Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | Lauren_Luke  | | Posted: | Mar 16, 2018 16:17 | | Subject: | Re: Minibuilds | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| axaday:
| | If I were the king, I think I would put them on a new tree and not go by themes.
Use categories like "Vehicle - Land", "Vehicle - Space", "Animal", "Furniture".
It would be a whole new way for customers to shop Bricklink and a whole new
area for sellers to specialize.
|
I totally agree.
|
| Author: | Lauren_Luke | | Posted: | Mar 16, 2018 16:14 | | Subject: | Re: Minibuilds | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| Pretty_Pieces:
| | I have commonly sold minibuilds on the "other" auction site. I never bothered
listing them here.
|
Fantastic. So this may be an untapped market for BL and BL Sellers!
|
 |
| Author: | Lauren_Luke | | Posted: | Mar 16, 2018 16:13 | | Subject: | Re: Minibuilds | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| Miro78:
| | There are some obvious builds like the characters from Cars, brickbuilt figures like Groot, the giant Antman and such, train cars, but then it it's not so clear on the smaller builds that are not attached to the main set build.
|
I agree. However, I think an organic evolution of this would be the best approach,
such as axaday suggests:
| | | | ...I don't think we would have to make a complicated set of rules about what was and wasn't acceptable either. Just leave it up to what people want to submit. [axaday]
|
|
This would mean a whole new additional request-approval procedure for admins.
Miro78:
| | There are lots of little minibuilds across various themes/subthemes and I am not sure how they will be easily cataloged in what would require a whole new branch of the catalog.
|
Yes, I agree there would have to be a whole new branch of the catalog, i.e. ‘minibuilds’.
Admin_Russell also agrees with this:
| | | | ...another type of item would ultimately need to be created... [Admin_Russell]
|
|
Miro78:
| | Would they be classified under their themes and subthemes. How will they be easily found. If I just want a brickbuilt trashcan, how will one know what theme and subtheme to find it under. The character ones would be fairly simple to find by name, but some accessory minibuilds would seem to lurk in the shadows of the catalog, to be never found or browsed. There needs to be an early decision to differentiate between an ambiguous figure being a minifig or a minibuild.
|
Yes, a major classification structure would have to be agreed upon before the
minibuilds are loaded. This would require discussion and research. On the face
of it I think it would be beneficial to classify (i.e. structure) minibuilds
by what they are / setting.
Miro78:
| | Additionally it would take a huge undertaking to re-catalog many of these.
|
WoutR:
| | ...a lot more inventory work, and that also means a lot more verification work for our inv.admin
|
I agree, however, we are not adding any new parts only new inventories. I know
that sounds glib, I have worked in database/programming for over twenty years
so I do know how something that sounds easy to the user is in fact a huge operation
for the programmer. I suppose we must look at the return on investment (of time
and money). Sellers and BL are not bringing anything physical ‘to the table’,
only providing an extra way to part-out a set. The time and money for BL to
set it up (new minibuild branch) and the extra work involved by Sellers and BL
(I presume the collaborative community spirit is still here at BL) to manage
it (request-approve) needs to be balanced against a gain in sales (good for sellers
and BL) and an extra avenue for buyers. Sellers are already adding minibuilds
as incomplete sets in the current ‘set’ branch of the catalog, so I presume there
is a demand.
Miro78:
| | The sticker sheets is one of the biggest issues that I can't figure out the best way to handle the issue without making the minibuild seem incomplete if omitted, but if the stickers are applied, then it would classify them as used.
|
I agree, and yorbrick gave an example of this:
| | | | ...this type is even worse:
|
|
Sellers will not want to cut a sticker sheet, because that would invalidate the
‘new’ status of the minibuild, and if they add the sticker sheet to one minibuild,
then that would prevent stickers for other minibuilds and/or the main build (since
there is only one sticker sheet per set)! I suppose we will have to live with
examples of dp029 Cogsworth.
