Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | Rick_S.  | | Posted: | Jul 2, 2020 12:53 | | Subject: | Re: Sprues | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | In Catalog, Rick_S. writes:
| | In Catalog, Leftoverbricks writes:
| | Are sprues like the one from
[p=x8] in the catalog?
If yes: how to find?
If no: why not?
|
The sprue is just a piece that held this part, it has no other function outside
of that.
|
https://youtu.be/PjZHVRKSjyc?t=76
|
and i've seen people use non-LEGO pieces in LEGO construction, should we
add those in too ?
|
 |
| Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | Jul 2, 2020 11:22 | | Subject: | Re: Coral part should not be in the Plant Section | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | In Catalog, Rick_S. writes:
| | In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | In Catalog, Rick_S. writes:
| | In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | In Catalog, superchicken77 writes:
| | This is an interesting topic. One one hand I'm reading that people want
the catalog to be accurate. However, nobody has considered what most people (not
BL experts) will identify that part as or how they will search for it.
In coral colour, I would be searching for coral. In dark turquoise, I would
be searching for seaweed. As it stands now, I wouldn't find that part in
coral. Perhaps an extended description or additional tag to include coral?
|
Agreed! I have submitted a name change for the catmins to review.
Jen
|
I disagree since LEGO calls this part plant, so if people are looking for this
part based on what LEGO has and has sold I'd be looking for plant, this is
called part continuation between sites, there is also the fact LEGO owns this
place and if they are gonna call it plant there, they can call it plant here.
|
That is ridiculous. Do you have any idea how many things we classify here according
to our names or names that are in common usage? The point is that people will
be able to search for and find this part when they need to. LEGO parts can all
be used in a vast variety of ways, but now we need to restrict classification
for just this one part because LEGO said so?? It should be called Plant and Seaweed
and Coral and whatever else is practical for sellers and buyers to find it when
needed.
Jen
|
no my point is we need to keep the plant name in.
|
My apologies for speaking harshly. Not a good day for me today. 
The change I submitted was simply to change it to
Plant Thallus, Seaweed, Coral
Jen
|
well then the error was on my behalf since I thought you meant to change it from
plant to coral.
|
|
| Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | Jul 2, 2020 10:58 | | Subject: | Re: Sprues | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Miro78 writes:
| | In Catalog, hpoort writes:
| | In Catalog, Leftoverbricks writes:
| | Are sprues like the one from
[p=x8] in the catalog?
If yes: how to find?
If no: why not?
|
I would have been interested in buying them when I first discovered their use
in MOCs. I had to buy new leaves instead, in the hope they would include the
sprues.
This might be one of those cases where it would be good to make an exception
and include it in the catalogue. You could try to add it and see what the catmins
think of it. Whether the sprue alone stands a chance, I don't think so, but
the 'leaves on sprue' part has precedents in the flowers, coins and keys.
|
I save my sprues from this plant element. I have used them here and there, but
not in great quantity. If I was still selling parts, I would have sold them.
On the flip side, the PAB cups and the BAM plastic cases are sold here. They
are in a sense a conduit in getting the part to your home, much like the sprue
on this plant piece.
Miro
|
yes and no, the cups are not sold as parts (that I know of), just like this site
sells boxes, but are not sold as parts.
|
|
| Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | Jul 2, 2020 10:54 | | Subject: | Re: Coral part should not be in the Plant Section | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | In Catalog, Rick_S. writes:
| | In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | In Catalog, superchicken77 writes:
| | This is an interesting topic. One one hand I'm reading that people want
the catalog to be accurate. However, nobody has considered what most people (not
BL experts) will identify that part as or how they will search for it.
In coral colour, I would be searching for coral. In dark turquoise, I would
be searching for seaweed. As it stands now, I wouldn't find that part in
coral. Perhaps an extended description or additional tag to include coral?
|
Agreed! I have submitted a name change for the catmins to review.
