Should scans be required on the BST board?

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian Lindholme

Leon's suggestion...of course, me the dumbass just posted this on the BST on accident, so to avoid clogging that side...let the debate begin here.
Here's my take:

scans or no scans... March 6 2009, 1:12 AM


Aww...it doesn't matter to me.
I like to look at the cards before I buy them...who doesn't?
I think the best way to handle it is to leave it alone.

If I were selling and I could post ONE scan rather than respond to potentially dozens of emails asking me for the same thing...I would post a scan! If you're selling a popular item at a fair price, you might need to be tethered to the PC sending out scans, lest you be thought of as unresponsive.
Who has time for that?

However, if I was selling successfully on BST without scans...why would I change that? There is probably a logical reason why the seller doesn't desire to post scans. Let he/she do it however they want...if it was costing them sales I bet they'd reverse that decision! It is their cards up for sale...if you want the card, you deal with the seller's terms.

Buyers who pass on BST posts w/o scans are going to pass. So what?
Buyers who pass on "make me an offer" posts are going to pass on those too.

If it aint working, I think the sellers are bright enough to adjust.
Sellers only have to please one person during a transaction. The buyer. Not everyone who reads the BST.

(Disclaimer : I don't sell enough to have a stake in this matter unless 1 sale in 2 years makes me a seller...and I always pass on "make me an offer" posts)

Take care
Brian L
familytoad
Ridgefield, WA

[Archive]

Posted By: marshall barkman

I do not drive 55. Who waits for the walk sign to cross the street? T-shirt,flop hat and jeans is my attire to swanky steakhouses.I carry a cell phone and wear sunglasses into the paddock when my horses run. If the club closes at 3 i may hit the door at 3:15. If you are not allowed to touch the dancer then i firmly plant my face in between both boobs and......

To me the whole situation is just something more for folks to complain about. Does it ever end? If Leon passes this rule then there will be more rules and on and on.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anthony S.

Damn. Jaywalking AND a T-shirt? And you're not in prison yet?

[Archive]

Posted By: doug goodman

As the guy who posted the question that led to this post, I respectfully vote no.
Doug

[Archive]

Posted By: Alan U

I would think it's up to the seller.

With readily available scans they probably have a better chance of selling the cards and without scans it will take a little more work.

Not really different than ebay... poor scans or no scans and cards listed in the wrong categories generally lead to lower bids.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steven Finley

Sometimes it's annoying when people only post a card or two and then let you know that "If interested email for scans." Yeah it's annoying but so's life. If it's a card I really want I'll email him or her.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason L

I like to see scans posted because I like to window shop.
If it's something I want, I will request scans.
I have been known on occasion to buy something because I like the scan - meaning, I wasn't planning on buying a card, but seeing it made me want it. If you don't post a scan, you lose out on those sales.

I hate the 'make me an offer' posts. If it's something I really want, I might email and ask what the asking price is. Otherwise, I am very rarely going to please the seller with my offer...it's just an opportunity to get the transaction started off wrong, if you ask me.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob D.

$5 delivered

[Archive]

Posted By: Marty Ogelvie

I certainly don't think it should be a RULE. Posters know that they will likely get more bites with a scan. If your that interested then request a scan, if the seller doesn't pony up then you know the deal.

marty

[Archive]

Posted By: MichWheat

I certainly don't think scans should be required. However, as a buyer, if scans aren't there I ask for them. No big deal.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

I am really tempted to say no rule - let the effectiveness of various sales approaches take care of it.

But in the other thread (the one on the BST) Jeff L made the best point of the debate so far. This forum allows sellers to sell completely free of charge, and it's reasonable to ask that in return they include scans. Not at all a bad price for using the BST to sell.

Cruising through the BST checking out cards for sale is part of what makes this forum fun, drives some traffic, and contributes to the sense of pleasant browsing and diversion.

I vote for scans required if you are selling 5 or fewer cards in a post. Too many more than that does put a different burden on the seller and also may limit people with slower download speeds.

Enforcement could be made simple. One warning and then delete the thread. Period. I'd also be happy to help if needed. However, I suspect that after a very short time it would become a non-issue and people would routinely post scans with little further enforcement needed, so no one new would need to be given mod status. More than 3 mods starts to feel like too many cooks in the kitchen.

