PDA

View Full Version : Minimum Post Count to Post a For Sale Thread



mmahany
October 24th, 2013, 08:28 AM
This may sound weird coming from someone who joined FPGeeks after the FPN started charging a fee to sell on their site.

However, would it make sense for FPGeeks to implement a minimum post count rule in the “For Sale” section? Perhaps something reasonable like 30-50 minimum posts before you can create a thread?

I don’t believe that you should have to pay to sell on an internet forum, but I also don’t believe in taking advantage of the situation either.

Perfect example: member “Colonelz” has 11 posts and they’re all in the for sale section. They have contributed nothing else to the site. They currently have 5 threads going and are all bumped to the very top of the for sale section.

I realize that I am a newer member to FPGeeks, but I attempt to contribute to this site. That should be evident in the fact that I have been “Thanked” 69 times out of my 99 posts.

I look at it like this: In a circle of friends, if one of your buddies told you they were selling something, you probably wouldn’t be annoyed or offended. However, if a stranger rang your doorbell trying to peddle their vacuum cleaner or sell you magazines, you’d be more annoyed with the situation.

These new users coming to FPGeeks strictly to sell pens are the equivalent of that stranger knocking at your door. All I ask is that we put a “no soliciting” sign up for the strangers and only allow our “friends” to sell on the site.

Paul-H
October 24th, 2013, 09:25 AM
Sounds like a good idea to me, even if its just for a safety point of view.

Paul

KrazyIvan
October 24th, 2013, 09:51 AM
I can stand behind that idea. I am also glad that you voiced what I was thinking.

writingrav
October 24th, 2013, 10:06 AM
I think this is a very reasonable idea

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

mmahany
October 24th, 2013, 10:14 AM
I'm glad I'm not alone on this.

I didn't want it to come off harsh, but I think this sort of rule would be effective on many levels.

-It is easy to implement from a forum management/moderation standpoint
-It would provide safeguards against spam and fraudulent sellers
-It could potentially generate other forum activity
-Member retention would likely improve (people wouldn't just come here to sell a pen they bought at a garage sale then leave)
-It would allow more opportunity for contributing member threads to be seen

In a way, this hits home to me on a personal level: I got into fountain pen collecting after buying a pen at a garage sale. I posted on FPN to see how much I could sell it for. After quite a bit of feedback, I decided to keep it and have it restored. Since then, my collection has grown exponentially and I plan to be a collector for life.

Sailor Kenshin
October 24th, 2013, 10:25 AM
Kind of a cool story, too.

I like mango pudding
October 24th, 2013, 10:42 AM
yup, my other hobby forum has this rule implemented. Don't see why not here.

cwent2
October 24th, 2013, 11:09 AM
Yes - I would also "vote" yes on this issue.

Hi I am so and so - I just joined, look I got these pens for sale. --Really? - but I have seen it recently and after the several threads spot lighting fraud attempts lately...

Just my 2 cents worth.

tandaina
October 24th, 2013, 11:23 AM
I think that's totally fair. I really prefer sales areas on boards like this to be for those of us who have gotten to know each other.

AndyT
October 24th, 2013, 11:49 AM
It's a good policy which has worked well elsewhere - no objections from me.

hunnymonster
October 24th, 2013, 11:52 AM
As a lurker here, but moderator elsewhere, I have to say that stopping those that only come to your forum to sell is a good thing for your community. Would get my vote even though I'd lose out in this particular instance.

heath
October 24th, 2013, 12:27 PM
Sound good to me.

Mod_wolves
October 24th, 2013, 01:23 PM
I think it's a sound and reasonable idea.

reprieve
October 24th, 2013, 06:10 PM
A simple, straightforward rule designed to encourage forum participation and facilitate fraternity is very different from creating unnecessarily complicated rules that hinder trading among hobbyists and exclude mom-and-pop businesses.

That is to say--I do not have a problem with a minimum post count rule. Thanks for speaking up.

dannzeman
October 24th, 2013, 06:41 PM
It's certainly something that can be implemented if the community feels it's necessary.