Jen
|
I disagree since LEGO calls this part plant, so if people are looking for this
part based on what LEGO has and has sold I'd be looking for plant, this is
called part continuation between sites, there is also the fact LEGO owns this
place and if they are gonna call it plant there, they can call it plant here.
|
That is ridiculous. Do you have any idea how many things we classify here according
to our names or names that are in common usage? The point is that people will
be able to search for and find this part when they need to. LEGO parts can all
be used in a vast variety of ways, but now we need to restrict classification
for just this one part because LEGO said so?? It should be called Plant and Seaweed
and Coral and whatever else is practical for sellers and buyers to find it when
needed.
Jen
|
no my point is we need to keep the plant name in.
|
|
| Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | Jul 2, 2020 10:53 | | Subject: | Re: Sprues | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | In Catalog, hpoort writes:
| | In Catalog, Leftoverbricks writes:
| | Are sprues like the one from
[p=x8] in the catalog?
If yes: how to find?
If no: why not?
|
I would have been interested in buying them when I first discovered their use
in MOCs. I had to buy new leaves instead, in the hope they would include the
sprues.
This might be one of those cases where it would be good to make an exception
and include it in the catalogue. You could try to add it and see what the catmins
think of it. Whether the sprue alone stands a chance, I don't think so, but
the 'leaves on sprue' part has precedents in the flowers, coins and keys.
|
If that one is allowed, then all the others should be allowed too. Some of them
have uses, or may have uses in the future.
|
yeah I always used the sprue from the gold coins to build up my gold horde in
my customs and such.
|
|
| Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | Jul 2, 2020 10:41 | | Subject: | Re: Sprues | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, hpoort writes:
| | In Catalog, Leftoverbricks writes:
| | Are sprues like the one from
[p=x8] in the catalog?
If yes: how to find?
If no: why not?
|
I would have been interested in buying them when I first discovered their use
in MOCs. I had to buy new leaves instead, in the hope they would include the
sprues.
This might be one of those cases where it would be good to make an exception
and include it in the catalogue. You could try to add it and see what the catmins
think of it. Whether the sprue alone stands a chance, I don't think so, but
the 'leaves on sprue' part has precedents in the flowers, coins and keys.
|
I think this exact thing was argued over before, and was denied since it is not
an official LEGO part or such thing, but not sure?
|
|
| Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | Jul 2, 2020 10:32 | | Subject: | Re: Coral part should not be in the Plant Section | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | In Catalog, Rick_S. writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | The part in question just reminds me a lot of the fire corals and elkhorn corals
I use to snorkel around when I was younger.
|
yes and on first impression i'd say it is a coral, but LEGO calls it a plant
and considering LEGO owns this site and to keep part name continuation between
sites I think we should also call it a plant 
|
Torso and other printed part searches are going to be horrendous if you stick
to the line that LEGO owns the site and their terminology should be used.
|
yeah but my insinuation is to not remove the plant name part.
|
|
| Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | Jul 2, 2020 10:27 | | Subject: | Re: Sprues | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Leftoverbricks writes:
| | Are sprues like the one from
[p=x8] in the catalog?
If yes: how to find?
If no: why not?
|
The sprue is just a piece that held this part, it has no other function outside
of that.
|
| Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | Jul 2, 2020 10:26 | | Subject: | Re: Coral part should not be in the Plant Section | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | The part in question just reminds me a lot of the fire corals and elkhorn corals
I use to snorkel around when I was younger.
|
yes and on first impression i'd say it is a coral, but LEGO calls it a plant
and considering LEGO owns this site and to keep part name continuation between
sites I think we should also call it a plant
|
|
| Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | Jul 2, 2020 10:05 | | Subject: | Re: Coral part should not be in the Plant Section | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | In Catalog, superchicken77 writes:
| | This is an interesting topic. One one hand I'm reading that people want
the catalog to be accurate. However, nobody has considered what most people (not
BL experts) will identify that part as or how they will search for it.
In coral colour, I would be searching for coral. In dark turquoise, I would
be searching for seaweed. As it stands now, I wouldn't find that part in
coral. Perhaps an extended description or additional tag to include coral?
|
Agreed! I have submitted a name change for the catmins to review.
