|
 |
| | | Author: | TorontoLego  | | Posted: | Dec 20, 2010 17:30 | | Subject: | Committee for Listing Violations | | Viewed: | 260 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Discarded | |
|
| The responses to this got me thinking:
http://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=498526
Would committees be a good thing for BL?
I suggest a committee of 3 people for Listing violations: Have the problem reports
sent to 3 members (maybe even conceal the store/user name) and let them vote.
2 votes and the listing gets removed.
I'm sure we would be able to find members for a committee of 3 or maybe 5 very
quickly and that decisions on listings would be decided very quickly.
Obviously Admin and/or the CO would be able to appoint/remove those committee
members and Admin and maybe the CO would also be able to overrule them.
Mike.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Dec 20, 2010 17:42 | | Subject: | Re: Committee for Listing Violations | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, TorontoLego writes:
| | The responses to this got me thinking:
http://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=498526
Would committees be a good thing for BL?
I suggest a committee of 3 people for Listing violations: Have the problem reports
sent to 3 members (maybe even conceal the store/user name) and let them vote.
2 votes and the listing gets removed.
I'm sure we would be able to find members for a committee of 3 or maybe 5 very
quickly and that decisions on listings would be decided very quickly.
Obviously Admin and/or the CO would be able to appoint/remove those committee
members and Admin and maybe the CO would also be able to overrule them.
Mike.
|
I voted yes Mike. But I have some tentative reservations about sellers telling
other sellers what they can and cannot list for sale. This needs to be set up
so that there is no possibility of anti-competitive collusion or effect. Perhaps
by having at least one buyer-only member on this panel.
BTW, I also think it might be helpful to Admin if we had a similar panel to review
feedback, NSS and NPB complaints. They could simply review things and make recommendations
to Admin, who would then make the call himself.
I would gladly volunteer my time to help out on either of these panels.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | BUC | | Posted: | Dec 20, 2010 21:33 | | Subject: | Re: Committee for Listing Violations | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| I'm in favor of this as well. And like Foster, think there should be committees
reviewing NSS, NPB, feedback, etc etc and having Admin making final call based
on recommendations from the committee.
I would like to see 3-5 ppl on committee and also agree that there should be
at the very min 1 'buyer only' (preferably 2) for impartiality.
More heads are better than 1 and I also would be happy to volunteer my time.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | therobo | | Posted: | Dec 20, 2010 17:43 | | Subject: | Re: Committee for Listing Violations | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Hi!
Why do you think that anything should be changed in dealing with wrongly listed
items?
Any such listings can be reported under the problem tab and I haven't seen any
posts about delays on such problems.
Seems nothing which needs fixing.
Ronald
In Suggestions, TorontoLego writes:
| | The responses to this got me thinking:
http://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=498526
Would committees be a good thing for BL?
I suggest a committee of 3 people for Listing violations: Have the problem reports
sent to 3 members (maybe even conceal the store/user name) and let them vote.
2 votes and the listing gets removed.
I'm sure we would be able to find members for a committee of 3 or maybe 5 very
quickly and that decisions on listings would be decided very quickly.
Obviously Admin and/or the CO would be able to appoint/remove those committee
members and Admin and maybe the CO would also be able to overrule them.
Mike.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | TorontoLego | | Posted: | Dec 20, 2010 17:46 | | Subject: | Re: Committee for Listing Violations | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Hi!
Thanks for commenting.
I posted last week a question about how these things are dealt with. It was
suggested that these issue are handled directly by Eric and only by Eric. Is
that not the case?
Thanks,
Mike.
In Suggestions, therobo writes:
| | Hi!
Why do you think that anything should be changed in dealing with wrongly listed
items?
Any such listings can be reported under the problem tab and I haven't seen any
posts about delays on such problems.
Seems nothing which needs fixing.
Ronald
In Suggestions, TorontoLego writes:
| | The responses to this got me thinking:
http://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=498526
Would committees be a good thing for BL?
I suggest a committee of 3 people for Listing violations: Have the problem reports
sent to 3 members (maybe even conceal the store/user name) and let them vote.
2 votes and the listing gets removed.
I'm sure we would be able to find members for a committee of 3 or maybe 5 very
quickly and that decisions on listings would be decided very quickly.
Obviously Admin and/or the CO would be able to appoint/remove those committee
members and Admin and maybe the CO would also be able to overrule them.
Mike.
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Dec 20, 2010 17:50 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 63 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Speciale | | Posted: | Dec 20, 2010 18:10 | | Subject: | Re: Committee for Listing Violations | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, therobo writes:
| | Hi!
Why do you think that anything should be changed in dealing with wrongly listed
items?
Any such listings can be reported under the problem tab and I haven't seen any
posts about delays on such problems.
Seems nothing which needs fixing.
Ronald
|
i agree , i recived mails from admin that he removed sets in my inventory and
i request the same for other sellers and it whas removed so there is no need.
| |
In Suggestions, TorontoLego writes:
| | The responses to this got me thinking:
http://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=498526
Would committees be a good thing for BL?