The one thing I don't like about the minimum post requirement to sell is that it encourages people to post just to be able to sell, which usually results in posts like "Sweet!", or "+1", or "Congrats!". These are the kinds of posts I don't want to see and is one of the reasons why I implemented the "Thanks" button. Also, who's to say what the appropriate post count should be?

cwent2
October 24th, 2013, 06:56 PM
Good point, and I can see where the posts could be an issue.

Personally I am put off by a post like Hi I am so and so buy my pens - and would not purchase from someone without the recommendations of my fellow geeks that by association and spending time in this forum I have to grown to trust.

I do not have an answer, but maybe a time/post combination.

and I know I am a new comer myself

Respectfully Submitted

dannzeman
October 24th, 2013, 07:03 PM
...

Personally I am put off by a post like Hi I am so and so buy my pens - and would not purchase from someone without the recommendations of my fellow geeks that by association and spending time in this forum I have to grown to trust.

...
Then the solution is simple, don't buy from that seller. But what if someone else doesn't have a problem from buying from that person? Who's to say we shouldn't even give them the opportunity to buy?

Perhaps a combination of the suggestions would be appropriate: we offer paid accounts to those only wishing to sell, and also an option where you have to meet a certain combination of time/posts/reputation/thanks to be able to sell.

I'm open to all ideas.

Jon Szanto
October 24th, 2013, 07:08 PM
I'm open to all ideas.
And that, right there, might be the best thing about FPG. Thanks!

KrazyIvan
October 24th, 2013, 08:05 PM
I think if you limit the selling to people with a certain number of thanks, with the post count requirement that might be workable because the community is also involved in the process. If a pay to play scheme is used i could live with that as long as it does not change long time forum members access.

dannzeman
October 24th, 2013, 08:18 PM
My idea of a "pay to play" setup would be more like a shortcut for those who don't wish to take the time to meet whatever requirements are established to post in the classifieds forum. It wouldn't be a requirement for every member.

Jeph
October 25th, 2013, 02:56 AM
I completely agree with the intent of this idea.
I do not, however, think that either a minimum post count or a pay to play idea would work.
Dan explained how the post count could easily be abused.
The idea of paying to post a sale thing bothers me, mostly becasue there is not a good way to define when the money is not required so it will just end up having to apply to everyone.

I have used the method that Dan suggested, and I simply ignore listings from people that I do not have any confidence in.

I have noticed that there is a "Rate Seller" option at the bottom of the For Sale posts. I am sure that that could also be abused, but maybe we need to make that more prominent on the For Sale posts and as members actually use this feature. I don't know how it works, honestly. And I know that won't do anything about people joining up just to post things for sale. But at least it might more obviously put them at a disadvantage.

mmahany
October 25th, 2013, 08:52 AM
It's certainly something that can be implemented if the community feels it's necessary.

The one thing I don't like about the minimum post requirement to sell is that it encourages people to post just to be able to sell, which usually results in posts like "Sweet!", or "+1", or "Congrats!". These are the kinds of posts I don't want to see and is one of the reasons why I implemented the "Thanks" button. Also, who's to say what the appropriate post count should be?

That is certainly a legitimate concern. On several other boards I post on, they have a "minimum character requirement" as well. Usually, the minimum is 5-10 characters to prevent these sorts of posts.

A few other ideas that have been successful on other boards:

-Must be a member for at least 30 days to post a for sale thread (no matter what your post count is)
-"Off topic" and "Introduction" section posts do not count towards your post count
-Cap on posts per day (you can still post as much as you want, but only 5 would count towards your post count)
-A rule that requires 30-50 USEFUL posts before you can post a for sale listing (this gives the moderators the ability to ban members who are obviously abusing the forum)
-Offering "Supporting Memberships." On one forum, if you donate $25 or more, you become a "Supporting Member." You are given a "Supporting Member" title under your user name, and you are given a few extra features such as a larger PM box, more upload capabilities, and a Bolded user name. As you suggested, this Supporting Membership could also allow you to post for sale topics before hitting the minimum post count.


The reason why the FPN paying membership doesn't work is because they TOOK AWAY features rather than ADDED features for paying members. While the fountain pen community is relatively small, there are still enough options that people will simply go elsewhere (exactly why I became a member here).

