|
 |
| | | Author: | cosmicray  | | Posted: | Dec 9, 2023 06:55 | | Subject: | Requirments for new sellers | | Viewed: | 343 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| This is a suggestion to help prevent some of the recent problems with new seller
accounts.
In the beginning (2000 until a few years back) anyone could request selling privs,
and could sell here. The door was wide open, and it was occasionally abused.
The current mode is to receive at least one positive FB. Based on another thread
here, it is possible that is also being abused.
The suggestion is to request fees in advance for the first 45-60 day selling
period. The range of dates is such that at least one full month will be contained.
At the end of that time-frame, any fees not used would be refunded as a partial
refund. The amount charged would be nominal ($5 for example) but would also act
as a speed brake because it would limit how much can be sold during the time
frame (roughly $150). Someone who expects and intends to sell more, could pay
a larger initial fee, but would also face more verification prior to approval.
The advantage of doing this is that it would require someone to prove they exist
as a real person, via the payment. It may also expose someone trying to use a
stolen credit card.
The disadvantage is that it may limit participation from countries where electronic
payment is not possible.
I'm not 100% thrilled with this suggestion, but I think something needs to
be done to enhance validation and to limit the velocity of abuse.
Nita Rae
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | PlanetEarthToys | | Posted: | Dec 9, 2023 10:32 | | Subject: | Re: Requirments for new sellers | | Viewed: | 60 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, cosmicray writes:
| | This is a suggestion to help prevent some of the recent problems with new seller
accounts.
In the beginning (2000 until a few years back) anyone could request selling privs,
and could sell here. The door was wide open, and it was occasionally abused.
The current mode is to receive at least one positive FB. Based on another thread
here, it is possible that is also being abused.
The suggestion is to request fees in advance for the first 45-60 day selling
period. The range of dates is such that at least one full month will be contained.
At the end of that time-frame, any fees not used would be refunded as a partial
refund. The amount charged would be nominal ($5 for example) but would also act
as a speed brake because it would limit how much can be sold during the time
frame (roughly $150). Someone who expects and intends to sell more, could pay
a larger initial fee, but would also face more verification prior to approval.
The advantage of doing this is that it would require someone to prove they exist
as a real person, via the payment. It may also expose someone trying to use a
stolen credit card.
The disadvantage is that it may limit participation from countries where electronic
payment is not possible.
I'm not 100% thrilled with this suggestion, but I think something needs to
be done to enhance validation and to limit the velocity of abuse.
Nita Rae
|
so it would hinder the 'abuse' by not hindering it.. they just get a
refund on the unused upfront fee payment when they have zero sales. they loose
nothing while continuing to do what they do...
but let's guesstimate what Lego does with those funds while all of those
refunds are being processed.
what a headache.....
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Cob | | Posted: | Dec 9, 2023 10:50 | | Subject: | Re: Requirments for new sellers | | Viewed: | 56 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| When I joined BrickLink I was very suspicious that this was a real site that
actually shipped LEGO, I made my first purchases carefully.
When I became a seller I was not sure if I wanted to sell on this site and it
took me a while to get started.
I am pretty cheap and hate unnecessary fees. I doubt I would have paid a dime
to become a seller on BrickLink.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | TallyToyBricks | | Posted: | Dec 9, 2023 11:20 | | Subject: | Re: Requirments for new sellers | | Viewed: | 60 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| I voted yes, not because this is the best solution, but there needs to be some
solution. If buyers don't trust the marketplace, eventually sales decline.
BrickLink needs a high enough bar to limit scammers, but low enough to allow
legitimate new sellers. The current bar is way too low.
Maybe, a staggered sales limit for new stores (Ebay model); month 1 limit sales
to $250, then month 2 to $350, etc. BrickLink has the data to optimize the sales
limits.
If you can delay the amount of time scammers need to wait for their payday, you
limit the number of scammers. Additionally, any that are using fraudulent Bank
Accounts/PayPal/Credit Cards will probably be discovered within 3 months. Basically,
let the Trust and Security Departments of large financial institutions weed out
the bad actors.
Joe
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | PlanetEarthToys | | Posted: | Dec 9, 2023 11:47 | | Subject: | Re: Requirments for new sellers | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, TallyToyBricks writes:
| | I voted yes, not because this is the best solution, but there needs to be some
solution. If buyers don't trust the marketplace, eventually sales decline.
BrickLink needs a high enough bar to limit scammers, but low enough to allow
legitimate new sellers. The current bar is way too low.
Maybe, a staggered sales limit for new stores (Ebay model); month 1 limit sales
to $250, then month 2 to $350, etc. BrickLink has the data to optimize the sales
limits.
If you can delay the amount of time scammers need to wait for their payday, you
limit the number of scammers. Additionally, any that are using fraudulent Bank
Accounts/PayPal/Credit Cards will probably be discovered within 3 months. Basically,
let the Trust and Security Departments of large financial institutions weed out
the bad actors.
Joe
|
why not just apply these arbitrary rules to everyone , right now.
everyone is now limited to $250 worth of sales for the next month, $350 the month
after that.... etc.
sounds like a awesome plan... whoever doesn't agree is not wanting a safe
marketplace...