I suggest a committee of 3 people for Listing violations: Have the problem reports
sent to 3 members (maybe even conceal the store/user name) and let them vote.
2 votes and the listing gets removed.
I'm sure we would be able to find members for a committee of 3 or maybe 5 very
quickly and that decisions on listings would be decided very quickly.
Obviously Admin and/or the CO would be able to appoint/remove those committee
members and Admin and maybe the CO would also be able to overrule them.
Mike.
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | TorontoLego | | Posted: | Dec 20, 2010 18:14 | | Subject: | Re: Committee for Listing Violations | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Thanks for your comments as well? When were these?
Can you still see the history of your reported violations and the action taken
on them -- mine have all disappeared.
In Suggestions, brasletty writes:
| | In Suggestions, therobo writes:
| | Hi!
Why do you think that anything should be changed in dealing with wrongly listed
items?
Any such listings can be reported under the problem tab and I haven't seen any
posts about delays on such problems.
Seems nothing which needs fixing.
Ronald
|
i agree , i recived mails from admin that he removed sets in my inventory and
i request the same for other sellers and it whas removed so there is no need.
| |
In Suggestions, TorontoLego writes:
| | The responses to this got me thinking:
http://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=498526
Would committees be a good thing for BL?
I suggest a committee of 3 people for Listing violations: Have the problem reports
sent to 3 members (maybe even conceal the store/user name) and let them vote.
2 votes and the listing gets removed.
I'm sure we would be able to find members for a committee of 3 or maybe 5 very
quickly and that decisions on listings would be decided very quickly.
Obviously Admin and/or the CO would be able to appoint/remove those committee
members and Admin and maybe the CO would also be able to overrule them.
Mike.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Speciale | | Posted: | Dec 20, 2010 18:18 | | Subject: | Re: Committee for Listing Violations | | Viewed: | 79 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, TorontoLego writes:
| | Thanks for your comments as well? When were these?
Can you still see the history of your reported violations and the action taken
on them -- mine have all disappeared.
In Suggestions, brasletty writes:
| | In Suggestions, therobo writes:
| | Hi!
Why do you think that anything should be changed in dealing with wrongly listed
items?
Any such listings can be reported under the problem tab and I haven't seen any
posts about delays on such problems.
Seems nothing which needs fixing.
Ronald
|
i agree , i recived mails from admin that he removed sets in my inventory and
i request the same for other sellers and it whas removed so there is no need.
| |
In Suggestions, TorontoLego writes:
| | The responses to this got me thinking:
http://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=498526
Would committees be a good thing for BL?
I suggest a committee of 3 people for Listing violations: Have the problem reports
sent to 3 members (maybe even conceal the store/user name) and let them vote.
2 votes and the listing gets removed.
I'm sure we would be able to find members for a committee of 3 or maybe 5 very
quickly and that decisions on listings would be decided very quickly.
Obviously Admin and/or the CO would be able to appoint/remove those committee
members and Admin and maybe the CO would also be able to overrule them.
Mike.
|
|
|
|
i do this for a box sealed of 60 minifigs second edition , seller listed only
16 for sale last week and they are removed . if the seller list them a second
time after removed by admin report it for a second time .
regards r
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | InanimateReason | | Posted: | Dec 20, 2010 21:37 | | Subject: | Re: Committee for Listing Violations | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, TorontoLego writes:
| | The responses to this got me thinking:
http://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=498526
Would committees be a good thing for BL?
I suggest a committee of 3 people for Listing violations: Have the problem reports
sent to 3 members (maybe even conceal the store/user name) and let them vote.
2 votes and the listing gets removed.
I'm sure we would be able to find members for a committee of 3 or maybe 5 very
quickly and that decisions on listings would be decided very quickly.
Obviously Admin and/or the CO would be able to appoint/remove those committee
members and Admin and maybe the CO would also be able to overrule them.
Mike.
|
What problem are you trying to solve here? Is it the amount of time it takes
to get the currently designated person/people to respond to listing complaints?
If so, why does it need to be a committee? The listing rules are pretty cut and
dried and the form is fairly self-explanatory. I know because I just submitted
a stack of them against someone who is polluting several catalog parts with a
bunch of custom items.
Bill
Inanimate Reason
Home of the Custom Aluminum Liftarms!
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | TorontoLego | | Posted: | Dec 20, 2010 22:55 | | Subject: | Re: Committee for Listing Violations | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Here's my theory - for whatever it is worth.
I think that if there were a committee like this - its mere creation would bring
light to the fact that there are listing violations in place. I think that if
listings could be pointed out to a committee who was quick and fair in eliminating
those listings that more people would point them out.
If this idea were to gain some momentum - here are some added points that would
make it even better:
1. When a listing is presented to the committee - conceal the store name. Only
the listing itself would be visible, with the violation presented in the submission
form. This way committee members would not take personal knowledge of a store
or user with them when making decisions.
2. When a listing is taken down - show it in a historical "precedence" forum
so other members can learn from them.
3. Give submitters a limit of 5 failed submissions before they are no longer
allowed to submit violations -- prevent spammers from flooding the committees
time or being too nit-picky.
