Forum menu
Mark - Resident GrumpyI'm happy to go with the vast majority on this one, which is what we have done.
Really, or just the whiney ones who moaned because someone pointed out they were overcharging for something?
I doubt that you'll get many people thanking the mods because someone chipped in with a suggestion that an item was cheaper elsewhere.
People tend to complain more than they thank.
From the threads I've seen the balance seems more in favour of those who agree with "the spoliers".
Shop analogy is irrelevant.
There is a difference between someone poking their nose in and someone stopping another user getting properly ripped off, first one is annoying and may prevent a sale, second one is the 'community' thing looking out for each other.
Have a poll.
I don't think it's a good idea.
So, people cannot comment if an item is a rip off.
What about if an item's inaccurately described? Evidently broken? What about profiteering (buying and selling at inflated prices)? suspected stolen?
[i]What about if an item's inaccurately described? Evidently broken? What about profiteering (buying and selling at inflated prices)? suspected stolen? [/i]
email the mods in advance and ask them?
There is a difference between someone poking their nose in and someone stopping another user getting properly ripped off, first one is annoying and may prevent a sale, second one is the 'community' thing looking out for each other.
When someone points out that they can buy X for £1 cheaper online, which camp does that fall into? There are many times more of those than the actual cases of anyone being ripped off.
Please bear in mind that the way this rule will work is that the seller will report the spoiler to us. We will then look at the post and make a judgement. If we feel there is a case for being 'ripped off' as opposed to the former 'annoying' spoiler then we won't act in the sellers' favour. Thankfully, the 'rip off' incidences are a tiny proportion of the reports compared to those of the annoying kind.
And on that note, having debated it enough myself. I'll leave it to you guys to thrash out the rest of the debate - I need to go and write the new rule into the Forum Rules page before I go home 🙂
Interesting post just arrived on this one;
[url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/evil-sovereign-m-2010-200 ]http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/evil-sovereign-m-2010-200[/url]
is it a spoiler to point ou thtat description has changed since last advertised?
Have a poll.I don't think it's a good idea.
+1
Are the complainers also the regular traders?
This one that was moaning about it yesterday was,
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/thomson-stem-70mm-machined-and-easton-bars
Strange how the regular traders like to moan about things like this despite it being against the forum rules to use it for trading only!
[quote=notmyrealname ]Are the complainers also the regular traders?
This one that was moaning about it yesterday was,
> http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/thomson-stem-70mm-machined-and-easton-bars
Strange how the regular traders like to moan about things like this despite it being against the forum rules to use it for trading only!
Perfect example of all that's been said here
This one that was moaning about it yesterday was,http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/thomson-stem-70mm-machined-and-easton-bars
Strange how the regular traders like to moan about things like this despite it being against the forum rules to use it for trading only!
😳 - quoting a price which is evidently wrong and getting a hump on when someone corrects the mistake
[i]Strange how the regular traders like to moan about things like this despite it being against the forum rules to use it for trading only! [/i]
Report them for breaking the rules?
Thinking laterally, why not embrace the critics here by enlisting them as voluntary Classifieds Mods?
Give them the power to change prices in adverts to a level they deem acceptable - whether the seller likes it or not.
But seriously, I do think this goes against the community aspect of the forum a bit.
Wow that thread has just had some follow-up posts removed too - like the one thanking Holyzeus for intervening.
[quote=wwaswas ]
Report them for breaking the rules?
Reports are routinely ignored.
This one that was moaning about it yesterday was,http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/thomson-stem-70mm-machined-and-easton-bars
Strange how the regular traders like to moan about things like this despite it being against the forum rules to use it for trading only!
Its people trading like this that should get warned and banned IMO!
I've got to agree. There's a difference between someone saying something is a quid cheaper on Wiggle and someone offering used kit for 30% more than you can buy it new. If the majority of sellers complaining are not people who almost exclusively post on the classifieds then fair enough. Likewise, if the trade sellers (as they clearly often are) are paying STW then also fair enough and they can have their say but is that really the case?
+1 for a poll.
Im all for Mark's Autocratic Kingdom, but he surely cant be afraid of a little crowd-sourced input here?
Good troll that Mark
EDIT: In all seriousness why not weed out all the folk that only trade on here, surely this can't be a top STW priority.
[quote=Stoner ]+1 for a poll.
Im all for Mark's Autocratic Kingdom, but he surely cant be afraid of a little crowd-sourced input here?
Why not set up a Poll thread? In fact, there should be two. One on the main forum and one on the Sales section so that the Traders will see it.
20 pages of exclusively classifieds use. Is this in the spirit of the classifieds?
Does anybody actually bother looking in the classifieds any more?
Lost between the traders, scammers and over optimistic sellers* the genuine are few and far between.
*if you have to re-list it everyday something is clearly wrong
so that the Traders will see it.
Given not a single ad says "TRADE" in front of it, I am sure there are clearly no traders on the classifieds.
Given not a single ad says "TRADE" in front of it, I am sure there are clearly no traders on the classifieds.
