Search options (Page 1 of 8)

I'll add more feedback as I have it..

1) Definitely not a fan of not being able to directly see my inventory/wantlist on a card by visiting its individual page. Now I have to click extra buttons just to show the exact editions of a card I have? What problem is this solving?

2) Not sure why I can see "Edit" buttons on someone else's tradelist. Thankfully I can't actually edit them...

I think it would be nice to have "Accepted Trades" broken down into "Unsent" and "Sent" as well, actually.

The inability to hold off on a potential order pending some sort of inventory verification is why I stopped using the market - since you can't have a separate sell list from your tradelist, it means you have to either cultivate your tradelist very carefully or risk cancelling orders and incurring negative feedback. It's just not worth it to me and it's clear that there are no plans to improve the system.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - I have an inventory of thousands of cards and I've dipped my toes into the marketplace, but the dealbreaker for me is that there's no way to flag a subset of a given number of cards as for sale without doing something janky with the flags to split up my inventory. If a sale list were separated out from my tradelist then I would happily start using the market again.

This change is inconvenient for me but that's because I'm usually open to taking foils on cards that I have non-foils listed. Now I'll have to go and add foils to all of these entries on my wishlist, which I imagine I'll gradually do over months... I wish there was a way to indicate that you're open to either version.

bptrumpet's question is a good one though. Like, a lot of people don't bother flagging foil-only cards (eg. masterpieces) as foil. Does this mean I won't be matched to them if I have foil masterpieces on my wishlist? Will I have to list both foil and non-foil copies of foil-only cards to ensure maximum visibility? Seems silly.

Obviously I'm one of these value traders. Maybe *the* value trader on this site and some others.

Let me relay a story. I started off here when I got into Magic again during Theros block. I was a poor grad student and wanted to trade my draft cards into a Pod deck. Which meant I needed Noble Hierarchs. Those ran about $70 at the time, but guess what no one would trade those $70 Hierarchs for 10 $7 Temples or whatever. People didn't want to "trade down". People didn't want to trade "standard for modern", etc. I eventually got the Hierarchs through various channels, and then Pod was banned.

At that point I decided that I pivoted would be the guy who would trade you Hierarchs for your standard cards. Yes I would ask for extra value. Because this recognizes the obvious fact that tcg mid prices do not reflect individual valuations for cards and people who would willingly trade value when baselined to a market index derived from a very different dynamic (sales) are not naive or being subject to exploitation. They're often doing the best that they can. And so I'm simply a tool that people can use to achieve the inventory transformations you want, at a price.

I'm "entitled" to this extra value because because I'm providing a service that requires a substantial amount of time and money investment - I need to keep my inventory updated, I need to prepare packages, I need to pay shipping fees. I have a day job and the margins I make do not really justify the amount of time I put into this - it's still largely a community service and not a profitable endeavor. If you reduce those margins than I quit the site. If I quit the site then who wins? Certainly not the people with whom I've completed over 1000 trades with on those terms. I don't have a store but this is exactly the sort of argument that an LGS would use to defend the notion that it should be able to charge margins that allows it to pay its employees and keep the lights on.

I'm not looking to shark anyone. My terms are upfront because I don't want to waste anyone's time. I let people come to me with offers. I am 100% comfortable ethically with what I'm doing and I think those who would not merely avoid me but actively castigate me are extremely misguided with whatever trade ethics that they're trying to promote. Again, the alternative to me doing what I'm not doing is that I suddenly decide to trade Noble Hierarchs for Temples (or Noble Hierarchs for Kaladesh fastlands in 2017..), it's that I just quit trading on here. If you think that would represent an improvement for the community than I think you really need to question your values. If you wouldn't trade your Hierarch for 10 temples but you would trade it for 15 and you propose this option, this doesn't make you a monster.

I think there is a line to draw between "good" value trading and "bad" value trading but people seem to draw it very reluctantly, perhaps because people believe that admitting that the former is possible somehow provides cover for people who do the latter.

