Hello, there is a store (linked below) which is putting up listings for some
sets well below normal prices today. I am concerned with some of its feedback,
like two reviews that say it is run by a scammer and the fact that there have
been three positive reviews posted within the past few hours. Is there a way
we can confirm if this is a legitimate seller? I just wouldn't want anyone
to be scammed or anyone's reputation to be harmed either way. Thanks.
Hello, there is a store (linked below) which is putting up listings for some
sets well below normal prices today. I am concerned with some of its feedback,
like two reviews that say it is run by a scammer and the fact that there have
been three positive reviews posted within the past few hours. Is there a way
we can confirm if this is a legitimate seller? I just wouldn't want anyone
to be scammed or anyone's reputation to be harmed either way. Thanks.
P.S. sorry if I posted under the wrong topic, first time posting in the forum.
Yup, scammer. And they did their homework so you should probably report all
of the people who left feedback today to because they probably purchased a 0.00
item in order to create an order to leave feedback.
Hello, there is a store (linked below) which is putting up listings for some
sets well below normal prices today. I am concerned with some of its feedback,
like two reviews that say it is run by a scammer and the fact that there have
been three positive reviews posted within the past few hours. Is there a way
we can confirm if this is a legitimate seller? I just wouldn't want anyone
to be scammed or anyone's reputation to be harmed either way. Thanks.
P.S. sorry if I posted under the wrong topic, first time posting in the forum.
Yup, scammer. And they did their homework so you should probably report all
of the people who left feedback today to because they probably purchased a 0.00
item in order to create an order to leave feedback.
First time replying, hopefully I'm doing it right. Yeah, they're reported.
I also noticed their address on the profile is for a community living office.
Hope anyone who may have bought something can get their money back.
Hello, there is a store (linked below) which is putting up listings for some
sets well below normal prices today. I am concerned with some of its feedback,
like two reviews that say it is run by a scammer and the fact that there have
been three positive reviews posted within the past few hours. Is there a way
we can confirm if this is a legitimate seller? I just wouldn't want anyone
to be scammed or anyone's reputation to be harmed either way. Thanks.
P.S. sorry if I posted under the wrong topic, first time posting in the forum.
Yup, scammer. And they did their homework so you should probably report all
of the people who left feedback today to because they probably purchased a 0.00
item in order to create an order to leave feedback.
First time replying, hopefully I'm doing it right. Yeah, they're reported.
I also noticed their address on the profile is for a community living office.
Hope anyone who may have bought something can get their money back.
where is the scammer ? store is open , 14 pos feedback 12 pos from selling and
2 neg
Hello, there is a store (linked below) which is putting up listings for some
sets well below normal prices today. I am concerned with some of its feedback,
like two reviews that say it is run by a scammer and the fact that there have
been three positive reviews posted within the past few hours. Is there a way
we can confirm if this is a legitimate seller? I just wouldn't want anyone
to be scammed or anyone's reputation to be harmed either way. Thanks.
P.S. sorry if I posted under the wrong topic, first time posting in the forum.
Yup, scammer. And they did their homework so you should probably report all
of the people who left feedback today to because they probably purchased a 0.00
item in order to create an order to leave feedback.
First time replying, hopefully I'm doing it right. Yeah, they're reported.
I also noticed their address on the profile is for a community living office.
Hope anyone who may have bought something can get their money back.
where is the scammer ? store is open , 14 pos feedback 12 pos from selling and
2 neg
lots of rare sets at unbelievably cheap prices in unrealistic quantities that
were just listed today
Hello, there is a store (linked below) which is putting up listings for some
sets well below normal prices today. I am concerned with some of its feedback,
like two reviews that say it is run by a scammer and the fact that there have
been three positive reviews posted within the past few hours. Is there a way
we can confirm if this is a legitimate seller? I just wouldn't want anyone
to be scammed or anyone's reputation to be harmed either way. Thanks.
P.S. sorry if I posted under the wrong topic, first time posting in the forum.
Yup, scammer. And they did their homework so you should probably report all
of the people who left feedback today to because they probably purchased a 0.00
item in order to create an order to leave feedback.
First time replying, hopefully I'm doing it right. Yeah, they're reported.
I also noticed their address on the profile is for a community living office.
Hope anyone who may have bought something can get their money back.
where is the scammer ? store is open , 14 pos feedback 12 pos from selling and
2 neg
lots of rare sets at unbelievably cheap prices in unrealistic quantities that
were just listed today
I find a store yesterday in Singapore with 1 feedback and listed a lot retiered
sets in multyplayed quantity , list his own pictures 5 sets in the picture but
had only 2 listed .
Hello, there is a store (linked below) which is putting up listings for some
sets well below normal prices today. I am concerned with some of its feedback,
like two reviews that say it is run by a scammer and the fact that there have
been three positive reviews posted within the past few hours. Is there a way
we can confirm if this is a legitimate seller? I just wouldn't want anyone
to be scammed or anyone's reputation to be harmed either way. Thanks.
P.S. sorry if I posted under the wrong topic, first time posting in the forum.
Yup, scammer. And they did their homework so you should probably report all
of the people who left feedback today to because they probably purchased a 0.00
item in order to create an order to leave feedback.
First time replying, hopefully I'm doing it right. Yeah, they're reported.
I also noticed their address on the profile is for a community living office.
Hope anyone who may have bought something can get their money back.
where is the scammer ? store is open , 14 pos feedback 12 pos from selling and
2 neg
Hello, there is a store (linked below) which is putting up listings for some
sets well below normal prices today. I am concerned with some of its feedback,
like two reviews that say it is run by a scammer and the fact that there have
been three positive reviews posted within the past few hours. Is there a way
we can confirm if this is a legitimate seller? I just wouldn't want anyone
to be scammed or anyone's reputation to be harmed either way. Thanks.
Hello, there is a store (linked below) which is putting up listings for some
sets well below normal prices today. I am concerned with some of its feedback,
like two reviews that say it is run by a scammer and the fact that there have
been three positive reviews posted within the past few hours. Is there a way
we can confirm if this is a legitimate seller? I just wouldn't want anyone
to be scammed or anyone's reputation to be harmed either way. Thanks.
in cases like these, I wonder if it would be appropriate if one of us "bought"
all the remaining sets if they had a manual option so that others dont see them.
and then wait for the store to get shut down and cancel the order (they might
only have IC which could make this impossible)
in cases like these, I wonder if it would be appropriate if one of us "bought"
all the remaining sets if they had a manual option so that others dont see them.
and then wait for the store to get shut down and cancel the order (they might
only have IC which could make this impossible)
on a side note, their terms are a bit funny
for example
"• Domestic (Canada):
• 0 - 500g: Free
• 501 - 5000g: $20
• 5001 - 15000g: Free
• 15001 - 50000g: $70"
0-500 is free, 501 - 5000 is $20, then 50001-15000 is free but 150001 to 50000
is $70
in cases like these, I wonder if it would be appropriate if one of us "bought"
all the remaining sets if they had a manual option so that others dont see them.
and then wait for the store to get shut down and cancel the order (they might
only have IC which could make this impossible)
doesn't seem possible for this store with a quick look sadly
I feel like this would be a futile gesture in any case, because what would stop
them from immediately replenishing with more sets that likely don’t exist?
I can’t think of any way for fellow Bricklinkers to save the potential buyers
from the scam, short of the moderators shutting them down as quickly as possible.
In General, Nubs_Select writes:
In General, Nubs_Select writes:
In General, Stuart9 writes:
And another.
in cases like these, I wonder if it would be appropriate if one of us "bought"
all the remaining sets if they had a manual option so that others dont see them.
and then wait for the store to get shut down and cancel the order (they might
only have IC which could make this impossible)
doesn't seem possible for this store with a quick look sadly
I feel like this would be a futile gesture in any case, because what would stop
them from immediately replenishing with more sets that likely don’t exist?
I can’t think of any way for fellow Bricklinkers to save the potential buyers
from the scam, short of the moderators shutting them down as quickly as possible.
mhm, the only way it "could" work is if they weren't at their pc
In General, Nubs_Select writes:
In General, Nubs_Select writes:
In General, Stuart9 writes:
And another.
in cases like these, I wonder if it would be appropriate if one of us "bought"
all the remaining sets if they had a manual option so that others dont see them.
and then wait for the store to get shut down and cancel the order (they might
only have IC which could make this impossible)
doesn't seem possible for this store with a quick look sadly
I feel like this would be a futile gesture in any case, because what would stop
them from immediately replenishing with more sets that likely don’t exist?
I can’t think of any way for fellow Bricklinkers to save the potential buyers
from the scam, short of the moderators shutting them down as quickly as possible.
“Admins,” not “moderators”
mhm, the only way it "could" work is if they weren't at their pc
And apparently, they are
Some members did that (fake ordering the stock to prevent other people from buying),
but that was before IC, and the scammers created multiple selling accounts to
look less suspicious (no verification at the time).
Cat & mouse game: BL learned to verify sellers, scammers learned to wait for
the week-end….
Still getting orders every few minutes.
4 others since my previous post, 5 orders I’ve noted consisting of 6 sets.
In General, Stuart9 writes:
And another.
In General, SirIceCream1001 writes:
In General, Your_Four writes:
Hello, there is a store (linked below) which is putting up listings for some
sets well below normal prices today. I am concerned with some of its feedback,
like two reviews that say it is run by a scammer and the fact that there have
been three positive reviews posted within the past few hours. Is there a way
we can confirm if this is a legitimate seller? I just wouldn't want anyone
to be scammed or anyone's reputation to be harmed either way. Thanks.
They just added 8 more 75313’s after selling one a few minutes ago.
they probably timed it for the weekend knowing that bricklink won't take
down the store as fast. I wish there was someone at bricklink who could take
"emergency" reports of scammers at any time of any day. sad there isn't
as if there was it would be taken down by now.
In General, peregrinator writes:
In General, Nubs_Select writes:
In General, peregrinator writes:
In General, Stuart9 writes:
Still getting orders every few minutes.
4 others since my previous post, 5 orders I’ve noted consisting of 6 sets.
No payment methods any more - you can't check out (I tried).
still works when i try
Yeah he (or she) is back
I wonder if they changed to a different Paypal account to avoid getting banned
by hitting a limit or such
They just added 8 more 75313’s after selling one a few minutes ago.
they probably timed it for the weekend knowing that bricklink won't take
down the store as fast. I wish there was someone at bricklink who could take
"emergency" reports of scammers at any time of any day. sad there isn't
as if there was it would be taken down by now.
In General, peregrinator writes:
In General, Nubs_Select writes:
In General, peregrinator writes:
In General, Stuart9 writes:
Still getting orders every few minutes.
4 others since my previous post, 5 orders I’ve noted consisting of 6 sets.
No payment methods any more - you can't check out (I tried).
still works when i try
Yeah he (or she) is back
I wonder if they changed to a different Paypal account to avoid getting banned
by hitting a limit or such
at a first glace that's "bad" but odds are only a reseller would
do that who knows its probably a scam but is protected so this way there is less
people who will get scammed now
at a first glace that's "bad" but odds are only a reseller would
do that who knows its probably a scam but is protected so this way there is less
people who will get scammed now
even tho they will probably relist them soon but it might save even 1 person
from getting scammed
Someone, perhaps that reseller has posted negative feedback warning about scammer.
