Marketplace redo - Feedback
 

As discussed in the What is wrong here on NAM thread I've purchased some new software in an effort to improve the Marketplace. While I don't feel that its configured yet to go live I am opening it up so that you can try it out. I'd like your feedback on its features, what you see, ways you think it should be configured, additional categories, etc. I may not be able to implement everything you request but I would still like the feedback since often there is more than one way to do something.

Note: since its not launched I'll likely remove all ads once we get it configured as we want and am ready to launch it. Given this don't put in anything that you can't or won't be able to reenter later :wink:

Click here to see and try out the Marketplace

Thanks in advance for the feedback and taking the time to see if we can further improve the marketplace.

Mark

The format looks pretty good.
Is that how it will look on the forums page?

The "super sized" images aren't very big, is that just default and something that can be changed by you(Mark) to actual super sized images?

The above was copied from the What is wrong here on NAM thread.

Based on Gnatster's feedback I've enable ad creation by registered members of the site and changed the super-sized image width to 600 pixels.

Mark

I'll also mention that this software supports seller and buying ratings :thumbsup:

Mark

The only comments that should be allowed are the ones from members that are considering the item. All other ones should be removed.

I also think that comments about seeing the item for less somewhere else should be PM'd to the seller and not posted right in the seller's thread.

:grin:

although I'm one of the most vocal in the 'anti-grapping' camp, I disagree. Sometimes, sellers aren't very active and buyers have questions. As a member here, I try to put in a good word for the product, the seller, or just answer a question in general if it helps. I see no reason we should discourage this, even though this leaves things open to interpretation and abuse.


here's where I'll probably stick my foot in my mouth. :lol: there was a recent situation where a vendor here was selling some parts in the Marketplace 'on clearance, while supplies last'. Those very parts were on eBay for significantly less direct from the manufacturer. A veteran member posted this as a helpful FYI and the post was summarily deleted, ostensibly for breaking the brand new 'no ebay links' rule. (interestingly, the ebay auction was also pulled by the manufacturer...I bet they got a terse call from the vendor :nod:)

as a seller, I don't want people interfering with my thread in a negative way, but I'm also not out to make a buck. if someone is selling something for double the fair market rate, how do we handle that? my opinion.....caveat emptor...buyer beware. It's a sticky point as I'd want to know about a better deal, but I also understand we're walking a fine line here.

one example from last year....Edge/Haemish posted in a thread of mine trying to be helpful, but it served to tell people not to buy from me. :lol: We discussed it and worked it out, but even a site Admin with the best of intentions can hamper a for sale thread. I told him to close the thread and swore I'd never sell anything on NAM again. Turns out a local member saw that and PM'ed me a month later and was more than happy to buy from me. :cool:

IMO 'caveat emptor' and 'community' really don't go hand in hand.

"Welcome to our community. If you're lucky, you won't get screwed. Oh, you did? Sorry, you should have known better - go somewhere where people might help you out."

As I said before, that's what ebay is for. :nod: :wink:

the flip side is jerks making it a miserable place to try to sell parts. congrats for that accomplishment.

edit - I'd be happy to post examples from my own experience, though I think everybody understands the issue....the tough thing is working out a viable solution

I agree that the types of comments you stated above will help buyer and seller, I was even going to state something similar in my post.
Interpretation and abuse, definitely.

Buyer Beware applies everywhere, everyday.
The only difference when it's here on NAM is that for the most part the seller(like yourself) is not trying to make a buck, but trying to clear out the garage or just plain get rid of some stuff to buy new stuff.
What it comes down to is the buyer doing his research on prices new and used, and a lot of times the seller will post the price for the item new from the dealer.

I just don't see any reason for someone to come into a sellers' thread just to state that the item can be had for less somewhere else.
Maybe the seller didn't/doesn't know the going rate for the item, maybe the buyer doesn't know either. If a member feels the need to inform the buyer or seller(or both) that item is overpriced or whatever, then it should be sent in a PM to one or both parties involved.
I feel that it is a lack of respect and common courtesy to train wreck the sellers' thread by posting a lesser price found, right in the thread itself.

Is it so miserable that you find it more appealing to sell on Craigslist or Ebay? One can sell there with no fear of feedback. Perhaps I'm just more tolerant of the the peanut gallery.

There are certainly examples of adverse behavior, but that can be said of all forums, no?




Am I the only one who finds it amusing that someone with the location of 'Chief Pot Stirrer' is complaining about pot stirring?:)

it's true of all forums, but it's tolerated here more than any other forum I'm on for some reason. I've actually sold more parts for MINI's on Subaru and Honda forums, craigslist and eBay than here on NAM. True Story.

It's not 'fear of feedback' that's at issue here....it's the purposeful thread grapping and value/price statements that are. Example - I had a brand new set of wheels I put for sale here last spring....a set I waited more than six months to get them and were part of a special production run...only five sets ever made in that size/finish. I had a set of BBS LM's in the garage I was contemplating keeping, so I put up a post to sell the ones that finally came in (for what I paid, which was less than MSRP). I was chastised for selling them for a price close to what Tire Rack sells a generic, stocked version for.

