You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Deckbox Forum » Posts by meldon44
The link that is being sent in the e-mails now is missing 'https://' or 'http://' at the start. Now the link is just something like:
deckbox.org/trades/642270
You're right -- this is the issue. If I forcibly remove the protocol, I experience the same error.
Interesting. It's working for me -- tried with different URL configurations in different browsers, in and out of incognito. Maybe try a DNS flush or a different browser? Do you run into the issue on all your devices?
Deckbox's search capabilities are fairly basic. For more robust searches, I'd use Scryfall, which not only supports normal queries like multiple types or color identities, but also many advanced features, everything from RegExp to nested OR and AND logic.
To be clear, I have no affiliation with Scryfall. I just love it as a tool! If Deckbox could somehow incorporate Scryfall's search functionality, that would be the birth of perfection. LoL. But until such a time, I use Scryfall to narrow down a list of cards I'm interested in, and then I'll check my Deckbox inventory to see if I own them.
Here it is.
You'll have to change the sharing settings of the link to "anyone with the link can view". Right now, it's saying I don't have access.
(This happens to me a lot with people's links at work, but thankfully it's a quick and easy fix in the link settings!)
One was Beast Whisperer, which Deckbox has an option for Media Insert with "2019 Walmart resale promo" as a comment. If this is the correct choice then this option needs to be added for:
Gargos, Vicious Watcher
Could you provide us with a photo / scan of the card? Neither Scryfall nor TCG Player shows any version of Gargos other than the regular core set version, the promo pack (planeswalker symbol), and the prerelease promo (date stamped). In contrast, they have a resale promo of Beast Whisperer listed.
My only suggestion is that it should be the default for everyone, not opt-in
Would you be willing to elaborate on why you think it should be the only method, instead of an additional opt-in method?
I think that it does seem reasonable to remove negative feedbacks left for sellers who got them because of price spikes. It doesn't reflect on the card condition, their service, shipping or anything else.
It does reflect on their service. As a buyer, I consider cancelling orders poor service. A couple times, I've had sellers on TCG Player issue me partial refunds because they had the wrong quantity listed and couldn't fulfill my order. They received a lower rating from me than the other sellers, because that's an objectively worse experience.
... there are some people who only buy spiked cards from the site.
The buyer's intent is irrelevant. It resulted in an unwanted cancellation, which is a negative experience. Yes, there's some people who target spiking cards to flip them. So what? Then there's people like me who just buy cards for decks when I find out about the card, and I don't worry too much about price history. If I want it, I buy it. What if I learn about the card through YouTube channels like the Prof's Tolarian Community College or the CommandZone Podcast? What if those same videos cause a card spike (which has totally happened)? I'm not out to buy a card to flip. I'm out to buy a cool card for my deck. I'm not a "bad guy". But you wouldn't be able to tell the difference, and you'd cancel on me..... so I'd give you negative feedback.
There should honestly be an option for a seller profile to say that they aren't going to sell spiked cards.
I mean, there's the "option" to say anything you want on your profile. Sellers say they won't sell spiked cards all the time. But it doesn't matter what they say on their profile, because if the card's for sale, then it's for sale.
I'm guessing you mean you want profile "terms & conditions" to be enforceable, to the extent that Deckbox, in review of a submitted dispute, will remove your negative feedback if the only reason it was left is because a buyer violated your T&Cs? I would be against that. I as a buyer still want to know which sellers do this on a regular basis. If negative feedback were removed, then another publicly-visible metric would need to be introduced, such as the percentage of a seller's transactions that were cancelled (for any reason).
But I think the best solution is the one(s) proposed: to introduce a "delayed accept" option, either through the normal seller interface or as part of trades.
The fact that me not selling spiked cards impacts my ability to trade is a huge problem, and illustrates a flaw in the system. I think having a trade score and a seller score would make sense.
This I agree with. Just as an eBay's buyer rating has no bearing on whether they're a good seller (which is why these ratings should also be more separated on that platform), you as a trader and you as a seller are two different things. Sounds like you'd be a great trade partner! Also sounds like you'd be a negative seller for buyers like me. I want both ratings to be accurate.
