I will use 40676 as my example. (5 set of brickheadz)
I am increasingly seeing people separating sets and advertising them as "new"
how can they be new if they have been opened and obviously incomplete by selling
brickheadz as individual pieces and not a set.
It causes incorrect secondary market value data, its it conflicting to the actual
true availability of new/sealed complete items.
Why how can this be allowed.
If they have not been used, then they are new. If they are not complete, then
they are incomplete.
Thus it is perfectly acceptable to split a new set into individual builds and
sell them as "incomplete, new".
I will use 40676 as my example. (5 set of brickheadz)
I am increasingly seeing people separating sets and advertising them as "new"
how can they be new if they have been opened and obviously incomplete by selling
brickheadz as individual pieces and not a set.
It causes incorrect secondary market value data, its it conflicting to the actual
true availability of new/sealed complete items.
Why how can this be allowed.
If they have not been used, then they are new. If they are not complete, then
they are incomplete.
Thus it is perfectly acceptable to split a new set into individual builds and
sell them as "incomplete, new".
We will simply have to agree, and disagree. It's not black or white its grey
and I sincerely get your point.
I will use 40676 as my example. (5 set of brickheadz)
I am increasingly seeing people separating sets and advertising them as "new"
how can they be new if they have been opened and obviously incomplete by selling
brickheadz as individual pieces and not a set.
It causes incorrect secondary market value data, its it conflicting to the actual
true availability of new/sealed complete items.
Why how can this be allowed.
In your example, there is one partial set listed as (sealed) when it should be
(incomplete). That seller has listed other the brickheadz from that set correctly,
so I imagine they made an error when listing it. Otherwise, all the rest are
listed correctly. If you don't want to see them, use the 'complete'
filter when browsing and in the price guide.
I will use 40676 as my example. (5 set of brickheadz)
I am increasingly seeing people separating sets and advertising them as "new"
how can they be new if they have been opened and obviously incomplete by selling
brickheadz as individual pieces and not a set.
It causes incorrect secondary market value data, its it conflicting to the actual
true availability of new/sealed complete items.
Why how can this be allowed.
In your example, there is one partial set listed as (sealed) when it should be
(incomplete). That seller has listed other the brickheadz from that set correctly,
so I imagine they made an error when listing it. Otherwise, all the rest are
listed correctly. If you don't want to see them, use the 'complete'
filter when browsing and in the price guide.
There is actually 3 not 1 sellers on that example alone. Secondly think about
this logically. If you have 5 in a single set. so you have 1 box, one set of
instructions and 5 individual brickheadz. How can instructions be complete on
all 5? Unless they are photocopies? Can't do that.
So wouldn't they be better off being shown as "used/like new-parted from
original set/without instructions/without box".
There are a lot of less savvy lego people out there who may walk into something
they thought they wanted to buy and once trapped realize they wasted their money.
This is just one set as an example. So if you want to retort at least be someone
factual.
There is only one showing in the price guide that is not marked as incomplete
for me.
Parts and sets that have not been used are new. There is no intermediate state
between new and used.
Maybe read the rules.... (New sets) Incomplete - Contents are brand new, but
may have been removed from plastic bags for inventory purposes or to remove other
contents from the set. The set is missing some of the contents, instructions
or original box/packaging. The description should clearly state what exactly
is missing.
These listings, when correctly listed as "new incomplete", are not breaking
the rules. It is very obvious to any customer that can read what it is that they
are buying.
Calling something "like new" is not a very good idea, as that term is
not allowed here. Things are used or new. "Like new" is not allowed.
Boxes and instructions are not necessary when listing as incomplete. Someone
building an individual sub-build may not care about the box and can use the pdf
instructions from lego. If they do care about these, then they should buy the
complete set.
I will use 40676 as my example. (5 set of brickheadz)
I am increasingly seeing people separating sets and advertising them as "new"
how can they be new if they have been opened and obviously incomplete by selling
brickheadz as individual pieces and not a set.
