No Pictures = No Posting in Marketplace?

[Defender II]

With the proliferation of cameras, is it too much to require at least 1 cear picture of items offered for sale or trade? Just a simple suggestion and request for your opinion.

With "'boxes of crap' exception clause".

 

I thank everyone who has responded with helpfull comments. I tried to make the choices a little humurous because I wasn't trying to make an argument, but a discussion with my point of view clear. Please just vote based on the Yes or No and leave any suggestion as a post. It is clear that there are many shades of gray in this topic with many valid points:

 

Having clear pictures can clarify what is for sale and reduce shady transactions but can also drive up prices.

Too many pictures can slow down loading.

Posting pictures of very cheap items seems like a waste of the sellers' time taking them and buyers' time paging through them.

Having a separate subforum for common low-priced items or 'NO PICTURE/MAKE OFFER' really seems like a valid option.

Perhaps a third choice cold be added to a future poll for such a subforum. Many people enjoy haggling and a 'MAKE OFFER' subforum might be nice. If it lives it lives, if it dies it dies. In the meantime the main Marketplace would be more efficient and hopefully create more happy sellers and buyers.

Edited February 2, 2013 by Defender II

[purduecrum]

Can there be a "boxes of crap" exception clause?

[+Gemintronic]

Wouldn't it be easier to identify amateur/unprofessional/unreliable sellers if we leave the policy alone? Just pin a "guidelines" topic.

[+save2600]

I like the pinned guidelines topic, but you know the lazy and/or clueless will just end up ignoring it anyway. I'm sure if Albert really wanted to, he could set the website up (specifically the Marketplace forum) to only allow a post *if* there is a pic attached or force people that have never read the guidelines to click on the link and 'accept' the terms(which would include requirements such as asking prices, etc.), but that's a lot to ask. I say we just get in the habit of treating horribly written or no photo'd ads as you would trolls. Just say no!

 

Either they'll learn their lesson by lack of sales and inquiries or not.

[nopaybob]

No question that it would help a sale but Requirement=no

this isnt evilbay

 

I vote to ban lethargic MO threads

[+Gemintronic]

I can't imagine the exasperation of mods when dozens of newbies post without pictures and get called out every day.

[akator]

If there's gonna be a photo requirement, I want them of the seller's face, family, car, and home as well. That would definitely cut down on scammers, because then we could visually identify them in real life and beat the shit out of them. Oh wait, that wouldn't actually work because they could post fake photos...

 

We could create national and world photo IDs, genetic fingerprinting, and electronic tagging of everyone. Multiple levels of ID would be required to use the internet and there would be no more anonymity. Oh wait, that wouldn't actually work because 13-year-olds and criminals would figure out how to fake it or hack it...

 

Ah well, might as well leave things as they are.

[slab0meat]

A better idea would be requiring an asking price.....

 

 

[+stupus]

I would leave the policy alone, generally more laws/rules imo are not ususally a helpful thing, and can be circumvented anyway.

If it is something you are truly interested in with no pics request them, otherwise ignore it and move on.

Sellers who dont post pics will soon learn they wont sell their items effectively or not to waste time posting(with maybe the exception of ozma wars).

Edited February 1, 2013 by stupus

[Chuck D. Head]

I would let it be and let the market decide. I have gotten some of the best deals from auctions / sale threads with no (or bad) pictures or from newbies, because others shy away.

[gzsfrk]

While it boggles my mind why anyone would post something for sale here and not include a picture, I wouldn't ban them outright. If anything, we want to encourage more listings, not discourage potential sellers. And if that includes a bit of a mentoring process for newcomers to learn the best practices after posting their first item, then I honestly don't mind.

[wozencl]

If there's gonna be a photo requirement, I want them of the seller's face, family, car, and home as well. That would definitely cut down on scammers, because then we could visually identify them in real life and beat the shit out of them. Oh wait, that wouldn't actually work because they could post fake photos...

 

We could create national and world photo IDs, genetic fingerprinting, and electronic tagging of everyone. Multiple levels of ID would be required to use the internet and there would be no more anonymity. Oh wait, that wouldn't actually work because 13-year-olds and criminals would figure out how to fake it or hack it...

