Seeking Community Feedback: Supermarket Deals (Coles, Woolworths) Weekly vs. Individual

neil on 31/05/2012 - 13:09
Last edited 26/09/2013 - 21:17

Update September 2013: We are suggesting removing the first line of the description as counting as a duplicate

Update June 2012: We are trialing are now having both weekly and individual listings.

We are currently seeking feedback and comments on supermarket deals regarding duplicates.

We have been lucky enough that Mygroceries.com.au and more recently StingySydney have been extrapolating data from the supermarkets and posting deals cleverly formatted with tables.

The weekly deals almost always hit the front page and there is usually much discussion. Additionally, users submit individual specials as deals. Technically these are duplicates and should be removed. On the other hand, I can see the argument that if there is a list of 80 specials one may miss a great special thus pointing it out on a deal on it's own may be useful. Some of the individual specials deals are also voted to the front page.

Example from this week:
Weekly Specials for Woolworths
Individual special of Oral B Brush Heads at Woolworths
Individual special of Long Grain Rice at Woolworths

My personal view as an OzBargainer is to make an exception to posting duplicates when it comes to these grocery specials(and only Woolworths/Coles). Simply by looking at the votes and discussion on the individual deals it seems like this is what the community wants (I think?). That said, what we don't want is to have the weekly and then 80 individual posts of the specials. A bit of a catch-22.

So what are your thoughts?

P.S. If you don't want to see Woolworths, Coles or whatever posts you can click the Hide from Listing button on the deal and it will hide all deals from the merchant.

Site Discussion

Related Stores

Woolworths
Woolworths

Comments

  • h4lcyon on 31/05/2012 - 13:26

    I'm good with how it is now

    • Moderatorneil on 31/05/2012 - 13:30

      Which is?

      • h4lcyon on 31/05/2012 - 13:58
        +2

        Having both the lists posted along with the individual deals.

        The lists are great to see if there are any specials that I might be interested in, the individual deals provide more info for the really great deals that someone else is really interested in.

        • capslock janitor on 18/09/2019 - 12:35
          -1

          I prefer just one instance, even if is a list, that's for the comments are there for to discuss the deals, or create your own personal thread about something!

      • retiredfeline on 31/05/2012 - 16:25
        +1

        I would like to continue to see both. Instead of declaring a dupe, I think it would be good if there were some kind of linking feature on the website so that individual deals and the group posting could be cross-referenced.

        • capslock janitor on 18/09/2019 - 12:36
          -1

          I don't want to see the same deal twice when browsing!

  • MelC on 31/05/2012 - 14:05
    +2

    I agree, I think it's good to have the odd individual ones pointed out

    • capslock janitor on 26/02/2020 - 16:58

      I prefer the catalogue converted to text list, easy to Find

      • [Deactivated] on 26/02/2020 - 22:30
        +1

        Lol 8 years later …

  • burtie on 31/05/2012 - 15:37
    +2

    I'm definitely in favour of individual deals. I rarely bother to read through the big weekly special posts because I don't find it much different from looking at a catalogue. Having said that though, there would have to be a limit. I wouldn't want to see fifty individual posts about each and every special at the supermarket.

  • scrimshaw on 31/05/2012 - 16:01

    Another vote towards individual deals. If the deals are popular themselves (e.g getting 15+ votes and making it to the front page) then it's worth keeping anyway.

  • spartacus77 on 31/05/2012 - 16:20

    I like a list as it's easier to read and the community picks out what is and isn't a bargain in the comments and if the delivered catalogue arrives late or is water damaged, there's no issue in checking out the deals.
    Maybe if you could have a feature where users could add multiple deal packages and the individual products could be "+1"ed - like in a table (add product to bargain) Understand this would involve additional development cost.
    I posted offers from the Woolworths Baby and Toddler Club offers page (https://woolworthsbabyandtoddlerclub.com.au/offers/) by cutting and pasting - it took a couple of minutes. Good feedback for Woolies and Coles to give better offers too.

  • georgedeka on 31/05/2012 - 16:22

    Yeah I think the group ones are just so much text its easy to miss stuff, and usually a lack of formatting.
    I missed the OralB ones this week, so keep individual posts.
    And I do like the group ones, but a few line breaks would not hurt!

  • [Deactivated] on 31/05/2012 - 16:28

    Well thinking laterally and this may also be too hard to code, but feedback might assist if you think it has merit.