There are probably thousands of listings currently that should be taken down
for one reason or another, do we really want Admin's time taken up with this
role that could easily be handled by the community. I would rather Admin spend
their time working on the next great improvement that none of us have even though
of yet.
Thanks for considering,
Mike.
In Suggestions, InanimateReason writes:
| | In Suggestions, TorontoLego writes:
| | The responses to this got me thinking:
http://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=498526
Would committees be a good thing for BL?
I suggest a committee of 3 people for Listing violations: Have the problem reports
sent to 3 members (maybe even conceal the store/user name) and let them vote.
2 votes and the listing gets removed.
I'm sure we would be able to find members for a committee of 3 or maybe 5 very
quickly and that decisions on listings would be decided very quickly.
Obviously Admin and/or the CO would be able to appoint/remove those committee
members and Admin and maybe the CO would also be able to overrule them.
Mike.
|
What problem are you trying to solve here? Is it the amount of time it takes
to get the currently designated person/people to respond to listing complaints?
If so, why does it need to be a committee? The listing rules are pretty cut and
dried and the form is fairly self-explanatory. I know because I just submitted
a stack of them against someone who is polluting several catalog parts with a
bunch of custom items.
Bill
Inanimate Reason
Home of the Custom Aluminum Liftarms!
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | SimplyBricks | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2010 04:32 | | Subject: | Re: Committee for Listing Violations | | Viewed: | 73 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, TorontoLego writes:
NO, This is NOT a democratic site, all decisions made on this site are Admins
only.
| | I suggest a committee of 3 people for Listing violations: Have the problem reports
sent to 3 members (maybe even conceal the store/user name) and let them vote.
2 votes and the listing gets removed.
|
I certainly don't want or need a 'committee' to tell me how what I can list or
not list, that's why we have 'rules'
| |
I'm sure we would be able to find members for a committee of 3 or maybe 5 very
quickly and that decisions on listings would be decided very quickly.
|
Yes, I'm sure your right, no doubt headed by you? Maybe a few more people who
'think' they should run Bricklink?
| |
Obviously Admin and/or the CO would be able to appoint/remove those committee
members and Admin and maybe the CO would also be able to overrule them.
|
Admin has the final word on ALL decisions, and that's the way I like it. I certainly
don't another seller who's on a committee telling me I've listed something incorrect,
and if I don't do something about it, your 'committee' will.
There's an old saying, if it's not broken, don't fix it.
Mike
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | TorontoLego | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2010 10:09 | | Subject: | Re: Committee for Listing Violations | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, SimplyBricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, TorontoLego writes:
NO, This is NOT a democratic site, all decisions made on this site are Admins
only.
|
Allowing simple tasks to be performed by a committee of more than one does not
overthrow Admin and install a legislature!
| |
| | I suggest a committee of 3 people for Listing violations: Have the problem reports
sent to 3 members (maybe even conceal the store/user name) and let them vote.
2 votes and the listing gets removed.
|
I certainly don't want or need a 'committee' to tell me how what I can list or
not list, that's why we have 'rules'
|
The idea is simply for a committee to help enforce the rules. Are you against
enforcement of the rules?
| |
| |
I'm sure we would be able to find members for a committee of 3 or maybe 5 very
quickly and that decisions on listings would be decided very quickly.
|
Yes, I'm sure your right, no doubt headed by you? Maybe a few more people who
'think' they should run Bricklink?
|
WOW! --
I can tell you unequivocally that I would not want to serve on such a committee.
On the other hand, I'm sure you would make an excellent member of such a committee.
| |
| |
Obviously Admin and/or the CO would be able to appoint/remove those committee
members and Admin and maybe the CO would also be able to overrule them.
|
Admin has the final word on ALL decisions, and that's the way I like it. I certainly
don't another seller who's on a committee telling me I've listed something incorrect,
and if I don't do something about it, your 'committee' will.
|
Why? Are you opposed to having incorrect listings in your store pointed out?
Do you have a lot of those?
| |
There's an old saying, if it's not broken, don't fix it.
|
It's not that old - 1977. It was coined by Bert Lance - a member of Jimmy Carter's
administration that was forced to resign after being exposed in a major scandal.
Apparently he didn't want people poking around too much in the work he was doing...
It has been a source of anti-activism ever since.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2010 10:48 | | Subject: | Re: Committee for Listing Violations | | Viewed: | 67 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, SimplyBricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, TorontoLego writes:
NO, This is NOT a democratic site, all decisions made on this site are Admins
only.
|
Not true at all. Troy, the mods and the catmins - even you - make numerous decisions
every day without Admin's prior knowledge or approval.
| |
| | I suggest a committee of 3 people for Listing violations: Have the problem reports
sent to 3 members (maybe even conceal the store/user name) and let them vote.
2 votes and the listing gets removed.
|
I certainly don't want or need a 'committee' to tell me how what I can list or
not list, that's why we have 'rules'
|
Don't we have that already through the catmins and inventory admins such as yourself?
