Is there something that can be done about this? We really don't need people separately posting every special from coles/Woolworths etc. It's getting out of control!
Limiting the number of posts about 1 store's sale
spackbace on 20/01/2015 - 01:40
Last edited 20/01/2015 - 02:24
Last edited 20/01/2015 - 02:24
Poll Options
- 29Absolutely, maybe 2 posts max
- 2I'm indifferent
- 17Let there be as many posts as possible
Comments
Unfortunately they don't classify as dupe posts (for now…!)
yeah, wow, I stand corrected :O
Wow. Nice loophole.
I 100% agree the rules need changing as no one can include every thing in the title.
it's stupid and a waste of space.make a poll mate so we can vote.
Done :)
The community requested the exact opposite thus in conjunction with feedback the guidelines were changed. Given these individual deals often get voted up, then the interpretation is that this is what the majority of the community wants.
Maybe there is a way to keep both sides happy…I just don't what the solution is.
I think a limit to 'x'/day should apply to any store. That would save the COTD spam etc.
If any store had a limit of say 3/day, it would stop a lot of the hassle and (I hate to say it) but deal spamming.Also, back when that question was posed, afaik we just had the big comparison posts with 100+ items listed. Now that each store gets like 20 or so items listed, it's easier to see what interests you just from those posts :)
Almost need a sub-deal, kind of like a poll within the post for people to up vote the individual items.
Ideal for Coles and WooliesJust had a thought, what if at the very least, any subsequent post had to reference the original deal. So a few examples:
- a follow on from Coles/Woolies, has to reference the post with the whole list
- a post with a dick Smith coupon, has to reference the original post with the coupon conditions and discussion
- a post with a COTD coupon, has to reference the original post for same reason as dick Smith.
While this is only loosely done now, it's normally missed and I think it's mainly an ego thing. Look at all the Microsoft Cashback deals, and the same questions being asked in each.
So a Coles/Woolworths deal linking back to the original list, may help those reading that missed the original deal, and gives a bit of kudos back to the original sharer.
TL;DR any subsequent post from a deal has to link back to original deal it's based on
Good idea. Please report any posts that need linking back to the original.
That might take a while :P
a follow on from Coles/Woolies, has to reference the post with the whole list
One issue that comes to mind is the fact the 'whole list' is sometimes posted days later if you are referring to the My Groceries post? Trent86 could post a Supermarket deal on a Sunday and My Groceries post their whole list on a Wednesday.
For example if we look at Coles this week then Trent86 posted Monday, followed by a post from TA 12 minutes later (for an item not in Trent86's list), followed by a post 1.5 days later by jaero115 (for 3 items, only 1 was mentioned in Trent86's post). It is not until 30 minutes ago when mygroceries post that we have a 'whole list' post and by 'whole list' they have the top 90/458 specials for both supermarkets. I'm thinking linking Trent86's deal to a mygroceries post made 2 days later might not have any purpose? Nor vice verse. Would we ignore mygrocries and link TA's and Jaero115's posts back to Trent86's original post despite only 1 item being mentioned in Trent86's deal.
a post with a dick Smith coupon, has to reference the original post with the coupon conditions and discussion
With the amount of dick smith coupons (sometimes they come out daily), it's not unusual for someone to post a deal for an item with one of the coupons, but no one to actually post a deal for the coupon codes themselves, or the post with all coupon codes actually comes after the first deal post. If things follow the normal succession (coupons first then specific deals) then that could be implemented though.
a post with a COTD coupon, has to reference the original post
I could see it working with COTD deals with various $ off or free shipping deals and the subsequent posts being linked back to it, or maybe eBay deals, for example with the Cback2school. Just a [See original deal] at the end or similar, as you say the same discussions about the same issues related to the deals codes or similar are often had in multiple deals, although I'm not sure if this will stop this much. It would give recognition to the original deal poster. I like the idea but I think for reasons mentioned it couldn't be seen as a blanket rule that will always be applicable, especially with grocery posts (some members also argue that if they pick up a catalogue in the mail and post a deal from it that they shouldn't be forced to link to someone else's deal they haven't even opened, with completely different items from what they have posted - which is understandable), but will see what you think about the Coles example as previously mentioned.
Sorry for the long message.
Typing on a phone, so can't reply to everything :P
But I do agree that the MyGroceries deal sorta messes with it, but should be ignored from having to reference to any other deals.As you can see, it's just something that once implemented should really only help, not hinder the community. So many deals get put up with a coupon code, but nothing to reference the specifics of it (ie recently with the whole COTD no purchase in over a year thing).
I know it's no perfect solution, and will mean work for the mods to do until it's commonplace and more posters know about it, but fingers crossed it works out :)
(but unfortunately yes, it can't be seen as a blanket rule/fix, but should help with some of the examples you've listed)
Sure thing, maybe for now we'll just implement it for coupon codes type deals (COTD, Dick Smith, Ebay etc)? Even without MyGroceries, I think determining what the 'original deal' for grocery posts isn't always black and white and sometimes posters genuinely don't realise an item was mentioned in the description of a previous post, example this woolworths post today had no idea that item was in the description of Trent86's deal 2 days ago.
We'll see if we can think up something to encourage posters to link to the original poster (Neil, maybe a note in the posting block of those certain companies about linking back to the original coupon deal? So users have a note about it when submitting a deal for certain sites, dick smith, cotd, ebay etc)
If anyone else has any input/thoughts as well, we are all ears.
Maybe when a coupon is posted in a subsequent deal, and it makes you tick the 'not a dupe' box, it says something about the auto-link back? Would be great if it automatically put the link in the text box, but we'll put that in the too-hard basket for now :)
Yeah would be nice but I think it might get a bit messy. It would need manual input to determine and update the links that the system would automatically put in the text box.
For now members can just report any deals you see that should be linked back to the original, like Neil said. In the meantime we'll look at editing the store posting blocks over the next week for some of those sites. So when a user submits a deal for say dicksmith.com.au it can mention something like 'If you are posting a deal from a coupon, please link back to the original deal in your post (when applicable)'
We'll see how it goes, after a while if all goes to plan I am sure many would include it (some already do I know). For those that miss it (forget or didn't read the reminder when submitting a deal) then a user can report it and a mod fix it or a mod/power user to fix it as they see it. I'll try to keep an eye out for them as well.
Was chatting to another mod (JSQUARED) about this, he suggested with the supermarket deals that we link to the full catalogue on the stores website. So on Monday 5pm when Catalogues are released we can update the existing posts (and any posts thereafter) with something like:
See full catalogue here so all the grocery posts are linked to the main catalogue.
We can also add something in the Coles and Woolworths posting blocks asking users to link to the catalogue their deal is from in their posts.
I think it sounds like a good idea so we might start doing that as of next week if no objections.
Perhaps it could be considered a duplicate if the item in the title/post has already been mentioned in the previous post. And if you think a good bargain is being swallowed up in a long list, you could message the OP to request that particular item be highlighted?
We can easily scroll past what we consider uninteresting. All things being equal, what is not a duplicate remains a legitimate deal. An OP is not obliged to review everything a vendor offers before posting.
I really do not see a problem here. As PJC says, just scroll past the posts you don't like. Limiting posts would be a backwards step.
What's being limited? The second post has added no further information that wasn't already easily accessible.
Here's the four methods I could think of for getting data on daily consumables:
- Use Coles/WW web page
- Read Coles/WW catologues
- Read the contents of the weekly posts on OzBargain
- Read the titles only Coles/WW posts on OzBargain
I think the lower down the list you go the less serious you are about saving money. As usual the posting methodology here aims at people being spoon fed. Department stores I can understand when we're talking items costing hundreds of dollars but this is ridiculous. At what point do we say the onus is on the person using the site and not the poster? How about all those people upvoting the individual deals pull their finger out and bother to read the original post?
It's all well and good to say these deals get upvoted but we can't downvote them because it doesn't breach posting guidelines. I also don't think you would get a majority to neg deal because people are more likely to throw a + on something than a -.
As long as guidelines allow this type of posting it's gonna continue because posters love seeing themselves on the front page. I'm sure some people would post a link to a deal on slavery if it would get them there. The framework for posting encourages quantity over quality and this site is turning into a bargain bin.
What about do it as deal inside deal with changeable title as the users votes.
What I mean is mark the stores that have this kind of deals such as Coles, WW..etc and inside the post the items listed as a points with the price and link and people can vote for each item listedin the post (May be like the comments vote system?!) and the items that get the most of the votes automatically get into the title (3 items max?!).Just an idea :)
I think maintain the status quo. If different items from a single sale make it to the front page in their own right then so be it.
It's not getting out of control. I love that I can see the items separately and the number of votes each one has gained.
What I don't really understand is why people are clearly picking up on dupe posts, and instead of reporting them, they reply to the posts saying.. "dupe?" lol
Y U NO JUST REPORT?