Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | ToriHada  | | Posted: | Mar 25, 2022 16:46 | | Subject: | NEED BULK? | | Viewed: | 163 times | | Topic: | Sales | |
|
| Do you need to bulk up your BrickLink store with all new parts? I am a trusted
retired seller with excellent high feedback offering my entire inventory for
sale in one bulk lot consisting of 33,902 items in 132 lots in 21 categories.
All parts are in pristine NEW condition and 99% of them have been sorted, pre-counted
and pre-bagged for easy resale. The total original list price for everything
is $1,419, which was already well below the total Price Guide Average of $2,143.
I am asking only $700 for everything, plus shipping (not to exceed $75) and
any applicable sales tax. US buyers only please, as international shipping for
this large lot will be disgustingly obscene. Any sale will be done only on BrickLink.
Below are some images. The new sealed set is included, as is the plastic organizer.
I can send you more images and information via the BL message feature. You
can also see a list of all parts and quantities by visiting my BrickLink store
and using the unlock password BULKSALE.
Thank you for looking. And have a wonderful weekend!
Foster
|
|
 |
| Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Mar 25, 2022 16:27 | | Subject: | Brief Return to BL | | Viewed: | 285 times | | Topic: | Announce | |
|
| Hello everyone. Long time no see. I hope you are all doing well.
After a several year hiatus, I am making a brief return to BrickLink to sell
my bulk inventory. I will post a separate sales announcement under the appropriate
topic.
These are troubled times. But one good thing that resulted was getting closer
with my grandson and sharing the joy of LEGO. Over the past two years, I have
splurged and spoiled him with LEGO. And I have also amassed a quantity of new
bulk LEGO he does not need. So I will be listing it for sale in my shop as a
single bulk lot for very close to my cost. Any modest profit will go to my grandson
to reward him for counting and bagging this lot with me and to teach him the
value of money, work and business.
There seem to be a lot of changes to BrickLink and selling here since my time
as a seller several years ago. Since I only wish to sell this one bulk lot,
please pardon me if I don't fully update all my terms (e.g. sales tax, shipping,
etc.). They will be discussed and agreed upon with the buyer of this bulk lot.
Of course, any sale will take place on BrickLink.
What news have you? Are there any major changes I should know about? Has BrickLink
lost any big "old time" sellers? Is John still entertaining you with his wit
and humor?
Foster
P.S. Any big sellers in the Tampa Bay Area?
|
|
| Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Jun 1, 2016 13:44 | | Subject: | Feedback Removal for Unhappiness with Customs | | Viewed: | 266 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| It has already been suggested that sellers be able to request removal of non-positive
feedback from buyers who demand or ask for customs fraud.
This suggestion seeks to expand on that to include any non-positive feedback
given to sellers because the buyer was surprised or unhappy to have to pay VAT
or customs duties. Sometimes buyers who do NOT request customs fraud nonetheless
leave non-positive feedback for their seller because they had to pay VAT and
customs duties. But this is something that is clearly not the seller's responsibility
or fault and completely beyond their control. For an example of this, see the
neutral feedback this seller received on May 1, 2016:
http://www.bricklink.com/feedback.asp?fdbType=1&u=timmys
Thor
|
|
| Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Feb 29, 2016 18:15 | | Subject: | Self-Insurance Disclosure | | Viewed: | 332 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| When a buyer marks the BrickLink check box requesting insurance, please require
that sellers state in their terms and a drop-down box on checkout whether they
purchase that insurance from a reputable 3rd party insurer or provide their own
"self-insurance".
Self-insurance is fine, particularly on smaller orders. But when buyers place
large orders, request and pay extra for insurance, most buyers naturally expect
that insurance to be provided by an actual 3rd party insurance company rather
than the seller. If the seller chooses to self-insure, buyers should at least
know this because it may affect their decision on whether to place an order with
such seller, the size of the order they place and whether they wish to ask the
seller to purchase third party insurance instead (at the buyer's expense).
This has nothing to do with trusting one's seller. It has to do with providing
full disclosure and assurance to buyers that there is sufficient financial backing
and uniform published procedures in place to cover their order if something goes
wrong.