"only $250 a month per new seller account, well then, let's open 30 accounts...
"
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | cosmicray | | Posted: | Dec 9, 2023 11:48 | | Subject: | Re: Requirments for new sellers | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, TallyToyBricks writes:
| | I voted yes, not because this is the best solution, but there needs to be some
solution. If buyers don't trust the marketplace, eventually sales decline.
BrickLink needs a high enough bar to limit scammers, but low enough to allow
legitimate new sellers. The current bar is way too low.
Maybe, a staggered sales limit for new stores (Ebay model); month 1 limit sales
to $250, then month 2 to $350, etc. BrickLink has the data to optimize the sales
limits.
If you can delay the amount of time scammers need to wait for their payday, you
limit the number of scammers. Additionally, any that are using fraudulent Bank
Accounts/PayPal/Credit Cards will probably be discovered within 3 months. Basically,
let the Trust and Security Departments of large financial institutions weed out
the bad actors.
Joe
|
Thank you. I'm glad to hear someone reading my thoughts.
Nita Rae
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | calebfishn | | Posted: | Dec 9, 2023 13:05 | | Subject: | Re: Requirments for new sellers | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, TallyToyBricks writes:
| | I voted yes, not because this is the best solution, but there needs to be some
solution. If buyers don't trust the marketplace, eventually sales decline.
BrickLink needs a high enough bar to limit scammers, but low enough to allow
legitimate new sellers. The current bar is way too low.
Maybe, a staggered sales limit for new stores (Ebay model); month 1 limit sales
to $250, then month 2 to $350, etc. BrickLink has the data to optimize the sales
limits.
If you can delay the amount of time scammers need to wait for their payday, you
limit the number of scammers. Additionally, any that are using fraudulent Bank
Accounts/PayPal/Credit Cards will probably be discovered within 3 months. Basically,
let the Trust and Security Departments of large financial institutions weed out
the bad actors.
Joe
|
Under you proposal, if I want to become a seller in order to sell a couple of
valuable sets, each worth more than $500.00, how will I be able to do that? The
sales limits proposed would force me to take my sets to ebay or something.
Under your proposal, if I were a scammer, I'd still be able to scam a bunch
of people of up to $250.00?
I don't agree that the current bar to entry is too low. I believe that we
saw a very large improvement when the new seller verification process went in.
It is not perfect, but it seems to have struck a fair balance between discouraging
scammers with instant accounts, and encouraging new sellers into the marketplace.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Dec 9, 2023 13:21 | | Subject: | Re: Requirments for new sellers | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, TallyToyBricks writes:
| | I voted yes, not because this is the best solution, but there needs to be some
solution. If buyers don't trust the marketplace, eventually sales decline.
BrickLink needs a high enough bar to limit scammers, but low enough to allow
legitimate new sellers. The current bar is way too low.
Maybe, a staggered sales limit for new stores (Ebay model); month 1 limit sales
to $250, then month 2 to $350, etc. BrickLink has the data to optimize the sales
limits.
If you can delay the amount of time scammers need to wait for their payday, you
limit the number of scammers. Additionally, any that are using fraudulent Bank
Accounts/PayPal/Credit Cards will probably be discovered within 3 months. Basically,
let the Trust and Security Departments of large financial institutions weed out
the bad actors.
|
I agree something must be done, but an issue with this is that a scammer sets
up multiple accounts and let's them sit for a few months.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | cosmicray | | Posted: | Dec 9, 2023 13:56 | | Subject: | Re: Requirments for new sellers | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | In Suggestions, TallyToyBricks writes:
| | I voted yes, not because this is the best solution, but there needs to be some
solution. If buyers don't trust the marketplace, eventually sales decline.
BrickLink needs a high enough bar to limit scammers, but low enough to allow
legitimate new sellers. The current bar is way too low.
Maybe, a staggered sales limit for new stores (Ebay model); month 1 limit sales
to $250, then month 2 to $350, etc. BrickLink has the data to optimize the sales
limits.
If you can delay the amount of time scammers need to wait for their payday, you
limit the number of scammers. Additionally, any that are using fraudulent Bank
Accounts/PayPal/Credit Cards will probably be discovered within 3 months. Basically,
let the Trust and Security Departments of large financial institutions weed out
the bad actors.
|
I agree something must be done, but an issue with this is that a scammer sets
up multiple accounts and let's them sit for a few months.
|
You are absolutely correct. This (and thank you) opens up the topic of small/medium/large
sellers. Most of the problems seen here are not from small sellers selling cheap
parts, it's always someone trying to make the maximum money as fast as possible,
before the game is up. The current problem (L and N) may well involve many thousands
of dollars.
Where we end up is, a small seller needs very little vetting and identity checking.
A large seller, or anyone stacking their store up with lots of high ticket desirable
sets, needs a laser focused identity check and proof of inventory. Any seller
account moving up the ladder, regardless of the day they apply, or several months
down the road, should cause that check to be done. This is as more about allowing
the limited resources on the admin team to be applied to where the problems occur.
Nita Rae
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | PlanetEarthToys | | Posted: | Dec 9, 2023 14:20 | | Subject: | Re: Requirments for new sellers | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, cosmicray writes:
| | In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | In Suggestions, TallyToyBricks writes:
| | I voted yes, not because this is the best solution, but there needs to be some
solution. If buyers don't trust the marketplace, eventually sales decline.
BrickLink needs a high enough bar to limit scammers, but low enough to allow
legitimate new sellers. The current bar is way too low.
Maybe, a staggered sales limit for new stores (Ebay model); month 1 limit sales
to $250, then month 2 to $350, etc. BrickLink has the data to optimize the sales
limits.
If you can delay the amount of time scammers need to wait for their payday, you
limit the number of scammers. Additionally, any that are using fraudulent Bank
Accounts/PayPal/Credit Cards will probably be discovered within 3 months. Basically,
let the Trust and Security Departments of large financial institutions weed out
the bad actors.
|
I agree something must be done, but an issue with this is that a scammer sets
up multiple accounts and let's them sit for a few months.
|
You are absolutely correct. This (and thank you) opens up the topic of small/medium/large
sellers. Most of the problems seen here are not from small sellers selling cheap
parts, it's always someone trying to make the maximum money as fast as possible,
before the game is up. The current problem (L and N) may well involve many thousands
of dollars.
Where we end up is, a small seller needs very little vetting and identity checking.
A large seller, or anyone stacking their store up with lots of high ticket desirable
sets, needs a laser focused identity check and proof of inventory. Any seller
account moving up the ladder, regardless of the day they apply, or several months
down the road, should cause that check to be done. This is as more about allowing
the limited resources on the admin team to be applied to where the problems occur.
Nita Rae
|
sounding like you want to ensure any competition that pops up gets stomped into
the ground to the point they walk away from the website, guaranteeing "Veteran
Sellers" keep making stacks of cash...
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | TheBrickGuys | | Posted: | Dec 9, 2023 21:37 | | Subject: | Re: Requirments for new sellers | | Viewed: | 66 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, cosmicray writes:
| | In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | In Suggestions, TallyToyBricks writes:
| | I voted yes, not because this is the best solution, but there needs to be some
solution. If buyers don't trust the marketplace, eventually sales decline.
BrickLink needs a high enough bar to limit scammers, but low enough to allow
legitimate new sellers. The current bar is way too low.
Maybe, a staggered sales limit for new stores (Ebay model); month 1 limit sales
to $250, then month 2 to $350, etc. BrickLink has the data to optimize the sales
limits.
If you can delay the amount of time scammers need to wait for their payday, you
limit the number of scammers. Additionally, any that are using fraudulent Bank
Accounts/PayPal/Credit Cards will probably be discovered within 3 months. Basically,
let the Trust and Security Departments of large financial institutions weed out
the bad actors.
|
I agree something must be done, but an issue with this is that a scammer sets
up multiple accounts and let's them sit for a few months.
|
You are absolutely correct. This (and thank you) opens up the topic of small/medium/large
sellers. Most of the problems seen here are not from small sellers selling cheap
parts, it's always someone trying to make the maximum money as fast as possible,
before the game is up. The current problem (L and N) may well involve many thousands
of dollars.
Where we end up is, a small seller needs very little vetting and identity checking.
A large seller, or anyone stacking their store up with lots of high ticket desirable
sets, needs a laser focused identity check and proof of inventory. Any seller
account moving up the ladder, regardless of the day they apply, or several months
down the road, should cause that check to be done. This is as more about allowing
the limited resources on the admin team to be applied to where the problems occur.
Nita Rae
|
I think your proposal are excellent. Probably over 95% of new legitimate beginning
sellers would not sell more then $250.00 worth of Lego in their first couple
of months. In fact, most new stores would probably be thrilled to make that much
and more importantly, most scammers wouldn't even want to waste their time
for $250.00.
I also think your ideas on vetting sellers who want to sell high ticket items
would also be important and would dissuade most scammers from even wanting to
go thru the vetting process.
Great ideas!! I hope BrickLink will seriously consider them.
Jim
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | TallyToyBricks | | Posted: | Dec 9, 2023 14:27 | | Subject: | Re: Requirments for new sellers | | Viewed: | 59 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| A different idea would be to have different qualifications for parts sellers
versus set sellers (and to some degree minifigure sellers).
Part sellers can be vetted using the current system - no issue.
Want to sell minifigures over a certain total value (or quantity) - increase
the vetting requirements (time or value sold limits).
Want to sell sets - even higher verification required - proof of ownership?
There are many different solutions to fight a fraud problem - BrickLink/Lego
can use their data to implement the best option.
Though from BrickLink/Lego's perspective the current method probably works
fine; limited number of individuals are scammed, BL is not on the hook for the
stolen value, and there is a very small reputational risk.
Joe
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Dec 9, 2023 11:44 | | Subject: | Re: Requirments for new sellers | | Viewed: | 56 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, cosmicray writes:
| | This is a suggestion to help prevent some of the recent problems with new seller
accounts.
|
Voted No, sorry.
Last problem we've seen is an US scammer registered Aug 13, 2018.
And it doesn't seem related to BL hack; new fake buyer accounts were created
this month.
And someone determined to sell ISD at $150 ea won't probably have a problem
paying $5 to register, even with a stolen Credit Card (as you say) on PayPal
(if the CC isn't registered as stolen).
It'll only refrain new legit casual sellers and will chase those to eBay,
BO and such.
In any case, LEGO has all and enough actual stats, developpers and team to decide
and act accordingly.
While they may read Suggestions (I'm sure Russell may say this), but I don't
think utimately it can influence their decision, especially on a delicate point
like this one.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | calebfishn | | Posted: | Dec 9, 2023 13:00 | | Subject: | Re: Requirments for new sellers | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| The suggestion simply creates too great a barrier to becoming a seller. We should
not be discouraging people from becoming sellers.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | CCBricks | | Posted: | Dec 10, 2023 10:15 | | Subject: | Re: Requirments for new sellers | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| I'm all for more secure vetting processes. I've been in the banking/finance
world for over 25 years and I've seen a lot of scams roll through.
While no plan or process is entirely bulletproof, actions can be taken to help
ensure the safety of the site, sellers and buyers (think reputation risk of BL).
I like the idea of having a monthly cap on sales. It may not be ideal, more
so inconvenient in some or most cases, but it could help deter scammers from
slipping through the cracks. A cap on monthly sales will allow sufficient time
(30 days) to weed out the offenders. Yes, there will be victims, but they will
have time to dispute charges and then the BL team can take action.
That doesn't mean that ALL new sellers are bad. Some seasoned, well established
stores can go bad as well. Either by choice or compromise. This stems from
examples of tenured and new accounts in the banking world. Accounts that are
tenured may not be under such scrutiny as they haven't had any "red flags"
to cause alarm.
These BL stores could in essence "go out with a bang" and not care how
it ends. For tenured stores, including myself, monitor the activity (additions
of inventory) and/or require proof of purchase. Maybe do a percentage of store
inventory dollar amount (10, 15, 20 percent) for a sales cap. Sellers will be
ultimately impacted, especially if any actions cause a disruption in their ability
to provide for their families. This is just a measure in place to prevent these
larger stores being targeted for fraud.
I also believe that BL and Lego need to have more staff on hand. I'm referring
to groups that handle new accounts (both buyer and seller registrations) as well
as security.
There should be (and probably are) checks in place to determine whether or not
someone is scamming folks, which we will never know due to the the security
measures in place. In the banking world, we had scanners figuring out our processes
and try to circumvent them. We were able to catch a wire scheme in its infancy
stages and it saved us a ton of headache (inaddition to customer cash/fraud).
Anyone (buyer and seller) can scam one another. Its a risk we take buying and
selling on this site. It comes down to your threshold of exposure and how much
you are willing to self insure. I'd be open to a panel (behind closed doors)
with other folks to discuss ways to help prevent such situations from happening
again.
Just my two cents 
Brian
In Suggestions, cosmicray writes:
| | This is a suggestion to help prevent some of the recent problems with new seller
accounts.
In the beginning (2000 until a few years back) anyone could request selling privs,
and could sell here. The door was wide open, and it was occasionally abused.
The current mode is to receive at least one positive FB. Based on another thread
here, it is possible that is also being abused.
The suggestion is to request fees in advance for the first 45-60 day selling
period. The range of dates is such that at least one full month will be contained.
At the end of that time-frame, any fees not used would be refunded as a partial
refund. The amount charged would be nominal ($5 for example) but would also act
as a speed brake because it would limit how much can be sold during the time
frame (roughly $150). Someone who expects and intends to sell more, could pay
a larger initial fee, but would also face more verification prior to approval.
The advantage of doing this is that it would require someone to prove they exist
as a real person, via the payment. It may also expose someone trying to use a
stolen credit card.
The disadvantage is that it may limit participation from countries where electronic
payment is not possible.
I'm not 100% thrilled with this suggestion, but I think something needs to
be done to enhance validation and to limit the velocity of abuse.
Nita Rae
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | PlanetEarthToys | | Posted: | Dec 10, 2023 11:48 | | Subject: | Re: Requirments for new sellers | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, CCBricks writes:
| | I'm all for more secure vetting processes. I've been in the banking/finance
world for over 25 years and I've seen a lot of scams roll through.
While no plan or process is entirely bulletproof, actions can be taken to help
ensure the safety of the site, sellers and buyers (think reputation risk of BL).
I like the idea of having a monthly cap on sales. It may not be ideal, more
so inconvenient in some or most cases, but it could help deter scammers from
slipping through the cracks. A cap on monthly sales will allow sufficient time
(30 days) to weed out the offenders. Yes, there will be victims, but they will
have time to dispute charges and then the BL team can take action.
That doesn't mean that ALL new sellers are bad. Some seasoned, well established
stores can go bad as well. Either by choice or compromise. This stems from
examples of tenured and new accounts in the banking world. Accounts that are
tenured may not be under such scrutiny as they haven't had any "red flags"
to cause alarm.
These BL stores could in essence "go out with a bang" and not care how
it ends. For tenured stores, including myself, monitor the activity (additions
of inventory) and/or require proof of purchase. Maybe do a percentage of store
inventory dollar amount (10, 15, 20 percent) for a sales cap. Sellers will be
ultimately impacted, especially if any actions cause a disruption in their ability
to provide for their families. This is just a measure in place to prevent these
larger stores being targeted for fraud.
I also believe that BL and Lego need to have more staff on hand. I'm referring
to groups that handle new accounts (both buyer and seller registrations) as well
as security.
There should be (and probably are) checks in place to determine whether or not
someone is scamming folks, which we will never know due to the the security
measures in place. In the banking world, we had scanners figuring out our processes
and try to circumvent them. We were able to catch a wire scheme in its infancy
stages and it saved us a ton of headache (inaddition to customer cash/fraud).
Anyone (buyer and seller) can scam one another. Its a risk we take buying and
selling on this site. It comes down to your threshold of exposure and how much
you are willing to self insure. I'd be open to a panel (behind closed doors)
with other folks to discuss ways to help prevent such situations from happening
again.
Just my two cents
Brian
In Suggestions, cosmicray writes:
| | This is a suggestion to help prevent some of the recent problems with new seller
accounts.
In the beginning (2000 until a few years back) anyone could request selling privs,
and could sell here. The door was wide open, and it was occasionally abused.
The current mode is to receive at least one positive FB. Based on another thread
here, it is possible that is also being abused.
The suggestion is to request fees in advance for the first 45-60 day selling
period. The range of dates is such that at least one full month will be contained.
At the end of that time-frame, any fees not used would be refunded as a partial
refund. The amount charged would be nominal ($5 for example) but would also act
as a speed brake because it would limit how much can be sold during the time
frame (roughly $150). Someone who expects and intends to sell more, could pay
a larger initial fee, but would also face more verification prior to approval.
The advantage of doing this is that it would require someone to prove they exist
as a real person, via the payment. It may also expose someone trying to use a
stolen credit card.
The disadvantage is that it may limit participation from countries where electronic
payment is not possible.
I'm not 100% thrilled with this suggestion, but I think something needs to
be done to enhance validation and to limit the velocity of abuse.
Nita Rae
|
|
what's the point in trying to start a business then if you are getting restricted
to a set profit amount. is that how banking loans work...?
$250 a month in sales would likely yield roughly a $40-$50 profit if the seller
is lucky...
why would anyone waste their time when there are plenty of other venues to sell
Lego on that aren't going to suppress the seller
& what happens to their store once they hit that limit...?
are their items then removed from the marketplace until the end of the month...?
great idea... i'm sure everyone will not be having sales during that time
frame in order to suppress the new sellers more.
just my 4 cents
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | popsicle | | Posted: | Dec 10, 2023 13:10 | | Subject: | Re: Requirments for new sellers | | Viewed: | 84 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, PlanetEarthToys writes:
| | In Suggestions, CCBricks writes:
| | I'm all for more secure vetting processes. I've been in the banking/finance
world for over 25 years and I've seen a lot of scams roll through.
While no plan or process is entirely bulletproof, actions can be taken to help
ensure the safety of the site, sellers and buyers (think reputation risk of BL).
I like the idea of having a monthly cap on sales. It may not be ideal, more
so inconvenient in some or most cases, but it could help deter scammers from
slipping through the cracks. A cap on monthly sales will allow sufficient time
(30 days) to weed out the offenders. Yes, there will be victims, but they will
have time to dispute charges and then the BL team can take action.
That doesn't mean that ALL new sellers are bad. Some seasoned, well established
stores can go bad as well. Either by choice or compromise. This stems from
examples of tenured and new accounts in the banking world. Accounts that are
tenured may not be under such scrutiny as they haven't had any "red flags"
to cause alarm.
These BL stores could in essence "go out with a bang" and not care how
it ends. For tenured stores, including myself, monitor the activity (additions
of inventory) and/or require proof of purchase. Maybe do a percentage of store
inventory dollar amount (10, 15, 20 percent) for a sales cap. Sellers will be
ultimately impacted, especially if any actions cause a disruption in their ability
to provide for their families. This is just a measure in place to prevent these
larger stores being targeted for fraud.
I also believe that BL and Lego need to have more staff on hand. I'm referring
to groups that handle new accounts (both buyer and seller registrations) as well
as security.
There should be (and probably are) checks in place to determine whether or not
someone is scamming folks, which we will never know due to the the security
measures in place. In the banking world, we had scanners figuring out our processes
and try to circumvent them. We were able to catch a wire scheme in its infancy
stages and it saved us a ton of headache (inaddition to customer cash/fraud).
Anyone (buyer and seller) can scam one another. Its a risk we take buying and
selling on this site. It comes down to your threshold of exposure and how much
you are willing to self insure. I'd be open to a panel (behind closed doors)
with other folks to discuss ways to help prevent such situations from happening
again.
Just my two cents
Brian
In Suggestions, cosmicray writes:
| | This is a suggestion to help prevent some of the recent problems with new seller
accounts.