Of note: I’ve been posting on internet forums/bulletins since 1999. I’m a member of more than 50 forums, and I’ve seen plenty of rules that do and do not work.
I post on forms catered to everything from: Cars/Trucks, Pens, Antiques, Watches, Sports, Cigars, Scotch, Investing, and Business Style.

To be completely honest, of all the forums I am a member of, The Fountain Pen Network is the most poorly designed and their “Pay to Sell” rule is by far the most ridiculous. I would highly suggest that you DO NOT implement any of their selling rules.

krazyklod
October 25th, 2013, 09:23 AM
I've been seeing some really nice ideas and some may work, the min post count sounds like the best but I would suggest a modification:
It being a minimum number of thanks for a minimum amount of posts. That way they would be verified by us and what we think is good content (also making dan's job easier).
If there was also a way to make the rule be thanks from various members and not just the one that could also minimize abuse.

jde
October 25th, 2013, 10:30 AM
How about instead of rules: just don't buy from those people you don't want to buy from?

If the culture here didn't support not buying from those who are here only to avoid eBay fees, that certainly would discourage posting, ay?

We can't protect everyone from themselves...

I don't want to discourage someone like vanness1938 or Michael McNeill from posting in the For Sales area. (Not to single them out as they do post in the forums. Just an example of folks I like being able to buy from if I wanna.) We may not know everyone, but the FP sales arena is quite small. Research is easier and easier these days.

IMHO.:hippie:

mmahany
October 25th, 2013, 10:53 AM
How about instead of rules: just don't buy from those people you don't want to buy from?

If the culture here didn't support not buying from those who are here only to avoid eBay fees, that certainly would discourage posting, ay?

We can't protect everyone from themselves...

I don't want to discourage someone like vanness1938 or Michael McNeill from posting in the For Sales area. (Not to single them out as they do post in the forums. Just an example of folks I like being able to buy from if I wanna.) We may not know everyone, but the FP sales arena is quite small. Research is easier and easier these days.

IMHO.:hippie:

I certainly understand (and respect) what you’re saying. My personal opinion is that this would be much more than a safety implementation.

What particularly frustrates me is that 10 of the 20 threads on the first page of the classifieds were posted by members with 15 posts or less. This provides less opportunity for contributing members’ threads to be seen.

I have bought from plenty of sellers on ebay with 0 feedback. I also recently traded pens with another member on here that has only 1 post. I do a significant amount of homework on anyone I deal with before engaging in a transaction with anyone. So for me personally, it’s not a safety implementation in the least bit and in some situations I am very comfortable transacting business with someone that has little to no presence on this forum.

On a different note:
Members like Vanness1938 and Michael McNeil are respected members and obviously have a deeper interest in pen collecting. I am in agreement that they should not be deterred from posting. However, it would be more FAIR for businesses to pay to advertise on the site. Otherwise, what stops anyone from posting links in their signatures or advertising in threads?

Again, to clarify, I would rather this not happen, and I am usually a strong opponent of a stricter rule system. However, my personal views of what is right and what is FAIR aren’t always the same.

My intentions for posting this thread were to better the website as a whole rather than individual members. No forum rule system is fool proof and there are always exceptions to every rule. I truly enjoy the atmosphere of FPGeeks and I realize that a significant rule change would create more work for the admins/moderators. However, I think this new rule would cause much more good than bad.

Laura N
October 25th, 2013, 11:11 AM
Ugh. Why ask anyone to pay to advertise? I thought the original point was to deter strangers who use the classifieds but don't otherwise participate. Now it's extending to limiting businesses. This is exactly the problem with too many rules, however well-intentioned; all of a sudden they morph into something much bigger with unintended consequences.

By the way, I had the same thought as Julie about Vanness, but I'll go further: I consider his posts about special deals to be a great service to forum readers and exactly the kind of thing I look for here. To me, they add to the community.

I don't like anything that requires people to get "thanks" either. I can just see myself starting to fret that I'm not thanked enough. :)

jacksterp
October 25th, 2013, 11:19 AM
Dan - like your idea of "pay-to-play."