It causes incorrect secondary market value data, its it conflicting to the actual
true availability of new/sealed complete items.
Why how can this be allowed.
In your example, there is one partial set listed as (sealed) when it should be
(incomplete). That seller has listed other the brickheadz from that set correctly,
so I imagine they made an error when listing it. Otherwise, all the rest are
listed correctly. If you don't want to see them, use the 'complete'
filter when browsing and in the price guide.
There is actually 3 not 1 sellers on that example alone. Secondly think about
this logically. If you have 5 in a single set. so you have 1 box, one set of
instructions and 5 individual brickheadz. How can instructions be complete on
all 5? Unless they are photocopies? Can't do that.
So wouldn't they be better off being shown as "used/like new-parted from
original set/without instructions/without box".
There are a lot of less savvy lego people out there who may walk into something
they thought they wanted to buy and once trapped realize they wasted their money.
This is just one set as an example. So if you want to retort at least be someone
factual.
There is only one showing in the price guide that is not marked as incomplete
for me.
Parts and sets that have not been used are new. There is no intermediate state
between new and used.
Maybe read the rules.... (New sets) Incomplete - Contents are brand new, but
may have been removed from plastic bags for inventory purposes or to remove other
contents from the set. The set is missing some of the contents, instructions
or original box/packaging. The description should clearly state what exactly
is missing.
These listings, when correctly listed as "new incomplete", are not breaking
the rules. It is very obvious to any customer that can read what it is that they
are buying.
Calling something "like new" is not a very good idea, as that term is
not allowed here. Things are used or new. "Like new" is not allowed.
Boxes and instructions are not necessary when listing as incomplete. Someone
building an individual sub-build may not care about the box and can use the pdf
instructions from lego. If they do care about these, then they should buy the
complete set.
Are you a supporter of the term "mint" also?
No. See the other recent thread on the discussion of the term MINT. I was the
first one to warn against using the term mint to describe opened and used boxes
and instructions.
I will use 40676 as my example. (5 set of brickheadz)
I am increasingly seeing people separating sets and advertising them as "new"
how can they be new if they have been opened and obviously incomplete by selling
brickheadz as individual pieces and not a set.
It causes incorrect secondary market value data, its it conflicting to the actual
true availability of new/sealed complete items.
Why how can this be allowed.
In your example, there is one partial set listed as (sealed) when it should be
(incomplete). That seller has listed other the brickheadz from that set correctly,
so I imagine they made an error when listing it. Otherwise, all the rest are
listed correctly. If you don't want to see them, use the 'complete'
filter when browsing and in the price guide.
There is actually 3 not 1 sellers on that example alone. Secondly think about
this logically. If you have 5 in a single set. so you have 1 box, one set of
instructions and 5 individual brickheadz. How can instructions be complete on
all 5? Unless they are photocopies? Can't do that.
So wouldn't they be better off being shown as "used/like new-parted from
original set/without instructions/without box".
There are a lot of less savvy lego people out there who may walk into something
they thought they wanted to buy and once trapped realize they wasted their money.
This is just one set as an example. So if you want to retort at least be someone
factual.
There is only one showing in the price guide that is not marked as incomplete
for me.
Parts and sets that have not been used are new. There is no intermediate state
between new and used.
Maybe read the rules.... (New sets) Incomplete - Contents are brand new, but
may have been removed from plastic bags for inventory purposes or to remove other
contents from the set. The set is missing some of the contents, instructions
or original box/packaging. The description should clearly state what exactly
is missing.
These listings, when correctly listed as "new incomplete", are not breaking
the rules. It is very obvious to any customer that can read what it is that they
are buying.
Calling something "like new" is not a very good idea, as that term is
not allowed here. Things are used or new. "Like new" is not allowed.
