Code of Conduct
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 61 to 65 of 65
  1. #61

    Default Re: Plan C: Not scrapping the Marketplace, but making it better instead

    Quote Originally Posted by Master-Classter View Post
    Regarding Liability, while I do understand that Grant owns the forum and so to some extent there’s a ‘liability’ there, I don’t really think it’s all that likely that anything serious will happen or that he would personally be responsible. For example, in a recent legal decision, I believe eBay is now only considered a sales hub, and barring some obvious restrictions, they are not responsible for monitoring what users post up for sale. Meaning if I’m not an authorized retailer of XYZ scents and sell my bottle on eBay, it’s up to the company to report it for removal. So by extension, I would assume that Grant hosts a large discussion forum with a side Marketplace and would not be reasonably expected to know about every transaction or be obligated to question things like who is authorized to buy, sell, exchange, etc. And as long as we all avoid a certain company #9, I don’t think we’re going to be threatened by any legal action any time soon. And even then, it’s scare tactics more than anything else. That being said, perhaps a solution here would be to actually look into the cost and practicalities of making Basenotes a separate corporate entity with Grant as the CEO, just for legal reasons so it can acquire liability insurance for example. If it’s a few hundred a month for enough coverage to cover legal problems if necessary, I’m sure between banner ads, sponsors, and paid memberships, we can cover that cost.

    Lastly, but probably most importantly, as has already been mentioned a few times, I don’t think we even need to make this that complicated. There’s a very clear set of rules outlining the proceedings for the marketplace, in particular the caveat emptor part. I think people for the most part understand how the world works and shouldn’t expect sunshine and lollipops. Maybe the adjustment here is as simple as people have to sign some sort of agreement by clicking “I have read and understood the above agreement”, etc, with it saying basically that they sign up to a buy/sell/split at their own risk and Basenotes nor it’s employees/mods are responsible, and links to a sticky with recommended best practices like using Paypal, checking for feedback, etc..

    For security, maybe only allow PayPal business payments, ie no gift. Honestly personally I usually ask for gift payment and 90-95% of my transactions are sent to me like that and I’ve never had an issue. It’s more about protection for the seller, not the buyer. But it’s an idea. Another idea is maybe it’s a rule only for less than X feedbacks (30?) users… so you have to do PayPal if you’re under a certain limit and after that you can use gift. Escrow is an interesting idea but practically speaking I don’t think it makes sense, given that these are such small transactions, like $100 more or less.
    [/quote]
    With regards to liability -- there's never been a problem with legal things, but it's more that I feel responsible and upset when someone doesn't have a good transaction.

    Regarding the Software, I can see how it’s not ideal for this sort of function, but I can already imagine a few changes that would make a big difference…

    Considering as we said that it’s not bad people, mostly just bad communication, what I’d suggest is something like what eBay has in terms of someone commits to buying an item, whether a single bottle for sale, or a decant split, or a swap, etc, both parties lock in the agreement, then they mark it as shipped, mark it as received, and get feedback, etc. Right now as a splitter we’re doing this manually, I have a whole spreadsheet for who has paid, which I’ve shipped, who’s received it, who hasn’t left feedback yet, etc. Would be a lot simpler if it were done through the site and all recorded consistently here. Sellers are rated just like ebay. Was the item as described, shipped in a timely manner, good communication, etc…

    I definitely agree with the point that the feedback/rating system should have some sort of implication. Not only to be more visible but to have a benefit in some way. I’ve worked hard to acquire 150+ perfect feedback, and I’m sure other sellers are good too but I really work darn hard to go above and beyond and wish there was some way to get credit for that. Maybe a rating on my profile when posting, or a star, etc. Again, see eBay.
    this is the type of thing I'm looking to implement

    Instead of fuzzy qualifiers like membership time or number of posts, maybe have to pay for access to boards, which covers the cost of liability and running the board. That being said, remember my point above, that there’s a huge shadow community and MOST people who sign up for my splits or message to buy from me are actually brand new users, so who knows if they’d bother to sign up for $30 to buy a $100 bottle. So forcing people to pay to have access might significantly cut down on the people who actually want to join to buy/sell. For better or worse. Maybe a small amount, like $5-10 to be able to buy and something much higher like $25-30 to be able to sell/split?