Either pay a fee to sell, or ~100 meaningful posts and 6 months membership.

It is easy to determine someone's "meaningful" posts.

sloegin
October 25th, 2013, 11:19 AM
I came here at the same time as OP. I've started 10 threads, 6 in the sales section, and sold 2 pens through FPG. I don't think I've abused the system. The abuse going on is the reason FPN thought they could get away with their pay to sell scheme.

Perhaps instead of a new rule we call out the abusers. I cannot believe I just suggested mob rule, lmao. It is a question of manners in which some people are lacking.

jde
October 25th, 2013, 12:12 PM
I can just see myself starting to fret that I'm not thanked enough. :)

That made me smile big, Laura! (Because I identify!)




I certainly understand (and respect) what you’re saying. My personal opinion is that this would be much more than a safety implementation.

My intentions for posting this thread were to better the website as a whole rather than individual members. No forum rule system is fool proof and there are always exceptions to every rule. I truly enjoy the atmosphere of FPGeeks and I realize that a significant rule change would create more work for the admins/moderators. However, I think this new rule would cause much more good than bad.

And I respect, and even understand, your starting this thread.

Forgive please my impertinence that I would rather contribute what I can to the forum about what little I know about pens/ink/related, cheer my pals on from time to time, than let these wayward folks frustrate me with their sales posts. I too intend to help better the forum via contribution about those things I love.

Honestly, I mean no disrespect in sharing my opinion. It's worth a dime, if that much!

Kind regards all,
Julie

Edited to add: People will (and do) come and post here for all kinds of reasons. It won't always be so obvious what his/her intention is (not always in the Sales forum). Some folks are even happy to take free or new stuff from anyone they don't know. *ahem*

da vinci
October 25th, 2013, 02:02 PM
My view for what its worth.

One of the key points here is that the buyer trusts the seller (and I would think the seller can trust the buyer).

So a minimum post count is, in my experience, a good idea. It can be abused in the way Dan describes, but as also set out by Dan it enables people to make a judgment about whether they want to deal with that seller or not. Also you could consider not allowing anyone who does not comply with the post count rule to see the for sale forum until they comply with the rule.

In terms of people who are trusted dealers, perhaps something like FPN's Mall forum may help with the rule being that the signature of the person posting in the Mall about a deal they are offering gives enough info (website adress, links to feedback etc) so that some basic research could be undertaken by interested buyers. No charge for this facility of course.

Finally, I am involved in a forum with a heroes and villians sub-forum, where people can say whether a buyer/seller was a hero or a villian. That was a very useful tool, and people were quickly found out or complimented (a little bit like a basic ebay feedback system). I dont underestimate the additional work something like that may bring to the moderators, but it maybe a deterrent against dodgy dealings? Edited to add that this sub forum would be limited to feedback on transactions conducted via FPG rather than feedback generally, hence different to the existing marketplace feedback forum.

If the moderators are interested in this please send me a pm, and I will do my best to link you up with moderators on the forum with the H&V feedback system.

reprieve
October 25th, 2013, 02:17 PM
Ugh. Why ask anyone to pay to advertise? I thought the original point was to deter strangers who use the classifieds but don't otherwise participate. Now it's extending to limiting businesses. This is exactly the problem with too many rules, however well-intentioned; all of a sudden they morph into something much bigger with unintended consequences.

Yes, well said, Laura. Suddenly we have multiple layers of confusing rules with unintended side-effects. I don't object to the initial rule--requiring a minimum post count to sell in the classifieds--but clearly there is a slippery slope problem here...

I think it's important to try to preserve the positive FPGeeks atmosphere. Please let's not get too carried away with rule-making.

jar
October 25th, 2013, 02:46 PM
Get rid of Classifieds totally.

countrydirt
October 25th, 2013, 02:47 PM
Has there been a rash of fraudulent sales? I wasn't aware this was a problem here.

kaisnowbird
October 26th, 2013, 01:03 AM
My little suggestion is not to count any postings in the For Sale forum, which may be convenient when it comes to implementing any of the above changes.

Personally, I like Ivan's idea of the number of thanks as a threshold, combined with pay to sell for people not meeting that threshold.