In the beginning (2000 until a few years back) anyone could request selling privs,
and could sell here. The door was wide open, and it was occasionally abused.
The current mode is to receive at least one positive FB. Based on another thread
here, it is possible that is also being abused.
The suggestion is to request fees in advance for the first 45-60 day selling
period. The range of dates is such that at least one full month will be contained.
At the end of that time-frame, any fees not used would be refunded as a partial
refund. The amount charged would be nominal ($5 for example) but would also act
as a speed brake because it would limit how much can be sold during the time
frame (roughly $150). Someone who expects and intends to sell more, could pay
a larger initial fee, but would also face more verification prior to approval.
The advantage of doing this is that it would require someone to prove they exist
as a real person, via the payment. It may also expose someone trying to use a
stolen credit card.
The disadvantage is that it may limit participation from countries where electronic
payment is not possible.
I'm not 100% thrilled with this suggestion, but I think something needs to
be done to enhance validation and to limit the velocity of abuse.
Nita Rae
|
|
what's the point in trying to start a business then if you are getting restricted
to a set profit amount. is that how banking loans work...?
$250 a month in sales would likely yield roughly a $40-$50 profit if the seller
is lucky...
why would anyone waste their time when there are plenty of other venues to sell
Lego on that aren't going to suppress the seller
& what happens to their store once they hit that limit...?
are their items then removed from the marketplace until the end of the month...?
great idea... i'm sure everyone will not be having sales during that time
frame in order to suppress the new sellers more.
just my 4 cents
|
"just my 4 cents?" Given the number of expressed opinions here and your
evaluations of them, you might've "hit that limit" already
But seriously, why bother countering the minds of those that understand only
more outside control and oversight in all things? Oh well, I may not get it,
but keep it up.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | PlanetEarthToys | | Posted: | Dec 10, 2023 14:32 | | Subject: | Re: Requirments for new sellers | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, popsicle writes:
| |
"just my 4 cents?" Given the number of expressed opinions here and your
evaluations of them, you might've "hit that limit" already
But seriously, why bother countering the minds of those that understand only
more outside control and oversight in all things? Oh well, I may not get it,
but keep it up.
|
interesting thread honestly, seeing the views of sellers like this is fascinating.
sometimes pointing out the obvious fire-breathing dragon flying at the house
is needed.
never know
but yeah 4 cents is up...
your turn.. LOL
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | popsicle | | Posted: | Dec 10, 2023 15:04 | | Subject: | Re: Requirments for new sellers | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, PlanetEarthToys writes:
| | In Suggestions, popsicle writes:
| |
"just my 4 cents?" Given the number of expressed opinions here and your
evaluations of them, you might've "hit that limit" already
But seriously, why bother countering the minds of those that understand only
more outside control and oversight in all things? Oh well, I may not get it,
but keep it up.
|
interesting thread honestly, seeing the views of sellers like this is fascinating.
sometimes pointing out the obvious fire-breathing dragon flying at the house is needed. Never know
|
Sure, I get it. Careful not to reverse course simply because the perceived "fire-breathing
dragon" that is another member, has taken position in it. That only would
serve to lower the value of your opinions going forward
| |
but yeah 4 cents is up... your turn.. LOL
|
Well, guess I'm screwed then! I place a much higher metaphorical value on
opinions I read here on BL, including yours. So I've doubtless gone beyond
my "limit"
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | PlanetEarthToys | | Posted: | Dec 10, 2023 16:13 | | Subject: | Re: Requirments for new sellers | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, popsicle writes:
| | In Suggestions, PlanetEarthToys writes:
| | In Suggestions, popsicle writes:
| |
"just my 4 cents?" Given the number of expressed opinions here and your
evaluations of them, you might've "hit that limit" already
But seriously, why bother countering the minds of those that understand only
more outside control and oversight in all things? Oh well, I may not get it,
but keep it up.
|
interesting thread honestly, seeing the views of sellers like this is fascinating.
sometimes pointing out the obvious fire-breathing dragon flying at the house is needed. Never know
|
Sure, I get it. Careful not to reverse course simply because the perceived "fire-breathing
dragon" that is another member, has taken position in it. That only would
serve to lower the value of your opinions going forward
| |
but yeah 4 cents is up... your turn.. LOL
|
Well, guess I'm screwed then! I place a much higher metaphorical value on
opinions I read here on BL, including yours. So I've doubtless gone beyond
my "limit"
|
now you are injecting additional words into my statement to create a narrative.
not referring to another member...
"pointing out the fire-breathing dragon" is referring to the complications
that ensue if no one points at the suggested security measures and says 'Dragon!'
i.e. set up suppression levels for security {the dragon} & members will decide
'The Dragon' isn't worth it & shop / sell elsewhere. dropping traffic,
sales & healthy competition across the board on BL.
unless i'm wrong or something....