Some buyers won't mind the seller self-insuring. Some buyers prefer that
insurance be provided from an independent professional outside source. Give
this information to buyers and let buyers decide what is best for them.
Thor
|
|
| Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Nov 12, 2015 08:31 | | Subject: | Saving Draft Posts | | Viewed: | 81 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| I think members should have the ability to save draft posts before posting them
publicly. Sometimes a post needs more time to complete in more than just one
sitting. And sometimes members just want to get something written down so they
can think about it and come back to it later. This may be useful in providing
people a much needed time out before going public.
In business, whenever I have to send an email or letter I think is particularly
important or might cause concern to its reader or be taken the wrong way, I draft
it and then put it aside for a few hours or a day. When I come back, more often
than not I will change and improve what I wrote. Saving forum post drafts may
help do the same and might even make for better reading here.
One situation where this might be particularly useful is when sellers or buyers
get angry with each other over things like feedback, NPB or NSS claims, PayPal
reversals, etc. Writing in anger is not good, and a cooling off period might
make things way better or cause you to decide not to post at all.
No big priority. Something BL can think about doing after taking care of more
important things. Just something extra to consider.
Thor
P.S. Right now I use the BL message feature to cut and paste a draft of certain
posts and send it to myself.
|
|
| Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Oct 26, 2015 08:02 | | Subject: | Option to List Inventory Pending NPB | | Viewed: | 86 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| One of the current problems with BrickLink's NPB process is that it ties
up a seller's inventory for several weeks. This may cause the seller to lose
sales or first-pricing advantage with new hot selling items. To alleviate these
problems, I suggest that BL give sellers the OPTION to immediately relist inventory
when an NPB is filed (while still maintaining the NPB process) - AND - that if
a seller exercises this option and some or all of the items sell to another buyer,
the seller will no longer be obligated to sell those sold items to the NPB buyer,
the resale shall not affect completion of the NPB for any remaining items, and
if the NPB buyer pays he will not be allowed to post any feedback complaining
about the resold items.
Thor
|
|
| Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Sep 16, 2015 15:59 | | Subject: | Excluding Sellers with Minimum Order Amount | | Viewed: | 212 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| I see on this page:
http://alpha.bricklink.com/pages/clone/catalogitem.page?P=3001&idColor=7#T=S&C=7&O={"color":7,"cond":"N","ii":1}
that buyers can exclude from searches any and all stores that have any Minimum
Purchase amount.
I would like to suggest that this be tweaked so that buyers can input a dollar
value to exclude only stores that have a Minimum Purchase requirement greater
than the amount they input. As it stands now, ALL stores with ANY Minimum Purchase
amount (even if only $1) are excluded if the box is checked on this page.
Next, I would like to ask how many buyers actually check this box to exclude
any and all Minimum Purchase stores from their searches.
If many buyers exclude stores with any minimum purchase amount, sellers should
know this so they can possibly change. But I also think buyers should know that
if this is what they want, sellers are just going to require other things to
make orders worthwhile for them. These other things could be increased fees or
higher minimum shipping amounts. If sellers cannot price these costs into a minimum
amount of goods, they will charge them elsewhere.
Thor
|
|
| Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Sep 6, 2015 10:07 | | Subject: | A Suggestion to Help Prevent New Scam Stores | | Viewed: | 348 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| Currently, anyone can open a store on BrickLink simply by confirming the email
address you provide when registering. The process is automatic with no human
intervention in the process other than the new seller. I suggest that when a
new member wishes to open a store, that store will not become open to all other
members until and unless Admin reviews and approves that store. In other words,
rather than allowing new sellers to open a store immediately on their own without
any prior review, Admin should step into this process before the store can open.
This should help catch SOME (but not all) scammers. 100% protection is not necessary.
Anything the helps reduce the number and frequency of new scammers is helpful.
Admin can usually tell when a store looks bogus or suspicious and can intervene
to require more information or assurances from the new seller before their store
is allowed to open. Admin also has access to a database of prior BL scammers
and other information about everyone who joins BL. Most new stores should quickly
pass this review and approval by Admin almost immediately. It is the ones that
raise red flags that Admin's intervention can put a brake on.
