|
 |
| | | Author: | calsbricks  | | Posted: | Jun 6, 2016 03:47 | | Subject: | Improvements to Search Stores feataure | | Viewed: | 103 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| One of the ways to see where your store is in regards to others is to compare
the weekly/monthly and yearly feedback figures. Currently this is a long winded
process of clicking on each stores feedback and looking at the summary table.
We would think it would be far easier to add a sort method which reflects either
the weekly/monthly or annual feedback figures. This way you could easily see
where your store sits in the overall scheme of things.
Whilst this may not be an urgent development requirement with all the other things
that are going on in development, this might be a useful addition to the stores
update which has been mentioned as 'coming' by the Bricklink admin.
Just a thought .....
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jun 6, 2016 04:24 | | Subject: | Re: Improvements to Search Stores feataure | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | One of the ways to see where your store is in regards to others is to compare
the weekly/monthly and yearly feedback figures. Currently this is a long winded
process of clicking on each stores feedback and looking at the summary table.
We would think it would be far easier to add a sort method which reflects either
the weekly/monthly or annual feedback figures. This way you could easily see
where your store sits in the overall scheme of things.
Whilst this may not be an urgent development requirement with all the other things
that are going on in development, this might be a useful addition to the stores
update which has been mentioned as 'coming' by the Bricklink admin.
Just a thought .....
|
What does this tell you? How much feedback you get in relation to another store.
But what does that actually mean "in the overall scheme of things"? It tells
you nothing about the size / value of orders, for example.
What data do you want the sort method to work on? Just to see who is getting
most feedback recently, or as a sort when people are viewing items?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Jun 6, 2016 06:03 | | Subject: | Re: Improvements to Search Stores feataure | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | One of the ways to see where your store is in regards to others is to compare
the weekly/monthly and yearly feedback figures. Currently this is a long winded
process of clicking on each stores feedback and looking at the summary table.
We would think it would be far easier to add a sort method which reflects either
the weekly/monthly or annual feedback figures. This way you could easily see
where your store sits in the overall scheme of things.
Whilst this may not be an urgent development requirement with all the other things
that are going on in development, this might be a useful addition to the stores
update which has been mentioned as 'coming' by the Bricklink admin.
Just a thought .....
|
What does this tell you? How much feedback you get in relation to another store.
But what does that actually mean "in the overall scheme of things"? It tells
you nothing about the size / value of orders, for example.
What data do you want the sort method to work on? Just to see who is getting
most feedback recently, or as a sort when people are viewing items?
|
Good morning and thank you for commenting
What it tell us is the approximate level of orders each store is getting on a
weekly/monthly and annual basis. Feedback seems to have a fairly consistent correlation
between no of orders received and no of feedback (the percentage ranges from
50% to 80%. The relationship is different on orders placed )feedback to orders
is much higher as lots and lots of stores respond to feedback given by a buyer.
Our feedback given to stores where we have purchased from is well over 95%.
If someone has figures like weekly 2 monthly 10 and annually 150 - their levels
of activity are not as high as someone who has figures of weekly 70 monthly 300
and annually 1210.
It is a much more accurate way of defining a stores activity than looking at
no of lots, items or total feedback. The feedback system is and always has been
flawed at Bricklink - it is subjective not objective - but there are some things
we can glean from it and therefore it is important as a guide to who you and
don't do business with.
Hope that explains it better - sorry for the confusion
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jun 6, 2016 06:16 | | Subject: | Re: Improvements to Search Stores feataure | | Viewed: | 20 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| I don't really see how it helps.
If you were buying before Christmas and there are the following two stores, which
is the better store?
A: Jan(100), Feb(100), Mar(100), Apr(100), May(0), June(0), Jul(0), Aug(0), Sep(100),
Oct(100).
B: Jan(50), Feb(50), Mar(50), Apr(50), May(50), June(50), Jul(50), Aug(50), Sep(50),
Oct(50).
Assume all positive feedback (numbers in brackets). Obviously A takes the summer
off. Would having the extra breakdown of historical data really help, or is it
just data for the sake of data?
If they have no recent sales history, I can see it is helpful but that is already
covered in the existing feedback system.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Jun 6, 2016 06:27 | | Subject: | Re: Improvements to Search Stores feataure | | Viewed: | 20 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | I don't really see how it helps.
If you were buying before Christmas and there are the following two stores, which
is the better store?
A: Jan(100), Feb(100), Mar(100), Apr(100), May(0), June(0), Jul(0), Aug(0), Sep(100),
Oct(100).
B: Jan(50), Feb(50), Mar(50), Apr(50), May(50), June(50), Jul(50), Aug(50), Sep(50),
Oct(50).
