ShelfLife Beta Test Announcement: Very Exciting Stuff

[Ozrein]

Originally Posted by Requateer

I've thought about suggestions for some features to build upon for Wants in the future. Although they're meant mostly for when Buying/Selling is active, I wanted to spill now just in case I forget. Feel free to take as much or as little from them as you want:

-A notes/comments section for Wants. Allows you to specify things you are looking for or aren't looking for beyond parts required. For example, I'm looking for a Junker Armada Overload with an intact right arm in order to replace the broken one on my own. I'd like to denote that so that my Want extends beyond just better-condition Overloads that I would have to pay more for.

-The ability to fix a price for Wants or leave it open to offers. Currently, you've arranged pricing as, "I would like to buy [X] amount for at most $[Y]". The thing with that wording is that the amount displayed is the most a person would like to pay, which is what a potential seller is almost always going to opt for. But I'm sure in most cases for people wanting something, they'd go more along the lines of, "I would pay $[X] at most for this toy, but I'd much rather pay less than that if possible". The best I could think of to work that situation in is instead starting with a minimum price ("I'm willing to pay at least $[X] for this toy."). Then, people setting up their Want can have the option to set that price as negotiable or non-negotiable. Non-negotiable prices would save the buyer the hassle of haggling, but it means less chance of offers at all. I would imagine that the Negotiable/Non-negotiable Setting would be useful on the Selling side of the system as well.

-The ability to decide whether or not you Wants are viewable to offers. I'd imagine there would be many a case where you want to list a toy as a Want to remind yourself that you're looking for it, but you haven't gotten your latest paycheck in so you can't buy it JUST yet, so you don't want to be bombarded with offers right at the moment. So you would list the Want as unviewable to potential offerers. Such a feature should be useful in a bunch of different situations. Ideally, you would be able to select visibility on a Want-to-Want basis (perhaps as part of the Add/Edit popup), with the option to blanket-select all your wants as viewable or non-viewable for convenience.

-The ability to denote whether or not you specifically are okay or not okay with an offer for a Want coming from a smoking/pet home. I think it would be best implemented as a user preference (to be edited in your user settings), as I would imagine that you would always be okay or not okay with any Want coming in through your door to be from a smoking/pet house. Having to check off "Must be from a smoke/pet free household" every time you make a want, and then having to filter out said people when you want to make an offer and do come from a smoke/pet house means having it as a detail on individual wants would result in extra hassle on both ends of the exchange. Instead (if the system allows), you would edit in your user settings whether or not you want any Want to come from a smoke/pet free home, as well as if your collection is IN a smoking/pet home. That way, buyers can auto-filter out sellers from smoking/pet homes, and sellers from smoking/pet homes can auto-filter out buyers who are not okay buying Wants from them.

I like most of these ideas as well. Specifically the option to turn off or on wants as viewable to offers. Or be able to set priorities for wants. Example, I've set up some G1 wants, but most are very low priority so to make sure I'm not bombarded with offers I've put the max I'm willing to pay very very low. I also have (or will have, cant remember if I set it as a want yet) Fort Max as a want but due to his rather high value, it'll be a while before I can actually seriously look at buying one. So even though he is higher priority, I'm going to have to wait. So some options that the individual user can adjust over the course of time would be very useful, imo.

[Slayback]

The expletitives that are spewing out of my mouth right now for the amount of battle beasts per line is extraordinary. >

oh um since i'm doing the Japan vers. -shouldn't i be listing the Japanese name, then the Euro/USA name etc? right now its the reverse -in the products section

[Bruticus82]

Here's a suggestion for helping curators:

Make a "standard" way to save and name instructions, and explain what you envision going in most of the categories (like Class). Put up a page with all sorts of FAQ's on things like: How do you treat missiles versus launchers/instructions/boxes? What is the class and why do I need to fill it out? what are product line/sub-line/series? When should I use "belongs to"? What is a variant? etc.