Boxes and instructions are not necessary when listing as incomplete. Someone
building an individual sub-build may not care about the box and can use the pdf
instructions from lego. If they do care about these, then they should buy the
complete set.
Are you a supporter of the term "mint" also?
No. See the other recent thread on the discussion of the term MINT. I was the
first one to warn against using the term mint to describe opened and used boxes
and instructions.
There is actually 3 not 1 sellers on that example alone. Secondly think about
this logically. If you have 5 in a single set. so you have 1 box, one set of
instructions and 5 individual brickheadz. How can instructions be complete on
all 5? Unless they are photocopies? Can't do that.
They could send the instructions for the build they are selling, as this set
comes with six individual booklets. One booklet per character. To me, that would
be the logical thing to do here.
I will use 40676 as my example. (5 set of brickheadz)
I am increasingly seeing people separating sets and advertising them as "new"
how can they be new if they have been opened and obviously incomplete by selling
brickheadz as individual pieces and not a set.
It causes incorrect secondary market value data, its it conflicting to the actual
true availability of new/sealed complete items.
Why how can this be allowed.
In your example, there is one partial set listed as (sealed) when it should be
(incomplete). That seller has listed other the brickheadz from that set correctly,
so I imagine they made an error when listing it. Otherwise, all the rest are
listed correctly. If you don't want to see them, use the 'complete'
filter when browsing and in the price guide.
There is actually 3 not 1 sellers on that example alone. Secondly think about
this logically. If you have 5 in a single set. so you have 1 box, one set of
instructions and 5 individual brickheadz. How can instructions be complete on
all 5? Unless they are photocopies? Can't do that.
This is just one set as an example. So if you want to retort at least be someone
factual.
I think I will leave this FACTUAL screenshot here ... showing which ones are
marked as incomplete and the one that is incorrectly listed as sealed when it
should be incomplete, like that seller's other listings.
Anyone buying a set marked as INCOMPLETE with a description saying which of the
six designs the lot contains thinking that they are getting a complete sealed
set is obviously wrong.
In your example, there is one partial set listed as (sealed) when it should be
(incomplete). That seller has listed other the brickheadz from that set correctly,
so I imagine they made an error when listing it. Otherwise, all the rest are
listed correctly. If you don't want to see them, use the 'complete'
filter when browsing and in the price guide.
Yes, I think there is confusion among some sellers what "Sealed" means
- it means the packaging for the hopefully *Complete* set is sealed (in this
case the box).
In your example, there is one partial set listed as (sealed) when it should be
(incomplete). That seller has listed other the brickheadz from that set correctly,
so I imagine they made an error when listing it. Otherwise, all the rest are
listed correctly. If you don't want to see them, use the 'complete'
filter when browsing and in the price guide.
Yes, I think there is confusion among some sellers what "Sealed" means
- it means the packaging for the hopefully *Complete* set is sealed (in this
case the box).
And in this case the one listed as sealed is, at least to me, a genuine mistake
rather than the seller trying to deceive. The same seller listed other models
from the same set correctly so presumably just missed ticking the right box this
time. It would record an incorrect price in the price-guide for (new,complete)
sets but I cannot believe anyone would buy it thinking they were getting the
whole set with the description given by the seller.
I think as Sellers we are always reputationally based. As Sellers, and a part
of the BL platform, BL also has a reputation.
Our reputations should be that we always conducted ourselves in a clear, candid
and transparent manner. I don't think this is that.
On dont home in on just this one example. Its habitual and misleading to new
people.
BL and us as Sellers will not survive without new buyers in a reputational environment.
It is as simple as that.
Which is why sellers should abide by the rules of the site and not make up their
own rules. If anyone orders a set, clearly labelled as INCOMPLETE with a description
telling them exactly what is in the lot, thinking it is a sealed set then it
is probably best for everyone if they don't use BL. If they are not willing
to read or understand the rules for products, it is not necessary to change rules
for them.
Incorrectly listed sets, such as the single one listed as sealed in this example,
will be removed when reported as they are misleading (although the description
in this case makes it obvious) and mess up the price guide.
NEW has a clearly defined meaning at BL. It is defined in terms of the parts
or contents never having been used. It does not refer to the state of the original
packaging. Opening a box does not make the parts inside used, whether the intention
is to sell them as (new) parts, as a (new) complete but not sealed set, or as
a (new) incomplete set.
I understand there are several knowledgeable people such at the catalogue team who don't get paid a cent. That is also wrong.
It is wrong to volunteer? AFAIK, all of the catalog team does this of their
own free will, no one is holding a gun to their head.
It is very noble of them and much appreciated by me and other sellers and buyers.
My point was they should be remunerated in some form, ie: zero fees policy, something
anything. They work hard and share their experience and wisdom.
Give me one good reason why they should not be rewarded and appreciated?
Catalog admins are paid for a certain number of hours per week, and they are
also eligible for a substantial rewards program that includes sets and parts.
They are also eligible for what we call the Subsidy Program, which delivers sets
to them so they can provide inventories for the site. There are also other benefits.
I understand there are several knowledgeable people such at the catalogue team who don't get paid a cent. That is also wrong.
It is wrong to volunteer? AFAIK, all of the catalog team does this of their
own free will, no one is holding a gun to their head.
It is very noble of them and much appreciated by me and other sellers and buyers.
My point was they should be remunerated in some form, ie: zero fees policy, something
anything. They work hard and share their experience and wisdom.
Give me one good reason why they should not be rewarded and appreciated?
Catalog admins are paid for a certain number of hours per week, and they are
also eligible for a substantial rewards program that includes sets and parts.
They are also eligible for what we call the Subsidy Program, which delivers sets
to them so they can provide inventories for the site. There are also other benefits.
That is a good thing then indeed! Now I don't have to see the word "volunteer"
in that context anymore. I was aware of the second part, it's not uncommon
for people to ask me to measure/weighs sets, take photos. I am not saying that
to get a foot in the door. I 100% want that door closed to me.
I understand there are several knowledgeable people such at the catalogue team who don't get paid a cent. That is also wrong.
It is wrong to volunteer? AFAIK, all of the catalog team does this of their
own free will, no one is holding a gun to their head.
It is very noble of them and much appreciated by me and other sellers and buyers.
My point was they should be remunerated in some form, ie: zero fees policy, something
anything. They work hard and share their experience and wisdom.
Give me one good reason why they should not be rewarded and appreciated?
Catalog admins are paid for a certain number of hours per week, and they are
also eligible for a substantial rewards program that includes sets and parts.
They are also eligible for what we call the Subsidy Program, which delivers sets
to them so they can provide inventories for the site. There are also other benefits.
That is a good thing then indeed! Now I don't have to see the word "volunteer"
in that context anymore. I was aware of the second part, it's not uncommon
for people to ask me to measure/weighs sets, take photos. I am not saying that
to get a foot in the door. I 100% want that door closed to me.
One of the main reasons people get asked about contributions is because they
have something for sale in their store that very few others have. In those cases,
our major contributors and Catalog Admins can't do the job, because they
don't have the item.
It's one of the things that makes BrickLink such a treasure trove of useful
information. We are able to pull data from a very large userbase of generalists
instead of limiting our scope to a small handful of specialists.
I understand there are several knowledgeable people such at the catalogue team who don't get paid a cent. That is also wrong.
It is wrong to volunteer? AFAIK, all of the catalog team does this of their
own free will, no one is holding a gun to their head.
It is very noble of them and much appreciated by me and other sellers and buyers.
My point was they should be remunerated in some form, ie: zero fees policy, something
anything. They work hard and share their experience and wisdom.
Give me one good reason why they should not be rewarded and appreciated?
Catalog admins are paid for a certain number of hours per week, and they are
also eligible for a substantial rewards program that includes sets and parts.
