Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

RiTides wrote:

Barksdale wrote:I have noticed that this does not work properly if you edit the original post prior to bumping the thread. Perhaps this is something that may be addressed at some point in the future.

Yes, editing fools the pop-up into thinking you've already replied to the thread. We've let lego know about it and it's in his queue to fix, but low priority as it's apparently pretty difficult to do... and users who are savvy enough to edit their posts (not everyone knows how!) are usually able to figure out that it's in error. I've had a number of PMs about it over time, though, so hopefully it does get fixed eventually.

LunaHound wrote:My most immediate concern as a couple of incident have shown, is bad traders do multiple bad trades simultaneously.

There should be a plan to deal with that.

This is a problem inherent with people who do underhanded business anywhere on the net... it just makes too much sense to hit more than one person at once.

I'm not sure what we can do about this one, though, other than remind people to stick to the precautions listed. If you're paying someone by Paypal, you'll have a full 45 days to realize something's up and file a claim. If they're brand new or you have reason to doubt (but for whatever reason still want to trade) you can ask them to ship their half of the trade first.

The most dangerous situation is the most common- a simultaneous trade. I'll do these for low dollar amounts, but for a higher value trade I usually stick to using Paypal, or check out the other trader as thoroughly as I can first and, if they don't have many posts/reputable trades or have an unresolved transaction report, I'll ask them to ship their half first.

Doing that should help people avoid Most unscrupulous persons... but there's not one catch-all for every situation- even using Paypal the other person can try to commit fraud by sending the wrong item or the like, and hope Paypal takes their side in the claim.

See this is where we view things differently.

I like to leave my offers inside the seller's thread directly. For you guys, you assume im giving free thread bumps.
When the real reason is ( drum roll )

When i make a offer ( or others offers ) in the thread, we can look at seller's reply. Does the seller look like he know who they are selling to?
Or... does it look like they want to "sell" to everyone that has offered? ( this happened many times before with scammers, WE NOTICED them accepting offers from multiple people at same time while we
we're n negotiation phase just before paying. Its easier for scammers to con multiple people if everything is done in PM and hidden from everyone's sight.

Breotan wrote:I've been thinking that the mandatory thread layout should be modified slightly for eBay auction threads.

Currently using the [H][W] tags for eBay auctions is clumsy and redundant since all auction threads are selling items for money and not conducting trades. Using the [H][W] tags in auction threads also makes it a little more difficult to quickly skim past them if you are just looking for people interested in trading.

I suggest eBay (and only eBay) subject format be changed as follows:

[eBay] Stuff that is being listed on eBay [USA]

This will make it easier to find or ignore these threads depending on what you are looking to do.

Great idea.
I think this is a stellar suggestion.

MODS, make it so!
lol


Eric

MagickalMemories wrote:

Breotan wrote:I've been thinking that the mandatory thread layout should be modified slightly for eBay auction threads.

Currently using the [H][W] tags for eBay auctions is clumsy and redundant since all auction threads are selling items for money and not conducting trades. Using the [H][W] tags in auction threads also makes it a little more difficult to quickly skim past them if you are just looking for people interested in trading.

I suggest eBay (and only eBay) subject format be changed as follows:

[eBay] Stuff that is being listed on eBay [USA]

This will make it easier to find or ignore these threads depending on what you are looking to do.

Great idea.
I think this is a stellar suggestion.

MODS, make it so!
lol


Eric

It's difficult enough to get people to stick to the [H] [W] [Country] format as it is. Every morning, I log in and have to edit a bunch of them and I'm sure the same is true of all the other mods.

Now, the suggested ebay thread title format is certainly a good idea and we shall certainly discuss it between us but I'm not so sure that adding yet another title format requirement will have the desired effect. I suspect people will either ignore it and continue using the current standard or get confused as to which to use. The third way is of course that they ignore all formatting rules completely which is what a certain proportion of posters tend to do.

Maybe you're being too limiting, if it's such a headache?
For example, why require the brackets? When I'm looking at ads here and BTown, it's not hard to discern H:/W:.

Also, instead of fixing the ads for people, have you thought about just deleting them? Someone spends a half hour putting something together, only to find it's been deleted and they've got a PM telling them why and notifying them that they still have to wait 4 days to repost an ad, and they'll catch on quick enough.
It would be easy to have a separate "hidden" forum for things just like this. Just move the ad there and PM the OP (which could be done via a "form letter" PM).

If you keep fixing them for people, they won't learn.

Eric


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or, rather than REQUIRING it, then ALLOW [Ebay] as a tag. It will catch on quick if people want to use it.

Just a thought.

Erif

MagickalMemories wrote:Maybe you're being too limiting, if it's such a headache?
For example, why require the brackets? When I'm looking at ads here and BTown, it's not hard to discern H:/W:.

Also, instead of fixing the ads for people, have you thought about just deleting them? Someone spends a half hour putting something together, only to find it's been deleted and they've got a PM telling them why and notifying them that they still have to wait 4 days to repost an ad, and they'll catch on quick enough.
It would be easy to have a separate "hidden" forum for things just like this. Just move the ad there and PM the OP (which could be done via a "form letter" PM).

If you keep fixing them for people, they won't learn.

The reason why we have a standard is primarily to allow people to quickly and easily browse thread titles for items of interest - the whole point of having a standard is that you require people to stick to it. If you don't enforce a standard then it quickly starts to degenerate and pretty soon, people aren't even bothering with H and W at all. The current standard was chosen by the Swap team after numerous and lengthy discussion; it wasn't something picked at random or on a whim, the primary driver was to try and regulate the Swap Shop which had been fairly lawless up to that point. I don't think it is particularly onerous a task to ask people to stick to the proscribed format - the problem comes when people post before reading the sticky thread that lays out the rules and guidelines. But people not reading stickies isn't just a phenomenon limited to the Swap Shop unfortunately.

In terms of trying to educate users it isn't just a case of fixing titles alone; we firstly warn and direct to the relevant rules section - I personally give people a couple of threads grace. If they still don't comply then I will issue a last warning and from that point, threads are deleted and PMs sent. I would prefer not to; you'd be surprised how vitriolic and abusive some people can be just because I have had the temerity to delete the thread but ultimately, most people are pretty understanding. However, deleting threads and sending PMs is still the same as formatting titles; ultimately, it is moderator intervention of one sort or another. I think we would all prefer if there were none at all.

Having two standards for two type of Swap Shop threads really doesn't seem any more difficult than having one type of standard attempting to fit every possible type of post.

Set up the rules to use [H][W] for trades and [eBay] for auctions. Should be relatively easy. Just put an announcement in the News/Rumors forum about the rules change so people will be aware of it and you should have less to do at your end.

This new format won't solve any of your problems as a moderator. I expect you'll have the same amount of work to do at your end as you otherwise would. I simply suggested it for the users' convenience to better sort through the posts. Think of it as a signal to noise issue and you'll see what I mean.

you'd be surprised how vitriolic and abusive some people can be just because I have had the temerity to delete the thread

I think you'd find me QUITE sympathetic. ; )

No harm or criticism was intended in my last post, BTW.

I wasn't referring to the H & W in general. Only to the use of brackets. It's easier to just "H:" a line.
You are, of course, correct about getting people to even use them at all. It's like herding cats. That's why I think it would be easier on you to not require brackets.

Question:
If someone posted an ad and, rather than saying [h] and [w], it said [ebay], would that person have problems with staff or would you overlook it, due to it's more specific nature?

Regardless, in the end, it's your Swap Shop, so you make the rules. I won't criticize the way you do it. That's for sure.

Eric

Put me in for keeping it the same as currently for simplicity. There are enough people that either half read or just don't read the single title format guideline as is... if you end up changing it for something that is only marginally better, you run the risk of having to re-educate the people you've already had to correct who eventually adopted the format. While the proposed format is a bit clearer and distinguishable, I see the potential disadvantages with confusion as more substantial.

I still think ebay threads needs to be removed, or be placed into a sub section of SwapShop.
(sure a section where its all ebay stuff )

Because its not a trade, and only an ad.
An ad that has nothing to do with Dakka but to do with ebay.

And to have the same space contested isn't right.

Breotan - It is a good idea for clarity, but I think filbert/warboss are right in that it would be very hard to get people to comply with a different standard for Ebay threads.

Lunahound - I'm not sure where your response came from, particularly since you quoted my post, which makes no mention of whether or not it's OK to leave an offer in a thread. It is, of course, OK- however, if you need to make multiple posts working something out, it is appropriate to take it to PM.

MagickalMemories - The idea of making the optional ebay formatting "optional" would, I think, be the correct way to implement it if we decided to make it an option. However, I'd be concerned that loosening the title rules would open the door to people not using the tags... as the stricter we are with them, the more people seem to use them. The square brackets are likewise- requiring them seems to get people to use more tags in general (in my opinion) whereas allowing any kind of tag formatting seems to result in more tagless threads. However, none of it keeps new users from not reading the rules / looking at the thread titles posted and just making a tagless title, which are the majority of the ones we have to edit (and why we wouldn't delete after the first offense or two, or without PM'ing).