Assume all positive feedback (numbers in brackets). Obviously A takes the summer
off. Would having the extra breakdown of historical data really help, or is it
just data for the sake of data?
If they have no recent sales history, I can see it is helpful but that is already
covered in the existing feedback system.
|
I presume your comments are relating to weekly feedback rather than weekly/monthly
and annually. By looking at all three figures the level of activity is clearer
- if someone takes the summer off - they are probably a hobbyist (nothing wrong
with that) but their activity levels may or may not even them out with another
store over the rolling 12 month period.
From your example above - one store has 600 feedbacks in the 10 month period
and the other has 500 - so the no feedback months is obscured somewhat. In addition
Bricklink does not present the data in that way - they use a rolling weekly/monthly
and annual basis.
Please do not forget we are not asking for new data simply additional sort features.
Those that choose to use that fine - those who don't - also fine. There are
sorts for other ways of looking at the data so why not this way?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jun 6, 2016 07:18 | | Subject: | Re: Improvements to Search Stores feataure | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | I don't really see how it helps.
If you were buying before Christmas and there are the following two stores, which
is the better store?
A: Jan(100), Feb(100), Mar(100), Apr(100), May(0), June(0), Jul(0), Aug(0), Sep(100),
Oct(100).
B: Jan(50), Feb(50), Mar(50), Apr(50), May(50), June(50), Jul(50), Aug(50), Sep(50),
Oct(50).
Assume all positive feedback (numbers in brackets). Obviously A takes the summer
off. Would having the extra breakdown of historical data really help, or is it
just data for the sake of data?
If they have no recent sales history, I can see it is helpful but that is already
covered in the existing feedback system.
|
I presume your comments are relating to weekly feedback rather than weekly/monthly
and annually. By looking at all three figures the level of activity is clearer
- if someone takes the summer off - they are probably a hobbyist (nothing wrong
with that) but their activity levels may or may not even them out with another
store over the rolling 12 month period.
From your example above - one store has 600 feedbacks in the 10 month period
and the other has 500 - so the no feedback months is obscured somewhat. In addition
Bricklink does not present the data in that way - they use a rolling weekly/monthly
and annual basis.
Please do not forget we are not asking for new data simply additional sort features.
Those that choose to use that fine - those who don't - also fine. There are
sorts for other ways of looking at the data so why not this way?
|
But the question then is why would you want to know this? What does it tell you
extra about the seller that is necessary to know before buying from them? Does
it actually matter to a buyer that a store has some self-chosen down time or
slower sales at some periods of the year. So long as they have consistently good
feedback, I don't really see why it matters.
It then gets complicated further by feedback doesn't have to be left right
away. I reckon I could easily manipulate when buyers leave feedback for me. I
often find buyers don't leave feedback if I don't leave it first. So
if I don't leave it, then leave it later on, there is a good chance I can
get the buyer to leave feedback when I want it and so manipulate the data if
I so wanted.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Jun 6, 2016 08:01 | | Subject: | Re: Improvements to Search Stores feataure | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | In Suggestions, calsbricks writes:
| | In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | I don't really see how it helps.
If you were buying before Christmas and there are the following two stores, which
is the better store?
A: Jan(100), Feb(100), Mar(100), Apr(100), May(0), June(0), Jul(0), Aug(0), Sep(100),
Oct(100).
B: Jan(50), Feb(50), Mar(50), Apr(50), May(50), June(50), Jul(50), Aug(50), Sep(50),
Oct(50).
Assume all positive feedback (numbers in brackets). Obviously A takes the summer
off. Would having the extra breakdown of historical data really help, or is it
just data for the sake of data?
If they have no recent sales history, I can see it is helpful but that is already
covered in the existing feedback system.
|
I presume your comments are relating to weekly feedback rather than weekly/monthly
and annually. By looking at all three figures the level of activity is clearer
- if someone takes the summer off - they are probably a hobbyist (nothing wrong
with that) but their activity levels may or may not even them out with another
store over the rolling 12 month period.
From your example above - one store has 600 feedbacks in the 10 month period
and the other has 500 - so the no feedback months is obscured somewhat. In addition
Bricklink does not present the data in that way - they use a rolling weekly/monthly
and annual basis.
Please do not forget we are not asking for new data simply additional sort features.
Those that choose to use that fine - those who don't - also fine. There are
sorts for other ways of looking at the data so why not this way?
|
But the question then is why would you want to know this? What does it tell you
extra about the seller that is necessary to know before buying from them? Does
it actually matter to a buyer that a store has some self-chosen down time or
slower sales at some periods of the year. So long as they have consistently good
feedback, I don't really see why it matters.
