Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | yorbrick  | | Posted: | Aug 31, 2018 15:53 | | Subject: | Re: New parameter for lots: max per buyer | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, qwertyboy writes:
| | In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | In Suggestions, DeLuca writes:
| | In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | In Suggestions, danielclark writes:
| | I'd be less inclined to shop in a store that restricts how much of an item
I could buy, especially if I could see they had more. When I search for parts
it's by highest quantity for my most desired elements. If a store is going
to retain some inventory then it's going to show further down on that list.
|
I agree, you should not see it. It would work exactly the same as the stockroom
currently works: You don't see what's back there that you cannot order.
|
The full quantity of a given item would not be visible on the item's Catalog
entry, but would it be visible on the item's entry in the store? It
is my understanding that it would, hence my concerns.
|
No, it should not be visible anywhere, just like a stockroom items is not visible.
If I have a lot of 5000 but limit it to 500 per buyer, it should show as a 500
size lot everywhere on Bricklink.
I intended it as a more automated version of the current way to do the same thing,
listing 500, switching on "retain" and writing "4500 left" in the remarks.
I agree it would be annoying to see things you couldn't buy.
|
There is a small downside that if a buyer places an order for 500, then happens
to browse the store again while not logged in, then they see that more stock
is available. So they log in and the stock is no longer available to them as
they have a current order.
|
It would take more than just a few changes. For instance, if you set a max of
100 per customer, and someone buys 100, when would your shop show 100 in inventory
again? If it gets shown right away (assuming you have enough set up), the customer
would see another 100, and could potentially add them to his existing order.
If you expect BL to block this particular customer from seeing the new lot, when
would this "lock" be lifted? At payment time? After shipping? Maybe never? Or
do you accept them being able to see the new 100 and do an order addition, thus
being able to buy them all in several order additions?
There would be quite a few checks etc needed, with many options for fringe cases
messing things up.
I do appreciate the idea, but I don't think it would be easy to implement.
Niek.
|
It isn't my idea. But I think teup has replied to the same question already
- I think he wrote once the order is marked as shipped or packed or similar.
Presumably once the order cannot be added to, so that any new purchase comes
in as a second order.
|
 |
| Author: | qwertyboy | | Posted: | Aug 31, 2018 13:56 | | Subject: | Re: New parameter for lots: max per buyer | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | In Suggestions, DeLuca writes:
| | In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | In Suggestions, danielclark writes:
| | I'd be less inclined to shop in a store that restricts how much of an item
I could buy, especially if I could see they had more. When I search for parts
it's by highest quantity for my most desired elements. If a store is going
to retain some inventory then it's going to show further down on that list.
|
I agree, you should not see it. It would work exactly the same as the stockroom
currently works: You don't see what's back there that you cannot order.
|
The full quantity of a given item would not be visible on the item's Catalog
entry, but would it be visible on the item's entry in the store? It
is my understanding that it would, hence my concerns.
|
No, it should not be visible anywhere, just like a stockroom items is not visible.
If I have a lot of 5000 but limit it to 500 per buyer, it should show as a 500
size lot everywhere on Bricklink.
I intended it as a more automated version of the current way to do the same thing,
listing 500, switching on "retain" and writing "4500 left" in the remarks.
I agree it would be annoying to see things you couldn't buy.
|
There is a small downside that if a buyer places an order for 500, then happens
to browse the store again while not logged in, then they see that more stock
is available. So they log in and the stock is no longer available to them as
they have a current order.
|
It would take more than just a few changes. For instance, if you set a max of
100 per customer, and someone buys 100, when would your shop show 100 in inventory
again? If it gets shown right away (assuming you have enough set up), the customer
would see another 100, and could potentially add them to his existing order.
If you expect BL to block this particular customer from seeing the new lot, when
would this "lock" be lifted? At payment time? After shipping? Maybe never? Or
do you accept them being able to see the new 100 and do an order addition, thus
being able to buy them all in several order additions?
There would be quite a few checks etc needed, with many options for fringe cases
messing things up.
I do appreciate the idea, but I don't think it would be easy to implement.
Niek.
|
|
| Author: | Bricklord | | Posted: | Aug 31, 2018 12:55 | | Subject: | Re: New parameter for lots: max per buyer | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| I fully support this; it is years overdue as an option for a seller to have in
their store.
What also needs to be implemented is the option for a seller to refuse to allow
buyers to add to an existing order. No more batches, any further ordering comes
in as a separate order. Far, far simpler and easier for sellers to process and
fill. Shipping multiple orders together is not a problem, it is the filling and
process of the orders that requires these to be implemented. The current lack
of is a gross deficiency that must be rectified.
Bricklord
In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | I would really like to see a new parameter for lots that limits the amount a
buyer can buy of a certain part in any one order. The part would then turn up
in search results and in store inventory showing not more than the value specified.
It's something that many online stores use, notably also LEGO themselves.
So far the way to do this is to offer the desired max amount, put in remarks
how much is left, and put the item on retain. This has several drawbacks, most
of all:
- You have to manually reoffer and modify the remarks all the time
- You cannot see or accurately modify the price and other stats of your inventory
because part of the amount of what you have is hidden in remarks
This could all be solved by 1 simple extra field, that is left on 0 when unused.
Of course, the item should not appear updated for users that still have an order
that has not yet reached the packed status. Of course buyers can buy again after
that, but separate shipping and handling fees should be sufficient to bar the
effect of buyers blowing sudden holes in your inventory.
|
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Aug 31, 2018 06:31 | | Subject: | Re: New parameter for lots: max per buyer | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | You're right about that. Though I don't think it's really a problem
that the quanitity would change - right now prices also change when you log in,
because of currencies and taxes.
|
Yes, I don't mind prices changing as the base currency does that. But here,
a buyer would see a store has been and still is purposely stopping a buyer from
buying something in their inventory. I'd find that annoying, especially if
I originally wanted to buy more and end up having to place another order with
either the same seller or a different seller when it could have been possible
beforehand if the seller had not hidden that inventory.
Of course, exactly the same can happen now, it is just not so instant that the
extra inventory appears available to others as soon as you checkout but not available
to you via a second batch.
If a seller wants to stop buyers from buying all their inventory, I think I prefer
it when they list say 100 at their real price and the rest of their inventory
of that part at a higher price. At least that way a buyer can decide to pay a
bit more if they are after a lot of the item. Although I know some people hate
this and complain that a seller has two different prices for the same part.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Aug 31, 2018 05:32 | | Subject: | Re: New parameter for lots: max per buyer | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | In Suggestions, enig writes:
| | In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | I would really like to see a new parameter for lots that limits the amount a
buyer can buy of a certain part in any one order. The part would then turn up
in search results and in store inventory showing not more than the value specified.
It's something that many online stores use, notably also LEGO themselves.
So far the way to do this is to offer the desired max amount, put in remarks
how much is left, and put the item on retain. This has several drawbacks, most
of all:
- You have to manually reoffer and modify the remarks all the time
- You cannot see or accurately modify the price and other stats of your inventory
because part of the amount of what you have is hidden in remarks
This could all be solved by 1 simple extra field, that is left on 0 when unused.
Of course, the item should not appear updated for users that still have an order
that has not yet reached the packed status. Of course buyers can buy again after
that, but separate shipping and handling fees should be sufficient to bar the
effect of buyers blowing sudden holes in your inventory.
|
I like the idea. I really do and it would be super useful. But just as with many
things - it works well if sellers use it for the actual purpose that you have
outlined here. If it starts to be abused it would have a potential to ruin many
things.
What would stop sellers from creating a new lot for every single item they sell
and set it to 0.01 , (higher for the more expensive stuff ofc) to work as a form
of an advertisement. Now they have all the listings at the top. Imagine 15 sellers
doing that. 50 sellers?
That would also mess up the avg listed prices, as well as 6 month avg since some
of these would actually sell.
Just look at the superlot listings of CMF's. Averages become useless. Average
prices for the most part actually are useless anyway.. but try explaining
that to a customer.
Would this trick actually help and generate some sales for these sellers? Probably
not a lot, of at all. A little more elaborate usage, however, probably would.
Heck, I myself would gladly give away a couple EUR worth of cheap parts for free
that every single seller has an over-stock of anyway, if it also helped to make
a sale of other items that are priced well.
Ever went to a supermarket just to get that awesome deal that you saw
in an advertisement?  And came back with a trunk-full of stuff? Oh yes.
|
You have some good points and I agree they need to be addressed in some way should
this feature ever make it to implementation. You're right the priceguide
for current listings would appear lower but maybe the by-quantity priceguide
would be OK. Maybe there should also be a minimum quantity, although then it
quickly becomes tricky where to draw the line, and expensive items like minifigs
should be OK to list just 1 of.
However, while these issues are real, do keep in mind it's already possible
to do this, but just manually by using remarks and retain. So it won't be
a 100% new mechanic, just something that exists but will become more prominent.
And people who are blessed with understanding of the obscure BL API or who are
developing third party tools may already make this feature available by supporting
certain tags in the remarks field.
I agree with you that these are issues that need to be remedied somehow, either
by accomodating to the effects it causes or by limiting excessive use. Either
way I think it's really worth solving that, because the benefits can be pretty
great - sellers could get more sales and buyers could find more complete inventories
as well as lower prices, if the lots are protected against instant buy-outs.
|
Another downside is that it would be a good way of hiding how much inventory
is really out there. Someone could have a lot of an apparently rare part and
would crash the market if they listed it all. Yet if they list it with a maximum
of 10, then there appears to be little stock available. Of course, this can be
done manually but have an automatic tool to do it will make it much more simple.
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Aug 31, 2018 05:31 | | Subject: | Re: New parameter for lots: max per buyer | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | In Suggestions, DeLuca writes:
| | In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | In Suggestions, danielclark writes:
| | I'd be less inclined to shop in a store that restricts how much of an item
I could buy, especially if I could see they had more. When I search for parts
it's by highest quantity for my most desired elements. If a store is going
to retain some inventory then it's going to show further down on that list.
|
I agree, you should not see it. It would work exactly the same as the stockroom
currently works: You don't see what's back there that you cannot order.
|
The full quantity of a given item would not be visible on the item's Catalog
entry, but would it be visible on the item's entry in the store? It
is my understanding that it would, hence my concerns.
|
No, it should not be visible anywhere, just like a stockroom items is not visible.
If I have a lot of 5000 but limit it to 500 per buyer, it should show as a 500
size lot everywhere on Bricklink.
I intended it as a more automated version of the current way to do the same thing,
listing 500, switching on "retain" and writing "4500 left" in the remarks.
I agree it would be annoying to see things you couldn't buy.
|
There is a small downside that if a buyer places an order for 500, then happens
to browse the store again while not logged in, then they see that more stock
is available. So they log in and the stock is no longer available to them as
they have a current order.
|
You're right about that. Though I don't think it's really a problem
that the quanitity would change - right now prices also change when you log in,
because of currencies and taxes.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Aug 31, 2018 05:26 | | Subject: | Re: New parameter for lots: max per buyer | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | In Suggestions, DeLuca writes:
| | In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | In Suggestions, danielclark writes:
| | I'd be less inclined to shop in a store that restricts how much of an item
I could buy, especially if I could see they had more. When I search for parts
it's by highest quantity for my most desired elements. If a store is going
to retain some inventory then it's going to show further down on that list.
|
I agree, you should not see it. It would work exactly the same as the stockroom
currently works: You don't see what's back there that you cannot order.
|
The full quantity of a given item would not be visible on the item's Catalog
entry, but would it be visible on the item's entry in the store? It
is my understanding that it would, hence my concerns.
|
No, it should not be visible anywhere, just like a stockroom items is not visible.
If I have a lot of 5000 but limit it to 500 per buyer, it should show as a 500
size lot everywhere on Bricklink.
I intended it as a more automated version of the current way to do the same thing,
listing 500, switching on "retain" and writing "4500 left" in the remarks.
I agree it would be annoying to see things you couldn't buy.
|
There is a small downside that if a buyer places an order for 500, then happens
to browse the store again while not logged in, then they see that more stock
is available. So they log in and the stock is no longer available to them as
they have a current order.
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Aug 31, 2018 05:21 | | Subject: | Re: New parameter for lots: max per buyer | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Funny you should say that, I logged on to BO just now and found that a Chinese
guy has bought out 2 lots  Now my store offers round 1x1 plates in all colours
except trans clear
I don't have a proper workaround, because the remarks option makes my inventory
appear smaller than it is. That's not good for my administration and inventory
management. You could list separate lots, but I don't know, seems rather
tedious to me. There could be some alternatives I haven't thought of, if
you have any let me know 
In Suggestions, patpendlego writes:
| | First of all: be my guest, if you want to use this option go ahead it's your
store and your items to sell. No problem at all.
But.. just for arguments sake... what would be the buyer experience of this?
It's all psychology, so think it through I would say, place yourself in a
buyer shoes.
Also... technically, wouldn't there be many easy ways to simply go around
this 'restriction'? I don't know... just a thought... aren't
you just trying to influence something which is just an idea in your head but
has nothing to do with reality?
I think I would not use this option.
Enjoy,
Arnoud
In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | I would really like to see a new parameter for lots that limits the amount a
buyer can buy of a certain part in any one order. The part would then turn up
in search results and in store inventory showing not more than the value specified.
It's something that many online stores use, notably also LEGO themselves.
So far the way to do this is to offer the desired max amount, put in remarks
how much is left, and put the item on retain. This has several drawbacks, most
of all:
- You have to manually reoffer and modify the remarks all the time
- You cannot see or accurately modify the price and other stats of your inventory
because part of the amount of what you have is hidden in remarks
This could all be solved by 1 simple extra field, that is left on 0 when unused.
Of course, the item should not appear updated for users that still have an order
that has not yet reached the packed status. Of course buyers can buy again after
that, but separate shipping and handling fees should be sufficient to bar the
effect of buyers blowing sudden holes in your inventory.
|
|
|
|
| Author: | leggodtshop | | Posted: | Aug 31, 2018 05:12 | | Subject: | Re: New parameter for lots: max per buyer | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| First of all: be my guest, if you want to use this option go ahead it's your
store and your items to sell. No problem at all.
But.. just for arguments sake... what would be the buyer experience of this?
It's all psychology, so think it through I would say, place yourself in a
buyer shoes.
Also... technically, wouldn't there be many easy ways to simply go around
this 'restriction'? I don't know... just a thought... aren't
you just trying to influence something which is just an idea in your head but
has nothing to do with reality?
I think I would not use this option.
Enjoy,
Arnoud
In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | I would really like to see a new parameter for lots that limits the amount a
buyer can buy of a certain part in any one order. The part would then turn up
in search results and in store inventory showing not more than the value specified.
It's something that many online stores use, notably also LEGO themselves.
