for sale/marketplace post keeps getting removed-huh?

[jb.]

It does create moderation issues.

Typically, we see someone offering a bundled camera package with six additional items also listed in the bundle. Then seller offers to "split the package."
... (snipped for brevity)

Seems to me it would be a far better approach to just delete the comments asking for things to be split up. Or require that pricing be provided for individual items if you're willing to split them up. In other words, go after the ACTUAL moderation issue (the excessive commenting) rather than trying to head it off at the pass and catching relatively innocent stuff (like my one sentence that apparently warranted a deletion).

I try very hard to enforce those rules fairly, consistently, and objectively. I'm unclear how this translates into heavy handed.

To clarify what I mean by "heavy handed"... my post had one sentence that violated the rules. It was copy and pasted in there accidentally. Instead of editing the post to remove that sentence, you deleted the entire thread. If this is the only place I'd posted that and I'd spent some time actually writing a good post (which I generally do), I'd (rightly) be a little pissed at that. I think if you look at it objectively, you'd realize you'd probably feel the same.

Sometimes absolute consistency is actually a really really bad way to go. That's essentially what a "zero tolerance" policy is... and it's why we have kids getting expelled from schools because they brought a butter knife to class in their backpack. I'd MUCH prefer you exercise your judgement rather than robotically deleting every thread that steps over the line a tiny bit.

If banter back and forth relating to this rule is such a burden and moderation issue, I'd suggest LOCKING the thread with a note about why it was locked and then if the poster wants to unlock it, they can contact a mod to do so. If you had a few of these notes in a text file somewhere, it'd take hardly more time than deleting the thread and it would solve the problem from both ends.

We have no issue with any seller who offers items for sale as a package, or individually. We just ask that it not be done in the same thread.

So in my case... if I want to sell a bundled camera/lens but want to let my buyers know I'm open to selling them individually too, I should open TWO threads with identical items... one as a bundle and one as individual items? Doesn't that seem a little silly (and more likely to pollute the forum)?

 

[jb.]

If I can unpack this a bit, it seems the main gripe (that we may be able to address) is that some of you (established members) are feeling like you don't get a clear indication as to why a moderation action was taken in the marketplace.

I think that's a pretty good summation of the issue, yes. When actions like this are taken with ZERO notice or followup, it's really hard to determine what happened and that kind of confusion doesn't inspire confidence in the site. Did the site take a dumper? Did we have to restore from a backup? Was it hacked? Did I screw something up and it didn't get posted right? Etc. Etc. Etc.

Imagine if you sat down at your computer one day and went to view your web site and it was just gone. No email, no messaging... it just gives a "Can't find server" error. This is the same thing at a smaller scale.

I can understand that point of view. However, looking at it from David's perspective, it becomes that much more time consuming if he has to personally message every member whose marketplace thread he closes/deletes. This can also be multiplied by the fact that, this being the internet, interaction with folks frequently adds to length of time spent on each moderation issue, while (unfortunately) doing little to ease a particular member's frustration. In a perfect world, he could send a simple pm with explanation and 99 out of 100 times, that would be the end of it... Unfortunately, the ratios of it turning into him having to spend 30+ minutes per user make it too time consuming for him.

I disagree. I think sending a note when you nuke an entire thread is the least you can do. Will it add to the moderation burden? Perhaps a bit... but if you're going to destroy data you owe the poster of that data at least the bare minimum of an explanation.

That said, I don't think threads need to be nuked nearly as often as they are.

So, however poorly I've just articulated it, there is the concern of trying to strike the balance between adequately informing members to avoid unnecessary frustration, and not adding 30 minutes of back and forth private messaging to every (or even a few out of 10) moderation action in the marketplace (not to mention, that it sometimes does nothing to help minimize member frustration). Especially, when coupled with (from our perspective) feeling like the rules are laid out pretty clearly, and long-time members are the ones we most expect to have a good handle on the marketplace rules, which haven't really changed in a long time.

While, I can understand that (from your perspective) it doesn't seem that the enforcement provides enough benefit, I witness the benefit first hand just by contrasting the marketplace here, with the higher traffic marketplace on reduser, which is a never-ending battle against excessive commercial activity, opportunists, and scammers. Things very quickly become a cluster-****, which is why when I weigh the inconvenience, vs. the value that David provides, I'm inclined to opt for a harder line (at least with regards to the marketplace).

Now, if there is a way that we can better communicate the cause of a marketplace moderation action that doesn't add to David's burden, I'm all for discussing those options. Again, feel free to pm me any suggestions along those lines. I'm not saying this to guilt trip anyone, or fish for praise, but... straight up... the time and effort that David has contributed to single-handedly managing the marketplace over the years is absolutely priceless to me and to the site. He has my full trust and confidence to manage the marketplace as a result of the peace of mind he provides, and I'm not inclined to make his job more burdensome without significant benefit to the marketplace.