Would there be a way (and maybe there is and I haven't seen it yet) for sellers to set prices as some sort of percentage of an established price (like when we have TCGPlayer prices up here)? If I agree to sell all my cards at, say, 95% of TCG Mid, then my prices would just update automatically as prices spike... would it not?
Not really. It'll still be limited by 1) how often the source data updates and 2) how often Deckbox updates based on the source data. Many sites only update once a day, so a card can still spike in that 24 hour period and you can still lose money.
It's still not a bad feature request, because at worst it allows you to be hands free and not worry about it if you don't want to.
I support the removal of "auto-accept" as well.
Sebi was never suggesting the removal of "auto-accept". It'll still be the default.
... I think both sides of any exchange agreement deserve protection.
Except the proposed "delayed accept" option doesn't offer buyers any protection they didn't already have (they can still submit a dispute with Deckbox / PayPal / credit card company). At most it ensures their money isn't tied up if there IS a lengthy dispute. But that's not a common occurrence anyways. In 99% of cases, they'll just be refunded, so they have their money back right away. The protection it removes is price protection. Anywhere else, I know that the price I click "Submit Order" for is the price I'll get. So this option is pro-seller and pro-profits, not pro-buyer and pro-price guarantee.
To be clear, I still support the addition of this seller option, because more options are better for everyone. What I'd strongly stand against is this becoming the global default for selling.
To all the people saying "sellers need to be more responsible" - some of us who sell/look to sell are just ordinary people with a huge inventory and very little time.
And to all the sellers saying the above.... The amount of money you make at ANY job or side gig is directly proportional to the amount of time and effort you put in. I respect that not everyone can devote large amounts of time to selling their personal collections; I'd be in the same boat. But they should be satisfied with the consequently smaller profits they make. I like @MagicallyAddicted's analogy above: You're not a retail store and can't spend the manpower on it. You're a garage sale. So garage sale prices is what you get. Want to make better profits? Operate your selling gig like a retail store.
I feel as if I, as a seller, don't deserve to get screwed because a price spiked and I didn't have a chance to reset my prices ...
Buyers don't deserve to get screwed because they bought your card for $5 when other sources had already spiked to $10, but by the time they find out you're canceling on them, the other sources have spiked even higher to $15. If they hadn't waited on you, they could have gotten the card for $10 and saved $5.
Please remember that there are tens of thousands of unique cards and probably over one hundred thousand unique printings of cards, and that's a lot for someone for whom selling is at most a side gig to keep up with on an instantaneous basis.
1. You (most likely) don't own one of every single card and variation, or likely even 90% of them, so total cards in existence is irrelevant.
2) The quantity of cards you actually have to consider are only the ones you list at any given time. If I decided to start selling, I'd only list a small subset of my cards at a time so I could keep a close eye on them. But if you decide you want to list 30k unique cards, then consequently you won't be able to watch them as closely and you'll miss spikes. *shrug* Them's the breaks.
3) Not every card is worth monitoring. Don't get upset if a 50 cent card spikes to $3 and you miss it. Sure, if 10 copies sell out, you've missed out on $25. What's more important is watching the vintage and rare/mythic cards that would actually lead to bigger money if they spike. Even if you list your entire collection despite #2 above, you don't have to monitor and update your entire collection.
I think this is a great idea from FastTadpole. I think this gives the best of both ways, which ever you want yourself. But if you do want to be an auto-seller, you should not be able to just cancel an order without consequents.
Agreed. Like I mentioned when I presented that same solution, negative feedback is 100% warranted if a seller cancels a sale. Or were you implying more "real" consequences than negative feedback — like revoking seller privileges after X cancellations or something like that?
And in case Sebi's original post wasn't clear, this was always the intent — to make it an optional setting. He never intended to fully switch the Deckbox Market over to a "delayed until discussed with seller" model.
I think the key phrase from @FastTadpole was the same thing I also emphasized — "clearly indicate with an icon ... what type of seller they/we are". An optional seller model is fine, as long as we're all aware who's using which model.
Out of curiosity, did you read Sebi's new proposal in the comments, about incorporating this option into Trades instead of the Marketplace? If so, what did you think of Sebi's idea to do it that way instead of as an optional seller model?
I think there should be an option to automatically update pricing to a certain % daily without manually going in and updating our inventories.