They are also eligible for what we call the Subsidy Program, which delivers sets
to them so they can provide inventories for the site. There are also other benefits.
That is a good thing then indeed! Now I don't have to see the word "volunteer"
in that context anymore. I was aware of the second part, it's not uncommon
for people to ask me to measure/weighs sets, take photos. I am not saying that
to get a foot in the door. I 100% want that door closed to me.
One of the main reasons people get asked about contributions is because they
have something for sale in their store that very few others have. In those cases,
our major contributors and Catalog Admins can't do the job, because they
don't have the item.
It's one of the things that makes BrickLink such a treasure trove of useful
information. We are able to pull data from a very large userbase of generalists
instead of limiting our scope to a small handful of specialists.
And I fully support that rationality. For example the 852751, various models
out of Billund. Im not a generalist or a specialist. I am just a lifetime lego
junkie (otherwise known as an enthusiast) with thousands of sealed sets. Who
has 200+ of BDP sets when only 40 something have been produced.I get your point.
Clinton and others are always welcome to email/message me.
What would be good Russell is on the "Item Info" where it shows when
a set came out with weight/size and so forth. Can't we have a small area
for date something retired? Does not need to be awesome like retail/exclusive
etc etc. Keep it simple as your have in "Year Released" have "Year
Retired". I often put that in my set descriptions and the new Lego peeps
often ask me these questions and the economy is not always right either.
But Bricklick should be able to get and upgrade such data through TLG should
it not, retrospectively of course, industry secrets are industry secrets afterall.
One of the main reasons people get asked about contributions is because they
have something for sale in their store that very few others have. In those cases,
our major contributors and Catalog Admins can't do the job, because they
don't have the item.
It's one of the things that makes BrickLink such a treasure trove of useful
information. We are able to pull data from a very large userbase of generalists
instead of limiting our scope to a small handful of specialists.
And I fully support that rationality. For example the 852751, various models
out of Billund. Im not a generalist or a specialist. I am just a lifetime lego
junkie (otherwise known as an enthusiast) with thousands of sealed sets. Who
has 200+ of BDP sets when only 40 something have been produced.I get your point.
Clinton and others are always welcome to email/message me.
What would be good Russell is on the "Item Info" where it shows when
a set came out with weight/size and so forth. Can't we have a small area
for date something retired? Does not need to be awesome like retail/exclusive
etc etc. Keep it simple as your have in "Year Released" have "Year
Retired". I often put that in my set descriptions and the new Lego peeps
often ask me these questions and the economy is not always right either.
But Bricklick should be able to get and upgrade such data through TLG should
it not, retrospectively of course, industry secrets are industry secrets afterall.
So, a couple issues here. First, we DO have access to retirement years, but as
a matter of policy we do not import data directly from the LEGO Group - we only
use that data to verify the data submitted to us.
Second, release years sometimes change, and we aren't allowed to disclose
retirement year info until it is in the past anyway. But for most older sets,
we have this info.
The bigger issue is that BrickLink does not have a field for retirement year.
This has been a much requested data point, mostly because it affects the active
years of parts.
Currently, the BrickLink system assumes that every set was released only for
one year, and of course that is not correct. So for the sake of accurate years
of parts, we are very much are planning to add retirement years to sets.
Currently, the BrickLink system assumes that every set was released only for
one year, and of course that is not correct. So for the sake of accurate years
of parts, we are very much are planning to add retirement years to sets.
Currently, the BrickLink system assumes that every set was released only for
one year, and of course that is not correct. So for the sake of accurate years
of parts, we are very much are planning to add retirement years to sets.
exciting news!
Big boy I have been watching your stuff again and the yoghurt thing disturbs
me. I have decided to torture you.
Everytime I see you open yoghurt on the tube I am going to line up some Mini's
and execute one with a flame of your choosing. The victims will come from the
Nubs stash. First victim will be a Teebo.