RiTides wrote:MagickalMemories - The idea of making the optional ebay formatting "optional" would, I think, be the correct way to implement it if we decided to make it an option. However, I'd be concerned that loosening the title rules would open the door to people not using the tags... as the stricter we are with them, the more people seem to use them. The square brackets are likewise- requiring them seems to get people to use more tags in general (in my opinion) whereas allowing any kind of tag formatting seems to result in more tagless threads. However, none of it keeps new users from not reading the rules / looking at the thread titles posted and just making a tagless title, which are the majority of the ones we have to edit (and why we wouldn't delete after the first offense or two, or without PM'ing).

Well, you've definitely got a point there.
That's something that *ahem* I underrstand intimately. lol If you don't put many limitations on titling, you get some real doozies. : )

Like I said, no criticisms here, just spitballing, so-to-speak... The problem that you'll eventually run into with ebay ads - or, more specifically, the problem you're running into with ebay ads- is that a lot of people get ticked at posts (myself included) that [W] PayPal, only to open it and find links to auctions... If I wanted to bid on auctions, I'd go to feebay.
More and more, people are going to get annoyed with it. It's one of those little things that snowballs.

That's why BTown gave them their own forum and polices it with prejudice. We got so many feebay ads slipping in with the trade ads that it was a PITA to find a trade ad at times. lol
Not to say you should be like BTown, mind you. You've got a good thing here. I'm just mentioning it as an example of WHY we did it and not necessarily as an example you should follow.

Eric

Just separate ebay auctions away from normal swap trade/ sells.

There are no advantage whats so ever mixing them together.
The only thing would be minor inconvenience for yak or lego to make a sub section.

I may not be a mod but im good when it comes to thinking.

I wouldn't call a change of format for auctions "loosening the rules". The format is still the same, albeit one with a set of tags that the other type omits. I guess moderating it may be like herding cats but I just don't see it causing mass panic in the streets, dogs and cats sleeping together, etc.

Besides, it seems to me that people who wouldn't follow the proposed dual formats are the same ones who don't follow the current format anyway. :/

@MM - We understand the frustration with EBAY threads. Lord knows I've run into the same issue myself. That's mainly why we have the EBAY/[EBAY] tags (hopefully) appended to the ends of titles. It's easy to see and should allow uninterested parties to avoid the thread. Is everyone going to follow the guidelines? No. Though that's gonna be true of any guidelines/rules we set up. Lots of people just don't read the rules. However, if someone ends up failing to add an EBAY tag at the end, we ask that you guys just flag the thread with the Mod Alert. Usually doesn't take us very long to get there and take care of it.

You have to keep in mind, though, that we really only have a single forum dedicated to the Swap Shop and, unless there's been a change of mind, the Powers That Be (tm) don't really want to expand the Swap Shop past what we have it. While we have increased traffic with the increased membership base of Dakka, the Swap Shop is still a relatively small and minor portion of the site and there are ultimately larger sites dedicated to trading (BT being probably the most prominent at the moment). While there's the occasional "feebay ad" that pops up in the Swap Shop, I haven't noticed it to be too large of an issue that I would consider it a crisis. Currently, the majority of the threads do seem to remain as regular trade threads.

Also, regarding the []'s - they're there to provide a visual break for people perusing the forum. It's a lot easier to define where the Haves and Wants are by breaking up the text with the brackets than without.


@Luna - As we've mentioned many times in the past whenever this issue comes up, it's ultimately the decision of the Lego and Yakface to make. And while it may seem like a "minor" inconvenience, there are site-performance issues and overhead to deal with the addition of new sub-fora. Additionally, I do suspect creating a specific EBAY forum would entice people to try to spam that forum with EBAY ads, which I'd be loathe to have to sift through. If you feel very strongly about the issue, I'd recommend petitioning them directly.


@Breotan - While I appreciate the idea behind the 'Ebay Thread Guidelines', I just don't think it really offers enough in return to warrant the possible headaches it could lead to (and there would be headaches). I still believe the easiest way to mark off an EBAY thread is to add the tag at the end. While there is redundancy, I don't really particularly mind people with a single link in their threads to have to spend the extra time to add a couple of extra tags to their thread titles.

the Swap Shop is still a relatively small and minor portion of the site and there are ultimately larger sites dedicated to trading

Definitely. This is also why I agree with your assessment on separating out an auction forum... the size of your trade section just doesn't support it. If you guys were going to expand your trade area, then a separate forum might be worth looking into.
It's the same reason BT has unusual pairings in some forums (like board & video games together). Individually, they're each too small for their own forum, but they do just enough combined to have their own. Same issue with feebay ads here.