Edit:
Oops, posted too soon without reading the second page, especially Laura's comments. Let's not get carried away too easily with the rule making.

Having said that, if sales postings are not counted, it will at least help us in spotting the frequently participating members from the salesmen.

AndyT
October 26th, 2013, 02:39 AM
Let's not get carried away too easily with the rule making.

Hear, hear. Heavy moderation and lots of rules usually leads to a cliquey, hierarchical forum in my experience. I get the feeling that there's very little chance of that happening here with Dan running the show.

That said, the straightforward minimum post count rule does seem to work nicely elsewhere, not just as a mild deterrent to itinerant salespeople but also as an encouragement to join the conversation. As for paying to advertise or bringing "thanks" into the equation, I'm with Laura.

dannzeman
October 26th, 2013, 06:38 PM
There's lots of really good discussion going on here. Please keep it up.

Initially, I had thought about creating some kind of requirement consisting of a combination of 'Thanks', post count, and time one is a member, or just meeting a requirement for each.

For instance, some people may not post very often but have been a member for a long time and just enjoy reading the content of others. This actually describes my participation in most forums. Here, a simple requirement of being a member for X months would allow a user to sell in the classifieds.

Others may post great content that a lot of people love, and therefore 'Thank', but don't post that often. In this situation a certain level of 'Thanks' would fit the requirement.

But then I got to thinking, this whole post was started because some people don't trust some sellers that are only here to sell. Does the quality of content, or amount of posts, or duration someone has been a member here make them more trustworthy?

I think the solution is to use the iTrader system to leave feedback about a transaction. I'll admit, I haven't done my part in making this feature very well known and making sure it gets used.

fpquest
October 27th, 2013, 09:19 AM
But then I got to thinking, this whole post was started because some people don't trust some sellers that are only here to sell. Does the quality of content, or amount of posts, or duration someone has been a member here make them more trustworthy?

I don't think the raw numbers make them any more trustworthy. If someone wants to put a lot of effort into a scam they can probably get around any rules. Trust may develop over time, quantity and quality but it wouldn't be based on some thresh hold.



I think the solution is to use the iTrader system to leave feedback about a transaction. I'll admit, I haven't done my part in making this feature very well known and making sure it gets used.
I find this is the most useful if the goal is to provide some degree of trust. Like everything else, it's not perfect, but seems to target the goal.

Personally, I prefer fewer rules since they make things less complicated.

jde
October 27th, 2013, 12:15 PM
<snip>
...this whole post was started because some people don't trust some sellers that are only here to sell. Does the quality of content, or amount of posts, or duration someone has been a member here make them more trustworthy?

I think the solution is to use the iTrader system to leave feedback about a transaction. I'll admit, I haven't done my part in making this feature very well known and making sure it gets used.

You're so wise, Dan.

I confess, in my desire for imposing less rules on this issue, I forgot to think about what was already available to us at FPgeeks.

I've looked but can't find how iTrader works here. Is iTrader the ratings button in the For Sale area, or something more? Certainly a tool that exists is something we all can have a hand in reminding each other about.

Cheers,
Julie

Farmboy
October 29th, 2013, 04:49 AM
Dan

Could the sales forum be split into two sections? One for those meeting a defined set of thread starts/posts/thanks/rep score/etc and the other for members not meeting the requirements.

Todd

mmahany
October 29th, 2013, 07:38 AM
Dan

Could the sales forum be split into two sections? One for those meeting a defined set of thread starts/posts/thanks/rep score/etc and the other for members not meeting the requirements.

Todd

I was actually thinking the exact same thing.

I firmly believe that rules should be designed so that they only affect those who have the potential to abuse them. The last thing I want is for established members to lose their privileges on here (again, that's what FPN did).

One idea along those lines:
Member classifieds- You must have x amount of posts, been a member for x months, and/or be a paying member of the site to post. This would be for items above a certain price threshold $20/$50/$100 (or whatever makes sense).

Garage Sale- Anyone can post in this. It would be designed for items below $20/$50/$100 (or whatever makes sense). It would allow new members to establish themselves, but without significant financial risk to buyers. It would also allow people to search for listings within their price range, plus it would cater to people like Vanness1938 that sell inks or other lower priced items.