A certain % of what? Deckbox's listed market prices? The main issue, if I understand correctly, is that Deckbox's prices don't update quickly enough. So anything based on them won't update either, meaning sniping will still be easy.
I do agree that some mass pricing features would probably benefit sellers regardless, and I'm not saying they shouldn't be implemented. They just won't fix the issue most sellers seem to be concerned about.
missing the Soldier // Cat token from Commander Legends
It's there -- flip the names! It's in the database as Cat // Soldier.
Ah, sorry, missed it, seems I did not read all the posts attentively enough.
No problem. It was admittedly a wall of text (an issue I tend to have.....).
It would only require a seller account if you want to receive money. Whenever you stand to receive money from somewhere and you do not have an attached verified paypal account (into which the money would go), you will be prompted to create a "seller account".
Will users be able to propose money trades to non-sellers, and when that other user tries to move forward with the trade, they'll be prompted to create the seller account? Or will users only be able to propose money trades to already established sellers?
=MAX(.18,ROUND(S2*VLOOKUP(F2,{"Near Mint",1;"Good (Lightly Played)",0.95;"Played",0.9;"Heavily Played",0.7;"Poor",0.4},2,0),2))Regarding this, I wanted to ask if the numbers are of your own preference, or something that is "standard" in the market? I already have a similar formula that is used when you open the "collection value", but I want to add a new optional column in general listings to show the "adjusted" price of a card based on the formula. The numbers I use now are slightly lower than yours: 0.85;0.7;0.5,0.25.
The numbers were mostly arbitrary. I was tailoring them to @StoneValley, who had provided his values for NM, LP, and MP, which all skewed a bit higher. But I did mention to him the values you use on Deckbox, which I think are probably a little more accurate.
I do like the idea of the Price column in Inventory reflecting the stated condition. It has always bothered me a little that the Collection Value dialog was the only place that took condition into account, and that the price in Inventory always used NM pricing.
Since the concept of the flow of propose-discuss-accept-finalize is actually closer to a trade than an order, perhaps an idea that would communicate this is a more acceptable form would be to fold this feature into trades instead of orders.
I like this idea better than it being considered a "sale". I had actually proposed that in the older post. But I think the big question that'll be on many people's mind is this: How will this interact with seller profiles?
Obviously, a purpose of Deckbox is to be a marketplace that also makes the site some revenue. To that end, you collect a percent of the money exchanged in a buyer-seller transaction. Would these types of transactions also be subject to that fee? If so, will users be required to create a seller account in order to do ANY trading? Or would all users get to trade cards like normal, just as they do now, while the ability to add a money component into the trade proposal be restricted to users with seller accounts?
It sounds at first glance as possibly too complex and confusing especially at the beginning and for new users, but perhaps there is a nice U.I. solution to make it understandable and also flexible at the same time...
UI will be key, yes, but I don't think the concept itself is confusing. "Here's my 5 cards worth $100 based on xyz pricing, plus a $20 bill, for your 6 cards worth $120 based on that same pricing." Makes complete sense to me. Just need a very clear UI.
I don't like the auto-accept thing.
I presume you meant the proposal to NOT auto-accept transactions? The current system IS an "auto-accept thing". I'm not trying to be picky with your word usage; I'm just wanting to make sure I understand you correctly, since I'm citing your support below.
-------------------------------------------
It seems fairly clear that most people like the idea of the option being available, but also the ability to avoid that type of sale experience if they don't prefer it. I think my above points under "Implementation" are particularly key here. Users like me, @ic0n67, and @asrttyoxo need to see a clear indication as we're browsing available cards that a particular seller has elected to enforce "delayed sales" (or whatever they'll be called). Since none of us like that type of buying experience, we can easily see who uses it and avoid them. Less necessary but still a convenient feature would be a filter to completely remove such sellers from marketplace searches.
However, there'll be times when the lowest priced sellers all use this feature, and users like me et al. might be tempted to buy from them. A way to make that decision a lot more palatable would be that "response time" metric I described earlier. If a seller's average response time is 30 hours.... no way, I won't buy from them. But if their response time is 3 hours.... sure, I'll risk it at that price.
