Currently, it's possible to set up an item for sale so that it can only be purchased
in specific increments (bulk lots). What I would like to see is for buyers to
have to buy at least a particular amount, but then whatever number they want
past that certain threshold.
Amounts for bulk lots are displayed as:
100 (10x)
This new suggestion could be displayed as:
100 (10+)
This would allow a buyer to order 15 of the part, as an example.
Currently, it's possible to set up an item for sale so that it can only be purchased
in specific increments (bulk lots). What I would like to see is for buyers to
have to buy at least a particular amount, but then whatever number they want
past that certain threshold.
Amounts for bulk lots are displayed as:
100 (10x)
This new suggestion could be displayed as:
100 (10+)
This would allow a buyer to order 15 of the part, as an example.
Currently, it's possible to set up an item for sale so that it can only be purchased
in specific increments (bulk lots). What I would like to see is for buyers to
have to buy at least a particular amount, but then whatever number they want
past that certain threshold.
Amounts for bulk lots are displayed as:
100 (10x)
This new suggestion could be displayed as:
100 (10+)
This would allow a buyer to order 15 of the part, as an example.
--
Marc.
Even as a relatively new buyer here, I have already run into this situation for
my purposes many times. I vote yes.
Currently, it's possible to set up an item for sale so that it can only be purchased
in specific increments (bulk lots). What I would like to see is for buyers to
have to buy at least a particular amount, but then whatever number they want
past that certain threshold.
Amounts for bulk lots are displayed as:
100 (10x)
This new suggestion could be displayed as:
100 (10+)
This would allow a buyer to order 15 of the part, as an example.
What would it look like if both were used?
Say I have 1,000, want to sell at least 100, in multiples of 10?
1,000 (100+)(10x) ?
I like the idea of a minimum amount, but my concern is how to display it to avoid
confusion. Many buyers already do not understand the (10x).
Currently, it's possible to set up an item for sale so that it can only be purchased
in specific increments (bulk lots). What I would like to see is for buyers to
have to buy at least a particular amount, but then whatever number they want
past that certain threshold.
Amounts for bulk lots are displayed as:
100 (10x)
This new suggestion could be displayed as:
100 (10+)
This would allow a buyer to order 15 of the part, as an example.
What would it look like if both were used?
Say I have 1,000, want to sell at least 100, in multiples of 10?
1,000 (100+)(10x) ?
I like the idea of a minimum amount, but my concern is how to display it to avoid
confusion. Many buyers already do not understand the (10x).
Troy
What I don't understand is why it even has to be in a sort of "code". Why not
just have a subnote in small maroon subtext or something along the lines of "Must
buy in multiples of N." and "Must buy at least L."? Taking an example from Troy's
store, I mocked up what this would look like.
What I don't understand is why it even has to be in a sort of "code". Why not
just have a subnote in small maroon subtext or something along the lines of "Must
buy in multiples of N." and "Must buy at least L."? Taking an example from Troy's
store, I mocked up what this would look like.
Currently, it's possible to set up an item for sale so that it can only be purchased
in specific increments (bulk lots). What I would like to see is for buyers to
have to buy at least a particular amount, but then whatever number they want
past that certain threshold.
Amounts for bulk lots are displayed as:
100 (10x)
This new suggestion could be displayed as:
100 (10+)
This would allow a buyer to order 15 of the part, as an example.
What would it look like if both were used?
Say I have 1,000, want to sell at least 100, in multiples of 10?
1,000 (100+)(10x) ?
I like the idea of a minimum amount, but my concern is how to display it to avoid
confusion. Many buyers already do not understand the (10x).
Troy
What I don't understand is why it even has to be in a sort of "code". Why not
just have a subnote in small maroon subtext or something along the lines of "Must
buy in multiples of N." and "Must buy at least L."? Taking an example from Troy's
store, I mocked up what this would look like.
Randy
Nice.
I do suggest to use a simpler word for "increments" for the Non-English speaking.
We don't want to shop online with a dictionary in hand.
YES! I love that -- one of the reasons I use this function sparingly is that
I think it does confuse buyers -- this would be a nice clear improvement.
In Suggestions, flgator4life writes:
In Suggestions, mnementh writes:
In Suggestions, fleury writes:
Currently, it's possible to set up an item for sale so that it can only be purchased
in specific increments (bulk lots). What I would like to see is for buyers to
have to buy at least a particular amount, but then whatever number they want
past that certain threshold.
Amounts for bulk lots are displayed as:
100 (10x)
This new suggestion could be displayed as:
100 (10+)
This would allow a buyer to order 15 of the part, as an example.
What would it look like if both were used?
Say I have 1,000, want to sell at least 100, in multiples of 10?
1,000 (100+)(10x) ?
I like the idea of a minimum amount, but my concern is how to display it to avoid
confusion. Many buyers already do not understand the (10x).
Troy
What I don't understand is why it even has to be in a sort of "code". Why not
just have a subnote in small maroon subtext or something along the lines of "Must
buy in multiples of N." and "Must buy at least L."? Taking an example from Troy's
store, I mocked up what this would look like.
What I don't understand is why it even has to be in a sort of "code". Why not
just have a subnote in small maroon subtext or something along the lines of "Must
buy in multiples of N." and "Must buy at least L."? Taking an example from Troy's
store, I mocked up what this would look like.
Because that takes up vertical space, so that fewer store itms can be seen on-screen
at any given time, meaning the buyer has to scroll more. I can currently only
see 4 store items at a time, 5 if I tweak my browser settings (turns off status
bar, and nagivation bar, and zoom to 80% of normal size), and that annoys me
hugely. I want to be able to see *more* store items per page, so that I am forced
to scroll less. Your suggestion is pulling in the wrong direction.
What I don't understand is why it even has to be in a sort of "code". Why not
just have a subnote in small maroon subtext or something along the lines of "Must
buy in multiples of N." and "Must buy at least L."? Taking an example from Troy's
store, I mocked up what this would look like.
Because that takes up vertical space, so that fewer store itms can be seen on-screen
at any given time, meaning the buyer has to scroll more. I can currently only
see 4 store items at a time, 5 if I tweak my browser settings (turns off status
bar, and nagivation bar, and zoom to 80% of normal size), and that annoys me
hugely. I want to be able to see *more* store items per page, so that I am forced
to scroll less. Your suggestion is pulling in the wrong direction.
Sorry, but as a web developer specializing in usability, I have done test upon
test upon test that shows that a large majority of people no longer care about
having to scroll on the Internet. However, changing a confusing "code" system
into simple language that is highly visible and completely unambiguous is a huge
step in the right direction as far as having a usable system.
Sorry, but as a web developer specializing in usability, I have done test upon
test upon test that shows that a large majority of people no longer care about
having to scroll on the Internet. However, changing a confusing "code" system
into simple language that is highly visible and completely unambiguous is a huge
step in the right direction as far as having a usable system.
Randy
is that because of the ickle scroll wheel thingamijigs on the mouse?
Sorry, but as a web developer specializing in usability, I have done test upon
test upon test that shows that a large majority of people no longer care about
having to scroll on the Internet. However, changing a confusing "code" system
into simple language that is highly visible and completely unambiguous is a huge
step in the right direction as far as having a usable system.
Randy
is that because of the ickle scroll wheel thingamijigs on the mouse?
G
That would be my guess.
Vertical scrolling does not bother me. Any more than a couple items per category
and you are going to have to scroll anyways. Horizontal scrolling on the other
hand should be avoided at all costs.
As for the suggestion, I like it. Will certainly cut down on the confusion and
may stop all the questions about what (x10) means.
... as a web developer specializing in usability, I have done test upon
test upon test that shows that a large majority of people no longer care about
having to scroll on the Internet.
Vertically.
I know that vertical scrolling was what was being discussed, but I still wanted
to clarify that while vertical scrolling is painless, horizontal scrolling is
web-site death.
I know... I have this problem on the "My Orders Received" Page. When you have
too many fields it dissappears off the right end of the screen. There isn't
even an horizontal scroll bar.. you need to use the right arrow key to see the
content.
In Suggestions, fleury writes:
In Suggestions, flgator4life writes:
... as a web developer specializing in usability, I have done test upon
test upon test that shows that a large majority of people no longer care about
having to scroll on the Internet.
Vertically.
I know that vertical scrolling was what was being discussed, but I still wanted
to clarify that while vertical scrolling is painless, horizontal scrolling is
web-site death.
Both Chrome and IE8 gives me a horizontal scrollbar, though.
--
Marc.
In Suggestions, TorontoLego writes:
I know... I have this problem on the "My Orders Received" Page. When you have
too many fields it dissappears off the right end of the screen. There isn't
even an horizontal scroll bar.. you need to use the right arrow key to see the
content.
In Suggestions, fleury writes:
In Suggestions, flgator4life writes:
... as a web developer specializing in usability, I have done test upon
test upon test that shows that a large majority of people no longer care about
having to scroll on the Internet.
Vertically.
I know that vertical scrolling was what was being discussed, but I still wanted
to clarify that while vertical scrolling is painless, horizontal scrolling is
web-site death.
