posted on September 1, 2001 12:56:15 PM
I do not have all of the figures, but I was taking a look at something interesting. If you exclede the 6975 listings by one seller in the sportmania sale, and the resultant 33 bids recieved by the same, the rest of sportmania perfomred at about or close to 10%.
Before I start a fight here, Let me say that this is AN ESTIMATE based upon an estimate, (which Dimview has previously stipuklated to) of 10,000 total listing, removingthe 6975 listings of one seller leaves approx 3025. I just counted 336 totalitems with bids, open and closed. So i remove the 33 items the previously mentioned seller had and that leaves me with 303 items with bids among 3025 auctions.
I by no means claim this is precise, but I think it does show activity versus lessons learned.
and your bid counts in total and for one seller, here's my take on the numbers.
336 bids on 20,785 listings (total listings change between August 24 just prior to the sale and the peak on August 31) = 1.6%
33 bids on 6,975 listings (single sportscards seller) = 0.5%
303 bids on 13,810 listings (total listings excluding single sportscard seller) = 2.2%
So "all other sportscards sellers" experienced an overall sell-through rate greater than 2.2%. If we knew the actual number of SPORTMANIA listings to total sportscards listings, hence the percentage, we would have a more accurate number, i.e., 85% would result in an overall sell-through rate of 2.2/0.85 = 2.6%.
Given the difficulties deriving numbers due to the 3,000 search limitation, I think the numbers are in the ballpark (no pun intended).
typo.
[ edited by dimview on Sep 1, 2001 01:24 PM ]
[ edited by dimview on Sep 1, 2001 01:29 PM ]
posted on September 1, 2001 05:14:59 PM
OK, , I actually believe the toital listed for Sportmania is around the 10,000 mark, however there si no way I have of knowing that at this time. maybe later.
If you check near the end of the previous thread, you'll see that after I counted 5,565+ listings on one of my updates, you noted that the 6,975 "single seller" listings had scrolled off. The SPORTMANIA listings would thus be the sum of the two, 12,530+ listings.
You're right, though, the 3,000 search limitation has hindered efforts to make estimates.
[ edited by dimview on Sep 1, 2001 06:11 PM ]
posted on September 4, 2001 01:07:16 PM
For the sake of completeness --- One BidVille member placed 6,976 of the auctions (mostly common cards). None of those were featured or in the gallery. He sold 34 items. If those are removed from the stats we get:
Total Auctions: 3,570
Total Sales: 368
Sell Through: 10.3%
posted on September 4, 2001 01:15:01 PM
For what reason should the sales and/or listings of any seller be removed from the sell-through rate determination?
I noticed that they were, in fact, not counted and do not understand the reasoning behind that decision.
posted on September 4, 2001 02:01:31 PM
Dimview, you are correct. However please note that the results posted are seperated and there is a notice that none of those items were featured or gallery.
the percentages then presented are for featured and gallery.
The 3.8% is overall with that seller's listings counted.
posted on September 4, 2001 02:12:26 PM
It was noted that the one seller had the massive listings, but that most of the sales did not come from that seller's listings.
posted on September 4, 2001 02:41:01 PM
I was surprised to see Bidville itself single out a one seller and note they had 34 sales on 6,975 listings, or a 0.5% sell-through rate, particularly since the overall sell-through rate for non-gallery and non-feature listings are just a bit higher.
I would think that you of all people would understand the reason for the posting of both numbers. You have been posting the listing numbers for Bidville split between sports cards and non-sports cards for a couple of months. I understand you do this because you believe that there is signficance to following both sets of numbers in addition to the total listing number.
In this case, one person posted approximately 2/3 of the Sportsmania listings which is quite unusual by itself. It was reported that these listings were mostly for you favorite common cards which would not benefit from the special promotion highlighting and are not the type of items one would expect to be posted for this type of promotion. I believe this is reasonable when you compare the approximately 0.5% sell-through rate for this person versus the 10.3% sell-through rate for the remainder of the listings. I believe any reasonable person would agree that there is enough of a significant difference to give validity to posting of both sets of numbers. In fact I would have thought that you would have posted both sets of numbers in order to be objective. Also the site did not make any claims by the posting of both sets of numbers. It was left to the reader to reach their own conclusion.