Currently, the BrickLink system assumes that every set was released only for
one year, and of course that is not correct. So for the sake of accurate years
of parts, we are very much are planning to add retirement years to sets.
exciting news!
Big boy I have been watching your stuff again and the yoghurt thing disturbs
me. I have decided to torture you.
Everytime I see you open yoghurt on the tube I am going to line up some Mini's
and execute one with a flame of your choosing. The victims will come from the
Nubs stash. First victim will be a Teebo.
Currently, the BrickLink system assumes that every set was released only for
one year, and of course that is not correct. So for the sake of accurate years
of parts, we are very much are planning to add retirement years to sets.
exciting news!
Big boy I have been watching your stuff again and the yoghurt thing disturbs
me. I have decided to torture you.
Everytime I see you open yoghurt on the tube I am going to line up some Mini's
and execute one with a flame of your choosing. The victims will come from the
Nubs stash. First victim will be a Teebo.
😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭
I can accept pineapple on pizza
pizza with pinapple! a great choice!
I must have parted a couple of villages back in the day. There are a few in the
tote and his clan, but I have so far only found one princess. I am thinking I
have more in storage, this does not make sense I should have equal amount of
exclusives.
I need 1800mentalhealth again I have zero memory of this. Oh the OCD in Lego!
One of the main reasons people get asked about contributions is because they
have something for sale in their store that very few others have. In those cases,
our major contributors and Catalog Admins can't do the job, because they
don't have the item.
It's one of the things that makes BrickLink such a treasure trove of useful
information. We are able to pull data from a very large userbase of generalists
instead of limiting our scope to a small handful of specialists.
And I fully support that rationality. For example the 852751, various models
out of Billund. Im not a generalist or a specialist. I am just a lifetime lego
junkie (otherwise known as an enthusiast) with thousands of sealed sets. Who
has 200+ of BDP sets when only 40 something have been produced.I get your point.
Clinton and others are always welcome to email/message me.
What would be good Russell is on the "Item Info" where it shows when
a set came out with weight/size and so forth. Can't we have a small area
for date something retired? Does not need to be awesome like retail/exclusive
etc etc. Keep it simple as your have in "Year Released" have "Year
Retired". I often put that in my set descriptions and the new Lego peeps
often ask me these questions and the economy is not always right either.
But Bricklick should be able to get and upgrade such data through TLG should
it not, retrospectively of course, industry secrets are industry secrets afterall.
So, a couple issues here. First, we DO have access to retirement years, but as
a matter of policy we do not import data directly from the LEGO Group - we only
use that data to verify the data submitted to us.
Second, release years sometimes change, and we aren't allowed to disclose
retirement year info until it is in the past anyway. But for most older sets,
we have this info.
The bigger issue is that BrickLink does not have a field for retirement year.
This has been a much requested data point, mostly because it affects the active
years of parts.
Currently, the BrickLink system assumes that every set was released only for
one year, and of course that is not correct. So for the sake of accurate years
of parts, we are very much are planning to add retirement years to sets.
I agree on your last point there are 2 perspectives the entity and the user perspective.
As I said early a secret, is a secret. Secrets can and do change. TLG must protect
that data for a multitude of reasons. Bricklink is in servitude in that capacity.
A seller/buyer however can use (concrete-post retirement) data above the "6
month average" to price items based on annual growth rather than relying
on external data like brick economy. It discourages a "pump and dump"
theory. 6 month averages are good for "part sellers", not for someone
like me as a new/sealed seller of sets as averages are subject to distortion/manipulation.
Parts are parts. If a listing shows the earlier example of 40676. Its for a 5
pack, how is the data correct if people are parting. So it can't be new,
it is either new/incomplete which raises a further issue of a new column or its
used/incomplete. It can never be what the data represents because 20% of 40676
can never been a 40676 new/used/complete or incomplete.