Also, regarding the []'s - they're there to provide a visual break for people perusing the forum. It's a lot easier to define where the Haves and Wants are by breaking up the text with the brackets than without.

Damn you and your new fangled "logic!" Why, back in my day, we had to make due with suppositions and outright guesses!
That's a good point. It's a definite visual break.

I'm curious; What would cause a change to current policy? Would it have to be member or staff instigated? I mean, what if you suddenly had 20 members clamoring for some type of feebay segregation, even if only by a different bracketing requirement? Would that make it a higher priority consideration?

No real reason for asking, other than I'm wondering. I'm always looking for ways to do things better, and it helps to pick the brains of those with informed opinions.

Eric

MagickalMemories wrote:I'm curious; What would cause a change to current policy?

Generally, things that are easy to implement and/or very needed get taken up. This thread by warboss is a good example:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/358729.page

Where he suggested editing in the lock message, which we do at times depending on the situation.

Another example is the Transaction Report list, which while not exactly what a lot of people had wanted, was based on lots of user's feedback, and was very needed due to the search function being faulty and people not being able to find them.

The addition of the pop-up messages by legoburner warning people about including tags in their titles or about bumping early is another example. That's a rarer type to get implemented as it's hard for lego to make time to add features to the swapshop when there are more pressing needs on the site... but was also very needed to give people a "first chance" to not break the rules themselves, or to inform them of the rules if they hadn't read the stickie.

RiTides wrote:

MagickalMemories wrote:I'm curious; What would cause a change to current policy?

Generally, things that are easy to implement and/or very needed get taken up. This thread by warboss is a good example:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/358729.page

Where he suggested editing in the lock message, which we do at times depending on the situation.

woohoo! viva la evoluction! Now if only my idea for not allowing link-only thread starting would gain some traction.

I'd support it.

Eric

Right now our current crackdown is (at least attempting to be) on ebay "final day" bump threads. I.e., people bump knowing it will be locked, but do it anyway since it's the last day... at this point we're at times deleting those threads rather than simply locking.

Perhaps link-only posts would be next, although personally I haven't seen enough of those to warrant a crackdown... it is pretty lazy not to at least copy a description of an auction or the like into the post, though!

RiTides wrote:Right now our current crackdown is (at least attempting to be) on ebay "final day" bump threads. I.e., people bump knowing it will be locked, but do it anyway since it's the last day... at this point we're at times deleting those threads rather than simply locking.

Didn't know that bumping of an eBay thread is not allowed, it doesn't seem to be listed in the Rules sticky...

Cyporiean wrote:

RiTides wrote:Right now our current crackdown is (at least attempting to be) on ebay "final day" bump threads. I.e., people bump knowing it will be locked, but do it anyway since it's the last day... at this point we're at times deleting those threads rather than simply locking.

Didn't know that bumping of an eBay thread is not allowed, it doesn't seem to be listed in the Rules sticky...

No, he's saying that people bump an eBay thread before the time limit between bumps is up.

Grakmar wrote:

Cyporiean wrote:

RiTides wrote:Right now our current crackdown is (at least attempting to be) on ebay "final day" bump threads. I.e., people bump knowing it will be locked, but do it anyway since it's the last day... at this point we're at times deleting those threads rather than simply locking.

Didn't know that bumping of an eBay thread is not allowed, it doesn't seem to be listed in the Rules sticky...

No, he's saying that people bump an eBay thread before the time limit between bumps is up.

ah, so bumping twice in a 7 day period.

But bumping on final day with no previous bumps is alright?

Cyporiean wrote:

Grakmar wrote:

Cyporiean wrote:

RiTides wrote:Right now our current crackdown is (at least attempting to be) on ebay "final day" bump threads. I.e., people bump knowing it will be locked, but do it anyway since it's the last day... at this point we're at times deleting those threads rather than simply locking.

Didn't know that bumping of an eBay thread is not allowed, it doesn't seem to be listed in the Rules sticky...

No, he's saying that people bump an eBay thread before the time limit between bumps is up.

ah, so bumping twice in a 7 day period.

But bumping on final day with no previous bumps is alright?

It's actually one bump every 4 days.

So, as long as it's been 4 or more days since your last bump, you can bump again.

Right, sorry that wasn't clear! Someone will post an ebay auction, with say 3 days left... then bump it on the last day not caring that it will be locked due to an early bump, since it's ending, anyway. The only way to stop it seems to be to delete the threads until repeat offenders stop doing it...

Quick question (Apologies if it's been answered, in couldn't see it in the FAQ), can I post a link to my ebay account in my trade thread as well as the items I'm selling direct?

Yes