PSA vs. GGC web sites

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

I didn't give an opinion on a person or a company. I gave an opinion on a website.

Im pretty sure saying their website sucks qualifies as an opinion of a company for net54 purposes, even though I completely agree with the assessment. I have been on the site and could not find a way to verify a cert #. SGC did verify it when I called though.

[Touch'EmAll]

PSA website is better than SGC, just is.

However, I am not concerned with websites when I purchase a card. I buy the card not the holder, and realize PSA brings more value than SGC, and I adjust my willing purchase price accordingly.

The PSA Set Registry is not for me, but many folks do like the competitive ranking. Obviously the Registry helps to significantly drive prices. SGC has no qualifiers, and you have to wade thru a lot more off-center stuff to get a nice SGC card. This probably hurts SGC values.

Would you rather have a PSA 7 card that has poor centering for the grade, but not OC, or an SGC 84 card that has near perfect centering and less expensive? All other things equal - I will go for the SGC every time.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

Im pretty sure saying their website sucks qualifies as an opinion of a company for net54 purposes, even though I completely agree with the assessment. I have been on the site and could not find a way to verify a cert #. SGC did verify it when I called though.

Yeap. My litmus test, other than the clear rule at the top of each page, is putting myself in the place of a company or person (or website owner etc..._) who is being talked about...then, If I would want to know who is saying something, that is the test I use. And I almost always want to know. I am pretty sure he isn't, but how do we know Snapolit doesn't work for a competitor of SGC?
It is black and white to me. We aren't playing semantics. If you give an opinion of a companies website you are giving an opinion that pertains to them.

[Snapolit1]

Leon - it's you site (and I enjoy it immensely) and I am happy to play by the rules, but that rule is really unenforceable. Every post in this thread contains an opinion. Most of them contain more than one opinion on SGC. Many positive and some not. I get the point of now allowing people to anonymously trash people and companies, but if your test was applied literally it would apply to over 90% of what's posted here. On basically every thread.

Ste.ve Na.polit.ano

[Pilot172000]

Originally Posted by Leon

Yeap. My litmus test, other than the clear rule at the top of each page, is putting myself in the place of a company or person (or website owner etc..._) who is being talked about...then, If I would want to know who is saying something, that is the test I use. And I almost always want to know. I am pretty sure he isn't, but how do we know Snapolit doesn't work for a competitor of SGC?
It is black and white to me. We aren't playing semantics. If you give an opinion of a companies website you are giving an opinion that pertains to them.

When giving an opinion, should I also put my last name or can I leave it in the about me section? I don't like bad mouthing anybody, but in case I do I surely don't want to break any rules.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Pilot172000

When giving an opinion, should I also put my last name or can I leave it in the about me section? I don't like bad mouthing anybody, but in case I do I surely don't want to break any rules.

I appreciate Snapolit1's understanding and yours too. The rule is not to try to catch someone having their name be technically correct anywhere. As long as, by your post or signature, we can easily find out who you are then there is no need for a name. After Steve (Snapolit1) and I just spoke I am going to mask his name and put it under his user id, where the word Member is. I can do that for anyone. It will be masked so it is not searchable and now he can go on and be himself and folks will know who is saying what.

[Pilot172000]

Originally Posted by Leon

I appreciate Snapolit1's understanding and yours too. The rule is not to try to catch someone having their name be technically correct anywhere. As long as, by your post or signature, we can easily find out who you are then there is no need for a name. After Steve (Snapolit1) and I just spoke I am going to mask his name and put it under his user id, where the word Member is. I can do that for anyone. It will be masked so it is not searchable and now he can go on and be himself and folks will know who is saying what.

Ok, its a very understandable rule.