Comic-Link Crybabies

[jediknight]

I keep seeing rants about Comic-Link's mistaken for sale items, then when someone snags it Comic-Link informs them that the item is no longer for sale. Just think about it from Comic-Link's point of view, er' shall I say from their pocket book. If those guys have a 1.5k comic that accidentally gets listed for $500 due to human error, and someone snags it at that price, what are those guys at Comic-Link supposed to do? Honor the bid? Hell no! I sure wouldn't and you all know that Jediknight exudes integrity at every frikken' turn. I go after the big fish and protect the little fishies out there. I tell someone they are a son of a [#@$%!!!] when they really are. If the dude is a frikken' basterd I tell em'. But give me a hairy [#@$%!!!] break. If Comic-Link honored such mistakes, think of what they would have to pay out to the original owner of the above comic? Think of how much in $$$ Comic-Link would need to sell in order to pay off the owed 1k? Maybe you think that Comic-Link is an oil company or frikken' Macys or somethin' but I think those guys are doin' us a great service selling us nice stuff. I know it's frikken' expensive most of the time but you can still underbid and get back counteroffers. And C'mon. When you see a 1.5k comic on Comic-Link sellng for $500, you and I both know it is a frikken' error. Rather than bid on it you otta email those guys and warn em'. In the end, we're all in this thing together. To all of those Comic-Link Crybabies out there: Waaaaa! Waaaaa! Get me my frikken' bottle! Waaaa!

[nik]

[Rocketeer]

[nearmint]

 

[tofer118]

Comiclink is not the one that does the listing. The owner of the book is the one who lists it and is asked at least twice if the amount is correct.

[ImageMask]

ummmmmmmm, Where's that " ignore this user button? "

[jediknight]

Then why is Comic-Link always gettin' the frikken' blame?

[ImageMask]

Then why is Comic-Link always gettin' the frikken' blame?

 

The Link is a middle man as such they have a responsibilty to both buyer and seller.

If the seller list's a price on error why should the buyer deal with the aggravation. Shouldn't Josh just tell the seller "well that's what you listed it at if you can't honor the price I can't list your books". Of course not because Josh's cut $$$ would be less. Do you see the problem here? Oh...wait, I'm to blame for tryn' to (insert JK standard vocabulary) eggsplain to you.

[blazingbob]

There is "no responsibility" of the hosting site to verify a "sellers" price. To do that would mean that Josh would have to have some kind of "pricing radar" warning him that a book was listed too low or too high. And even though Josh is "automated" I am 100% sure he has not coded this into his business model.

[ImageMask]

There is "no responsibility" of the hosting site to verify a "sellers" price. To do that would mean that Josh would have to have some kind of "pricing radar" warning him that a book was listed too low or too high. And even though Josh is "automated" I am 100% sure he has not coded this into his business model.

 

I'm not saying he has a responsibilty to "verify a sellers price" or have Daredevil "pricing radar." What I said was if a seller list it at a price on error and renegs on it why does the buyer have to deal with it and Josh walk away with It's not my fault I'm just the medium here. After all, it doe's reflect on him to a degree.

 

I'm watin' on those Spideys.

 

Frank

[Jgel]

ummmmmmmm, Where's that " ignore this user button? "

 

If nothing else you have to love that everybody loves jediknights posts.

[aardvark88]

Hey, Josh is not a bad guy. It says so right here in his Scoop profile from 05Feb25:

 

http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/scoop_article.asp?ai=7821&si=124

 

[ImageMask]

I must admit his post are entertaining as much as they are annoyance.

[DoubleCovaBrotha]

I must admit his post are entertaining as much as they are annoyance.

 

I agree.

 

I am actually growing somewhat fond of his posts. I think Arch should give him a new tagline: "Hey, at least I am not Destro."

[ImageMask]

I must admit his post are entertaining as much as they are annoyance.

 

I agree.

 

I am actually growing somewhat fond of his posts. I think Arch should give him a new tagline: "Hey, at least I am not Destro."

 

I just wonder about the "shill" factor.

[jediknight]

So if I understand the Comic-Link model right, a seller posts his comics on the site manually? Then what is going on behind the scenes when a higher valued comic gets posted at a third of the price, someone snags it, then Comic-Link says it's no longer available? So far from the postings I've read on the boards is that everyone pounces on Comic-Link. Is the real story that Comic-Link discovers the pricing blooper only once the comic has been sold (since they don't have the "radar sense") then they quickly notifiy the buyer of their error while simultanassly informing the overly joyed buyer that the comic is no longer available?

[Aman619]

say whaaaaaa?

[blazingbob]

The error is either caught if Josh has the ability to monitor consignor listed books (Which I have the ability to do), checks the price they priced them at (I can do this but I'm not paid to consult you on what you want to sell it for and I doubt Josh will do the same) and lastly when it's sold and Josh or I ask for the book. Then and only then can "We" enforce the seller of the book to "honor" his price. And there in lies the problem. Was it a mistake or the seller realizing he sold to low and lies that he "priced it to low".

[jediknight]

Blazingbob, So what you are saying is that all the Comic-Link Crybabies out there need to stop ther' fussin' and start bashing the monkey-headed consigners? If I read you wrong, then where can Comic-Link be legitimately bashed (I agree that they can be bashed on listing comics without putting up scans as if they are tryin' to hide a miscut.)?

[Thegoldenage]

Listing a book for sale on Comiclink is the same as listing on ebay. It binds the seller and buyer into an enforceable contract. If the seller backs out, the buyer can sue for violating that contract. The damages are limited to the amount of the item or items in question. It has nothing to do with the site itself.

 

I do wonder, however if Josh buys books off of his own site when he sees that they are listed at low sale prices?