Price $/M in Thread Titles

So for the past year, in the selling gold section (also the buying), I've seen way too much abuse of including a price in a thread title that is obviously misleading.

For example: http://sythe.org/showthread.php?t=1029117 (with absolutely no disrespect to Just un dude, he probably did this because many others, including myself do or have done the same)



This is not by any means the only example of this abuse. Most sellers have a variety of payment methods, and there are sometimes reasons to offer lower prices, although I'm sure many would agree with me the odds of him selling 5b+ via mail for .5/m (also considering his location) very very unlikely. To put [.50/M] in the thread title when 99.9% of his sales are for much higher prices is pretty misleading.

I find especially for top sellers to include a price per mill in thread title just completely misleading, the majority of orders are not going to be 5b+ mail trades so it seems unreasonable to advertise this.

Looking for input from different opinions, I'm sure many sellers will agree.

 

I would approve of a general number, considering that prices may change over time. But I agree, I hate clicking it thinking "oh, a good deal... perhaps?" just to find that I either have to buy billions, or use a payment option that is extremely inconvienent for me.

 

Agreed, I sell via mail at .5/m (recently withdrew this from my title), and although I actually take all mail trades that come my way, I would get many people who assumed .5/m was for all payment methods which is obviously not the case.

If people want to have these deals for use rather then advertise abuse, they can include in it their thread.

 

Yes, exactly! I idolize you for being such a legit trader, I actually hope this gets approved. You have my support for sure.

I think a Mean number should be required. (add all up, divide by # of prices. ex... 50c/M for mail, 80c/M for paypal, and 70c/M for PA, you would add all up, and divide by 3, making your average price 66.66c/M.) How does that sound?

 

That sounds a bit complicated but the idea is on the right track in terms of advertising accurately. There are probably 10+ different prices I have for RSGP depending on the amount and payment method. My suggestion is to dis-allow pricing in a thread title entirely.

 

I support this. I can't tell you how many newbs create a new diablo 3 sales thread each time the price changes. Some of these users have like 5-10+ sale thread.

 

I support this to an extent.

Businesses run off of advertising. Some threads are false advertising, but others aren't.

 

support 100% i hate going to buy gold and seeing these titles just to leave the thread because the title is a load of crap.

 

I support this, dis-allow pricing in a thread title entirely is the perfect way to solve this.

 

Hit it on the head. False advertising is not allowed in the real world, don't allow it here.

 

I don't see many people on Sythe that are that stupid, to click the thread and then be disappointed that not all payment options are $.50/m. I've sold my fair share of GP, using similar marketing tactics, and I don't remember one customer getting mad that I overcharged them because I said a lower price than their small GP order processed through Paypal/PA. In virtually every goods marker, bulk gets a better price; this is even truer for GP sales. It takes roughly the same amount of time and effort to trade 5b as it does 5m (if you use shards or rares), so I don't see why it's so unfair to charge lower and to advertise this low price.

Now, if someone was offering "bulk 5b+ mail orders for $.42/m" and then you asked him to do this trade and he refuses, it's false advertising. However, I urge someone offer to buy $2.5k worth of GP from Just Un Dude. I'm sure he'd be happy to oblige that order, as his thread suggests he would do.

 

No Support.....


People can put [TRUSTED] or [200 VOUCHES] when all they did to that many was sell miniscule amounts of RSGP or buy/sell pins. Thats in a way false advertising and misleading. If that is allowed, then why should this change? I would like to hear from just un dude about this, but in IMO either change ALL the misleading stuff including the [Trusted] in the title threads or change nothing and leave it be...

 

Maybe require people to post how much you need to buy in order to get that price in the title. So maybe " as low as $.50 / m for orders over 5b"

Or require that everybody post the price per mil they would charge for say a 50m order (or whatever the most commonly purchased amount is).

 

I could see how this would direct business away from other gold sellers. Like graves thread saying he's selling for .4/M but it's really only for 10M.

also kerokero could you vouch for me please for that account I bought off you for $75 . zeal pure and I paid with google checkout iron.****@simple.com


Thanks man, here's my vouch thread http://ww2a.sythe.org/showthread.php?t=740681

 

How about you make it so the HIGHEST price, not the lowest price, has to be advertised?
Or the 2nd highest or something like that?

 

Support. I click on threads advertising such low price and find out it was no where near what was said in title. I believe there was a suggestion about this a few months ago, I don't know what happened to it. Hopefully this one goes through. I'm tired of this false advertising.

 

The average should be advertised, not highest. Also, it doesn't have to use median's and other things.. If you're selling for .60/M via PA, WU, PayPal, etc, just put .60/m in your title, even if you're doing .50/m via mail. If you're going to put something like that in your title, put the via mail there too.

 

It's true bulk orders get a better price but they're the least common order, what's the sense of advertisin [.50/m] in a thread title if the only way a person actually gets .5/m is if they order 5b+ via mail, a trade that will never occur.

Also, at an earlier time (not going to name people here) when me and two other sellers were offering the same mail price, I had customers referred to me because they supposedly "didn't have stock".

 

I also support this idea, I see what you are getting at and annoys me also when I look into a thread to then see I've been mislead once again whilst buying gold.
The only other compromise I could see from this suggestion would be to of course state that the low prices are on certain deals as previous others have said already in the thread.

 

In my opinion, this is the only action that should be considered an offense. If you don't currently have stock, don't advertise you are selling it. The person should have been reported, and the thread title should have been removed--at least until their stock was back up to what they advertised.

If not, anyone can say they are selling 1T+ orders at something like $.15/m; obviously, though, nobody will actually be willing to spend anywhere near that amount on an Internet transaction.