Relisting with listing software

Les informations ne sont plus disponibles car le compte de cet utilisateur est supprimé (Règlement RGPD)

Les informations ne sont plus disponibles car le compte de cet utilisateur est supprimé (Règlement RGPD)

Well spotted Mainly.......another poke in the eye for the "sane" policy I guess.......

Les informations ne sont plus disponibles car le compte de cet utilisateur est supprimé (Règlement RGPD)

Les informations ne sont plus disponibles car le compte de cet utilisateur est supprimé (Règlement RGPD)

Les informations ne sont plus disponibles car le compte de cet utilisateur est supprimé (Règlement RGPD)

Les informations ne sont plus disponibles car le compte de cet utilisateur est supprimé (Règlement RGPD)

Hello everyone,

On the French forum I had indeed highlighted the same ratio:

Items listed / (ongoing sales + lots sold)

For the site as a whole over the past year, the ratio has climbed from 1.8 times to 2.2 times. In other words there have been 2.2 items listed for every unique item that has passed through the site, and the trend is up.

A good part of this is due to the legitimate relisting of expiring (long duration) renewals (indeed, so long as there are unsold items, the ratio should inoxerably and slowly trend upwards as the site gets older). Some of it is also due to legitimate prices changes, image changes, description changes, etc. These numbers cannot be known. However, considering that 2.2 times is an average for the site and most sellers are not actively recycling old items, I am convinced based also on what I see that some stores out there are running with ratios well in excess of the average (possibly 5x or even 10x or more), suggesting disfunctional behavior by their owners. On this view I had suggested to the staff that they actively monitor the ratio on a per store basis, which in all fairness they may already have been doing.

Having said this, the recent rule change does effectively allow an increase in the per item recycling rate from 3 to 4 times a year, although there is an important subtlety: before, it was 3 times a year whenever you wanted; now it's 4 times a year, but not more than once every three months. This forced interval seems intended to complicate matters for those interested in actively recycling their stocks, and to facilitate monitoring and spotting the offenders (for one thing, the size of the database required is now 3 months of data, versus 12 previously).

Still, the rule change does mean the following: whereas previously a certain seller with 700,000+ items could recycle an average of 40,000 items a week without infringing the rules (700,000*3/52), now he can do 54,000 (700,000*4/52).

And unless everybody has misunderstood or is not seeing things right, it's this above all that is sticking accross most throats: that some very large sellers who are actively rotating their stocks are effectively being allowed to drown out all the others on a daily basis, thereby also hiding many if not most truly new items from the view of potential buyers.

For buyers, two solutions to this scurge are black-listing and advanced searches. But the former is too brute or black and white to satisfy, and the latter does not always suffice, given the size of the site (the lists can still be long and dominated by relistings from a few).

So in then end here we all are, with measures being taken and tools being provided, but also the persistent feeling that certain things, as Voltaire would have said, 'are not for the best in the best of all possible worlds'.

Best regards,

Brice

Les informations ne sont plus disponibles car le compte de cet utilisateur est supprimé (Règlement RGPD)

Hello Mainly,

I meant that from now on, when searching through the servers for false news, they will only need to manipulate and visualize 3 months worth of data at a time, rather rhan 12. If in this data you see the same item twice, you've caught a false news.

No impact on server storage capacity whatsoever. Just easier to control.

Best,

Brice.

Hi Mainly,

"I was referring to invisible items after they are closed. After 3 months keyword search doesn't pick them up any more, but they are still on the system if you search by number."

I wasn't aware of the 3 month restriction on keyword searches. It would confirm my thinking, that by aligning the two, the new rule on relisting makes it easier for members, employees and moderators to spot false new items.

It thus seems that policing not relisting frequency was their primary focus with this change, that otherwise is totally counter-intuitive.

But I'm merely guessing and it would be nice for someone to confirm this. It would certainly help calm things down on the French forum.

Brice

Les informations ne sont plus disponibles car le compte de cet utilisateur est supprimé (Règlement RGPD)

Les informations ne sont plus disponibles car le compte de cet utilisateur est supprimé (Règlement RGPD)

Thanks, Mainly.
Indeed. That item's already been relisted 5 times in the last year, with only a few days in between. When you see examples like this it's easier to see how the new rule should slow things down and simultaneously enable better control.
Best,
Brice

Les informations ne sont plus disponibles car le compte de cet utilisateur est supprimé (Règlement RGPD)

Hello Decotiques,
Could you clarify your thinking, about "it" being "a sure-fire way of weeding out small sellers"? What "it" do you mean, and how?
Thanks,
Brice

Les informations ne sont plus disponibles car le compte de cet utilisateur est supprimé (Règlement RGPD)

Hello,


Yes, indeed, you can understand that in this way. But... the real problem has now been fixed.

Previously, a seller could upload the same time 3 times in 3 months if he wanted to. Just because he could do it 3 times a year.

A few sellers understood this breach in the Charter, so they decided to upload their 3 times, for the new "commercial year", September-October.

This is why this problem became so obvious now.

So, we decided to fix our Charter, and to enforce it.

But, yes, you are right! It is now possible "4 times a year", while it was possible "3 times" before. But, it just sounded us illogical to use quadrimesters, while trimesters are more usual.

Globally, it fixes the problem and does not really bring any new one.


Sebastien Delcampe

... and, I forgot, when you see sellers breaching the Charter, just report them to our team.

Les informations ne sont plus disponibles car le compte de cet utilisateur est supprimé (Règlement RGPD)

Les informations ne sont plus disponibles car le compte de cet utilisateur est supprimé (Règlement RGPD)