posted on August 12, 2001 06:39:11 AM new
kasmoon >
I presume the reason for the bump was to invite the site's supporters to tell us how they are going to turn things around.
BUMP. Oops, did it again. But it is kinda fun.
Yes, I've asked numerous times what *is* going to happen that will make the sell-through rate go up. There's been a few related responses regarding my differentiation between sportscards listings, "all other categories" listings and total listings, but they were quickly dismissed with a few calculations.
jimhhow >
OK, Kas, as long as you are presuming, let's presume to ask the wizard of numerical statistics about the corelating sellthrough percentages and the rate thereof for the other sites. Then we might be able to make a comparison.
There's been site statistics for several sites on numerous occassions. All anyone has to do is read them.
Is it possible that the sell through drop is indicative of the overall internet experience at the moment?
No.
Does comparing the Bidville numbers only against Bidville provide an accurate and complete picture?
Yes.
Personally, I think my sales are doing very well there at the moment, they were a little slow for me, but I had taken a listing hiatus for a while also.
I prefer a more quantitative approach. Anyone reporting robust sales could be accurate, since the distribution curve indicates that half of auction sellers had a sell-through rate greater than 1.3%. Of course, the other half had a sell-through rate less than 1.3%. And include the dollar value of the transactions into the equation and its not at all impressive.
While we are at it, maybe we could also get a corelation of the boredom factor in all of these numbers threads. I think that would probably generate some interest.
Since my numbers messages are clearly identified as such, I'd prefer a correlation of those who complain about my interest in the numbers and my messages about those numbers, and still read and reply to them even though they can simply pass them by or even make use of the "ignore" button.
RB >
He, he, he ... well, these threads are getting the most posts.
Well, like driving upon an accident scene, they just have to slow down, gawk out the window, and see what's happening.
posted on August 12, 2001 07:54:26 AM new
Cuff >
dimview: There's been site statistics for several sites on numerous occassions. All anyone has to do is read them.
To sift through your numerous threads would be statistically impossible.
Wrong.
dimview: "I prefer a more quantitative approach."
Then... why not report once a week?
That is *not* the definition of quantitative.
dimview: Well, like driving upon an accident scene, they just have to slow down, gawk out the window, and see what's happening.
Much like the scene of an accident, your threads are generally more chaotic than informative, and simply need to be moved off the road.
Actually, the estimated numbers, the listings forecast, are quite accurate and on target. I'm very satisifed with the information reported.
I was thinking that the Bidville CheerLeaderMobile pretty much looks like the car in Planes, Trains and Automobiles right about now. You know, the car that went down the interstate the wrong way, after John Candy and Steve Martin drove between those two tractor trailers.
< LOL >
Some people will do anything for attention.
< LOL >
Have a great day everyone!
Well, do your best to cope with these today.
<QUOTE>
BidVille.com Member,
Following are the results of your auction.
Item Number: <deleted>
Item Title: <deleted>
Date Started: <deleted>
Date Ended: <deleted>
Auction Type: English
No winning bids were placed on this item.
<ENDQUOTE>
And several hundred thousand of others just like it.
posted on August 12, 2001 11:33:23 AM new
"I'd prefer a correlation of those who complain about my interest in the numbers and my messages about those numbers, and still read and reply to them even though they can simply pass them by or even make use of the "ignore" button."
the answer is below this line.
"Oops, did it again. But it is kinda fun."
I guess the part that really bugs me is that someone could come on these boards, post all kinds of numbers and comments regarding the numbers and be 100% wrong. But that person could still look like an "expert" to many people.
WHO HAS SEEN PROOF on ANY qualifications? I have not. Has Auction Watch?
Does Auction Watch give support, credence, or endorsement to anyone posting numbers and extrapolations thereof.
Now, Dimview, don't misunderstand me, please. I am not saying that you are a fraud.
What I am saying is that you are not PROVEN to be genuine as any type of numerical expert.
What I believe this leaves the door open for is Quackery, hoaxery and shennanigans that could make AW look like they are indeed endorsing the numbers and calculations of anyone who is allowed to post so repeatedly.
Therefore, mostly out of curiosity I ask you if you are an agent of Auction Watch?
Or would "associate" be more appropriate, such as the role of Paypaldamon on another forum here?
Of course, one could also wonder the other way, if Auction Watch allows unrestricted postings of unverified numbers and calculations repeatedly and continually by any one person over a period of time, do they then become an agent of that poster?
Hopwever I am sure that Auctionwatch has already considered the ramifications of such questions, I was just wondering. Sorry if I got off topic.
posted on August 12, 2001 11:42:57 AM new
jimhhow >
Now, Dimview, don't misunderstand me, please. I am not saying that you are a fraud.
Then what are you saying, this time without the tap dancing?
if you are an agent of Auction Watch? if Auction Watch allows unrestricted postings of unverified numbers and calculations repeatedly and continually by any one person over a period of time, do they then become an agent of that poster? Hopwever I am sure that Auctionwatch has already considered the ramifications of such questions,
Can you say A-G-E-N-D-A ? Sure sounds like your now trying another tack?
posted on August 12, 2001 01:36:45 PM new
Why does someone have to be a qualified mathematician to post the numbers about a site?