    I think we could still clean things up on the boards… so maybe only a single OP for buy/sell and then it’s locked and all other communication is done through PM so ‘bumping’ doesn’t apply?

    As we’ve already started discussing, I think the most important change would be to integrate the buy/sell/exchange/swap into the wardrobe; it seems like a natural connection. If anything, I think the most underutilized part of the whole site is the wardrobe. There’s huge power here and currently it’s just a little notepad/list. Ideally this should be integrated as a marketplace through the directory. Imagine I look up a scent, read reviews, decide I want some, and then click who has this available for sale, then select bottle/decant, price, size, etc and then send PM from there. eBay listings, eBay members, etc it all competes like the open market.

    Not my suggestion, but an option similar to Panjo. Styleforum changed over to a different style of selling where instead of one page per user with random items, it’s one page per item, so then can search and sort by item. Through wardrobe for buying/selling bottles probably makes sense. So could say I’m selling X bottle, choose retail/decant, box/no, etc. Or Search/sort, I want X scent, X price max/min, show me which users have it (in brackets their feedback), and filters like decant/only retail, box/not, etc…
    This is my intention, it should make it a lot easier for buyers to find what they are looking for

    Another point here… I think we really need to properly hash out a discussion about decant sales… It’s always been this behind the scenes unspoken grey area and as far as I understand it’s only because of a little incident many years ago from one particular ahem company… I think decants are as common as retail bottles for our community so allowing them only for swaps but not buy/sell is a game of smoke and mirrors. For splitters, it means people have to wait months and months to get their stuff or not at all if doesn’t fill, also part of the reason people back out because they forgot to even visit the site anymore, also sometimes split buyers are blind, so how would they get rid of something they don’t like? It’s a really small semantics issues between splits and decant sales. Technicality but in the end major disservice to the community. I think the buy/sell board should include decants right along-side retail bottles, though the splits section is its own beast.

    Would be great to have a software solution where I could plug in the details of my split, my terms, what I’m splitting, sizes available, prices, shipping costs per region, batch codes, etc, and then people sign up, I have a waitlist, I can send out a message to say full so please pay, etc.


    Anyway, that’s all I’ve got for now, just wanted to agree with some ideas brought up before and add my own 10 cents.
    I've sketched out a plan of how I think splitting could work, in a system designed specifically for it. I'd appreciate comments from splitters and split buyers:

    http://www.basenotes.net/threads/407...w-split-system

  2. #62

    Default Re: Plan C: Not scrapping the Marketplace, but making it better instead

    If anyone wants to help me create some fake marketplace listings, visit this page here http://www.basenotes.net/threads/408...tplace-testing

  3. #63
    Basenotes Member NoNose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    87

    Default Re: Plan C: Not scrapping the Marketplace, but making it better instead

    What if the marketplace was locked until a given amount of time as a member + post count were met, upon meeting these a request to join made submitted when eligible, user reviewed and then approved or not by an admin. or mod. I think the review would keep spam posts to increase count to a minimum.

    Not an original idea but from a successful marketplace model used in other forums.
    Last edited by NoNose; 5th July 2015 at 11:13 PM. Reason: tldr

  4. #64
    Basenotes Plus

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,901

    Default Re: Plan C: Not scrapping the Marketplace, but making it better instead

    If you look at the current requirements you will see that there are such safeguards in place. Spam posts are not, however, the real problem in the marketplace. It is primarily some unethical people and the more greedy ones who want to have their post in the first position to maximize the success of their sales/swaps/wants.

  5. #65
    Basenotes Member NoNose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    87

    Default Re: Plan C: Not scrapping the Marketplace, but making it better instead

    Ah I see that makes a lot of sense, someone said something about a rating or rankings system personal and or market based, could go under the avatar and repurpose the stars system or work with it like smaller other colored stars. and then if over bumping is an issue changing the behavior rules for that particular forum where new posts wouldn't bump threads to the top would prevent but would still bump in today's posts mb. I was talking about making the marketplace as more of a privelege to add value and incentive to be a positive contributing member using time in plus post count for entry, and a solution for keeping spam posts down as a way to increase that count, not necessarily about spam within the market itself.




Similar Threads

  1. making rule for showing COUNTRY in for sale and marketplace
    By Emoe in forum Tech Questions, Bug, Feature Requests, Basenotes-related talk...
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 1st October 2014, 10:58 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  



Loving perfume on the Internet since 2000