Another approach taken by AaronHeng in his minibuild of Ironman suit from set
‘#76105-1 The Hulkbuster: Ultron Edition’, is that he has changed the minibuild
to omit the stickered parts (see attached image).
https://store.bricklink.com/AaronHeng?itemID=139793517#/shop?o={"invID":"139793517"}
Miro78:
| | Ultimately, people will probably still list sets as incomplete to gain better visibility and to dump off the rest of the unwanted minibuilds in 1 sale as opposed to various minibuilds.
|
I guess most of the minibuilds (actually incomplete sets) are where the seller
has taken out the parts they want (usually minifigs) and dumped the rest as set-incomplete
in one sale, but they have to sometimes go to great lengths in their description
to explain what they have on sale and what has been taken out (again usually
minifigs). They have to do this specifically for the novice buyer. If there
were a proper structure (i.e. what we are discussing here) then then seller would
not have to go into an elaborate ‘liability clause’ and the buyer (novice or
not) would know exactly what they are buying. In fact, with minibuilds available
as a new catalog branch, could we eliminate the ‘incomplete’ status (new and
used)? Is the ‘new-incomplete’ set supposed to be for minibuilds; a rampaged
set; or, a set in a box that was damaged and a sealed bag fell out (or a mixture
of the three)? What is the definition of a 'used-incomplete' set?
Miro78:
| | As far as the catalog price averages issue, I think incomplete sets need to be marked as incomplete and sale of those should not be listed or used for calculations of averages. Perhaps that is already what is happening, I just wouldn't know.
|
Doing a quick investigation (and only one sample set - sorry) of the price guide
for set ‘#76105-1 The Hulkbuster: Ultron Edition’, it appears that the one minibuild
(new-incomplete set) is not included in the average price calculations. See:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogPG.asp?S=76105-1&ColorID=0
|
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Mar 16, 2018 16:02 | | Subject: | Re: Stop counting neutral feedback as negative | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, Dino1 writes:
| | Where is the percentage for buyers?
|
I don't know.
For buyers, we still use the old system.
|
| Author: | Dino | | Posted: | Mar 16, 2018 15:52 | | Subject: | Re: Stop counting neutral feedback as negative | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| | Where is the percentage for buyers? |
| Author: | Pretty_Pieces | | Posted: | Mar 16, 2018 15:13 | | Subject: | Re: Minibuilds | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| I have commonly sold minibuilds on the "other" auction site. I never bothered
listing them here.
Specifically, the Tardis and control room (separately) of , and the
police car from (no stickers included).
Dawn
Pretty_Pieces
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Mar 16, 2018 15:13 | | Subject: | Re: New buyer LOE to tie up inventory for 14 days | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, matejo writes:
| | And a question (or questions) for a question (not addressed to you), why does
BrickLink not address this decade-old concern?
Is there a bona fide problem with giving sellers & buyers say "only" 6 days to
get something done (like the courtesy of sending of simple message) rather than
the current 14 days?
If yes, what's the problem?
Is instant checkout their one-size-fits-all solution?
Have they told anyone this?
If they have, is there some place to find their positions outside of this needle-in-a-haystack
forum (where I add hay such as this), where administrators' positions are
very low in number and extremely hard to find?
Are they taking the eBay road and discounting the importance of low volume buyers
and sellers?
And did I say "Whoopdeedoo" yet? 
In Suggestions, WoutR writes:
| | Why not make sure that every buyer has to use the instant checkout? That should
solve your problem.
|
|
Personally, I think that the first 7 days are reasonable. When shit happens to
someone, it is easy to be distracted/overwhelmed for a few days. Once a claim
escalates to NPB/NSS/NRS, then the waiting period of ANOTHER 7 days is long.
It is reasonable to expect immediate action at that time.
I would propose something like 7 + 3 days.
|
|
| Author: | alahaka | | Posted: | Mar 16, 2018 15:04 | | Subject: | Re: New buyer LOE to tie up inventory for 14 days | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| And a question (or questions) for a question (not addressed to you), why does
BrickLink not address this decade-old concern?