    Viz

    A Forum where deals are posted, for Coles, Woolies, Aldi and IGA, plus any other "nearly national" supermarket deal which can be itemised like the Coles/Woolies deals.

    This can be "maintained" by the aggregators, but no direct links to their sites. They can have a banner indicating that their sites supply this info, and details for those who wish to check out their site.

    The point being is that the data is consistently displayed, so people can get used to finding stuff.

    Members can vote on items found in the catalog. By clicking on a tick beside the item, a bit like our current voting. No negative votes allowed.

    The items can be viewed/sorted by discount value, percentage and votes received.

    A sub box could also be placed on main page, just like we have with the top voted deals, which highlights the top 5 voted supermarket items.

    Then the only deals allowed with their own post, on the main page are those like that where someone works out a better way to do something, like when there is a cashback on a sale item, like the insect spray units from Raid/Mortein which gave 50% off a 50% off sale item, or the recent OralB deal.

    Food for thought (pardon pun)

  • grasstown on 31/05/2012 - 17:41

    My view is leave it as it is now, but relax the dupe rule.
    The list posters should continue on the deals page as people like them and the posters will stop creating them if not on deals page. Also, perhaps mod discretion? Rather than one rule for all dupes

  • Geewhizz on 31/05/2012 - 19:08

    I agree that it is easy sometimes to miss a super deal amongst the dozens of items listed in the supermarket threads, and there have been some fantastic individual items pointed out in individual threads.

    What I would not like to see is a flood of individual posts pointing out the prices available at woolworths with their current everyday rewards promo, or prices that are obtainable at coles using the my5 program. There are undoubtedly some good buys to be had via both set-ups. Each and every one of them listed in individual threads though would be just too much.

    • daver on 01/06/2012 - 13:53

      IO can hardly see it reaching a state of 80 individual posts of the specials
      in fact would go so far as to say this will never happen; but I tend to think it more just a theoretical point of conjecture, at this stage. Agree w/ one can easily miss these specials if not separated.
      +1; go with gut sensitivity Mod.

      Also, the "Deals" menu provides a nifty mechanism to jump to differing sorts of information, at least granted it does get used in practice but I'm yet to try the (underutilised) hide poster filter.

  • imaximax1 on 31/05/2012 - 19:45

    Just a thought:
    There is already a "Poll" feature on this website, why not allow the supermarkets to use that.
    (is it only on forums?)
    That was, when skimming over the supermarket posts, you can see all the goodies strait up.

    (just how it is IMO, only a '+', no '-'. People could just + each one, but that would take too long and be pointless)

    Then people might dupe less, because more people will see it!

  • Davo1111 on 31/05/2012 - 19:51

    I vote no. (they shouldnt be allowed to post)

    1. The places are using the site to hawk viewers to their own deal site
    2. Even percentage deals may not be that great. i.e. Paying 50% of logitech's RRP is a bad deal.
    3. They're too frequent

    Perhaps they could have a section in the forums. If a deal proves popular, then it can be posted

    • imaximax1 on 31/05/2012 - 19:54

      Sorta missing the point there.

      This is discussing whether people can repost deals posted already by the supermarket people.

      The supermarket deals are popular, if you dont like them, that's your problem.

      • Davo1111 on 31/05/2012 - 20:28

        ah ok, thanks for the clarification. i misread it

    • Postulative on 01/06/2012 - 12:11

      You say i.e., but I think you mean e.g.

  • JR63 on 31/05/2012 - 20:37

    I'm happy with that. Especially if you look at the current Oral-B deal involving the cashback, which alone has 72 comments (at the time of this post). Without an individual deal like that for discussion to occur in, it can in turn clog up the weekly specials post.

  • Redmo0n on 31/05/2012 - 21:45

    If it ain't broke, don't fix it

  • GPT4 on 31/05/2012 - 22:54

    Love the supermarket deals.
    Dupes on individual ones like Oral-B deal this week should be allowed at mod's discretion instead of as a general rule - pretty much what we have now.

  • Moderatorneil on 31/05/2012 - 23:35

    @imax, Currently, the poll feature is only for forum posts. Interesting idea. But someone would have to enter in each item into the poll each week. Would popular voted items break off into their own deals or just useful to show what the best items are?