So far the way to do this is to offer the desired max amount, put in remarks
how much is left, and put the item on retain. This has several drawbacks, most
of all:
- You have to manually reoffer and modify the remarks all the time
- You cannot see or accurately modify the price and other stats of your inventory
because part of the amount of what you have is hidden in remarks
This could all be solved by 1 simple extra field, that is left on 0 when unused.
Of course, the item should not appear updated for users that still have an order
that has not yet reached the packed status. Of course buyers can buy again after
that, but separate shipping and handling fees should be sufficient to bar the
effect of buyers blowing sudden holes in your inventory.
|
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Aug 31, 2018 05:10 | | Subject: | Re: New parameter for lots: max per buyer | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, DeLuca writes:
| | In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | In Suggestions, DeLuca writes:
| | In Suggestions, 62Bricks writes:
| | This would not give you more buyers. If anything it will turn away buyers.
There are no buyers out there specifically looking for sellers who limit what
they can buy. On the other hand, there may be buyers out there who want to buy
more than your max. I see no possible upside.
|
I agree completely. If I want to buy, for example, ~30 blasters (to replace
the stud-shooters in Battlepacks), and I can only buy them in batches of 5-10
at a certain store, I will purchase them from a store with no lot-limits,
and will not make three (or more) orders from the store with limits.
Aside from driving away buyers (particularly new buyers, large-scale MOC-ers,
and army-builders), there is the potential for abuse of such a system. If a store
sets a minimum-buy, then sets low lot-limits, it could possibly force buyers
to purchase numerous items that they do not need/want (to raise the price of
each cart), in order to be able to buy what they do want (and in the desired
quantities). While in most cases, such a scenario as described above would simply
drive the buyer away, but, when the items in question are rare, buyers may have
no choice other than to be gouged, if they want the aforementioned items.
|
You are free to buy wherever you like and if a seller does not find buyers because they don't offer enough, they know they need to buy more or make more available.
|
Though you say it in disagreement, this is actually what I said (that I would
just buy what I want from a store without lot-limits, and that those with
limits will lose buyers). Additionally, your suggested solution seems to run
counter to the stated purpose of increasing a store's sales (as it
essentially proposes that stores revert to the current system - In which case,
why make a significant change to the system?).
| | The scenario where it's part of a bad mix with features is as much a complaint about those other features as it is about this one. Minimum order is also a fine feature which by itself already 'forces' you to buy things you don't need.
|
While you are correct that I dislike minimum-buys (and I already avoid stores
with ones that are unreasonably high), I can usually bump the price up by purchasing,
say, six Stormtroopers, instead of five. If there is a five-lot-limit on Stormtroopers,
however, I would need to find an additional $4-5 item (that I may not need) to
raise the price of the cart. Minimum-buys are already fairly common, so adding
lot-limits on top will just hurt stores that have them even more.
| | This is really not any different from me shopping for Star Wars minifigs and a store having only some of them while some others they are keeping in their stockroom and are not available to me.
|
It, to me, is more like going into a store and finding piles of (40299) (the
Kessel Mine Worker), but only being able to buy them in batches of two, having
to go out of the store and come back in in order to buy more, and having to buy
a CMF or two each time (representing shipping/fees/etc).
| | I think that's an extremely common situation, and I don't see why keeping part of a lot in stockroom is that fundamentally different from keeping some lots in stockroom and offering others.
|
The difference is this: If am browsing through a store and see only five of a
piece that I want (but in a higher quantity), I may buy all five. If I am browsing
through a store and see 400 of that same piece, but I can only buy five,
I will probably not buy any. I recognise that this may seem illogical,
but (to me, at least), it is a psychological difference between seeing what I
can have, and seeing what I could have, if not for an imposed restriction.
This results in frustration, similar to that regarding one-per-box CMFs (particularly
Percival Graves); LEGO could include more, but they choose to create
artificial scarcity. Lot-limits are, in my view, much the same.
| | You should consider not just the side where you do not find the 30 blasters. You should also consider the side where you do find the 30 blasters because a reseller or another big guy was unable to buy all 6948 of them. They can be cheaper without being instantly gone.
|
In the case of the 6948 blasters, the problem could be solved within the confines
of the current system, by simply listing the blasters in batches of 60 at any
given time. This prevents the mass-buyout that you fear, but also does not drive
buyers away (or to frustration) by limiting the blasters to, for example, ten-per-order.
| | To you this is not visible, but I lose some lots that I could have served many buyers with to their full satisfaction.
|
I do understand and appreciate that this side of the issue exists, and I am not
trying to negate it. I am simply trying to bring the concerns of a buyer
to the table, as nearly all who have commented on (and supported) this proposal
are sellers, so that all perspectives can be examined before making a
significant change to the purchasing system.
|
So I guess alot of the concern is remedied if what's left in stock really
is invisible. That way, you can hardly blame a store for not selling it any more
than you can blame a small store for not being large
What I meant to say was, I think there's no need to worry lots will suddenly
become small. It's a tradeoff to the seller, because big lots really sell
better. He will have to find the sweet spot of having ample parts available while
sheltering them from large scale buy-outs. I'm thinking more in terms of
thousands, or perhaps Voldemorts that I want to sell individually and not all
10 at once. For some things there's this tipping point where either you are
stuck with them or they are all bought instantly.
But really, nobody understands the value of being able to offer large lots more
than I do. I'm the guy who parted out 20 Ninjago cities just for that purpose.
Spent all my savings just to get big lots
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Aug 31, 2018 05:02 | | Subject: | Re: New parameter for lots: max per buyer | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, DeLuca writes:
| | In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | In Suggestions, danielclark writes:
| | I'd be less inclined to shop in a store that restricts how much of an item
I could buy, especially if I could see they had more. When I search for parts
it's by highest quantity for my most desired elements. If a store is going
to retain some inventory then it's going to show further down on that list.
|
I agree, you should not see it. It would work exactly the same as the stockroom
currently works: You don't see what's back there that you cannot order.
|
The full quantity of a given item would not be visible on the item's Catalog
entry, but would it be visible on the item's entry in the store? It
is my understanding that it would, hence my concerns.
|
No, it should not be visible anywhere, just like a stockroom items is not visible.
If I have a lot of 5000 but limit it to 500 per buyer, it should show as a 500
size lot everywhere on Bricklink.
I intended it as a more automated version of the current way to do the same thing,
listing 500, switching on "retain" and writing "4500 left" in the remarks.
I agree it would be annoying to see things you couldn't buy.
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Aug 31, 2018 04:59 | | Subject: | Re: New parameter for lots: max per buyer | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Geniac writes:
| | In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | ...to bar the effect of buyers blowing sudden holes in your inventory.
|
I have no desire to bar anybody from buying as much of my inventory at once as
they want. I'm here to sell Lego. If somebody wants to buy all I have of
a part, that's fine with me.
Shaun
|
So you leave the field 0
|
|
| Author: | Geniac | | Posted: | Aug 30, 2018 23:40 | | Subject: | Re: New parameter for lots: max per buyer | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | ...to bar the effect of buyers blowing sudden holes in your inventory.
|
I have no desire to bar anybody from buying as much of my inventory at once as
they want. I'm here to sell Lego. If somebody wants to buy all I have of
a part, that's fine with me.
Shaun
|
| Author: | leopard37 | | Posted: | Aug 30, 2018 22:42 | | Subject: | Re: New parameter for lots: max per buyer | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Voted no,
You are here to sell items no? If someone from China can make money on your part
with shipping. Let them, TLG has made their cut, you make yours, than let them
make theirs.
You've already said there is a way of doing it with the remarks and retain,
do it...
Tyson.
|
|
| Author: | DeLuca | | Posted: | Aug 30, 2018 21:46 | | Subject: | Re: New parameter for lots: max per buyer | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | In Suggestions, danielclark writes:
| | I'd be less inclined to shop in a store that restricts how much of an item
I could buy, especially if I could see they had more. When I search for parts
it's by highest quantity for my most desired elements. If a store is going
to retain some inventory then it's going to show further down on that list.
|
I agree, you should not see it. It would work exactly the same as the stockroom
currently works: You don't see what's back there that you cannot order.
|
The full quantity of a given item would not be visible on the item's Catalog
entry, but would it be visible on the item's entry in the store? It
is my understanding that it would, hence my concerns.
|
|
| Author: | DeLuca | | Posted: | Aug 30, 2018 21:41 | | Subject: | Re: New parameter for lots: max per buyer | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | In Suggestions, DeLuca writes:
| | In Suggestions, 62Bricks writes:
| | This would not give you more buyers. If anything it will turn away buyers.
There are no buyers out there specifically looking for sellers who limit what
they can buy. On the other hand, there may be buyers out there who want to buy
more than your max. I see no possible upside.
|
I agree completely. If I want to buy, for example, ~30 blasters (to replace
the stud-shooters in Battlepacks), and I can only buy them in batches of 5-10
at a certain store, I will purchase them from a store with no lot-limits,
and will not make three (or more) orders from the store with limits.
Aside from driving away buyers (particularly new buyers, large-scale MOC-ers,
and army-builders), there is the potential for abuse of such a system. If a store
sets a minimum-buy, then sets low lot-limits, it could possibly force buyers
to purchase numerous items that they do not need/want (to raise the price of
each cart), in order to be able to buy what they do want (and in the desired
quantities). While in most cases, such a scenario as described above would simply
drive the buyer away, but, when the items in question are rare, buyers may have
no choice other than to be gouged, if they want the aforementioned items.
|
You are free to buy wherever you like and if a seller does not find buyers because they don't offer enough, they know they need to buy more or make more available.
|
Though you say it in disagreement, this is actually what I said (that I would
just buy what I want from a store without lot-limits, and that those with
limits will lose buyers). Additionally, your suggested solution seems to run
counter to the stated purpose of increasing a store's sales (as it
essentially proposes that stores revert to the current system - In which case,
why make a significant change to the system?).
| | The scenario where it's part of a bad mix with features is as much a complaint about those other features as it is about this one. Minimum order is also a fine feature which by itself already 'forces' you to buy things you don't need.
|
While you are correct that I dislike minimum-buys (and I already avoid stores
with ones that are unreasonably high), I can usually bump the price up by purchasing,
say, six Stormtroopers, instead of five. If there is a five-lot-limit on Stormtroopers,
however, I would need to find an additional $4-5 item (that I may not need) to
raise the price of the cart. Minimum-buys are already fairly common, so adding
lot-limits on top will just hurt stores that have them even more.
| | This is really not any different from me shopping for Star Wars minifigs and a store having only some of them while some others they are keeping in their stockroom and are not available to me.
|
It, to me, is more like going into a store and finding piles of (40299) (the
Kessel Mine Worker), but only being able to buy them in batches of two, having
to go out of the store and come back in in order to buy more, and having to buy
a CMF or two each time (representing shipping/fees/etc).
| | I think that's an extremely common situation, and I don't see why keeping part of a lot in stockroom is that fundamentally different from keeping some lots in stockroom and offering others.
|
The difference is this: If am browsing through a store and see only five of a
piece that I want (but in a higher quantity), I may buy all five. If I am browsing
through a store and see 400 of that same piece, but I can only buy five,
I will probably not buy any. I recognise that this may seem illogical,
but (to me, at least), it is a psychological difference between seeing what I
can have, and seeing what I could have, if not for an imposed restriction.
This results in frustration, similar to that regarding one-per-box CMFs (particularly
Percival Graves); LEGO could include more, but they choose to create
artificial scarcity. Lot-limits are, in my view, much the same.
| | You should consider not just the side where you do not find the 30 blasters. You should also consider the side where you do find the 30 blasters because a reseller or another big guy was unable to buy all 6948 of them. They can be cheaper without being instantly gone.
|
In the case of the 6948 blasters, the problem could be solved within the confines
of the current system, by simply listing the blasters in batches of 60 at any
given time. This prevents the mass-buyout that you fear, but also does not drive
buyers away (or to frustration) by limiting the blasters to, for example, ten-per-order.
| | To you this is not visible, but I lose some lots that I could have served many buyers with to their full satisfaction.
|
I do understand and appreciate that this side of the issue exists, and I am not
trying to negate it. I am simply trying to bring the concerns of a buyer
to the table, as nearly all who have commented on (and supported) this proposal
are sellers, so that all perspectives can be examined before making a
significant change to the purchasing system.
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Aug 30, 2018 20:42 | | Subject: | Re: New parameter for lots: max per buyer | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, danielclark writes:
| | I'd be less inclined to shop in a store that restricts how much of an item
I could buy, especially if I could see they had more. When I search for parts
it's by highest quantity for my most desired elements. If a store is going
to retain some inventory then it's going to show further down on that list.
|
I agree, you should not see it. It would work exactly the same as the stockroom
currently works: You don't see what's back there that you cannot order.
The shop simply appears as a smaller shop, so yes, they will pay for it by showing
further down the highest quantity list just like you say. The seller can't
eat the cake and have it too
|
|
| Author: | danielclark | | Posted: | Aug 30, 2018 20:36 | | Subject: | Re: New parameter for lots: max per buyer | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| I'd be less inclined to shop in a store that restricts how much of an item
I could buy, especially if I could see they had more. When I search for parts
it's by highest quantity for my most desired elements. If a store is going
to retain some inventory then it's going to show further down on that list.
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Aug 30, 2018 20:15 | | Subject: | Re: New parameter for lots: max per buyer | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, DeLuca writes:
| | In Suggestions, 62Bricks writes:
| | This would not give you more buyers. If anything it will turn away buyers.
There are no buyers out there specifically looking for sellers who limit what
they can buy. On the other hand, there may be buyers out there who want to buy
more than your max. I see no possible upside.
|
I agree completely. If I want to buy, for example, ~30 blasters (to replace
the stud-shooters in Battlepacks), and I can only buy them in batches of 5-10
at a certain store, I will purchase them from a store with no lot-limits,
and will not make three (or more) orders from the store with limits.
Aside from driving away buyers (particularly new buyers, large-scale MOC-ers,
and army-builders), there is the potential for abuse of such a system. If a store
sets a minimum-buy, then sets low lot-limits, it could possibly force buyers
to purchase numerous items that they do not need/want (to raise the price of
each cart), in order to be able to buy what they do want (and in the desired
quantities). While in most cases, such a scenario as described above would simply
drive the buyer away, but, when the items in question are rare, buyers may have
no choice other than to be gouged, if they want the aforementioned items.
|
You're making it sound like this option will force you to do certain things,
but that's not the case at all. You are free to buy wherever you like and
if a seller does not find buyers because they don't offer enough, they know
they need to buy more or make more available. The scenario where it's part
of a bad mix with features is as much a complaint about those other features
as it is about this one. Minimum order is also a fine feature which by itself
already 'forces' you to buy things you don't need.
This is really not any different from me shopping for Star Wars minifigs and
a store having only some of them while some others they are keeping in their
stockroom and are not available to me. I think that's an extremely common
situation, and I don't see why keeping part of a lot in stockroom
is that fundamentally different from keeping some lots in stockroom and offering
others.