J

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob Donaldson

I'd like to see scans.

Required. No. To much work for the admins. If you really want scans just go to the next post

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

I am for requiring scans or at the very least requiring the words "No Scans Shown" in the listing title.

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

I work with rules and laws on a daily basis.


I'd like our legislature to pass a law that says that however many words of law we currently have on the books, that that is it, no more words. If they want a new law, they have to whittle back on what's already there to make room for the new one.


For the BST... no new rule.

If the buyer wants to post a scan, fine. If the buyer requests a scan and the seller won't send one, then the buyer should not buy and move on. Sellers will lose potential customers. The market will sort itself out. (Which is what govt should have done over the past few months, reward successful business, let unsuccessful business crash and burn. Don't reward stupidity with bail outs. Do help innocent victims pick up their pieces, a bit.)

[Archive]

Posted By: Gary Weatherhead

I prefer them, a lot of people do- but I don't think there really needs to be a rule.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

The matter is still open for debate. I will say that, for the most part, I don't like "rules". I know, you would never know that by our rules section but they really are loosely enforced, as most know. They are there for when things go haywire. I can't say I always agree, philosophically, with my good friend Mr.Wakefield but on this subject, so far, I am in agreement with every single word of his last post. Generally speaking it takes quite a bit to make a fairly major change like this. Maybe 3/4 being FOR the rule, or something like that. One last thing, ya'll need to put yourself in a moderators shoes too. If we start deleting posts, even per the rules, we will not have a lot of happy campers after the fact. Let the debate continue if ya'll want to. I can be convinced but am not yet. best regards

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

A Rule? Granted it is inconvenient to open up a post and not see a scan, but just hit the back button on your browser.

My Trade/Sale Page

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason L

but no, it shouldn't be a rule

I think there are enough of those in life, generally speaking.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I think that if a seller doesn't include a scan, then if a buyer requests one it should be sent in a timely manner.

Not including scans has a built in risk. If buyer A requests one, and then buyer B calls and says "I'll take it" before buyer A has made his decision, you may find yourself in the middle of an argument. On the other hand, if the scan is up then obviously whoever wants it will take it and it's a done deal.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Barry - excellent points.

My Trade/Sale Page

[Archive]

Posted By: TONY Galovich

It shouldn't be mandatory
BUT on expensive items I think it would be nice
who today would spend $500 or more without a scan 1st
actually most of us want a scan regardless of value
Have we forgot the good ole days, pre 80
when no one posted a photo regardless of value?
It's time consuming, that's probably the #1 reason so few post a scan

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Prizner

Majority wants scans but no one wants them to be required (not even the guy who posted in every B/S/T category asking why no scans). So basically no change from before, so I say we move on. The sellers that don't post scans have their reasons for not doing so and are already well aware that people would prefer scans.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim VB

Rules? In a knife fight? No rules!


Providing scans in the post is a marketing decision. Some sellers wouldn't think of not posting scans. Some will always claim they don't know how. Some companies make good marketing decisions. Some leave me scratching my head.

I fully understand how someone selling 20 or 30 items would be reluctant, but is it really any less work? You still have to scan any item that someone is interested in.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob D.

Perhaps those who regularly use scans should be required to post them for sellers who would like scans in their B/S/T listings but don't feel like doing it themselves. Just because there's a little extra work involved in posting a scan doesn't mean a seller who goes without one should be penalized.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim VB

This is what this discussion has done to one board member who is frustrated by the unsolvable problem.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob D.

Jim,

Thanks for posting a scan.

[Archive]

Posted By: Alan U

Jim,

Appropriately, isn't that picture from the movie "Scanners"

-Alan

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob D.

Jim,

I just noticed what you named that jpeg. Thanks.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim VB

Alan,

Very possible. I try not to research sources when I'm stealing scans.

I just call it "wolfie at work."


Rob,

You're welcome. Do I no longer "owe you"?

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob D.

To the contrary, I'd say you owe me even more.

How about you handle the scanning work for my next five B/S/T posts and we call it even?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim VB

"How about you handle the scanning work for my next five B/S/T posts and we call it even?"


All right. Here's my contribution Rob. Please include this in your next BST post.



