Also, maybe is this to solution to slow down the scammers. Can the knowledgeable
forum people can collaborate with me? For virtual pineapple pizza as reward.
I cannot think why buyer (seller do, buyers do not) would need to sent a 0 feedback
user any message other than scamming. So probably Bricklink can safely block
this function. Specially the new buyers are very vulnerable since they cannot
know all the ins and outs from the site.
Without effecting sellers sending messages to new buyers, and new buyers sending
legit questions to sellers. Sellers should be more knowledgeable to not being
scammed with this. If a seller sends scam messages, at least Bricklink knows
a lot more about this seller. If it is a hacked account, they can close it. If
it is probably the real scammer they can take legal action against this person.
Just my thoughts about this situation, and try to help make this site a better
place.
[…]
I cannot think why buyer (seller do, buyers do not) would need to sent a 0 feedback
user any message other than scamming. So probably Bricklink can safely block
this function. Specially the new buyers are very vulnerable since they cannot
know all the ins and outs from the site.
So you want to prevent 0-feedback users from receiving messages. Not
being able to send messages is already a pain to them.
Without effecting sellers sending messages to new buyers, and new buyers sending
legit questions to sellers.
So they can’t receive messages except when they can…. How does the website know
what is what?
The website can’t recognize scam messages (or it would block tehm). The website
apparently can’t even filter out ‘bad’ URLs (or any URL) from messages.
Also, remember BL is not only a marketplace. There’s people using the Studio
Gallery who want to talk to each others by PM (to ask for instructions for instance).
Sometimes, both are 0-feedback users.
Sellers should be more knowledgeable to not being
scammed with this.
Unfortunately, that’s a wrong assumption.
Quite a few of the messages of people being scammed (or nearly scammed) were
from sellers. Some were new with just the 1 feedback necessary to become a seller
but, IIRC, there were people with way more than 1 feedback that fell for it.
If a seller sends scam messages, at least Bricklink knows
a lot more about this seller. If it is a hacked account, they can close it. If
it is probably the real scammer they can take legal action against this person.
Er, now we are back to sending messages?
Apparently, the scammers have a reserve of accounts, old enough to be able to
send messages. That’s why preventing new users from sending messages isn’t efficient.
Just my thoughts about this situation, and try to help make this site a better
place.
[…]
I cannot think why buyer (seller do, buyers do not) would need to sent a 0 feedback
user any message other than scamming. So probably Bricklink can safely block
this function. Specially the new buyers are very vulnerable since they cannot
know all the ins and outs from the site.
So you want to prevent 0-feedback users from receiving messages. Not
being able to send messages is already a pain to them.
Yes, buyers sending to other buyers with 0 feedback.
Without effecting sellers sending messages to new buyers, and new buyers sending
legit questions to sellers.
So they can’t receive messages except when they can…. How does the website know
what is what?
The website can’t recognize scam messages (or it would block tehm). The website
apparently can’t even filter out ‘bad’ URLs (or any URL) from messages.
Also, remember BL is not only a marketplace. There’s people using the Studio
Gallery who want to talk to each others by PM (to ask for instructions for instance).
Sometimes, both are 0-feedback users.
Thank you, this was the kind of input I was looking for. This makes my solution
not right and limiting for using studio gallery in a proper way. So my proposal
is not (part of) the solution.
Sellers should be more knowledgeable to not being
scammed with this.
Unfortunately, that’s a wrong assumption.
Quite a few of the messages of people being scammed (or nearly scammed) were
from sellers. Some were new with just the 1 feedback necessary to become a seller
but, IIRC, there were people with way more than 1 feedback that fell for it.
If a seller sends scam messages, at least Bricklink knows
a lot more about this seller. If it is a hacked account, they can close it. If
it is probably the real scammer they can take legal action against this person.
Er, now we are back to sending messages?
If a seller sends messages, Bricklink knows who this is (or should be). Every
seller had to send legal papers in order to be able to start selling. Except
when the seller account was hacked.
Apparently, the scammers have a reserve of accounts, old enough to be able to
send messages. That’s why preventing new users from sending messages isn’t efficient.
Just my thoughts about this situation, and try to help make this site a better
place.
There is a much simpler solution - as part of the registration there could be
a statement that you do not have to pay a fee to join bricklink and that you
do not have to make any payment to verify your account.
There is a much simpler solution - as part of the registration there could be
a statement that you do not have to pay a fee to join bricklink and that you
do not have to make any payment to verify your account.
You mean adding a small text on a web page? But but, spaghetti code!
Philippines, Metro Manila
France, Centre-Val de Loire
Netherlands, Noord-Holland
United Kingdom, England