Search options (Page 2 of 8)

As a trader with 700+ trades here, and someone that has narrowly avoided being scammed 3 or so times out of high value cards, I'd like to add my 2 cents.

I think doing something to encourage more verification is good.
I think doing something to more forcefully encourage or require low-feedback traders to always send first to higher feedback traders is also good.

I personally am not too concerned about trading myself -- I've done well to protect myself so far. The scenario that most worries me is a scammer that works up a moderate number of trades (10-20) and then tries to scam large numbers of new traders with less feedback than themselves. I saw this happen at least twice in the last few years. They tried to scam me but I insisted they send first, and they either never did, or sent fake cards. I'm not sure what the right threshold is here, but I DEFINITELY think that once a trader has an OPEN issue/complaint to resolve, that they should not be able to initiate new trades, and an admin should probably review that immediately and also (probably) prevent any already-open trades from sending cards to that person until the issue is resolved.

One person getting scammed is bad. A whole bunch of people getting scammed because they can't share information quickly amongst themselves is a bigger tragedy, imho.
-Sherlock

I don't realistically expect real-time price updates when something is spiking. I know that trading here and relying on pricing is a little "buyer beware" as it relates to prices. For big value stuff it always makes sense to spot-check a price. Most of us have been on either end of card trades have that changed a bit in value. I can (personally) live with a bit of a lag in prices, but what seems like weeks of incorrect prices on many cards just leads to a breakdown in trust -- especially with no apparent acknowledgement or announcement from the mods or even the users.

descendant's path, foil and non-foil (not sure why this hasn't adjusted, it's been several days)
Antiquities urza lands seem a bit low here as well

I can't tell which ones, if any, I was able to send. I attempted to send about 6 emails within a minute or so this morning. Thanks

I've got two water-damaged Bayous that I'd trade at a discount if that interests you at all.

Still looking for more offers!

Both probably, although value is more important. If you also implemented something about open disputes, it would be hard for a scammer to steal much if they could only do a couple of trades at a time and the value per trade was limited. By the time the first person flags their account they can only have scammed a small $ amount.

I'm not sure how it would go over across the rest of the users, but setting restrictions may also be more helpful for monetizing the site (not sure how that's going so far, would love to see an update). I doub't a potential scammer would be willing to give their paypal or CC info to you, so using payment as a gate would also keep scammers to lower activity levels.

What about something like you can't have more than N+1 (or 2) open trades at a time where N=current feedback. I might also set guidance, although maybe not a rule, that new traders should complete 5-10 trades with people with 10+ feedback before really going for it. I think the rippers are mostly taking advantage of the newer traders, so getting the newer traders some experience, and keeping the minnows away from the sharks a little bit would be helpful.

I think it should be consistent at a minimum (e.g., treat MM1 and MM2 the same), and that any change you make would ideally be accompanied by an easier way to auto-tag un-tagged cards.

I don't think it makes sense to assume the printing of an unknown card is from a limited or minor product (such as FTV/duel decks). What I would probably suggest doing actually is to remove the set symbol for all un-tagged cards and just show the lowest price from all sets. Absent that, I would assume the card is from the most recent "major" printing, since that's probably the most likely. Now as for how I'd categorize MM2, since it's somewhere inbetween a major printing and a minor one is TBD. I'd probably call Commander a major printing, duel decks/FTV minor printings, and MM2 probably a minor printing.

The ideal solution is to find an easier way for people with large collections to set the versions of their cards (especially where there's a significant difference in value among editions) in an easy way.

Are there plans to also remove items from your wishlist when you make a purchase from someone else? (before you actually receive the cards)?

Awesome Sebi!

Two minor UI suggestions.

1. When looking at a trade, I think that "my" side should always be on the same side (left?) regardless of who proposes the trade first. It's sort of odd that my view changes depending on who proposes first, and I think a more consistent view would be better.

2. In the trades view, I like that you added the country and feedback score info, but it seems a little cluttered. Two suggestions: 1. I think the star and the percentage info is redundant. Can we remove the star and just leav the percentage (especially since almost everyone has 99% or 100% score, the star doesn't show much). 2. Can we align the flags visually, like  halfway between name and the righthand side, so the names are a little bit cleaner and have more whitespace around them?

Overall love the changes. Keep up the great work!