Jen
|
I disagree since LEGO calls this part plant, so if people are looking for this
part based on what LEGO has and has sold I'd be looking for plant, this is
called part continuation between sites, there is also the fact LEGO owns this
place and if they are gonna call it plant there, they can call it plant here.
|
|
| Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | Jul 2, 2020 10:03 | | Subject: | Re: Coral part should not be in the Plant Section | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, Rick_S. writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, Rick_S. writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
On the other hand, it also comes in the Coral colour (⅓ Coral, ⅔ Dark Turquoise).
On the other other hand, plants can be orangish.
And if you put it flat, it looks like lichen….
|
Oh, and if it’s coral, is it the microscopic animal or its mineral exo-skeletton?
 
|
It's definitely the mineral exoskeleton of coral polyps. I don't see
how it can possibly be seaweed.
|
haven't seen much seaweed before have you?
|
Actually, I saw quite a bit of both growing up along the south-eastern coast
of Florida. So, yeah, I've seen seaweed, and it is usually a bit more "leafier"
than that part.
|
so only seen seaweed in one general location then ?
|
Nope. I have seen seaweed in other places, also.
| | let us take one example shall
we, how about this type of red seaweed which a picture of it is enclosed, now
tell me does that look like the seaweed you know? or? seaweed comes in all shapes
and colors and designs and what not. the leafy stuff is just the most commonly
known stuff.
|
Reread what I wrote. I said seaweed is "usually a bit more 'leafier'".
I didn't say seaweed is *always* a bit more leafier.
The part in question just reminds me a lot of the fire corals and elkhorn corals
I use to snorkel around when I was younger.
Interesting thing though... I just learned that fire corals aren't true corals,
but are hydrocorals. Neat!
|
yeah but several things to consider, 1: LEGO calls this a plant, and whoever
put the description plant thallus would have been more correct in the plant family
since it does appear to display what a thallus would look like, also you have
to take into consideration some of LEGO's examples of tree branches and such
are not what I would call spot on or leafy
|
|
| Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | Jul 2, 2020 02:35 | | Subject: | Re: Coral part should not be in the Plant Section | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, Rick_S. writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
On the other hand, it also comes in the Coral colour (⅓ Coral, ⅔ Dark Turquoise).
On the other other hand, plants can be orangish.
And if you put it flat, it looks like lichen….
|
Oh, and if it’s coral, is it the microscopic animal or its mineral exo-skeletton?
|
It's definitely the mineral exoskeleton of coral polyps. I don't see
how it can possibly be seaweed.
|
haven't seen much seaweed before have you?
|
Actually, I saw quite a bit of both growing up along the south-eastern coast
of Florida. So, yeah, I've seen seaweed, and it is usually a bit more "leafier"
than that part.
|
so only seen seaweed in one general location then ? let us take one example shall
we, how about this type of red seaweed which a picture of it is enclosed, now
tell me does that look like the seaweed you know? or? seaweed comes in all shapes
and colors and designs and what not. the leafy stuff is just the most commonly
known stuff.
|
|
|
| Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | Jul 1, 2020 21:57 | | Subject: | Re: Coral part should not be in the Plant Section | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
On the other hand, it also comes in the Coral colour (⅓ Coral, ⅔ Dark Turquoise).
On the other other hand, plants can be orangish.
And if you put it flat, it looks like lichen….
|
Oh, and if it’s coral, is it the microscopic animal or its mineral exo-skeletton?
|
It's definitely the mineral exoskeleton of coral polyps. I don't see
how it can possibly be seaweed.
|
haven't seen much seaweed before have you?
|
|
| Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | Jun 25, 2020 14:21 | | Subject: | Re: Darth Vader Head Mold Variance | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, M.Boss writes:
| |
When comparing two Darth Vader figures I had, I discovered a mold variance between
two helmets. The "old" type came likey was made from 1999-2014, while The "new"
type appeared in the 2019 20th Anniversary Clone Scout Walker I think
this new mold was created because in order to create the anniversary figure lego
wanted to use a 1 piece Vader helmet, as opposed to the 2 piece helmets they
switched to a couple of years ago. This mold variation deserves a note in the
catalog entry for the helmet,, or a variant added to the catalog, but I'm
not sure which. If someone wants to take the appropriate action from here, please
go ahead. See the attached image for the differences between the two.
|
think one on right is a chinese knock off.
|
|
| Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | Jun 24, 2020 20:29 | | Subject: | Re: Changing rules of feedback | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, tEoS writes:
| | Recheck the facts, then reread your full report of the incident. Then maybe
you will see the error.