Just a few days ago I proposed a catalogue item and supplied the photos, size
weight and so forth for a 2 in 1 pack of the 66784 (its a 2:1 set 64266&62169).
When I shake this box I heard boxes inside. So does that mean someone can tear
open a $49.99 66784 and advertise each as a 42166 (rrp 34.99) & 42169 (rrp 64.99).
The data can never been correct can it, because TLG intended it to be a 66784
not 50% & 50% of an entirely different market product. So why would we allow
these parted out sets, be it 40676 or 66784 listing to exist when what they really
are is new parts, or used/incomplete.
The playing field needs to be fairer in accessible knowledge, for both the smartest
and those challenged.
Have a good night, I think it needs to be addressed, yes the retirement date
will take time I agree. The other just needs a few rules tweaked as Lego evolves,
we either grow with the evolution or we get left behind in disarray because TLG
will never stop for us.
[…]
Currently, the BrickLink system assumes that every set was released only for
one year, and of course that is not correct. So for the sake of accurate years
of parts, we are very much are planning to add retirement years to sets.
But it’s still “wrong” to use sets’ lifetime for parts.
Some parts stop being produced during a set’s lifetime.
For instance, if a set is produced for 5 years and uses variant ‘a’ only during
its first year and then variant ‘b’ for the next 4 years, variant ‘a’ will still
be said to have been ‘alive’ for the whole 5 years.
The same already happens the other way: variant ‘b’ is said to exist from the
first year of the set.
[…]
Currently, the BrickLink system assumes that every set was released only for
one year, and of course that is not correct. So for the sake of accurate years
of parts, we are very much are planning to add retirement years to sets.
But it’s still “wrong” to use sets’ lifetime for parts.
Some parts stop being produced during a set’s lifetime.
For instance, if a set is produced for 5 years and uses variant ‘a’ only during
its first year and then variant ‘b’ for the next 4 years, variant ‘a’ will still
be said to have been ‘alive’ for the whole 5 years.
The same already happens the other way: variant ‘b’ is said to exist from the
first year of the set.
The easy way to solve that is to merge the variants together!
[…]
Currently, the BrickLink system assumes that every set was released only for
one year, and of course that is not correct. So for the sake of accurate years
of parts, we are very much are planning to add retirement years to sets.
But it’s still “wrong” to use sets’ lifetime for parts.
Some parts stop being produced during a set’s lifetime.
For instance, if a set is produced for 5 years and uses variant ‘a’ only during
its first year and then variant ‘b’ for the next 4 years, variant ‘a’ will still
be said to have been ‘alive’ for the whole 5 years.
The same already happens the other way: variant ‘b’ is said to exist from the
first year of the set.
And also some parts can come from other than sets like store walls, PaB, exclusive
sets not inventoried, etc.
I think as Sellers we are always reputationally based. As Sellers, and a part
of the BL platform, BL also has a reputation.
Our reputations should be that we always conducted ourselves in a clear, candid
and transparent manner. I don't think this is that.
On dont home in on just this one example. Its habitual and misleading to new
people.
BL and us as Sellers will not survive without new buyers in a reputational environment.
It is as simple as that.
Which is why sellers should abide by the rules of the site and not make up their
own rules. If anyone orders a set, clearly labelled as INCOMPLETE with a description
telling them exactly what is in the lot, thinking it is a sealed set then it
is probably best for everyone if they don't use BL. If they are not willing
to read or understand the rules for products, it is not necessary to change rules
for them.
Incorrectly listed sets, such as the single one listed as sealed in this example,
will be removed when reported as they are misleading (although the description
in this case makes it obvious) and mess up the price guide.
NEW has a clearly defined meaning at BL. It is defined in terms of the parts
or contents never having been used. It does not refer to the state of the original
packaging. Opening a box does not make the parts inside used, whether the intention
is to sell them as (new) parts, as a (new) complete but not sealed set, or as
a (new) incomplete set.
It is not up to individuals to police and report anything to BL. A company owned
by a multi billion dollar international company.