You guys - not Admin - decide what thousands of sellers can and cannot list here
simply by controlling the catalog and inventories. And what good are rules if
Admin is too busy doing other things to enforce them?
| | | |
I'm sure we would be able to find members for a committee of 3 or maybe 5 very
quickly and that decisions on listings would be decided very quickly.
|
Yes, I'm sure your right, no doubt headed by you? Maybe a few more people who
'think' they should run Bricklink?
|
This is uncalled for. I don't hear any accusations that you or Troy or Rob or
any of the other mods, catmins and inventory admins "think" BL should be run
a certain way. Do you have a problem sharing some of your power?
| | | |
Obviously Admin and/or the CO would be able to appoint/remove those committee
members and Admin and maybe the CO would also be able to overrule them.
|
Admin has the final word on ALL decisions, and that's the way I like it. I certainly
don't another seller who's on a committee telling me I've listed something incorrect,
and if I don't do something about it, your 'committee' will.
|
Whether you "want" it or not is irrelevant. If your listing violates the rules,
it should be removed. And, like it or not, there are already people - such as
yourself - who effectively tell all other sellers what they can and cannot list
here. Except the catmins and inventory admins do it proactively.
| |
There's an old saying, if it's not broken, don't fix it.
|
There is also an even older saying that there is always room for improvement.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | bagelboybugle | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2010 07:09 | | Subject: | Re: Committee for Listing Violations | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, TorontoLego writes:
For a position like catmins or chatmins, where there are multiple people doing
the same task, there may already be an element of committee in the sense of all
subject mins soemtimes might have a say in a given decision. (?)
Would committees in general be good for the site? Im not so sure, I would prefer
Admin to keep final say on such things as catalog policy matters, mainly because
committees are notorious for not listening to the majority, whereas at least
Admin may at times choose to agree with the majority concencus of membership
and ask a particular min or group of mins to change the way they approach a given
area of their responsibility.
A camel remember, is a horse designed by a committee.
| | I suggest a committee of 3 people for Listing violations: Have the problem reports
sent to 3 members (maybe even conceal the store/user name) and let them vote.
2 votes and the listing gets removed.
I'm sure we would be able to find members for a committee of 3 or maybe 5 very
quickly and that decisions on listings would be decided very quickly.
|
Positions of power are always better offered to people who can be trusted to
operate within them, the mere desire to hold power is often a good indicator
that that person should not be given power in the first place.
| | Obviously Admin and/or the CO would be able to appoint/remove those committee
members and Admin and maybe the CO would also be able to overrule them.
Mike.
|
If Admin has the right to overule a committee then basically the committee's
role is reduced to making a recommendation to Admin, therefore the concept is
useless as it doesnt save Admin any time at all.
I think I see where your coming from, many bricklink members live in societys
whereby if they break the rules they are entitled to a trial by their peers.
Bricklink rules however are much more clearcut than criminal law, most listing
either clearly break the rules or they dont, with a small minority that perhaps
challenge the shades of black and white. As such there is no purpose to trial
by committee (aka jury). However I am sure that if Admin has an issue with the
volume of reportied listings that he has to deal with, he and the C/O are more
than capable of offering an appropriate role to someone who can be trusted to
fill the role with complete impartiality.
So because as admirable as the cause and logic is, it is neither necessary nor
workable in the context of which it is suggested, so I respectfully on this occasion
vote against.
Gareth
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | TorontoLego | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2010 09:49 | | Subject: | Re: Committee for Listing Violations | | Viewed: | 59 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, bagelboybugle writes:
| | In Suggestions, TorontoLego writes:
For a position like catmins or chatmins, where there are multiple people doing
the same task, there may already be an element of committee in the sense of all
subject mins soemtimes might have a say in a given decision. (?)
Would committees in general be good for the site? Im not so sure, I would prefer
Admin to keep final say on such things as catalog policy matters, mainly because
committees are notorious for not listening to the majority, whereas at least
Admin may at times choose to agree with the majority concencus of membership
and ask a particular min or group of mins to change the way they approach a given
area of their responsibility.
A camel remember, is a horse designed by a committee.
| | I suggest a committee of 3 people for Listing violations: Have the problem reports
sent to 3 members (maybe even conceal the store/user name) and let them vote.
2 votes and the listing gets removed.
I'm sure we would be able to find members for a committee of 3 or maybe 5 very
quickly and that decisions on listings would be decided very quickly.
|
Positions of power are always better offered to people who can be trusted to
operate within them, the mere desire to hold power is often a good indicator
that that person should not be given power in the first place.
| | Obviously Admin and/or the CO would be able to appoint/remove those committee
members and Admin and maybe the CO would also be able to overrule them.
Mike.
|
If Admin has the right to overule a committee then basically the committee's
role is reduced to making a recommendation to Admin, therefore the concept is
useless as it doesnt save Admin any time at all.
I think I see where your coming from, many bricklink members live in societys
whereby if they break the rules they are entitled to a trial by their peers.
Bricklink rules however are much more clearcut than criminal law, most listing
either clearly break the rules or they dont, with a small minority that perhaps
challenge the shades of black and white. As such there is no purpose to trial
by committee (aka jury). However I am sure that if Admin has an issue with the
volume of reportied listings that he has to deal with, he and the C/O are more
than capable of offering an appropriate role to someone who can be trusted to
fill the role with complete impartiality.
