| Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | popsicle  | | Posted: | Jan 23, 2020 21:06 | | Subject: | Re: Persistent issues… | | Viewed: | 87 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, agulus writes:
| | Wow, congratulation. That says to me that
your customer service is exquisite 
|
Thank you, but I'm not speaking of that.
It's unjust, I feel. Given that BL has decided to display, so glaringly,
that number for potential buyers, a neutral should be neutral.
-Cory
|
| Author: | agulus | | Posted: | Jan 23, 2020 20:53 | | Subject: | Re: Persistent issues… | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| Wow, congratulation. That says to me that
your customer service is exquisite
|
 |
| Author: | popsicle | | Posted: | Jan 23, 2020 20:48 | | Subject: | Re: Persistent issues… | | Viewed: | 89 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, agulus writes:
| | In Suggestions, popsicle writes:
| | agulus’s input in this thread has reignited a persistent and nagging thought
of mine: https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1176265
It’s a valid point made by member agulus, that has unfortunately been ongoing
as an issue, in the face of contrary input towards the feedback policy.
I’ve brought it up in the past, that a neutral should be just that, neutral,
and not effect your feedback percentage number displayed, up or down.
Beyond the obvious reasons, is the fact that there are many newish buyers that
mistakenly see BL’s neutral, as neutral. Silly people  Meanwhile, it continues
to result in an amount of havoc in that arena of BrickLink.
I look forward to reading your honest thoughts
-Cory
|
I have to admit that I made a mistake by writing that
neutral gives -1. I't doesn't! I went too far because every time I see
a post about neutral feedback my feelings
toward this issue are building up while I'm waiting for my first one 
|
Yes, you did.
However, I'm referring to what you did get right, the glaring display of
feedback percentage, that potential buyers see when landing on a new store page.
For some reason, that number is moved down with a neutral.
|
|
|
| Author: | agulus | | Posted: | Jan 23, 2020 20:39 | | Subject: | Re: Persistent issues… | | Viewed: | 78 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, popsicle writes:
| | agulus’s input in this thread has reignited a persistent and nagging thought
of mine: https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1176265
It’s a valid point made by member agulus, that has unfortunately been ongoing
as an issue, in the face of contrary input towards the feedback policy.
I’ve brought it up in the past, that a neutral should be just that, neutral,
and not effect your feedback percentage number displayed, up or down.
Beyond the obvious reasons, is the fact that there are many newish buyers that
mistakenly see BL’s neutral, as neutral. Silly people Meanwhile, it continues
to result in an amount of havoc in that arena of BrickLink.
I look forward to reading your honest thoughts
-Cory
|
I have to admit that I made a mistake by writing that
neutral gives -1. I't doesn't! I went too far because every time I see
a post about neutral feedback my feelings
toward this issue are building up while I'm waiting for my first one
|
|
| Author: | qwertyboy | | Posted: | Jan 23, 2020 20:08 | | Subject: | Re: 2FA or some other additional login security | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Suggestions, patpendlego writes:
| | […]
Obviously the idea behind 2FA is that you're NOT using the same device.
|
Yeah, that’s the idea but unfortunately, that’s not the common practice.
| | I
personally never use the same device. Also, besides SMS there are authentication
apps which are secured by a pincode. In general, 2FA is regarded as the standard
safe login method today whereas 1FA is considered not safe enough anymore. Hence
the suggestion.
|
I understand the suggestion. I’m just pointing one pitfall.
“Regarded” is the problem here: people feel confident when in reality the implementation
is generally flawed.
How many websites check you’re not using the same device?
None, because it can’t be done.
|
2FA is also referred to "something you know, and something you have". 2FA is
not meant to make sure it is you that is using your phone. Rather, it is meant
to do a second check after "someone" logged in (and used the "something you know")
by making sure that person also clears the "something you have" hurdle.
Saying 2FA implementations are generally flawed because they don't check
you are using the same device makes no sense. It is not meant to do that check.
It is meant to prevent "SylvainLS" in France to log into account "qwertyboy".
Good luck doing that if 2FA sends my Canadian phone a txt.
Niek.
|
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
|