And for the record: I did not create this thread in hopes of adding a safety implementation. I completely understand that anyone has the potential to scam someone. I've seen senior members on other forums (with as many as 4000 posts) that got into a financial bind and chose to ruin their integrity by scamming people out of their money. Again, my personal decision to do business with someone online takes little consideration of their post count.

cedargirl
October 29th, 2013, 11:28 PM
I appreciate the various views on this thread and understand the concern that started it. But I would hate to see this forum bogged down with a extra rules to address an issue that isn't a serious problem.

Solution? As suggested by others:
If you don't know and trust the person, don't buy from them.
If you do know and trust a person - do buy and then post an appropriate feedback using the iTrader system.

Simple! - I think.

I agree that requiring a minimum number of posts just encourages the junk posts (as pointed out by Dan); and I really appreciate that they occur less often here - probably because of the very useful "thanks" feature. In order to encourage useful posts, the restriction could perhaps be based on "reputation". But I still think my first option is better.

mmahany
October 30th, 2013, 08:31 AM
I appreciate the various views on this thread and understand the concern that started it. But I would hate to see this forum bogged down with a extra rules to address an issue that isn't a serious problem.

Solution? As suggested by others:
If you don't know and trust the person, don't buy from them.
If you do know and trust a person - do buy and then post an appropriate feedback using the iTrader system.

Simple! - I think.

I agree that requiring a minimum number of posts just encourages the junk posts (as pointed out by Dan); and I really appreciate that they occur less often here - probably because of the very useful "thanks" feature. In order to encourage useful posts, the restriction could perhaps be based on "reputation". But I still think my first option is better.

I don't want this to come off the wrong way, but again, my reasons for creating this thread had nothing to do with safety. I don't believe in creating rules that protect people from their own ignorance.

The possibility of junk posts is a moot point in my opinion. There are several registered members whose only contribution to the forum is to sell. Those are junk posts as far as I'm concerned. At one point when I last checked, 50% of the threads on the first page of the for sale forum were created by members with less than 15 posts.

KrazyIvan
October 30th, 2013, 08:40 AM
Got it, I think the multiple posts for multiple sales from a person that does not participate in the forum comes off as spam. I know it annoys me. I use the "What's New" link to get my forum posts. I purposely skip over those, view what interests me and then mark the forums as read. Spam gone. Until the next bump. So, maybe a post count limit in the for sale section in conjunction with the itrader stuff already in place might be better.

talkinghead
November 1st, 2013, 04:58 PM
I just checked my post count......41....Dang
So if I start posting Sweet!, +1, Agreed, Montblanc Sucks...... If I add an emoticon to it, will that make it post worthy for counting purposes?


I just checked my "Thanks" count....7.....Double Dang
If we use a "Thanks" count....are we allowed to Thank ourselves?

:crazy_pilot:

Really folks, who cares if someone comes on here and just tries to sell. WE DO HAVE A FEEDBACK/iTRADER section where those who don't play nice will get their do, and then through natural selection, their sales threads/post will diminish in time. And if they do play nice, are reputable sellers, get good feedback, etc...are we still going to limit them because they don't "contribute" to the forums? Would providing nice pens and nice service not be deemed a "contribution".

Please....less government.


Thanks,

Rick

Titivillus
November 1st, 2013, 05:18 PM
At the same time these strangers might be people who have bought/ sold and made a reputation at other websites and now will try to sell here or even have a blog or website where they predominantly post. Contributing by posting or contributing by offering pens which one is more important? Remember that first comes a minimum posting number then comes premier memberships:puke:

Ondina
November 3rd, 2013, 09:47 AM
I'm one of those who reads but does not (almost) post.
Too many rules among other issues is what has driven many out of FPN.
Nor participating nor selling guaranties nothing. Many of us will remember, for instance, Docnib/Nursenib?.
I've haven't posted anything for sale here yet, but I'm doing so right now.
Jde, I wish I had the same virtue you do so often show; stating big truths with a calm, soft way that offends no one and teaches many of us how thnigs should be done. Thank you for it.

dannzeman
November 3rd, 2013, 09:56 AM
Dan

Could the sales forum be split into two sections? One for those meeting a defined set of thread starts/posts/thanks/rep score/etc and the other for members not meeting the requirements.