 

Ah well, might as well leave things as they are.

 

By far the funniest thing I've read today.

[Defender II]

Can there be a "boxes of crap" exception clause?

Sure! Great idea!

[Defender II]

I can't imagine the exasperation of mods when dozens of newbies post without pictures and get called out every day.

A simple reply to their post about the policy by any member should be enough.

[oldjd]

Another site that I am on,has a requirement that if you post in the "for sale" section,it has to have a price,and picture,as well

as accurate descriptions.

I think that is reasonable,unless your posting a huge amount of stuff,requiring alot of pictures.

But,I see ads,"thinking about selling" or pictures soon,or similar vagueness,and its almost like the seller is on a big fishing

expedition.

I don't know how much power the mods have,but I would think that if "rules" for posting,were going to be enforced,it would be a

simple matter of them sending a pm to the poster with a warning....do nothing and the ad is gone

[+atari2600land]

I have to chime in here. My camera is crappy, so if I were to post pictures, they'd be crappy. Take a look at my Microvision game I'm trying to sell. I put a picture in because of this thread.

[+thegoldenband]

I think it really depends on the item, the price, and the seller's level of clarity. If you're selling a Defender cart for 50 cents, a picture isn't necessary; if you're selling a "mint" CIB system for $150+, it clearly is. If you're a new poster who writes barely-intelligible English, a pic is more crucial than if your thread is carefully formatted, clear, and you have a proven track record.

 

I'll also note that extensive pictures can sometimes clutter up a large sale thread, especially if the pictures are detailed enough to be useful; some of the big sale threads are annoying to load, since the thread content jumps around as various pics load. Adding links, rather than embedding the pictures, can be a good idea.

 

(It's also annoying when people don't edit out pictures of items that have been sold.)

 

My own sale threads are usually a mix of pics on more expensive items and no-pics on cheaper commons, but I'm always happy to take a photo whenever asked. What I can't stand is when people don't have ANY text about the items, and expects me to look through zoomed-in versions of their photos to figure out what they're selling. That also makes it impossible to use search to find their threads, BTW.

[jetset]

I voted "yes" only because the "no" option was silly ("I enjoy having to request pictures" ??? Really?)

Still I don't think we need more rules here. There are plenty already and really, if you are comfortable buying from someone with no verification of the item that's your risk. And besides, having a rule would (imo) tend to imply that having a picture means the seller is legitimate, and that may not be the case (a new or low post user with no references for example).

[Mark Wolfe]

if the poll was worded fairly, I'd answer it.

 

NO, I do not think it is fair to censor posts because they do not have a photo. some posts don't need one. I think most sellers get that a photo will help sell their item faster, we do not need more rules.

[+Psionic]

I don't have an issue with no pictures, but I do think in order to sell anything here, you should be required to post your Social Security number and a copy of your psychological test scores.

[toptenmaterial]

Who gives a rat's ass one way or the other? Do we really need to make our little forum even more exclusive?

[RJ]

I use an iPod Touch & a DSi daily- both have cameras, doesnt mean I'm inclined to use them.

 

& judging from a single past transaction with the OP in which I personally experienced his behavior (& why I'll never deal with him again), I'm not surprised he's being overly particular about such a non-issue.

 

 

[the.golden.ax]

A better idea would be requiring an asking price.....

 

 

 

This....

 

 

if the poll was worded fairly, I'd answer it.

 

NO, I do not think it is fair to censor posts because they do not have a photo. some posts don't need one. I think most sellers get that a photo will help sell their item faster, we do not need more rules.

 

That!!!

 

I don't have an issue with no pictures, but I do think in order to sell anything here, you should be required to post your Social Security number and a copy of your psychological test scores.

 

I THINK 11OUTOF9 A L L R E A D Y DID THAT.

[Blazing Lazers]

No, this shouldn't be required. Not just because it isn't necessary, as others have mentioned above, but also because it affects how well the pages will load and display on mobile devices. I often check the site from my phone, and image-heavy threads do tend to drag and eat up bandwidth and battery life, even on my 4glte connection. Let it remain up to the poster's best judgement as to whether or not to post pictures.

[MagitekAngel]

I think the seller should post a picture of their garage so we can see that they already have a bike.