So because as admirable as the cause and logic is, it is neither necessary nor
workable in the context of which it is suggested, so I respectfully on this occasion
vote against.
Gareth
|
Gareth,
You are correct in highlighting the reason for creating such a committee would
be entirely to save Admin time. It is also to make these corrections easier
to implement.
Here are some assumptions that I have - please feel free to point out their flaws.
1) The vast majority of listing violations are either careless mistakes, or inadvertent
mistakes made by sellers that did not know they were violating the rule.
2) Many of us see these mistakes and don't bother to point out the issue because
we don't want to flood Eric with issues that would keep him from doing the "good
work".
3) Most sellers would have no problem correcting a listing that is pointed out
as incorrect.
The suggestion is for a committee that will basically enforce the rules insofar
as sellers comply with the committee's ruling. Seller's would have a right to
appeal and then Eric would of course rule on the individual listing. The committee
wouldn't even have to know about this appeal. In this way I believe 90%+ of
all of these could be kept off Eric's desk AND I think we - the community at
large - would feel better about pointing these out more frequently (being vigilant
about it) knowing that we aren't bugging Admin.
Please remember the goal -- the better listings are - the more accurate the price
guide is and the more fair and competitive all selling becomes.
Every time an item gets listed incorrectly and then sells - the price guide becomes
a little bit less accurate.
Thanks for reconsidering,
Mike.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2010 10:02 | | Subject: | Re: Committee for Listing Violations | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, TorontoLego writes:
| | The suggestion is for a committee that will basically enforce the rules insofar
as sellers comply with the committee's ruling. Seller's would have a right to
appeal and then Eric would of course rule on the individual listing. The committee
wouldn't even have to know about this appeal. In this way I believe 90%+ of
all of these could be kept off Eric's desk AND I think we - the community at
large - would feel better about pointing these out more frequently (being vigilant
about it) knowing that we aren't bugging Admin.
|
But if the reporting increases tenfold, then a 90% reduction of the number of
cases that Admin needs to review personally would result in the same net workload.
I'm not saying that this should be an argument against the suggestion, though
(I voted yes). Just pointing out that the end result is not necessarily
less work for Admin.
--
Marc.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2010 10:36 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | .bob | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2010 10:32 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | mnementh | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2010 11:25 | | Subject: | Re: Committee for Listing Violations | | Viewed: | 70 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, TorontoLego writes:
In my experience, a committee is almost never a good thing, for anything.
Troy
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | BrickBuy | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2010 11:29 | | Subject: | Re: Committee for Listing Violations | | Viewed: | 63 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, mnementh writes:
| | In Suggestions, TorontoLego writes:
In my experience, a committee is almost never a good thing, for anything.
Troy
|
You are wrong here Troy. At work, any time people want something from me, I gather
a few of these people that always have slightly different opinions and ideas,
and tell them to form a committee, and report their findings to me. That is usually
the end of it. So, they are a good thing if used "properly"
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | TorontoLego | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2010 11:33 | | Subject: | Re: Committee for Listing Violations | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, BrickBuy writes:
| | In Suggestions, mnementh writes:
| | In Suggestions, TorontoLego writes:
In my experience, a committee is almost never a good thing, for anything.
Troy
|
You are wrong here Troy. At work, any time people want something from me, I gather
a few of these people that always have slightly different opinions and ideas,
and tell them to form a committee, and report their findings to me. That is usually
the end of it. So, they are a good thing if used "properly"
|
In the specific case that I am suggesting, the reason I think that a committee
would be better than an individual is that there is room for interpretation when
it comes to qualified listings. One individual's point of view will rarely,
if ever, be perfectly objective. A small group will ensure a more balance approach
to enforcement.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | mnementh | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2010 11:53 | | Subject: | Re: Committee for Listing Violations | | Viewed: | 67 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, TorontoLego writes:
| | In Suggestions, BrickBuy writes:
| | In Suggestions, mnementh writes:
| | In Suggestions, TorontoLego writes:
In my experience, a committee is almost never a good thing, for anything.
Troy
|
You are wrong here Troy. At work, any time people want something from me, I gather
a few of these people that always have slightly different opinions and ideas,
and tell them to form a committee, and report their findings to me. That is usually
the end of it. So, they are a good thing if used "properly"
|
In the specific case that I am suggesting, the reason I think that a committee
would be better than an individual is that there is room for interpretation when
it comes to qualified listings. One individual's point of view will rarely,
if ever, be perfectly objective. A small group will ensure a more balance approach
to enforcement.
|
I think it is all in the semantics.
A "committee" conjures up a group of people discussing an issue and then forming
and presenting a conclusion. That doesn't seem like it would be helpful.
I think what you are asking for is more along the lines of a "review board" where
each person INDIVIDUALLY looks at the issue and submits their decision. The
system then tallies up the "votes" for the final decision. This seems more workable.
