Being able to call out a lie on a post

[nakatomi]

then this $1600 gen 3 light not included..

View attachment 200368

Hahah were those users flagged? Prob not.

The rules should be clearly defined the terms should be updated and enforcement should be applied consistently and objectively. I know the crying is causing drama but the positive in all this are the ad impressions and $ generated by these posts

=

More engagement -> more traffic -> more users = cyclical appeal as a marketplace.

 

[pancakes]

Hahah were those users flagged? Prob not.

The rules should be clearly defined the terms should be updated and enforcement should be applied consistently and objectively. I know the crying is causing drama but the positive in all this are the ad impressions and $ generated by these posts

=

More engagement -> more traffic -> more users = cyclical appeal as a marketplace.

You 1000% got it man i want a place to not just buy guns but to be able to laugh and fight

 

[cali_jazz]

I got a warning for rating a seller before seller marked the post to "SOLD".....
wow.....

That is incorrect. You got warning because you didn't select or type in the link to the ad you were giving feedback on. When you give feedback you are required to tie the feedback to a specific ad.

 

[grandpapeepap]

You 1000% got it man i want a place to not just buy guns but to be able to laugh and fight

 

[pancakes]

King

 

[cali_jazz]

I want to make sure I understand the rules here correctly.

A Gen 3 Glock 17 was listed for $1,400. I reacted with a emoji because I assumed reactions were fair game on classified ads, while comments criticizing an ad were not:

View attachment 200015

Apparently I was mistaken, because I received a staff notice for using the emoji:

View attachment 200013


An emoji.

If that's the rule I'll follow it but based on the terms of service and classifieds rules while there are prohibitions against harassment, fraud, misleading offers (OP's @pancakes argument), offensive content, illegal items and other "disruptive behavior".

What I did not find was any published rule stating that users may not use the emoji on classified ads.

My concern isn't the warning itself, it's the trend toward policing harmless reactions rather than encouraging open discussion. That's not the direction I'd like to see this commnity go. This forum was built as an alternative to the moderation culture of Reddit. I hope it continues to value open discussion and reasonable tolerance for disagreement rather than moving in the same direction.

IMHO Reddit has shifted towards sanitized forms of interaction where even mild expressions of disagreement, skepticism or humor are treated as moderation issues.

I would simply suggest that if laugh reactions are prohibited in classifieds, the rule be stated clearly in the published guidelines. Just state it (or remove the UI controls for it).

You are right the laugh emoji isn't stated somewhere explicitly as a separate rule and probably should be, it is however called out innately when you select the laugh emoji in the classifieds:



I'm not clear why the thumbs down, face plant, and puke emoji are not enough to choose from.

Personally I don't consider the laugh emoji "harmless" reactions, more like mocking the seller and tends to invite others to pile on. For some of you who like to put the laugh emojis on many many ads, it becomes trolling. And then there's the retribution laugh emoji, where someone gets offended by a laugh emoji so they respond in kind on the offenders ads and any other ads selling the same item. For some it's almost like a sport.

While I agree that some pricing is ridiculous and unrealistic, I find the emojis childish and unnecessary and can be weaponized. I'd rather not have them at all.

 

[nakatomi]

That is incorrect. You got warning because you didn't select or type in the link to the ad you were giving feedback on. When you give feedback you are required to tie the feedback to a specific ad.

Good context. IMHO this is less like a user issue and more like a UX opportunity.

I appreciate the time you and the other moderators volunteer but one of the core principles of good product design (I work in this space) is not to blame the user (not saying any moderator is doing that). If users are consistently missing a required step the solution is to make the requirement clearer or redesign the UX so it is harder to get wrong.

I only own Glocks and buying Glocks is actually why I joined these forums in the first place. I know many people have joined for the same reason: to buy and sell Glocks. But here is my point: one reason Glocks became so popular is that they minimize opportunities for user error. The controls are simple, consistent and easy to understand. Good software design follows the same principle.

If multiple users are missing a required step that is often a signal that the workflow could be made more intuitive rather than simply reminding users to be more careful. When the same mistake occurs repeatedly, it is worth asking whether the process can be improved so the correct action is more obvious.

I had a lot of time to think about this and have some suggestions. For example most users would have no way of knowing that certain reactions are restricted because a seller paid for an upgraded feature. That context is not visible during normal use. If that distinction is important it may be worth communicating it more clearly within the interface so users understand the rule before they violate it and becomes a signal of what they can pay for when they post an ad.

Similarly the notice that the laugh reaction is intended "only for forums" discussions is way too subtle. The information exists but it is not presented at the moment we are selecting the reaction. Expecting us to discover and remember subtle interface cues is generally less effective than making the intended behavior obvious within the workflow itself.

My point is not that moderators are wrong to enforce the rules. Rather when the same issues arise repeatedly that can be valuable feedback about UX.

 

[nakatomi]

You are right the laugh emoji isn't stated somewhere explicitly as a separate rule and probably should be, it is however called out innately when you select the laugh emoji in the classifieds:

View attachment 200388

I'm not clear why the thumbs down, face plant, and puke emoji are not enough to choose from.

Personally I don't consider the laugh emoji "harmless" reactions, more like mocking the seller and tends to invite others to pile on. For some of you who like to put the laugh emojis on many many ads, it becomes trolling. And then there's the retribution laugh emoji, where someone gets offended by a laugh emoji so they respond in kind on the offenders ads and any other ads selling the same item. For some it's almost like a sport.

While I agree that some pricing is ridiculous and unrealistic, I find the emojis childish and unnecessary and can be weaponized. I'd rather not have them at all.

On mobile those tooltips are not visible (too subtle). Honest feedback.