You should consider not just the side where you do not find the 30 blasters.
You should also consider the side where you do find the 30 blasters because
a reseller or another big guy was unable to buy all 6948 of them. They can be
cheaper without being instantly gone. To you this is not visible, but I lose
some lots that I could have served many buyers with to their full satisfaction.
|
|
| Author: | DeLuca | | Posted: | Aug 30, 2018 19:52 | | Subject: | Re: New parameter for lots: max per buyer | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, 62Bricks writes:
| | This would not give you more buyers. If anything it will turn away buyers.
There are no buyers out there specifically looking for sellers who limit what
they can buy. On the other hand, there may be buyers out there who want to buy
more than your max. I see no possible upside.
|
I agree completely. If I want to buy, for example, ~30 blasters (to replace
the stud-shooters in Battlepacks), and I can only buy them in batches of 5-10
at a certain store, I will purchase them from a store with no lot-limits,
and will not make three (or more) orders from the store with limits.
Aside from driving away buyers (particularly new buyers, large-scale MOC-ers,
and army-builders), there is the potential for abuse of such a system. If a store
sets a minimum-buy, then sets low lot-limits, it could possibly force buyers
to purchase numerous items that they do not need/want (to raise the price of
each cart), in order to be able to buy what they do want (and in the desired
quantities). While in most cases, such a scenario as described above would simply
drive the buyer away, but, when the items in question are rare, buyers may have
no choice other than to be gouged, if they want the aforementioned items.
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Aug 30, 2018 19:47 | | Subject: | Re: New parameter for lots: max per buyer | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, 62Bricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | In Suggestions, WhiteHorseMatt writes:
| | In Suggestions, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Suggestions, LearnedBrick writes:
| | […]
While I understand the concept of this request, I have a simple question: What
is the virtue of this feature? What makes it good? […]
|
One obvious use is to do like S@H: limit resale potential, er, I mean, allow
more customers to be served.
|
But as a Bricklink seller?
There are lots less overheads involved in selling 10 items to one buyer, than
one each to 10 buyers.
|
But at least you will have 10 buyers rather than 1
|
This would not give you more buyers. If anything it will turn away buyers.
There are no buyers out there specifically looking for sellers who limit what
they can buy. On the other hand, there may be buyers out there who want to buy
more than your max. I see no possible upside.
|
Buyers are always limited in what they can buy. A buyer won't see the difference
between a seller offering their stock in doses and a seller who does not have
alot of stock. It will absolutely bring more buyers and it is used widely by
online stores and actually by most physical stores as well. Many physical stores
have stockrooms and will fill up gaps in the store inventory whenever they appear.
As I explained, if someone from outside the VAT zone takes a whole lot that is
cheap for them, that leaves alot of my regular market without those parts. I
would much rather serve alot of buyers to their satisfaction rather than 1 Chinese
reseller. It would enable me to offer parts at lower prices, too. It's difficult
to stay in a competitive price range for local markets which are most relevant,
if it makes you appear extra cheap to buyers elsewhere, who will buy you out,
reduce your lot count, and thereby reduce your number of orders (which is mostly
linked to lot count).
| | This appears, like lot limits, to be a "solution" for sellers who believe the
only way to make money is to keep their customers from taking up their time filling
orders.
|
That's a pretty extreme point of view, basically what you are advocating
is to abolish the stockroom option and allow buyers access to everything a seller
owns. I think many sellers use the stockroom option and do not want to offer
everything they have on hand straight away and all at once. This is just a tool
to use the stockroom more efficiently. It's not similar to lot limits in
any way, that is intended to make orders smaller and it's something I would
never want to use. This suggestion is aimed at serving more buyers with the same
stock and be able to dump parts and have sales with greater effect.
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Aug 30, 2018 19:23 | | Subject: | Re: New parameter for lots: max per buyer | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, enig writes:
| | In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | I would really like to see a new parameter for lots that limits the amount a
buyer can buy of a certain part in any one order. The part would then turn up
in search results and in store inventory showing not more than the value specified.
It's something that many online stores use, notably also LEGO themselves.
So far the way to do this is to offer the desired max amount, put in remarks
how much is left, and put the item on retain. This has several drawbacks, most
of all:
- You have to manually reoffer and modify the remarks all the time
- You cannot see or accurately modify the price and other stats of your inventory
because part of the amount of what you have is hidden in remarks
This could all be solved by 1 simple extra field, that is left on 0 when unused.
Of course, the item should not appear updated for users that still have an order
that has not yet reached the packed status. Of course buyers can buy again after
that, but separate shipping and handling fees should be sufficient to bar the
effect of buyers blowing sudden holes in your inventory.
|
I like the idea. I really do and it would be super useful. But just as with many
things - it works well if sellers use it for the actual purpose that you have
outlined here. If it starts to be abused it would have a potential to ruin many
things.
What would stop sellers from creating a new lot for every single item they sell
and set it to 0.01 , (higher for the more expensive stuff ofc) to work as a form
of an advertisement. Now they have all the listings at the top. Imagine 15 sellers
doing that. 50 sellers?
That would also mess up the avg listed prices, as well as 6 month avg since some
of these would actually sell.
Just look at the superlot listings of CMF's. Averages become useless. Average
prices for the most part actually are useless anyway.. but try explaining
that to a customer.
Would this trick actually help and generate some sales for these sellers? Probably
not a lot, of at all. A little more elaborate usage, however, probably would.
Heck, I myself would gladly give away a couple EUR worth of cheap parts for free
that every single seller has an over-stock of anyway, if it also helped to make
a sale of other items that are priced well.
Ever went to a supermarket just to get that awesome deal that you saw
in an advertisement? And came back with a trunk-full of stuff? Oh yes.
|
You have some good points and I agree they need to be addressed in some way should
this feature ever make it to implementation. You're right the priceguide
for current listings would appear lower but maybe the by-quantity priceguide
would be OK. Maybe there should also be a minimum quantity, although then it
quickly becomes tricky where to draw the line, and expensive items like minifigs
should be OK to list just 1 of.
However, while these issues are real, do keep in mind it's already possible
to do this, but just manually by using remarks and retain. So it won't be
a 100% new mechanic, just something that exists but will become more prominent.
And people who are blessed with understanding of the obscure BL API or who are
developing third party tools may already make this feature available by supporting
certain tags in the remarks field.
I agree with you that these are issues that need to be remedied somehow, either
by accomodating to the effects it causes or by limiting excessive use. Either
way I think it's really worth solving that, because the benefits can be pretty
great - sellers could get more sales and buyers could find more complete inventories
as well as lower prices, if the lots are protected against instant buy-outs.
|
|
| Author: | enig | | Posted: | Aug 30, 2018 18:03 | | Subject: | Re: New parameter for lots: max per buyer | | Viewed: | 71 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | I would really like to see a new parameter for lots that limits the amount a
buyer can buy of a certain part in any one order. The part would then turn up
in search results and in store inventory showing not more than the value specified.
It's something that many online stores use, notably also LEGO themselves.
So far the way to do this is to offer the desired max amount, put in remarks
how much is left, and put the item on retain. This has several drawbacks, most
of all:
- You have to manually reoffer and modify the remarks all the time
- You cannot see or accurately modify the price and other stats of your inventory
because part of the amount of what you have is hidden in remarks
This could all be solved by 1 simple extra field, that is left on 0 when unused.
Of course, the item should not appear updated for users that still have an order
that has not yet reached the packed status. Of course buyers can buy again after
that, but separate shipping and handling fees should be sufficient to bar the
effect of buyers blowing sudden holes in your inventory.
|
I like the idea. I really do and it would be super useful. But just as with many
things - it works well if sellers use it for the actual purpose that you have
outlined here. If it starts to be abused it would have a potential to ruin many
things.
What would stop sellers from creating a new lot for every single item they sell
and set it to 0.01 , (higher for the more expensive stuff ofc) to work as a form
of an advertisement. Now they have all the listings at the top. Imagine 15 sellers
doing that. 50 sellers?
That would also mess up the avg listed prices, as well as 6 month avg since some
of these would actually sell.
Just look at the superlot listings of CMF's. Averages become useless. Average
prices for the most part actually are useless anyway.. but try explaining
that to a customer.
Would this trick actually help and generate some sales for these sellers? Probably
not a lot, of at all. A little more elaborate usage, however, probably would.
Heck, I myself would gladly give away a couple EUR worth of cheap parts for free
that every single seller has an over-stock of anyway, if it also helped to make
a sale of other items that are priced well.
Ever went to a supermarket just to get that awesome deal that you saw
in an advertisement? And came back with a trunk-full of stuff? Oh yes.
|
|
| Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Aug 30, 2018 17:07 | | Subject: | Re: New parameter for lots: max per buyer | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | In Suggestions, WhiteHorseMatt writes:
| | In Suggestions, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Suggestions, LearnedBrick writes:
| | […]
While I understand the concept of this request, I have a simple question: What
is the virtue of this feature? What makes it good? […]
|
One obvious use is to do like S@H: limit resale potential, er, I mean, allow
more customers to be served.
|
But as a Bricklink seller?
There are lots less overheads involved in selling 10 items to one buyer, than
one each to 10 buyers.
|
But at least you will have 10 buyers rather than 1
|
This would not give you more buyers. If anything it will turn away buyers.
There are no buyers out there specifically looking for sellers who limit what
they can buy. On the other hand, there may be buyers out there who want to buy
more than your max. I see no possible upside.
This appears, like lot limits, to be a "solution" for sellers who believe the
only way to make money is to keep their customers from taking up their time filling
orders.
|
|
| Author: | Pippysblocks | | Posted: | Aug 30, 2018 16:59 | | Subject: | Re: New parameter for lots: max per buyer | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | A big yes from me |
| Author: | brickconnector | | Posted: | Aug 30, 2018 16:51 | | Subject: | Re: New parameter for lots: max per buyer | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | I would really like to see a new parameter for lots that limits the amount a
buyer can buy of a certain part in any one order.
|
I understand the problem very well. I really want to help as many people as possible
in some parts (and therefore get more orders), but some things are always immediately
all bought at once.
For me and I think for many others this option would be perfect.
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Aug 30, 2018 15:52 | | Subject: | Re: New parameter for lots: max per buyer | | Viewed: | 65 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, WhiteHorseMatt writes:
| | In Suggestions, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Suggestions, LearnedBrick writes:
| | […]
While I understand the concept of this request, I have a simple question: What
is the virtue of this feature? What makes it good? […]
|
One obvious use is to do like S@H: limit resale potential, er, I mean, allow
more customers to be served.
|
But as a Bricklink seller?
There are lots less overheads involved in selling 10 items to one buyer, than
one each to 10 buyers.
|
But at least you will have 10 buyers rather than 1
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 30, 2018 15:38 | | Subject: | Re: New parameter for lots: max per buyer | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, WhiteHorseMatt writes:
| | In Suggestions, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Suggestions, LearnedBrick writes:
| | […]
While I understand the concept of this request, I have a simple question: What
is the virtue of this feature? What makes it good? […]
|
One obvious use is to do like S@H: limit resale potential, er, I mean, allow
more customers to be served.
|
But as a Bricklink seller?
There are lots less overheads involved in selling 10 items to one buyer, than
one each to 10 buyers.
Unless OP was intending it to be like S&H's gift with purchase, i.e. spend
X and you can buy this item cheap.
|
Supermarket specials? Those that go buy X for Y price limited to two or six or
whatever per customer. That would be one I would use this for. Another, an idea
I've been toying with because of long lead times, would be to limit numbers
per customer where the stock levels gets seriously low too quickly and there
is a long wait for new inventory to arrive. At least you end up helping a few
more people than just one or two. Stockrooms and tiered pricing just does not
help for this at all.
|
|
| Author: | WhiteHorseMatt | | Posted: | Aug 30, 2018 15:16 | | Subject: | Re: New parameter for lots: max per buyer | | Viewed: | 61 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Suggestions, LearnedBrick writes:
| | […]
While I understand the concept of this request, I have a simple question: What
is the virtue of this feature? What makes it good? […]
|
One obvious use is to do like S@H: limit resale potential, er, I mean, allow
more customers to be served.
|
But as a Bricklink seller?
There are lots less overheads involved in selling 10 items to one buyer, than
one each to 10 buyers.
Unless OP was intending it to be like S&H's gift with purchase, i.e. spend
X and you can buy this item cheap.
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Aug 30, 2018 10:07 | | Subject: | Re: New parameter for lots: max per buyer | | Viewed: | 68 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Suggestions, axaday writes:
| | In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | I have this thing with 1x1 bricks for excample.
I don't want to overprice, but because of VAT not applying outside the EU
I tend to lose them all very quickly to overseas buyers if I don't, and when
I do, nobody buys them..
|
What happens if you lose them?
|
Then he doesn’t have enough to lure, er, attract other buyers.
(Just kidding with the vocabulary. It’s a genuine concern for a seller to have
variety and staples.)
|
Exactly, when I have plenty of them in grays, black and white, I have alot of
buyers for them, but then sooner or later there's always that guy who buys
them all 
Actually buyers should be happy for this feature, as overpricing is the alternative.
|
|
| Author: | BrickBuy | | Posted: | Aug 30, 2018 10:03 | | Subject: | Re: New parameter for lots: max per buyer | | Viewed: | 83 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| I would like this! I would love to offer some of the items I have in my store
for a low price. For instance, I have lots of poly bags of the same type that
I would love for customers to be able to get for just $1 or $2 (or even for free).
However, if I'd list them for $1 or $2, someone would buy them all. Listing
them with "you may only buy one" does not work, someone will just buy them all
anyway, and I'll have to re-upload them. A big Yes from me.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Aug 30, 2018 09:58 | | Subject: | Re: New parameter for lots: max per buyer | | Viewed: | 59 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, axaday writes:
| | In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | I have this thing with 1x1 bricks for excample.
I don't want to overprice, but because of VAT not applying outside the EU
I tend to lose them all very quickly to overseas buyers if I don't, and when
I do, nobody buys them..
|
What happens if you lose them?
|
Then he doesn’t have enough to lure, er, attract other buyers.
(Just kidding with the vocabulary. It’s a genuine concern for a seller to have
variety and staples.)
|
|
| Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Aug 30, 2018 09:53 | | Subject: | Re: New parameter for lots: max per buyer | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | I have this thing with 1x1 bricks for excample.
I don't want to overprice, but because of VAT not applying outside the EU
I tend to lose them all very quickly to overseas buyers if I don't, and when
I do, nobody buys them..
|
What happens if you lose them?
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Aug 30, 2018 09:19 | | Subject: | Re: New parameter for lots: max per buyer | | Viewed: | 74 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, LearnedBrick writes:
| | In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | I would really like to see a new parameter for lots that limits the amount a
buyer can buy of a certain part in any one order. The part would then turn up
in search results and in store inventory showing not more than the value specified.