If the numbers are in plain view or easily accessible like some of the sites, it doesn't take an expert to do the simple math.
Anyone can check the numbers for accuracy.
Is Dimview pulling the numbers out of the air?
Dimview chose Bidville's numbers to report. They used to do sellyouritem's too, until I started posting them.
Dimview has reported on ePier's numbers as well.
The calculation is a very simple one. Any 5th grader can easily do the math.
In case anyone doesn't know the formula it's
number of bids divided by number of closed auctions.
Anyone else care to pick up the ball and run with it?
I for one am interested in the numbers at all the second tier sites. I plan on getting back into listing heavily soon and am trying to decide which baskets to put my eggs in.
I already have some auctions running at sellyouritem simply because I was able to have my old listings retrieved from the Gold's database on both my IDs.
posted on August 12, 2001 03:05:11 PM new
toollady,
You make many valid points. However it is my contention that Dimview tends to concentrate and indeed place a magnifying glass on the negative only.
Therefore these numbers do not include information on sell through versus the featured section, etc.
I was not questioning anyone's ability to copy numbers posted from an auction site.
Rather, I was speculating upon the usage of those numbers and the qualifications for deciding how they should be interpreted. Along with the continual accompanying biased commentary.
What I am pointing out is I have seen nothing to show Dimview as qualified to make these calculations the qualifying information on a site. (That is also how this stuff relates to the topic.)
I am not even questioning the right to post these calculations and extrapolations, just the qualifications.
posted on August 12, 2001 03:23:44 PM new
toollady >
Why does someone have to be a qualified mathematician to post the numbers about a site? If the numbers are in plain view or easily accessible like some of the sites, it doesn't take an expert to do the simple math. Is Dimview pulling the numbers out of the air? Dimview chose Bidville's numbers to report. They used to do sellyouritem's too, until I started posting them. Dimview has reported on ePier's numbers as well.
I think you hit the nail on the head. I report on Bidville, ePier and until you began the calculations, SellYourItem, on the same basis for each of them.
Now it makes sense that the Bidville CheerLeaders (those than remain) is they don't object to the numbers on ePier or SellYourItem, they only object to the numbers on Bidville.
They have been going round and round on this for quite some time.
DIMVIEW HAS NOT MADE A SELL-THROUGH RATE ESTIMATION FOR BIDVILLE SINCE BIDVILLE BEGAN REPORTING THEIR OWN STATISTICS MORE THAN ONE MONTH AGO.
Yet here they are going round and round again.
I for one am interested in the numbers at all the second tier sites. I plan on getting back into listing heavily soon and am trying to decide which baskets to put my eggs in.
As am I, after vacation.
jimhhow >
However it is my contention that Dimview tends to concentrate and indeed place a magnifying glass on the negative only. Therefore these numbers do not include information on sell through versus the featured section, etc.
Dimview reports sell-through rates in exactly the same way for all auctionsites. Why are you even suggesting that preferential treatment be given to Bidville?
I was not questioning anyone's ability to copy numbers posted from an auction site. Rather, I was speculating upon the usage of those numbers and the qualifications for deciding how they should be interpreted.
There you go again. Qualifications.
Along with the continual accompanying biased commentary.
I can make *any* calcuation I want, I can draw *any* conclusion I want, and I can post *any* commentary I want.
If you dispute any calculation, conclusion or commentary, type out a message.
Now doesn't that seem simple? Why is it so difficult?
What I am pointing out is I have seen nothing to show Dimview as qualified to make these calculations the qualifying information on a site. (That is also how this stuff relates to the topic.)
And again. Qualifications.
I am not even questioning the right to post these calculations and extrapolations, just the qualifications.
And yet again. Qualifications.
It is just another side of the discussion.
Here's a novel idea. Why don't you inform me (us) of the qualifications one needs to make simple mathematical calculations?
[ edited by dimview on Aug 12, 2001 03:30 PM ]
[ edited by dimview on Aug 12, 2001 03:37 PM ]
posted on August 12, 2001 03:44:49 PM new
jimhhow >
Now who is "tap dancing"?
You introduced the idea that qualifications were needed to make simple mathematical calculations. You were asked what those qualifications were. You failed to tell us. Until you do, *you* are tap dancing.
BV's update is only 4 days late this week. Maybe now that it's done they can move on to answering the email I sent last week.
15,000 new ads over the prior week but only 1,044 more sales. Woohoo, total sell through back up to 1.4% according to the BV staffer who completes the chart.
posted on August 25, 2001 11:59:22 AM new
I was wondering what happened to this past weeks sell-through report, but it seems that Bidville is now taking several days to add a single row of data to the table.
I also noticed that ePier is now reporting the daily "dollar value" of sales. Perhaps Bidville would like to add another column of data to their table as well?
posted on August 25, 2001 01:50:39 PM new
I've been watching the featured auctions on BV and it looks like the sell-thru is getting very low percentage-wise. Either $5 or 50 cents it may soon not be worth it to feature there.
