Marketplace's Future

[CalBoy]

I would be in favor of a time-based solution. Say, 6 months?

I'm liking the time-based system as well, though I'm not sure how long it should be. I think that kind of decision should best be left up to the mods/gods, since they have more things to consider than us lowly regulars.

I don't think the number of posts or time in membership has anything to do with whether someone would be a good trader or not.

Absolutely! It has very little to do with the trust worthiness of the seller or his wares. However, it can serve as a general barometer of the seller, much like a credit score helps landlords and how proper dress helps interviewers; both have nothing to do with the core action, but do help provide a glimpse into the personality of the person.

There are evaluation systems (like Heatware) that provide actual, less-anecdotal evidence of whether someone would be a good trader.

I view my 70 positive ratings (zero neutrals/negs) as a far better testament to my reliability and trustworthiness than my 145 posts (most of which were in the Premiership thread) or over a year of membership (most of which was idle).

A rating would only really be good for those who have already sold something. Someone new would have to "prove" themselves and in the process, it's possible someone could get cheated.

A larger posting history also shows more of a commitment to the site (as would a longer membership). For these reasons, the current rule cuts down on the chances for deals to turn sour. In my experience, Marketplace threads tend to go best when members have taken the trouble to do this -- really look at the other person's posts.

Which is why I think it's time to toughen the standard just a tad.
Although you address this better in this next paragraph, so I'll provide my full answer there :

So the idea to increase the minimum should be based on how well the current cutoff has met the goal, not just because the overall number of posts per day in the forums has increased.

I completely agree with this, and I have to be honest: I feel that 100 posts is failing.

There are so many members with 100 posts, and so many members who stay in only 1 forum and have only those types of posts. Getting to "know" them would be very difficult. A time based requirement would at least help us know that the seller hasn't just appeared in order to off load some junk and move on. It would help us know that they are here because they like the site.

The reason I brought up the increase in posts is to point out how well spammers can hide. Granted the mods/gods do a great job of cleaning this up, a crafty poster can still get away with dozens of 1 word responses in short time and then post a thread in the marketplace. While it seems a bit paranoid, I feel that in the coming future (say around the summer when the free iPod deal for students begins) we may get a lot of new members whose sole goal is to sell.

For length of membership, I wonder whether a member who joined at least X-many months ago is more likely to be a good partner for a deal, even if they didn't post for many of those months. As I mentioned, it shows a bit more of a commitment. In theory, the time it takes a member to make 100 non-spam posts has become shorter, because there are more forums and more threads in which to participate, so that "natural minimum time" isn't as long as it used to be.

I thought you were going to answer the $1 million question?

The problem with raising the post count to 500 or something, is that less people will qualify, therefore less activity.

Which is why it's a tightrope act. It's a careful balance of interests, and if we're discussing it this much now, imagine how often the mods have!

Do you always have to be the voice reason?

It's a nasty habit of his.

 

[ravenvii]

I'll start with saying I agree with the tougher restrictions on posting/length of membership for posting in the marketplace.

I just want to bring up something I personally disagree with. The ban on "off-topic" postings in the marketplace. Yes it does have it's negative side in that people derail a seller's thread, and so forth. But on the other hand, it allows members to post experiences with sellers/buyers, and to warn others. Or to discuss the value of an item, or so forth. I liked the marketplace the way it was circa last year, when it was a bit more flesible. With the tougher restrictions on who are allowed to post there, the mods should in turn relax the posting rules.

That would also make it a bit less work for the mods (more relaxed rules = less reports of bad posts).

Just my 2 cents.

 

[devilot]

The ban on "off-topic" postings in the marketplace. Yes it does have it's negative side in that people derail a seller's thread, and so forth.

It's not just about derailing a thread. It's about unfairly giving more exposure to Poster X's thread and pushing other Marketplace threads further down the page. We're doing our best to let every thread be equally viewed and whatnot. I'm sure any potential seller (or OP of a WTB thread) can appreciate that.

But on the other hand, it allows members to post experiences with sellers/buyers, and to warn others.

That's not necessarily outright banned... One simple post at the end of a transaction should suffice and then if that seller were to start a new FS thread, could then link back to that older thread as "proof" of a transaction gone well.

Or to discuss the value of an item, or so forth.

Again, not fair to sellers/ buyers unless they specifically state "Feeler" in the thread title. People are free to do their own research and to purchase/ or sell at whichever price. We're not here to babysit and offer only the "best deals or values."