Then why do companies like Amazon and eBay still rely on the larger community
of buyers and sellers to report listings? Both have way more money than the LEGO
Group. You completely underestimate the complexity of policing a marketplace.
It is up to that company to enforce those terms of service on the people through
their own administrative means. I have a 200USD (maybe more I last saw it was
over 190) fee to pay, not counting the Paypal kickback to BL so I am not hindered
by such things. I pay for this duty.
The ToS is for everyone and there are no rules saying I have to act as the police
officer in this instance, it's a legitimate expectation that I receive a
specific service for specific fees.
I understand there are several knowledgeable people such at the catalogue team
who don't get paid a cent. That is also wrong.
I think as Sellers we are always reputationally based. As Sellers, and a part
of the BL platform, BL also has a reputation.
Our reputations should be that we always conducted ourselves in a clear, candid
and transparent manner. I don't think this is that.
On dont home in on just this one example. Its habitual and misleading to new
people.
BL and us as Sellers will not survive without new buyers in a reputational environment.
It is as simple as that.
Which is why sellers should abide by the rules of the site and not make up their
own rules. If anyone orders a set, clearly labelled as INCOMPLETE with a description
telling them exactly what is in the lot, thinking it is a sealed set then it
is probably best for everyone if they don't use BL. If they are not willing
to read or understand the rules for products, it is not necessary to change rules
for them.
Incorrectly listed sets, such as the single one listed as sealed in this example,
will be removed when reported as they are misleading (although the description
in this case makes it obvious) and mess up the price guide.
NEW has a clearly defined meaning at BL. It is defined in terms of the parts
or contents never having been used. It does not refer to the state of the original
packaging. Opening a box does not make the parts inside used, whether the intention
is to sell them as (new) parts, as a (new) complete but not sealed set, or as
a (new) incomplete set.
It is not up to individuals to police and report anything to BL. A company owned
by a multi billion dollar international company.
Then why do companies like Amazon and eBay still rely on the larger community
of buyers and sellers to report listings? Both have way more money than the LEGO
Group. You completely underestimate the complexity of policing a marketplace.
It is up to that company to enforce those terms of service on the people through
their own administrative means. I have a 200USD (maybe more I last saw it was
over 190) fee to pay, not counting the Paypal kickback to BL so I am not hindered
by such things. I pay for this duty.
The ToS is for everyone and there are no rules saying I have to act as the police
officer in this instance, it's a legitimate expectation that I receive a
specific service for specific fees.
I understand there are several knowledgeable people such at the catalogue team
who don't get paid a cent. That is also wrong.
That is not true.
Also having into account that the amount of listings is growing a lot each month:
It is not up to individuals to police and report anything to BL. A company owned
by a multi billion dollar international company.
It is up to that company to enforce those terms of service on the people through
their own administrative means. I have a 200USD (maybe more I last saw it was
over 190) fee to pay, not counting the Paypal kickback to BL so I am not hindered
by such things. I pay for this duty.
The ToS is for everyone and there are no rules saying I have to act as the police
officer in this instance, it's a legitimate expectation that I receive a
specific service for specific fees.
Nobody says you have to report anything if you don't want to, and no unpaid
members act as police officers. Any items removed are removed by paid BL staff,
not volunteers. Individuals act more like informants than police. Those that
want the site to remain free of infringing items, whether they are genuine mistakes
or intended scams, can report them to help keep the site as honest as possible.
Those that don't care don't have to do anything if they don't want
to.
I am talking about people being proactive not reactive.
They are proactive too, but any large community type system will always rely
on extra eyes reporting trouble, whether it is real life crime, reporting pot
holes in the road or incorrectly listed items on a website. So long as they know
and understand the rules.
Canada, Alberta
United Kingdom, England
)
)
)
USA, New Jersey
France, Nouvelle-Aquitaine
Spain, Comunidad Valenciana