What possible purpose does that type post have here on NAM? If a buyer thinks the Tire Rack option is better, well, by all means buy them there then, I'm not stopping you. Why post in my thread then? What I was selling as not that item. In fact, you couldn't by the item I was selling ANYWHERE but me, so making a value comparison is nothing more than saying "I don't like what you're selling and nobody else should either". That's thread grapping.

pot stirring and thread grapping are different things entirely, I assure you.

Something to this very day that I still regret, despite my good intentions. :sad: I'm very happy it all worked out in the end for you though. :)

example of what should not be ok on this forum:

As a buyer, I'd find that a valuable input. Especially in the case of a seller selling a used product for the same or more than it can be had for new. A newbie (or even a grizzled veteran) may not be aware of the latest 'deal'. Is the goal to create a MARKETPLACE, or a place for items to be sold at the highest possible amount (aka ebay, if your timing is right.)


There is no better practical way for someone to inform a prospective buyer of the 'going price' than to post it in the thread. The alternative would be to do a mass PM just in case someone was contemplating the purchase, which of course, is ridiculous.


Why is it more courteous to allow a buyer to pay more than the going price for a product than it is to inform him/her?
Did you object when a poster informed us of a great deal at discountiredirect? PGT himself took advantage of that info to get a great deal.
Note that IMO just informing people of a lower price does not equate to 'train wrecking' a thread. It most likely just means that the price will be lower. If said price is not high enough for the OP, he can revoke the sale try his luck on ebay.


I'll repeat that if one goal is to create a NAM community, that letting someone pay more than they need to for a product doesn't accomplish that goal. It's nice if a seller can recover more of their original cost rather than less, but it also is fertile ground for arbitrage. While that helps the arbitrager, it does NOT help the community.

Ok, I've even tried the Urban Dictionary, but I still can't find a definition of 'thread grapping' or 'grapping' - can you fill in my knowledge gap?

TIA!

grap = crap. thread crapping. just what it says... :lol:

edit....it's an internet meme that started with 'grap on my tired'

I agree with you re: grapping... that may be the biggest single challenge to selling product or services via NAM. Negative reactions to members/vendors engaged in it in the past have driven the offenders away...

What if there was a general understanding that the originator of a "for sale" thread has the authority to request moderator intervention and post trimming. If that privilege is abused, the vendor feedback system would surely get immediate and relevant attention.


I think pot stirring is a genetic trait for some....:razz:

Posts should be allowed. The type and tone need to be kept in check. So what if someone politely posts that at XYZ the same item brand new is $y less. That tells the OP and everyone else the market is lower. Now if the same person comes along posts. "You thief, how can you in good conscience try to sell that used ______ for more then a new one at retail" Well that would have to go, along with the mod sending a note to the offender why. Do it again lose marketplace posting permissions, incl listing, for 10 days, then 30 days then forever. Lot's of us sell parts to make room or finance new parts. We would care about losing the privilege.

As to the ability to setup auctions. Bad idea. Price should always be out in the open allowing the market to be set. It works as a guide for others that want to buy/sell the same or similar item.

The Super Size picture is still to small for details. Place the larger picture elsewhere in the page and make it as large as possible. If server space in the long run is an issue just delete the picture from the server when the listing expires.

why even offer photo hosting on NAM period when there's plenty of free options out there? tinypic.com, photobucket, flickr, etc.

FWIW, I agree that "that's not worth it" posts add no value. Especially in the realm of 'limited edition' type products. But then again are those more sacrosanct than was the MC40? As the first guideline says, 'Respect is Key', as it should be across the board.

Because some of those services don't always play well with forums. I've seen cases when flickr, detecting that a site like NAM is requesting the image, won't deliver the image..leaving holes in threads. Additionally, regardless of the storage impact, I prefer the photo storage on NAM since its less prone to user deletion...and therefore dropping images that made threads more meaningful. In the case of the marketplace the new software incorporates the ability to easily upload an image so that the description of the product can be more complete. While I know that some used photos in the current marketplace it was a bit more effort.

Also, while everyone's personal gallery has a quota the marketplace is treated as something different and does not do quota enforcement on the images that are uploaded as part of an ad. It does however resize to a max of 600 pixels wide. I can always up this to 800 if needed.

Mark

fair enough.

FWIW....Photobucket and others actually cater to forum users, even giving you markup tags and [img] coding for easy control v's into a reply.

Yeah...I've seen that :thumbsup: They've really picked up the ball in the last couple of years feature-wise. I wish that had more of a API to integrate more tightly with as that would really be ideal. Perhaps I should start offering the same thing...we've got more than 12GB and 38,000 images in the NAM galleries now :lol:

Mark