Troy
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | TorontoLego | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2010 11:55 | | Subject: | Re: Committee for Listing Violations | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, mnementh writes:
| | In Suggestions, TorontoLego writes:
| | In Suggestions, BrickBuy writes:
| | In Suggestions, mnementh writes:
| | In Suggestions, TorontoLego writes:
In my experience, a committee is almost never a good thing, for anything.
Troy
|
You are wrong here Troy. At work, any time people want something from me, I gather
a few of these people that always have slightly different opinions and ideas,
and tell them to form a committee, and report their findings to me. That is usually
the end of it. So, they are a good thing if used "properly"
|
In the specific case that I am suggesting, the reason I think that a committee
would be better than an individual is that there is room for interpretation when
it comes to qualified listings. One individual's point of view will rarely,
if ever, be perfectly objective. A small group will ensure a more balance approach
to enforcement.
|
I think it is all in the semantics.
A "committee" conjures up a group of people discussing an issue and then forming
and presenting a conclusion. That doesn't seem like it would be helpful.
I think what you are asking for is more along the lines of a "review board" where
each person INDIVIDUALLY looks at the issue and submits their decision. The
system then tallies up the "votes" for the final decision. This seems more workable.
Troy
|
Troy, THANK YOU!
Exactly what I am suggesting. That is a much better description than the one
I put forth earlier.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2010 11:55 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2010 12:07 | | Subject: | Re: Committee for Listing Violations | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, mnementh writes:
| | I think it is all in the semantics.
|
No, no, no! I disagree completely. I think it's all in the nomenclature!
--
Marc.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Lonely_Brick_OH | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2010 13:17 | | Subject: | Re: Committee for Listing Violations | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, mnementh writes:
| | In Suggestions, TorontoLego writes:
| | In Suggestions, BrickBuy writes:
| | In Suggestions, mnementh writes:
| | In Suggestions, TorontoLego writes:
In my experience, a committee is almost never a good thing, for anything.
Troy
|
You are wrong here Troy. At work, any time people want something from me, I gather
a few of these people that always have slightly different opinions and ideas,
and tell them to form a committee, and report their findings to me. That is usually
the end of it. So, they are a good thing if used "properly"
|
In the specific case that I am suggesting, the reason I think that a committee
would be better than an individual is that there is room for interpretation when
it comes to qualified listings. One individual's point of view will rarely,
if ever, be perfectly objective. A small group will ensure a more balance approach
to enforcement.
|
I think it is all in the semantics.
A "committee" conjures up a group of people discussing an issue and then forming
and presenting a conclusion. That doesn't seem like it would be helpful.
I think what you are asking for is more along the lines of a "review board" where
each person INDIVIDUALLY looks at the issue and submits their decision. The
system then tallies up the "votes" for the final decision. This seems more workable.
Troy
|
1st guess for here
committee=angry mob.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | BLUSER_87297 | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2010 11:56 | | Subject: | Re: Committee for Listing Violations | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, BrickBuy writes:
| | In Suggestions, mnementh writes:
| | In Suggestions, TorontoLego writes:
In my experience, a committee is almost never a good thing, for anything.
Troy
|
You are wrong here Troy. At work, any time people want something from me, I gather
a few of these people that always have slightly different opinions and ideas,
and tell them to form a committee, and report their findings to me. That is usually
the end of it. So, they are a good thing if used "properly"
|
Sounds like you two could form one with one or two others . But it doesn't
sound like Admins cup of tea, I don't think he woulda ever formed anything like
that or he would have before probably. He always seemed to like keeping things
to him and his admins and the admins do a great enough job on their own I think.
If we add more people to the mix I think it would make it worse. Lets just stick
to the good mods we got already  .
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Scrp749 | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2010 11:39 | | Subject: | Re: Committee for Listing Violations | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, mnementh writes:
| | In Suggestions, TorontoLego writes:
In my experience, a committee is almost never a good thing, for anything.
Troy
|
Don't fix what ain't broken. Here is all the committee you need:
knuck knuck knuck...
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | BLUSER_27495 | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2010 11:45 | | Subject: | Re: Committee for Listing Violations | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, mnementh writes:
| | In Suggestions, TorontoLego writes:
In my experience, a committee is almost never a good thing, for anything.
Troy
|
I agree with you Troy. Everytime I have been involved in a committee, it has
been nothing but headaches.
LegoJohn
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2010 11:51 | | Subject: | Re: Committee for Listing Violations | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, mnementh writes:
| | In Suggestions, TorontoLego writes:
In my experience, a committee is almost never a good thing, for anything.
Troy
|
OK, so let's call it a panel or group or whatever you mods or catmins call yourselves
whenever you get together to work on ways to improve BrickLink. You guys seem
to do a good job as a group, so I see no reason why a small group of additional
volunteers would not be able to help clean up listing violations and other problems.
We just won't call you or them a "committee".
Thor
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | tEoS | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2010 12:16 | | Subject: | Re: Committee for Listing Violations | | Viewed: | 64 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Actually, I believe it to be quite the opposite. There have been messages posted.