Not convinced on Chrome yet.. although I am a Google products junky.
and IE8
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH
never again
gives me a horizontal scrollbar, though.
--
Marc.
In Suggestions, TorontoLego writes:
I know... I have this problem on the "My Orders Received" Page. When you have
too many fields it dissappears off the right end of the screen. There isn't
even an horizontal scroll bar.. you need to use the right arrow key to see the
content.
In Suggestions, fleury writes:
In Suggestions, flgator4life writes:
... as a web developer specializing in usability, I have done test upon
test upon test that shows that a large majority of people no longer care about
having to scroll on the Internet.
Vertically.
I know that vertical scrolling was what was being discussed, but I still wanted
to clarify that while vertical scrolling is painless, horizontal scrolling is
web-site death.
Not convinced on Chrome yet.. although I am a Google products junky.
I adopted Chrome as my own within minutes of first trying it. The way that the
address bar is beneath the tabs just makes so much more sense to me, as well
as the minimalist approach to the interface -- best screen real estate.
I only use IE to access work email from home, as Chrome doesn't run Outlook Web
Access properly.
What I don't understand is why it even has to be in a sort of "code". Why not
just have a subnote in small maroon subtext or something along the lines of "Must
buy in multiples of N." and "Must buy at least L."? Taking an example from Troy's
store, I mocked up what this would look like.
Randy
I like the idea, but not the "Must buy"... too persuasive to my taste, I "must"
nothing. A simple "Minimum quantity 20" and "Increments in 20" or something like
that.
I voted yes of course. This is the same suggestion I made last year.
Foster, sometimes you remind me of Piers Morgan.
I will now attempt a Howie Mandel impression:
Voted yes from me as I, of course, am going to support any sound idea that was
presented in the past by Foster.
Mike.
It got overwhelming
support but was not implemented for some reason.
Foster
In Suggestions, fleury writes:
Currently, it's possible to set up an item for sale so that it can only be purchased
in specific increments (bulk lots). What I would like to see is for buyers to
have to buy at least a particular amount, but then whatever number they want
past that certain threshold.
Amounts for bulk lots are displayed as:
100 (10x)
This new suggestion could be displayed as:
100 (10+)
This would allow a buyer to order 15 of the part, as an example.
Currently, it's possible to set up an item for sale so that it can only be purchased
in specific increments (bulk lots). What I would like to see is for buyers to
have to buy at least a particular amount, but then whatever number they want
past that certain threshold.
Amounts for bulk lots are displayed as:
100 (10x)
This new suggestion could be displayed as:
100 (10+)
This would allow a buyer to order 15 of the part, as an example.
Let's be honest, most of us wouldn't stop to pick up a dropped 1c coin, but regularly
list parts at this price which take longer to pick than the coin would. Then
it's fingers crossed that nobody orders one each of all the 1c parts! I vote
yes for this simple solution to the problem.
Cue all the sellers who are delighted to service such orders blah blah....heard
it already
Let's be honest, most of us wouldn't stop to pick up a dropped 1c coin, but regularly
list parts at this price which take longer to pick than the coin would. Then
it's fingers crossed that nobody orders one each of all the 1c parts! I vote
yes for this simple solution to the problem.
Sellers competition makes the prices ridiculously low.
Many sellers would prefer to sell as much as possible at once.
That's why the store minumum is possible.
BrickLink is so great because we're able to buy/sell by single part.
Cue all the sellers who are delighted to service such orders blah blah....heard
it already
Currently, it's possible to set up an item for sale so that it can only be purchased
in specific increments (bulk lots). What I would like to see is for buyers to
have to buy at least a particular amount, but then whatever number they want
past that certain threshold.
Amounts for bulk lots are displayed as:
100 (10x)
This new suggestion could be displayed as:
100 (10+)
This would allow a buyer to order 15 of the part, as an example.
--
Marc.
Many sellers would prefer to sell as much as possible at once.
That's why the store minimum is possible.
The beauty of Bricklink is being able to buy that single part you need.
With minimum quantities implemented, buying single parts will be history.
It will be difficult to find a store which sells by single part.
If implemented the next suggestion will be more searchfilters so we're able to
filter stores with minimum quantities, store minimums, (minimum) shipping,(Paypal)fees,
negatives, 1000 fb stores etc.
With minimum quantities implemented, buying single parts will be history.
That's simply not true. If minimum quantities were implemented, some sellers
may choose to set minimum quantities on the lowest value parts in their inventory,
other sellers would not. No drama, no need for scaremongering and no need to
use the feature if you don't want to. Simples.