In General, Nubs_Select writes:
In General, Nubs_Select writes:
In General, Stuart9 writes:
Stock just vanished and order total up by one.
at a first glace that's "bad" but odds are only a reseller would
do that who knows its probably a scam but is protected so this way there is less
people who will get scammed now
even tho they will probably relist them soon but it might save even 1 person
from getting scammed
Hello, there is a store (linked below) which is putting up listings for some
sets well below normal prices today. I am concerned with some of its feedback,
like two reviews that say it is run by a scammer and the fact that there have
been three positive reviews posted within the past few hours. Is there a way
we can confirm if this is a legitimate seller? I just wouldn't want anyone
to be scammed or anyone's reputation to be harmed either way. Thanks.
P.S. sorry if I posted under the wrong topic, first time posting in the forum.
Their orders have gone up 3 since you posted
I believe it was at 52 when I first commented. So I looked around at the price
guide since I have some skin in the game on some of these like the 75313 and
there are multiple orders at the prices they list at for many of these.
Hello, there is a store (linked below) which is putting up listings for some
sets well below normal prices today. I am concerned with some of its feedback,
like two reviews that say it is run by a scammer and the fact that there have
been three positive reviews posted within the past few hours. Is there a way
we can confirm if this is a legitimate seller? I just wouldn't want anyone
to be scammed or anyone's reputation to be harmed either way. Thanks.
P.S. sorry if I posted under the wrong topic, first time posting in the forum.
Their orders have gone up 3 since you posted
I believe it was at 52 when I first commented. So I looked around at the price
guide since I have some skin in the game on some of these like the 75313 and
there are multiple orders at the prices they list at for many of these.
I have 8 of these myself, I actually only list 1 at a time like larger items
because I don't want to be labelled a scammer. Same as many other higher
value sets.
I think I am obvious though what I want to keep I overprice. What I don't
care about I put my full inventory up. What I think someone will make an issue
of in having various quantities I put average to high prices and leave quantities
minimal. For example I sold 5 910001 in the last month. I had 8. but if I list
8, someone will call BS.
Hello, there is a store (linked below) which is putting up listings for some
sets well below normal prices today. I am concerned with some of its feedback,
like two reviews that say it is run by a scammer and the fact that there have
been three positive reviews posted within the past few hours. Is there a way
we can confirm if this is a legitimate seller? I just wouldn't want anyone
to be scammed or anyone's reputation to be harmed either way. Thanks.
P.S. sorry if I posted under the wrong topic, first time posting in the forum.
I saw someone say nobody works on the weekends which is why the scammers wait
until Saturday. There is no automatic banning when a store is reported 50+ times?
People get scammed and don't return, they tell others about it and on and
on.
It's not easy to get people to come spend money on BL from eBay. It's
very easy to push them away so they never return.
Hello, there is a store (linked below) which is putting up listings for some
sets well below normal prices today. I am concerned with some of its feedback,
like two reviews that say it is run by a scammer and the fact that there have
been three positive reviews posted within the past few hours. Is there a way
we can confirm if this is a legitimate seller? I just wouldn't want anyone
to be scammed or anyone's reputation to be harmed either way. Thanks.
P.S. sorry if I posted under the wrong topic, first time posting in the forum.
I saw someone say nobody works on the weekends which is why the scammers wait
until Saturday. There is no automatic banning when a store is reported 50+ times?
People get scammed and don't return, they tell others about it and on and
on.
It's not easy to get people to come spend money on BL from eBay. It's
very easy to push them away so they never return.
the thing with automatic banning is that it could lead to people creating fake
around to spam report competitors so I cant say id want it automatic but if after
a store is reported say 10+ times in 1 day it would be amazing if that triggered
a high alert message to someone at bricklink so they could take action even tho
it is the weekend. wild tho that not a single person at bricklink who can do
anything about it is there on the weekends...
Hello, there is a store (linked below) which is putting up listings for some
sets well below normal prices today. I am concerned with some of its feedback,
like two reviews that say it is run by a scammer and the fact that there have
been three positive reviews posted within the past few hours. Is there a way
we can confirm if this is a legitimate seller? I just wouldn't want anyone
to be scammed or anyone's reputation to be harmed either way. Thanks.
P.S. sorry if I posted under the wrong topic, first time posting in the forum.
I saw someone say nobody works on the weekends which is why the scammers wait
until Saturday. There is no automatic banning when a store is reported 50+ times?
People get scammed and don't return, they tell others about it and on and
on.
It's not easy to get people to come spend money on BL from eBay. It's
very easy to push them away so they never return.
the thing with automatic banning is that it could lead to people creating fake
around to spam report competitors so I cant say id want it automatic but if after
a store is reported say 10+ times in 1 day it would be amazing if that triggered
a high alert message to someone at bricklink so they could take action even tho
it is the weekend. wild tho that not a single person at bricklink who can do
anything about it is there on the weekends...
You make the auto bans to require XX number of reports with accounts that have
XX number of feedback or something. If nobody is going to work on weekends (if
that is the issue) they should do something.
Change the BL fee to 3.1% and use the 0.1% to pay the weekend crew lol
Might have money left over for some pineapple pizza too
Hello, there is a store (linked below) which is putting up listings for some
sets well below normal prices today. I am concerned with some of its feedback,
like two reviews that say it is run by a scammer and the fact that there have
been three positive reviews posted within the past few hours. Is there a way
we can confirm if this is a legitimate seller? I just wouldn't want anyone
to be scammed or anyone's reputation to be harmed either way. Thanks.
P.S. sorry if I posted under the wrong topic, first time posting in the forum.
I saw someone say nobody works on the weekends which is why the scammers wait
until Saturday. There is no automatic banning when a store is reported 50+ times?
People get scammed and don't return, they tell others about it and on and
on.
It's not easy to get people to come spend money on BL from eBay. It's
very easy to push them away so they never return.
the thing with automatic banning is that it could lead to people creating fake
around to spam report competitors so I cant say id want it automatic but if after
a store is reported say 10+ times in 1 day it would be amazing if that triggered
a high alert message to someone at bricklink so they could take action even tho
it is the weekend. wild tho that not a single person at bricklink who can do
anything about it is there on the weekends...
You make the auto bans to require XX number of reports with accounts that have
XX number of feedback or something. If nobody is going to work on weekends (if
that is the issue) they should do something.
Good idea
Change the BL fee to 3.1% and use the 0.1% to pay the weekend crew lol
Might have money left over for some pineapple pizza too
the thing with automatic banning is that it could lead to people creating fake
around to spam report competitors so I cant say id want it automatic but if after
a store is reported say 10+ times in 1 day it would be amazing if that triggered
a high alert message to someone at bricklink so they could take action even tho
it is the weekend. wild tho that not a single person at bricklink who can do
anything about it is there on the weekends...
You make the auto bans to require XX number of reports with accounts that have
XX number of feedback or something. If nobody is going to work on weekends (if
that is the issue) they should do something.
Hold up... Are we talking hyperbole here or is there literally nobody able to
do this remotely on a weekend? For an e-commerce platform that's moving
this much money? Even if, they're clearly written in code that shuts stores
down for missing a payment deadline by a couple of hours (as evidenced in the
forum recently by multiple people). Just add another rule that does what Amazingly
said:
If (greater than) X unique users with (greater than) Y seller feedback
report the same user within Z hours; then automatically close the store.
the thing with automatic banning is that it could lead to people creating fake
around to spam report competitors so I cant say id want it automatic but if after
a store is reported say 10+ times in 1 day it would be amazing if that triggered
a high alert message to someone at bricklink so they could take action even tho
it is the weekend. wild tho that not a single person at bricklink who can do
anything about it is there on the weekends...
You make the auto bans to require XX number of reports with accounts that have
XX number of feedback or something. If nobody is going to work on weekends (if
that is the issue) they should do something.
Hold up... Are we talking hyperbole here or is there literally nobody able to
do this remotely on a weekend? For an e-commerce platform that's moving
this much money?
Agreed - they could hire someone in the Europe timezone who's used to work
by night...
It'd cover a lot of "holes" in the BrickLink watch.
But where to find such a rare profile?
If (greater than) X unique users with (greater than) Y seller feedback
report the same user within Z hours; then automatically close the store.
No, as it'll be abused to auto-close who one would target.
Better a guilty who's free than an innocent in jail.
the thing with automatic banning is that it could lead to people creating fake
around to spam report competitors so I cant say id want it automatic but if after
a store is reported say 10+ times in 1 day it would be amazing if that triggered
a high alert message to someone at bricklink so they could take action even tho
it is the weekend. wild tho that not a single person at bricklink who can do
anything about it is there on the weekends...
You make the auto bans to require XX number of reports with accounts that have
XX number of feedback or something. If nobody is going to work on weekends (if
that is the issue) they should do something.
Hold up... Are we talking hyperbole here or is there literally nobody able to
do this remotely on a weekend? For an e-commerce platform that's moving
this much money?
Agreed - they could hire someone in the Europe timezone who's used to work
by night...
It'd cover a lot of "holes" in the BrickLink watch.
But where to find such a rare profile?
If (greater than) X unique users with (greater than) Y seller feedback
report the same user within Z hours; then automatically close the store.
No, as it'll be abused to auto-close who one would target.
Better a guilty who's free than an innocent in jail.
There are lot of gray areas and then there is this store. 10 new feedbacks to
push the negative feedbacks to the 2nd page.
The scams hurt everyone on Bricklink, both buyer and sellers.
I am glad BL takes a look at the bogus feedback and removes it, unlike eBay where
it shows for a year.
the thing with automatic banning is that it could lead to people creating fake
around to spam report competitors so I cant say id want it automatic but if after
a store is reported say 10+ times in 1 day it would be amazing if that triggered
a high alert message to someone at bricklink so they could take action even tho
it is the weekend. wild tho that not a single person at bricklink who can do
anything about it is there on the weekends...
You make the auto bans to require XX number of reports with accounts that have
XX number of feedback or something. If nobody is going to work on weekends (if
that is the issue) they should do something.
Hold up... Are we talking hyperbole here or is there literally nobody able to
do this remotely on a weekend? For an e-commerce platform that's moving
this much money?
Agreed - they could hire someone in the Europe timezone who's used to work
by night...
It'd cover a lot of "holes" in the BrickLink watch.
But where to find such a rare profile?
If (greater than) X unique users with (greater than) Y seller feedback
report the same user within Z hours; then automatically close the store.
No, as it'll be abused to auto-close who one would target.
Better a guilty who's free than an innocent in jail.
There are lot of gray areas and then there is this store. 10 new feedbacks to
push the negative feedbacks to the 2nd page.
The scams hurt everyone on Bricklink, both buyer and sellers.
I am glad BL takes a look at the bogus feedback and removes it, unlike eBay where
it shows for a year.
Agreed, and I'm sure BrickLink has already an alert system on things to check.
But what I said is I'm not a fan of any auto-suspend-shop system, as it could
be used for someone to close a legit Shop, like here especially for a full weekend
No, as it'll be abused to auto-close who one would target.
Better a guilty who's free than an innocent in jail.
To a degree, but most people don't have that kind of dedication to the long
con. 10 sellers with 500+ seller feedback in 2 hours doesn't seem unreasonable.
And if to not auto-close, then to at the very least send an SMS message to the
necessary parties that they need to log in remotely and take care of business.
No, as it'll be abused to auto-close who one would target.
Better a guilty who's free than an innocent in jail.
To a degree, but most people don't have that kind of dedication to the long
con. 10 sellers with 500+ seller feedback in 2 hours doesn't seem unreasonable.
One could create 50 dummy dormant accounts, and one day place 10 orders from
10 accounts at the first Featured shop, then post ten positive feebacks.
What - 10 minutes?
Shop closed.