It's simple. Stop nuking threads for minor infractions (like my copy/pasted sentence saying that I was open to splitting the camera and lens). If it were me, I'd see if the thread gets out of hand and if it does, lock it. If you wanted to take a bit of a harder line, lock it when you see a minor rule infraction with a note saying why it was locked. If the user wants to fix the problem and ask that it be unlocked, great. Otherwise it slowly fades into the ether. That shouldn't provide much more moderation burden, but it makes it clear why a thread was locked AND doesn't destroy data with no warning or followup.

 

[starcentral]

jbgear hits a lot of good points I also left out of my post. I also wanted to point out that one can spend a great deal of time creating a post, getting URL links from external photo sites, working with currency exchange rates and trying to figure out the best US dollar figure to use if outside the USA, amongst a lot of other things that go into writing a comprehensive and decent "for sale" post. If you have no backup of that post, you are pretty screwed and imagine you go through the trouble of typing it again only to have it deleted a second time. That's even worse, and in my case my posts were deleted twice and I honestly didn't know why. I had a backup of my post, but how many people really do that?

To have a post poof out of thin air and go missing is too much confusion and not really serving new or old members in the community. I know moderating the marketplace is a burden and likely all community based forums have these types of issues. But there has to be a better way.

cheers,

 

[Jason Ramsey]

So, I've read your feedback, and discussed with David the primary issues he deals with, and we've arrived at the following changes that we would like to try out in the marketplace:

1. Instead of deleting some threads, David will lock some threads with a reference to the rule violation. This way, members can be made aware that a moderation action was taken, and for what reason, as well as have an opportunity to copy/paste from the original thread, with appropriate correction, into a new thread (not lose the hard work that valid members may have put into a listing). Or, pm myself or David to correct and reinstate the original thread, if necessary.

2. As a general site rule, moderators have long been discouraged from editing individual posts, and have been encouraged to, instead, delete an offending post. However, as a trial, when appropriate (and only in the marketplace), David can/will edit some posts to bring them into compliance with marketplace guidelines. An, "edited by" reason will be stated for the convenience of the member, and for transparency. This allows your threads a a greater likelihood of staying open, rather than being deleted/closed and may help alleviate some member frustration (provided, it doesn't unnecessarily increase David's workload). Note: There is a record of any edits to a post that can be referred to in the event of any accusation of misuse of the post edit function. It will show the entire edit history of the post, and which user made what changes.

3. Bundles mean Bundles. Bundled threads are currently the primary hassle and time-suck for marketplace moderation. Short of prohibiting bundled threads, we ask that you do not post a bundle unless you are *only* willing to sell it as a bundle. From our side, this is a primary method of skirting bumping rules, commercial activity, etc, etc. There are no exceptions on this. We leave the option open for those who truly want to sell their gear *only* as a bundle. If you post "willing to split", your thread may be closed/deleted. If a buyer asks "will you split the package?", their post will be deleted without warning. If you make a habit of infringing on this, you may lose marketplace privileges and/or be suspended from the site as a whole. If you originally post multiple items as a bundle and later decide to break it up, you must *first* close the bundle thread, *then* re-post the items individually.

The hope is that this will strike a reasonable balance between addressing some of the member frustrations, and re-allocating some of David's time away from the recurring issues he spends the most time on, so that time can be used for a little more communication/clarity when moderation actions are taken.

So, lets see how it goes...

 

[Jason Ramsey]

I forgot to include:

4. Because we will be trying to more strictly enforce the "bundles means bundles" rule, instead of three open threads, we are increasing the maximum number of open threads/listings you can have to five.

5. I have decided to also allow you to bump your thread once per week for any reason to update its position. This is something we have allowed on reduser for a time. It seems to be appreciated by the members, and doesn't seem to add to the moderation burden to monitor. Other bumping rules still apply, but you may post a simple "bump" once per 7 days on your active threads. NOTE: This means, if your thread hasn't been posted in/updated for 7 days, you can bump it. It doesn't mean, if someone just posted a question in your thread yesterday (on day 6) and you answered them yesterday, that today you can post "bump". Make sense? We'd ask that you delete your previous "bump" post when making a new 7 day bump to help keep your thread tidy. David may also delete older "bumps" from threads for the same reason.

 

[jb.]

Question... can you post a bunch of individual items with a note that you'll consider a lower price for multiple-item purchases?

Basically a reverse bundle.

 

[steve phillipps]

Thanks guys, I think I speak for a lot of users when I say that we appreciate the Marketplace facility, and definitely appreciate you listening to our requests and feedback. I think the once per week bump rule is spot on, and hopefully won't cause any issues.
Steve

 

[starcentral]

Yes thanks guys, these are great changes and let's all hope they work and are for the better! :thumbsup:

I think now that DVX has had prefix categories for a while, it will help with bumped posts and keeping it under control.

cheers,

 

[Jason Ramsey]

Question... can you post a bunch of individual items with a note that you'll consider a lower price for multiple-item purchases?

Basically a reverse bundle.

The whole bundles thing may have to be revisited, but, the way I am viewing it right now:

Create a listing for my hvx200. at end of that post, "I also have 2 64Terabyte P2 cards for sale @ link"

Then, as per the pre-existing rules, someone who might be interested in buying both, can pm you and state as much, and you can negotiate those particulars via pm.

Alternatively, you can give a go at a bundled package thread first. If that isn't working out for you, close it, and re-post the items individually.

 

[jb.]

Fair enough. Sounds good. Thanks for listening and taking some of the suggestions. Have a good one!

 

[robfilms]

all-

as the original poster on this thread and a longtime member, i am very much a fan of this site and this community.

i want to offer my appreciation to the mods for listening and making adjustments.

in this day of strident tones and harsh language, the fact that we can have conversation, disagreement and eventually, agreement is what really makes us a community.

be well.

rob
smalltalk.productions

 

[Jason Ramsey]

Thanks, rob.

 

[David Saraceno]

Thanks Rob.

I will adjust our Guidelines in the next few days.

My laptop is on the fritz.

 

[Jason Ramsey]

RE: Mods informing members when/why moderation actions were taken, rather than relying on the rules to inform the members:

I wanted to share with you folks a recent occurrence (that happens all too often) that David endured after he attempted to inform a member about why their thread was closed and offered to re-open it for them. Again, I'm not posting this for sympathy. However, I did get the impression during our previous discussion in this thread that some of you weren't really buying why we sometimes opt for no-communication.

A member (with no less than 5 accounts on this site going back several years) had their thread closed by David with the following message posted in the thread:

You cannot have two separate bundles in the same thread.

Please PM to have thread unlocked to make revisions.

Thank you.

What follows are the private messages David received in response to that posting:

04-01-2017 12:28 PM

Jesus man, Im just trying to sell my camera. Can you just leave me alone? What the hell? Nobody cares... there's so much more to life than bothering me and my little ad.

David responded to the member via pm (after they posted a thread 4 or 5 times along the lines of "admins won't leave my thread alone, so pm me if you want this") with:

04-02-2017 05:38 AM

You are free to post your advertisement in the Marketplace again.

However, your post that commented on moderation has been deleted.

We do not permit comments on moderation.

The rules are set forth by the administrator of dvxuser.com and are designed to make use of the Marketplace fair and consistent.

If you do not wish to adhere to our rules, please post at a different web site.

Thank you for your cooperation.

And, here are the follow-up responses from the member in question (none of which David replied to):

04-02-2017 07:05 PM

Go back in your mom's basement and play with your little faggot drones you useless wannabe failure of a filmmaker. Better watch that attitude.......

04-02-2017 07:46 PM

You know you really are one sad little man. You actually have the time to sit around on your old, fat ass poo pooing with people's ads?? I just tried to sell a simple camera and you acted like a little kid who got picked on in school and never let it go, then were given some "power" and now you poo poo with people just for fun or because they dont follow some childish rules??

I s*%t bigger turds than you you useless faggot.

By the way, I'll simply rejoin here under a different name and IP address and sell whatever the poo poo I want to. Too bad you get to hide behind your little screen and aren't out in the real world working on REAL THINGS and dealing with real people instead of a bunch of computer related bulls*%t, forgotten, useless blogs, articles, forums and whatever else it is that poo pooing poo poos like you get your little faggot rocks off to.

BYE BYE cocksucker.

and, just to make it abundantly clear, the user changed their original registration email address to the following:

DavidSaracenoIsAFaggot at fags dot com

This member has had several accounts over multiple years, so they aren't new to the site and have left behind quite a paper trail as it turns out.

I am posting this as an example of what happens (too often) when we engage members over a simple moderation action and the added time and stress that it creates for us. So, I hope you can (even if you don't agree) appreciate the fact that I'm not going to require David to engage folks when he takes simple moderation actions as per the rules set forth in the marketplace.

I know David will be happy to answer any requests for clarification that you have (if you can leave your emotions out of it), but I'm no longer going to require or even encourage him to engage every member whose thread he moderates in the marketplace. At the end of the day, the rules are the rules. If you do not like them, you have two options: 1) Try to open a courteous conversation expressing your concerns and/or suggestions for rule changes. 2) go sell your s*%t somewhere else

I asked David to provide me with a copy of the exchange he had with the member in question. He did *not* ask me to post this (nor would he). I am posting it b/c I decided it was worth it. I do try to be mindful of your concerns and your perspective from your side of the fence. I felt it might also be useful to provide you with one small example of why we are sometimes loathe to engage members via pm with regards to moderation actions, and why we may come across as "short" at times.

Sometimes, longer-standing members may get caught in that crossfire, and that is unfortunate. However, I hope this offers a little insight and will help quell your frustration should you find yourself in a disagreement over the rules/moderation in the future. We don't need you to massage, pity, or walk on eggshells with us... I'm just hoping there can be a little mutual understanding. We can make attempts to be mindful of the impersonal nature of our interactions with you at times, and hope that you can be mindful of why we may come across in that way at times.

Now, this is just a little bit of internet harassment and it comes with the territory, but it wears on you after the umpteenth time. Additionally, David is a volunteer and I don't feel good when he has to deal with this kind of s*%t. Especially, when I've had personal experience with how internet harassment from a disgruntled member can quickly escalate into malicious activity, including stalking, threats on one's residence, etc, etc.

 

[groveChuck]

I'm thankful you guys tweeked the rules and sorry you have to put up with cr@p like that user wrote. SAD!

 

[jb.]

What a jackass (the un-named poster). Crap like that is uncalled for and hopefully relatively rare in the grand scheme of interactions with members of this site.

Try not to let that kind of thing color your relationship with the hundreds (or thousands) of non-asshole members of the forum.

 

[Braindead@70]

I'm thankful you guys tweeked the rules and sorry you have to put up with cr@p like that user wrote. SAD!

Me too!

 

[dregenthal]

Waiting a week or some set period before allowing a bump will have no great effect. Whatever the rule is, people following it will end up leap frogging each other and end up about where they started from . . . leaving the order and position about the same as it was to begin with.

I think a better solution would be to permit NO BUMPS and require ALL questions and negotiation to take place via PM.

Then, instead of starting at some ridiculous asking price, members would actually offer their item somewhere within the realm of reason (increasing their odds at actually finding a buyer) and pretty much ace out the type who lists their stuff artificially high just so they can bump at will by making “substantial reductions.”

Probably make it a lot easier on the Mods to administrate too?

 

[starcentral]

Waiting a week or some set period before allowing a bump will have no great effect. Whatever the rule is, people following it will end up leap frogging each other and end up about where they started from . . . leaving the order and position about the same as it was to begin with.

Nah they won't all be where they started from because not everyone bumps anyways (I have at least 6 right now I haven't bumped), people who do bump do so at different times, some items will sell, etc. This change finally gives a chance to items might otherwise end up on the 20th page or beyond.

Glad to see the changes, nearly all forums have a bump rule.

:beer:

 

[dregenthal]

You, of course, are correct. Not everyone is the same . . . behaviors vary, (and might be why said they'd end up "about" where they started).
The value of my solution got lost in my explanation. Just delete the first sentence of what I said and maybe, if so inclined, consider the possible benefit of “No bumps – No conversation.”

Someone will be able to come up with a legitimate reason why my solution is not the best one (because we don’t all think the same either). Anyway . . .

No bumps (IMHO) would:

Keep things in the order they first appeared . . . not a bad thing in and of itself?
Prevent others from leapfrogging over people with multiple “substantial reductions” (thereby eliminating arguments over what constitutes "substantial").

I think it would encourage folks to offer their stuff at numbers closer to reality, probably yielding more sales . . . and, ending up on page 20 a lot less likely (because there won’t be a bunch of worthless back & forth to push offerings farther back).

Searching might yield better results . . . even better when people give some thought to how they title their post.

If offers, questions, and negotiation were limited to PM’s instead of unlimited conversation I just think the whole thing would be a lot more efficient. People would still get to sell their stuff, the rule would be pretty easy to understand, and moderating the section would be less work.

It'd really make me happy if we went back to "no eBay" links like it used to be. Be great if we didn't have to scroll through, "only two more days and it going to eBay" notices (that sometimes sound like threats). We're smart enough to know members put their stuff on eBay without all that.

Anyhow, “my work is done here” . . . I just wanted to add clarity to my suggestion, not instigate a long discussion. So I’m out (of the discussion). Hats off to the mods, and the rest of our community . . . whether we’re in agreement on this question or not. I’ll go with the rules whatever they are. Thanks.