Bricklink V.2.0 is on a roll ...

[Artanis I]

Regarding buyer's feedback, I don't like eBay's implementation, but definitely a larger text field would be very helpful. The problem I have with the eBay thing is that you're pretty much expected to give 5 stars across the board if you receive your item. With "free shipping" factored into their price, they automatically get 5 stars for the shipping price even though they marked up the price for it. The stars system could be done better somehow perhaps, but it's pointless to me on eBay.

Wow, that is an interesting view of the world. "Used" can mean anything from "handled once to sort from box" to "my dog chewed, swallowed and defecated the piece in question". Surely there should be a difference between the two?

The other thing is that there is no strict or quantifiable definition to differentiate between levels of "used" from one person to another. What you rate as "too used to be presentable" someone else might have no problem with. If we changed it to "new" "used but still of use" & "don't expect much" there'd still be disagreements on whether that piece is still of use or not. "Look at that big scratch! I can't use this!" "Why not? It isn't perfect, it's used, but it still works and hardly anyone would notice it in a MOC." etc.

It's a broken classification, but I can't really see it being improved.

[antp]

Indeed some shops sell only like-new parts, so their used is for me the same as new.

Some others sell secondhand parts, some with playwear, and after orders from two shops of the kind mentioned above I was surprised to have in another shop used parts that myself considered as "used" too (but still useable, so not a big deal).

So at least two or three used levels (including a used "like new", to differentiate from the real secondhand) with their definition would be welcome. But of course not too much specifics, or else it would make too much work for sellers, who would not use the thing at all in the end.

[MikroMan]

While I'm reasonably happy with the way the site is currently, a major redesign won't hurt. I hope. It'd be great if the devs could enhance the feedback page... We could have a character-limit box for our opinion, and the added expandable report where you could rate communication, willingness to resolve problems, etc.

[CP5670]

Looking forward to the new site. I think even if they just fix this problem, the buying experience would be dramatically improved.

Regarding buyer's feedback, I don't like eBay's implementation, but definitely a larger text field would be very helpful. The problem I have with the eBay thing is that you're pretty much expected to give 5 stars across the board if you receive your item. With "free shipping" factored into their price, they automatically get 5 stars for the shipping price even though they marked up the price for it. The stars system could be done better somehow perhaps, but it's pointless to me on eBay.

The other thing is that there is no strict or quantifiable definition to differentiate between levels of "used" from one person to another. What you rate as "too used to be presentable" someone else might have no problem with. If we changed it to "new" "used but still of use" & "don't expect much" there'd still be disagreements on whether that piece is still of use or not. "Look at that big scratch! I can't use this!" "Why not? It isn't perfect, it's used, but it still works and hardly anyone would notice it in a MOC." etc.

It's a broken classification, but I can't really see it being improved.

Yeah, I don't think there is any simple solution to this. At least "used" doesn't imply anything about the condition, and you understand that you take a risk with such pieces. One approach is to buy a small, trial order of used pieces from a seller before placing a much larger order, to get a sense of what the seller considers to be used.

I have run into many situations in the past where the seller's idea of things like "great condition" was very different from mine. Some used pieces or sets were indistinguishable to me from new ones, and in other cases the bricks were essentially unusuable. It can go either way, but I almost always buy new pieces only today. Even in that case, I have encountered sellers who mark a lot of used stuff as new. They sometimes claim that "new is not mint," but the type of scratches on new pieces are very different from used pieces. I've generally gotten refunds in these cases after complaining though.

[The Jersey Brick Guy]

Couldn't you break down the descriptions into the following:

Brand New - Like New - Used - Heavily Used

Brand New being stuff obviously Brand New.

Like New being stuff that could pass as new, but is used.

Used being stuff that may have small scratches or skufmarks.

Heavily Used being stuff with discoloration, scratches and the like.

They also should ban chewed pieces in my opinion.

Thoughts?

[1974]

Wow, that is an interesting view of the world. "Used" can mean anything from "handled once to sort from box" to "my dog chewed, swallowed and defecated the piece in question". Surely there should be a difference between the two?

I only buy from sellers who give me confidence, that is great feedback and/or information on their splashpage about the condition of the bricks. So far I've bought manily used bricks ('bout 50.000) and I've yet to be let down

So this system works for me

I know I've been disappointed a few times from bricklink sellers passing off pieces that have been tooth gouged. Some so bad that I would even give them to my son, let alone use myself. I just think to myself, for freak sake get a tool dammit!

Report them, feedback is very important. And you can always file a PayPal claim

Regarding buyer's feedback, I don't like eBay's implementation, but definitely a larger text field would be very helpful. The problem I have with the eBay thing is that you're pretty much expected to give 5 stars across the board if you receive your item. With "free shipping" factored into their price, they automatically get 5 stars for the shipping price even though they marked up the price for it. The stars system could be done better somehow perhaps, but it's pointless to me on eBay.

The other thing is that there is no strict or quantifiable definition to differentiate between levels of "used" from one person to another. What you rate as "too used to be presentable" someone else might have no problem with. If we changed it to "new" "used but still of use" & "don't expect much" there'd still be disagreements on whether that piece is still of use or not. "Look at that big scratch! I can't use this!" "Why not? It isn't perfect, it's used, but it still works and hardly anyone would notice it in a MOC." etc.

It's a broken classification, but I can't really see it being improved.

The only way to improve it would be to ask the sellers to take a picture of each and every piece for sale. Not happening (allthough a lot of sellers actually do take pictures of the _sets_ for sale)

Regarding buyer's feedback, I don't like eBay's implementation, but definitely a larger text field would be very helpful. The problem I have with the eBay thing is that you're pretty much expected to give 5 stars across the board if you receive your item. With "free shipping" factored into their price, they automatically get 5 stars for the shipping price even though they marked up the price for it. The stars system could be done better somehow perhaps, but it's pointless to me on eBay.

The other thing is that there is no strict or quantifiable definition to differentiate between levels of "used" from one person to another. What you rate as "too used to be presentable" someone else might have no problem with. If we changed it to "new" "used but still of use" & "don't expect much" there'd still be disagreements on whether that piece is still of use or not. "Look at that big scratch! I can't use this!" "Why not? It isn't perfect, it's used, but it still works and hardly anyone would notice it in a MOC." etc.

It's a broken classification, but I can't really see it being improved.

Some stores do have their own classification. I quite like Magic Magnus' (and thus have bought from him several times) .. take a look :

http://www.magic-magnus.de/p.html

[Erik Leppen]

Couldn't you break down the descriptions into the following:

Brand New - Like New - Used - Heavily Used

Brand New being stuff obviously Brand New.

Like New being stuff that could pass as new, but is used.

Used being stuff that may have small scratches or skufmarks.

Heavily Used being stuff with discoloration, scratches and the like.

The problem with this is everyone has a different idea of what "heavily used" means.

"Used" may be a broad term, but at least it is a clearly defined term.

Anyhow. Good to see things happen here. Curious to see what will happen. I do like the site as it is now. It may not look very modern, but I find it a nice user experience.

[splatman]

I've used this to rate my used bricks when I sold 'em on BL.

[1974]

That's a wee bit too detailed. I could go with "NEW", "AS NEW" (<- which may actually be new but when you stick two bricks togeter it's per BL definition _not_ new), "USED" and "HEAVILY USED" .. anything much more than this will probably just lead to confusion and disagreement