I won't discuss more not to give ideas, neither to express my opinion: ANY
auto-suspend solution is worse.
Don't worry BrickLink is already very concerned by scams and security.
No, as it'll be abused to auto-close who one would target.
Better a guilty who's free than an innocent in jail.
To a degree, but most people don't have that kind of dedication to the long
con. 10 sellers with 500+ seller feedback in 2 hours doesn't seem unreasonable.
And if to not auto-close, then to at the very least send an SMS message to the
necessary parties that they need to log in remotely and take care of business.
The problem here is 10 sellers that know each other can knock out a rival seller
for a while. If that is in a busy time, it could be serious for that store. And
we have seen recently some people running or being able to control multiple stores,
so they have even more (hidden) power.
Sometimes a knee jerk reaction to solve one problem creates a bigger one, as
we saw with how many new accounts recently were asking about sending messages
to sellers.
The problem here is 10 sellers that know each other can knock out a rival seller
for a while. If that is in a busy time, it could be serious for that store. And
we have seen recently some people running or being able to control multiple stores,
so they have even more (hidden) power.
If sellers who make fake reports of this kind are punished in turn then people
will be disinclined to make them, even against rivals.
The problem here is 10 sellers that know each other can knock out a rival seller
for a while. If that is in a busy time, it could be serious for that store. And
we have seen recently some people running or being able to control multiple stores,
so they have even more (hidden) power.
If sellers who make fake reports of this kind are punished in turn then people
will be disinclined to make them, even against rivals.
Activision (I think) has something like that. If you spam the "report player"
function and they're always bogus, Activision puts you in jail instead.
Of course the other work around there is that you can only report players while
you're in the game with them so you are most likely going to be using your
main player account.
The problem here is 10 sellers that know each other can knock out a rival seller
for a while. If that is in a busy time, it could be serious for that store. And
we have seen recently some people running or being able to control multiple stores,
so they have even more (hidden) power.
If sellers who make fake reports of this kind are punished in turn then people
will be disinclined to make them, even against rivals.
Activision (I think) has something like that. If you spam the "report player"
function and they're always bogus, Activision puts you in jail instead.
Of course the other work around there is that you can only report players while
you're in the game with them so you are most likely going to be using your
main player account.
If Bricklink made it to where you only have one account per phone number, this
could solve the issue as well. Most people don't have 10+ phone numbers.
If Bricklink made it to where you only have one account per phone number, this
could solve the issue as well. Most people don't have 10+ phone numbers.
Here you can get free sims that can receive a text without topping up. It would
be easy to get multiple sims, use each one once to activate an account per sim,
then trash them.
Unfortunately, without going down the route of some official ID such as a passport,
driving license or social security ID, I doubt they'll ever stop the multiple
account problem.
If scam sellers are getting through verification and opening stores, it shows
measures there aren't really working too well.
If scam sellers are getting through verification and opening stores, it shows
measures there aren't really working too well.
If the verification process still includes taking a picture of yourself with
your inventory then it clearly needs an overhaul.
I agree. Such a thing is general is an element of executive management using
this as a way to avoid negligence in the entities due diligence, or any civil
component of contributory negligence.
But what is the answer there though, and what resources would Bricklink require
to facilitate this?
This is not an issue of "ban accounts", it's a layered approach by
those with the intent and it needs a layered response/prevention.
If Bricklink made it to where you only have one account per phone number, this
could solve the issue as well. Most people don't have 10+ phone numbers.
Here you can get free sims that can receive a text without topping up. It would
be easy to get multiple sims, use each one once to activate an account per sim,
then trash them.
Unfortunately, without going down the route of some official ID such as a passport,
driving license or social security ID, I doubt they'll ever stop the multiple
account problem.
If scam sellers are getting through verification and opening stores, it shows
measures there aren't really working too well.
It might have changed since you did the verification but When I did it, I had
to upload a picture of a government issued ID with photo, proof of address (like
utility bill or phone bill) and a picture of me with my inventory.
If Bricklink made it to where you only have one account per phone number, this
could solve the issue as well. Most people don't have 10+ phone numbers.
Here you can get free sims that can receive a text without topping up. It would
be easy to get multiple sims, use each one once to activate an account per sim,
then trash them.
Unfortunately, without going down the route of some official ID such as a passport,
driving license or social security ID, I doubt they'll ever stop the multiple
account problem.
If scam sellers are getting through verification and opening stores, it shows
measures there aren't really working too well.
It might have changed since you did the verification but When I did it, I had
to upload a picture of a government issued ID with photo, proof of address (like
utility bill or phone bill) and a picture of me with my inventory.
It might have changed since you did the verification but When I did it, I had
to upload a picture of a government issued ID with photo, proof of address (like
utility bill or phone bill) and a picture of me with my inventory.
It was nothing when I registered, just an email address.
If you have to supply that info for a basic buyer account, I cannot really understand
why so many fake accounts are set up. Even that is not working in that case.
It might have changed since you did the verification but When I did it, I had
to upload a picture of a government issued ID with photo, proof of address (like
utility bill or phone bill) and a picture of me with my inventory.
It was nothing when I registered, just an email address.
If you have to supply that info for a basic buyer account, I cannot really understand
why so many fake accounts are set up. Even that is not working in that case.
for a buyer you just need an email.
its when you want to become a seller you need to provide that documentation
It might have changed since you did the verification but When I did it, I had
to upload a picture of a government issued ID with photo, proof of address (like
utility bill or phone bill) and a picture of me with my inventory.
It was nothing when I registered, just an email address.
If you have to supply that info for a basic buyer account, I cannot really understand
why so many fake accounts are set up. Even that is not working in that case.
for a buyer you just need an email.
its when you want to become a seller you need to provide that documentation
Correct it was the same for me too.
We can't alienate buyers entering Bricklink in anyway. None of us survive
without them.
We need to be looking at the "seller account", that is what is doing
the damage. Without the seller account a review of a fake buyer is irrelevant
as it does not exist.
It might have changed since you did the verification but When I did it, I had
to upload a picture of a government issued ID with photo, proof of address (like
utility bill or phone bill) and a picture of me with my inventory.
It was nothing when I registered, just an email address.
If you have to supply that info for a basic buyer account, I cannot really understand
why so many fake accounts are set up. Even that is not working in that case.
It is very easy for me to understand based on professional experiences.
Here is a real truth for everyone. Generally those who wish to perpetrate these
crimes against others also review these very forums and get a crystal clear indication
of how they need to move forward.
I have seen this in countless pieces of evidence. These are not stupid people,
the machinations and deviousness should never be misunderstood.
If we, and I mean everyone in this thread wants to help Russell and others (I
only mention Russell because he is the only name that has been mentioned previously,
there are clearly many others) Then we need to have a little (a lot actually)
more security around a such discussions.
There are multiple intelligent and knowledge platform knowledged, TLG knowledged,
Lego knowledged and experienced people in this thread. None of us are stupid
either, what is stupid is us exposing ideas in a public forum.
What I am saying is we need a private forum for this and only those we can all
recognize should be allowed access in the first instance.
We are not helping Russell here. Whilst many ideas and input are valuable, making
them publicly known creates a loss in equity for Russell and Bricklink.
It might have changed since you did the verification but When I did it, I had
to upload a picture of a government issued ID with photo, proof of address (like
utility bill or phone bill) and a picture of me with my inventory.
It was nothing when I registered, just an email address.
If you have to supply that info for a basic buyer account, I cannot really understand
why so many fake accounts are set up. Even that is not working in that case.
It is very easy for me to understand based on professional experiences.
Here is a real truth for everyone. Generally those who wish to perpetrate these
crimes against others also review these very forums and get a crystal clear indication
of how they need to move forward.
I have seen this in countless pieces of evidence. These are not stupid people,
the machinations and deviousness should never be misunderstood.
If we, and I mean everyone in this thread wants to help Russell and others (I
only mention Russell because he is the only name that has been mentioned previously,
there are clearly many others) Then we need to have a little (a lot actually)
more security around a such discussions.
There are multiple intelligent and knowledge platform knowledged, TLG knowledged,
Lego knowledged and experienced people in this thread. None of us are stupid
either, what is stupid is us exposing ideas in a public forum.
What I am saying is we need a private forum for this and only those we can all
recognize should be allowed access in the first instance.
We are not helping Russell here. Whilst many ideas and input are valuable, making
them publicly known creates a loss in equity for Russell and Bricklink.
No one on the forum has been vetted or passed any detailed security protocal
and most of us have skin in the game. The lego group alone should be looking
out for the security of the website, there are plenty of expert firms that offer
these services not just some ragtag randos.
It might have changed since you did the verification but When I did it, I had
to upload a picture of a government issued ID with photo, proof of address (like
utility bill or phone bill) and a picture of me with my inventory.
It was nothing when I registered, just an email address.
If you have to supply that info for a basic buyer account, I cannot really understand
why so many fake accounts are set up. Even that is not working in that case.
It is very easy for me to understand based on professional experiences.
Here is a real truth for everyone. Generally those who wish to perpetrate these
crimes against others also review these very forums and get a crystal clear indication
of how they need to move forward.
I have seen this in countless pieces of evidence. These are not stupid people,
the machinations and deviousness should never be misunderstood.
If we, and I mean everyone in this thread wants to help Russell and others (I
only mention Russell because he is the only name that has been mentioned previously,
there are clearly many others) Then we need to have a little (a lot actually)
more security around a such discussions.
There are multiple intelligent and knowledge platform knowledged, TLG knowledged,
Lego knowledged and experienced people in this thread. None of us are stupid
either, what is stupid is us exposing ideas in a public forum.
What I am saying is we need a private forum for this and only those we can all
recognize should be allowed access in the first instance.
We are not helping Russell here. Whilst many ideas and input are valuable, making
them publicly known creates a loss in equity for Russell and Bricklink.
No one on the forum has been vetted or passed any detailed security protocal
and most of us have skin in the game.
Thank you for making me smile and shake my head. You are a perfect example of
presumptive ignorance.
oh and it is "protocol"
The lego group alone should be looking out for the security of the website, there
are plenty of expert firms that offer these services not just some ragtag randos.
If you can make that assumption and refer to people in this thread as ragtag
randos.....you would be more helpful by remaining silent.
Many of the people in this thread are very wise and intelligent people, unlike
others.
It might have changed since you did the verification but When I did it, I had
to upload a picture of a government issued ID with photo, proof of address (like
utility bill or phone bill) and a picture of me with my inventory.
It was nothing when I registered, just an email address.
If you have to supply that info for a basic buyer account, I cannot really understand
why so many fake accounts are set up. Even that is not working in that case.
It is very easy for me to understand based on professional experiences.
Here is a real truth for everyone. Generally those who wish to perpetrate these
crimes against others also review these very forums and get a crystal clear indication
of how they need to move forward.
I have seen this in countless pieces of evidence. These are not stupid people,
the machinations and deviousness should never be misunderstood.
If we, and I mean everyone in this thread wants to help Russell and others (I
only mention Russell because he is the only name that has been mentioned previously,
there are clearly many others) Then we need to have a little (a lot actually)
more security around a such discussions.
There are multiple intelligent and knowledge platform knowledged, TLG knowledged,
Lego knowledged and experienced people in this thread. None of us are stupid
either, what is stupid is us exposing ideas in a public forum.
What I am saying is we need a private forum for this and only those we can all
recognize should be allowed access in the first instance.
We are not helping Russell here. Whilst many ideas and input are valuable, making
them publicly known creates a loss in equity for Russell and Bricklink.