-------------------------------------------
RE: Spiked cards — @ic0n67 and @MagicallyAddicted hit the nail on the head when they said (paraphrase), "If you were happy to list a card for $5 yesterday, you should be happy with selling it for $5 today, even if it's worth $20 tomorrow."
I'll just leave you with this additional thought: How would you, sellers, like the reverse? Say a reprint of an older under-printed card gets announced one morning, and prices immediately begin to drop as people panic-sell their copies. But just like with spikes, you miss this memo and still have it listed on Deckbox for the old price. Now say Timmy purchases the card from you that same morning, but later that night, you get a message from him asking to cancel his order for a refund, because he just now saw that it was being reprinted and the price was dropping. Would you be happy with that buyer canceling on you? No.
A completed sale is a completed sale, and cancellations/refunds should only happen for much better reasons than "oh no, the price fluctuated since I last looked".
...
Cool username, dude! I love the Silmarillion and history of Middle Earth. 
Sorry everyone.... Proceed. 
Addendum to Implementation — 4) There needs to be an auto-generated seller rating for sellers using this option that shows their average response time (perhaps over multiple timeframes, like last 12 months, last 30 days, last week). Might not be a bad thing to implement for trades as well, but I think it's paramount for sales.
At first, I was going to say buyers should be able to leave negative feedback after X days of no response, but I can see how that could lead to unfair situations. Then I realized the main goal of this rating is to a) incentivize sellers to stay on top of their sales and manage them professionally and b) warn buyers away from sellers who don't. This can be accomplished through an automated website metric — you would query the sales database (for a specified seller in a specified date range), compare the date on which a sale is proposed and the date on which the seller accepts/rejects/responds, and average that data over the number of transactions during the queried time period. This would provide an objective and fair assessment of that seller's performance.
As I said, one of my main reasons for not wanting a "delayed sale" feature as a buyer is I don't want to be left in limbo for an indeterminate amount of time, waiting on the seller to respond. I'd rather pay a little extra and buy from someone where the transaction is processed quickly. However, if I can see on Deckbox that a given seller has an average response time of, say, 3 hours during the last week, I might decide that's an acceptable timeframe.
There was also this thorough discussion of the topic for anyone who wants to review it — good points made by both sides.
My thoughts on this change:
Usefulness — I see no reason not to add the feature; more options are a good thing. Those who it'll help will be very happy; those who don't want/like it can ignore it.
Personally, I would find it annoying and would avoid buying from sellers with that feature turned on. When I'm buying cards, I want it to be a quick, smooth transaction that I can depend on to be completed. That's my goal with buying. I don't want to wait hours or even days before hearing back on a proposed sale.
Implementation — I think for it to be implemented correctly, there needs to be a couple things in place:
There needs to be clear indication on both the sellers' profiles as well as in card listings which sellers have this option turned on and which don't. I don't want to have to wait until I'm checking out to finally find out it's going to be a delayed transaction.
Additionally, there should be a filter for this setting, allowing those like me who want to avoid such sellers to not even waste our time looking at their listings, while also allowing those who prefer such sellers to shop exclusively from them.
Finally, the current system (auto-processing sales) should be the default setting for new sellers; this new system should be optional.
Negative Feedback — First off, I agree with @AlmightySenator: Feedback for trades and for sales should be separate, since they measure completely different experiences. However, how would feedback for this new feature be grouped? Is it more like a sale or more like a trade?
As to seller feedback: For sellers not using this feature, all negative feedback due to canceled sales, regardless of reason, is 100% warranted. As a buyer, it doesn't matter to me if the platform makes it difficult for you to stay on top of prices, or if you have a full-time job and this is hobby-selling, or if you sell on multiple platforms and have a hard time keeping your inventory up-to-date on all platforms. From a buyer's perspective, we see a certain quantity of cards at a certain price, so we should be able to buy that quantity at that price. If I get told I can't actually buy the card for X reason, that's the very essence of a negative experience. I want to be warned away from sellers who have a history of canceling orders.
