Limit for Marketplace?

condyk wrote:
Not directly relevant to this thread ... but there is another excellent board I check out now and again called www.moneysavingexpert.​com that has a user recommendation system and seems to work well. If someone offers good advice you 'reward' them and so does anyone else who takes the advice. After a time you get a real strong sense of who's advice you might be able to count on and who talks boll*cks (I count myself in the latter category, of course!) Dunno if this board can do that.

That is similar to the reputation system vBulletin has builtin. The biggest disadvantage I see in enabling this now is that all members start from scratch. As far as I have found out there is nothing builtin that calculates the reputation from the time the board started (some of it is reward for number of posts and some for how long time You have been member). And I really think if this reputation system was enabled the reputation has to be calculated so long time members start out with higher reputation count than new members.

That implies an assumption the older guys and gals speak less boll*cks then newbies and I am prime example of that Hey, we can all start equal and in 6 months we'll have caught up in some relevant and useful way. But I don't mind ... I know know what I like, etc. now, but am more concerned about new people taking as gospel what some equally new people say because they read it posted by some other new person ... if you get the drift sir

condyk wrote:
That implies an assumption the older guys and gals speak less boll*cks then newbies and I am prime example of that

No more than only allowing access to the marketplace with for example 500 posts. Putting such a limit also implies that those posters are more trustworthy than a user with 1 post putting a $3300 item up for sale. Both can be equally trustworthy.

I think it's an excellent idea, and it makes sense to follow the same rules we have for the Glamour section. I'm actually a believer in time - like 3 months membership - but the Glamour policy seems to work, too.

Sorry, I've never been one to believe in "exclusionism" of any sort amongst equals. Doesn't matter if it's internet forums or country club membership.

Perhaps another alternative is to add registration fields for Address and telephone number(?) that would be manditory to access the Marketplace forum?

Whereas I am not personally opposed to a probation period for new members, I question whether we really have a need for that sort of policy, and whether it might not be a disservice to the members. I fear there might be a tendency by some to assume that any person who has met the requirement in months, number of posts, or both, has received the implied endorsement of the Forum. Whereas a person who has been a member for years who has hundreds or even thousands of posts may be deemed more trustworthy than a new member whose first post is a listing of a very expensive camera at a too-good-to-be-true price, that is not necessarily a conclusion that can be reasonably drawn by a thoughtful person.

The simple truth being, anyone buying or selling through POTN’s Marketplace is solely responsible for ascertaining the trustworthiness of the person with whom they are dealing. They should never --- repeat, NEVER --- assume that a person’s membership status is an important consideration in deciding whether or not to deal him/her.

So I don’t really care whether we implement a policy or not. In some ways, we might be shooting ourselves in the foot by being overly restrictive while making our little ‘club’ a bit more exclusive. That could be unfortunate as it flies in the face of the very welcoming atmosphere we’ve all worked so hard to create.

On second thought, maybe I am leaning slightly towards no such policy.

That's a good point Tom because no matter what policy we put into effect, it WILL discriminate against someone. Most people are smart enough to figure out how to purchase something over the Internet no matter whether the seller has 12 or 12,000 posts. An escrow service tosses all that doubt out the window. If a seller is willing to do that then I don't see how you can go wrong.

I believe that a probationary period or recommendation from a known member is a good idea. I don't consider it exclusionist to add some protection from "fly-by-night" sellers, as long as the rules are firm, fair, and equal to all.

That's a good idea as well. I always "google" somebody (if I don't know them) when I'm sending a fairly large sum of money to them, or when I'm sending an expensive item to them. I fully expect them to do the same to me. Everything should be on the up-and-up.

A photography forum where members have equipment worth thousands of dollars and their address is available. Thats a really good idea. Not.

Giving address and phone number to interested buyers is fine but have the information available to all members is a bad idea.

Well besides a limit how about a guidline or unofficial rules or things to be encouraged when buying from a poster. Such as,

• If you have a reputation on a auction website like eBay, Yahoo, Overstock, etc. That you are encouraged to share your reputation with others.
  
• PayPal is highly recommended for the safety of buyer and seller.
  
• Give all info you can, like where you live, where you will ship to or sell too, etc.
  
• Shipping methods available.
  
• and more...
  

Wouldn't it better to put a small safe guard in place before there is a need? If in place before the word gets out to scammers about POTN's marketplace user-trust it will make it much harder to scam people.

Say their limit has to be 300 posts and be registered for atleast 3 months. They may have planned to scam some people for a few thousand dollars and move on right away. However suddenly they have to post 300 posts and wait 3 months. Most likely they have no interest in photography so 300 posts with out getting banned for spamming will be difficult. This will not eliminate all scams but it will cut down on them with out anyone even knowing its made an impact.

If a safeguard is in place it will be much harder for a scammer to scam someone out of not only their money but their dream. That's my thinking in reguards to this anyway.

cjm,. all good rules that buyers should go by in an exchange. I do not think the forum itself wishes to be responsible for educating a consumer beyond what is allready included in the marketplace guidelines ;
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=30225

......not to mention the other source for consumer info here,. ie: 10 billion posts on how and what to buy from canon

However,.
If the membership would like to assemble a set of consumer education bullet points, I'd say go for it and we can at the ery least add it to the stickies at the top of the forum.

Just FYI,. in all the time I've been here,. I do not think we have had a single "scam" transaction occur. We have had very very few disagreements,. but none that I can recall that were blatant rip offs?..

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

I think all we can do is educate. Having post/online limits, as Belmondo said, does not really help to make anyone more reliable. Buyer should take care of making sure the deal is safe and valid - it's out of our hands.

I guess that makes sense. It's an idea you can keep in mind if there ever is a need for it. Thanks for responding everyone.

Good thread, and lots of thoughts and discussion. I do have to ask, though, what protection does paypal offer a seller? I can see the buyer being protected, but once a seller gets hung out to dry with a chargeback, the idea that the seller is protected goes out the window.