posted on August 3, 2001 06:30:54 AM new
Or maybe this:
Bidville's image hosting (in excess of twenty) is restricted to those with a Premier or Premier Plus membership, as announced on July 27 and effective August 1, and will begin deleting the images of those not holding a Premier or Premier Plus membership on September 1.
[ edited by dimview on Aug 3, 2001 06:32 AM ]
[ edited by dimview on Aug 3, 2001 06:34 AM ]
posted on August 3, 2001 06:35:54 AM new
Are you implying that it is mandatory that we work with you on this dim?
If a simple concession cannot be made on your part then I suppose we will all have to live with the knowledge that you choose to misrepresent the facts in your wording.
CuFF
PS. Ack! Is that a concession?
I think an excess of thirty days notice is plenty of time to make an adjustment. If my landlord wants to raise my rent 30 days is standard.
DICTIONARY.COM:
man·da·to·ry (mnd-tôr, -tr)
adj.
Required or commanded by authority; obligatory: Attendance at the meeting is mandatory
Uploading an excess of 20 images does still not make it mandatory to join Premier or Premier Plus. Joining would be but one of many options to choose from.
posted on August 3, 2001 06:39:23 AM newEven though you have chosen to not answer my earlier questions on this subject,
How many different ways do you think your question(s) can be answered? I answered it (them all) above. Why do you keep asking it (them) when you already know the answer(s)?
(the brackets simply signify that all four of your questions are the same)
A Premier or Premier Plus membership is required for image hosting (in excess of twenty) as announced July 27 and effective August 1
That's the best version so far, but I still have a problem trying to figure out why some people have a hangup about the word "mandatory". Whether you chose this word or the word "required", it means exactly the same thing. But, if the word "required" serves to appease a few folks here, then what the hay eh
posted on August 3, 2001 06:50:40 AM new
cuff >
Are you implying that it is mandatory that we work with you on this dim? If a simple concession cannot be made on your part then I suppose we will all have to live with the knowledge that you choose to misrepresent the facts in your wording.
I'm asking for input on a number of changes in my statement. You chose to label my latest change as a misrepresentation of the facts.
Well, guess what?
Most of it is taken directly from the Bidville announcements themselves.
You should not be accusing me of misrepresentation!
RB >
but I still have a problem trying to figure out why some people have a hangup about the word "mandatory". Whether you chose this word or the word "required", it means exactly the same thing. But, if the word "required" serves to appease a few folks here, then what the hay eh
There's some folks that just love to play games with semantics.
posted on August 3, 2001 06:54:55 AM new
My questions were directed specifically to dimview. dimview chose not to answer them. UNLESSdimview, buzzoon, gonzales, and RB are all the same person.
posted on August 3, 2001 07:00:26 AM newMy questions were directed specifically to dimview. dimview chose not to answer them.
What difference does it make who answers it (them)? The answer(s) will be the same no matter who chooses to help you with your dilema.
Would you please answer my question now, which is: Why do you keep asking it (them) when you already know the answer(s)?
UNLESS dimview, buzzoon, gonzales, and RB are all the same person.
PS .. Dim (me???) ... maybe you oughta ask the Moderator to close this thread ... it's starting to look very much like the type of discussions that occur in other places, and no matter what you (me???) say, it's just gonna keep going round and round until it gets locked anyway. See what I (you???) had to deal with in other places?
posted on August 3, 2001 07:08:29 AM new
Thanks so much for all the input. < LOL >
Here's the final version of the changed wording:
A Premier or Premier Plus membership is required to use Bidville's image hosting (in excess of twenty), as announced on July 27 and effective August 1. For those without a Premier or Premier Plus membership, Bidville will begin deleting their images September 1.
posted on August 3, 2001 07:20:03 AM newRB -- I may be mistaken, but I think that I only asked those questions once. I asked them specifically to dimview because they were directly related to statements made by dimview. At this point in time I'm not sure that dimview agrees with your answers.
For what its worth, I agree with stavecards ... moving on ...
posted on August 3, 2001 07:24:30 AM new
You did only ask them once as far as I can recall. What I am suggesting is that all of your questions are asking for the same answer, only your questions were worded slightly differently.
posted on August 3, 2001 07:35:55 AM new
stavecards >
From another Bidville seller, your last revised statement is fine. It does accurately reflect the new policy.
Thanks.
For the other Bidville sellers, arguing over semantics does nothing positive for us or the site. Let's talk about substantive issues.
posted on August 3, 2001 08:38:40 AM new
Me toooooooooooooo! Thanks for the revision
dimview!
Don't forget folks... there's still plenty of time to set-up a free image-hosting account anywhere you'd like and link to your auctions before Sept 1st.