With only a handful of new stores opening each day, and the review process being
rather quick (no more than a few minutes per new store), this should not impose
any significant additional burden on Admin's time or barriers to entry for
new sellers. In fact, by catching scammers before they can scam, it may actually
save Admin some time.
Scammers have opened new stores on BrickLink many hundreds of times already over
the years. You would think by now it would be obvious that there is a need for
some human to step into the process for minimal prior screening of these new
sellers and stores. This common sense step is long overdue.
Thor
|
|
| Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Aug 27, 2015 14:06 | | Subject: | Prohibit Vigilante Orders | | Viewed: | 703 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| BrickLink should prohibit vigilante orders like the one noted in this thread:
http://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=193629
Vigilante orders are bogus orders members place with a store they believe to
be a scammer with the intent to protect other members from being scammed before
BrickLink has time to act on any complaints about such a store. While vigilantes
may claim their intentions are good, I believe there are too many risks and potential
problems with self-appointing oneself as cop, prosecutor, judge and jury in such
a manner.
For one thing, the vigilante may turn out to be incorrect in believing a new
seller to be a scammer. By placing his bogus order, the vigilante harms the new
seller, buyers who might otherwise order from such seller, and the vigilante
himself who now risks an NPB or legal action for breach of contract.
Second, these vigilante orders mess up the Price Guide by validating the bogus
prices to the detriment of others who rely on the Price Guide later.
As others said, two wrongs don't make a right. Placing an order is a binding
contract and, regardless of your reasons, it is just plain wrong to place an
order without any intent of following through with it.
Allowing these vigilante orders will create further problems down the road. If
you justify vigilante orders for new sellers who are thought to be scammers,
someone later on will justify them for not-so-new sellers whose terms they subjectively
believe are invalid, or for seller they think take too long to ship, or for sellers
they believe don't honor PayPal's terms, etc., etc. Once you allow these
vigilante orders, where do you draw the line?
BrickLink should never delegate to any member the power to shut down a store.
Allowing these vigilante orders would effectively make every member an Admin
with the ability to shut down any store they want if they subjectively feel they
are helping other members by doing so. This is a dangerous slippery slope that
should stay exclusively within BrickLink's power.
As such, any member caught making a vigilante order should receive an automatic
NPB.
Thor
|
|
| Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | May 26, 2015 14:46 | | Subject: | Note Whether Official or Non-Official Post | | Viewed: | 231 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| Forum moderators are not just forum moderators. They are sellers, buyers, BL
members and AFOLs just like the rest of us. And they have their own personal
opinions on many things, just like the rest of us. However, it is sometimes confusing
to know whether a forum moderator is posting in their official capacity as a
BrickLink forum moderator or in their own personal capacity as a seller, buyer,
member or AFOL. Therefore, I propose having a checbox moderators should check
only if they are posting in their official capacity as a BrickLink forum moderator.
If the box is not checked, then their post can be considered their own opinion
or comment, rather than BrickLink's. Of course, for this to work, we need
a little icon next to their name if this checkbox has been checked.
Come to think of it, this suggestion might equally apply to other BrickLink admins
and sub-admins as well. It would be helpful and will avoid misunderstandings
to know if someone with dual capacity as an official BrickLink representative
and private BL member is posting on behalf of BrickLink or themselves. Among
other things, this may help BrickLink avoid legal issues, such as being held
accountable for the personal comments of its representatives.
Thor
|
|
| Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Apr 14, 2015 10:23 | | Subject: | Add Qty Wanted in Shopping Carts sent via MSG | | Viewed: | 126 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Discarded | |
|
| When buyers cut and paste their shopping carts and send it to you via a BL message,
please clearly state the quantity wanted by the buyer.