In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
| | In Suggestions, tEoS writes:
| | Buyer left neutral feedback = error in what you wrote
| | Actually there is no error, the synopsis is based on available data. but that
is just one incident it still brings up the issue that retaliatory feedback cannot
be removed and in that, it can cause more issues down the road. and it also prevents
buyers from leaving honest feedback in fear they will receive retaliatory feedback
in response.
|
|
Wrong again: it was negative, you notice the negative feedback they left for
Sludgemonster?
https://www.bricklink.com/feedback.asp?fdbType=2&p=mjsheller
and it seems this seller is pretty notorious in not being a great seller and
leaving retaliatory feedback too.
|
|
Yes buyer left neutral, but still does not excuse the negative left by the seller.
and the way the rules are written the seller could do nothing about it. since
the rules were very specific on what reasons feedback could be removed. and that
is what I want changed since they are not the only reasons, since retaliatory
feedback has been removed before and so forth. (in fact he has already contacted
the admins about getting the feedback removed)
|
|
| Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | Jun 24, 2020 17:53 | | Subject: | Re: Changing rules of feedback | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
| | […]
ShakeyShuffle was a character.
|
But that doesn’t prevent a member using “ShackyShuffle” (with or without the
‘e’) for their ID here.
Are you Ricky Stratton from Silver Spoons?
|
Nope
|
|
| Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | Jun 24, 2020 16:35 | | Subject: | Re: Changing rules of feedback | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Suggestions, tEoS writes:
| | Was ShackyShuffle also HoL? I recall them having similar issues.
|
I don’t remember that name.
And, of course, the forum history has been long purged.
Not long ago, HouseOfLogos was still listed as a member (I’m not sure if they
were still registred but their name was searchable: I did search because I never
remember if it was Logo or Logos).
But now these members must have become BLUSERs: can’t buy, can’t sell, no reasons
to log in to accept the new ToS.
“Dust: this is carpet; carpet, this is dust. You’ll spend a long time together.”
|
ShakeyShuffle was a character.
|
|
| Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | Jun 24, 2020 16:34 | | Subject: | Re: Changing rules of feedback | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, infinibrix writes:
| | In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
| |
problem is it is not just bad buyers but bad sellers, my suggestion here was
made because of a seller who left retaliatory feedback for a deserved negative
they had received from a buyer.
|
But that’s just my point with the ebays feedback system Sellers can’t leave negative
feedback for buyers which means they can’t leave retaliatory feedback in any
shape or form! Meaning the buyer is able to give their honest opinion without
fear of retaliatory feedback!
It’s a change I’ve been calling for some time:-
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1168664
I feel its only important that we understand how a seller performs(Feedback wise!)
because it goes without saying that there will always be a few difficult customers
and its how sellers deal with those tricky customers that’s important and for
those customers that are impossibly unreasonable they can be reported and dealt
with by Bricklink!
|
While I do agree such a system would be useful it could also have drawbacks too.
|
|
| Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | Jun 24, 2020 16:31 | | Subject: | Re: Changing rules of feedback | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, tEoS writes:
| | Buyer left neutral feedback = error in what you wrote
| | Actually there is no error, the synopsis is based on available data. but that
is just one incident it still brings up the issue that retaliatory feedback cannot
be removed and in that, it can cause more issues down the road. and it also prevents
buyers from leaving honest feedback in fear they will receive retaliatory feedback
in response.
|
|
Wrong again: it was negative, you notice the negative feedback they left for
Sludgemonster?
https://www.bricklink.com/feedback.asp?fdbType=2&p=mjsheller
and it seems this seller is pretty notorious in not being a great seller and
leaving retaliatory feedback too.
|
|
| Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | Jun 24, 2020 16:03 | | Subject: | Re: Changing rules of feedback | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, tEoS writes:
| | Get your facts straight. You even have an error in the incident.