The HTML link to your images are easily inserted into your auctions, and you get to place the image where ever you'd like within your text!
posted on August 3, 2001 08:43:56 AM new
Since Bidville's auction sellers must now decide on either a $5/month Premier or $10/month Premier Plus membership, or move to offsite image hosting, what's seems to be the breakdown of the decision?
Pay for a Premier/Premier Plus membership and keep the images at Bidville, or move them someplace else? Or perhaps, throwing in the towel and getting out of the auctions business altogether?
posted on August 3, 2001 09:08:09 AM new
dimview,
I for one would just like to thank you, and commend you for all the time and effort you put into gathering, corelating, filtering and interpreting the numbers that you do for auction sites.
Have you ever thought of going to a subscription based format where you could SELL subscriptions to your service for those who wished to purchase it? (just a suggestion)
Typo.
[ edited by jimhhow on Aug 3, 2001 09:09 AM ]
posted on August 3, 2001 09:18:11 AM new
Since Bidville's auction sellers must now decide on either a $5/month Premier or $10/month Premier Plus membership, or move to offsite image hosting, what's seems to be the breakdown of the decision?
Pay for a Premier/Premier Plus membership and keep the images at Bidville, or move them someplace else? Or perhaps, throwing in the towel and getting out of the auctions business altogether?
In response to these questions, my answer would have to be considered totally unscientific, but I will give it a try.
It seems from reading the boards that slightly more people are looking to sign up at the $5 level rather than image hosting on another site. Don't seem to be too many people talking about joining at the $10 level so it looks like they are choosing the cheapest route. I think the reason for choosing the $5 over the outside hosting is that many small sellers do not understand how to do outside hosting or think it is very complicated. It appears that they want to stay with their familiar method.
I believe it is the smaller sellers who are primarily affected by this change. Most of the larger sellers probably were already premier members or already use an outside hosting site.
posted on August 3, 2001 09:24:58 AM newIt seems from reading the boards that slightly more people are looking to sign up at the $5 level rather than image hosting on another site.
That is correct, but you have to factor in the fact that there are only about 20 to 30 members who regularily post to the boards. These are the Bidville cheerleaders and will go along with anything to keep the site active. Can't disagree with their efforts, but they are not representative of the masses ...
many small sellers do not understand how to do outside hosting or think it is very complicated. It appears that they want to stay with their familiar method.
Maybe the prez should offer a link to a site where this is explained in a "Image Hosting For Dummies" format
posted on August 3, 2001 09:32:14 AM new
"Or perhaps, throwing in the towel and getting out of the auctions business altogether?"
Throwing in the towel is an undesirable option for many who by choice would like to
wait and see where the chips may fall without a constant encounter with someone who unrelentingly suggests that they give up.
Many people enjoy learning things at AW. That is nearly impossible to do without running across numbers, and conflict especially when the subject is BidVille.
You began well enough with your comment only to blow it in the end by inserting what I view (dimly) as a somewhat freudian slip which exposes your real and true goal:
To have every other auction site fold other than The Giant.
Have a great day!
CuFF
typosss
[ edited by GettaLife on Aug 3, 2001 09:35 AM ]
posted on August 3, 2001 09:44:37 AM new
cuff >
You began well enough with your comment only to blow it in the end by inserting what I view (dimly) as a somewhat freudian slip which exposes your real and true goal: To have every other auction site fold other than The Giant.
That's just plain silly. I don't know where you come up with these ideas but, in my opinion, these personal comments are not very helpful.
I am trying to look at *all* the possibilities. Anyway, I forgot about one other possibility. Sellers could move their listings to another free auctionsite that still provides free image hosting.
jimhhow >
I for one would just like to thank you, and commend you for all the time and effort you put into gathering, corelating, filtering and interpreting the numbers that you do for auction sites. Have you ever thought of going to a subscription based format where you could SELL subscriptions to your service for those who wished to purchase it? (just a suggestion)
Thanks for the kind words. I don't think my comments are all that earth shattering and the thought about selling subscriptions has definitely not crossed my mind.
Ooooooh, but the possibilities.
I could sell the subscriptions on an auctionsite, in dutch auctions. Gee, I wonder which one would have the good fortune to get *that* listings. < LOL >
I would have to have a "Letters To The Editor" page for responses to my commentary. You know, like some of rather bizarre comments in this and other threads. < GRIN >
typo.