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | popsicle | | Posted: | Dec 10, 2023 16:44 | | Subject: | Re: Requirments for new sellers | | Viewed: | 64 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, PlanetEarthToys writes:
| | In Suggestions, popsicle writes:
| | In Suggestions, PlanetEarthToys writes:
| | In Suggestions, popsicle writes:
| |
"just my 4 cents?" Given the number of expressed opinions here and your
evaluations of them, you might've "hit that limit" already
But seriously, why bother countering the minds of those that understand only
more outside control and oversight in all things? Oh well, I may not get it,
but keep it up.
|
interesting thread honestly, seeing the views of sellers like this is fascinating.
sometimes pointing out the obvious fire-breathing dragon flying at the house is needed. Never know
|
Sure, I get it. Careful not to reverse course simply because the perceived "fire-breathing
dragon" that is another member, has taken position in it. That only would
serve to lower the value of your opinions going forward
| |
but yeah 4 cents is up... your turn.. LOL
|
Well, guess I'm screwed then! I place a much higher metaphorical value on
opinions I read here on BL, including yours. So I've doubtless gone beyond
my "limit"
|
now you are injecting additional words into my statement to create a narrative.
|
Very astute.
| |
not referring to another member...
|
I know. I am, namely me among others.
| |
"pointing out the fire-breathing dragon" is referring to the complications
that ensue if no one points at the suggested security measures and says 'Dragon!'
|
Yes, it's not complicated the points you make. I'm simply grabbing your
metaphor and using it to make another relevent and to me, salient point. Don't
panic
| |
i.e. set up suppression levels for security {the dragon} & members will decide
'The Dragon' isn't worth it & shop / sell elsewhere. dropping traffic,
sales & healthy competition across the board on BL.
unless i'm wrong or something...
|
You're not wrong (or something)
You seem to really appreciate the attention of those such as the comic guy (Mark)
and the like, so you're welcome. Plus you're just fun to play with
But now you're getting boring, so goodnight...
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | PlanetEarthToys | | Posted: | Dec 10, 2023 17:21 | | Subject: | Re: Requirments for new sellers | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, popsicle writes:
| | Plus you're just fun to play with
But now you're getting boring, so goodnight...
|
YIKES!!!!!!!!
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | CCBricks | | Posted: | Dec 11, 2023 22:45 | | Subject: | Re: Requirments for new sellers | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Snip...
| | what's the point in trying to start a business then if you are getting restricted
to a set profit amount. is that how banking loans work...?
|
Not a profit limit, just a sales limit. This just stops the bleeding in the
instance of a new seller scam. There's been a few experienced bad apples(sellers)
who have done such a thing (selling and not delivering). Lenders want to see
you making a profit (among cash flow, return on investment, debt load...etc.)
They are also looking at what risk you are and whether they want to take a chance
on you defaulting on the loan.
| | $250 a month in sales would likely yield roughly a $40-$50 profit if the seller
is lucky...
|
True., depending on product sold (minus cost). But in the case of a scammer,
if the goods were never in hand, and there is never an intention to ship, then
its all profit. The scammer does a "get in and get out" tactic, Assuming
they can skate by without chargebacks.
| | why would anyone waste their time when there are plenty of other venues to sell
Lego on that aren't going to suppress the seller.
|
True. I'm not privy to the sales info per seller, but I'm sure most
new sellers start out small and those kinds of sales come in time. Selling items
on the "bay" can yield higher profits, but come at higher expense. Its
all about protecting our site. Scammers will continue to target us and folks
will get taken. If its too good to be true, it usually is.
| | & what happens to their store once they hit that limit...?
|
Once the limit is hit, they can't sell anymore until the next month.
| | are their items then removed from the marketplace until the end of the month...?
|
Nope. The items are still there, or the store could be closed.
| | great idea... i'm sure everyone will not be having sales during that time
frame in order to suppress the new sellers more.
|
Its not about beating down the competition. I enjoy competition. It keeps me
on my toes and makes me rethink my business strategy, often. Other sellers will
out do me, and I'm ok with that.
What suggestions would you offer, if asked, to help issues such as this.
I'll take it
Brian
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | PlanetEarthToys | | Posted: | Dec 11, 2023 23:37 | | Subject: | Re: Requirments for new sellers | | Viewed: | 64 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, CCBricks writes:
| | Snip...
| | what's the point in trying to start a business then if you are getting restricted
to a set profit amount. is that how banking loans work...?
|
Not a profit limit, just a sales limit. This just stops the bleeding in the
instance of a new seller scam. There's been a few experienced bad apples(sellers)
who have done such a thing (selling and not delivering). Lenders want to see
you making a profit (among cash flow, return on investment, debt load...etc.)