Is there a bona fide problem with giving sellers & buyers say "only" 6 days to
get something done (like the courtesy of sending of simple message) rather than
the current 14 days?
If yes, what's the problem?
Is instant checkout their one-size-fits-all solution?
Have they told anyone this?
If they have, is there some place to find their positions outside of this needle-in-a-haystack
forum (where I add hay such as this), where administrators' positions are
very low in number and extremely hard to find?
Are they taking the eBay road and discounting the importance of low volume buyers
and sellers?
And did I say "Whoopdeedoo" yet?
In Suggestions, WoutR writes:
| | Why not make sure that every buyer has to use the instant checkout? That should
solve your problem.
|
|
|
| Author: | chetzler | | Posted: | Mar 16, 2018 15:04 | | Subject: | Re: New buyer LOE to tie up inventory for 14 days | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, WoutR writes:
| | In Suggestions, matejo writes:
| | Hi,
The new buyer's level of effort required to tie up any given seller's
inventory for 14 to 21 days still stands a very, very firm almost none.
I get that irresponsible and indifferent buyers present a difficult challenge,
but the NPB process needs to be significantly shortened to make it something
less than a sick joke.
Eight sets and one entire lot are now off the market for 14-days or more. Whoopdeedo.
For any decisive administrator of BrickLink, please take action on behalf of
the responsible BrickLink community.
A good day to any readers, Matthew
|
Why not make sure that every buyer has to use the instant checkout? That should
solve your problem.
|
It actually doesn't. I just had to NPB a buyer who used Instant Checkout.
|
|
| Author: | RobErNat | | Posted: | Mar 16, 2018 14:56 | | Subject: | Re: New buyer LOE to tie up inventory for 14 days | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, WoutR writes:
| | In Suggestions, matejo writes:
| | Hi,
The new buyer's level of effort required to tie up any given seller's
inventory for 14 to 21 days still stands a very, very firm almost none.
I get that irresponsible and indifferent buyers present a difficult challenge,
but the NPB process needs to be significantly shortened to make it something
less than a sick joke.
Eight sets and one entire lot are now off the market for 14-days or more. Whoopdeedo.
For any decisive administrator of BrickLink, please take action on behalf of
the responsible BrickLink community.
A good day to any readers, Matthew
|
Why not make sure that every buyer has to use the instant checkout? That should
solve your problem.
|
And what about non instant payment methods like IBAN/Cash/etc. Auto-checkout
with non instant payment methods will still cause a problems... If autocheckout
becomes more of a 'standard', part of the problem will be solved, but
not 'all', so those should have shorter timeframes depending on 'method'
(and IMHO it should be flexible and a seller setting, not a site wide setting)
|
|
| Author: | alahaka | | Posted: | Mar 16, 2018 14:50 | | Subject: | Re: New buyer LOE to tie up inventory for 14 days | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| Your point is good.
Given my low volume sales, customers' desires for low-cost shipping, and
the somewhat byzantine world of postal rates, I prefer to manually provide an
accurate shipping rate rather than automate the process.
In Suggestions, WoutR writes:
| |
Why not make sure that every buyer has to use the instant checkout? That should
solve your problem.
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Mar 16, 2018 14:47 | | Subject: | Re: Minibuilds | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, StormChaser writes:
| | In Suggestions, axaday writes:
| | And I don't think we would have to make a complicated
set of rules about what was and wasn't acceptable either. Just leave it
up to what people want to submit.
|
Complicated rules? I agree that they aren't necessary.
Some clear and simple guidelines will be necessary, though. For example, the
small table with two cups and a teapot in this set:
It's a minibuild, but it shouldn't be in the catalog and people will
need a general idea of what likely will and won't be accepted before they
submit builds.
Even though it will involve quite a bit more work for administrators, I think
certain minibuilds should be included in the catalog. Members have been asking
for them for a long time.
|
The conditions for inclusion in the catalog may be based on perceived partout
value. If an assembly isn't a highly collectible thing itself (i.e. a heavily
branded character) and the parts involved are relatively useful to builders,
we would rather have more consolidated parts listings than split things up between
parts and assemblies.