Indications of behind the scenes that do not paint a good picture. Add that
to the mix where their say is final and does not always support the marketplace
or make for a consistent catalog. IMO, the catalog admin system is broken and
has been for quite some time. Maybe, there are just too many hands in the pot.
| | OK, so let's call it a panel or group or whatever you mods or catmins call yourselves
whenever you get together to work on ways to improve BrickLink. You guys seem
to do a good job as a group, so I see no reason why a small group of additional
volunteers would not be able to help clean up listing violations and other problems.
We just won't call you or them a "committee".
Thor
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2010 13:03 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | therobo | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2010 19:24 | | Subject: | Re: REVIEW BOARD for Listing Violations | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | While I share some of your frustration, I would not go so far as to say the catmin
system is broken. Yes, there are inconsistencies, mainly because there are differences
of opinions among the catmins.
|
Hi,
actually I can't see that there are (m)any different opinions among the actual
catmins.
If such different opinions occur, they are discussed between the catmins and
any resulting decision is made in agreement with each other.
I'm also not aware of any inconsistencies resulting of different opinions of
the actual catmins.
Some inconsistencies exist in the catalog, yes.
However, most, if not all, are results of an evolved catalog.
Please also note that Bricklink has seen 6 catmins over the last 9 years.
All were and are bound to catalog rules, set up by Admin, but of course all catmins
are individuals and the matter LEGO is not that simple that each and every issue
can be handled by hard rules.
During the evolution of the catalog many rules had to be expanded, changed and
new rules had to be added, some were even deleted.
As far as any inconsistencies are a result of different opinions of any catmins,
these opinons and decisions took place at different times, at different "catmin
eras".
In opposite to how many companies work when new executives are installed, new
catmins at BrickLink didn't and don't question each and every decision made by
their predecessor(s).
Speaking only for me, I respect decisions made be former catmins and only change
things when new knowledge occurs and/or new items need to change old items/decisions
to be as consistent as possible.
| | AND, if I understand correctly, because each catmin
is independent of the others and can pretty much do whatever they want.
|
We can't do whatever we want as we are bound to the rules anybody can read under
the catalog help topic.
| | I am
sure they sometimes consult with each other, but I am equally sure they still
do things even if other catmins disagree with them.
|
I cannot see on which incident(s) your assumptions are based.
So far we act as a team and issues which one catmin doesn't want to decide without
a 2nd opinion are discussed.
| |
On the other hand, a panel or review board would promote consensus and leave
less room for individual independence and decision-making. This may be a clumbsy
unworkable mechanism for the catmins and inventory admins due to the sheer number
of decisions they must constantly make. But I think it would work nicely for
listing violations and to help Admin resolve other problems and disputes.
|
I don't think that a commitee or rewiew board would be of great help for the
main issue which seems to addressed by the OP.
It only seems to be a matter of time and workload, however up to now I never
heard of any large delays when it comes to deal with wrongly listed items.
All such problems I reported were processed in time.
Maybe some reports are not processed because they are not well-grounded.
Proper comments in the comment field always help to expedite the approval.
In addition I don't think that any issue which directly has to do with problems
between members should be reviewed by another member, except by the CO, whose
position was explicitely installed for such problems.
I'm very sure that Admin and the CO would directly ask *certain* members for
assistance if they can't handle the workload, but I'm also very sure that any
of such assistance would not be engaged based on any suggestions but only by
their own discrete decisions.
Please also be aware that it's most likely not Eric alone who has to decide how
BrickLink works.
I'm very sure that the Jezek family as owner of the site will ensure that the
site continues to work as it was set up by Dan.
Ronald
| |
Thor
In Suggestions, tEoS writes:
| | Actually, I believe it to be quite the opposite. There have been messages posted.
Indications of behind the scenes that do not paint a good picture. Add that
to the mix where their say is final and does not always support the marketplace
or make for a consistent catalog. IMO, the catalog admin system is broken and
has been for quite some time. Maybe, there are just too many hands in the pot.
| | OK, so let's call it a panel or group or whatever you mods or catmins call yourselves
whenever you get together to work on ways to improve BrickLink. You guys seem
to do a good job as a group, so I see no reason why a small group of additional
volunteers would not be able to help clean up listing violations and other problems.
We just won't call you or them a "committee".
Thor
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | InanimateReason | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2010 21:24 | | Subject: | Re: REVIEW BOARD for Listing Violations | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, therobo writes:
| | I don't think that a commitee or rewiew board would be of great help for the
main issue which seems to addressed by the OP.
It only seems to be a matter of time and workload, however up to now I never
heard of any large delays when it comes to deal with wrongly listed items.
All such problems I reported were processed in time.
Maybe some reports are not processed because they are not well-grounded.
Proper comments in the comment field always help to expedite the approval.
|
What would you consider to be a reasonable waiting period for action on problem
reports. Feel free to give a range since the easy ones should be handled the
quickest and thorny listings may take longer to work out.
Bill
Inanimate Reason
Home of the Custom Aluminum Liftarms!