Todd

I think splitting the classifieds into two sections makes it more cumbersome to use.

Also, I think we've established that meeting a certain requirement of posts, thanks, etc. doesn't make one more or less trustworthy. So, really, what's the point?

dannzeman
November 3rd, 2013, 10:02 AM
Dan

Could the sales forum be split into two sections? One for those meeting a defined set of thread starts/posts/thanks/rep score/etc and the other for members not meeting the requirements.

Todd

I was actually thinking the exact same thing.

I firmly believe that rules should be designed so that they only affect those who have the potential to abuse them. The last thing I want is for established members to lose their privileges on here (again, that's what FPN did).

One idea along those lines:
Member classifieds- You must have x amount of posts, been a member for x months, and/or be a paying member of the site to post. This would be for items above a certain price threshold $20/$50/$100 (or whatever makes sense).

Garage Sale- Anyone can post in this. It would be designed for items below $20/$50/$100 (or whatever makes sense). It would allow new members to establish themselves, but without significant financial risk to buyers. It would also allow people to search for listings within their price range, plus it would cater to people like Vanness1938 that sell inks or other lower priced items.

...

As I mentioned above, I think separating the forum for organizational purposes is a poor choice. We don't have the traffic for that requirement yet, but it's something I'll start looking into.

dannzeman
November 3rd, 2013, 10:43 AM
...
The possibility of junk posts is a moot point in my opinion. There are several registered members whose only contribution to the forum is to sell. Those are junk posts as far as I'm concerned. At one point when I last checked, 50% of the threads on the first page of the for sale forum were created by members with less than 15 posts.

A few posts below the one I'm quoting above, Rick makes an excellent point. He probably wouldn't qualify to post in the classifieds forum if we set requirements, yet he's someone I've dealt with and met personally and would recommend to anyone. He offers lots of great pens to sell. Is his contribution less significant than someone who just shared a pic of a pen they just bought?

Take into consideration that half this community rotates around items they've just purchased. Who here has stopped at just one pen, notebook, or bottle of ink?

The number of posts one has does not make them more or less trustworthy, nor does it make them more or less a member of this community.

It's easy to scroll past posts you have no interest in.

From here on out, I think we should focus on using the iTrader feedback system to solve the problem.

piscov
November 3rd, 2013, 10:43 AM
I must say I don't agree with this line of thinking for several reasons:

1) It would be very easy for someone to be posting innocuous and unuseful posts everywhere just to have the minimum posts to sell;
2) To avoid that the Admin and Mods would have a lot more work to verify all the posts and to judge witch ones would count to that minimum selling limit;
3) Having people selling here will give members the chance to buy pens at a better price as competition between seller will increase.
4) Sellers ( I do sell here as you know and I am also an active member) often are collectors and enjoy, like I do, post about their favorite pens. If they start to use this forum and enjoy it they may become more involved with the community and that will benefit both parts
5) This discussion reminds me FPN and that is not fun. I decided not to use FPN because all their rules, including the new selling ones, and because of the forcelfull and wrong implementation they did and would hate to see that hapen here. ( yes, I am still in queuing line to moderation to approve any post I make there, so I decided to simply not post anything even not related with a selling activity)
6) "THIS FORUM IS GREAT AND ENJOYABLE because Admin is not dictatorial and imposing on members.
6) Buyers should decide if they want to buy or not from any seller.

To increase safety I would propose the implementation of a rating/feedback system of some kind , not creating artificial barriers that would be easily surpass by someone with a wrong intent.

Just my two cents on this.

Best regards

Vasco

I remember the Kirkylarky (Brian Cifiani) problem some months ago and this community dealt with it and was able to prevent almost all buyers from being tricked into buying from this guy.


Please lets not make the same mistakes FPN did....

piscov
November 3rd, 2013, 10:47 AM
...
The possibility of junk posts is a moot point in my opinion. There are several registered members whose only contribution to the forum is to sell. Those are junk posts as far as I'm concerned. At one point when I last checked, 50% of the threads on the first page of the for sale forum were created by members with less than 15 posts.