But in the case of the Juniors Cars sets, the amount of printed parts alone (Juniors
sets do not use stickers) significantly reduces the partout value. Add to that
the juniorized parts such as this:
and the brand recognition of the Cars characters, and the case for selling as
assemblies grows very strong.
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Mar 16, 2018 14:45 | | Subject: | Re: New buyer LOE to tie up inventory for 14 days | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, matejo writes:
| | Hi,
The new buyer's level of effort required to tie up any given seller's
inventory for 14 to 21 days still stands a very, very firm almost none.
I get that irresponsible and indifferent buyers present a difficult challenge,
but the NPB process needs to be significantly shortened to make it something
less than a sick joke.
Eight sets and one entire lot are now off the market for 14-days or more. Whoopdeedo.
For any decisive administrator of BrickLink, please take action on behalf of
the responsible BrickLink community.
A good day to any readers, Matthew
|
Why not make sure that every buyer has to use the instant checkout? That should
solve your problem.
|
|
| Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Mar 16, 2018 14:44 | | Subject: | Change the price guide screen | | Viewed: | 97 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
| Currently there is no way you can determine easily from looking at the price
guide what currency conversion has been used to determine the move from USD to
any other currency. As this figure has to be held/determined (calculated) somewhere,
whether in BL or by xe.xom it is available to be displayed and updated as regularly
as the price guide.
If Bricklink displayed that figure it would be very helpful for everyone's
use whether buying or selling. This is especially relevant for the last 6 months
sales which is a floating figure and is not easily determined - (it can be done,
but is very long winded and takes a lot more time and effort to get right.
As for the changes this would require, they are absolutely minimal from a coding
point of view and it would help to solve the never ending threads about currency
conversion and the price guide.
It would also help with Brickstock, but I am sure that is of no concern to Bricklink.
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Mar 16, 2018 14:43 | | Subject: | Re: Stop counting neutral feedback as negative | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, Brick.Door writes:
| | Since the change was made to put the large "% Praise" at the top of each store
front page neutral and negative feedback are basically the same thing.
This is not obvious to customers leaving feedback - especially new members.
I suggest to exclude neutral transactions from the % Praise calculation - treat
them the same as if no feedback had been left. This seems more accurate than
counting them as negative.
Also I find it strange that the % praise is calculated to 2 decimal places. Does
anyone really think a 99.74 seller is more trustworthy than 99.68? There are
no standards or guidelines for what makes a positive/neutral/negative transaction
-- it is up to the individual opinion. So there is no way this figure is
that accurate.
|
I thought that the system is simply letting us know a percentage of positives.
As far as I know nothing is being subtracted. Both neutral and negative are not
positive, so they do not count for the number of positives.
I DO want the neutrals to be included in the calculation. If the seller receives
a lot of neutral feedback, that is certainly a warning sign that I should take
a closer look at the feedback. The positive-feedback-percentage is usually very
high, so those neutrals really do make a difference.
|
|
| Author: | alahaka | | Posted: | Mar 16, 2018 14:38 | | Subject: | Re: New buyer LOE to tie up inventory for 14 days | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| A correction, I should have just written "buyer-seller communication period"
above & below.
In Suggestions, matejo writes:
| | Thank you for your reply,
I think both seller non-shipping and buyer non-paying processes could easily
be shortened to 3 and 3 and 3, rather than the current 7 and 7 and 7 -- (a)
buyer-to-seller communication period, and (b) BrickLink-to-non-communicator period,
and (c) an added three days if non-communicator communicates whatever the circumstances
are.
|
|
|
| Author: | alahaka | | Posted: | Mar 16, 2018 14:35 | | Subject: | Re: New buyer LOE to tie up inventory for 14 days | | Viewed: | 61 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| Thank you for your reply,
I think both seller non-shipping and buyer non-paying processes could easily
be shortened to 3 and 3 and 3, rather than the current 7 and 7 and 7 -- (a)
buyer-to-seller communication period, and (b) BrickLink-to-non-communicator period,
and (c) an added three days if non-communicator communicates whatever the circumstances
are.