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | therobo | | Posted: | Dec 22, 2010 14:53 | | Subject: | Re: REVIEW BOARD for Listing Violations | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, InanimateReason writes:
| | In Suggestions, therobo writes:
| | I don't think that a commitee or rewiew board would be of great help for the
main issue which seems to addressed by the OP.
It only seems to be a matter of time and workload, however up to now I never
heard of any large delays when it comes to deal with wrongly listed items.
All such problems I reported were processed in time.
Maybe some reports are not processed because they are not well-grounded.
Proper comments in the comment field always help to expedite the approval.
|
What would you consider to be a reasonable waiting period for action on problem
reports. Feel free to give a range since the easy ones should be handled the
quickest and thorny listings may take longer to work out.
|
Hi,
my problem reports for wrongly listed items were usually processed within few
hours to few days which always seemed reasonable for me.
I almost reported custom items not listed as custom, such as custom chromed parts
and custom minifigs listed under catalog entries.
Ronald
| |
Bill
Inanimate Reason
Home of the Custom Aluminum Liftarms!
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | TorontoLego | | Posted: | Dec 22, 2010 17:01 | | Subject: | Re: REVIEW BOARD for Listing Violations | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| I must admit that after submitting problem items, I didn't go back to check how
long it took for them to process. I just assumed that they were taken care of
in the quickest time possible by the people who were responsible.
As I stated earlier in this thread, when I look now, the list of items I submitted
as problems seems to be gone. I don't think they were old enough to be purged
-- not sure why they aren't there.
The feedback for this thread has been very interesting. I will compile the thoughts
and make an informal suggestion to Admin through the help-desk.
Thanks,
Mike.
In Suggestions, therobo writes:
| | In Suggestions, InanimateReason writes:
| | In Suggestions, therobo writes:
| | I don't think that a commitee or rewiew board would be of great help for the
main issue which seems to addressed by the OP.
It only seems to be a matter of time and workload, however up to now I never
heard of any large delays when it comes to deal with wrongly listed items.
All such problems I reported were processed in time.
Maybe some reports are not processed because they are not well-grounded.
Proper comments in the comment field always help to expedite the approval.
|
What would you consider to be a reasonable waiting period for action on problem
reports. Feel free to give a range since the easy ones should be handled the
quickest and thorny listings may take longer to work out.
|
Hi,
my problem reports for wrongly listed items were usually processed within few
hours to few days which always seemed reasonable for me.
I almost reported custom items not listed as custom, such as custom chromed parts
and custom minifigs listed under catalog entries.
Ronald
| |
Bill
Inanimate Reason
Home of the Custom Aluminum Liftarms!
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | LEGOMASTER | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2010 12:26 | | Subject: | Re: Committee for Listing Violations | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, TorontoLego writes:
| | The responses to this got me thinking:
http://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=498526
Would committees be a good thing for BL?
I suggest a committee of 3 people for Listing violations: Have the problem reports
sent to 3 members (maybe even conceal the store/user name) and let them vote.
2 votes and the listing gets removed.
I'm sure we would be able to find members for a committee of 3 or maybe 5 very
quickly and that decisions on listings would be decided very quickly.
Obviously Admin and/or the CO would be able to appoint/remove those committee
members and Admin and maybe the CO would also be able to overrule them.
Mike.
|
I vote no.
Even if it called a committee or review board, I vote no. What I worry about
is 'who' would be on the 'board' and how long do they hold the position. If
this goes through each person should list their BIO and any other information.
So there is no abuse of power being on the board.
I have a bad feeling about this... creating more problems than the site really
needs. Again I vote no.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | dvsntt | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2010 14:55 | | Subject: | Re: Committee for Listing Violations | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, TorontoLego writes:
| | The responses to this got me thinking:
http://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=498526
Would committees be a good thing for BL?
I suggest a committee of 3 people for Listing violations: Have the problem reports
sent to 3 members (maybe even conceal the store/user name) and let them vote.
2 votes and the listing gets removed.
I'm sure we would be able to find members for a committee of 3 or maybe 5 very
quickly and that decisions on listings would be decided very quickly.
Obviously Admin and/or the CO would be able to appoint/remove those committee
members and Admin and maybe the CO would also be able to overrule them.
Mike.
|
I think it is a noble suggestion but it makes me think that it should be more
inclusive of everyone from those with a vested interest to those with a whimsical
interest and I think it could be self-healing if it were a wiki format. Additions,
deletions and adjustments could be made by anyone, but their permanency would
be decided ultimately by the catalog users.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | AndersPaludan | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2010 20:24 | | Subject: | Committee for Listing Violations | | Viewed: | 56 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Yay! I like the sound of that. Like the Central Committee
of the USSR and The Chinese Revolutionary Committee. 
But seriously:
From a programmers point of wiew I guess it would be rather
easy to give a member access to modifying/deleting listings.
So if Admin had felt a need to call for help from one or more
"Listmins" he probably would have done so long time ago.
If someone believes that the new Admin is too shy to ask,
then why not simply send him a message and volunteer for the
new position?
Anders
|
|
|
|
|
|
Canada, Ontario
USA, North Carolina
Germany, Berlin
Belgium
United Kingdom, England
Denmark