 

[AmbitiousLemon]

This is the solution to the Marketplace problem I proposed in the privacy of the Mod forum back in september. The idea is that all of these things can be done easily with our current software (where as solutions like reputations are difficult hacks)

1. Forum invisible (default)
2. Forum visible, cannot create threads (100 posts, registered for 10+ days)
3. Forum visible, can create threads (500 posts, registered for 60+ days)
4. Zero posts for people spamming to reach marketplace (rather than just killing their spam posts)

We batted around the various values a bit privately so it would be interesting to hear the public's opinion on it since you guys have expressed an interest in fixing the marketplace.

 

[CalBoy]

Well it certainly seems as though there is no clear consciousness on this.

This is the solution to the Marketplace problem I proposed in the privacy of the Mod forum back in september. The idea is that all of these things can be done easily with our current software (where as solutions like reputations are difficult hacks)

1. Forum invisible (default)
2. Forum visible, cannot create threads (100 posts, registered for 10+ days)
3. Forum visible, can create threads (500 posts, registered for 60+ days)
4. Zero posts for people spamming to reach marketplace (rather than just killing their spam posts)

We batted around the various values a bit privately so it would be interesting to hear the public's opinion on it since you guys have expressed an interest in fixing the marketplace.

So am I to understand that the mods/gods sort of agreed to this? Is this still an idea that is in the works, or is it a possible solution that's being considered?

Either way, I like it.

I think making the forum invisible to non-members is a great way to avoid people registering just to sell their stuff.

I also like the way it gradually opens up new privileges, rather than being an "all for one" principle like it is now.

 

[SuperCompu2]

I know the idea of having feedback be a variable is discriminating against those who have not completed any transactions, but what if a successful transaction lessened the time needed to post to the forum? I don't know how this could be implemented, but I know that if there's a "regular" with 5 beautifully completed sales with plenty of feedback wanting to sell something, he shouldn't have to wait 6 months because of the spammers. On a side note though, I do believe the inflation of posts does warrant an increase to say 200 posts. I know it took me forever to get to 100. I'm not even at 500 yet and I've been around for over a year, with about a dozen marketplace transactions completed.Then again, I started visiting long before iPhone and all the biggest Intel Mac stuff came around, and joined shortly after the Intels were introduced, so my posts were fewer and far between.

Like I said, I have no idea how this could be implemented but I thought it would be worth noting.

I, as well as many other better known members spend a lot of time in the marketplace, and we have all seen plenty of things go wrong. (we all remember the skoker incident. ugh.) I think this thread is a great idea and the ideas should keep coming!

 

[macEfan]

This is the solution to the Marketplace problem I proposed in the privacy of the Mod forum back in september. The idea is that all of these things can be done easily with our current software (where as solutions like reputations are difficult hacks)

1. Forum invisible (default)
2. Forum visible, cannot create threads (100 posts, registered for 10+ days)
3. Forum visible, can create threads (500 posts, registered for 60+ days)
4. Zero posts for people spamming to reach marketplace (rather than just killing their spam posts)

We batted around the various values a bit privately so it would be interesting to hear the public's opinion on it since you guys have expressed an interest in fixing the marketplace.

I like your reasoning! Other Mac Forums sites have also use similar tactics and they seem to be highly effective. I agree that we need to find a healthy medium between post count and time required.

Coming from a member who somewhat frequently uses the marketplace, I found two issues that I think could be improved upon:

1) People with 0-5 posts sending PMs to members trying to sell or buy things. I just do not trust these accounts. Before I go through a transaction with a member of this board I like to be sure they are legitimate. Making the marketplace invisible solves this problem.

2) Selling non-technology-orientated equipment on MacRumors. I have seen everything from books to cars to VACUUM CLEANERS getting sold on this board. Now I can deal with books, CDs, and movies...but cars and vacuum cleaners????? this is not FreeBay. Some things just belong elsewhere...

The quote above that has the newer marketplace requirements sounds like a good goal for us to work to in the future.

 

[Doctor Q]

Coming from a member who somewhat frequently uses the marketplace, I found two issues that I think could be improved upon:

1) People with 0-5 posts sending PMs to members trying to sell or buy things. I just do not trust these accounts. Before I go through a transaction with a member of this board I like to be sure they are legitimate. Making the marketplace invisible solves this problem.

You consider these contacts to be a problem. Might other sellers want to hear from those new members, even though you don't? It's up to you (as thread starter) whether to respond, of course, and you could post in your thread to say you will deal only with established members. If most people would consider this to be a problem, that favors cutting off access. If only some would, we're better off letting them handle it individually.

2) Selling non-technology-orientated equipment on MacRumors. I have seen everything from books to cars to VACUUM CLEANERS getting sold on this board. Now I can deal with books, CDs, and movies...but cars and vacuum cleaners????? this is not FreeBay. Some things just belong elsewhere...

Our focus is Apple-related items, but you are correct that we allow established members to sell other items. It might be hard to draw the borderline. Games? Electronics? Anything "technical?" Suggestions are welcome.

