Minimum Post Count to Post a For Sale Thread

[Jeph]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[mmahany]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Get rid of Classifieds totally.

[countrydirt]

Has there been a rash of fraudulent sales? I wasn't aware this was a problem here.

[kaisnowbird]

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]

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]

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]

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]

<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]

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]

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.