"PLEASE E-MAIL ME FOR SCANS! THANK YOU!"



Now you're covered.

[Archive]

Posted By: martindl

My take - no, there should not be a rule that forces sellers to maximize the marketing of their wares.

If you're a seller and don't want to use every available tool to sell your merchandise then that's your call. Lets those that do include scans reap the rewards of their efforts.

Ebay doesn't require pictures, but if you don't use that function you're not going to get the same returns you would if you did.

Selling things is not about having things for sale. Its all about marketing.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

Require scans! It is not that hard. If you can't figure it out, consign to someone who can. When did the last baseball card sell on Ebay without a scan?
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: peter ullman

Personally...I'm less likely to buy a card that doesn't have scans posted...unless it's a card I really want then I'll ask for a scan. It's just not my style. I believe in full, complete representation...and I don't like to waste time.

It's much more efficient...for me...to take the time to scan and post my cards with my sale...than to address numerous emails. But to each their own!

At bare minimum...2 correspondences are required for a transaction to occur...not including scans will usually double this #...no thanks!

pete ullman in balmy st paul, mn

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob D.

On second thought, heck yes, require scans. The more regulation the better.

In fact, for those who might not have the latest technology in computer monitors, let's require that the scans be at least 300 dpi.

And for those who might not have strong enough glasses or poor vision, we'd better require that the scans be at least 500 pixels wide.

By all means, if someone is unwilling to learn how to post a scan (or just too lazy to do it), thereby costing himself or herself a potential sale, then by all means let's pass a rule to make him or her do it.

After all, it's for the good of everyone, right?

[Archive]

Posted By: dstudeba

I think it reduces the value of the BST as a whole to have postings without scans. I liken it to the recent complaints about eBay being flooded with overpriced BINs. People have stopped looking at eBay because they are tired of wading through the crap. Some folks are tired of wading through the posts here without scans. The seller on eBay doesn't make the buyer work for the scans, and they have to pay eBay. Here where the seller has no selling fees, you would think they would be happy to help out the buyer.

[Archive]

Posted By: S Gross

Only 2 rules needed on BST:

Rule 1: Honesty
Rule 2: See Rule 1

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I'm in the middle of the same discussion on the BST thread. My sale in February had at least seventy cards when it began, which would have entailed 140 front and back scans.

Please tell me nobody expects that many scans posted. In that case it had to be scans by request.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason L

I like Rule 1, but your list produces a circular reference error!

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim VB

Barry,

Maybe you just sell too many cards?

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I wish that was my problem.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Rob, now you're getting it. Perhaps we can vote for a bailout for those who refuse to post scans and are losing money because of it?

[Archive]

Posted By: Rich Klein

Of the cards of the recent seller on BST who was selling approximately (sic) 3,000 ct lots of various teams of cards of the last 5 years. I presume those will be nm or better

Rich

[Archive]

Posted By: jay wolt

I don't think it should be a rule and let the sellers post a scan
if they feel the need.
I'll buy a card more frequently if I can see the image posted.
If not, only a card "I have to have" will I institute a post or
an eMail requesting a scan.
To me its common sense to post scans and EVERY lot I have offered
has had scans.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve Murray

In lieu of posting scans does this pose a problem for anyone?

"To view this card click here:

http://www.vintagecardz.com/search/label/FOR%20SALE

[Archive]

Posted By: dstudeba

Yes Steve that is a problem, you posted scans of the incorrect cards.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve Murray

you are such a card.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Personally, I sometimes do the same thing and am perfectly fine with that.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim VB

This topic is difficult to discuss, mainly because it's being done piecemeal, in 8-9 different threads, in 6 different categories, on two different boards. But the question was asked somewhere why we would discuss it on the BST board instead of here. I mentioned that many people posting on the BST do not actively read or participate on this board.

Despite all of today's discussion, this pops up and is Exhibit 1.


http://www.network54.com/Forum/580706/thread/1236364942/last-1236364942/lot+of+14+hall+of+fame+and+all+star+players+from+t he+60%27s%2C+70%27s+and+80%27s

[Archive]

Posted By: dstudeba

I would agree, Leon also has a serious problem of posting the wrong cards, and also shows no remorse.