller is still inserting a term that is completely different from what is being sold.

 

I agree with you that no matter how it's phrased it's keyword spamming. I disagree however with the bolded part. Keyword spamming does not mean someone is selling something "completely different" in the sense that you advertise that you're selling tires and instead the item is a football. The phrase "cgc worthy?" for example is a question. And where it is definitely keyword spamming, it's not a descriptive statement of the item being sold. I suppose i'm splitting hairs here.

 

Also, I think you would have to agree that the seller's INTENT is the same: To get his item to show up in search results when people search for something different from what he is selling.

 

Yes, I agree. I believe I alluded to such.

[Doohickamabob]

I'm not sure I would go so far as to dub keyword spamming as unethical. Technically perhaps. But there are many levels to that. I wouldn't use that term to associate a keyword spammer with someone like Danny D whom I would consider unethical.

It's small-scale compared to other things, but it still gives a little glimpse into the mindset of the seller. If a seller is OK with using a dishonest practice to manipulate search results, then there's more of a chance the seller will also be OK with omitting reference to a flaw or something that looks like restoration.

 

My experience has supported this theory: The sellers I've bought from who use straightforward, clear listing practices have usually tended to be the ones whose items arrive in the condition described, and the sellers I've bought from whose listing practices are a little "off" have also tended to be the ones whose items have had problems.

 

As a result, I tend to avoid sellers who do not come across as straightforward in their listings, or who are lax about following eBay guidelines. It's a little red flag that says their item might be more trouble than it's worth. This isn't just about "CGC it" but about all sorts of questionable listing practices.

 

Oh, and one thing I forgot to mention: If a seller really believes his item is CGC-worthy, that raises the immediate question of why he doesn't get it graded himself? Putting "CGC it!" in the listing means the seller thinks CGC is a good company and that grading comics is a positive thing to do -- and yet the seller has failed to do the very thing he is recommending buyers to do. That makes no sense.

 

Also, why doesn't the seller just say "the comic is worthy of CGC grading" in the body text of the listing, instead of the title? I mean, if the seller knows anything about eBay's policies and about keyword spamming, you'd think he'd want to avoid the appearance of such. By going ahead and using the practice anyway, it demonstrates that the seller either doesn't care about the guidelines (why not?) or is ignorant of what those guidelines are (and if so, what ELSE is the seller ignorant of?).

[Ditch Fahrenheit]

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!!”

 

 

I wouldn't expect a paparazzi swarm on the way to the grocery store just yet.

[Jeffro.]

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.

 

Dice is many things but thin skinned is not one of them.

 

 

[Jeffro.]

It's keyword spamming. Adding words that don't have anything to do with the auction for the purpose of that word adding to a hit in someone's search. There's no other reason to add the word than to pick up false hits. Candy coat it as you want but you're lying if you say that is not the reason. Spam is spam.

 

Gotta go with Dice on this one.

 

Even if there are some legit sellers out there using it as a way of communicating to buyers that a particular comic is slab worthy, it's still keyword spamming.

[MojoComics]

Adding CGC in any capacity to any auction title description that isn't graded by CGC is disingenuous and solely done in order to capture hits to the seller's auction. Defending it because of the 'potential' to get a book graded would be comparable to adding 'Signature Series' to a listing because of the 'potential' to get a book signed, and I'm sure people would be against that, so why would anyone think 'CGC it' is ok? If a book is, in a seller's opinion, CGC-worthy then they should add that to the listing, not the title.

[mintcollector]

Here is my opinion on the subject. I sell on eBay, but do not normally sell comic books. That being said, I have 100% positive feedback on all my accounts and am a Power Seller with top rated status. Personally, I only collect CGC graded comic books, so it is an annoyance to me when the term 'CGC' which is a registered trademark, I may add, is misused. That being said, I will not buy a 'raw' comic book regardless as to his it is advertised.

 

On the other hand, key word spamming is unfortunately, a common practice on eBay. It happens across all categories and there is also the aspect of certain terms that are overused as well (i.e. 'mint' and 'rare').

 

Therefore, I don't think preventing one seller from listing this way is going to do any good. eBay should be 'policing' this much better, in my opinion. It is their site and they should enforce THEIR own rules. I just don't see this happening any time soon.

 

Just my opinion.

 

Respectfully,

 

'mint'

 

[conditionfreak]

Seems to me that either there are a lot of bored people on this site. Or a lot of panties twiested up. These are minor things on Ebay, and if you can't live with them. How on earth are you going to get along with a women? These things should be expected, and they are not against any rules or laws.

 

Run a google search on CGC. Here are just a few samples of what you will get.

 

http://www.cgctravel.com/

 

http://www.cgcinc.net/

 

http://www.cgcfinancialservices.com/

 

Are we running out of things to discuss here? How about the crazy prices many ask for their books here. I know they can ask whatever they want for their books. But is that much different from an Ebay seller fudging the language trying to get more views of their wares? One hopes to get more views, and the other hopes to take more of your money, if you are new to the hobby and don't know what you are doing.