It's something that many online stores use, notably also LEGO themselves.
So far the way to do this is to offer the desired max amount, put in remarks
how much is left, and put the item on retain. This has several drawbacks, most
of all:
- You have to manually reoffer and modify the remarks all the time
- You cannot see or accurately modify the price and other stats of your inventory
because part of the amount of what you have is hidden in remarks
This could all be solved by 1 simple extra field, that is left on 0 when unused.
Of course, the item should not appear updated for users that still have an order
that has not yet reached the packed status. Of course buyers can buy again after
that, but separate shipping and handling fees should be sufficient to bar the
effect of buyers blowing sudden holes in your inventory.
|
While I understand the concept of this request, I have a simple question: What
is the virtue of this feature? What makes it good?
Isn't the intended effect of offering products for sale that customers buy
them? Shouldn't the primary goal be to offer the customer what they need?
And if they need all the items in a certain lot, shouldn't we allow them
the delight in purchasing them?
There may be a specific need in your store for always keeping a certain amount
of items in a lot set aside, but I am at a loss to understand why. In an effort
to solve one problem in your store, you may indeed be creating another.
|
I think it is actually quite common practise for sellers who are not looking
to really get rid of their store to sometimes keep some items in stockroom and
not offer them. The way I see it, it is either one or the other; Following your
logic the stockroom should not exist, or, if we accomodate for sellers keeping
some things from sight, we should also have this feature in order for that to
be more effective.
You can still offer people what they need if you allow, say, 500 of some slope.
There's a difference between a buyer who needs 500 and, say, a reseller from
China who buys out 5000 all at once. I have this thing with 1x1 bricks for excample.
I don't want to overprice, but because of VAT not applying outside the EU
I tend to lose them all very quickly to overseas buyers if I don't, and when
I do, nobody buys them..
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Aug 30, 2018 09:19 | | Subject: | Re: New parameter for lots: max per buyer | | Viewed: | 77 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, LearnedBrick writes:
| | […]
While I understand the concept of this request, I have a simple question: What
is the virtue of this feature? What makes it good? […]
|
One obvious use is to do like S@H: limit resale potential, er, I mean, allow
more customers to be served.
|
|
| Author: | LearnedBrick | | Posted: | Aug 30, 2018 09:03 | | Subject: | Re: New parameter for lots: max per buyer | | Viewed: | 83 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | I would really like to see a new parameter for lots that limits the amount a
buyer can buy of a certain part in any one order. The part would then turn up
in search results and in store inventory showing not more than the value specified.
It's something that many online stores use, notably also LEGO themselves.
So far the way to do this is to offer the desired max amount, put in remarks
how much is left, and put the item on retain. This has several drawbacks, most
of all:
- You have to manually reoffer and modify the remarks all the time
- You cannot see or accurately modify the price and other stats of your inventory
because part of the amount of what you have is hidden in remarks
This could all be solved by 1 simple extra field, that is left on 0 when unused.
Of course, the item should not appear updated for users that still have an order
that has not yet reached the packed status. Of course buyers can buy again after
that, but separate shipping and handling fees should be sufficient to bar the
effect of buyers blowing sudden holes in your inventory.
|
While I understand the concept of this request, I have a simple question: What
is the virtue of this feature? What makes it good?
Isn't the intended effect of offering products for sale that customers buy
them? Shouldn't the primary goal be to offer the customer what they need?
And if they need all the items in a certain lot, shouldn't we allow them
the delight in purchasing them?
There may be a specific need in your store for always keeping a certain amount
of items in a lot set aside, but I am at a loss to understand why. In an effort
to solve one problem in your store, you may indeed be creating another.
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Aug 30, 2018 08:55 | | Subject: | New parameter for lots: max per buyer | | Viewed: | 316 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| I would really like to see a new parameter for lots that limits the amount a
buyer can buy of a certain part in any one order. The part would then turn up
in search results and in store inventory showing not more than the value specified.
It's something that many online stores use, notably also LEGO themselves.
So far the way to do this is to offer the desired max amount, put in remarks
how much is left, and put the item on retain. This has several drawbacks, most
of all:
- You have to manually reoffer and modify the remarks all the time
- You cannot see or accurately modify the price and other stats of your inventory
because part of the amount of what you have is hidden in remarks
This could all be solved by 1 simple extra field, that is left on 0 when unused.
Of course, the item should not appear updated for users that still have an order
that has not yet reached the packed status. Of course buyers can buy again after
that, but separate shipping and handling fees should be sufficient to bar the
effect of buyers blowing sudden holes in your inventory.
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Aug 29, 2018 08:01 | | Subject: | Re: Minimum re-order level and auto wantlist | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, RoswellGinny writes:
| | | | In this day and age and all the talk about modernising the site, it is nonsense
that stores do not have inventory management at their disposal.
|
++++++++++++++++ 1 x 1,000,000!
Abso-frickin-lutely!
I have searched and searched and searched for an inventory management tool. I
have bought 2 and been refunded by their developers because they don't work
with my needs. I have tested out 5 others and rejected those as well. I'm
so frustrated by this problem I can't even talk about it without my blood
pressure spiking. It is the single largest headache in my business. It affects
my accounting, my sales, my purchases..... every aspect of my business.
|
We are in total agreement with that. We have developed our own in-house Access
system which deals with all aspects of running a store but doe not yet have full
inventory management in it. I am seriously thinking about putting one of our
developers on it but it should come from bBricklink who have access to the code
and database.
|
|
| Author: | WildBricks | | Posted: | Aug 29, 2018 07:49 | | Subject: | Re: Minimum re-order level and auto wantlist | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | In this day and age and all the talk about modernising the site, it is nonsense
that stores do not have inventory management at their disposal.
|
++++++++++++++++ 1 x 1,000,000!
Abso-frickin-lutely!
I have searched and searched and searched for an inventory management tool. I
have bought 2 and been refunded by their developers because they don't work
with my needs. I have tested out 5 others and rejected those as well. I'm
so frustrated by this problem I can't even talk about it without my blood
pressure spiking. It is the single largest headache in my business. It affects
my accounting, my sales, my purchases..... every aspect of my business.
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Aug 29, 2018 07:26 | | Subject: | Re: Minimum re-order level and auto wantlist | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, bje writes:
| | Can we please get a field in the my inventory page for a minimum stock level
for each item and can that please be used to trigger an automatic entry to a
dedicated wantlist as soon as the re-order level is hit?
So for example what I would want is say in red, I would like a minimum
inventory to be in my store of 30. I have 60 at present. An order comes through
for 40, and immediately that part in that colour gets added to my dedicated
wantlist for inventory.
The benefit would be that it is simply a wantlist that needs to be checked daily
and not inventory levels in brickstock or some other off-site inventory management
system. Also obviously easier to re-order as needed, especially for sellers like
me with very long lead-times.
Of course, the best would be if there could be a complete inventory management
on BL as to which this would just a small part of because I really find it frustrating
that inventory management on-site is essentially just the selling price and quantity
available, but... baby steps
|
We voted yes for this but it is unlikely to happen. This was asked for when the
new people took over Bricklink (2013). It was muted it was going to go into Sellers
tools but a series of speculative developments (Mosaic, Stud.io, MOC, plus the
up and coming XP)have prevented that from happening - the current one being XP.
In admins own words the classic site, other than fixing issues which are show
stoppers, is not seeing any developments major or minor whilst XP is being developed.
Serious inventory management is not a simple exercise and bearing in mind the
strengths of the current development team lie in other areas, it might be better
to 'hook' a proper inventory management system in but they are unlikely
to do that either.
In this day and age and all the talk about modernising the site, it is nonsense
that stores do not have inventory management at their disposal.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Aug 29, 2018 05:00 | | Subject: | Minimum re-order level and auto wantlist | | Viewed: | 84 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| Can we please get a field in the my inventory page for a minimum stock level
for each item and can that please be used to trigger an automatic entry to a
dedicated wantlist as soon as the re-order level is hit?
So for example what I would want is say in red, I would like a minimum
inventory to be in my store of 30. I have 60 at present. An order comes through
for 40, and immediately that part in that colour gets added to my dedicated
wantlist for inventory.
The benefit would be that it is simply a wantlist that needs to be checked daily
and not inventory levels in brickstock or some other off-site inventory management
system. Also obviously easier to re-order as needed, especially for sellers like
me with very long lead-times.
Of course, the best would be if there could be a complete inventory management
on BL as to which this would just a small part of because I really find it frustrating
that inventory management on-site is essentially just the selling price and quantity
available, but... baby steps
|
|
| Author: | MidwestBrick | | Posted: | Aug 28, 2018 18:12 | | Subject: | Re: Ability to Sort Inventory by Total Size | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | In Suggestions, MidwestBrick writes:
| | In Suggestions, VOTB writes:
| | In Suggestions, MidwestBrick writes:
| | One of the many ways that I personally change my pricing is simply based on how
much space those items take up to store them. An example is, I believe I have
about 200 6x6 plates. This takes up a good amount of room to hold these, of
which, maybe I would want to price these lower to possibly move them to free
up space. Another example is large Wheels. Regardless, it would be beneficial;
to other than knowing what items are large but also to know how much space is
being used in comparison to others if they were able to sort by total Size which
would be Quantity times the sizes that BL already has established. This would
help compare space being used for 2 x 4 plates vs 6 x6 plates vs 1x1 round plates
and also be another way to run sales on items that are large that maybe we forgot
we even had.
Thanks for the consideration.
|
The real question is the size of a piece listed as a data point or simple
text. It seems like this could get pretty complicated describing so many three
dimensional pieces. Once you start looking at slopes and brackets shape and
volume get harder to calculate. I guess a 3D Studio model of each piece could
do the work.
I am still fairly new to this system but could sorting by weight/piece and weight/lot
do this? (I know this is not a current feature)
- A heavier piece would likely be bigger and take up more space.
- A heavier lot would likely take up more space, even if the piece is small.
This would let you see that drawer of 1000 1x1 bricks is likely taking more space
than the 2000 1x1 tile.
This utilizes an existing data point. The only thing is that some wheels are
hollow and are quite large, but a smaller tire could weigh more. From what I
have experienced so far, wheels and tires just take up a lot of space no matter
what.
|
Overall, just a volume calculation would be nice. From there it shouldn't
be overly difficult to simply "imagine" how much space that volume is taking
up. But knowing that X piece or type takes up a Y amount would be useful, especially
for those whom have limited storage space to begin with. It wouldn't have
to be exact as that is tough to do, but it would also help for a price analysis
too. I would rather have 1,000 1x1 tiles vs 4 Large Tires, thus the room is
more important to utilize for some items vs others. If I could sort by volume
of space being used, then it would be easier to possibly push out the larger
items, especially if you haven't notice that they continue to accumulate.
(each of us have our own storage solutions) I can open a drawer and visualize
all of this, but it is of course easier if the computer tells me what my bulk
items are and I can make adjustments on the fly vs having to look them all up
individually.
|
It would easily be possible for the system to sort according to volume. All volumes
of all parts are either know or estimated, as they are being used by instant
checkout all the time.
Being able to sort by weight though would already suit your purposes I think.
If we're talking about some 50 lots you want to discount, it's not really
torture to go over the list and skip the odd compact part in the list.
I do wonder what this would do to the prices. It may encourage a race to the
bottom for large parts, and blowing holes into inventories, and I wonder if it's
really in anyone's interest. I totally understand why you would want to discount
big parts, I've also been doing it and have been thinking about it, but I've
eventually decided not to do this anymore and simply create more storage space
for these parts. Having a balanced, well rounded inventory is more important
to me.
Big parts usually mean less frequent visiting of that area of storage. Fewer
visits per liter, so to speak. There are always some drawers or bins near the
ceiling or near the floor where you don't really like to be. I planned my
storage so that such parts would end up in places like that and now they don't
bother me anymore
|
I don't think it would affect pricing too much, as you are going to do it
or not. It would just be another tool to use. Sometimes there are many items
we forget we have and if we saw that having hundreds of something in another
way might give some of us reason to try to move them out. I mean for all those
that post "sales because they need room" this should be the first thing that
is done. It only makes sense in a literal aspect to sell the largest items that
take up the most space right?
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Aug 28, 2018 17:33 | | Subject: | Re: Ability to Sort Inventory by Total Size | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, MidwestBrick writes:
| | In Suggestions, VOTB writes:
| | In Suggestions, MidwestBrick writes:
| | One of the many ways that I personally change my pricing is simply based on how
much space those items take up to store them. An example is, I believe I have
about 200 6x6 plates. This takes up a good amount of room to hold these, of
which, maybe I would want to price these lower to possibly move them to free
up space. Another example is large Wheels. Regardless, it would be beneficial;
to other than knowing what items are large but also to know how much space is
being used in comparison to others if they were able to sort by total Size which
would be Quantity times the sizes that BL already has established. This would
help compare space being used for 2 x 4 plates vs 6 x6 plates vs 1x1 round plates
and also be another way to run sales on items that are large that maybe we forgot
we even had.
Thanks for the consideration.
|
The real question is the size of a piece listed as a data point or simple
text. It seems like this could get pretty complicated describing so many three
dimensional pieces. Once you start looking at slopes and brackets shape and
volume get harder to calculate. I guess a 3D Studio model of each piece could
do the work.
I am still fairly new to this system but could sorting by weight/piece and weight/lot
do this? (I know this is not a current feature)
- A heavier piece would likely be bigger and take up more space.
- A heavier lot would likely take up more space, even if the piece is small.
This would let you see that drawer of 1000 1x1 bricks is likely taking more space
than the 2000 1x1 tile.
This utilizes an existing data point. The only thing is that some wheels are
hollow and are quite large, but a smaller tire could weigh more. From what I
have experienced so far, wheels and tires just take up a lot of space no matter
what.
|
Overall, just a volume calculation would be nice. From there it shouldn't
be overly difficult to simply "imagine" how much space that volume is taking
up. But knowing that X piece or type takes up a Y amount would be useful, especially
for those whom have limited storage space to begin with. It wouldn't have
to be exact as that is tough to do, but it would also help for a price analysis
too. I would rather have 1,000 1x1 tiles vs 4 Large Tires, thus the room is
more important to utilize for some items vs others. If I could sort by volume
of space being used, then it would be easier to possibly push out the larger
items, especially if you haven't notice that they continue to accumulate.
(each of us have our own storage solutions) I can open a drawer and visualize
all of this, but it is of course easier if the computer tells me what my bulk
items are and I can make adjustments on the fly vs having to look them all up
individually.
|
It would easily be possible for the system to sort according to volume. All volumes
of all parts are either know or estimated, as they are being used by instant
checkout all the time.
Being able to sort by weight though would already suit your purposes I think.