    @greenpossum, Good idea with linking between individual and weekly. Will try that out.

    OK, so people have stated they like it as is. Well, the reason we started this thread, is because we are seeking consistency in this situation. At the moment, weekly's are being kept but sometimes individual deals are being kept and sometimes unpublished.

    We need to have clear rules so each moderator can act in the same consistent way. What would determine a mods discretion for individual deals? My worry is if we say individual deals already posted in the weekly are fine, we end up with 80 deals posted for Woolworths and 80 for Coles plus the weekly's.

    So it seems most on this thread have no problem with both weekly and individual deals being posted. So maybe we can trial these guidelines (only with the supermarket deals) and see how we go?

    • imaximax1 on 01/06/2012 - 00:15

      If I remember correctly, in a poll each new line has its own '+', so why not just have the table that the supermarkets use in a poll (maybe not as a table then). I imagine it not separately below the post, but in it.

      Also, i dont think deals should 'break off' as you called it, just an easier way for people to see the better deals in the post.

      Hopefully people would post the deals less, as the best stuff would have a higher amount of +'s in the supermarket deals.

      (just how i envisioned it, with little extra code)

    • imaximax1 on 01/06/2012 - 00:16

      But the way it is, is fine.

      Just brain storming

      • [Deactivated] on 01/06/2012 - 00:42

        Thats what I was thinking with my idea as well. Problem is that it takes some understanding and thinking outside of whats currently available.

        Given that these deals are weekly and a large number of items in each deal this is one way for individual itms to percolate to the top if enough members recognise the value.

        Its not that hard. only the items that people see to be of value would get a tick, People do not have to tick any or all.

        While this may involve coding that is too difficult to achieve, without looking and discussing it, we will never know.

        Back to Neils point.

        Consistency is also important not just so the mods are being the same, its so that posters also know what is acceptable.

  • Postulative on 01/06/2012 - 12:10

    I don't normally look at all the items in the bulk post, so if there's an individual deal I'm more likely to notice something I'd be interested.

    In other words, I'm comfortable with the status quo of showing the bulk lists plus individual deals.

  • dirtybird on 04/06/2012 - 12:08

    If the single deals are posted before the bulk post then imo those deals should be left out of the bulk post.
    And vice versa.
    First in best dressed.

    People posting deals are asked to look to see if the post is a duplicate or not so the same set of rules should apply to the weekly bulk post. If an item has already been posted individually then adding it again is technically a dupe.
    As Ozpete says, consistency is also important.

    If you are going to treat the bulk posters differently to others then give them a sub forum to post in.

    The weekly supermarket offers are usually viewable(irl) well before the weekly post is formatted and added to the site.

  • A Banana4scale on 05/06/2012 - 12:34
    +1

    I find that too many individual deals will result in a lot more moderation over people deciding whether the deal is good or not and just result in downvotes.

    A sortable or votable table would be a good way to address the catalogue/weekly deals and can also be done with Aldi/Supabarn/Costco/IGA and others. Location of the deals can be put on the deals page or in a separate category.

    The thing with the grouped deal is that while some things may be good, others may not be as good. Members can not individually address every single item as being a good/bad deal at the moment and commenting on each item is illogical.

    A deal inside a deal voting system would solve this. AFAIK hotdeals UK doesn't list supermarket deals either.

    • neil on 05/06/2012 - 17:54

      hotukdeals does list grocery deals and have a category dedicated to them. I don't see weekly listings so I guess we are unique in that respect.

      • A Banana4scale on 05/06/2012 - 20:10

        what I meant by that was the long collective catalogue listings like we have here

        they only list individual items which/that? are deal worthy….

  • Lord Fart Bucket on 12/06/2012 - 18:02

    Is there an option to hide posts by certain posters or by deal-type/codeword?
    I am not at all interested in these supermarket things. It would solve the issue..?

    • retiredfeline on 12/06/2012 - 18:09
      +1

      It's been there for a while, click on Hide from listing link on a deal and you can choose to hide all deals from the store or the poster.

      • Lord Fart Bucket on 12/06/2012 - 18:45

        Thanks for this! Shows how much attention I pay to the not even so fine print :)

        Will hide all by coles, woolies, etc. That makes me happy!

  • chansthename on 12/06/2012 - 20:42

    personally I don't care much for the combined posts (it's a catalog in condensed form), I don't care how it ends up but I want to see individual posts (that are good deals) continue to be posted.