[ edited by dimview on Aug 3, 2001 10:08 AM ]
posted on August 3, 2001 10:03:27 AM new
"Many people enjoy learning things at AW. That is nearly impossible to do without running across numbers, and conflict especially when the subject is BidVille."
posted on August 3, 2001 10:15:50 AM new
cuff >
"Many people enjoy learning things at AW. That is nearly impossible to do without running across numbers, and conflict especially when the subject is BidVille."
A few corrections, if I may:
Many people enjoy learning things at AW. That is certainly possible to do without running across numbers because you can simply pass over the easily identified threads containing them <auction site listings - date>, and thereby avoid the conflict resulting from those that are unable to pass over the easily identified threads when the subject is Bidville.
posted on August 3, 2001 10:32:25 AM new
I also wish to thank Dimview for all the statistics on BV and the other sites. The statistic may not be what you want to hear but that is no reason to attack the poster.
posted on August 3, 2001 10:39:16 AM new
RB (Buzzoon)
Yes, there is a core set of people who regularly post to the Bidville boards, much like this one or any other that I've seen. I discounted the regular posters in my opinion because most are already premier members. There have been quite a few posts from the "silent masses" (ID's I didn't recognize or ones that don't post regularly) on this subject. My reference was to those type of sellers. The question that Dimview asked dealt with those who were not already premier members.
In your posts in the last month or so, you have made quite a few references to the large % of sportcards for sale on Bidville. I am trying to understand the point or theory that you are trying to state. The opinion I have formed is that you see this as a "negative" for Bidville. Is my opinion correct? If so, why do you believe it is a "negative"? If I am wrong in my opinion, what point or theory are you trying to make? I am being serious with this question, and not looking to start a flame.
[ edited by stavecards on Aug 3, 2001 10:47 AM ]
posted on August 3, 2001 11:25:58 AM new
The only negative aspect that I can find with BV's 53% (and growing) of all items being sports-related is that does not make for a very diverse selection of auction items. Sports related items comprise only about 10% of eBay's items. The sportscards world went through a minor transformation when 1/2.com allowed them on their site. The number of items available quickly went from 15 million to 50 million items. Almost any sportscard imaginable is either now listed there or soon will be. The need for sportscard auctions should slowly diminish as collectors adopt this fixted price approach to acquiring cards from a known source. Ebay's huge advertising budget will be a big help in making this a mainstream method of collecting cards. I know that card sellers will instantly belittle this post but watch what happens when this fixed price card buying/selling catches on with the public.
posted on August 3, 2001 11:49:51 AM new
I really enjoy DimView's stats and I'm looking forward to seeing them all in one thread. And maybe the bickering can then be confined to one thread as well.
posted on August 3, 2001 12:42:51 PM new
I just want to make a public apology to Bidville, and all of the "Auction World" I came on the boards ranting & raving, before knowing all of the facts. Which I have a bad habit of doing. I have come to the conclusion, with evidence produced, that Bidville isn't biased at all, that they have treated the members equally with any type of punishment or suspensions.
Hillbilly
posted on August 3, 2001 12:56:55 PM new
Bidsbids,
This is one sports card seller that will not belittle your post. Actually agree with several statements, but disagree with others.
First, I would like to respond to your opinion on the Bidville site. While Bidville has a disproportionate number of sports card listings versus the total, I don't believe this means there is a lack of variety of other items as compared to most sites. If you use the number of total listings as an indicator of variety, then Bidville has more than most sites. Today, there are over 320,000 listings besides sports cards. I just looked at the E-Pier numbers posted, and that site has 90,000+ total listings. That means Bidville has over 3 times as many listings than E-Pier in non-sports card listings. (Not knocking E-Pier - just was a convenient comparison). Most auction sites that I have seen with posted numbers also have significantly less total listings than Bidville in non-sports listings.
Therefore I don't believe that the sports cards are crowding out the other types of listings or limiting their variety. If the sports cards listings were more in line with most general sites, you would just have significantly less listings at Bidville, but not more non-sports listings.
As for your fixed-price theory, that change has already been occuring in sports cards for some time. Many sports card sellers generally list their cards with "Buy Now" prices, if not 1ST BID WINS setups. I use the 1ST BID WINS setup and my own sales went up significantly when I did that last year. Now I don't know if they will all move to half.com like you predict. I really don't think you will ever see the sports card market concentrated into one site. Would just be too much competition for the same $. I believe you will also see other sites adopt similar formats, if not completely, at least counterparts to half.com. Also half.com fees are fairly expensive for a significant number of cards to be sold profitably. I have seen a number of sports card dealers leave E-bay because of a combination of high fees and low prices due to cutthroat competition.
I also think that fixed pricing will eventually start to replace most auction type activities in almost all categories. I think the initial fad and thrill of bidding in an auction has worn off for many buyers.