This should be obvious, but I just received a shopping cart via the BL message
system where only the "quantity available" is stated, and NOT the quantity wanted
by the buyer. Here are some examples:
Lot ID: 57113348 Minifig No: sh015 Name: Iron Man with Triangle on Chest
* New Iron Man with Triangle on Chest Qty:
Qty Available: 5
Each: US $8.982
Original Price: US $9.98
Total: US $26.95
Weight: 13.8g
Lot ID: 55274261 Minifig No: lor034 Name: Tauriel
* New Tauriel Qty:
Qty Available: 4
Each: US $3.582
Original Price: US $3.98
Total: US $7.16
Weight: 8.4g
Lot ID: 57607387 Minifig No: sw440 Name: Republic Trooper 1 (75001)
* New Republic Trooper 1 (75001) Qty:
Qty Available: 8
Each: US $2.691
Original Price: US $2.99
Total: US $10.76
Weight: 16g
Lot ID: 57607388 Minifig No: sw444 Name: Republic Trooper 2 (75001)
* New Republic Trooper 2 (75001) Qty:
Qty Available: 8
Each: US $2.691
Original Price: US $2.99
Total: US $10.76
Weight: 15.96g
Lot ID: 54717639 Part No: 30274 Name: Brick, Modified 2 x 3 x 3 with Cutout
and Lion Head
* New Light Bluish Gray Brick, Modified 2 x 3 x 3 with Cutout and Lion Head Qty:
Qty Available: 16
Each: US $1.341
Original Price: US $1.49
Total: US $13.41
Weight: 37.5g
Lot ID: 56790534 Part No: 4202 Name: Brick 4 x 12
* New Light Bluish Gray Brick 4 x 12 Qty:
Qty Available: 36
Each: US $0.5135
Original Price: US $0.79
Total: US $4.11
Weight: 92g
As you can see from the above, nowhere does it state the quantity in the buyer's
cart. Instead, it states only the quantity I have available. This is very confusing
when the buyer wants LESS than the total quantity available. From the above,
the only way to determine the quantity wanted by the buyer is to manually divide
the "Total" lot price by the price for "each" item in that lot (something the
system should easily do itself automatically). Doing that, I found that my buyer
wanted only:
3 of the 5 Iron Man figures I have,
2 of the 4 Tauriel figures I have,
4 of the 8 Republic Trooper 1 figures I have,
4 of the 8 Republic Trooper 2 figures I have,
10 of the 16 lion bricks I have, and
8 of the 36 LBG 4x12 bricks I have.
I had packed ALL of these items using the "Quantity available" figure and only
noticed the buyer wanted less when I weighed the package and found it weighed
almost double what it was supposed to. Without clearly stating the actual quantity
wanted by the buyer, sellers can become misled or confused by the "Quantity available"
number. I truly don't understand why the quantity wanted by the buyer is
not clearly stated. Please fix this. Thank you.
Thor
|
|
| Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Aug 23, 2014 08:48 | | Subject: | Retain Messages Sent to Help Desk | | Viewed: | 139 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Discarded | |
|
| Unlike messages sent to any other member, messages sent to Admin or the BrickLInk
Help Desk through the BL message system are NOT sent to the sender or copied
to the sender's BL messages outbox. Please fix this so that they are. If
I send a BL message to Admin or the Help Desk, I would like to have a record
of that message here on BrickLink. Thus, it should be copied to my outbox just
like messages sent to any other BL member.
Thor
|
|
| Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Jun 29, 2014 13:05 | | Subject: | Remove Ability to Reply to Certain Members | | Viewed: | 326 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Discarded | |
|
| To help reduce the drama and flame wars that infect this forum, I suggest that
Forum moderators be given the ability to block a member from replying to the
posts of another member with whom they do not get along. Kind of like a forum
stoplist. Not a full forum ban; just a ban on posting replies to another member.
And not a forced ignore either. They should still able to read all posts they
want; just not be able to reply to certain ones if they have a history of not
being able to respond appropriately to that member. Furthermore, this feature
should be reciprocal. So, if the mods decide to remove the ability of Member
A to reply to posts by Member B, Member B should also be unable to reply to posts
by Member A. It takes two to tango, and it would be grossly unfair to allow Member
B to post anything they want about Member A if Member A cannot respond. So make
it reciprocal.
I don't ignore anyone in the forum. Even those I personally dislike or
do not get along with. Because regardless how I personally feel about someone,
they often post something interesting or of concern to me or my LEGO business,
and because I can still agree with them on some things. So I don't think
bans or forced ignores are the answer. Just cut off the line of communication
between the two if they cannot communicate with each other properly.