I'll note that this should probably only be the case with adding cards for your Trade / Have lists - I like the editionless marker for the Wishlist, however, since it means if there's a reprinting then I'll automatically be matched with the new copy.

I wouldn't mind if it always *defaulted* to a singleton edition, but I think the ability to manually specify editionless at least when dealing with Wishlist entries is still important.

I think you should at least be able to rename photos from the default, to allow users to point to "Plateau #1" instead of "Plateau #2" without your having to actually upload a file called "Plateau_2" or something. I don't want to tell stories about cards, but if I have multiple copies under the same listing I want to at least have a way of indicating which is which.

Also, one other important thing that I can't do under the current database settings is make it so that if I have 2 copies of Plateau, perhaps I only want to put one up for sale but not the other while also having both on my tradelist. Right now you can't do this, let alone do something like have different prices on different copies, which becomes more-rationalizable if you can upload different pictures on different copies.

Right now I do this in a janky way: If I have 2 Plateaus on my tradelist and I only want to have one up for sale, then I just remove the condition from the one I don't want to sell to force the Plateaus onto 2 separate rows. Stupid, but it works.

I considered making a new thread to update my concerns here, but I decided I'd rather just bump this one. As this is essentially a continuation of the concerns explicated in the OP.

My international trading has largely been successful, but right now there are 4 trades where I've sent cards with tracking where there seems to be a hangup somewhere in the shipping process: One to Canada, one to Norway, and two to Romania. All of the trades have used the same method I've always used: stamps.com labels on bubble mailers and first-class international shipping. I interpret the recent hangups to bad luck. In one of the cases my partner's package also hasn't arrived, so maybe we'll both take a loss.

But it feels terrible to take these to cases. Everyone has the intuitive understanding of rule 2.2 that is outlined above: That senders are only protected by tracking if a package is shown as delivered. But in practice this is wrong. The language is contradictory and people get upset over it, understandably so. And it's bad for the site if people get angry at the process.

I think it's pretty obvious that the rules should work like 2.2 implies. I really think this policy should be changed ASAP for all future trades. It's not a hard policy and I can't think of anyone who would oppose it, if only because everyone assumes things work as they should.

Also, here's one additional scenario under the current system that bothers me: There are many countries I can ship to where I can get tracking but the tracking will stop at the border. The tracking will *never* show a package delivery. I think it's very odd that I would still apparently be protected in this instance. Also, the rule that requires the sender to open a formal case on a tracked package just doesn't work in many instances: Namely, on first-class international packages, you cannot open a formal case.

Basically, the verbiage on the dispute window should be brought in line with the plain meaning on 2.2, and the requirement that the sender open a case should be dropped. The current policy is advantaging me on net, but in a way that feels like shit.

If anyone has advice for me on how to try to get the PO to look into packages that have apparently been dropped in to a pit in Chicago, it would be appreciated.

[Edit]

As an update, all my packages eventually ended up arriving except the Norway one. My concerns still apply, though.

I don't think so, because I think it's less-reasonable to expect the OP to maintain thousands of price listings than it is to maintain one.

If it's pretty much always a bad idea to use the mass pricing tool then that says something about whether the feature should be improved.

No other online marketplace encourages users to both maintain and mass-price their inventory in the way that Deckbox does.

OP is out of luck, but I've long maintained that Deckbox isn't TCGPlayer and shouldn't be trying to be TCGPlayer. The "hack" to do what the OP wants is to just set shipping at $1000 and instruct potential buyers to open orders for discussion, at which point he'll provide a $1000 discount. This isn't perfect but it will stop the sort of order he's worried about.

I only keep about 100 or so cards listed for sale whose prices I can watch relatively easily. Listing your entire collection is pretty risky since a lot of your sales will essentially go to vultures that are just trying to pick off systematically-underpriced cards.