You come back to the forum after all these years and pretend like no one is aware
of what is going on. I read the suggestion and do not see its merits.
The problem is not retaliatory feedback, it is with certain members.
| | didn't read the suggestion did ya? the suggestion is to have the opportunity
to have what is known as retaliatory feedback removed, this was brought about
because of an incident that happened which went like this:
|
|
Actually there is no error, the synopsis is based on available data. but that
is just one incident it still brings up the issue that retaliatory feedback cannot
be removed and in that, it can cause more issues down the road. and it also prevents
buyers from leaving honest feedback in fear they will receive retaliatory feedback
in response.
|
|
| Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | Jun 24, 2020 15:03 | | Subject: | Re: Changing rules of feedback | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, tEoS writes:
| | Voted no. I don't believe this is the solution to the problem.
The problem, as I see it, is two-fold (or maybe more) and is related to human
behavior:
1) The desire to be viewed as perfect. Further derived from one's careful
approach to their online persona (ie: through Facebook, etc. where you only see
one's "good" side or positive achievements).
2) Inability to view one's mistakes as an opportunity to learn and grow.
Blames others for their own shortcomings. Ties into ego, above.
Of course, I think these are experienced in varying degrees by at least most
individuals. The more extreme of which behave in aggressive selling practices.
|
didn't read the suggestion did ya? the suggestion is to have the opportunity
to have what is known as retaliatory feedback removed, this was brought about
because of an incident that happened which went like this:
Buyer buys items from seller
Seller ships items, but then discovers he "forgot" 3 .07 cent tires
Seller decides to refund the .21 cents without contacting buyer and getting their
input
Buyer is miffed and rightly so and leaves negative feedback
Seller turns around and leaves negative feedback for the buyer even though the
buyer did nothing wrong
Buyer is unable to have feedback removed because of the current rules
Buyer goes with only option to remove feedback and that is to file an NSS
The NSS will get dropped since the buyer was refunded but not at his request.
As it goes do you feel it is justified for said buyer to have said negative feedback
even though they did nothing wrong to deserve it? do you believe it is ok for
anyone to leave retaliatory feedback because they got a deserved negative?
|
|
| Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | Jun 24, 2020 14:28 | | Subject: | Re: Changing rules of feedback | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | In Suggestions, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Suggestions, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | […]
Part of the problem is buyers keep buying from sellers with relatively poor feedback,
suggesting (some) buyers don't care.
|
I think it’s more a “it won’t happen to me” attitude.
Remember HouseOfLogo (and what a real mess it was).
|
Yes, and it was a huge ordeal to get that store shut down. I have often thought
of establishing some kind of disciplinary board to handle these high profile
cases. But regardless of the mechanism, honest data from users would be a big
help.
|
If you want honest feedback from buyers, then remove feedback for buyers. That
way, they don't have anything to lose by being honest (not that a buyer's
feedback matters anyway). Buyers getting only positives like at ebay is pointless.
You might as well just use the buyer order count instead, it amounts to the same
thing and saves a seller the time of leaving positive feedback.
It would be nice though to have a buyer score based not on the feedback they
received, but the feedback they left. If a buyer continuously leaves negatives
or neutrals as they feel they have the power to do so with no comeback, then
they are the problem. It should not be anonymous either. If they leave a seller
a negative (or multiple negatives), then the seller should have the right to
ban them from continuing to purchase and continue to leave poor feedback. If
a buyer has a problem with say 1 in every 20 orders, then leaving negative feedback
on that scale is fine. However, if they claim they have negative experiences
in 1 in every 2 orders then I imagine they will get added to many stoplists and
should probably be banned themselves.
I think you have to be careful though, giving lots of power to buyers might actually
reduce standards. If a buyer says they have a problem and is probably going to
leave negative feedback anyway no matter what the seller does, then the seller
has no incentive to put things right. And in a similar way, if negatives become
more common and there is some threshold set then there is less of an incentive
to maintain an excellent record when good enough is still enough to keep selling.