No one on the forum has been vetted or passed any detailed security protocal
and most of us have skin in the game.
Thank you for making me smile and shake my head. You are a perfect example of
presumptive ignorance.
oh and it is "protocol"
The lego group alone should be looking out for the security of the website, there
are plenty of expert firms that offer these services not just some ragtag randos.
If you can make that assumption and refer to people in this thread as ragtag
randos.....you would be more helpful by remaining silent.
Many of the people in this thread are very wise and intelligent people, unlike
others.
No one can verify anyone's credentials, identity, skills, training or education.
You just take each others word, even Mr musk lies about his skill in PoE2 and
D4
It might have changed since you did the verification but When I did it, I had
to upload a picture of a government issued ID with photo, proof of address (like
utility bill or phone bill) and a picture of me with my inventory.
It was nothing when I registered, just an email address.
If you have to supply that info for a basic buyer account, I cannot really understand
why so many fake accounts are set up. Even that is not working in that case.
It is very easy for me to understand based on professional experiences.
Here is a real truth for everyone. Generally those who wish to perpetrate these
crimes against others also review these very forums and get a crystal clear indication
of how they need to move forward.
I have seen this in countless pieces of evidence. These are not stupid people,
the machinations and deviousness should never be misunderstood.
If we, and I mean everyone in this thread wants to help Russell and others (I
only mention Russell because he is the only name that has been mentioned previously,
there are clearly many others) Then we need to have a little (a lot actually)
more security around a such discussions.
There are multiple intelligent and knowledge platform knowledged, TLG knowledged,
Lego knowledged and experienced people in this thread. None of us are stupid
either, what is stupid is us exposing ideas in a public forum.
What I am saying is we need a private forum for this and only those we can all
recognize should be allowed access in the first instance.
We are not helping Russell here. Whilst many ideas and input are valuable, making
them publicly known creates a loss in equity for Russell and Bricklink.
No one on the forum has been vetted or passed any detailed security protocal
and most of us have skin in the game.
Thank you for making me smile and shake my head. You are a perfect example of
presumptive ignorance.
oh and it is "protocol"
The lego group alone should be looking out for the security of the website, there
are plenty of expert firms that offer these services not just some ragtag randos.
If you can make that assumption and refer to people in this thread as ragtag
randos.....you would be more helpful by remaining silent.
Many of the people in this thread are very wise and intelligent people, unlike
others.
It might have changed since you did the verification but When I did it, I had
to upload a picture of a government issued ID with photo, proof of address (like
utility bill or phone bill) and a picture of me with my inventory.
It was nothing when I registered, just an email address.
If you have to supply that info for a basic buyer account, I cannot really understand
why so many fake accounts are set up. Even that is not working in that case.
I brought this up before if they were storing photo submissions to check for
duplicates but why reuse the same photo when you can literally just walk in to
a big box store, move a few sets around on a shelf and snap 10 different photos
for 10 different accounts. And you don't even need to do that if you don't
want to leave the house. It's proof of nothing and I'm not giving anyone
any ideas because clearly they've already thought of most of this stuff.
It might have changed since you did the verification but When I did it, I had
to upload a picture of a government issued ID with photo, proof of address (like
utility bill or phone bill) and a picture of me with my inventory.
It was nothing when I registered, just an email address.
If you have to supply that info for a basic buyer account, I cannot really understand
why so many fake accounts are set up. Even that is not working in that case.
I brought this up before if they were storing photo submissions to check for
duplicates but why reuse the same photo when you can literally just walk in to
a big box store, move a few sets around on a shelf and snap 10 different photos
for 10 different accounts. And you don't even need to do that if you don't
want to leave the house. It's proof of nothing and I'm not giving anyone
any ideas because clearly they've already thought of most of this stuff.
You are right. likewise it's also easy enough to fabricate photos through
several means of almost anything really?
But it is more of a due diligence civil mechanism by Bricklink rather than a
proactive prevention. But to be fair to Bricklink they have clearly been trying,
they just always seem to be a couple of steps behind and are forced to be reactive.
No matter what they do sophisticated people will find a new sophisticated way.
It might have changed since you did the verification but When I did it, I had
to upload a picture of a government issued ID with photo, proof of address (like
utility bill or phone bill) and a picture of me with my inventory.
It was nothing when I registered, just an email address.
If you have to supply that info for a basic buyer account, I cannot really understand
why so many fake accounts are set up. Even that is not working in that case.
I brought this up before if they were storing photo submissions to check for
duplicates but why reuse the same photo when you can literally just walk in to
a big box store, move a few sets around on a shelf and snap 10 different photos
for 10 different accounts. And you don't even need to do that if you don't
want to leave the house. It's proof of nothing and I'm not giving anyone
any ideas because clearly they've already thought of most of this stuff.
You are right. likewise it's also easy enough to fabricate photos through
several means of almost anything really?
But it is more of a due diligence civil mechanism by Bricklink rather than a
proactive prevention. But to be fair to Bricklink they have clearly been trying,
they just always seem to be a couple of steps behind and are forced to be reactive.
No matter what they do sophisticated people will find a new sophisticated way.
TLG works with a company that grosses 23 billion called SAP. These guys integrate
tons of business processes. They should be able to figure it out.
The problem here is 10 sellers that know each other can knock out a rival seller
for a while. If that is in a busy time, it could be serious for that store. And
we have seen recently some people running or being able to control multiple stores,
so they have even more (hidden) power.
If sellers who make fake reports of this kind are punished in turn then people
will be disinclined to make them, even against rivals.
Activision (I think) has something like that. If you spam the "report player"
function and they're always bogus, Activision puts you in jail instead.
Of course the other work around there is that you can only report players while
you're in the game with them so you are most likely going to be using your
main player account.
If Bricklink made it to where you only have one account per phone number, this
could solve the issue as well. Most people don't have 10+ phone numbers.
I know someone who tried to implement what you say a few years back on a "home
title" scam. It was too easy to acquire dodgy phone numbers. Further bogus
information is very cheap to obtain on the dark web.
The problem here is 10 sellers that know each other can knock out a rival seller
for a while. If that is in a busy time, it could be serious for that store. And
we have seen recently some people running or being able to control multiple stores,
so they have even more (hidden) power.
If sellers who make fake reports of this kind are punished in turn then people
will be disinclined to make them, even against rivals.
Fake or wrong? As they are different. As it is, anyone can report anyone and
it is up to BL to trigger any action. Users cannot have other users suspended,
that action is always decided by a BL employee. Of course, if BL believe someone
is making malicious reports, they can ignore those reports. No doubt reports
are made where BL disagrees with the reporter and nothing is done, but how does
BL decide if the report was just wrong or more malicious.
the thing with automatic banning is that it could lead to people creating fake
around to spam report competitors so I cant say id want it automatic but if after
a store is reported say 10+ times in 1 day it would be amazing if that triggered
a high alert message to someone at bricklink so they could take action even tho
it is the weekend. wild tho that not a single person at bricklink who can do
anything about it is there on the weekends...
Indeed. ge928 is also a fake account set up as a vigilante. The account is just
a few days old but they have already left two negative feedbacks. No matter how
good their intentions, placing fake orders to leave negative feedback is not
right.
Hello, there is a store (linked below) which is putting up listings for some
sets well below normal prices today. I am concerned with some of its feedback,
like two reviews that say it is run by a scammer and the fact that there have
been three positive reviews posted within the past few hours. Is there a way
we can confirm if this is a legitimate seller? I just wouldn't want anyone
to be scammed or anyone's reputation to be harmed either way. Thanks.
Hello, there is a store (linked below) which is putting up listings for some
sets well below normal prices today. I am concerned with some of its feedback,
like two reviews that say it is run by a scammer and the fact that there have
been three positive reviews posted within the past few hours. Is there a way
we can confirm if this is a legitimate seller? I just wouldn't want anyone
to be scammed or anyone's reputation to be harmed either way. Thanks.
P.S. sorry if I posted under the wrong topic, first time posting in the forum.
Literally no chance that the "buyers" leaving the most recent feedback
could have received their orders already.
Does BL delete the sales from this scam when they "fix" this? I see scam
sales from December too. This lowers the average selling price and ruins it for
everyone. Makes people leave the site too.
I see others mentioning accounts that joined today and also leaving feedback.
Is it a money issue? If BL will hire someone to MOD or even put a hold on these
accounts until someone can better look into it then I am all for helping to pay
for that.
Hello, there is a store (linked below) which is putting up listings for some
sets well below normal prices today. I am concerned with some of its feedback,
like two reviews that say it is run by a scammer and the fact that there have
been three positive reviews posted within the past few hours. Is there a way
we can confirm if this is a legitimate seller? I just wouldn't want anyone
to be scammed or anyone's reputation to be harmed either way. Thanks.
P.S. sorry if I posted under the wrong topic, first time posting in the forum.
Literally no chance that the "buyers" leaving the most recent feedback
could have received their orders already.
Does BL delete the sales from this scam when they "fix" this? I see scam
sales from December too. This lowers the average selling price and ruins it for
everyone. Makes people leave the site too.
I see others mentioning accounts that joined today and also leaving feedback.
Is it a money issue? If BL will hire someone to MOD or even put a hold on these
accounts until someone can better look into it then I am all for helping to pay
for that.
I also have no issue with paying a couple of dollars a month as an "administration
fee" to facilitate this too. A couple of dollars a month over the amount
of stores is plenty.
Crikey I would even throw my hat into the ring given my own background in detecting
fraud and laundering on an organized basis trans nationally.
I don't play favorites, I literally put my own mother in jail. Shocking but
fun fact about me. Its 100% true.
Hello, there is a store (linked below) which is putting up listings for some
sets well below normal prices today. I am concerned with some of its feedback,
like two reviews that say it is run by a scammer and the fact that there have
been three positive reviews posted within the past few hours. Is there a way
we can confirm if this is a legitimate seller? I just wouldn't want anyone
to be scammed or anyone's reputation to be harmed either way. Thanks.
P.S. sorry if I posted under the wrong topic, first time posting in the forum.
Literally no chance that the "buyers" leaving the most recent feedback
could have received their orders already.
You are correct. I am probably the flash gordon of shipping in Western Canada
because I have time, the ability and a great partnership with my shipping company.
Aside from 1 sale in December 2024 where the buyer lived 4 miles away and I drove
it over to his house, no transaction has been completed in a single day.
That is based on my last 120 set sales during the last 3 months. Of which more
than 1/2 of that was Bricklink.
As a Canadian I have also worked out how to legitimately circumvent Canada Post
when shipping from Canada to elsewhere (particularly USA). For example I can
from my house in Calgary to Texas in 5 days. Previously all lego would have to
go through Richmond BC, then down to LA customs, before going wherever in the
USA. That was at that time up to 15 days.
I guess the point I am trying to make is there is no reason anyone should have
positive feedback within a day, let alone 3 of them. Because its impossible unless
you are literally selling to a neighbour.
Bricklink is not ebay and does not have a distribution hub or a fulfillment center.
On that basis alone I dont think its unreasonable that a shipped item can be
marked complete and a positive review left within 5 days of a transaction.
5 days seems to be the flavour of time for Bricklink when you look at NPB and
so forth.
This issue won't be fixed immediately but by not allowing a review of ANY
description 5 days after the commencement of a transaction, it gives Bricklink
5 days to detect and request proof of stock, rather than an innocent buyer parting
with his/her money.
[…]
This issue won't be fixed immediately but by not allowing a review of ANY
description 5 days after the commencement of a transaction, it gives Bricklink
5 days to detect and request proof of stock, rather than an innocent buyer parting
with his/her money.