A few posts below the one I'm quoting above, Rick makes an excellent point. He probably wouldn't qualify to post in the classifieds forum if we set requirements, yet he's someone I've dealt with and met personally and would recommend to anyone. He offers lots of great pens to sell. Is his contribution less significant than someone who just shared a pic of a pen they just bought?

Take into consideration that half this community rotates around items they've just purchased. Who here has stopped at just one pen, notebook, or bottle of ink?

The number of posts one has does not make them more or less trustworthy, nor does it make them more or less a member of this community.

It's easy to scroll past posts you have no interest in.

From here on out, I think we should focus on using the iTrader feedback system to solve the problem.


I could not put this in better words!!
100% agree with you! Its great to have you as a Admin. My thanks to your great work!!

esqx
November 3rd, 2013, 12:31 PM
Tagging photos of the items to be sold with a piece of paper with one's ID, 'fpgeeks' and date is a good way to ensure that the seller at least has the goods to be sold.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 2

carlos.q
November 20th, 2013, 12:35 PM
I was initially convinced of the "minimum post count to post a sale" suggestion, but the arguments in this thread have convinced me otherwise.

Consider how this real life example proves this rule to be futile: a person joins FPN in 2011 and for two years has only 7 posts to his name. Suddenly in less than 30 minutes he posts 23 times saying "Thanks for the review" in each and every thread dealing with Lamy 2000 reviews. Minutes later, and having racked up the requisite 30 posts, he posts his own Lamy 2000 for sale... :shocked:

jde
November 23rd, 2013, 03:19 PM
I'm one of those who reads but does not (almost) post.
Too many rules among other issues is what has driven many out of FPN.
Nor participating nor selling guaranties nothing. Many of us will remember, for instance, Docnib/Nursenib?.
I've haven't posted anything for sale here yet, but I'm doing so right now.
Jde, I wish I had the same virtue you do so often show; stating big truths with a calm, soft way that offends no one and teaches many of us how thnigs should be done. Thank you for it.

What a super kind thing to say. Thank you, Ondina, you made my evening. *Sorry all to hijack this thread momentarily*

Also: really appreciating dannzeman's moderation and input in this thread (well, not just this thread, ay?). Well done, Dan, thanks!

KrazyIvan
November 23rd, 2013, 03:28 PM
That is the beauty really, we have a say and a voice without fearing sudden and fatal censorship. Thanks Dan.

Ondina
November 24th, 2013, 01:57 AM
Also: really appreciating dannzeman's moderation and input in this thread (well, not just this thread, ay?). Well done, Dan, thanks!

So true. A spot on reminder. Thank you, Dan. Moderation makes all the difference.

piscov
November 24th, 2013, 02:09 AM
Also: really appreciating dannzeman's moderation and input in this thread (well, not just this thread, ay?). Well done, Dan, thanks!


True indeed, thank you for all your effort Dan!! A good moderation can make or break a forum and in this case Dan is steering this boat to a safe harbor. Thank you for that!

Uncle Bud
December 27th, 2013, 08:05 AM
This may be off topic. Speaking as a newbie to FPGeeks, I had been viewing videos and reading posts for some months before I signed up. The reason I signed up was the sense of openness, helpfulness, and a sense of trust. I think this would go after a while should a pay to play type thing be implemented, even though I have no plans to buy/sell at the moment. I think I am sensible enough to choose who I would buy/sell from, and like Dan said, if you feel you don't trust a seller, you do have a choice. Sorry for rambling, it's just my thoughts.

welch
December 27th, 2013, 10:49 AM
My instinct says that:

- a fake seller would be found very quickly and people would hear (see the adventure pinned at the top of the Fountain Pen Board)

- counting posts would mean added work for the admins, as several others have noted, and would block some great (and trustworthy) sellers failing to catch unscrupulous sellers.

As others have mentioned, I distrust the idea of having splitting sellers into professional sellers and amateur, or one-off, sellers. It seems a short slide to charging for professional seller status...and giving the professional seller prominent "eye-and-mind" space.