Six (to nine) days is not super fun, but is more than 2x better than fourteen
(to twenty-one) days.
Another thought on the buying side is to have all of us pay BrickLink a dollar
or euro prior to being allowed to buy. If someone wants to mess around, it'll
cost them a buck for the privilege -- most non-serious buyers will likely
find better (or worse) things to do outside of BrickLink.
I'm not yet familiar with unresponsive sellers, the scope of such problems,
and an apparent new lengthy screening process by BrickLink, so do not have any
added thoughts here.
I hope your concern is resolved soon, Matthew
PS on original post: I think Whoopdeedoo is spelled "Whoopdeedoo".
|
|
| Author: | Pippysblocks | | Posted: | Mar 16, 2018 14:35 | | Subject: | Re: Stop counting neutral feedback as negative | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| Yes I like this suggestion, I had a 100% until I received a neutral and know
I'll never be able to get my 100% back again.
In Suggestions, Brick.Door writes:
| | Since the change was made to put the large "% Praise" at the top of each store
front page neutral and negative feedback are basically the same thing.
This is not obvious to customers leaving feedback - especially new members.
I suggest to exclude neutral transactions from the % Praise calculation - treat
them the same as if no feedback had been left. This seems more accurate than
counting them as negative.
Also I find it strange that the % praise is calculated to 2 decimal places. Does
anyone really think a 99.74 seller is more trustworthy than 99.68? There are
no standards or guidelines for what makes a positive/neutral/negative transaction
-- it is up to the individual opinion. So there is no way this figure is
that accurate.
|
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Mar 16, 2018 14:34 | | Subject: | Re: Minibuilds | | Viewed: | 21 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, StormChaser writes:
| | In Suggestions, StormChaser writes:
| | It's a minibuild, but it shouldn't be in the catalog and people will
need a general idea of what likely will and won't be accepted before they
submit builds.
|
Here's an idea. It shouldn't be too difficult to set up a page like
this one:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogThemes.asp
Anyone can submit minibuilds to the page and members can then vote on them.
Once a minibuild reaches a set number of votes it gets reviewed for addition
to the catalog. That method should eliminate a number of potential problems.
|
Clicked that link.... Now I am disappointed to see that people can vote for BrickArms
as their favourite LEGO theme... 
|
|
| Author: | leopard37 | | Posted: | Mar 16, 2018 14:27 | | Subject: | Re: Stop counting neutral feedback as negative | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, Brick.Door writes:
| | Since the change was made to put the large "% Praise" at the top of each store
front page neutral and negative feedback are basically the same thing.
This is not obvious to customers leaving feedback - especially new members.
I suggest to exclude neutral transactions from the % Praise calculation - treat
them the same as if no feedback had been left. This seems more accurate than
counting them as negative.
Also I find it strange that the % praise is calculated to 2 decimal places. Does
anyone really think a 99.74 seller is more trustworthy than 99.68? There are
no standards or guidelines for what makes a positive/neutral/negative transaction
-- it is up to the individual opinion. So there is no way this figure is
that accurate.
|
This also may lead to more accurate feedback being given. I know I have been
satisfied neutrally from a purchase but not given feedback at all because I don't
think it's worth harming their rating.
It may also help educate shoppers on the difference between great and average
service provided by stores.
Tyson.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Mar 16, 2018 14:24 | | Subject: | Re: Minibuilds | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, StormChaser writes:
| | It's a minibuild, but it shouldn't be in the catalog and people will
need a general idea of what likely will and won't be accepted before they
submit builds.
|
Here's an idea. It shouldn't be too difficult to set up a page like
this one:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogThemes.asp
Anyone can submit minibuilds to the page and members can then vote on them.
Once a minibuild reaches a set number of votes it gets reviewed for addition
to the catalog. That method should eliminate a number of potential problems.
|
|
| Author: | Brick.Door | | Posted: | Mar 16, 2018 14:19 | | Subject: | Stop counting neutral feedback as negative | | Viewed: | 200 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
| Since the change was made to put the large "% Praise" at the top of each store
front page neutral and negative feedback are basically the same thing.
This is not obvious to customers leaving feedback - especially new members.
I suggest to exclude neutral transactions from the % Praise calculation - treat
them the same as if no feedback had been left. This seems more accurate than
counting them as negative.
Also I find it strange that the % praise is calculated to 2 decimal places. Does
anyone really think a 99.74 seller is more trustworthy than 99.68? There are
no standards or guidelines for what makes a positive/neutral/negative transaction
-- it is up to the individual opinion. So there is no way this figure is
that accurate.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Mar 16, 2018 14:11 | | Subject: | Re: Minibuilds | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, axaday writes:
| | And I don't think we would have to make a complicated
set of rules about what was and wasn't acceptable either. Just leave it
up to what people want to submit.
|
Complicated rules? I agree that they aren't necessary.
Some clear and simple guidelines will be necessary, though. For example, the
small table with two cups and a teapot in this set:
It's a minibuild, but it shouldn't be in the catalog and people will
need a general idea of what likely will and won't be accepted before they
submit builds.
Even though it will involve quite a bit more work for administrators, I think
certain minibuilds should be included in the catalog. Members have been asking
for them for a long time.
|
|
| Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Mar 16, 2018 14:01 | | Subject: | Re: Minibuilds | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, Miro78 writes:
| | There are some obvious builds like the characters from Cars, brickbuilt figures
like Groot, the giant Antman and such, train cars, but then it it's not so
clear on the smaller builds that are not attached to the main set build. There
are lots of little minibuilds across various themes/subthemes and I am not sure
how they will be easily cataloged in what would require a whole new branch of
the catalog. Would they be classified under their themes and subthemes. How will
they be easily found. If I just want a brickbuilt trashcan, how will one know
what theme and subtheme to find it under. The character ones would be fairly
simple to find by name, but some accessory minibuilds would seem to lurk in the
shadows of the catalog, to be never found or browsed.
|
If I were the king, I think I would put them on a new tree and not go by themes.
Use categories like "Vehicle - Land", "Vehicle - Space", "Animal", "Furniture".
It would be a whole new way for customers to shop Bricklink and a whole new
area for sellers to specialize.
|
|
| Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Mar 16, 2018 13:53 | | Subject: | Re: Minibuilds | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| I don't see any downside other than the work. Anyone who wants to ignore
it would be free to do so. And I don't think we would have to make a complicated
set of rules about what was and wasn't acceptable either. Just leave it
up to what people want to submit. As it is right now, a lot of set inventories
have alternates (such as a modified plate with wheels attached) but it isn't
required. So if you want to add the inventory for the car on the car ferry set,
then do so. But an inventory would not be incomplete just because someone hadn't
done so.
I sold a whole bunch of Giant Antmen from the Civil War airport set. Having
a visible "correct" place to list it would have been great. But BEYOND that,
I also would have appreciated the ability to subtract the Giant Antman parts
from the set as I was parting it out. I had to take the instructions (in hand
or online) each time and scroll through my inventory deleting them a page at
a time. Needlessly labor intensive, in my opinion.
In Suggestions, Lauren_Luke writes:
| | I don’t want to open a can of worms here, but I think this is a valid suggestion.
Can BL create a fourth entry for a set where is states:
‘Set Entry | Instructions Entry | Original Box Entry’
to become
‘Set Entry | Minibuild Entry | Instructions Entry | Original Box Entry’ ?
The ‘Minibuild Entry’ would contain the valid minibuilds (new and used) from
a set. Sellers are selling minibuilds anyway under 'Set Entry' as new-incomplete
and used-incomplete with the minibuld definition the description.
Separating out the minibuilds would...
- clean up the 'Set Entry';
- improve average pricing effectiveness;
- create an additional avenue for buyers and sellers
|
|
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