They are also looking at what risk you are and whether they want to take a chance
on you defaulting on the loan.
| | $250 a month in sales would likely yield roughly a $40-$50 profit if the seller
is lucky...
|
True., depending on product sold (minus cost). But in the case of a scammer,
if the goods were never in hand, and there is never an intention to ship, then
its all profit. The scammer does a "get in and get out" tactic, Assuming
they can skate by without chargebacks.
| | why would anyone waste their time when there are plenty of other venues to sell
Lego on that aren't going to suppress the seller.
|
True. I'm not privy to the sales info per seller, but I'm sure most
new sellers start out small and those kinds of sales come in time. Selling items
on the "bay" can yield higher profits, but come at higher expense. Its
all about protecting our site. Scammers will continue to target us and folks
will get taken. If its too good to be true, it usually is.
| | & what happens to their store once they hit that limit...?
|
Once the limit is hit, they can't sell anymore until the next month.
| | are their items then removed from the marketplace until the end of the month...?
|
Nope. The items are still there, or the store could be closed.
| | great idea... i'm sure everyone will not be having sales during that time
frame in order to suppress the new sellers more.
|
Its not about beating down the competition. I enjoy competition. It keeps me
on my toes and makes me rethink my business strategy, often. Other sellers will
out do me, and I'm ok with that.
What suggestions would you offer, if asked, to help issues such as this.
I'll take it
Brian
|
i guess we have to kick this up to a Nickel....
so the idea here is:
- force new sellers to be suppressed so they cannot make more than a set amount
- blame everyone for the actions of a handful & incinuate all new sellers are
scammers
- allow the inventories of these 'not able to sell' stores to be lingering
on the website, unbuyable, that will likely confuse buyers as to why they cannot
purchase the items & likely will drive buyers away once they try to buy from
2-3 Suppressed stores & either get fed up with it or decide they cannot trust
a website that allows items to be shown for sale but are unbuyable for whatever
reasons & shop somewhere else.
*facepalm..
wonderful concept.
it would seem that the "buy first / sell later" model is in place to
combat scammers & verify members are legit,... & has been working fine since
it was implemented. Inventory verification is a simple thing to add on to that
program for new sellers.. doesn't have to be a full photo verification..
if seller has say 500 items posted for sale, photo verification of let's
say 2% (randomly picked by admin) would suffice as proof of inventory, outside
of that , there is zero chance of stopping anyone from running a scam. & suppressing
new members & forcing them to pay upfront imaginary fees only to possibly have
to have those funds refunded back to them each month is not any way productive.
if you want a good solution to the scammer problem.. i will post it right here...
-- there is no solution.
anyone at anytime can decide to run a scam.
you can decide to ship a box of rocks tomorrow & deny it.
i can decide to mail Mega-Blocks & play dumb.
CosmicRay can decide she needs to go on a permanent vacation to India & never
ship out anything ever again.
anyone can decide to do whatever / whenever & nothing will stop someone from
deciding to do it.
suppressing new members who want to sell & forcing them to pay fees on something
that hasn't occured is just dumb.
nothing can stop a scammer, either as a buyer or as a seller....
why not force buyers to pay upfront fees & verify the contents of what they recieved
via opening the package on video & Suppress how much they can buy until they
prove they aren't a scammer.. ?
how about new buyers cannot buy more than $25 in the 1st month, $35 the second
month etc. & force them to pay upfront imaginary Deposit fees to cover any scam
they might try.
or does that idea sound completely ludicris....?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Dec 12, 2023 03:05 | | Subject: | Re: Requirments for new sellers | | Viewed: | 56 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| | | Once the limit is hit, they can't sell anymore until the next month.
|
It wouldn't be too difficult to code it such that it could be based on outstanding
orders rather than monthly limits. So if a new seller supplies the items and
the buyer marks the order as complete, then they get removed from the threshold.
Of course, it would also need the change that sellers cannot mark an order as
complete.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | wildchicken13 | | Posted: | Dec 11, 2023 12:24 | | Subject: | Re: Requirments for new sellers | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, cosmicray writes:
| | This is a suggestion to help prevent some of the recent problems with new seller accounts.
|
If by "recent problems" you are referring to L and N Bricks and the November
3rd incident, then this is not a problem with new seller accounts but with old
accounts that have been hacked. BrickLink already implemented a one-time pin
for sellers to address this: https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1438246
Requiring people to pay money to open a BrickLink store will drive away legitimate
sellers while doing absolutely nothing to prevent this kind of fraud.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | rtzx9r | | Posted: | Dec 12, 2023 01:15 | | Subject: | Re: Requirments for new sellers | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, wildchicken13 writes:
| | In Suggestions, cosmicray writes:
| | This is a suggestion to help prevent some of the recent problems with new seller accounts.
|
If by "recent problems" you are referring to L and N Bricks and the November
3rd incident, then this is not a problem with new seller accounts but with old
accounts that have been hacked. BrickLink already implemented a one-time pin
for sellers to address this: https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1438246
Requiring people to pay money to open a BrickLink store will drive away legitimate
sellers while doing absolutely nothing to prevent this kind of fraud.
|
I like the idea. A new seller would likely not be starting out with thousands
of dollars worth of inventory, and even if they were, it’s a few months. They
can start and grow in the same way they need to make a purchase and get one feedback
to sell.
The counterpoint is doing nothing…. And BL loses buyers that fall for the scamming
sellers, far and few between and ALL of us sellers suffer. Thoughtful change
is often good, even when it’s hard to align and adopt.
Then again, maybe we need an educate new buyers on what to look out for and how
to avoid being scammed because you can’t catch 100% of the bad guys.
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA, Florida
Canada, Ontario
United Kingdom, England
France, Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur
