SignalTraffic Forums

by **EPAC-EPIC-MARC** on Sun Sep 30, 2012 7:06 pm

Are we "liking" posts yet??? :crazy:

by **EdT.** on Mon Oct 01, 2012 11:07 am

coyttl wrote:
notMUTCDcompliant wrote:I'm just kinda tired of this place, that we all call "home" being an Appraisal house for people.

TO put another spin on it..

Isn't that the point of the club?

I mean, if I find a painting from the 1800's, I'll take it to an Art Appraiser, or an Art Club, or Art Auctioneers. i.e. - I take it to people that know art. Same thing with an automobile. I'll take pictures and post on an automotive forum, asking for opinions.

Yeah, it gets old from OUR side of things, seeing the same question asked over and over, but for them, it's the ONLY question!

--Me.
Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? (.I have to go potty!)

Absolutely not. :No:

We are NOT an appraisal or auction service. Both of those BUSINESSES receive financial benefit for their efforts. We are a community of collectors (for the most part). There are countless hours of research and effort that has gone into our individual and collective understanding and knowledge of this topic. Countless hours and effort have gone into creating this forum and maintaining it. All this so that someone who is solely looking to flip a yard sale find on eBay for maximum profit can come on here ask their question and disappear? This wastes moderator and admin time in processing, vetting and approving his application, wastes member time in leeching info without contributing, etc..

I've got nothing against people being curious if they have a genuine interest in the subject matter, but we see on a regular basis the parade of new users who come in here solely to maximize their profit (from us). :rant:

/rant

by **RunsWithCrouse-Hinds** on Mon Oct 01, 2012 11:16 am

I definitely understand both sides of this argument. Unfortunately, this is the internet, so we can't fully control who gets into the club -- it's not like we require a full interview of their intentions before they get a membership! Given that, I think we should all just do two things:
1) Agree to disagree
2) Stick to the policy of answering "what's it worth" with "what's it worth TO YOU?". People over and under price items all the time, based on what they believe it's worth, and the world keeps on turning. Those people either end up underselling their item and learning what not to do, or they try to oversell, and find they can't get a buyer. In that case, they either get wise and lower their price, or they just keep posting it for the same price, waiting for the right fish to take the bait (case in point: JFK signal). There will always be people out there just looking for selling info, who then disappear -- again, this is the internet, people come here for information, and don't always want to stick around after the fact. We just have to deal with it and move on. :hello:

by **steven1981** on Mon Oct 01, 2012 12:26 pm

RunsWithCrouse-Hinds wrote:We just have to deal with it and move on.

I agree.

by **EdT.** on Mon Oct 01, 2012 2:40 pm

RunsWithCrouse-Hinds wrote:I definitely understand both sides of this argument. Unfortunately, this is the internet, so we can't fully control who gets into the club -- it's not like we require a full interview of their intentions before they get a membership! Given that, I think we should all just do two things:
1) Agree to disagree
2) Stick to the policy of answering "what's it worth" with "what's it worth TO YOU?". People over and under price items all the time, based on what they believe it's worth, and the world keeps on turning. Those people either end up underselling their item and learning what not to do, or they try to oversell, and find they can't get a buyer. In that case, they either get wise and lower their price, or they just keep posting it for the same price, waiting for the right fish to take the bait (case in point: JFK signal). There will always be people out there just looking for selling info, who then disappear -- again, this is the internet, people come here for information, and don't always want to stick around after the fact. We just have to deal with it and move on.

Dan, as far as I'm concerned, this was never about setting policy but rather an exasperated rant. As far as 'this is the internet, just deal with it' excuse, I respectfully disagree. Fred is working diligently behind the scenes to minimize the signal to noise ratio and has had great success so far (due to great effort). :thumbsup:

But there's always room for improvement and some day hopefully we'll be able to reduce it even further.

by **jab8356** on Mon Oct 01, 2012 5:11 pm

Good points by Ed T. and Dan. :thumbsup:

by **notMUTCDcompliant** on Mon Oct 01, 2012 6:51 pm

Seriously, It was a rant! I see both sides... but I kinda agree with Ed here... yes, we have some great new people, and then we have some people who come here and see us as a research dept. I'm ok with agreeing to see things in different lights!

by **2070** on Mon Oct 01, 2012 7:11 pm

"It is worth, What someone will pay.........." :crazy:

by **Fred** on Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:03 am

2070 wrote:"It is worth, What someone will pay.........."

by **2070** on Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:07 am

Demoted, Relegate, Oust ..... :crazy:

SignalTraffic Forums

I would like to see a new term added to the "Bad Words" List

Re: I would like to see a new term added to the "Bad Words"

Re: I would like to see a new term added to the "Bad Words"

Re: I would like to see a new term added to the "Bad Words"

Re: I would like to see a new term added to the "Bad Words"

Re: I would like to see a new term added to the "Bad Words"

Re: I would like to see a new term added to the "Bad Words"

Re: I would like to see a new term added to the "Bad Words"

Re: I would like to see a new term added to the "Bad Words"

Re: I would like to see a new term added to the "Bad Words"

Re: I would like to see a new term added to the "Bad Words"

Who is online