I think there is a better way for you to maintain standards than through feedback
though and that is through NSS claims. Not completed ones, but claims. For example,
if a seller continually fails to deliver but refunds when caught and does this
time and time again, why are they allowed to continue getting away with it? Just
refunding when they get a complaint does not mean they are a good seller.
You could always have another box for buyers to fill in when leaving feedback
- asking did you get everything in your order in the stated condition. If a seller
gets below a certain percentage for those, they should be warned. If they continue
to get very low ratings, then they should be banned. Of course, it should only
count if a buyer fills in this information for all of their orders.
|
I'd disagree with that assumption, since right now the only negative feedback
I have is as a buyer and I did deserve it I failed in my obligation to the seller.
and as to feedback I have left as both a buyer and seller, they were deserved.
in fact in one case where I was the buyer my feedback along with others helped
to inform the public the seller was a serious problem and even then it took awhile
to get rid of them. https://www.bricklink.com/feedback.asp?viewType=&u=lego_police2
|
|
| Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | Jun 24, 2020 11:12 | | Subject: | Re: Changing rules of feedback | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, infinibrix writes:
| | In Suggestions, Admin_Russell writes:
| | That, of course, is the real issue. IMO we need an auxiliary buyer feedback system
that is completely anonymous, where the results are amalgamated before presenting
them (privately) to the seller. These results could then be used to weed out
sellers who consistently perform poorly and lower the reputation of the site.
I have always felt that public feedback was not enough to raise the selling standards
of the site. For many BrickLink sellers, their standards are sky-high and represent
their passion for the hobby. For others, they do nothing but dull the effect
of the excellent sellers, cause problems for us in the Help Desk, and in general
apply a lot of pressure on us to implement a heavy-handed "sellers will only
get paid when the buyer is happy" system where BrickLink controls all the money.
|
The only problems I have with anonymous feedback is that think it may head in
a direction where the feedback left may become even more sinister!
The thing is there are always people out there that look to destroy and ruin
things simply because they can and/or they get a kick out of doing things like
that and similarly there are people who I’m sure would love to put a neutral/negative
against a sellers otherwise flawless feedback simply because they can and have
the power to do so without being bought to task about why they did this?
There may be others that begrudge a seller somewhat simply because they didn’t
agree to discount something when asked? and then you may have other competitor
sellers who may be looking to bring a high performing seller down a few pegs?
From a sellers point of view if I make a right hash of an order or end up
non-intentionally messing the customer around with mistakes, oversights or forgetting
to ship their order and I get a negative then I guess I have to just take that
on the chin but if a buyer leaves what I consider to be unfair negative then
I would at least like to be able to see who has complained and what I have done
wrong so that I can improve or choose to block the buyer if I don’t feel its
justified!
In fact I would also say that perhaps make it common knowledge to everyone using
Bricklink that by choosing to leave a negative for someone you are also choosing
to never deal with that store/person again and so perhaps put in place an auto-blocking
feature?
Presumably if someone leaves a negative they are unhappy with the way a store
performs and in which case for that same person to continue to shop in your store
for a second time would seem a bit sinister to me or am I wrong here?
Either way in some cases I’m sure people will be able to work out who left the
negative feedback anyway based on the feedback comments or the way an email conversations
went beforehand but on the other hand what if a buyer complains and still leaves
positive and yet the seller receives a negative from someone else and wrongly
assumes it’s the buyer who complained meaning you still end up with some retalitory
feedback injustices!
The only way I think this really works is as I’ve mention before with the ebay
style where sellers can’t leave anything but positive feedback for buyers and
buyers can leave whatever they feel appropriate so that the feedback system is
used to help keep all sellers on their toes and performing to high standards.