With minimum quantities implemented, buying single parts will be history.
That's simply not true. If minimum quantities were implemented, some sellers
may choose to set minimum quantities on the lowest value parts in their inventory,
other sellers would not. No drama, no need for scaremongering and no need to
use the feature if you don't want to. Simples.
Sellers who don't want to get small lot quantities orders will use the minimumquantity
for all parts and not only the lowest.
Obviously results as a decreased choice of stores selling single parts, simple.
Currently, it's possible to set up an item for sale so that it can only be purchased
in specific increments (bulk lots). What I would like to see is for buyers to
have to buy at least a particular amount, but then whatever number they want
past that certain threshold.
Amounts for bulk lots are displayed as:
100 (10x)
This new suggestion could be displayed as:
100 (10+)
This would allow a buyer to order 15 of the part, as an example.
--
Marc.
Many sellers would prefer to sell as much as possible at once.
That's why the store minimum is possible.
The beauty of Bricklink is being able to buy that single part you need.
With minimum quantities implemented, buying single parts will be history.
It will be difficult to find a store which sells by single part.
If implemented the next suggestion will be more searchfilters so we're able to
filter stores with minimum quantities, store minimums, (minimum) shipping,(Paypal)fees,
negatives, 1000 fb stores etc.
I'll vote no.
But those sellers can (and do) do that now through the bulk sales option.
Buying single parts will never be history, because as soon as the supply (of
single parts) causes the demand to not be met, there will be a profit opportunity
for the sellers who want to take advantage of that market.
am making this suggestion not as a seller -- off the top of my head, I don't
think I have any parts that I have set up bulk requirements for, though I could
be wrong -- but as a buyer. I need 256 of a few parts. With some of the sellers
I looked at, I can buy in bulk groups of 100. Did those sellers really mean to
sell only in blocks of 100, or were they using the bulk tool as a way of saying
"It's not worth my while to sell just 5 of these -- you need to buy at least
100". Maybe, maybe not. But surely somebody out there would like that option.
I would like it as a buyer -- to buy 256, from a seller who doesn't want to sell
less than 100.
am making this suggestion not as a seller -- off the top of my head, I don't
think I have any parts that I have set up bulk requirements for, though I could
be wrong -- but as a buyer. I need 256 of a few parts. With some of the sellers
I looked at, I can buy in bulk groups of 100. Did those sellers really mean to
sell only in blocks of 100, or were they using the bulk tool as a way of saying
"It's not worth my while to sell just 5 of these -- you need to buy at least
100". Maybe, maybe not. But surely somebody out there would like that option.
I would like it as a buyer -- to buy 256, from a seller who doesn't want to sell
less than 100.
This suggestion would actually make MORE items available in more exact quantities.
The bulk feature is currently used exactly as you describe, with the results
that you describe.
Sellers will either use the bulk feature, or they simply won't list the ultra
cheap parts, to avoid having someone buy just 1 of them.
There are fixed costs in pulling lots. If I determine that it isn't worth my
effort to pull a lot valued less than $1.00 I can currently set the bulk number
to support this. But the buyer will have to buy in blocks of $1.00
This suggestion allows the seller to maintain his minimum $1.00 per lot while
giving the buyer better options above this point.
I'm only against this because... I have never wanted to buy 100 of a brick.
Not even 10. Often I just want 1 of a piece or a few. It's crazy to try and
force me to buy what I don't need. I hope this is never an option as it would
make it harder to find the deals.
I'm only against this because... I have never wanted to buy 100 of a brick.
Not even 10. Often I just want 1 of a piece or a few. It's crazy to try and
force me to buy what I don't need. I hope this is never an option as it would
make it harder to find the deals.
This suggestion will actually make things easier for you. Right now, sellers
can already prevent you from buying only 1 or 2 of a piece. They can do so by
listing in bulk quantities as the system already allows. So, for example, they
may require that you order certain items in increments of 10, 20, 50, or 100.
The problem with this is that if the bulk purchase quantity is 100 and you need
only 150 of those parts, you will either buy more or less than you need, or purchase
from another seller who may have higher prices. Two other ways sellers can already
prevent you from placing large lot orders with only a few items each is to either
limit the total number of lots you can order or require a minimum average lot
amount. If this suggestion is implemented, it will reduce the need to use these
three already existing methods. I also think this suggestion, if implemented,
will be used mainly by those sellers who already use one or more of the three
methods noted above, and that sellers who don't already use one of these three
methods are not as likely to suddenly start using this new method.
Canada, Ontario
USA
Netherlands, Gelderland
Denmark
United Kingdom, England
United Kingdom, Scotland