This way the manner in which I'm curating my TFs (or anything else) and someone else is curating theirs is compatible. It might make a difference later on with the search/buy features. You don't want someone putting missiles as "belonging to" missile launchers, someone else putting them as "belonging to" the transformer, and someone else just putting the missiles as stand alone accessories - it will make a difference as to what the search returns as a "match" will it not?

[jourdo]

I'd agree that standardization would be a great idea, but I'm not sure that some of it would be applicable across toy lines. For example, what works for Transformers may not work for G.I. Joe or Barbie.

[Bruticus82]

Originally Posted by jourdo

I'd agree that standardization would be a great idea, but I'm not sure that some of it would be applicable across toy lines. For example, what works for Transformers may not work for G.I. Joe or Barbie.

Agreed, they will likely have their own issues, and will need input from those groups I'm sure.

[Ozrein]

Originally Posted by Bruticus82

Here's a suggestion for helping curators:

Make a "standard" way to save and name instructions, and explain what you envision going in most of the categories (like Class). Put up a page with all sorts of FAQ's on things like: How do you treat missiles versus launchers/instructions/boxes? What is the class and why do I need to fill it out? what are product line/sub-line/series? When should I use "belongs to"? What is a variant? etc.

This way the manner in which I'm curating my TFs (or anything else) and someone else is curating theirs is compatible. It might make a difference later on with the search/buy features. You don't want someone putting missiles as "belonging to" missile launchers, someone else putting them as "belonging to" the transformer, and someone else just putting the missiles as stand alone accessories - it will make a difference as to what the search returns as a "match" will it not?

I just finished up the 25th Joe Catalog and when it comes to parts like missiles, I simply put them as "belongs to" both the figure and the missile launcher. Realistically all parts (for a specific figure) belong to that figure first, and then if the parts also belong to a larger part, then you can add that part in as well. This is how I did it and I think it worked out well. We'll see how for sure once Nick has had a chance to review and approve the catalog.

[Bruticus82]

Originally Posted by Ozrein

I just finished up the 25th Joe Catalog and when it comes to parts like missiles, I simply put them as "belongs to" both the figure and the missile launcher. Realistically all parts (for a specific figure) belong to that figure first, and then if the parts also belong to a larger part, then you can add that part in as well. This is how I did it and I think it worked out well. We'll see how for sure once Nick has had a chance to review and approve the catalog.

Yeah, and let me be specific that who "missiles" belong to is not the only issue, there are questions about class, character, etc. that many new curators (once the site goes public) will have, and it would be nice to have a guide. The video James made was a good start, but I think it could have a lot more detail, and maybe something like a written page or FAQ would work for this.

[Ozrein]

Originally Posted by Bruticus82

Yeah, and let me be specific that who "missiles" belong to is not the only issue, there are questions about class, character, etc. that many new curators (once the site goes public) will have, and it would be nice to have a guide. The video James made was a good start, but I think it could have a lot more detail, and maybe something like a written page or FAQ would work for this.

Fair enough, it would be nice to have all of those things consistent across all catalogs (at least within a particular toy line, ie: TFs, Joes, Star Wars, etc). I was just simply addressing the one point.

[faustx]

Originally Posted by Ozrein

Fair enough, it would be nice to have all of those things consistent across all catalogs (at least within a particular toy line, ie: TFs, Joes, Star Wars, etc). I was just simply addressing the one point.

Love to see you guys getting deeper and deeper on the theory. Wicked good.

So a few responses:

1) Missiles do not belong to missile launchers. Belonging is primarily to ensure that primary Items (like action figures or skateboard decks) can be defined as complete based on whether all of their child items are included in a product for sale. So a gun does not belong to a holster, nor a belt to skirt for Barbie, they all just belong to the primary item. Dual belongings should not even be possible...I will speak with Nick about that.

2) It would have been nice for us to have that FAQ available up front to discuss those things. For now we have the curation thread on this board, and we'll have an expanded FAQ for curation within a week or so.

James

[jourdo]

The site is acting slow and my brain is turning into mush... but you have a bunch more DC Universe stuff ready to go and submitted for approval.