Because you think the people who get scammed read the feedback?
Unfortunately, I also think some buyers are not really “scammed”: they do know
it’s a scam but FOMO and PayPal’s buyer protection make them order anyway. What
can go wrong?
[…]
This issue won't be fixed immediately but by not allowing a review of ANY
description 5 days after the commencement of a transaction, it gives Bricklink
5 days to detect and request proof of stock, rather than an innocent buyer parting
with his/her money.
Because you think the people who get scammed read the feedback?
Unfortunately, I also think some buyers are not really “scammed”: they do know
it’s a scam but FOMO and PayPal’s buyer protection make them order anyway. What
can go wrong?
Speaking of which, can they be reported to Paypal? Of course to get they ID
you'd need to place an order so there is that.
[…]
This issue won't be fixed immediately but by not allowing a review of ANY
description 5 days after the commencement of a transaction, it gives Bricklink
5 days to detect and request proof of stock, rather than an innocent buyer parting
with his/her money.
Because you think the people who get scammed read the feedback?
Unfortunately, I also think some buyers are not really “scammed”: they do know
it’s a scam but FOMO and PayPal’s buyer protection make them order anyway. What
can go wrong?
Speaking of which, can they be reported to Paypal? Of course to get they ID
you'd need to place an order so there is that.
Chances are they use a hacked paypal account. The buyer pays the money to the
hacked account, the hacked account pays another account, that pays another account
and that gets withdrawn.
[…]
This issue won't be fixed immediately but by not allowing a review of ANY
description 5 days after the commencement of a transaction, it gives Bricklink
5 days to detect and request proof of stock, rather than an innocent buyer parting
with his/her money.
Because you think the people who get scammed read the feedback?
Unfortunately, I also think some buyers are not really “scammed”: they do know
it’s a scam but FOMO and PayPal’s buyer protection make them order anyway. What
can go wrong?
Speaking of which, can they be reported to Paypal? Of course to get they ID
you'd need to place an order so there is that.
Heaven forbid we start categorizing people as buyers/sellers. But in this instance
we need to.
1. Society is skeptical of everyone and anything when it involves money,
2. The old saying if its too good to be true its........,
3. Many people are just plain ignorant, but they are driven by what they see,
not what they know. You and I for example would never fall for this type of Lego
scam, because we know different,
4. Ignorance is encouraged when a visual cue removes suspicion (feedback),
5. Ignorance is encourage when a reputation exceeds reality (bricklink is a subsidiary
of TLG). Its Lego its been around for decades it cant be scammy right?,
6. The last category god have mercy on my soul......dumb people. Doesn't
matter what you do dumb cant be fixed in a scam, and
7. You must also consider those who don't report. Often a crime is not reported
because of shame and embarrassment. I doubt anyone really knows the scale of
this, given that preventative measures and deterrence are needed.
Yes they read it. They are either dumb or environmentally encouraged in ignorance
through a psychological hue.
But all of us need to do more to protect the ignorant. Because these scams affect
and reflect on all of us as buyers/sellers.
This issue won't be fixed immediately but by not allowing a review of ANY
description 5 days after the commencement of a transaction, it gives Bricklink
5 days to detect and request proof of stock, rather than an innocent buyer parting
with his/her money.
1) Here anyway it's not rare to ship the same day and be received the next
one.
Why would it be 5 days minimum everywhere?
2) The majority of buyers don't hang out in forums and more generally on
BrickLink.
They order, then do something else and may not come back before their next order:
a few weeks or months later.
So, if by chance they come back couple days later and you forbid them to set
a feedback before any given delay, then they simply won't give feedback (too
late or simply forgot, or don't care much anymore).
Many complain not receiving enough; but this would create an extra drop in sellers
received feedbacks.
1) Here anyway it's not rare to ship the same day and be received the next
one.
Why would it be 5 days minimum everywhere?
2) The majority of buyers don't hang out in forums and more generally on
BrickLink.
They order, then do something else and may not come back before their next order:
a few weeks or months later.
So, if by chance they come back couple days later and you forbid them to set
a feedback before any given delay, then they simply won't give feedback (too
late or simply forgot, or don't care much anymore).
Many complain not receiving enough; but this would create an extra drop in sellers
received feedbacks.
True, here parcels are frequently delivered 2-3 days after ordering.
But the bigger issue is still people that get scammed are the type of people
that don't look at feedback anyway. The lack of positive feedback from other
new accounts is not going to stop them being scammed.
And if such a rule did come in, what will happen? They will list regular priced
parts, sell to their other accounts, wait five days, leave their feedback and
then list their scam items.
1) Here anyway it's not rare to ship the same day and be received the next
one.
Why would it be 5 days minimum everywhere?
2) The majority of buyers don't hang out in forums and more generally on
BrickLink.
They order, then do something else and may not come back before their next order:
a few weeks or months later.
So, if by chance they come back couple days later and you forbid them to set
a feedback before any given delay, then they simply won't give feedback (too
late or simply forgot, or don't care much anymore).
Many complain not receiving enough; but this would create an extra drop in sellers
received feedbacks.
True, here parcels are frequently delivered 2-3 days after ordering.
But the bigger issue is still people that get scammed are the type of people
that don't look at feedback anyway. The lack of positive feedback from other
new accounts is not going to stop them being scammed.
And if such a rule did come in, what will happen? They will list regular priced
parts, sell to their other accounts, wait five days, leave their feedback and
then list their scam items.
I agree with you. But the point was doing something to encourage greater time
to detect behaviours. A 5 day window is better than a 1 day window is it not?
I agree with you. But the point was doing something to encourage greater time
to detect behaviours. A 5 day window is better than a 1 day window is it not?
This issue won't be fixed immediately but by not allowing a review of ANY
description 5 days after the commencement of a transaction, it gives Bricklink
5 days to detect and request proof of stock, rather than an innocent buyer parting
with his/her money.
1) Here anyway it's not rare to ship the same day and be received the next
one.
Why would it be 5 days minimum everywhere?
I mean you no disrespect here, you have been around since jesus played fullback
for Jerusalem. Your feedback is unequivocal. But we are talking about sets here,
not parts.
The issue was same day multiple feedback. Yes theoretically you can order/ship
and recieve the next day, which is 2 days. The issue is a scammer posting fraudulent
feedback to encourage the scam. These are not long term scams, this is a get
in and get out scam. Short play verses long play. Its Lego not a Straw purchase.
2) The majority of buyers don't hang out in forums and more generally on
BrickLink.
They order, then do something else and may not come back before their next order:
a few weeks or months later.
Nothing to do with a forum, it's about feedback. That is located as we both
know in the sellers profile
So, if by chance they come back couple days later and you forbid them to set
a feedback before any given delay, then they simply won't give feedback (too
late or simply forgot, or don't care much anymore).
There is no requirement for feedback anyways. The point is preventing deliberate
false feedback that facilitates a fraud against others. Unfortunately we will
just have to accept that.
Many complain not receiving enough; but this would create an extra drop in sellers
received feedbacks.
I don't think it will as drive through messages encourage this. Regardless
though we can encourage many things in life, doesnt mean its going to happen.
Hello, there is a store (linked below) which is putting up listings for some
sets well below normal prices today. I am concerned with some of its feedback,
like two reviews that say it is run by a scammer and the fact that there have
been three positive reviews posted within the past few hours. Is there a way
we can confirm if this is a legitimate seller? I just wouldn't want anyone
to be scammed or anyone's reputation to be harmed either way. Thanks.
P.S. sorry if I posted under the wrong topic, first time posting in the forum.
Its now the weekday, when are we going to get some follow up from this from Bricklink?
There has been 50+ orders on that store and the fake reviews are even worse.
The only positive reviews are from the same 10 ish accounts that also only have
feedback from the store, which also conveniently will pay whenever subscribe
says the store is a scam. This is a really bad look for the site if they can't
settle this today.
Hello, there is a store (linked below) which is putting up listings for some
sets well below normal prices today. I am concerned with some of its feedback,
like two reviews that say it is run by a scammer and the fact that there have
been three positive reviews posted within the past few hours. Is there a way
we can confirm if this is a legitimate seller? I just wouldn't want anyone
to be scammed or anyone's reputation to be harmed either way. Thanks.
Hello, there is a store (linked below) which is putting up listings for some
sets well below normal prices today. I am concerned with some of its feedback,
like two reviews that say it is run by a scammer and the fact that there have
been three positive reviews posted within the past few hours. Is there a way
we can confirm if this is a legitimate seller? I just wouldn't want anyone
to be scammed or anyone's reputation to be harmed either way. Thanks.
Hello, there is a store (linked below) which is putting up listings for some
sets well below normal prices today. I am concerned with some of its feedback,
like two reviews that say it is run by a scammer and the fact that there have
been three positive reviews posted within the past few hours. Is there a way
we can confirm if this is a legitimate seller? I just wouldn't want anyone
to be scammed or anyone's reputation to be harmed either way. Thanks.
P.S. sorry if I posted under the wrong topic, first time posting in the forum.
Store is finally suspended
Finally, I hope Bricklink is able to address this and prevent it from happening
again, because I might lose faith in them to run this site.
Hopefully they do, I agree it’s something that looses a bit of faith in bricklink
for such a massive hole in security on such a massive marketplace to not have
a single person who at the very least is notified for situations like this so
they can take quick action. I understand not responding to helpdesk messages
and the like but reports of scammers horribly ruining the reputation of bricklink
and causing lots of hassle for people and lining the pocket of scammer is just
sad
Hello, there is a store (linked below) which is putting up listings for some
sets well below normal prices today. I am concerned with some of its feedback,
like two reviews that say it is run by a scammer and the fact that there have
been three positive reviews posted within the past few hours. Is there a way
we can confirm if this is a legitimate seller? I just wouldn't want anyone
to be scammed or anyone's reputation to be harmed either way. Thanks.
Hello, there is a store (linked below) which is putting up listings for some
sets well below normal prices today. I am concerned with some of its feedback,
like two reviews that say it is run by a scammer and the fact that there have
been three positive reviews posted within the past few hours. Is there a way
we can confirm if this is a legitimate seller? I just wouldn't want anyone
to be scammed or anyone's reputation to be harmed either way. Thanks.
Hello, there is a store (linked below) which is putting up listings for some
sets well below normal prices today. I am concerned with some of its feedback,
like two reviews that say it is run by a scammer and the fact that there have
been three positive reviews posted within the past few hours. Is there a way
we can confirm if this is a legitimate seller? I just wouldn't want anyone
to be scammed or anyone's reputation to be harmed either way. Thanks.
Hello, there is a store (linked below) which is putting up listings for some
sets well below normal prices today. I am concerned with some of its feedback,
like two reviews that say it is run by a scammer and the fact that there have
been three positive reviews posted within the past few hours. Is there a way
we can confirm if this is a legitimate seller? I just wouldn't want anyone
to be scammed or anyone's reputation to be harmed either way. Thanks.
P.S. sorry if I posted under the wrong topic, first time posting in the forum.
Store is finally suspended
Every account that left positive feedback should be suspended as well
Yes, but then so should the vigilantes placing orders then immediately leaving
negative feedback. No matter how good their intentions, it is wrong to set up
accounts to unofficially police the site outside of the reporting system.
Hello, there is a store (linked below) which is putting up listings for some
sets well below normal prices today. I am concerned with some of its feedback,
like two reviews that say it is run by a scammer and the fact that there have
been three positive reviews posted within the past few hours. Is there a way
we can confirm if this is a legitimate seller? I just wouldn't want anyone
to be scammed or anyone's reputation to be harmed either way. Thanks.