 

My twelve year old grandson just bought me an Avengers #10 for $44.00, for my birthday. Since he wanted it to be a surprise, he did not ask anyone for help in finding me a gift. The book is a rag. Missing pieces on the back cover, and just ragged all around. Worth maybe $10-12 bucks in my opinion. He thought he got me something "special". He did. No matter what it would have been (a candy bar, a six pack of Coke Zero, or an X-Force #1), it would have been special to me.

 

But someone in an LCS soaked him.

[mintcollector]

Seems to me that either there are a lot of bored people on this site. Or a lot of panties twiested up. These are minor things on Ebay, and if you can't live with them. How on earth are you going to get along with a women? These things should be expected, and they are not against any rules or laws.

 

Run a google search on CGC. Here are just a few samples of what you will get.

 

http://www.cgctravel.com/

 

http://www.cgcinc.net/

 

http://www.cgcfinancialservices.com/

 

Are we running out of things to discuss here? How about the crazy prices many ask for their books here. I know they can ask whatever they want for their books. But is that much different from an Ebay seller fudging the language trying to get more views of their wares? One hopes to get more views, and the other hopes to take more of your money, if you are new to the hobby and don't know what you are doing.

 

My twelve year old grandson just bought me an Avengers #10 for $44.00, for my birthday. Since he wanted it to be a surprise, he did not ask anyone for help in finding me a gift. The book is a rag. Missing pieces on the back cover, and just ragged all around. Worth maybe $10-12 bucks in my opinion. He thought he got me something "special". He did. No matter what it would have been (a candy bar, a six pack of Coke Zero, or an X-Force #1), it would have been special to me.

 

But someone in an LCS soaked him.

 

I see your point and do not disagree. However, the other companies and/or businesses you mention with CGC in their title are not attempting to gain business by referring to the Comics Guaranty Corporation. They are called what they are due to other reasons; whether it be a cofounders or investment groups initials or another reason. Their name is NOT attempting to deceive. That is the difference in my opinion; intent.

 

I do agree that centering one seller out is not going to solve any issues, just like attempting to explain why placing the term 'rare' in a description for Hulk 181 is NOT accurate. That being said, this is eBay's job in my opinion.

 

Respectfully,

 

'mint'

[Doohickamabob]

Seems to me that either there are a lot of bored people on this site. Or a lot of panties twiested up. These are minor things on Ebay, and if you can't live with them. How on earth are you going to get along with a women? These things should be expected, and they are not against any rules or laws.

This is the ultimate in irony -- somebody reading and posting in a thread who then criticizes other people for the simple act of reading and posting in the same thread.

 

Anyway, a lot of panties "twiested" up? Get along with "a women"? An either/or statement chopped into two sentences? An if/then question chopped into two sentences? A false statement to the effect that keyword spamming is "not against any rules" (when eBay's rules were quoted at length)? There is a severe ongoing problem here in both remedial English and basic comprehension. You don't have a leg to stand on in criticizing anybody else.

[hockey&comicsguy]

 

Oh, and one thing I forgot to mention: If a seller really believes his item is CGC-worthy, that raises the immediate question of why he doesn't get it graded himself? Putting "CGC it!" in the listing means the seller thinks CGC is a good company and that grading comics is a positive thing to do -- and yet the seller has failed to do the very thing he is recommending buyers to do. That makes no sense.

 

Just wanted to preface what I'm about to say by saying i'm not deliberately trying to argue with your as by and large we agree that it's misuse of CGC's name, it violates ebay policy and is an annoyance to many. Just bare with me for a sec.

 

There are probably many reasons why somebody would feel their book is CGC worthy yet not CGC it themselves. Maybe they think CGC's fees are too high. Perhaps they don't like the turnaround times or don't feel there would be an added monetary value enough to compensate for shipping, slabbing and waiting for the book to return. Maybe they understand that CGC is a great selling tool but themselves don't happen to like CGC or their grading standards. Maybe they have subbed in the past but right now feel the grading is too loose or too tight. My point is there are any number of reasons why somebody might not sub a book themselves and not all of them make the seller sketchy by default.

 

There's plenty of "sense" in suggesting your book is CGC worthy and getting somebody else to perhaps pay you a premium for a raw book or pay the CGC fee themselves if you don't think slabbing it would generate you a bigger margin. That's not to say that the book in question truly is what it is or is a complete turd. But that's neither here nor there. Merely suggesting a book be slabbed but not doing it yourself is indicative of nothing.

[miraclemet]

 

 

There are probably many reasons why somebody would feel their book is CGC worthy yet not CGC it themselves. Maybe they think CGC's fees are too high. Perhaps they don't like the turnaround times or don't feel there would be an added monetary value enough to compensate for shipping, slabbing and waiting for the book to return. Maybe they understand that CGC is a great selling tool but themselves don't happen to like CGC or their grading standards. Maybe they have subbed in the past but right now feel the grading is too loose or too tight. My point is there are any number of reasons why somebody might not sub a book themselves and not all of them make the seller sketchy by default.

 

And for books where this rings true I could give the seller a pass (even though it's still taking advantage of search manipulation), but when a seller has 200+books that are from the 70s and would probably grade around a 6.5 to (at best) an 8.0 for a $20 or less book, is this really a book that screams CGC IT!

 

Raw Walking Dead #1s I get, Raw silver keys I get, high grade hot moderns I understand... random mid-grade bronze/copper dreck? Its just search manipulation