Alternative — Something else to consider, either instead of or even in addition to the proposed feature, would be giving sellers a form to fill out their seller's terms, which would be displayed during checkout and would have to be agreed to before finalising. Currently they just put their terms on their profile, which not everyone will know to go look at. It's also not officially binding in any way as it now stands. But being presented during checkout, their terms would actually be known to exist (the buyer can't claim ignorance) and would be a binding part of the transaction (much like terms detailed in an eBay listing). These terms could then be taken into account during any disputes.
meldon44 coming in with the runner up for MVP! Thank you to you as well for the time you invest!
Glad to be of help! It'll be nice one day to have a native feature, but Sebi already has enough on his hands (especially with the rate WotC is putting out sets and variants these days....). So for now, the CSVs work well. 
If anyone would like an easy way to import the Commander Legends decks, you can download CSV files for Armed for Combat and Reap the Tides. More such CSVs are located at bit.ly/MTGprecons. The double-sided tokens for the decks won't import yet, until Sebi gets those added to the Extras edition.
@Sebi — The mythic rare symbol isn't showing up. The link to /images/mtg/editions/cmr_M.jpg appears to be broken.
TO's user-generated card lists get super janky, especially for reprint sets. It may be that because TO is focused on building decks rather than trading, the particular printing isn't as important, but I've often found that reprinted cards in sets like this just get forgotten
True, I'm not a fan of T/O's inventory management. It lacks basic things like being able to view specific printings of a card on a card's detail page (and even the ability to view all editions, like if you want to see the different artwork, is rather difficult to find). I was speaking more for the general concept of crowdsourced data than for T/O's specific implementation. In fact, there's a LOT I would change / improve about T/O....
Moxfield, Archidekt, and Scryfall all have them already, which is good for them.
I don't know this for sure, but I'd be willing to bet both Moxfield and Archidekt are based on Scryfall's API and data (or at least on the same MTGjson that Scryfall is based on), considering they're newer sites and MTGjson / Scryfall have kinda set the standard. So as soon as a set goes live on Scryfall, it could be quickly and easily added to those sites.
Deckbox, on the other hand, predates all those resources, and I'm sure it would entail a complete database overhaul in order to easily integrate Scryfall data.
Again, I could be completely wrong, but it would make sense.
If it’s a resources thing, that’s one thing. If it’s a release date only philosophy thing, that’s different.
I agree. Definitely a resource issue. We get some sets nice and early, well before prerelease, and then there's been the few that have been delayed till after release.
I wish Deckbox would try some form of crowd-sourced data like TappedOut uses, but I get the impression Sebi doesn't want to take that approach, considering members have offered to help in various ways in the past and he doesn't seem to take them up on it. The whole one-man-operation issue might be a little bit self-inflicted....
Probably because there's quite a bit of work involved. I don't know the time involved to get this done, but I'm pretty sure it's not a one and done type of thing.
Yep. And especially these days with all the variants and crap Wizards has been pumping out. If it's overwhelming for consumers, their wallets, content creators.... I can only imagine it's a mini nightmare for website managers.
And everyone needs to remember that, unlike other websites that have teams of people, Deckbox is maintained by one guy.
Brisela, Voice of Nightmares. Trying to add to my wants list and it doesn't exist in the data base
For the same reason you wouldn't be able to add it to a deck -- it's not a physical card, but rather an in-game construction you can assemble. Add Gisela, the Broken Blade and Bruna, the Fading Light to your Wishlist instead.
Distinct looks correct to me, but total isn't. Should be nearly double that. Even just eyeballing all the pages one can tell that there is more than double the number of distinct cards.
Looks about right to me. Based on the current counts (5954 cards, 2776 distinct), that means on average you own 2.14 copies of each unique card. So I did a quick copy/paste of the first 10 pages of your inventory into Excel, and here's the results:
Total Avg
Page Cards Cards
#1 61 2.03
#2 54 1.8
#3 66 2.2
#4 58 1.93
#5 59 1.97
#6 80 2.67
#7 53 1.77
#8 73 2.43
#9 65 2.17
#10 63 2.1
TOTAL 632 2.11Didn't eyeball all 93 pages, but that sample seems consistent with the 5954 ÷ 2776 average.
Now, you mentioned exporting a CSV, which confirmed your concern. Would you mind sharing a link to that CSV? Maybe there's something weird going on that I can't see on the website. Or maybe just post the results of a SUM and COUNT formula on the Count column in Excel?
Deckbox Forum » Posts by meldon44