It then gets complicated further by feedback doesn't have to be left right
away. I reckon I could easily manipulate when buyers leave feedback for me. I
often find buyers don't leave feedback if I don't leave it first. So
if I don't leave it, then leave it later on, there is a good chance I can
get the buyer to leave feedback when I want it and so manipulate the data if
I so wanted.
|
Unfortunately I think you have misunderstood our purpose. We are not interested
in this as criteria for buying - we want to compare how stores are doing. Where
we buy from is never down to this - it is a business assessment of a stores
activity not an assessment of whether we buy from them or not.
Again its is not as complicated as you want to make it. It is simply another
view how stores are doing compared to our store.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jun 6, 2016 09:10 | | Subject: | Re: Improvements to Search Stores feataure | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | Unfortunately I think you have misunderstood our purpose. We are not interested
in this as criteria for buying - we want to compare how stores are doing. Where
we buy from is never down to this - it is a business assessment of a stores
activity not an assessment of whether we buy from them or not.
Again its is not as complicated as you want to make it. It is simply another
view how stores are doing compared to our store.
|
But you cannot get that from feedback data. All you can get is a number of (dis)satisfied
customers willing to leave feedback. You might be able to extrapolate that to
numbers of orders (which you can get already anyway) but it doesn't really
tell you how a store is doing.
If you want to monitor other people's order numbers, why not just grab their
data on the 1st every month (or more frequently) for all stores that you are
interested in monitoring.
Also, I'm not sure BL should be providing tools for the purpose of monitoring
other people's businesses. If they did this then why not start including
order values in feedback too (like on ebay). Or also include number of parts
and number of lots. Customers may even find it useful, so they know what type
of orders and values the seller has got feedback for. That way you could really
start comparing sales volumes between stores. Although I'd imagine some sellers
wouldn't want that sort of data released.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Jun 6, 2016 11:07 | | Subject: | Re: Improvements to Search Stores feataure | | Viewed: | 20 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | | | Unfortunately I think you have misunderstood our purpose. We are not interested
in this as criteria for buying - we want to compare how stores are doing. Where
we buy from is never down to this - it is a business assessment of a stores
activity not an assessment of whether we buy from them or not.
Again its is not as complicated as you want to make it. It is simply another
view how stores are doing compared to our store.
|
But you cannot get that from feedback data. All you can get is a number of (dis)satisfied
customers willing to leave feedback. You might be able to extrapolate that to
numbers of orders (which you can get already anyway) but it doesn't really
tell you how a store is doing.
If you want to monitor other people's order numbers, why not just grab their
data on the 1st every month (or more frequently) for all stores that you are
interested in monitoring.
Also, I'm not sure BL should be providing tools for the purpose of monitoring
other people's businesses. If they did this then why not start including
order values in feedback too (like on ebay). Or also include number of parts
and number of lots. Customers may even find it useful, so they know what type
of orders and values the seller has got feedback for. That way you could really
start comparing sales volumes between stores. Although I'd imagine some sellers
wouldn't want that sort of data released.
|
Sorry cannot really agree with your analysis and comments. We are going to have
to agree to disagree. I think you are trying to make far too much of this request,
which will fall on deaf ears anyway. It is not about stores order levels (values
etc) - that information is private to any business and we would not be happy
divulging that. (Another very good reason why we avoid ebay like the plague).
We have done a series of correlations of orders to feedback for the top 50 stores
in the UK and have found broadly similar figures - it is giving us a better idea
than the way Bricklink presents the data - all we asked for was another sort
option.
Bricklink already provides data on orders - yes you are right - it is the correlation
of that figure to feedback that we are interested in - we believe that gives
us an indication of store activity and that is what we wanted to asses/compare.
As I said we will have to agree to disagree - we don't share your views and
you don't share ours. Lets leave it at that.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | qwertyboy | | Posted: | Jun 6, 2016 11:57 | | Subject: | Re: Improvements to Search Stores feataure | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| I can see the desire to look at FB numbers. Sure, it only gives an _indication_
of the volume of orders a shop processes and doesn't say anything about their
$$$ sales. But it is an indication nonetheless.
I got interested in the FB number as well, but purely as a dangling carrot in
my quest to see how "far up in the ranks" I could get our shop. I like numbers
and milestones. They don't necessarily need to have any meaning for others,
but I get a kick out of reaching 100k parts, 10k lots, $50k sales, 1000 lbs product
shipped, $15k postage paid, and yes, reaching the first page of Canadian BLers
by FB rating (but since reaching that milestone life took over, inventory dropped
a bit, sales dropped, and we got overtaken again).
Below is a graph of our FB in relation to a few other Canadian members. We are
the yellow line. When time permits we will crank things up again and see if we
can climb the rankings again.
Oh, I like graphs as well. 
Niek.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
United Kingdom, England
Canada, Alberta