Clearly there isn't.
Anybody that get ripped off buy paying over the odds for an unwarranted product off a bike forum classified is an idiot, and probably deserves it.
A 30 second cut and paste of the product name into google will soon give you an idea of the price it can be got for. If you can't be arsed to do that then its more a case of stultus emptor than caveat emptor
so people popping up telling you you can get it cheaper at xxx are to me just annoying, slightly patronising and a bit smug - why don't you just say "have you googled that", after all it's better to teach a person to fish than to give him a fish
Sorry - bored today 🙂
Sorry - bored today
Don't be. You're spot on.
If an item is a reasonable price in the first place why are the Sellers complaining about this?
This strikes me as a very odd rule that seems to benefit the few and not the masses.
Sorry - I missed your cheeky edit. I was simply suggesting that your decision would have been based upon what you thought was the best, commercially, for STW. Are you implying it isn't?Mark - Resident GrumpyBut can you explain this?
> If the new policy helps your income stream then go for it.
Because you seem to now be spouting gibberish. How exactly does this rule help our income stream other than by helping to maintain a free classifieds system that people are happy to use?
I agree tottally with this rule, I have had a sale spoiled twice by people linking to the wrong product. Eg crc where the advertise the lowest price but not in your size/colour etc. A decent bit of modding, well done.
Recently started selling a few items in the classified and so far been a pleasant experience for myself and hopefully the purchasers.
Last night my ad attracted what I assume is 'a spoiler'. I over reacted a little and could get banned for my response, but at the time it annoyed me and seemed a rather cheap trick, not sure we need to rule against this though.
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/ot-fs-snow-chains
Mark, please do something about "members" that only has a selling history aka TRADERS.
And I agree that if you really want to prove that the 'vast majority' agree with you re the new rule then have a poll.
STW's community persona is becoming more and more diluted because of traders.
I am all form forum members looking out for each other because of the way the classifieds have changed in the last couple of years.
Toys, when did these spoilt sales of yours happen. Just looked at your history and can't see any FS started by you for over a year?
Did you consider that it might have been more than a year ago? Are you a white night? Anyway one wasnt on here but Ill drag it up anyway.
Whatever the figure I bet it's an order of magnitude less then the number of complaints we get about the spoiler.
well obviously someone who trades on here or wants the maximum price will complain when someone stops them doing this. Those put off by the informnation wont post a report to let you know they are pleased- there is no function to say you agree so it will obviously happen
A poll would give a better view as so far you only have the set of those who object and you have no idea how many like this being done.
And if we can't have a poll, can we at least have a poll on whether we should have a poll?
Who cares about a poll, its their forum. They can do what they like.
Sputnik, cant find my for sales, it might have been on bike radar, and they deleted a load.
Surely we should just scour the classifieds and report all the suspected traders ,fraudsters and people not complying with the spirit of the forum as per the rules.That should keep the Mods more than busy enough.
Who cares about a poll, its their forum. They can do what they like.
He he, brilliant.
Someone who agrees with the decision doesn't want a poll that might change it.
What a shocker.
Sputnik go and register on rad bmx and look for my for sale on a set of profile cranks. Of which there are umpteen variations some cheap some not. And some twonk posted a link to some common cheap ones when mine were rare ltd edition.
Neaelglover I thinkyou were away the day they did reading. Its their forum therefore a poll will change nothing.Do you notsee the logic fail in your statement?
but you shouldn't ban folk for telling the truth.
Naive very naive...
When someone points out that they can buy X for £1 cheaper online, which camp does that fall into?
And with a warranty.
I don't see your problem Toys. Just as with the snow chains post above, all you need to do is explain why the post is incorrect. I would not be put off.
Timidwheeler. I don't care, Mark sees it as a problem, its his forum, looks like its going my way.l read the snowchains post, and whilst the seller obviously lost his rag, he was correct. Its like trying to sell a carbon fs 29er and someone pointing out that halfords do a fs bike for 179 delivered.
The specific 'no ad spoiling' rule is unnecessary IMO
The current rules already cover it enough
All it's done is give possible scammers another bit of protection by gagging peer criticism.
The official input on here when genuine scams have been uncovered is often remarkable only by it's absence.
Jota189, thats frankly twaddle, they banned a bloke the other day who I wasnt even convinced was a scammer,just crap seller. Looks proactive to me.
Coleman, I see your reason to be miffed with the spoiler on your thread. For starters he was talking about a totally different product of lower quality and your product was offered at a very reasonable price compared to what you paid for them. The spoiler should be reported by you and rapped on the knuckles. But i think anyone reading your FS add could have seen that and would not think you were over pricing. It was like saying Halfords have a bike for £80 and therefore the £1000 you are asking for your Ibis Mojo is too much 🙂
Toys mate, you are taking it too serious! I was just curious to see how your sale was spoiled. Couldn't find it and had to ask. Can't be bothered with scouring the net for an example. And I am no white knight, cant remember ever intervening in a FS add with a "that is cheaper over there".