P.S. sorry if I posted under the wrong topic, first time posting in the forum.
Store is finally suspended
Every account that left positive feedback should be suspended as well
Yes, but then so should the vigilantes placing orders then immediately leaving
negative feedback. No matter how good their intentions, it is wrong to set up
accounts to unofficially police the site outside of the reporting system.
You are so wrong. The Mens Rea is wholly different. Doesn't make it right
but the motivations are wholly different and without intent to defraud anyone.
Yes, but then so should the vigilantes placing orders then immediately leaving
negative feedback. No matter how good their intentions, it is wrong to set up
accounts to unofficially police the site outside of the reporting system.
You are so wrong. The Mens Rea is wholly different. Doesn't make it right
but the motivations are wholly different and without intent to defraud anyone.
I'm not wrong. Opening new accounts to place orders for the sole purpose
of leaving negative feedback or clearing out a store's inventory is against
the terms of the site. Their intention when doing so is irrelevant, breaking
rules to get the outcome they want is wrong. There have been such attacks in
the past where the vigilantes were wrong. If reported and bricklink take action,
then any consequences are between BL and the user. Individuals should not be
taking their own actions against other users outside of the official reporting
system.
Yes, but then so should the vigilantes placing orders then immediately leaving
negative feedback. No matter how good their intentions, it is wrong to set up
accounts to unofficially police the site outside of the reporting system.
You are so wrong. The Mens Rea is wholly different. Doesn't make it right
but the motivations are wholly different and without intent to defraud anyone.
I'm not wrong. Opening new accounts to place orders for the sole purpose
of leaving negative feedback or clearing out a store's inventory is against
the terms of the site. Their intention when doing so is irrelevant, breaking
rules to get the outcome they want is wrong. There have been such attacks in
the past where the vigilantes were wrong. If reported and bricklink take action,
then any consequences are between BL and the user. Individuals should not be
taking their own actions against other users outside of the official reporting
system.
Yes, but then so should the vigilantes placing orders then immediately leaving
negative feedback. No matter how good their intentions, it is wrong to set up
accounts to unofficially police the site outside of the reporting system.
You are so wrong. The Mens Rea is wholly different. Doesn't make it right
but the motivations are wholly different and without intent to defraud anyone.
I'm not wrong. Opening new accounts to place orders for the sole purpose
of leaving negative feedback or clearing out a store's inventory is against
the terms of the site. Their intention when doing so is irrelevant, breaking
rules to get the outcome they want is wrong. There have been such attacks in
the past where the vigilantes were wrong. If reported and bricklink take action,
then any consequences are between BL and the user. Individuals should not be
taking their own actions against other users outside of the official reporting
system.
I made my comment about people leaving "negative" feedback to act in
a vigilante fashion when Bricklink staff were not around.
Your are 100% correct about those who aid and abet potential scams using "positive"
feedbacks.
Yes, but then so should the vigilantes placing orders then immediately leaving
negative feedback. No matter how good their intentions, it is wrong to set up
accounts to unofficially police the site outside of the reporting system.
You are so wrong. The Mens Rea is wholly different. Doesn't make it right
but the motivations are wholly different and without intent to defraud anyone.
I'm not wrong. Opening new accounts to place orders for the sole purpose
of leaving negative feedback or clearing out a store's inventory is against
the terms of the site. Their intention when doing so is irrelevant, breaking
rules to get the outcome they want is wrong. There have been such attacks in
the past where the vigilantes were wrong. If reported and bricklink take action,
then any consequences are between BL and the user. Individuals should not be
taking their own actions against other users outside of the official reporting
system.
I made my comment about people leaving "negative" feedback to act in
a vigilante fashion when Bricklink staff were not around.
It's well understood from yorbrick and me, and no - it's not allowed.
Scams and problems are to be reported.
Yes, but then so should the vigilantes placing orders then immediately leaving
negative feedback. No matter how good their intentions, it is wrong to set up
accounts to unofficially police the site outside of the reporting system.
You are so wrong. The Mens Rea is wholly different. Doesn't make it right
but the motivations are wholly different and without intent to defraud anyone.
I'm not wrong. Opening new accounts to place orders for the sole purpose
of leaving negative feedback or clearing out a store's inventory is against
the terms of the site. Their intention when doing so is irrelevant, breaking
rules to get the outcome they want is wrong. There have been such attacks in
the past where the vigilantes were wrong. If reported and bricklink take action,
then any consequences are between BL and the user. Individuals should not be
taking their own actions against other users outside of the official reporting
system.
I made my comment about people leaving "negative" feedback to act in
a vigilante fashion when Bricklink staff were not around.
It's well understood from yorbrick and me, and no - it's not allowed.
Scams and problems are to be reported.
Yes, but then so should the vigilantes placing orders then immediately leaving
negative feedback. No matter how good their intentions, it is wrong to set up
accounts to unofficially police the site outside of the reporting system.
You are so wrong. The Mens Rea is wholly different. Doesn't make it right
but the motivations are wholly different and without intent to defraud anyone.
I'm not wrong. Opening new accounts to place orders for the sole purpose
of leaving negative feedback or clearing out a store's inventory is against
the terms of the site. Their intention when doing so is irrelevant, breaking
rules to get the outcome they want is wrong. There have been such attacks in
the past where the vigilantes were wrong. If reported and bricklink take action,
then any consequences are between BL and the user. Individuals should not be
taking their own actions against other users outside of the official reporting
system.
I made my comment about people leaving "negative" feedback to act in
a vigilante fashion when Bricklink staff were not around.
It's well understood from yorbrick and me, and no - it's not allowed.
Scams and problems are to be reported.
... as accounts just made to create a warning with a Negative feedback should
also be removed; as they're not allowed. Just unregister those fake accounts,
I'm not talking about merging and making those guys a lot of problems.
And apart if Russell 'offically' encourages to do so, but then it's
another matter.
Yes, but then so should the vigilantes placing orders then immediately leaving
negative feedback. No matter how good their intentions, it is wrong to set up
accounts to unofficially police the site outside of the reporting system.
You are so wrong. The Mens Rea is wholly different. Doesn't make it right
but the motivations are wholly different and without intent to defraud anyone.
I'm not wrong. Opening new accounts to place orders for the sole purpose
of leaving negative feedback or clearing out a store's inventory is against
the terms of the site. Their intention when doing so is irrelevant, breaking
rules to get the outcome they want is wrong. There have been such attacks in
the past where the vigilantes were wrong. If reported and bricklink take action,
then any consequences are between BL and the user. Individuals should not be
taking their own actions against other users outside of the official reporting
system.
I made my comment about people leaving "negative" feedback to act in
a vigilante fashion when Bricklink staff were not around.
It's well understood from yorbrick and me, and no - it's not allowed.
Scams and problems are to be reported.
... as accounts just made to create a warning with a Negative feedback should
also be removed; as they're not allowed. Just unregister those fake accounts,
I'm not talking about merging and making those guys a lot of problems.
And apart if Russell 'offically' encourages to do so, but then it's
another matter.
Let me clarify what you believe you are saying and what I think you are saying.
1. Its wrong to have a scammy account for dishonest purposes. (we can both 100%
agree on that).
2. Its wrong for others knowing its a scammy account to leave or encourage to
leave postive feedback on the scammy account to give it credibility, particularly
when that positive feedback is left after a bogus cancelled order. (i agree its
wrong) (am I understanding you so far?)
3. Its wrong for other to act in a vigilante movement and leave negative feedback
on a scammy accounts and should also suffer the consequences of the scammy account
holder , ie: ban (this I dont agree with)
4. Its wrong to open a fake/multiple accounts with the intention to leave negative
feedback on a scammy account and because that person regardless of good/bad intentions
should also be banned because he/she had fake accounts (I partially agree with
this). The sanctity of the ToS should always be protected. Its the rule of law
for a lack of better words.
Yes those fake accounts should be closed...obviously. But the person who committed
that should not be banned because whilst they clearly broke some laws, it was
not their intention to harm Bricklink or others.
Yes, but then so should the vigilantes placing orders then immediately leaving
negative feedback. No matter how good their intentions, it is wrong to set up
accounts to unofficially police the site outside of the reporting system.
You are so wrong. The Mens Rea is wholly different. Doesn't make it right
but the motivations are wholly different and without intent to defraud anyone.
I'm not wrong. Opening new accounts to place orders for the sole purpose
of leaving negative feedback or clearing out a store's inventory is against
the terms of the site. Their intention when doing so is irrelevant, breaking
rules to get the outcome they want is wrong. There have been such attacks in
the past where the vigilantes were wrong. If reported and bricklink take action,
then any consequences are between BL and the user. Individuals should not be
taking their own actions against other users outside of the official reporting
system.
I made my comment about people leaving "negative" feedback to act in
a vigilante fashion when Bricklink staff were not around.
It's well understood from yorbrick and me, and no - it's not allowed.
Scams and problems are to be reported.
... as accounts just made to create a warning with a Negative feedback should
also be removed; as they're not allowed. Just unregister those fake accounts,
I'm not talking about merging and making those guys a lot of problems.
And apart if Russell 'offically' encourages to do so, but then it's
another matter.
Let me clarify what you believe you are saying and what I think you are saying.
1. Its wrong to have a scammy account for dishonest purposes. (we can both 100%
agree on that).
2. Its wrong for others knowing its a scammy account to leave or encourage to
leave postive feedback on the scammy account to give it credibility, particularly
when that positive feedback is left after a bogus cancelled order. (i agree its
wrong) (am I understanding you so far?)
3. Its wrong for other to act in a vigilante movement and leave negative feedback
on a scammy accounts and should also suffer the consequences of the scammy account
holder , ie: ban (this I dont agree with)
I didn't read "the scammy account holder" should be banned or such.
1) Chances are they don't know who it is, or don't care because it's
not important (here).
2) I said (and yorbrick also if I understood well) that those dummy accounts
should be unregistered. That's it.
And NOT the 'holder' who has created a second account.
Yes, but then so should the vigilantes placing orders then immediately leaving
negative feedback. No matter how good their intentions, it is wrong to set up
accounts to unofficially police the site outside of the reporting system.
You are so wrong. The Mens Rea is wholly different. Doesn't make it right
but the motivations are wholly different and without intent to defraud anyone.
I'm not wrong. Opening new accounts to place orders for the sole purpose
of leaving negative feedback or clearing out a store's inventory is against
the terms of the site. Their intention when doing so is irrelevant, breaking
rules to get the outcome they want is wrong. There have been such attacks in
the past where the vigilantes were wrong. If reported and bricklink take action,
then any consequences are between BL and the user. Individuals should not be
taking their own actions against other users outside of the official reporting
system.
I made my comment about people leaving "negative" feedback to act in
a vigilante fashion when Bricklink staff were not around.
It's well understood from yorbrick and me, and no - it's not allowed.
Scams and problems are to be reported.
... as accounts just made to create a warning with a Negative feedback should
also be removed; as they're not allowed. Just unregister those fake accounts,
I'm not talking about merging and making those guys a lot of problems.
And apart if Russell 'offically' encourages to do so, but then it's
another matter.
Let me clarify what you believe you are saying and what I think you are saying.
1. Its wrong to have a scammy account for dishonest purposes. (we can both 100%
agree on that).
2. Its wrong for others knowing its a scammy account to leave or encourage to
leave postive feedback on the scammy account to give it credibility, particularly
when that positive feedback is left after a bogus cancelled order. (i agree its
wrong) (am I understanding you so far?)