    • deal88 on 25/09/2013 - 16:22

      I agree. I think a lot of people ignore the combined posts. I have missed many good deals that were hidden in a combined posts.

  • tonester on 06/02/2013 - 11:28

    neil suggested that i share this idea of mine:

    i believe that http://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/93032 is a dupe of http://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/92999, since the 1st item in the deal description of the latter, which appears on the front/main page of ozbargain in the deal preview/list, is the same as the former

    in other words, if an item can be seen on the main page either in a deal title or description preview, then any subsequent deal posted of that item should be considered a dupe

    what do you think?

    • foobar on 07/02/2013 - 06:41

      Deleted - decided not to become involved, but I do agree, clearly a dupe. Shrug.

      • Moderatorneil on 07/02/2013 - 10:41

        We try to be consistent which is why we ask for feedback in the site feedback threads. For something as simple as duplicates we have a paragraph of rules and then we have this supermarkets specials clause. The internal discussions are also continuous. I'm starting to understand why it takes so long for laws to pass in government. ;)

        So foobar mentioned sometimes duplicates are removed and some not. We mostly try and moderate the same but where do we draw the line? Is it a duplicate if it's mentioned in the title? Yes, I'd say so and more than likely it will be acted upon. First line of description, 2nd, 3rd, is when it's subject to interpretation and is a gray area.

        So back to tonester's example, the original deal had 4 votes where as the individual product from that deal got 18 votes. It doesn't make much sense. So logically, you'd want to say anything that can be seen on the deal listing page (first few lines) should count as a duplicate. But clearly in the example above, the majority didn't see it as I guess the majority look at the title. So what's the answer?

        At the end of the day, we need to come together to figure out what is best for the majority of the community.

        • Moderatorneil on 18/02/2013 - 22:11

          I've added the supermarket exception to the deal posting guidelines as well when someone submits a link to Coles and Woolworths.

          Duplicates

          Don't post duplicates (deals that are already on the site). Please search OzBargain before posting.

          Exceptions:

          • The original deal is older than one month, and was expired or sold out between then and now.

          • The original deal is active but older than 6 months.

          • The duplicate gains an excessive amount of positive votes (50+) and reaches the front page.

          • The original deal is a long list of supermarket items and the item is not contained in the title or first line of the deal.

          Let's see if that helps. Thanks for the feedback.

        • tonester on 19/02/2013 - 12:50

          only 1st line of deal and not 1st 3 lines as is usually the minimum seen on the deal listing page?

        • Moderatorneil on 19/02/2013 - 13:32

          The problem with saying 3 lines is that it's not uniform. Have a look at the frontpage deal posted by MyGroceries. That has 7 lines as it doesn't have paragraph breaks. Some of the other deals, have line breaks so only 1 or 2 sentences are shown.

          As of 1:26PM on the frontpage
          7 deals have 2 lines showing
          3 deals have 1 line
          4 deals have 3 lines
          1 deal has 7 lines

          So to put it shortly, a product could be listed on the 3rd line but not show up before the cut (new deal, front page, store listings etc.). The first line is always guaranteed to be seen.

        • tonester on 19/02/2013 - 21:05

          sorry didn't realise that - generally when i've check out those with 1 or 2 lines, that's all the text they had :)

        • Moderatorneil on 20/02/2013 - 02:23

          No worries.

          These things get tricky. We could go into great detail and state if it's within the cut. Then the user would have to figure out where the cut is. Then there is MyGroceries weekly listing where they mention 6 items in the 7 lines but no items listed in the title. The items listed in the cut are mentioned within sentences and very easy to miss.

          So it comes down to the discretion of the moderators. Sometimes it's a flip of the coin, so we look at the votes as an indicator that the community wants to see a deal. At the end of the day, we want as many people as possible to score a deal so that sometimes means unintended inconsistency.

  • deal88 on 25/09/2013 - 16:00
    +1

    I just got caught out with a Woolies dupe.

    I needed to buy nappies this week.