I think the person did feel like a heel already since he posted to have the promotion extended and said that he would not repost his listings. Also his postings supposedly caused several of the technical problems that occurred for a day or two.
posted on September 4, 2001 02:56:39 PM
stavecards,
Was this correction made to subtract out the sales and listings of a seller who was not successful, or to subtract out the sales and listings of "common cards"?
If the former, then there is a definite problem with the adjusted sell-through rate; if the latter, then further subtractions need to be made for the "common cards" among the remaining 3,570 listings of other sellers.
For instance,
368 sales on 3,470 listings = 10.6%
368 sales on 3,370 listings = 10.9%
so the adjusted sell-through rate would increase 0.3% for every 100 listings that could be thrown out as being "common cards."
posted on September 4, 2001 03:39:03 PM
You know the more I think about the more I remember how often these "special" statistics occur in the real world. Example, a classroom where the teacher declares the the small class on the whole received a C averge but if William Woodenhead's F grade was throw out then the class really averaged a B average. Sales reports in big corporations, etc., etc. do the same thing to 'cook the books'.
posted on September 4, 2001 03:45:42 PM
As I stated before, I posted the 'other' stats for completeness. Let the reader draw from the numbers what they may.
posted on September 4, 2001 05:23:42 PM
Wait a minute here. What is the arguement? Bidville posted both stats. I think there may have been some call for all of this if they had not posted both stats, but they did.
As far as the one seller goes, even he admitted thatthe listings were a mistake by how they were done, and He did not realize that it would cause the problems. He even volunteered to have the items withdrawn, stopping short of doing it himself due to the fact that they would have to be canceled individually.
There is no "cooking" of the books. It was obviously done this way to show not only the overall view, but the majority view as well.
The whole event was supposed to be a learning excercise, and there have been lessons learned, hopefully.
The stats are there both ways, accept them as you wish, but none of the arguement I have seen here disputes the accuracy.
None of the two sets of numbers were "corrected". All data is actual and the second set is fully explained as to why they are shown.
Why was it done this way - I believe the answer is obvious. You had a very unusual situation of one individual posting 2/3 of the listings. With the sell-through rate of those listings being signficantly different from the average listing in the promotion, I believe that it is beneficial to the members to see the numbers presented both ways. I also believe that this should have been done if the sell-through rate of the individual was 50% rather than 0.5%. When one identifiable event distorts the numbers significantly, it is beneficial to understand the factor influencing the results.
Again, you see benefit in posting both the sport card and non-sport card listing numbers in addition to the total. Bidville saw benefits in posting the numbers with and without this unusual circumstance. It is left to the individual reader to determine if any, some, or all of the numbers are significant.
While I really have no wish to draw any attention to you, I wonder if you could take but a moment to grace us with the knowledge of why you wish to disrupt communications here.
Maybe something we are not aware of has pushed your buttons the wrong way.
If that is so, I suggest there might be better ways to get that settled amicably.
Take a look at SPORTMANIA closed auctions. You will find alot of common cards (from a couple pennies to fifty cents or so) of other sellers that did sell. Why were they not excluded from the adjusted sell-through rate?
There was one seller with 6,975 common card listings and they were excluded in order to come up with an adjusted sell-through rate. If there had been ten sellers each with 700 common card listings would they have been similarly excluded?
The Bidville PREZ, an ex-medical doctor, made the point here several months ago in which he related the statistics of clinical studies. In the Bidville clinical study, he has just excluded the adverse reaction (poor sales) of one study participant in order to demonstrate the effectiveness (sell-through rate) of the proposed drug (Bidville SPORTMANIA event).
I do not want to diminish all the work that jimhhow and others put into getting the SPORTMANIA event off the ground, but see the REAL sell-through rate in "regular type" and some adjusted sell-through rate in "bold type" as rather shoddy.
joice,
Glad to see moderator participation in this thread.
After all that advice about needing a life, dimview was out last evening.
[ edited by dimview on Sep 5, 2001 07:11 AM ]
[ edited by dimview on Sep 5, 2001 07:12 AM ]
