I totally disagree with this policy.
The user trading the higher profile game is already receiving higher point value for his/her game and had goozex's no risk policy supporting them (thus no risk involved as long as they use DC).
A user trading out 100 point games is shipping their game out for lower value, yet they are under the same risk, and same policy guidelines. Lowering feedback for these individuals will only discourage them from trading in the first place.
I say reward users for timeliness in their shipments:
Give more credits for faster completion of trades (i.e. the faster a user ships and the buyer receives the game, the more feedback points they will receive). Make it an option for the buyer to leave less feedback or more feedback depending on when the game was received or include the feedback options of "Late or slow shipment" and "Fast shipment".
I know I'm late to the party, but I figured I'd chime in anyway (sorry if I missed something, I didn't read all of the discussion, just the first and last pages).This idea definitely has potential. I think the feedback system needs some tweaking, but not in regards to this idea, just in general (but that's for a different discussion/thread).Anyway, maybe if you earned additional feedback for sending out 800-point or higher games?For instance; seller sends out an 800-point game, he gets +10 (or +5) feedback, plus an additional +1 to his feedback score, totaling +11 (or +6) feedback points.Here is how it would look:800 - 850 points = +1 feedback score900 - 950 points = +2 feedback score1000 - 1050 points = +3 feedback score1100 - 1050 points = +4 feedback score1200 points = +5 feedback scoreThis would encourage new users to send out high-demand games in order to faster achieve the max trade slot threshold. And get them excited because they received a "bonus score"! Just like how we get excited (but hopefully not too excited) in video games when we get bonus scores!Just an idea (that definitely needs work/tweaking) but I think something could be done somewhat along these lines. Probably not worth the effort to implement though.An OT thought is a promo (maybe once the 1000 + 200 point promo is over) where you get +1 trade token for every 5 1000+ point games you send out. That being said, I like the 1000 + 200 promo (and all of the other promo's) that are going on! There are many things that can be done to entice people to send out high-demand games and movies... I would probably have the OP suggestion (and my related suggestion) near the bottom of the list though.
DrJ079: I misvoted. I voted no, I don't like this change. I personally don't think that there's value in this - fulfilling your part of the obligation for a 100 point game is as important as for a 1000 point game. I don't even think that this will encourage people to trade more highly sought after/higher value games more regularly because as a whole there isn't much value to your feedback rating. But I do feel that the current feedback system needs change. There needs to be a harsher penalty for mislisting items and sending disc only to someone requesting full package. In many cases this is an intentional effort to bypass people honestly using the queues - neutral is not sufficient for this. There should be a harsher penalty for negatives, ie it effects the user's ability to make matches or something of that variety. Who wants to match with the guy with 4 negatives when there's a user who has a sparkling record offering the game up as well? On a system like ebay, the user will have to accept less money/points for their product or they won't get a sale because people would rather get it from someone reputable if the cost is going to be the same. To me, if you get a couple of negatives you should automatically be behind better feedback users in the offer queues. Or maybe instead give buyers the ability to reject offers from users with a certain number or recent negative feedbacks - so they aren't pushed down in the queue automatically but there is that potential and the buyer has some quality control over their matches.
I misvoted. I voted no, I don't like this change. I personally don't think that there's value in this - fulfilling your part of the obligation for a 100 point game is as important as for a 1000 point game. I don't even think that this will encourage people to trade more highly sought after/higher value games more regularly because as a whole there isn't much value to your feedback rating.
But I do feel that the current feedback system needs change. There needs to be a harsher penalty for mislisting items and sending disc only to someone requesting full package. In many cases this is an intentional effort to bypass people honestly using the queues - neutral is not sufficient for this. There should be a harsher penalty for negatives, ie it effects the user's ability to make matches or something of that variety. Who wants to match with the guy with 4 negatives when there's a user who has a sparkling record offering the game up as well? On a system like ebay, the user will have to accept less money/points for their product or they won't get a sale because people would rather get it from someone reputable if the cost is going to be the same. To me, if you get a couple of negatives you should automatically be behind better feedback users in the offer queues. Or maybe instead give buyers the ability to reject offers from users with a certain number or recent negative feedbacks - so they aren't pushed down in the queue automatically but there is that potential and the buyer has some quality control over their matches.
I missed this thread when it originally 'aired' it appears, but I'm glad I read through it, as Dr generally says exactly what I would have had in mind as well.
+1 for all of the above. The suggested scoring system would just boggle my mind and probably make the whole feedback score system overwhelming for others; not to mention suggest less care for 100 pointers, games that I love getting here.
The feedback system needs improvement, but I think the scoring is fine.
Join the Goozex Pokerstars Club!
GreenManGaming
Kenny007:The feedback system needs improvement, but I think the scoring is fine.
I agree, I just don't think the proposed scoring system is the way to go. I'd like buyers to be reminded on what specifically they are leaving feedback for IE you can't base your feedback on the condition of a item's case when you requested disc only.
Forum Moderator
