| |
On Wed, 30 Jun 1999 11:52:07 GMT, Jeff Johnston <sakura@mediaone.net>
wrote:
> Steve Bliss wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 29 Jun 1999 14:10:26 GMT, cjc@NOSPAMnewsguy.com (Mike Stanley)
> > wrote:
> >
> > > If the AucZILLA interface were available to me right now, and if it
> > > also supported web bidding in addition to e-mail, and if it did what
> > > I've always envisioned (I tell it I have 10 copies of set XXXX and it
> > > spits out lots for me to approve, then post) I would gladly run all my
> > > auctions here at Lugnet. I'd also be more than willing to pay a hefty
> > > percentage of the total for that functionality. Probably more than
> > > Todd will end up asking for.
> >
> > Or even if I had to upload the inventory of the set, and then tell it how
> > many copies, etc.
>
> This would arguably be more valuable, since it means you could easily save
> out the parts you buy the set(s) for.
It would also be arguably less valuable, becuase you'd have to go through
all the work of establishing the inventory, and keying it in.
But requiring the auctioneer to supply the inventory also makes the whole
idea more practical, because the accuracy of the inventory remains with the
auctioneer. Acquiring and validating a reasonable database of set
inventories has been an ongoing problem. I'm guessing Todd would be
uncomfortable providing a for-fee service containing questionable data.
Steve
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: memberships
|
| (...) This would arguably be more valuable, since it means you could easily save out the parts you buy the set(s) for. Heck, I'd be happy if it were just a brick auction place that I could run an auction at. But then again, I think anything I ran (...) (25 years ago, 30-Jun-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.general)
|
39 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