 

[cali_jazz]

On mobile those tooltips are not visible (too subtle). Honest feedback.

Good point. We definitely need to update our rules and documentation for clarity. We're an all volunteer army and iKeo1 is super busy trying to implement features, take care of bugs, protect you guys from scammers, all in the midst of a huge growth rate. It can definitely be a challenge.

I should also clarify, when laugh emoji's get removed or people are warned for Post crapping or trolling in the classifieds, it is typically motivated by a Report / complaint.

 

[pancakes]

Very well put

 

[cali_jazz]

Good context. IMHO this is less like a user issue and more like a UX opportunity.

I appreciate the time you and the other moderators volunteer but one of the core principles of good product design (I work in this space) is not to blame the user (not saying any moderator is doing that). If users are consistently missing a required step the solution is to make the requirement clearer or redesign the UX so it is harder to get wrong.

I only own Glocks and buying Glocks is actually why I joined these forums in the first place. I know many people have joined for the same reason: to buy and sell Glocks. But here is my point: one reason Glocks became so popular is that they minimize opportunities for user error. The controls are simple, consistent and easy to understand. Good software design follows the same principle.

If multiple users are missing a required step that is often a signal that the workflow could be made more intuitive rather than simply reminding users to be more careful. When the same mistake occurs repeatedly, it is worth asking whether the process can be improved so the correct action is more obvious.

I had a lot of time to think about this and have some suggestions. For example most users would have no way of knowing that certain reactions are restricted because a seller paid for an upgraded feature. That context is not visible during normal use. If that distinction is important it may be worth communicating it more clearly within the interface so users understand the rule before they violate it and becomes a signal of what they can pay for when they post an ad.

Similarly the notice that the laugh reaction is intended "only for forums" discussions is way too subtle. The information exists but it is not presented at the moment we are selecting the reaction. Expecting us to discover and remember subtle interface cues is generally less effective than making the intended behavior obvious within the workflow itself.

My point is not that moderators are wrong to enforce the rules. Rather when the same issues arise repeatedly that can be valuable feedback about UX.

It's a very small percentage who forget to link back to an ad. Typically they get a warning and re-submit with the link included not a huge deal.

I also have a list of suggestions, but it's not like we have development team who are working through a prioritized feature and bug list scrum every day.

Compromises have to be made and priorities sometimes shift. Release management is a challenge on a shoestring budget, this is why we need you guys to help us out and support the site. iKeo1 is very open about sharing our growing pains and listens to the users more than most. He gets a lot of crap from people who like to complain and often hurl insults. A lot of the the non-paying, repeat offenders are the ones who make the most noise.

 

[No_glonks]

i enjoy people asking MSRP for a used firearm. Especially ones that can be found at stores

I got warning just this AM for suggesting to someone to order one from the store for MSRP.
Well, not my site and not my rules. Will keep it to myself from now on

 

[grandpapeepap]

I got warning just this AM for suggesting to someone to order one from the store for MSRP.
Well, not my site and not my rules. Will keep it to myself from now on
View attachment 200438

shoulda kept that to a DM instead

 

[No_glonks]

shoulda kept that to a DM instead

Lesson learned
I still can't find rules of engagement. Does anyone have a link?

 

[grandpapeepap]

Lesson learned
I still can't find rules of engagement. Does anyone have a link?

in the message you shared, it clearly gives you a bunch of things that will give you a hint.

 

[No_glonks]

in the message you shared, it clearly gives you a bunch of things that will give you a hint.

Learned hard way suggestion to check with the dealer was unnecessary, uncivil and disrespectful.
AFTER I got the message
From now on my lips are sealed and fingers grounded

 

[supermike]

That is incorrect. You got warning because you didn't select or type in the link to the ad you were giving feedback on. When you give feedback you are required to tie the feedback to a specific ad.

ok I got that part messed up.
but still, I can somehow submit blank feedback without warning or reminder ... well, not my site not my rule..

 

[Sheepdog1968]

Y

You want a p220 combat with an rmr cut ? Has the FDE color

Thanks but I have all that I need at this point.

 

[weaverftw]

Good context. IMHO this is less like a user issue and more like a UX opportunity.

I appreciate the time you and the other moderators volunteer but one of the core principles of good product design (I work in this space) is not to blame the user (not saying any moderator is doing that). If users are consistently missing a required step the solution is to make the requirement clearer or redesign the UX so it is harder to get wrong.

I only own Glocks and buying Glocks is actually why I joined these forums in the first place. I know many people have joined for the same reason: to buy and sell Glocks. But here is my point: one reason Glocks became so popular is that they minimize opportunities for user error. The controls are simple, consistent and easy to understand. Good software design follows the same principle.

If multiple users are missing a required step that is often a signal that the workflow could be made more intuitive rather than simply reminding users to be more careful. When the same mistake occurs repeatedly, it is worth asking whether the process can be improved so the correct action is more obvious.

I had a lot of time to think about this and have some suggestions. For example most users would have no way of knowing that certain reactions are restricted because a seller paid for an upgraded feature. That context is not visible during normal use. If that distinction is important it may be worth communicating it more clearly within the interface so users understand the rule before they violate it and becomes a signal of what they can pay for when they post an ad.

Similarly the notice that the laugh reaction is intended "only for forums" discussions is way too subtle. The information exists but it is not presented at the moment we are selecting the reaction. Expecting us to discover and remember subtle interface cues is generally less effective than making the intended behavior obvious within the workflow itself.

My point is not that moderators are wrong to enforce the rules. Rather when the same issues arise repeatedly that can be valuable feedback about UX.

UI vs UX

 

[pancakes]

Very well put

UI vs UX

View attachment 200522

me listing a gun vs the low ball offers I get which include a 320 as a trade