3. Its wrong for other to act in a vigilante movement and leave negative feedback
on a scammy accounts and should also suffer the consequences of the scammy account
holder , ie: ban (this I dont agree with)
I didn't read "the scammy account holder" should be banned or such.
1) Chances are they don't know who it is, or don't care because it's
not important (here).
2) I said (and yorbrick also if I understood well) that those dummy accounts
should be unregistered. That's it.
And NOT the 'holder' who has created a second account.
OK, too tiring. Seems we need a chill in forum
I agree. We can agree that we are disagreeing and others may agree or disagree
in agreeance.
I made my comment about people leaving "negative" feedback to act in
a vigilante fashion when Bricklink staff were not around.
Your are 100% correct about those who aid and abet potential scams using "positive"
feedbacks.
I think we are having a misunderstanding
People using fake accounts to leave false positive feedback are in the wrong.
This is presumably the scammer. The scam account and all the other accounts leaving
positive feedback should be banned.
People using fake accounts to leave negative feedback are also in the wrong.
These are vigilantes and are no doubt doing it with fake details so nobody knows
who is controlling those accounts. The fake accounts should be banned. In my
view, if they could be linked to a main ID, the main ID should also be banned.
But I imagine they are being done through a VPN with false email, name and address
to avoid any trace so nothing can be done about them.
Nobody should be setting up fake accounts because they think their reports of
scams are not being acted on, or BL is too slow to act on them. Report and leave
it at that.
And using false IDs for buying up a scammer's stock doesn't stop scams
at all. It is non existing stock. If it is removed because a vigilante places
an order for it, the scammer will just list it again. That action might even
cause people to be scammed, as they see the stock disappearing so fast in the
time between adding it to their cart and checking out and so they think it must
be a great deal as others are buying it so fast. Then when it appears again they
need to act fast to check out before someone else buys it, so they don't
get time to check feedback or other flags. Or if they do check negative feedback
and see it is from one ID that was newly set up, why is that feedback any more
believable than all of the positive (scam) feedback?
And the buyer about to be scammed, if they check further in the price guide,
they see (fake) sales at really good prices, so they see many other people have
been able to buy at such a low price. It is not too good to be true as others
are benefiting from it. They might even see people buying multiple copies of
the set at that low price, so think that presumably dealers are also getting
great deals and those dealers would be experienced enough to check. And so they
fall for the scam because the vigilante is making them look like real sales.
Even though the vigilante thinks they are doing what they are doing for good
reasons (stopping others getting scammed), they might be contributing to it by
tricking them into acting fast and without thinking.
I made my comment about people leaving "negative" feedback to act in
a vigilante fashion when Bricklink staff were not around.
Your are 100% correct about those who aid and abet potential scams using "positive"
feedbacks.
I think we are having a misunderstanding
People using fake accounts to leave false positive feedback are in the wrong.
This is presumably the scammer. The scam account and all the other accounts leaving
positive feedback should be banned.
People using fake accounts to leave negative feedback are also in the wrong.
These are vigilantes and are no doubt doing it with fake details so nobody knows
who is controlling those accounts. The fake accounts should be banned. In my
view, if they could be linked to a main ID, the main ID should also be banned.
But I imagine they are being done through a VPN with false email, name and address
to avoid any trace so nothing can be done about them.
Nobody should be setting up fake accounts because they think their reports of
scams are not being acted on, or BL is too slow to act on them. Report and leave
it at that.
And using false IDs for buying up a scammer's stock doesn't stop scams
at all. It is non existing stock. If it is removed because a vigilante places
an order for it, the scammer will just list it again. That action might even
cause people to be scammed, as they see the stock disappearing so fast in the
time between adding it to their cart and checking out and so they think it must
be a great deal as others are buying it so fast. Then when it appears again they
need to act fast to check out before someone else buys it, so they don't
get time to check feedback or other flags. Or if they do check negative feedback
and see it is from one ID that was newly set up, why is that feedback any more
believable than all of the positive (scam) feedback?
And the buyer about to be scammed, if they check further in the price guide,
they see (fake) sales at really good prices, so they see many other people have
been able to buy at such a low price. It is not too good to be true as others
are benefiting from it. They might even see people buying multiple copies of
the set at that low price, so think that presumably dealers are also getting
great deals and those dealers would be experienced enough to check. And so they
fall for the scam because the vigilante is making them look like real sales.
Even though the vigilante thinks they are doing what they are doing for good
reasons (stopping others getting scammed), they might be contributing to it by
tricking them into acting fast and without thinking.
Yes, but then so should the vigilantes placing orders then immediately leaving
negative feedback. No matter how good their intentions, it is wrong to set up
accounts to unofficially police the site outside of the reporting system.
Agreed, it's not allowed.
But then it could have helped - apart it probably didn't help at all.
Buyers getting scammed for sure have seen AT-OT at $650, but they didn't
have a single look at the Feedback Profile, neither understood (how could they?)
the 88.24% score which SEEMS to be good or at least acceptable score.
As soon as a shop has a few points in feedback score, it can sell litteraly anything
and only a few - like us here - will check.
The whole shebang should be reviewed.
Yes, but then so should the vigilantes placing orders then immediately leaving
negative feedback. No matter how good their intentions, it is wrong to set up
accounts to unofficially police the site outside of the reporting system.
Agreed, it's not allowed.
But then it could have helped - apart it probably didn't help at all.
Buyers getting scammed for sure have seen AT-OT at $650, but they didn't
have a single look at the Feedback Profile, neither understood (how could they?)
the 88.24% score which SEEMS to be good or at least acceptable score.
As soon as a shop has a few points in feedback score, it can sell litteraly anything
and only a few - like us here - will check.
The whole shebang should be reviewed.
You mean something like a popup by Bricklink just before payment in the ordering
stage to show a buyer exactly what who he is dealing with as far as reviews?
I think that is where it is needed rather than when potential buyers are just
reviewing sets before ordering.
Yes, but then so should the vigilantes placing orders then immediately leaving
negative feedback. No matter how good their intentions, it is wrong to set up
accounts to unofficially police the site outside of the reporting system.
Agreed, it's not allowed.
But then it could have helped - apart it probably didn't help at all.
Buyers getting scammed for sure have seen AT-OT at $650, but they didn't
have a single look at the Feedback Profile, neither understood (how could they?)
the 88.24% score which SEEMS to be good or at least acceptable score.
As soon as a shop has a few points in feedback score, it can sell litteraly anything
and only a few - like us here - will check.
The whole shebang should be reviewed.
You mean something like a popup by Bricklink just before payment in the ordering
stage to show a buyer exactly what who he is dealing with as far as reviews?
Something like that, or a different notation system.
As I suggested here, a simple 5 stars system which is more obvious than 88.24%,
and where in this case (I didn't calculate) but this shop should show 0.5
star on 5 maybe due to recent negatives.
At least, when people see a 0.5 star product on Amazon, they rarely or never
buy it anymore.
So it's both the calculation and the apparence which must change (IMO):
Yes, but then so should the vigilantes placing orders then immediately leaving
negative feedback. No matter how good their intentions, it is wrong to set up
accounts to unofficially police the site outside of the reporting system.
Agreed, it's not allowed.
But then it could have helped - apart it probably didn't help at all.
Buyers getting scammed for sure have seen AT-OT at $650, but they didn't
have a single look at the Feedback Profile, neither understood (how could they?)
the 88.24% score which SEEMS to be good or at least acceptable score.
As soon as a shop has a few points in feedback score, it can sell litteraly anything
and only a few - like us here - will check.
The whole shebang should be reviewed.
You mean something like a popup by Bricklink just before payment in the ordering
stage to show a buyer exactly what who he is dealing with as far as reviews?
Something like that, or a different notation system.
As I suggested here, a simple 5 stars system which is more obvious than 88.24%,
and where in this case (I didn't calculate) but this shop should show 0.5
star on 5 maybe due to recent negatives.
At least, when people see a 0.5 star product on Amazon, they rarely or never
buy it anymore.
So it's both the calculation and the apparence which must change (IMO):
So an equation based on time as a seller X amount of sales/purchases X feedback
less negative and neutral behaviour. Of course another part of that equation
should be if the store has been on volunatary closure or inactively for a period
of 60 days or more which should affect that same score.
Its too easy to lay in the weeds and do nothing and then represent yourself as
a long standing bonafide account with credible feedback.
Yes, but then so should the vigilantes placing orders then immediately leaving
negative feedback. No matter how good their intentions, it is wrong to set up
accounts to unofficially police the site outside of the reporting system.
Agreed, it's not allowed.
But then it could have helped - apart it probably didn't help at all.
Buyers getting scammed for sure have seen AT-OT at $650, but they didn't
have a single look at the Feedback Profile, neither understood (how could they?)
the 88.24% score which SEEMS to be good or at least acceptable score.
As soon as a shop has a few points in feedback score, it can sell litteraly anything
and only a few - like us here - will check.
The whole shebang should be reviewed.
You mean something like a popup by Bricklink just before payment in the ordering
stage to show a buyer exactly what who he is dealing with as far as reviews?
Something like that, or a different notation system.
As I suggested here, a simple 5 stars system which is more obvious than 88.24%,
and where in this case (I didn't calculate) but this shop should show 0.5
star on 5 maybe due to recent negatives.
At least, when people see a 0.5 star product on Amazon, they rarely or never
buy it anymore.
So it's both the calculation and the apparence which must change (IMO):
So an equation based on time as a seller X amount of sales/purchases X feedback
less negative and neutral behaviour. Of course another part of that equation
should be if the store has been on volunatary closure or inactively for a period
of 60 days or more which should affect that same score.
Its too easy to lay in the weeds and do nothing and then represent yourself as
a long standing bonafide account with credible feedback.
Or maybe a system where 3 forum mods or members with 10,000+ feedback (always
making at least 1 a forum mod) report a store that it then gets a temporary lockdown
until bricklink can look at it
Yes, but then so should the vigilantes placing orders then immediately leaving
negative feedback. No matter how good their intentions, it is wrong to set up
accounts to unofficially police the site outside of the reporting system.
Agreed, it's not allowed.
But then it could have helped - apart it probably didn't help at all.
Buyers getting scammed for sure have seen AT-OT at $650, but they didn't
have a single look at the Feedback Profile, neither understood (how could they?)
the 88.24% score which SEEMS to be good or at least acceptable score.
As soon as a shop has a few points in feedback score, it can sell litteraly anything
and only a few - like us here - will check.
The whole shebang should be reviewed.
You mean something like a popup by Bricklink just before payment in the ordering
stage to show a buyer exactly what who he is dealing with as far as reviews?
Something like that, or a different notation system.
As I suggested here, a simple 5 stars system which is more obvious than 88.24%,
and where in this case (I didn't calculate) but this shop should show 0.5
star on 5 maybe due to recent negatives.
At least, when people see a 0.5 star product on Amazon, they rarely or never
buy it anymore.
So it's both the calculation and the apparence which must change (IMO):
So an equation based on time as a seller X amount of sales/purchases X feedback
less negative and neutral behaviour. Of course another part of that equation
should be if the store has been on volunatary closure or inactively for a period
of 60 days or more which should affect that same score.
Its too easy to lay in the weeds and do nothing and then represent yourself as
a long standing bonafide account with credible feedback.
Or maybe a system where 3 forum mods or members with 10,000+ feedback (always
making at least 1 a forum mod) report a store that it then gets a temporary lockdown
until bricklink can look at it
Yes, and/or an extended Forum Mod power.
