Should there be an "Other" section in For Sale/Trade?

[Erik Larsen]

I think the for sale section works pretty good as it is and is a good resource for the members here even with the sometimes irrelevant posts thrown in such as - wow, nice lens good price etc etc. The only thing I would like to see handled more efficiently by the posters (not moderators job IMO) is if you have numerous items to sell at the same time put them all in the same thread instead of posting numerous threads for each individual item. This would keep items on the front page longer for all the other members that are attempting to sell stuff. I may be in the minority with this suggestion, I don't know.
Regards
Erik

[rdenney]

So far, I don't see any evidence that these issues are keeping people from selling what is salable and priced to move, or from buying stuff they are looking for.

The forum provides a mechanism to show items posted since the last visit, so most people see what there is to see, if they want to. If a person hasn't visited in too long to make that practical, none of these strategies are going to work for them anyway, and they are going to miss stuff.

A thread receiving a bunch of additional responses does not move everything down for every response. The thread only appears in the list once. If one gets 150 useless responses, it just sits at the top of the list while the conversation continues, which bumps everything else down...one position only.

What pushes things off the first page is when people post 15 items for sale all on the same day, and all separately. So, we should make them put it into one post, perhaps by limiting people to one thread start per day in the For-Sale forum (note: I have not explored whether that is even possible). But is that better? Some of the most frustrating for-sale threads I've seen have me trying to figure out what has and has not actually been sold in a long list of items. The OP is forced to repeat the list in the thread on each significant change in price or availability. Is that better? I'm not so sure.

Dividing it up into smaller pieces will make it harder to see things, not easier. Instead of having to page down until one gets to the end of what has been posted since their last visit, we now expect people to page to different sub-forums. We just didn't see how that actually solved a problem.

Separating FS and WTB posts would be another approach, but there are really very few WTB posts, and I don't think it would address the issue. What would help with that issue is if people followed the guidelines and included "FS:" or "WTB:" in their thread titles.

Some forums do not allow bumping without a price reduction. We don't have that rule. (Hint, hint)

Rick "are we done here?" Denney

[Gem Singer]

Rick,

How about requiring the person who posts a WTB add to include a price range?

A FS add requires that a price be stated

[rdenney]

Rick,

How about requiring the person who posts a WTB add to include a price range?

A FS add requires that a price be stated

What problem is that solving?

Rick "who never sells anything, so is curious" Denney

[anglophone1]

I like it the way it is, nice and simple, if there were different categories or sections I'd miss stuff. Also never minded the non-large format stuff, heck I've even bought some of it.

Roger

+1

[eddie]

i got an great idea. perfect fit for the LFPF .

ONE section for selling stuff......lets call it the For Sale/Wanted section.

BUT i do think it is a very good idea to include some words of caution......i suggest this wording:

"Use of this area is strictly at your own risk. This is a private area open only to those who have been members for 30 days or more. Classified ads are limited to the personal photographic equipment, photography books, and prints of registered users. Posts by dealers are not allowed. The sales price must be clearly stated in the original post. Auctions are not permitted. Links to other auction sites such as eBay or other points of sale are prohibited and will be deleted without notice. Please prefix all post titles to indicate intent: "WTB", "FS" , "FT" (for trade), etc. Readers of "For Sale" posts should refrain from intruding on the thread by making negative comments about the item or the price being requested. Doing so is rude, and thus in violation of general forum guidelines."

when do you think this can be implemented?

please do it fast before Sal stumbles onto the idea of a FS section!! bwah ha ha ha!

[rdenney]

i got an great idea. perfect fit for the LFPF .

ONE section for selling stuff......lets call it the For Sale/Wanted section.

BUT i do think it is a very good idea to include some words of caution......i suggest this wording:

"Use of this area is strictly at your own risk. This is a private area open only to those who have been members for 30 days or more. Classified ads are limited to the personal photographic equipment, photography books, and prints of registered users. Posts by dealers are not allowed. The sales price must be clearly stated in the original post. Auctions are not permitted. Links to other auction sites such as eBay or other points of sale are prohibited and will be deleted without notice. Please prefix all post titles to indicate intent: "WTB", "FS" , "FT" (for trade), etc. Readers of "For Sale" posts should refrain from intruding on the thread by making negative comments about the item or the price being requested. Doing so is rude, and thus in violation of general forum guidelines."

when do you think this can be implemented?

please do it fast before Sal stumbles onto the idea of a FS section!! bwah ha ha ha!

It'll never work.

Rick "skeptical" Denney

[goamules]

Personally, as an old systems admin guy, I see no real reason NOT to organize the For Sale section into a few more categories. People used to bxxx and moan about the horrible, "dealers" who sell 2-3 big ticket LF lenses a month. But no one seems to notice the weeks when people are selling dozens of non LF items. I don't like having to Easter egg hunt for real LF items, or watch my sale item drop off the list in hours for people flipping a bunch of junk. I don't mind people selling any photo item or format, it's just dumb to pile them all on top of each other in the same folder.

Why not bring order and add simplicity to the For Sale?
- LF Lenses
- LF Cameras
- Accessories
- Non-LF Lenses and Cameras

[rdenney]

I look at the for-sale forum frequently and am able to scan every title. Yes, sometimes people have bursts of selling frenzy that results in a pile to sort through. Many enjoy that process. You don't, and I understand your point. That's why we discussed it and explored it. What we moderators would not enjoy, however, since we are not system administrators, is doing that sorting for you. For one thing, wherever we draw the lines will be different from where you or anyone else will. It will also be different than where those who post in that thread will.

For example, where do 8x10 trays fit in your taxonomy? What about a Jobo 2500 series tank with no reels? What about an 11x14 easel? All that would have to do into the accessories group, which will end up being a the big pile that you describe. For the person who is interested in lenses, that's a good thing. For the person who is building a darkroom, however, we haven't done much. And in my own experience, I'm an opportunistic buyer. I don't go to the for-sale forum looking for a specific thing--I look at what's there. I don't make optical enlargements any longer, but I don't mind skipping past posts about enlargers, enlarging lenses, easels, and trays.

As with all software used by real people, especially untrained users, something that is easy to set up isn't necessarily easy to maintain. The use cases and objectives for sellers who post in the thread will surely be at odds with the use cases and objectives of some (not all) who buy from it. Given that it is apparent that there is no one solution that satisfies all use cases, and given that the use cases for making the change have not been compelling, we have determined that doing so would cause more problems than it would solve.

And, with that, I'm closing the discussion, with thanks to those who responded. An idea was put forward, and we heard from lots of folks and explored it, and we came to a decision--that's how it should be even though there is no true consensus. Let's put this to bed, and at least wait a few months (or longer) before reconsidering it. (Garrett, if you think I've been unfair to you, send me a PM and we'll take it there.)

Rick "thanks to all" Denney