 

[MacNut]

How about a happy medium, 3 months and 250 posts. And you have to be on good standing with the mods.

 

[ravenvii]

You consider these contacts to be a problem. Might other sellers want to hear from those new members, even though you don't? It's up to you (as thread starter) whether to respond, of course, and you could post in your thread to say you will deal only with established members. If most people would consider this to be a problem, that favors cutting off access. If only some would, we're better off letting them handle it individually.

Our focus is Apple-related items, but you are correct that we allow established members to sell other items. It might be hard to draw the borderline. Games? Electronics? Anything "technical?" Suggestions are welcome.

I don't know what to call it... maybe "Apple and Apple-related products, electronics and media (including books)"?

 

[CRAZYBUBBA]

I take it you've had problems modding the marketplace before?

Actually, I have. I approve of the higher limit. I also would like to see no members under 20. But that's just me..

I've had a couple scam/possible scam situations with members in said age range.

In my 5 or so years here, there have been maybe, a handful of problems in the Marketplace. Is this a solution looking for a problem?

Really? I've seen 3 and those are just those that had effected/could have effected me.





With regards to vacuum cleaners etc, I am in favor of non-apple stuff. I've gotten some great deals on books on MR.

 

[kainjow]

Why not make it so that MR gets 2% of all transactions over $50

 

[CalBoy]

And you have to be on good standing with the mods.

I think this is important. Though I'm sure any true "bad apples" (forgive the pun) would not last long anyways.

Why not make it so that MR gets 2% of all transactions over $50

That would force legal liability onto MR, which would probably be a lot worse for everyone.

 

[macEfan]

You consider these contacts to be a problem. Might other sellers want to hear from those new members, even though you don't? It's up to you (as thread starter) whether to respond, of course, and you could post in your thread to say you will deal only with established members. If most people would consider this to be a problem, that favors cutting off access. If only some would, we're better off letting them handle it individually.

Our focus is Apple-related items, but you are correct that we allow established members to sell other items. It might be hard to draw the borderline. Games? Electronics? Anything "technical?" Suggestions are welcome.

I know this has also been discussed before, but do we want to consider a way for MacRumors members to see other people's past feedback? I know there are several options that buyers/sellers can make note of on their threads (eg past forum feedback, heatware, ebay, etc.) Would creating a sticky with marketplace seller/buyer feedback be effective? This has been implemented in other forums sites buy I'm not sure exactly how effective it is. I know I think I would benefit from having it present. (you would just be able to do a quick control-Find to look for people's past references)

I know managing a thread like this would require some effort, but I'd be happy to compile a preliminary list and others can chime in what they would like to see....

As long as I have references I have no issue dealing with those new to the forums....we all have to start some place

As for your comment regarding items members are allowed to sell, I feel a fair limit should be to technology and media related items only. I suppose you could just stress that those above categories are what is technically allowed, but I guess because MacRumors is generally an easy-going place we generally don't mind if a few non-technical items slip through the cracks..... just nothing that gets seriously out of hand....

 

[SuperCompu2]

Would creating a sticky with marketplace seller/buyer feedback be effective? This has been implemented in other forums sites buy I'm not sure exactly how effective it is. I know I think I would benefit from having it present. (you would just be able to do a quick control-Find to look for people's past references)

I think this, paired with the invisibility of the Marketplace to members below the cutoff would be a good pair. Every poster could have a single post in the feedback thread, editing it with different contacts as they went along. I'd have to dig deep into my PM box to find everyone I've dealt with, but I think this is a good idea.

 

[CRAZYBUBBA]

Would creating a sticky with marketplace seller/buyer feedback be effective? This has been implemented in other forums sites buy I'm not sure exactly how effective it is. I know I think I would benefit from having it present. (you would just be able to do a quick control-Find to look for people's past references)

I like the idea of progressive trading/buying abilities.... making it invisible etc.

As for the stickies on good/bad traders they don't work and they are very messy. See the thinkpads.com forums for example.

I'd much rather have a sticky with documented bad experiences... although in my experience the mods have been pretty fast to ban anyone who they know is a scammer.


Also, all time based solutions must include a min post count too... that way you can't just make 5 accounts, come back in 3 years and start trading. (Not that I see it happening, but just in case)

 

[tefleming]

People keep bringing up the point of those who haven't done deals before (and how do they then build a reputation.)

I still say that some sort of reputation system (which already exist and would require no coding/changes to VB) is far better than ANY post count / time on board solution. Especially since putting a post count requirement in place actually encourages people to post more frequently, even when they aren't saying anything helpful.

I'm not suggesting that Rep be used to allow/block the Marketplace, merely that the site encourage a system's use (Beer or Heat - just to name two.) Let buyers/sellers decide who they're comfortable dealing with.

