 | | Re: "Default" part type. —Dan Jezek
|
| | | (...) I don't think any kind of "rating system" is a good idea. There would just be too many problems with that. Some people would be confident that their item is in "N (new)" condition while others would think the same item fits into "U1 (...) (24 years ago, 18-Mar-01, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: "Default" part type. —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) That's because BB has a better class of buyer and a better class of seller than the mechanisms that come before it, and because most of use realise that for the most part, we can bug you for new features, but mostly need to work our (...) (24 years ago, 18-Mar-01, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: "Default" part type. —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | (...) One thing which is definitely one of the nagging little things which keep me from selling more stuff is that when I do go to start selling some parts, many will come out of my parts bins. In all probability, they are basically new, but some (...) (24 years ago, 18-Mar-01, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: "Default" part type. —James Brown
|
| | | | | | (...) I'm gearing up to another round of selling (going into the summer(1), I must be nuts!), and I'm shifting my basic parts description from "new", which still applies, but isn't as clear, or as conducive to selling as "handled only in the sorting (...) (24 years ago, 18-Mar-01, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: "Default" part type. —Kevin Wilson
|
| | | | Larry Pieniazek wrote in message ... (...) I agree, I'd like to see something like a field which specifies new or not (I'm in the same situation as Larry, buying to put together kits). Having the seller specify it in the splash screen isn't much (...) (24 years ago, 19-Mar-01, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
| | | | |
