Page 5 of 13 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 124

Thread: Mistake: new rule about FS comments

  1. #41

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Hamilton, Canada
    Posts
    1,881

    Re: Mistake: new rule about FS comments

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Petronio View Post
    Sorry to have offended you with positive comments. When I do leave them I mean them as genuine and am trying to be helpful. Seems better than "bump" every hour as some people do.

    What's on General Hospital today? I have to go to the doctor and then visit the priest later. Then go get my hair dyed blue. Obviously we're a bunch of old ladies here.
    Actually your posts are usually helpful with real pertinent information, however positioning the opposing point of view as old and female does not make you young and virile.

  2. #42

    Re: Mistake: new rule about FS comments

    I don't agree. When someone is selling a lens for $800 that normally sells online for $300...prospective buyers should be informed of such. That's not rude....it's saving someone from making a mistake.

  3. #43

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Rondo, Missouri
    Posts
    2,125

    Re: Mistake: new rule about FS comments

    Seems to me that since this is a private forum, the moderators can make any rule they please. Having a heated argument about the intelligence of one of their decisions could possibly have an effect none of us would like. Does anyone want the FS section removed completely? I do not.
    Michael W. Graves
    Michael's Pub

    If it ain't broke....don't fix it!

  4. #44

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles de Porciúncula
    Posts
    5,808

    Re: Mistake: new rule about FS comments

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Graves View Post
    I do not.
    I do not either. I've bought some cool stuff from forum members, and hope to sell a few of my cool things in the near future. I might start a "What price should I put on these items" thread and see how that goes.

  5. #45

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,384

    Re: Mistake: new rule about FS comments

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Petronio View Post
    And we'd be better served by self-proclaimed experts stating their opinions as facts?
    Where did I demand a panel of self-proclaimed experts? So far, open discussions among our generally knowledgeable and benevolent lot did fare pretty well at arriving at something at least very close to the facts. The smaller pool of moderators probably won't do much better on average, and would indeed be more likely to trip up on items that need highly specialized knowledge (e.g. of 19th century European gear of local distribution - have we even a single European moderator?).

    In any case, and all personal preferences aside, the moderators should proceed very carefully (and perhaps even ask for legal advice in the state the site nominally operates from) regarding moderated marketplaces - these things can be set up safe for the mods, but you can also trip up and make them personally responsible for the trades. The past, unmoderated state at any rate kept them out of all obligations.

  6. #46

    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    9,487

    Re: Mistake: new rule about FS comments

    Quote Originally Posted by cowanw View Post
    Actually your posts are usually helpful with real pertinent information, however positioning the opposing point of view as old and female does not make you young and virile.
    Sorry, point taken. My virility is but a hazy memory anyway.

  7. #47
    jp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    5,628

    Re: Mistake: new rule about FS comments

    I think it would be wiser to PM someone if they are mistaken in their pricing or description than to put a public post telling them how wrong they are about what they have.

  8. #48
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    5,614

    Re: Mistake: new rule about FS comments

    Quote Originally Posted by David Luttmann View Post
    I don't agree. When someone is selling a lens for $800 that normally sells online for $300...prospective buyers should be informed of such. That's not rude....it's saving someone from making a mistake.
    The temptation is believing that we each have a responsibility to save prospective buyers from making mistakes, and that is, I think, the source of a lot of the issues that emerge.

    In fact, I do not believe that we have such an obligation. And often, the people doing so are as likely to be mistaken as the seller about the value of something. The price of something can vary quite a bit based on all manner of conditions that may or may not make the "comparables" comparable. Price is not some immutable law, but a simple agreement between an uncoerced buyer and seller.

    Supposing the price of large-format stuff starts to rise? Is it our job to inhibit that? Do we even want to? (Most of us own more than we are likely to want to buy already.) Somebody in a hurry should expect to pay more than a person who is patiently waiting for the correct price. And the seller may not need to sell something quickly. The market--and this market is quite open--should take care of that. The person who offers a $300 lens for $800 probably will have a lack of response as the statement on the price. It would have to be a willfully ignorant buyer to overspend that much if the price is really out of line. "Wilful ignorance" is the inability to perform a simple search of the for-sale ads here, at KEH, and on eBay, to determine what is a ball-park for similar items.

    Sometimes, a willfully ignorant seller provides me a good deal. That happens quite often though I'm not usually the beneficiary. Many quite experienced sellers on this forum have offered stuff that sold within minutes--a sure sign that their price was too low. Occasionally, I've been the willfully ignorant buyer, but maybe I was in a real hurry in those cases. I'm glad in both cases someone didn't feel it was their obligation to impede the deal.

    If someone starts a thread on the equipment forum that asks what the going rate ought to be for a given lens, then we can provide an abundance of opinions. And if someone is misrepresenting a product, providing the correct description is a service, as long as it is done so correctly. Often as not, though, even that starts an argument among experts as to what something really is.

    Rick "who would never post an item for sale after cocktail hour, heh" Denney

  9. #49

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    144

    Re: Mistake: new rule about FS comments

    I believe it is appropriate. I don't think its called the Whats your opinion of what I'm selling category.

  10. #50
    photobymike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tampa Florida
    Posts
    700

    Re: Mistake: new rule about FS comments

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Jones View Post
    This forum is my most treasured source of online photographic information. Just as freedom of the press is the foundation of democracy, the freedom to post inteliigent, constructive, but occasionally negative comments make the site strong. Not all comments have been nice, but even the quibbling occasionally has value. The few who abuse this will soon be hoist with their own petard.
    What we really need is respect and consideration for the others that would be reading or posting. Sorry jim There is not even close to freedom of democracy here. This a private board and we are invited guests. But it would behove the owners of this board to give a wide latitude in the conversation here. That is what makes this board interesting. If we do not limit our conversation to respectful comments on photo issues, I guarantee chaos would ensue.

    "Opinions are like assh**les ..everybody has one and everybody believes that everyone has a right to ("their") opinions". < worded very carefully

    Where else could a conservative person exchange ideas with anarchist about photography.

Similar Threads

  1. Excluding sections from "new posts" view?
    By Winger in forum Feedback
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 20-Feb-2012, 08:14
  2. Scheimpflug Rule
    By raylamsk in forum On Photography
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 20-Jul-2007, 11:31
  3. The one third into the scene rule
    By Leonard Evens in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 27-Jul-2006, 06:52
  4. Gitzo 3 leg sections vs. 4 leg sections
    By Josh Divack in forum Gear
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 13-Dec-2001, 09:49
  5. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-May-2001, 00:58

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •