Posted By | Message |
BOBSCARDZ
Posts: 4,973
Joined: Nov 2014
|
Friday, July 12, 2019 7:58 AM | |
K-Cards, You pretty much know the scope as what outta be done, and should be done. I worked with Dan on a small change recently in keying the colors and making them more definitive to all members. BOOM ! done! Albeit, the pricing is no small project, and will require input from the Pricing Gurus but change could take a long time in bits and pieces. Personally, I believe we go BIG and get it done all at once. There will be gliches for sure, that can be corrected as we move along. We got L8 attention, so let's go with it. Just remember, everybody has their own purpose for TCDB use, so there will be naysayers, as well as applauders....just the way it is! So.... Let's playball!
-------------------------------
|
|
|
|
randylaw
Posts: 945
Joined: Jun 2016
|
Friday, July 12, 2019 8:41 AM | |
I'm onboard except for the lot pricing. In theory you are getting a discount for buying in quantity and does not accurately reflect the pricing on a per card basis which you should expect to see when looking at an individual card.
|
|
|
|
vrooomed
Posts: 14,818
Joined: Dec 2012
|
Friday, July 12, 2019 8:51 AM | |
K-Cards:
The small changes (that you mention) don't fix the bigger problem. First of all, it was never agreed upon that there should be "lot pricing", so you were off base there by requesting that. It was clearly stated by others that the pricing really only needs to occur for single-card sales of the higher profile cards of the various sets. Lot sales completely defeat that purpose and will drive reported prices down below prices that would be expected for that same card. Second, not being able to remember the third scares me a bit. Is this really a priority for you? It is for some members here, and it sure seemed like it was to you, but you can't even remember the 3 things you are campaigning for?
Let me know when you guys have something you wish to present to Admin. Please be sure to review each post in this thread (in order) and determine the items that should be included, and those that should not be included. It probably would be wise not to add in anything to the proposal that wasn't already discussed and agreed to in this thread. (We've seen how well that goes over when you've done that when attempting to summarize what had already been discussed.) Please do NOT submit any more items to the New Feature Tracker regarding pricing reform. Thank you.
-------------------------------
-- Dan -- Note: Please see my profile for more info regarding trading (section updated 3/4/2024). I have added a large portion of my inventory to the site, and currently have trading turned on (details are in my profile).
|
|
|
|
BOBSCARDZ
Posts: 4,973
Joined: Nov 2014
|
Friday, July 12, 2019 9:10 AM | |
Here is my post with a possible plan of action. Many seemed interested and in agreement with some tweeks:
Back again, and I do see some good things being bantered around. I like to consolidate, so here goes:
1. We need a certain access permission. That will hopefully keep things in the serious "pricers's" ballpark.
2. We need a specific guideline [giant chart], that can address: a. year, b. condition, c. player, etc. This may not cover everything at 1st implementation but I feel it would be a good start. This guideline needs to be followed by EVERY MEMBER that is interested in adding prices. ex. the chart could include across the board values for Commons, HOF commons, HOF, SUPERstars, RCs...just an idea. Kinda a Sportlots approach.
3. We then need to take this chart 1 step further by introducing "Dan's %s of Value" . His ideas along with others are documented in a recent posts. Will this work, not sure? But by adding and calculating the input, we would arrive at and what we feel is a realtime value. [Probably need to get a real good math member involved, for our Real Time Value Equation]. Statistics, mean, median and that lingo will need to be integrated as well.
4. Meanwhile, we wouldn't necesarily have to address millions of cards because in most cases "commons are commons and remain commons" and so on. So on "stagnant" cards, an initial massive entry [big, big job] would suffice. Remember the old Tuff Stuff, SCD, Beckett where they used + or - to show cards moving up and down the value scale. So what we would need to do is to pay attention to these "value movers" and keep them updated.
5. We need a committee and a Price Overseeyer. The Committee would be a Member[s] from each major category....Baseball, Football, Hockey, Basketball etc. They would be the "quality control" members making sure there are no outrageous prices entered. They would also be responsible for reporting offenders to L8s to ADMIN. They should then be reprimanded with a warning. Repeat offenders lose their access permission.
6. For ALL this to be implemented successfully, PRICING would have to be shut down until the changes are complete. And the ANNOUNCEMENT made "NEW PRICING" features grand opening!
Granted, alot of work, alot of involvement, but I see a number of members dedicated to fixing this and eager to help. So any member, L8 or even ADMIN that feels strongly about this great site, STEP UP and let's fix this PRICING thing!
|
Now , if you have any * to this plan, PLEASE NOTE IT in THIS THREAD. And Dan will see it. If you want to be more candid, PM him.
~BOB~
|
-------------------------------
|
|
|
|
mfeik
Posts: 63
Joined: Oct 2016
|
Friday, July 12, 2019 11:29 AM | |
I've been sitting back watching this thread, taking in both sides. To say my opinion has wavered back and forth would be accurate, but I'm ready to throw in my 2 cents. The pricing is not what brought me to this site, it was the extensive library of cards that had pictures to go along with them to help identify them. Would I like to have accurate pricing? Yes , I would, but not at the expense of the quality of the site. It sounds to me like this pricing idea would involve a mountain of work. There are some really hard working people here that maintain this site, and I would hate to see them burned out over working on their hobby. I know that there is more that I could do to help out around here, but I dont have enough time to get all my cards entered let alone learn how to maintain a database. I guess this is my long-winded way of saying I would rather have no pricing and a high quality site than one with pricing that may slip in quality.
|
|
|
|
wbaker01
Posts: 646
Joined: Oct 2017
|
Friday, July 12, 2019 11:49 AM | |
I have one ask and one comment..
Would love to see prices added on trade proposals especially for those of us who do large trades..I can eyeball smaller trades and quickly figure out rough prices but when hundreds of cards are being exchanged, I no longer have time to price each card individually on the trade for both sides (and Yes I used to do that) and come up with a grand total for both sides..Card condition is listed on trade proposals so why can't we add a field for prices?
I won't comment on the card value discussion other than to say our cards are worth less than we think they are when it comes time to sell (and I've made this comment a few times on different posts)..I've sold some complete sets lately for around 1/3 of what I thought they would go for which is what we call market value..If the end goal is to get to real world picing, that would be great..I enjoy looking at card values and seeing what my cards are valued at but I know that's a pie in the sky number currently..
|
|
|
|
K-Cards
Posts: 61
Joined: Apr 2019
|
Friday, July 12, 2019 2:41 PM | |
@vrooomed/@randylaw, et. al.,
The Case for Lot Prices
First, let me say that I agree that the price depicted on the site should be the price of an individual card. And I think we all agree the site would be better if we could further see the price breakdown of an individual card based on the "condition" rather than have all the cards prices calculated without regard to condition. But there have been two unresolved issues documented throughout this thread and elsewhere regarding using ONLY individual card sales for ALL pricing:
The first, is the minimum prices used on auction sites (~$.99). If we only recorded individual card sales ("objectively") to price them, eventually, every card on this site would be valued at $.99 or more---because you would at some point find an example where the card was sold online for $.99.
The second (and perhaps in unison with the first), is shipping costs. Whether a seller includes or "waves" shipping costs there is an operational cost to the seller that he/she must roll into the price of the card(s) to make selling them worthwhile. This inherent cost further drives UP the prices of individual cards as they are currently sold online.
Take as an example the 1986 Topps 12T Bobby Bonilla:
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_nkw=1986+topps+12T+bobby+bonilla&_sacat=0&LH_TitleDesc=0&rt=nc&LH_Sold=1&LH_Complete=1
If all we did was record the individual card sales (setting aside the condition argument for now), we would eventually find that the card is "worth" anywhere from $1 - $3. But as you scroll through the completed sales, you will find that nearly every other sale is a lot sale, selling upwards of 50 or more cards, each of them going for pennies (perhaps more accurately their actual individual "price").
I'm NOT suggesting that lot prices should be lumped into the calculation of card prices, but I also don't think they should be blanketly dismissed or unrecorded. What I'm proposing when I speak of the "quantity" or "lot sales" is the ability for pricers on the site to record these sales and find the median/average/whatever of how much a purchaser can get the card in a "lot". Think of this as an additional "condition". None of us think that MINTs should be priced together with POORs and none of us think that INDIVIDUALs should be priced together with LOTs, but a hobbyist/collector/card enthusiast should know how much he expects to pay or receive for the sale of Bobby Bonilla in a lot.
Otherwise, the site will tell him/her that "Bobby Bonilla is worth $1.39 and have a nice day". That's why I see Lot Pricing as important as a factual "fix" than an opinion for the "improvement".
Edited on: Jul 12, 2019 - 2:53PM -------------------------------
I have begun the process of selling most of my collection on eBay (https://www.ebay.com/usr/k-lots). The rest will be practically given away. If you'd like to "rescue" a card from this fate, give me an offer. I'm currently only entertaining trades that help me downsize my collection or provide equitable cost/value for a card I will keep (see "Collects" in my profile). -Bob
|
|
|
|
randylaw
Posts: 945
Joined: Jun 2016
|
Friday, July 12, 2019 3:37 PM | |
I buy several hundreds of individual cards every year and never pay close to .99 and with free shipping. I don’t know why that number keeps coming up but it’s not realistic in my world at least.
|
|
|
|
BOBSCARDZ
Posts: 4,973
Joined: Nov 2014
|
Friday, July 12, 2019 6:02 PM | |
Well, my 2 cents:
1. I'm not sure lot pricing is a valid price, but neither is $.99. Doesn't statistical charts, discard hi and lo values? Wouldn't that help get the "real" price closer.
2. S/H, admission, lunch and anything topped on top of the card price is WRONG. I've stated that before. I just don't see how it figures in the "actual" card prices.
-------------------------------
|
|
|
|
vrooomed
Posts: 14,818
Joined: Dec 2012
|
Friday, July 12, 2019 8:36 PM | |
Just a quick public update, without getting too into the details, RJ Smith, randylaw, and K-Cards are the "committee" tasked with summarizing the ideas and proposing a feasible plan to Admin, through me.
As a means of potentially saving time, in case Admin was not interested, I sent a note to Admin guaging interest. There has already been some serious thought about how to limit the entry of data to only good data and Admin is completely on board with hearing what we have. This is GREAT news. We shall proceed!
-------------------------------
-- Dan -- Note: Please see my profile for more info regarding trading (section updated 3/4/2024). I have added a large portion of my inventory to the site, and currently have trading turned on (details are in my profile).
|
|
|
|