But then it's an important responsability, and that would probably require
some monetary compensation, which may change the status of (those at least) Forum
Mods...
Once upon a time there was a Cummunity Overseer, Mnemeth (Troy) - a great guy,
really!
I'm sure he had this kind of power. Maybe it could be this specific role?
Yes, but then so should the vigilantes placing orders then immediately leaving
negative feedback. No matter how good their intentions, it is wrong to set up
accounts to unofficially police the site outside of the reporting system.
Agreed, it's not allowed.
But then it could have helped - apart it probably didn't help at all.
Buyers getting scammed for sure have seen AT-OT at $650, but they didn't
have a single look at the Feedback Profile, neither understood (how could they?)
the 88.24% score which SEEMS to be good or at least acceptable score.
As soon as a shop has a few points in feedback score, it can sell litteraly anything
and only a few - like us here - will check.
The whole shebang should be reviewed.
You mean something like a popup by Bricklink just before payment in the ordering
stage to show a buyer exactly what who he is dealing with as far as reviews?
Something like that, or a different notation system.
As I suggested here, a simple 5 stars system which is more obvious than 88.24%,
and where in this case (I didn't calculate) but this shop should show 0.5
star on 5 maybe due to recent negatives.
At least, when people see a 0.5 star product on Amazon, they rarely or never
buy it anymore.
So it's both the calculation and the apparence which must change (IMO):
So an equation based on time as a seller X amount of sales/purchases X feedback
less negative and neutral behaviour. Of course another part of that equation
should be if the store has been on volunatary closure or inactively for a period
of 60 days or more which should affect that same score.
Its too easy to lay in the weeds and do nothing and then represent yourself as
a long standing bonafide account with credible feedback.
Or maybe a system where 3 forum mods or members with 10,000+ feedback (always
making at least 1 a forum mod) report a store that it then gets a temporary lockdown
until bricklink can look at it
Yes, and/or an extended Forum Mod power.
But then it's an important responsability, and that would probably require
some monetary compensation, which may change the status of (those at least) Forum
Mods...
Once upon a time there was a Cummunity Overseer, Mnemeth (Troy) - a great guy,
really!
I'm sure he had this kind of power. Maybe it could be this specific role?
And if not given to 1 person the multi person approach always include a mod would
prevent abuse but allow for “quick” resolutions
Or maybe a system where 3 forum mods or members with 10,000+ feedback (always
making at least 1 a forum mod) report a store that it then gets a temporary lockdown
until bricklink can look at it
Yes, and/or an extended Forum Mod power.
But then it's an important responsability, and that would probably require
some monetary compensation, which may change the status of (those at least) Forum
Mods...
Once upon a time there was a Cummunity Overseer, Mnemeth (Troy) - a great guy,
really!
I'm sure he had this kind of power. Maybe it could be this specific role?
And if not given to 1 person the multi person approach always include a mod would
prevent abuse but allow for “quick” resolutions
Or maybe a system where 3 forum mods or members with 10,000+ feedback (always
making at least 1 a forum mod) report a store that it then gets a temporary lockdown
until bricklink can look at it
Yes, and/or an extended Forum Mod power.
But then it's an important responsability, and that would probably require
some monetary compensation, which may change the status of (those at least) Forum
Mods...
Once upon a time there was a Cummunity Overseer, Mnemeth (Troy) - a great guy,
really!
I'm sure he had this kind of power. Maybe it could be this specific role?
And if not given to 1 person the multi person approach always include a mod would
prevent abuse but allow for “quick” resolutions
Yes but then the Mod should be a *real* seller.
I would do it. I have way to much spare time on my hands. I accept remuneration in lego vip points and scooby snacks.
Yes, but then so should the vigilantes placing orders then immediately leaving
negative feedback. No matter how good their intentions, it is wrong to set up
accounts to unofficially police the site outside of the reporting system.
Agreed, it's not allowed.
But then it could have helped - apart it probably didn't help at all.
Buyers getting scammed for sure have seen AT-OT at $650, but they didn't
have a single look at the Feedback Profile, neither understood (how could they?)
the 88.24% score which SEEMS to be good or at least acceptable score.
As soon as a shop has a few points in feedback score, it can sell litteraly anything
and only a few - like us here - will check.
The whole shebang should be reviewed.
You mean something like a popup by Bricklink just before payment in the ordering
stage to show a buyer exactly what who he is dealing with as far as reviews?
Something like that, or a different notation system.
As I suggested here, a simple 5 stars system which is more obvious than 88.24%,
and where in this case (I didn't calculate) but this shop should show 0.5
star on 5 maybe due to recent negatives.
At least, when people see a 0.5 star product on Amazon, they rarely or never
buy it anymore.
So it's both the calculation and the apparence which must change (IMO):
So an equation based on time as a seller X amount of sales/purchases X feedback
less negative and neutral behaviour. Of course another part of that equation
should be if the store has been on volunatary closure or inactively for a period
of 60 days or more which should affect that same score.
Its too easy to lay in the weeds and do nothing and then represent yourself as
a long standing bonafide account with credible feedback.
Or maybe a system where 3 forum mods or members with 10,000+ feedback (always
making at least 1 a forum mod) report a store that it then gets a temporary lockdown
until bricklink can look at it
No one would be safe during periods of yoghurt toxicity or pineapple overdose.
Yes, but then so should the vigilantes placing orders then immediately leaving
negative feedback. No matter how good their intentions, it is wrong to set up
accounts to unofficially police the site outside of the reporting system.
Agreed, it's not allowed.
But then it could have helped - apart it probably didn't help at all.
Buyers getting scammed for sure have seen AT-OT at $650, but they didn't
have a single look at the Feedback Profile, neither understood (how could they?)
the 88.24% score which SEEMS to be good or at least acceptable score.
As soon as a shop has a few points in feedback score, it can sell litteraly anything
and only a few - like us here - will check.
The whole shebang should be reviewed.
You mean something like a popup by Bricklink just before payment in the ordering
stage to show a buyer exactly what who he is dealing with as far as reviews?
Something like that, or a different notation system.
As I suggested here, a simple 5 stars system which is more obvious than 88.24%,
and where in this case (I didn't calculate) but this shop should show 0.5
star on 5 maybe due to recent negatives.
At least, when people see a 0.5 star product on Amazon, they rarely or never
buy it anymore.
So it's both the calculation and the apparence which must change (IMO):
So an equation based on time as a seller X amount of sales/purchases X feedback
less negative and neutral behaviour.
My Suggestion wasn't about this, but to better note transactions instead
of having in short BAD/EXCELLENT, you would have 0 for negative and 5 positive
grades.
I talked above by error about "recent negatives", but no, this wouldn't
be related to time. Or could be accounted like in the current "new"
system in shop where you see only the last 6 months.
In this specific case, it may not have changed anything, or few: 4 stars on 5
is still reassuring. Depending how the calculation's done of course. One
thing's sure IMO: 88.24% doesn't mean anything. People don't read
words and numbers, but you see well 5 stars.
But you're free to propose any system you wish as a Suggestion.
Hello, there is a store (linked below) which is putting up listings for some
sets well below normal prices today. I am concerned with some of its feedback,
like two reviews that say it is run by a scammer and the fact that there have
been three positive reviews posted within the past few hours. Is there a way
we can confirm if this is a legitimate seller? I just wouldn't want anyone
to be scammed or anyone's reputation to be harmed either way. Thanks.
Now that they are shut down I expect they are ready to go again very soon, maybe
even this weekend.
Element of surprise and all that.
So many stores set up to feed fake feedback probably means they have many more
we don’t know about ready to strike again.
This is only my opinion but someone who went to this much trouble doesn’t give
up easily.
Hope I’m wrong.
In General, Your_Four writes:
Hello, there is a store (linked below) which is putting up listings for some
sets well below normal prices today. I am concerned with some of its feedback,
like two reviews that say it is run by a scammer and the fact that there have
been three positive reviews posted within the past few hours. Is there a way
we can confirm if this is a legitimate seller? I just wouldn't want anyone
to be scammed or anyone's reputation to be harmed either way. Thanks.
Now that they are shut down I expect they are ready to go again very soon, maybe
even this weekend.
Element of surprise and all that.
So many stores set up to feed fake feedback probably means they have many more
we don’t know about ready to strike again.
This is only my opinion but someone who went to this much trouble doesn’t give
up easily.
Hope I’m wrong.
In my countless experiences in criminality, you are right.
But they also evolve, they learn from past errors in that scheme and modify it.
The issue is not in detecting "who", but exactly how. That "how"
must be dealt with piece by piece. The "who" is never relevant.
The "who" always exposes themselves when the "how" is implemented
on various levels.
Respectfully, you can all think I am as opinionated as you want. But I have seen
this countless times in an organized trans national basis.
The real issue for Bricklink is the longer they leave it the faster others learn
and do the same thing. These type of things evolve.
This is not a victimless crime (or limited victims). The first victim is reputational
on the brand. That brand is all of us!
In General, Your_Four writes:
Hello, there is a store (linked below) which is putting up listings for some
sets well below normal prices today. I am concerned with some of its feedback,
like two reviews that say it is run by a scammer and the fact that there have
been three positive reviews posted within the past few hours. Is there a way
we can confirm if this is a legitimate seller? I just wouldn't want anyone
to be scammed or anyone's reputation to be harmed either way. Thanks.
Not the same thing but I learnt that criminals will often target victims more
than once.
It’s common practice for burglars to steal many things including old items of
little value.
They wait until the homeowner replaces the items then burgle the property a second
time to take all the new items, now valuable.
In General, ScubaSteve writes:
In General, Stuart9 writes:
Now that they are shut down I expect they are ready to go again very soon, maybe
even this weekend.
Element of surprise and all that.
So many stores set up to feed fake feedback probably means they have many more
we don’t know about ready to strike again.
This is only my opinion but someone who went to this much trouble doesn’t give
up easily.
Hope I’m wrong.
In my countless experiences in criminality, you are right.
But they also evolve, they learn from past errors in that scheme and modify it.
The issue is not in detecting "who", but exactly how. That "how"
must be dealt with piece by piece. The "who" is never relevant.
The "who" always exposes themselves when the "how" is implemented
on various levels.
Respectfully, you can all think I am as opinionated as you want. But I have seen
this countless times in an organized trans national basis.
The real issue for Bricklink is the longer they leave it the faster others learn
and do the same thing. These type of things evolve.
This is not a victimless crime (or limited victims). The first victim is reputational
on the brand. That brand is all of us!
In General, Your_Four writes:
Hello, there is a store (linked below) which is putting up listings for some
sets well below normal prices today. I am concerned with some of its feedback,
like two reviews that say it is run by a scammer and the fact that there have
been three positive reviews posted within the past few hours. Is there a way
we can confirm if this is a legitimate seller? I just wouldn't want anyone
to be scammed or anyone's reputation to be harmed either way. Thanks.
This one does hurt me as I have 8 of these in MSIB.
The cheapest and the reason I have 8 was I purchased them from Costco in the
dying days before retirement for $849/899 Canadian.
$500 usd is $717.57 currently that makes little sense.
I don't know how anyone can buy at that price for these aside from a liquidation
sale for that?
Before anyone says it, yes my bricklink price is ridiculous currently I admit
that. Its because I didn't want to sell low and didn't really know what
the canadian market was doing given there was little data to go by. I will have
to check this out now though.
USA
Austria, Wien
Belgium
Canada, Ontario
United Kingdom, England
France, Nouvelle-Aquitaine