At the end of the day if there are severe feedback injustices left by buyers
I’m sure they can be reported and removed by admins where appropriate and rather
than rely on sellers feedback to attempt to tackle bad buyers, I’m sure if these
buyers are that that bad it should just be a case of reporting any outrageous
buyer behaviour to the admins so that with enough reported incidents they can
be weeded off the site for good and with it all the feedback they've left
for people!
|
problem is it is not just bad buyers but bad sellers, my suggestion here was
made because of a seller who left retaliatory feedback for a deserved negative
they had received from a buyer.
|
|
| Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | Jun 24, 2020 01:35 | | Subject: | Re: Changing rules of feedback | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
| | I basically told him the same thing, but the core issue is the buyer has no recourse
to get what is obviously retaliatory feedback removed.
which brings into question how can buyers leave honest feedback when they face
the potential of retaliatory feedback that cannot be removed? such a situation
is a threat to what the feedback system is.
|
That, of course, is the real issue. IMO we need an auxiliary buyer feedback system
that is completely anonymous, where the results are amalgamated before presenting
them (privately) to the seller. These results could then be used to weed out
sellers who consistently perform poorly and lower the reputation of the site.
I have always felt that public feedback was not enough to raise the selling standards
of the site. For many BrickLink sellers, their standards are sky-high and represent
their passion for the hobby. For others, they do nothing but dull the effect
of the excellent sellers, cause problems for us in the Help Desk, and in general
apply a lot of pressure on us to implement a heavy-handed "sellers will only
get paid when the buyer is happy" system where BrickLink controls all the money.
|
Unfortunately such a system would not work well with the seller waiting for money
till buyer receives item, sounds good in theory, but in practice not so well,
one of the things that could be added is like eBay's star system or with
holding feed back till both parties give feedback with neither knowing the other,
then it would be honest feedback from both sides. if neither party is happy then
they can communicate with the other party on getting the feedback removed. which
can only be removed if both parties agree.
|
|
| Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | Jun 24, 2020 00:49 | | Subject: | Re: Changing rules of feedback | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
| | In Suggestions, Heartbricker writes:
| | In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
| | As it goes a rule not allowing retaliatory feedback should also be added for
removal of said feedback since as the rules stand retaliatory feedback is allowed:
Feedback you Received:
The following are currently the only valid reasons for which you can request
feedback you received to be removed:
Feedback you received contains vulgar language.
Feedback you received contains personally identifying information including your
name, address, e-mail address or telephone number.
You are the seller and the buyer has not paid. Non-Paying Buyer Alert has been
completed or the buyer has accepted the NPB penalty via NPX.
You are the buyer and the seller has not responded or shipped. Non-Responding
Seller Alert or Non-Shipping Seller Alert has been completed.
Feedback you received was posted by a duplicate account of a user who had their
membership terminated.
Feedback you received was posted by a duplicate account of a user who was on
your Stop List before the order was placed.
If you're requesting feedback to be removed for the last 2 reasons above,
you should contact the Help Desk before you submit the request and let us know
the original username of the duplicate account.
Requests can be submitted until the order is purged from the system - up to 6
months from the order date. Requests are submitted to the BrickLink Administration
for approval. If the feedback is removed, it cannot be reposted. Each request
has a status:
|
I understand the frustration of getting a retaliatory feedback BUT i don't
support interjecting the BL admins into disputes over feedback.
The BL team has enough to do without this added task which is not a revenue producing
nor a productive use of their time.
Having the admin being a referee between two disputing users may result in one
of those users leaving the site which will not be beneficial for the greater
good.
Retaliatory feedback is easy to spot and usually hurts the image of the user
who left it more than the user who received it.
|
oh wouldn't be surprised if the seller made it onto a lot of peoples do not
buy from lists since his actions are not those of a good seller. but the whole
reason behind admins and moderators is to moderate between 2 parties, instead
the buyer was forced to file an NSS so as to remove said feedback, do you think
that is better?
|
An NSS like that will never stand. It is abuse of the system and admin will remove
it immediately upon notice.
|
I basically told him the same thing, but the core issue is the buyer has no recourse
to get what is obviously retaliatory feedback removed.
which brings into question how can buyers leave honest feedback when they face
the potential of retaliatory feedback that cannot be removed? such a situation
is a threat to what the feedback system is.
|
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