Thor
|
|
| Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Jun 27, 2014 11:08 | | Subject: | Show All Fees on Checkout and in Terms Page | | Viewed: | 585 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Already Exists | |
|
| I don't know if this has been formally suggested before, but I suggest that
BrickLink revise the format of the Store Terms and Checkout pages to more clearly
show any and all fees the seller will charge for that order.
First, the checkout page... BrickLink should automatically calculate and show
any and all fees that will be added to the order. This is NOT about calculating
shipping. It is about calculating only fees. As such, it should be much simpler
to code. In their Store Settings, each seller will be free to set their own parameters
regarding any fees they may or may not charge. If the fee is conditional and
something like a fee of "up to $1.00" for orders "less than $10.00", this can
also be easily coded, input by the seller in their Store Settings and automatically
calculated by the BrickLink system at checkout. If a fee is not shown on the
checkout page, it cannot be charged later by the seller.
So, on checkout, the page could begin by reading something like:
Order Amount: $88.50
Shipping: To be determined
Packing and Handling Fees: $1.00
OPTIONAL additional line items can include State Sales Tax (if any, for US sellers)
and VAT (if not already included in the prices). Although this option is NOT
part of this suggestion and can be discussed and added later.
Second, the Store Terms page... Information about any and all fees should be
required to be clearly stated at the very top of that page with a minimum of
text (maybe 80 characters or less) to explain it. Information about fees should
not be buried deep in the text of long terms and conditions.
Anything that more clearly shows up-front the fees a buyer may have to pay should
be good for everyone. And, as a seller who does not charge fees on most orders,
I like the idea of my checkout page saying: "Packing and Handling Fees: $0.00".
I anticipate someone will ask how BrickLink will be able to code all the different
fees charged by sellers. First, for this suggestion to work, BrickLink needs
to limit the fees that can be charged. I would include the following as permissible
fees:
1. A simple fixed fee on all orders, or on all orders below a certain amount.
E.g. $1.00 fee on all orders, or $1.00 fee on all orders below $10.00.
2. A variable fee *UP TO* a certain amount on all orders, or orders below a
certain amount. E.g. UP TO $1.00 fee on all orders, or UP TO $1.00 fee on orders
below $10.00. The seller will need to set points where this variable fee changes.
3. PayPal fees (in countries where they are permitted). E.g. 3.9% plus $0.30
for all orders being paid via PayPal. Since most sellers that charge PayPal
fees base it on the total payment amount including shipping, and since shipping
may not be known in advance, sellers will just have to slightly increase the
percentage of the order amount to compensate for the fee portion on shipping.
BL will also need to limit the availability of this fee only to sellers located
in countries where PayPal fees are allowed to be charged to buyers. Thus, this
fee would NOT be available for US sellers.
4. Lot fees. E.g. $1.00 fee if there are 50 or more lots in the order, or $1.00
fee if the average lot amount is less than $1.00, or $0.10 fee per lot for all
lots after the 50th lot.
I know some here do not like lot fees, but BrickLink has allowed them for 14
years now and they do serve a legitimate purpose. I ask that you do not let
your aversion to lot fees (or PayPal fees) cause you to vote against this suggestion.
Instead, consider the entire package and the fact that this suggestion will
make fees more clear and obvious to you and all other buyers.
Thor
|
|
|
| Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | May 9, 2014 12:34 | | Subject: | Please Ban Mouthpiece Accounts | | Viewed: | 454 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Discarded | |
|
| Please revise or interpret the ToS to prohibit non-buying and non-selling accounts
set up solely for supposedly representing the interests of a group of existing
BL members.
If members have anything important to say, they should man up and say it under
their member name. Doing so makes every member more accountable for what they
say. By allowing these mouthpiece PACs, members can at least partially shield
themselves from accountability for the interests and positions the mouthpiece
account advances. Thus, they can promote unpopular or controversial issues without
being held directly responsible for doing so.
Furthermore, allowing these mouthpiece accounts sets a bad precedent and, if
no action is taken, will encourage others to do the same. Mouthpiece accounts
that do no actual buying and selling themselves and exist solely for posting
in the forum will only make the Forum a more politicized and contentious place
for all, and largely without the personal accountability that would result if
an individual member posted in their own name as opposed to some group mouthpiece.
Thor
|
|
| Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | May 2, 2014 09:12 | | Subject: | Early Warning System | | Viewed: | 302 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| To help combat the occasional but never-ending problem of scam sellers and buyers,
BL should put in place an early warning system whereby Admin can be automatically
notified if any seller or buyer receives 3 or more negative feedbacks within
any period of, e.g., 7 days or less. The notice will not trigger any action against
such a seller or buyer. It will just be a non-public red flag for Admin to look
into the matter and determine whether any "preventive action" needs to be taken.
This suggestion assumes, of course, that such an early warning system is not
already quietly in place.
Thor
|
|
| Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | May 1, 2014 23:24 | | Subject: | Chargebacks: Immediately Suspend Buying Privs | | Viewed: | 503 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| Please implement a new policy of immediately temporarily suspending the buying
privileges of any member who files a chargeback claiming unauthorized use of
their PayPal or credit card or account. This is NOT to punish the buyer. It is
to protect the buyer from further unauthorized use of his PayPal card or account.
And to protect sellers against whoever is using the buyer's card without
the buyer's permission.
A chargeback is different and more serious than a reversal. For one thing, unauthorized
use of a PayPal account or credit card is a crime. Furthermore, while you can
defend yourself from a reversal by showing proof of delivery, you have no defense
to a chargeback. Even proof of delivery will not help you because the issue is
not whether the buyer received the order but whether the buyer even placed the
order at all.
Therefore, to protect both buyers and sellers, when a buyer claims their PayPal
or credit card was used without their authorization, BrickLink should immediately
suspend the ability of this buyer to purchase or at least use that particular
card on this website. This is necessary not only to protect sellers, but to also
protect the buyer from continued unauthorized use of his card. Buying privileges
should only be restored when the buyer contacts BrickLink to let it know that
he has resolved the matter with PayPal or his credit card company and that he
will thereafter be responsible for all future charges made on that or another
card.
Again, unauthorized use is a much more serious (and criminal) matter. It should
be treated differently then a mere reversal claim of non-receipt.
Thor
|
|
| Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Apr 14, 2014 12:24 | | Subject: | Feedback Warning Upon Checkout | | Viewed: | 217 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| To protect buyers, make BrickLink a safer site for everyone, and encourage sellers
to perform at a minimum level, I suggest that if a BrickLink store has less than
95% positive feedback as a seller, a red banner should appear on the top of the
checkout page saying:
"WARNING! BUYERS BEWARE! READ THIS SELLER'S FEEDBACK BEFORE PROCEEDING FURTHER!"
If the seller has less than 90% positive feedback as a seller, another banner
should appear if the buyer ignores the first one and submits their order. This
second banner should say: "SERIOUSLY?!? ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD WITH
THIS ORDER?!? READ THE FEEDBACK! DON'T BE AN IDIOT! PRACTICE SAFE ONLINE
INTERCOURSE! FIND A SAFER PARTNER. OR DON'T COME CRYING TO US IF YOU GET
BURNED BY THIS SELLER! PROCEED AT YOUR OWN RISK! DANGER DANGER WILL ROBINSON!"
OK, I am joking about the least one. But I think an appropriate banner might
help avoid SOME of these problems.
Thor
|
|
| Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Apr 10, 2014 16:27 | | Subject: | Show BL Fees Charged in Order Details | | Viewed: | 191 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| As a companion to these two suggestions:
http://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=802848
and
http://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=779286
please provide sellers with the option of having the ORDER DETAILS page show
the BrickLink and PayPal fees charged for that order.
The above two suggestions ask for these fees to be shown (and totaled) on the
Orders Received page and Order Downloads. This suggestion asks for such fees
to also be shown on the Order Details page for each individual order, if the
seller wishes.
My accountant would love to have these numbers seen on all these pages. It would
make things easier and more convenient as far as bookkeeping and tax records
are concerned.
Thor
|
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
USA, North Carolina
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)