I've traded a lot over at Anandtech (their FS/T forums are VERY active, though not very mac-centric.) They've made it work. They don't use ANY barriers to FS/T (other than requiring a non-free email account). New traders wind up shipping or paying first. (Yes, this means a newb might have to ship their goods prior to receiving full payment - hence they're motivated to sell to someone with a SOLID reputation.) It sucks, but you do it, you build a rep, and you don't have to do it anymore.

 

[CRAZYBUBBA]

People keep bringing up the point of those who haven't done deals before (and how do they then build a reputation.)
<snip>

They've made it work. They don't use ANY barriers to FS/T (other than requiring a non-free email account). New traders wind up shipping or paying first. (Yes, this means a newb might have to ship their goods prior to receiving full payment - hence they're motivated to sell to someone with a SOLID reputation.) It sucks, but you do it, you build a rep, and you don't have to do it anymore.

The paid/official email seems like a good idea.

Newbs everywhere have to build a reputation. If you look at my FS thread below you'll see that many of my earlier sales were made at good discounts in order to build trust/reputation on the MR marketplace.

 

[JasonElise1983]

Well,
I agree with raising the requirements, but i believe it should be an "and/or" situation. Like 250 posts and 3 months or, if you've been a member for "blank" amount of time. I say this, because i've been a member since 2003, but i've still not hit 500 posts. It's not because i don't contribute, but because i try to only contribute to things i know about or can help with. I don't contribute to just be contributing or raise my post count. I mean, i read the forum every day, but when a forum topic has 10 pages, and i've read through all of them...most likely what ever i was gonna say, has been said 5 or 6 times, so i don't bother. Anyway, just wanted to share my view on the post count thing.

-JE

 

[davidjearly]

This is the solution to the Marketplace problem I proposed in the privacy of the Mod forum back in september. The idea is that all of these things can be done easily with our current software (where as solutions like reputations are difficult hacks)

1. Forum invisible (default)
2. Forum visible, cannot create threads (100 posts, registered for 10+ days)
3. Forum visible, can create threads (500 posts, registered for 60+ days)
4. Zero posts for people spamming to reach marketplace (rather than just killing their spam posts)

We batted around the various values a bit privately so it would be interesting to hear the public's opinion on it since you guys have expressed an interest in fixing the marketplace.

I like this idea. Something along the lines of this, where members with under a certain post count and who have been here for less than a given time, can still view and participate in buying things, but not selling until they have met a higher requirement.

There is less risk in selling to someone relatively new than there is in buying from them in my opinion. I think the Marketplace requirements should reflect this.

I've been scammed once here, and this was quite recently. This was by Rhys105, a member who joined in Oct 2007 and reached a total of 112 posts before scamming me in December 2007. A member for less than 3 months.

The statistics of this show us that this member was only slightly over 100 posts before trying his scam, and he was a member for less than 3 months. I realise this is not true for all problems in the Marketplace but it is coincidental that he had only just over the minimum requirement before trying to scam someone.

Thats my thoughts.

David

 

[CalBoy]

I've been scammed once here, and this was quite recently. <remainder of the story>

I think we'd find that you're not the only one to have been scammed, which highlights the fact that 1 rotten apple can spoil the bunch.

Hence, there is a need for additional restrictions, as this will make it tougher for new scammers to join the fray.

 

[Markleshark]

I would like to see

1) 500 posts minimum

and

2) at least 3 months membership

I'd like to see that as well.

It's strong yes, but we are dealing with High Value goods and a lot of money can change hands. I've had nothing but good experiences with the Marketplace, but I know thats not entirely the case.

 

[PlaceofDis]

i like AmbitiousLemon's idea and thought.

1. not visible to those under 100 or unregistered.
2. at 100 posts becomes visible. (1month min on site)
3. at 500 posts can post threads (3-6 months on site)

i'm all for requiring the use of being on site for awhile to help. scammers are less likely to stick around, and less likely to remember after such a period. worth a try imo.

 

[EricNau]

I would like to see

1) 500 posts minimum

and

2) at least 3 months membership

That sounds good to me.

If the requirements were made more strict, is that good or bad for sellers? It shrinks the pool of potential buyers, but in theory makes the pool of higher quality.

Based on what I've read, users are selling their items through the MacRumors Marketplace because they want a good and easy selling experience, not to get the most money (that's what ebay is for). If this be the case, I would assume stricter rules would be the most beneficial.

 

[CRAZYBUBBA]

Based on what I've read, users are selling their items through the MacRumors Marketplace because they want a good and easy selling experience, not to get the most money (that's what ebay is for). If this be the case, I would assume stricter rules would be the most beneficial.

My sentiments exactly.