If we're talking about some 50 lots you want to discount, it's not really
torture to go over the list and skip the odd compact part in the list.
I do wonder what this would do to the prices. It may encourage a race to the
bottom for large parts, and blowing holes into inventories, and I wonder if it's
really in anyone's interest. I totally understand why you would want to discount
big parts, I've also been doing it and have been thinking about it, but I've
eventually decided not to do this anymore and simply create more storage space
for these parts. Having a balanced, well rounded inventory is more important
to me.
Big parts usually mean less frequent visiting of that area of storage. Fewer
visits per liter, so to speak. There are always some drawers or bins near the
ceiling or near the floor where you don't really like to be. I planned my
storage so that such parts would end up in places like that and now they don't
bother me anymore
|
|
| Author: | leopard37 | | Posted: | Aug 28, 2018 16:54 | | Subject: | Re: Add Order Numbers on PayPal | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, littlejomo writes:
| | It would be a great help when tracking payments if the Bricklink Order Number
could be added to the PayPal payment.
When an order is paid for via the onsite checkout, the payment has a Purchase
Description of 'Bricklink Order', but adding the Order Number onto this
too would be a great help.
Thank you,
John
|
Yes please!!!
Tyson
|
|
| Author: | MidwestBrick | | Posted: | Aug 28, 2018 15:56 | | Subject: | Re: Ability to Sort Inventory by Total Size | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, VOTB writes:
| | In Suggestions, MidwestBrick writes:
| | One of the many ways that I personally change my pricing is simply based on how
much space those items take up to store them. An example is, I believe I have
about 200 6x6 plates. This takes up a good amount of room to hold these, of
which, maybe I would want to price these lower to possibly move them to free
up space. Another example is large Wheels. Regardless, it would be beneficial;
to other than knowing what items are large but also to know how much space is
being used in comparison to others if they were able to sort by total Size which
would be Quantity times the sizes that BL already has established. This would
help compare space being used for 2 x 4 plates vs 6 x6 plates vs 1x1 round plates
and also be another way to run sales on items that are large that maybe we forgot
we even had.
Thanks for the consideration.
|
The real question is the size of a piece listed as a data point or simple
text. It seems like this could get pretty complicated describing so many three
dimensional pieces. Once you start looking at slopes and brackets shape and
volume get harder to calculate. I guess a 3D Studio model of each piece could
do the work.
I am still fairly new to this system but could sorting by weight/piece and weight/lot
do this? (I know this is not a current feature)
- A heavier piece would likely be bigger and take up more space.
- A heavier lot would likely take up more space, even if the piece is small.
This would let you see that drawer of 1000 1x1 bricks is likely taking more space
than the 2000 1x1 tile.
This utilizes an existing data point. The only thing is that some wheels are
hollow and are quite large, but a smaller tire could weigh more. From what I
have experienced so far, wheels and tires just take up a lot of space no matter
what.
|
Overall, just a volume calculation would be nice. From there it shouldn't
be overly difficult to simply "imagine" how much space that volume is taking
up. But knowing that X piece or type takes up a Y amount would be useful, especially
for those whom have limited storage space to begin with. It wouldn't have
to be exact as that is tough to do, but it would also help for a price analysis
too. I would rather have 1,000 1x1 tiles vs 4 Large Tires, thus the room is
more important to utilize for some items vs others. If I could sort by volume
of space being used, then it would be easier to possibly push out the larger
items, especially if you haven't notice that they continue to accumulate.
(each of us have our own storage solutions) I can open a drawer and visualize
all of this, but it is of course easier if the computer tells me what my bulk
items are and I can make adjustments on the fly vs having to look them all up
individually.
|
|
| Author: | VOTB | | Posted: | Aug 28, 2018 15:17 | | Subject: | Re: Ability to Sort Inventory by Total Size | | Viewed: | 20 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, MidwestBrick writes:
| | One of the many ways that I personally change my pricing is simply based on how
much space those items take up to store them. An example is, I believe I have
about 200 6x6 plates. This takes up a good amount of room to hold these, of
which, maybe I would want to price these lower to possibly move them to free
up space. Another example is large Wheels. Regardless, it would be beneficial;
to other than knowing what items are large but also to know how much space is
being used in comparison to others if they were able to sort by total Size which
would be Quantity times the sizes that BL already has established. This would
help compare space being used for 2 x 4 plates vs 6 x6 plates vs 1x1 round plates
and also be another way to run sales on items that are large that maybe we forgot
we even had.
Thanks for the consideration.
|
The real question is the size of a piece listed as a data point or simple
text. It seems like this could get pretty complicated describing so many three
dimensional pieces. Once you start looking at slopes and brackets shape and
volume get harder to calculate. I guess a 3D Studio model of each piece could
do the work.
I am still fairly new to this system but could sorting by weight/piece and weight/lot
do this? (I know this is not a current feature)
- A heavier piece would likely be bigger and take up more space.
- A heavier lot would likely take up more space, even if the piece is small.
This would let you see that drawer of 1000 1x1 bricks is likely taking more space
than the 2000 1x1 tile.
This utilizes an existing data point. The only thing is that some wheels are
hollow and are quite large, but a smaller tire could weigh more. From what I
have experienced so far, wheels and tires just take up a lot of space no matter
what.
|
|
| Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Aug 28, 2018 14:30 | | Subject: | Re: Ability to Sort Inventory by Total Size | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, MidwestBrick writes:
| | One of the many ways that I personally change my pricing is simply based on how
much space those items take up to store them. An example is, I believe I have
about 200 6x6 plates. This takes up a good amount of room to hold these, of
which, maybe I would want to price these lower to possibly move them to free
up space. Another example is large Wheels. Regardless, it would be beneficial;
to other than knowing what items are large but also to know how much space is
being used in comparison to others if they were able to sort by total Size which
would be Quantity times the sizes that BL already has established. This would
help compare space being used for 2 x 4 plates vs 6 x6 plates vs 1x1 round plates
and also be another way to run sales on items that are large that maybe we forgot
we even had.
Thanks for the consideration.
|
It would also be helpful so I can quickly find the large items that I want to
set to manual shipping.
|
|
| Author: | MidwestBrick | | Posted: | Aug 28, 2018 14:14 | | Subject: | Ability to Sort Inventory by Total Size | | Viewed: | 68 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| One of the many ways that I personally change my pricing is simply based on how
much space those items take up to store them. An example is, I believe I have
about 200 6x6 plates. This takes up a good amount of room to hold these, of
which, maybe I would want to price these lower to possibly move them to free
up space. Another example is large Wheels. Regardless, it would be beneficial;
to other than knowing what items are large but also to know how much space is
being used in comparison to others if they were able to sort by total Size which
would be Quantity times the sizes that BL already has established. This would
help compare space being used for 2 x 4 plates vs 6 x6 plates vs 1x1 round plates
and also be another way to run sales on items that are large that maybe we forgot
we even had.
Thanks for the consideration.
|
|
| Author: | littlejomo | | Posted: | Aug 28, 2018 05:38 | | Subject: | Add Order Numbers on PayPal | | Viewed: | 87 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| It would be a great help when tracking payments if the Bricklink Order Number
could be added to the PayPal payment.
When an order is paid for via the onsite checkout, the payment has a Purchase
Description of 'Bricklink Order', but adding the Order Number onto this
too would be a great help.
Thank you,
John
|
|
|
| Author: | WFMTF | | Posted: | Aug 24, 2018 06:06 | | Subject: | Re: Who akes OCR cannot leave feedback | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | In Suggestions, Shintaku writes:
| | In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | In Suggestions, Shintaku writes:
| | In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | | | buyer submits a rash order then wants to cancel.
If you do agree, you risk the buyer leaving a negative feedback. I would surely
leave a neutral or negative for someone asking to cancel an order just because
they don't want the items anymore. But I can't leave it, as a revenge
negative is always ready.
|
Voted no, because if you mutually cancel an order, then why should you (the seller)
get to leave neutral/negative feedback? You agreed to cancel the order. If you
don't agree with it, then don't agree and wait for the NPB to go through
before leaving your neutral/negative.
I don't really understand why sellers need to be so harsh on buyers asking
for cancellations. If they don't ask, then fair enough. But if they are within
the EU, they are allowed to cancel the order anyway, especially if postage costs
were not made clear beforehand. Of course, feedback is different to legally being
allowed to cancel but even so, just cancel the unwanted order and move on.
|
If you voted "no" you should explain why you think it's important to leave
a feedback if you ask an order cancel, because that is what I would like to prevent.
|
I don't think the buyer OR seller should be able to, as there is no order
as both parties consented to cancelling it. Whereas your suggestion was to stop
a buyer leaving feedback but still allow the seller to do it.
|
No because if the SELLER asks cancellation he has no rights to leave a feedback
but the buyers still should be able.
|
Why should the buyer leave it in that case, when there is no transaction? Either
both should be allowed or neither.
|
I agree to the last comment
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Aug 22, 2018 13:36 | | Subject: | Re: Who akes OCR cannot leave feedback | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Shintaku writes:
| | In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | In Suggestions, Shintaku writes:
| | In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | | | buyer submits a rash order then wants to cancel.
If you do agree, you risk the buyer leaving a negative feedback. I would surely
leave a neutral or negative for someone asking to cancel an order just because
they don't want the items anymore. But I can't leave it, as a revenge
negative is always ready.
|
Voted no, because if you mutually cancel an order, then why should you (the seller)
get to leave neutral/negative feedback? You agreed to cancel the order. If you
don't agree with it, then don't agree and wait for the NPB to go through
before leaving your neutral/negative.
I don't really understand why sellers need to be so harsh on buyers asking
for cancellations. If they don't ask, then fair enough. But if they are within
the EU, they are allowed to cancel the order anyway, especially if postage costs
were not made clear beforehand. Of course, feedback is different to legally being
allowed to cancel but even so, just cancel the unwanted order and move on.
|
If you voted "no" you should explain why you think it's important to leave
a feedback if you ask an order cancel, because that is what I would like to prevent.
|
I don't think the buyer OR seller should be able to, as there is no order
as both parties consented to cancelling it. Whereas your suggestion was to stop
a buyer leaving feedback but still allow the seller to do it.
|
No because if the SELLER asks cancellation he has no rights to leave a feedback
but the buyers still should be able.
|
Why should the buyer leave it in that case, when there is no transaction? Either
both should be allowed or neither.
|
|
| Author: | Shintaku | | Posted: | Aug 22, 2018 08:34 | | Subject: | Re: Who akes OCR cannot leave feedback | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | In Suggestions, Shintaku writes:
| | In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | | | buyer submits a rash order then wants to cancel.
If you do agree, you risk the buyer leaving a negative feedback. I would surely
leave a neutral or negative for someone asking to cancel an order just because
they don't want the items anymore. But I can't leave it, as a revenge
negative is always ready.
|
Voted no, because if you mutually cancel an order, then why should you (the seller)
get to leave neutral/negative feedback? You agreed to cancel the order. If you
don't agree with it, then don't agree and wait for the NPB to go through
before leaving your neutral/negative.
I don't really understand why sellers need to be so harsh on buyers asking
for cancellations. If they don't ask, then fair enough. But if they are within
the EU, they are allowed to cancel the order anyway, especially if postage costs
were not made clear beforehand. Of course, feedback is different to legally being
allowed to cancel but even so, just cancel the unwanted order and move on.
|
If you voted "no" you should explain why you think it's important to leave
a feedback if you ask an order cancel, because that is what I would like to prevent.
|
I don't think the buyer OR seller should be able to, as there is no order
as both parties consented to cancelling it. Whereas your suggestion was to stop
a buyer leaving feedback but still allow the seller to do it.
|
No because if the SELLER asks cancellation he has no rights to leave a feedback
but the buyers still should be able.
|
|
| Author: | Bond | | Posted: | Aug 21, 2018 16:19 | | Subject: | Re: Who akes OCR cannot leave feedback | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Bricklord writes:
| | I am not completely without heart. While this particular scenario has never yet
occurred, I would weigh such a story with that persons existing feedback, and
their attitude up to that point with the order. If I felt their claim to be sincere
and genuine, then yes, I would permit an OCR. But this has yet to occur. And
I will not state this openly - that would simply invite abuse of it.
|
Sounds fair. Thank you for your input.
- Bond
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Aug 21, 2018 15:04 | | Subject: | Re: Who akes OCR cannot leave feedback | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Shintaku writes:
| | Hello,
as a seller I always have this problem:
buyer submits a rash order then wants to cancel.
If you do agree, you risk the buyer leaving a negative feedback. I would surely
leave a neutral or negative for someone asking to cancel an order just because
they don't want the items anymore. But I can't leave it, as a revenge
negative is always ready.
So I deny the order cancel until they become NPB, I undergo the NPB procedure,
so the buyer isn't allowed to leave a feedback anymore.
But this way my items are BLOCKED FOR 14 DAYS (7 I have to wait + 7 I have to
wait the NPB to resolve) and no one can buy them anymore.
Instead if I was able to accept the OCR, knowing they will not be able to leave
a negative, I would do that, leave a neutral, relist my items instatly and move
on.
I don't think that removing the chance to leave a feedback if we wish to
cancel the order is so unfair. The ones who wish to cease the order, ceases the
feedback with it.
Please help us sellers.
Thanks
|
No. I have requested to cancel orders because the seller indicated that he did
not have the most important the items. The OCR does not have to mean that the
buyer does not want the items. Also, depending on the behaviour of the seller,
I might want to leave feedback.
|
|
| Author: | Bricklord | | Posted: | Aug 21, 2018 14:29 | | Subject: | Re: Who akes OCR cannot leave feedback | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| I am not completely without heart. While this particular scenario has never yet
occurred, I would weigh such a story with that persons existing feedback, and
their attitude up to that point with the order. If I felt their claim to be sincere
and genuine, then yes, I would permit an OCR. But this has yet to occur. And
I will not state this openly - that would simply invite abuse of it.
In Suggestions, Bond writes:
| | In Suggestions, Bricklord writes:
| | Yes, I fully support this idea - it is long overdue.
I make it clear that if a buyer places and Order, the buyer is expected to pay.
I do not accept OCR's. If the buyer refuses to pay, then it is an NPB. Period.
This protects me and, in theory, teaches people to read something before they
agree to it.
Bricklord
|
Hi Bricklord,
Your position is not without merit, even if I'm not in complete agreement
with it.
However, it leaves me curious...what is your policy if the buyer should inform
you that their reason for OCR submission is a financial emergency or other crisis,
such as a house flooding that leaves them no place to go/store LEGO for the time
being?
Not trying to start any fires here; as one seller to another, I'd really
appreciate your viewpoint on such a contingency.
- Bond
|
|
|
| Author: | bb1158246 | | Posted: | Aug 21, 2018 08:56 | | Subject: | Re: Uploading minifigs made easier | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, StormChaser writes:
| | In Suggestions, Cupcake27 writes:
| | But here's where the suggestion comes in: When you're uploading different
minifig parts, Bricklink looks for a match. So, say you upload a used green pair
of pants, a used shirt with suspenders and a tie, a used white-bearded face,
and a used explorer's hat all separately. Bricklink knows that Dr. Charles
Lightning is made up of these parts. So something pops up saying something like,
"These pieces make up Dr. Charles Lightning. Do you want to turn these individual
pieces into a complete minifigure, or leave them as individual pieces?"
And then you can decide whether or not to leave them as separate pieces.
|
I'm not sure if you'd find this useful, but we already have something
like this:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogIn.asp?utm_content=subnav
You can search for up to three items at a time so long as you know the item number.
I like your idea, but it would add an extra inventory addition step for people
who already know what they want. I think it would work better as a standalone
feature similar to the one shown above (but improved and figure-specific).
What would be amazing is if we had an image-matching system where you showed
BrickLink a picture you took of the minifigure you have and the system told you
what parts or figures matched your minifigure.
Many members have requested easier tools for finding minifigures and their parts.
Unfortunately, BrickLink has for several years focused its efforts on new ventures
instead of perfecting the good thing it already has.
|
Oh wow, I'd never heard of this before! This will make it a lot easier! Thanks!
Wow, that would be nice! But I suppose that some things are just too good to
become true
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Aug 21, 2018 05:06 | | Subject: | Re: Who akes OCR cannot leave feedback | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Shintaku writes:
| | In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | | | buyer submits a rash order then wants to cancel.
If you do agree, you risk the buyer leaving a negative feedback. I would surely
leave a neutral or negative for someone asking to cancel an order just because
they don't want the items anymore. But I can't leave it, as a revenge
negative is always ready.
|
Voted no, because if you mutually cancel an order, then why should you (the seller)
get to leave neutral/negative feedback? You agreed to cancel the order. If you
don't agree with it, then don't agree and wait for the NPB to go through
before leaving your neutral/negative.
I don't really understand why sellers need to be so harsh on buyers asking
for cancellations. If they don't ask, then fair enough. But if they are within
the EU, they are allowed to cancel the order anyway, especially if postage costs
were not made clear beforehand. Of course, feedback is different to legally being
allowed to cancel but even so, just cancel the unwanted order and move on.
|
If you voted "no" you should explain why you think it's important to leave
a feedback if you ask an order cancel, because that is what I would like to prevent.
|
I don't think the buyer OR seller should be able to, as there is no order
as both parties consented to cancelling it. Whereas your suggestion was to stop
a buyer leaving feedback but still allow the seller to do it.
|
|
| Author: | BrickpartsMone | | Posted: | Aug 21, 2018 04:36 | | Subject: | Re: Uploading minifigs made easier | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Hello I think each of us has this minifigure problem. There are so many and you
have to look carefully. Sometimes they differ only minimally from each other.
But if you are looking for green legs, you can show at the top right how many
figures have green legs. That makes it a bit easier. But I also sit there evening
after night, looking for pieces together of several thousand pieces. In principle,
children always have to disassemble all the figures. laughing. but that will
probably never change. So you continue to enjoy searching and building. Oh, do
not be angry, the winter is coming soon, you have a lot of time. ))
Oh yes, in German it is much harder because sometimes I just do not know what
the words are called in English, but then I ask my children and google
In Suggestions, Cupcake27 writes:
| | I don't know if there have been suggestions on this before, but I couldn't
help wondering if there's a way to implement this suggestion.
In uploading Legos to my store that's opening soon (hopefully!!  ), I see
that there are two ways to upload minifigs. Either, you can find complete minifigs
and upload your minifig as such (such as Dr. Charles Lightning in Adventurers),
or you can upload each individual piece (such as Left Robot Arm).
I'm uploading Legos that I bought from an ebay bulk lot, so all the minifigures
are just randomly put together. So somehow, I'm supposed to find out if any
of my minifig parts can make up an actual minifigure that belongs in a category,
or if I have to individually upload each piece.
That probably sounds confusing, so let me put it another way. Say, for example,
that I have 3 pairs of red, blue, and green pants. I also have 3 pairs of red,
green, and blue shirts. I have 5 different faces, and 3 different hats. If you're
an expert at knowing what kind of minifigs there are out there (which I am completely
and totally ignorant about), you'll probably be able to tell if there are
any combinations of the minifig parts that I have that make up an actual minifigure
that is in a category. But I have no idea about these things. Yes, if I didn't
want to spend hours looking in each category to see if there are any minifigures
that I could create using my pieces, I could just upload each individual piece.
But here's where the suggestion comes in: When you're uploading different
minifig parts, Bricklink looks for a match. So, say you upload a used green pair
of pants, a used shirt with suspenders and a tie, a used white-bearded face,
and a used explorer's hat all separately. Bricklink knows that Dr. Charles
Lightning is made up of these parts. So something pops up saying something like,
"These pieces make up Dr. Charles Lightning. Do you want to turn these individual
pieces into a complete minifigure, or leave them as individual pieces?"
And then you can decide whether or not to leave them as separate pieces.
Now, this is probably wayyy too complicated, and can't be done without a
lot of hard work, and the Bricklink staff already put a lot of work into this.
But if not, and this is possible and easy to do...what do you think? Would this
be a useful addition? Is there already something like this? Or am I just being
stupid, and no one else would find this helpful?
Sorry for such a long post!
C.
|
|
|
| Author: | randyipp | | Posted: | Aug 20, 2018 21:29 | | Subject: | Re: Uploading minifigs made easier | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Cob writes:
| | In Suggestions, Cupcake27 writes:
| | I don't know if there have been suggestions on this before, but I couldn't
help wondering if there's a way to implement this suggestion.
In uploading Legos to my store that's opening soon (hopefully!! ), I see
that there are two ways to upload minifigs. Either, you can find complete minifigs
and upload your minifig as such (such as Dr. Charles Lightning in Adventurers),
or you can upload each individual piece (such as Left Robot Arm).
I'm uploading Legos that I bought from an ebay bulk lot, so all the minifigures
are just randomly put together. So somehow, I'm supposed to find out if any
of my minifig parts can make up an actual minifigure that belongs in a category,
or if I have to individually upload each piece.
That probably sounds confusing, so let me put it another way. Say, for example,
that I have 3 pairs of red, blue, and green pants. I also have 3 pairs of red,
green, and blue shirts. I have 5 different faces, and 3 different hats. If you're
an expert at knowing what kind of minifigs there are out there (which I am completely
and totally ignorant about), you'll probably be able to tell if there are
any combinations of the minifig parts that I have that make up an actual minifigure
that is in a category. But I have no idea about these things. Yes, if I didn't
want to spend hours looking in each category to see if there are any minifigures
that I could create using my pieces, I could just upload each individual piece.
But here's where the suggestion comes in: When you're uploading different
minifig parts, Bricklink looks for a match. So, say you upload a used green pair
of pants, a used shirt with suspenders and a tie, a used white-bearded face,
and a used explorer's hat all separately. Bricklink knows that Dr. Charles
Lightning is made up of these parts. So something pops up saying something like,
"These pieces make up Dr. Charles Lightning. Do you want to turn these individual
pieces into a complete minifigure, or leave them as individual pieces?"
And then you can decide whether or not to leave them as separate pieces.
Now, this is probably wayyy too complicated, and can't be done without a
lot of hard work, and the Bricklink staff already put a lot of work into this.
But if not, and this is possible and easy to do...what do you think? Would this
be a useful addition? Is there already something like this? Or am I just being
stupid, and no one else would find this helpful?
Sorry for such a long post!
C.
|
Have you tried?
https://brickstock.patrickbrans.com/
|
Brickstock is a little unrelated to exactly what you are trying to do but super
useful for entering parts to be unloaded and a great pricing tool. Check it
out for sure if you haven't. Just plan to spend some time on youtube understanding
how to use it.
Second part, identify 1 unique part either using bricklink or goatleg.com (amazing
resource) and use that to check against complete figs available. I go for torso's
and heads mostly. When you open the page to that part you can click in the upper
right to see all the minfigs that contain this part.
Now neither of these suggestions is exactly what you want, but it is what most
people use to identify and list used figures. I also voted for your suggestion
because it does sound like a good idea. I would want to know if I had all the
parts from xxxXXX fig in my inventory and could assemble it from there (besides
the ones I parted out of course).
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Aug 20, 2018 20:07 | | Subject: | Re: Uploading minifigs made easier | | Viewed: | 71 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Cupcake27 writes:
| | But here's where the suggestion comes in: When you're uploading different
minifig parts, Bricklink looks for a match. So, say you upload a used green pair
of pants, a used shirt with suspenders and a tie, a used white-bearded face,
and a used explorer's hat all separately. Bricklink knows that Dr. Charles
Lightning is made up of these parts. So something pops up saying something like,
"These pieces make up Dr. Charles Lightning. Do you want to turn these individual
pieces into a complete minifigure, or leave them as individual pieces?"
And then you can decide whether or not to leave them as separate pieces.
|
I'm not sure if you'd find this useful, but we already have something
like this:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogIn.asp?utm_content=subnav
You can search for up to three items at a time so long as you know the item number.
I like your idea, but it would add an extra inventory addition step for people
who already know what they want. I think it would work better as a standalone
feature similar to the one shown above (but improved and figure-specific).
What would be amazing is if we had an image-matching system where you showed
BrickLink a picture you took of the minifigure you have and the system told you
what parts or figures matched your minifigure.
Many members have requested easier tools for finding minifigures and their parts.
Unfortunately, BrickLink has for several years focused its efforts on new ventures
instead of perfecting the good thing it already has.
|
|
| Author: | Cob | | Posted: | Aug 20, 2018 20:03 | | Subject: | Re: Uploading minifigs made easier | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Cupcake27 writes:
| | I don't know if there have been suggestions on this before, but I couldn't
help wondering if there's a way to implement this suggestion.
In uploading Legos to my store that's opening soon (hopefully!! ), I see
that there are two ways to upload minifigs. Either, you can find complete minifigs
and upload your minifig as such (such as Dr. Charles Lightning in Adventurers),
or you can upload each individual piece (such as Left Robot Arm).
I'm uploading Legos that I bought from an ebay bulk lot, so all the minifigures
are just randomly put together. So somehow, I'm supposed to find out if any
of my minifig parts can make up an actual minifigure that belongs in a category,
or if I have to individually upload each piece.
That probably sounds confusing, so let me put it another way. Say, for example,
that I have 3 pairs of red, blue, and green pants. I also have 3 pairs of red,
green, and blue shirts. I have 5 different faces, and 3 different hats. If you're
an expert at knowing what kind of minifigs there are out there (which I am completely
and totally ignorant about), you'll probably be able to tell if there are
any combinations of the minifig parts that I have that make up an actual minifigure
that is in a category. But I have no idea about these things. Yes, if I didn't
want to spend hours looking in each category to see if there are any minifigures
that I could create using my pieces, I could just upload each individual piece.
But here's where the suggestion comes in: When you're uploading different
minifig parts, Bricklink looks for a match. So, say you upload a used green pair
of pants, a used shirt with suspenders and a tie, a used white-bearded face,
and a used explorer's hat all separately. Bricklink knows that Dr. Charles
Lightning is made up of these parts. So something pops up saying something like,
"These pieces make up Dr. Charles Lightning. Do you want to turn these individual
pieces into a complete minifigure, or leave them as individual pieces?"
And then you can decide whether or not to leave them as separate pieces.
Now, this is probably wayyy too complicated, and can't be done without a
lot of hard work, and the Bricklink staff already put a lot of work into this.
But if not, and this is possible and easy to do...what do you think? Would this
be a useful addition? Is there already something like this? Or am I just being
stupid, and no one else would find this helpful?
Sorry for such a long post!
C.
|
Have you tried?
https://brickstock.patrickbrans.com/
|
|
| Author: | bb1158246 | | Posted: | Aug 20, 2018 19:32 | | Subject: | Uploading minifigs made easier | | Viewed: | 156 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| I don't know if there have been suggestions on this before, but I couldn't
help wondering if there's a way to implement this suggestion.
In uploading Legos to my store that's opening soon (hopefully!! ), I see
that there are two ways to upload minifigs. Either, you can find complete minifigs
and upload your minifig as such (such as Dr. Charles Lightning in Adventurers),
or you can upload each individual piece (such as Left Robot Arm).
I'm uploading Legos that I bought from an ebay bulk lot, so all the minifigures
are just randomly put together. So somehow, I'm supposed to find out if any
of my minifig parts can make up an actual minifigure that belongs in a category,
or if I have to individually upload each piece.
That probably sounds confusing, so let me put it another way. Say, for example,
that I have 3 pairs of red, blue, and green pants. I also have 3 pairs of red,
green, and blue shirts. I have 5 different faces, and 3 different hats. If you're
an expert at knowing what kind of minifigs there are out there (which I am completely
and totally ignorant about), you'll probably be able to tell if there are
any combinations of the minifig parts that I have that make up an actual minifigure
that is in a category. But I have no idea about these things. Yes, if I didn't
want to spend hours looking in each category to see if there are any minifigures
that I could create using my pieces, I could just upload each individual piece.
But here's where the suggestion comes in: When you're uploading different
minifig parts, Bricklink looks for a match. So, say you upload a used green pair
of pants, a used shirt with suspenders and a tie, a used white-bearded face,
and a used explorer's hat all separately. Bricklink knows that Dr. Charles
Lightning is made up of these parts. So something pops up saying something like,
"These pieces make up Dr. Charles Lightning. Do you want to turn these individual
pieces into a complete minifigure, or leave them as individual pieces?"
And then you can decide whether or not to leave them as separate pieces.
Now, this is probably wayyy too complicated, and can't be done without a
lot of hard work, and the Bricklink staff already put a lot of work into this.
But if not, and this is possible and easy to do...what do you think? Would this
be a useful addition? Is there already something like this? Or am I just being
stupid, and no one else would find this helpful?
Sorry for such a long post!
C.
|
|
| Author: | Shintaku | | Posted: | Aug 20, 2018 15:51 | | Subject: | Re: Who akes OCR cannot leave feedback | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | | | buyer submits a rash order then wants to cancel.
If you do agree, you risk the buyer leaving a negative feedback. I would surely
leave a neutral or negative for someone asking to cancel an order just because
they don't want the items anymore. But I can't leave it, as a revenge
negative is always ready.
|
Voted no, because if you mutually cancel an order, then why should you (the seller)
get to leave neutral/negative feedback? You agreed to cancel the order. If you
don't agree with it, then don't agree and wait for the NPB to go through
before leaving your neutral/negative.
I don't really understand why sellers need to be so harsh on buyers asking
for cancellations. If they don't ask, then fair enough. But if they are within
the EU, they are allowed to cancel the order anyway, especially if postage costs
were not made clear beforehand. Of course, feedback is different to legally being
allowed to cancel but even so, just cancel the unwanted order and move on.
|
If you voted "no" you should explain why you think it's important to leave
a feedback if you ask an order cancel, because that is what I would like to prevent.
|
|
| Author: | Shintaku | | Posted: | Aug 20, 2018 15:48 | | Subject: | Re: Who akes OCR cannot leave feedback | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Bond writes:
| | In Suggestions, Bricklord writes:
| | Yes, I fully support this idea - it is long overdue.
I make it clear that if a buyer places and Order, the buyer is expected to pay.
I do not accept OCR's. If the buyer refuses to pay, then it is an NPB. Period.
This protects me and, in theory, teaches people to read something before they
agree to it.
Bricklord
|
Hi Bricklord,
Your position is not without merit, even if I'm not in complete agreement
with it.
However, it leaves me curious...what is your policy if the buyer should inform
you that their reason for OCR submission is a financial emergency or other crisis,
such as a house flooding that leaves them no place to go/store LEGO for the time
being?
Not trying to start any fires here; as one seller to another, I'd really
appreciate your viewpoint on such a contingency.
- Bond
|
I think I was misintrepreted. In this case, the buyer SHOULDN'T be allowed
to post a feedback. No order, no feedback. This is my opinion.
|
|
| Author: | Shintaku | | Posted: | Aug 20, 2018 15:47 | | Subject: | Re: Who akes OCR cannot leave feedback | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Bricklord writes:
| | The purpose of feedback is to give others a fair review of ones dealings with
another, be it as a seller or as a buyer. If a buyer makes a bogus order in my
store, I need the ability to warn others of the conduct of said buyer. I should
not be smeared by the buyer for warning other sellers about the buyer.
|
This.
Otherwise the feedback system has no use.
|
|
| Author: | calebfishn | | Posted: | Aug 20, 2018 14:20 | | Subject: | Re: Who akes OCR cannot leave feedback | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Bricklord writes:
| | The purpose of feedback is to give others a fair review of ones dealings with
another, be it as a seller or as a buyer. If a buyer makes a bogus order in my
store, I need the ability to warn others of the conduct of said buyer. I should
not be smeared by the buyer for warning other sellers about the buyer.
|
There are bogus orders, but in my experience the bogus buyer will never bother
to ask for an order cancellation. They are the ones that place the order and
then just disappear, forcing an entirely justified NPB with negative feedback.
That warns other sellers, without the risk of an unearned negative feedback.
But for polite requests to cancel, my feeling people make mistakes all the time,
and it isn't necessary that every one of those result in a negative consequence.
I prefer to treat others as I would like to be treated.
|
|
| Author: | Bond | | Posted: | Aug 20, 2018 14:20 | | Subject: | Re: Who akes OCR cannot leave feedback | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Bricklord writes:
| | Yes, I fully support this idea - it is long overdue.
I make it clear that if a buyer places and Order, the buyer is expected to pay.
I do not accept OCR's. If the buyer refuses to pay, then it is an NPB. Period.
This protects me and, in theory, teaches people to read something before they
agree to it.
Bricklord
|
Hi Bricklord,
Your position is not without merit, even if I'm not in complete agreement
with it.
However, it leaves me curious...what is your policy if the buyer should inform
you that their reason for OCR submission is a financial emergency or other crisis,
such as a house flooding that leaves them no place to go/store LEGO for the time
being?
Not trying to start any fires here; as one seller to another, I'd really
appreciate your viewpoint on such a contingency.
- Bond
|
|
| Author: | Bond | | Posted: | Aug 20, 2018 14:14 | | Subject: | Re: Who akes OCR cannot leave feedback | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, wyldkat1976 writes:
| | We always accept order cancellation request and have never been hit with a negative
feedback. The only time we go through NPB is when the buyer doesn't respond
or pay after 2 invoices and one message.Forcing an NPB could make a result you
don't want. Once you issue an NPB the buyer may decide to pay and then the
order status is good and you are obliged to ship or the buyer can then issue
an NSS against you. Even if you do then ship the order, the odds are the buyer
will then leave a negative for you due to seller refusing an order cancellation
request and there will be nothing you can do except respond with a tit for tat
negative. Far better customer service to just accept the cancellation request.
If they do leave a negative it won't make much difference as buyers will
judge by you overwhelming positive feedbacks and assume the one negative to just
be from a buyer with a bee in their bonnet.
Kev
|
In full agreement, Kev. Your way is the way I do it at ABV. Of my 11 OCRs in
14 years, 9 of them involved lost revenue of less than $5.00 each, and all each
involved less than 5 lots that I had to put back into stock.
Besides, as long as you're using inventory Comments or Remarks when Add(ing)
Items, the OCR process is pretty straightforward; it's like the inventory
Add Item process but in reverse, and does all the re-listing for you back into
the same location(s), unless you change them manually. My biggest chore is taking
the parts out of the bags and getting them back into the cabinets; at most that
takes me 20 minutes.
- Bond
|
|
| Author: | Bricklord | | Posted: | Aug 20, 2018 13:59 | | Subject: | Re: Who akes OCR cannot leave feedback | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| The purpose of feedback is to give others a fair review of ones dealings with
another, be it as a seller or as a buyer. If a buyer makes a bogus order in my
store, I need the ability to warn others of the conduct of said buyer. I should
not be smeared by the buyer for warning other sellers about the buyer.
In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | In Suggestions, Bricklord writes:
| | I've tried being nice and accepting OCR's, only to be burned by too many
immature would be buyers.
It can still be a mutual agreement, but the one who initiates the cancellation
must accept some form of censure.
|
Why? Isn't it better to ask a seller to cancel than just leaving it unpaid
as, for example, you don't agree with the costs of postage that you were
not told about before the order was placed?
If a seller is going to give negative feedback after agreeing to cancel an order
if the buyer asks, then I can fully understand why a buyer would not bother contacting
them and just leave the seller hanging.
|
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Aug 20, 2018 13:51 | | Subject: | Re: Who akes OCR cannot leave feedback | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Bricklord writes:
| | I've tried being nice and accepting OCR's, only to be burned by too many
immature would be buyers.
It can still be a mutual agreement, but the one who initiates the cancellation
must accept some form of censure.
|
Why? Isn't it better to ask a seller to cancel than just leaving it unpaid
as, for example, you don't agree with the costs of postage that you were
not told about before the order was placed?
If a seller is going to give negative feedback after agreeing to cancel an order
if the buyer asks, then I can fully understand why a buyer would not bother contacting
them and just leave the seller hanging.
|
|
| Author: | Bricklord | | Posted: | Aug 20, 2018 13:28 | | Subject: | Re: Who akes OCR cannot leave feedback | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| I've tried being nice and accepting OCR's, only to be burned by too many
immature would be buyers.
It can still be a mutual agreement, but the one who initiates the cancellation
must accept some form of censure.
In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | In Suggestions, Bricklord writes:
| | Yes, I fully support this idea - it is long overdue.
I make it clear that if a buyer places and Order, the buyer is expected to pay.
I do not accept OCR's. If the buyer refuses to pay, then it is an NPB. Period.
This protects me and, in theory, teaches people to read something before they
agree to it.
Bricklord
|
In that case, you do not need to be "protected" against negative feedback from
a buyer as you do not mutually agree to cancel an order.
It seems wrong for a seller to agree to something, then be allowed to penalise
a buyer for what the seller agreed to.
|
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Aug 20, 2018 12:18 | | Subject: | Re: Who akes OCR cannot leave feedback | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Bricklord writes:
| | Yes, I fully support this idea - it is long overdue.
I make it clear that if a buyer places and Order, the buyer is expected to pay.
I do not accept OCR's. If the buyer refuses to pay, then it is an NPB. Period.
This protects me and, in theory, teaches people to read something before they
agree to it.
Bricklord
|
In that case, you do not need to be "protected" against negative feedback from
a buyer as you do not mutually agree to cancel an order.
It seems wrong for a seller to agree to something, then be allowed to penalise
a buyer for what the seller agreed to.
|
|
| Author: | wyldkat1976 | | Posted: | Aug 20, 2018 11:40 | | Subject: | Re: Who akes OCR cannot leave feedback | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| We always accept order cancellation request and have never been hit with a negative
feedback. The only time we go through NPB is when the buyer doesn't respond
or pay after 2 invoices and one message.Forcing an NPB could make a result you
don't want. Once you issue an NPB the buyer may decide to pay and then the
order status is good and you are obliged to ship or the buyer can then issue
an NSS against you. Even if you do then ship the order, the odds are the buyer
will then leave a negative for you due to seller refusing an order cancellation
request and there will be nothing you can do except respond with a tit for tat
negative. Far better customer service to just accept the cancellation request.
If they do leave a negative it won't make much difference as buyers will
judge by you overwhelming positive feedbacks and assume the one negative to just
be from a buyer with a bee in their bonnet.
Kev
|
|
| Author: | Bricklord | | Posted: | Aug 20, 2018 10:48 | | Subject: | Re: Who akes OCR cannot leave feedback | | Viewed: | 61 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Yes, I fully support this idea - it is long overdue.
I make it clear that if a buyer places and Order, the buyer is expected to pay.
I do not accept OCR's. If the buyer refuses to pay, then it is an NPB. Period.
This protects me and, in theory, teaches people to read something before they
agree to it.
Bricklord
In Suggestions, Shintaku writes:
| | Hello,
as a seller I always have this problem:
buyer submits a rash order then wants to cancel.
If you do agree, you risk the buyer leaving a negative feedback. I would surely
leave a neutral or negative for someone asking to cancel an order just because
they don't want the items anymore. But I can't leave it, as a revenge
negative is always ready.
So I deny the order cancel until they become NPB, I undergo the NPB procedure,
so the buyer isn't allowed to leave a feedback anymore.
But this way my items are BLOCKED FOR 14 DAYS (7 I have to wait + 7 I have to
wait the NPB to resolve) and no one can buy them anymore.
Instead if I was able to accept the OCR, knowing they will not be able to leave
a negative, I would do that, leave a neutral, relist my items instatly and move
on.
I don't think that removing the chance to leave a feedback if we wish to
cancel the order is so unfair. The ones who wish to cease the order, ceases the
feedback with it.
Please help us sellers.
Thanks
|
|
|
| Author: | calebfishn | | Posted: | Aug 20, 2018 10:40 | | Subject: | Re: Who akes OCR cannot leave feedback | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| This is ridiculous, and a problem mostly of your own making.
I have had many, Requests to Cancel from people who did not understand Bricklink,
or who just decided they did not want to complete the order.
I have accepted every one of them. Zero is the number of times I ever received
any feedback from the buyer, and certainly I never received a negative.
It is a seller's voluntary decision to cancel an order. If you decided that
you were OK to cancel, then why, why, why, would you leave negative feedback?
If you don't like the cancellation, then do not accept it.
I accept cancellations because it is a positive response to a customer's
needs. And that is what selling is all about isn't it? It doesn't cost
me a penny to be gracious to a customer who politely asks for a cancellation.
When I accept a cancellation, I let the buyer know that I will not be giving
any feedback, because in my view, there was no actual transaction for which to
leave feedback. The buyers seen to accept that position.
However, I do not support removing the buyer's ability to leave feedback.
It is true that most of these cancellation requests come from people who did
not really intend to order. But it is possible that the buyer may need to request
a cancellation because of an obstreperous or unreasonable seller, and in that
case should have the feedback option.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Aug 20, 2018 10:35 | | Subject: | Re: Who akes OCR cannot leave feedback | | Viewed: | 56 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | buyer submits a rash order then wants to cancel.
If you do agree, you risk the buyer leaving a negative feedback. I would surely
leave a neutral or negative for someone asking to cancel an order just because
they don't want the items anymore. But I can't leave it, as a revenge
negative is always ready.
|
Voted no, because if you mutually cancel an order, then why should you (the seller)
get to leave neutral/negative feedback? You agreed to cancel the order. If you
don't agree with it, then don't agree and wait for the NPB to go through
before leaving your neutral/negative.
I don't really understand why sellers need to be so harsh on buyers asking
for cancellations. If they don't ask, then fair enough. But if they are within
the EU, they are allowed to cancel the order anyway, especially if postage costs
were not made clear beforehand. Of course, feedback is different to legally being
allowed to cancel but even so, just cancel the unwanted order and move on.
|
|
| Author: | Brickwilbo | | Posted: | Aug 20, 2018 09:34 | | Subject: | Re: Who akes OCR cannot leave feedback | | Viewed: | 76 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Shintaku writes:
| | Hello,
as a seller I always have this problem:
buyer submits a rash order then wants to cancel.
If you do agree, you risk the buyer leaving a negative feedback. I would surely
leave a neutral or negative for someone asking to cancel an order just because
they don't want the items anymore. But I can't leave it, as a revenge
negative is always ready.
So I deny the order cancel until they become NPB, I undergo the NPB procedure,
so the buyer isn't allowed to leave a feedback anymore.
But this way my items are BLOCKED FOR 14 DAYS (7 I have to wait + 7 I have to
wait the NPB to resolve) and no one can buy them anymore.
|
If the buyer request to cancel he doesn't want the items.
You can realist them for sale regardless the NPB status.
| |
Instead if I was able to accept the OCR, knowing they will not be able to leave
a negative, I would do that, leave a neutral, relist my items instatly and move
on.
|
If someone kindly requests to cancel the order I wouldn't hit him with a
NPB strike and a neutral feedback.
| |
I don't think that removing the chance to leave a feedback if we wish to
cancel the order is so unfair. The ones who wish to cease the order, ceases the
feedback with
Please help us sellers.
Thanks
|
When in NPB, the buyer can select the option to Cancel the order and accept the
penalty.
I use the NPB only for those who don't communicate.
|
|
| Author: | C0lsanders_ | | Posted: | Aug 20, 2018 08:20 | | Subject: | Page options within inventory | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| Another suggestion, although this may be moot with some of whatever BL has come
up with for the upcoming sellers' update, whenever that is going to be.
My suggestion is to have all (if possible) of a given item category's pages
choosable, at the top and bottom of the page. Right now, it displays 1-10. Personally,
I have a category (plates) with 16 pages, and I find it more than just a little
annoying to have to select page 10, just to go to pages 11-16. And when on, say,
15, 1-4 are now not an option.
That page is quite wide enough you could simply put all 1-16 on there, without
the slightest issue. Probably even 1-30, before you hit the edge of the used
page.
Another option could be to have a "jump to the end" button (in my case, would
jump to 16) and one to jump back to page 1 as well.
Also, a different suggestion, but related, add a "Submit changes" to the top
of the page as well. It seems stupid (to me) to have to scroll to the bottom
of the page, just to submit whatever changes I made to the top item on that page.
Miles (C0lsanders_)
|
|
| Author: | Shintaku | | Posted: | Aug 20, 2018 06:38 | | Subject: | Who akes OCR cannot leave feedback | | Viewed: | 181 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| Hello,
as a seller I always have this problem:
buyer submits a rash order then wants to cancel.
If you do agree, you risk the buyer leaving a negative feedback. I would surely
leave a neutral or negative for someone asking to cancel an order just because
they don't want the items anymore. But I can't leave it, as a revenge
negative is always ready.
So I deny the order cancel until they become NPB, I undergo the NPB procedure,
so the buyer isn't allowed to leave a feedback anymore.
But this way my items are BLOCKED FOR 14 DAYS (7 I have to wait + 7 I have to
wait the NPB to resolve) and no one can buy them anymore.
Instead if I was able to accept the OCR, knowing they will not be able to leave
a negative, I would do that, leave a neutral, relist my items instatly and move
on.
I don't think that removing the chance to leave a feedback if we wish to
cancel the order is so unfair. The ones who wish to cease the order, ceases the
feedback with it.
Please help us sellers.
Thanks
|
|
| Author: | bunnymonkey1 | | Posted: | Aug 20, 2018 03:03 | | Subject: | Have list | | Viewed: | 63 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| Hi. I know other sites do this. I haven't checked if anyone else has suggested
this already so apologies if it has! Isn't it about time BrickLink had a
'have' section. I am do done with maintaining a spreadsheet with all
my sets. I'd love an option on here to be able to document all I have by
set name, then split by part and minifigure, cross-reference to the sets I have!
You have this already for the 'wanted'list, why not do a separate version
for the 'haves' as well. Are you just leaving this to other sites? I'd
prefer to have everything in 1 site so Come on Bricklink, get this feature out
there!
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Aug 19, 2018 19:17 | | Subject: | Re: No color chosen, listing suggestion. | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| The problem is that the catalog only knows a limited set of colors. 3001special
for example van be found in many more. And I think that we do not use colors
for stickers and there must be many more exceptions.
In Suggestions, C0lsanders_ writes:
| | Exactly. I had also thought after I posted that it warns if no condition is selected,
although you can't continue in that instance. I should think that the color
(if applicable) would be as necessary as condition is, and don't get how
it lets us list without a color chosen.
Miles (C0lsanders_)
In Suggestions, WoutR writes:
| | In Suggestions, C0lsanders_ writes:
| | Sorry if this has been suggested before (don't know how it couldn't have
been), but maybe red banner, large text saying "NO COLOR CHOSEN" when on the
add item verification page. Sort of the way it already warns you if you already
have 1 of said part in your inventory. Just something to say you failed to chose
a color would be a nice, simple addition. Would certainly help when listing white
items, because if you fail to chose a color, the part's image shows it in
white.
Miles (C0lsanders_)
|
I think we could do better...
When listing an item,
1) give a warning iF no color is chosen,
2) give a warning iF a color is chosen that is not known in the catalog,
3) give no warning if a color is chosen that is known in the catalog
After the warning, the seller should be able to continue with the listing. This
method is intended to prevent errors, but the seller could have a good reason
to list the item under that color.
To avoid unnecessary warnings, we might want to exclude certain parts or categories
such as stickers, 3001special, etc.
|
|
|
|
| Author: | C0lsanders_ | | Posted: | Aug 19, 2018 18:46 | | Subject: | Re: No color chosen, listing suggestion. | | Viewed: | 18 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Exactly. I had also thought after I posted that it warns if no condition is selected,
although you can't continue in that instance. I should think that the color
(if applicable) would be as necessary as condition is, and don't get how
it lets us list without a color chosen.
Miles (C0lsanders_)
In Suggestions, WoutR writes:
| | In Suggestions, C0lsanders_ writes:
| | Sorry if this has been suggested before (don't know how it couldn't have
been), but maybe red banner, large text saying "NO COLOR CHOSEN" when on the
add item verification page. Sort of the way it already warns you if you already
have 1 of said part in your inventory. Just something to say you failed to chose
a color would be a nice, simple addition. Would certainly help when listing white
items, because if you fail to chose a color, the part's image shows it in
white.
Miles (C0lsanders_)
|
I think we could do better...
When listing an item,
1) give a warning is no color is chosen,
2) give a warning is a color is chosen that is not known in the catalog,
3) give no warning if a color is chosen that is known in the catalog
After the warning, the seller should be able to continue with the listing. This
method is intended to prevent errors, but the seller could have a good reason
to list the item under that color.
To avoid unnecessary warnings, we might want to exclude certain parts or categories
such as stickers, 3001special, etc.
|
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Aug 19, 2018 17:00 | | Subject: | Re: No color chosen, listing suggestion. | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, C0lsanders_ writes:
| | Sorry if this has been suggested before (don't know how it couldn't have
been), but maybe red banner, large text saying "NO COLOR CHOSEN" when on the
add item verification page. Sort of the way it already warns you if you already
have 1 of said part in your inventory. Just something to say you failed to chose
a color would be a nice, simple addition. Would certainly help when listing white
items, because if you fail to chose a color, the part's image shows it in
white.
Miles (C0lsanders_)
|
I think we could do better...
When listing an item,
1) give a warning is no color is chosen,
2) give a warning is a color is chosen that is not known in the catalog,
3) give no warning if a color is chosen that is known in the catalog
After the warning, the seller should be able to continue with the listing. This
method is intended to prevent errors, but the seller could have a good reason
to list the item under that color.
To avoid unnecessary warnings, we might want to exclude certain parts or categories
such as stickers, 3001special, etc.
|
|
| Author: | C0lsanders_ | | Posted: | Aug 19, 2018 16:15 | | Subject: | No color chosen, listing suggestion. | | Viewed: | 69 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| Sorry if this has been suggested before (don't know how it couldn't have
been), but maybe red banner, large text saying "NO COLOR CHOSEN" when on the
add item verification page. Sort of the way it already warns you if you already
have 1 of said part in your inventory. Just something to say you failed to chose
a color would be a nice, simple addition. Would certainly help when listing white
items, because if you fail to chose a color, the part's image shows it in
white.
Miles (C0lsanders_)
|
|
| Author: | BrickCompulsion | | Posted: | Aug 19, 2018 05:46 | | Subject: | Re: Bulk Parts Ordering | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Kimthiel writes:
| | It would be great if i could put all my wanted parts into a list and get results
from sellers that had most of the parts.
This would help on searching different sites to find parts that one or two sellers
may have rather than placing orders with several sellers.
Also helps in paying postage fees
|
Up in the top right there is a little heart - it’s a wanted list
|
|
| Author: | bb1152059 | | Posted: | Aug 19, 2018 05:02 | | Subject: | Bulk Parts Ordering | | Viewed: | 75 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| It would be great if i could put all my wanted parts into a list and get results
from sellers that had most of the parts.
This would help on searching different sites to find parts that one or two sellers
may have rather than placing orders with several sellers.
Also helps in paying postage fees
|
|
| Author: | Bond | | Posted: | Aug 19, 2018 00:48 | | Subject: | Re: Allow Order Details to Show Quanity Remaining | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, bje writes:
Thank you.
Well, I did qualify my suggestion with my opening paragraph. It's the same
reason I don't implement IC. I know there was an original post on how to
get started, but I'd have to rent a PI to find it. And even then, it's
touch and go. I don't mind 'playing around' with store settings to
get going with IC, but not at the expense of my customers' patience.
In short, I'd need a tour guide to find some of these things.
- Bond
|
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Aug 18, 2018 10:49 | | Subject: | Re: Differentiate in SALES | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | In Suggestions, StarBrick writes:
| | Sales are nice thing, right? Scoring a bulk load of 1x1 plates you so desperately
need for a long overdue project helps you move on!
When 70% of the sales announcements concern shops that do NOT ship to you, the
nice efforts turn into an ever growing deception....
So here's my suggestion: have a SALE announcement link to the shipping terms
of the store so there will be ONLY announcement visible that actually DO ship
to your country.
Ever working on a more pleasant environment.
StarBrick
|
It could be a good idea, reminds me of my suggestion for an American subforum
besides the language specific fora as I often find myself ending up in threads
that I have no knowledge of and that have no relevance to me, but then again
the entire forum needs to be chucked and replaced by a proper 21st century forum
in general so let's not try to fix an oldtimer with tape and elastic bands.
Anyway, actually I wonder - and this is an open question - are sales posts any
good at all? As a seller I've posted several and never noticed any effect,
and as a buyer it's time consuming to plough through as it is not immediately
clear if the sale and/or the store is serious and relevant. Maybe just get rid
of them in general or do others have thrilling sale experiences?
Anyway I'll vote yes.
|
I think that sales posts are effective for rare/unusual parts.
A general percentage off does not really interest me, small chance the seller
has enough of the important items on my wanted list to trigger an impulsive order.
|
|
| Author: | Gaston.La.Brick | | Posted: | Aug 18, 2018 07:15 | | Subject: | Re: Differentiate in SALES | | Viewed: | 17 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | When 70% of the sales announcements concern shops that do NOT ship to you, the
nice efforts turn into an ever growing deception....
|
Very good idea. I would even make it more generalistic: based on a user preference
only show item in stores that are in a certain list of countries. That's
because as a European I have hardly any interest in overseas based stores. Because
of two main reasons:
1) import tax / customs charge a lot where I live, making a sale often very expensive
2) when comparing prices of an item, I want to compare prices in the EU because
USA/Canada is often much cheaper
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Aug 18, 2018 07:06 | | Subject: | Re: Differentiate in SALES | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, StarBrick writes:
| | Sales are nice thing, right? Scoring a bulk load of 1x1 plates you so desperately
need for a long overdue project helps you move on!
When 70% of the sales announcements concern shops that do NOT ship to you, the
nice efforts turn into an ever growing deception....
So here's my suggestion: have a SALE announcement link to the shipping terms
of the store so there will be ONLY announcement visible that actually DO ship
to your country.
Ever working on a more pleasant environment.
StarBrick
|
It could be a good idea, reminds me of my suggestion for an American subforum
besides the language specific fora as I often find myself ending up in threads
that I have no knowledge of and that have no relevance to me, but then again
the entire forum needs to be chucked and replaced by a proper 21st century forum
in general so let's not try to fix an oldtimer with tape and elastic bands.
Anyway, actually I wonder - and this is an open question - are sales posts any
good at all? As a seller I've posted several and never noticed any effect,
and as a buyer it's time consuming to plough through as it is not immediately
clear if the sale and/or the store is serious and relevant. Maybe just get rid
of them in general or do others have thrilling sale experiences?
Anyway I'll vote yes.
|
|
| Author: | StarBrick | | Posted: | Aug 18, 2018 06:56 | | Subject: | Differentiate in SALES | | Viewed: | 87 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| Sales are nice thing, right? Scoring a bulk load of 1x1 plates you so desperately
need for a long overdue project helps you move on!
When 70% of the sales announcements concern shops that do NOT ship to you, the
nice efforts turn into an ever growing deception....
So here's my suggestion: have a SALE announcement link to the shipping terms
of the store so there will be ONLY announcement visible that actually DO ship
to your country.
Ever working on a more pleasant environment.
StarBrick
|
|
| Author: | Matoskah | | Posted: | Aug 17, 2018 18:05 | | Subject: | Re: Wanted parts in set inventory | | Viewed: | 19 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Admin_Russell writes:
| | View the new inventory page by clicking the Inv tab on the set entry page. See
image:
|
Awesome, thank you!
I was going directly to the inventory, either from the catalog listing page,
or from on the set page the link for "Item consists of: X parts".
|
|
|
| Author: | Matoskah | | Posted: | Aug 17, 2018 12:39 | | Subject: | Re: Wanted parts in set inventory | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, FCBricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, Bi0hazard writes:
| | Would it be possible, while logged in and looking at the parts inventory of a
given set, to have an indicator by any parts that are on a Wanted List?
Could really come in handy when evaluating sets for parts potential.
Thanks!
|
This feature is already available. Look for a solid red heart to the left of
each Item in a set inventory. Those are items in a wanted list.
|
Is there a setting somewhere to turn this on?
I'm not seeing it anywhere (attached screenshot, of a piece I know is on
a wanted list).
I've also played around with the different view styles on the set inventory
page.
|
|
|
| Author: | FCBricks | | Posted: | Aug 16, 2018 21:06 | | Subject: | Re: Wanted parts in set inventory | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Bi0hazard writes:
| | Would it be possible, while logged in and looking at the parts inventory of a
given set, to have an indicator by any parts that are on a Wanted List?
Could really come in handy when evaluating sets for parts potential.
Thanks!
|
This feature is already available. Look for a solid red heart to the left of
each Item in a set inventory. Those are items in a wanted list.
|
|
| Author: | Matoskah | | Posted: | Aug 16, 2018 17:53 | | Subject: | Wanted parts in set inventory | | Viewed: | 64 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| Would it be possible, while logged in and looking at the parts inventory of a
given set, to have an indicator by any parts that are on a Wanted List?
Could really come in handy when evaluating sets for parts potential.
Thanks!
|
|
| Author: | Abels_Bricks | | Posted: | Aug 16, 2018 08:50 | | Subject: | Sandbox for shipping | | Viewed: | 116 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| Bricklink
Can we please have a sandbox to be able to test shipping options.
4 times this month the actual shipping has been more than the IC system has calculated.
Yes this maybe because I have done something incorrectly but a system in place
to allow sellers to test option before finalising them surely would be good for
everyone.
Regards
David
P.s As there is also no edit function for posts - if there is a system in place
and I cannot find it then thank you and could someone please direct me to it.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Aug 16, 2018 07:08 | | Subject: | Re: Cart/wishlist sharing | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, saxus writes:
| | Sometimes we make BL orders together with one or more friend to optimize shipping
costs. This is a little bit hard to do specially with lot of lots.
It would be very nice if there will be an option to invite somebody to an order
to add an another batch. For example, if i get an invite, i could add a batch
to my friend's order from my own account. It would be a spearated batch named
to me.
Obviously it could be a solution to share each's password, but obvious security
reason it's not really a fun solution.
And also: it would be nice if we have the itemNo with link to the catalog on
the shop's store page like in the global store page.
|
First, sharing WLs is a “feature coming soon!” (look at the setup screen for
any of your WL).
Second, you can download ( button on the WL’s page ) and upload ( https://www.bricklink.com/v2/wanted/upload.page
) WLs. So you and your friends can share them through other means (e-mail…).
|
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
United Kingdom, England
Canada, Alberta
Netherlands, Utrecht
USA, Pennsylvania
Lithuania, Panevėžys
South Africa, Western Cape
France, Nouvelle-Aquitaine
Austria, Burgenland
Italy, Lombardia
Germany, Nordrhein-Westfalen
Australia, Victoria
Belgium
United Kingdom, Scotland