    Checked OzB for Huggies Nappies bargains and NOTHING came up. (Search function in OzB is rubbish - IMHO)

    Found out they were on sale really cheap at Woolworths so I submitted a deal.
    My deal also included a link to buy these items online at this price. (No links in original deal)
    Deal had around 30 pos votes in a couple of hours at time of deleting. (Original only got 21 votes in 24 hours)

    Then i found out it was mentioned in a Woolies listing with 20+ other items.
    There was no mention of Huggies Nappies in the title of the previous post and it is not found when searching.
    Huggies were mentioned in the first line, but even as a regular user of this site i did not see this deal.

    This Huggies deal is not a general 50% off something you don't need deal. (Like the choc bars on sale)

    This is a good discount off something that people need and is rarely this cheap in store.

    I think it deserves it's own post. But it was deleted.

    This is one example of the current rules not working.

    I did contact MODs but it seems there is no discretion to allow a post for an item that was hidden on the first line of the original post. Rules are rules, but are they currently the right rules?

    PS. i would not have posted the deal or raised this issue if i found the Huggies deal during a basic search.
    Right now the OzB search is no good and typing Huggies into the "Search deals and forum topics" box gives bad results. MODs need to give some discrestion on posts until the search function works properly.
    If I want to buy Huggies, I should be able to simply search Huggies and see ALL current deals.

    • tonester on 25/09/2013 - 16:17

      perhaps try http://www.ozbargain.com.au/brand/huggies next time?

      but yes, agree on needing better search :)
      http://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/3664?page=4#comment-1567386

      • deal88 on 25/09/2013 - 16:26

        I understand there are ways to force the information to come up.

        But if you can not find the deal from typing Huggies into the search box. Then the search function is no good. No one should not have to tick extra boxes to get the search fuction to work properly.

        General users expect that the search box would actually search for an item and show the latest valid deals.

        FYI, tonester. When I found out it was a dupe, I was not concerned about my post being deleted, my concern was that no one wanting to find Huggies would find your original post. I even suggested to MODs attribute you in the post or change the OP of my post to you.

        OzB needs to stop deleting good posts, so people are aware of good deals and ensure people can search properly.
        In the last week i have tried to search for the best deals on Huggies and Coke using the search box with poor results.

  • Moderatorneil on 25/09/2013 - 22:14

    For clarity, this is the original post

    Checked OzB for Huggies Nappies bargains and NOTHING came up. (Search function in OzB is rubbish - IMHO)

    The best way to check if a post has already been made is to check the store page. That's a bit of a moot point since you don't think your post should qualify as a duplicate.

    A revamped search is on the list of things in development but it's a huge project and won't be done for a while. Scott is away ATM, so he can further elaborate on this as I know it's something that has been mentioned many times.

    Then i found out it was mentioned in a Woolies listing with 20+ other items.
    There was no mention of Huggies Nappies in the title of the previous post and it is not found when searching.
    Huggies were mentioned in the first line, but even as a regular user of this site i did not see this deal.

    The following guidelines were based on the community feedback in this thread:

    Duplicates

    Don't post duplicates (deals that are already on the site). Please search OzBargain before posting.

    Exceptions:

    • The original deal is older than one month, and was expired or sold out between then and now.

    • The original deal is active but older than 6 months.

    • The duplicate gains an excessive amount of positive votes (50+) and reaches the front page.

    • The original deal is a list of multiple items and the item is not contained in the title or first line of the original deal.

    For your situation, it seems the latter 2 are relevant to your duplicate issue.

    I did contact MODs but it seems there is no discretion to allow a post for an item that was hidden on the first line of the original post. Rules are rules, but are they currently the right rules?

    The rules/guidelines are entirely based on community feedback. If you feel that the rules need to change, then you are right to make your argument here. Cherry picking deals is not going to work. There needs to be guidelines in place so all moderators act in the same way.

    So improving the search is a good suggestion.

    Do we want to put a duplicate exception to just the title when it's a list? It was Tonester's feedback above that made us implement the rule of the title or first line. Keen to hear feedback from deal88, Tonester and any others.

    • tonester on 25/09/2013 - 22:32

      and fyi, the 1st line was included as per http://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/71407#comment-1242650

      So logically, you'd want to say anything that can be seen on the deal listing page (first few lines) should count as a duplicate.

      • Moderatorneil on 25/09/2013 - 22:57

        Not sure I understand your comment.

        • tonester on 25/09/2013 - 23:37

          just refreshing why the 1st line of a deal was included along with its title in considering if another is a dupe or not :)

      • deal88 on 25/09/2013 - 23:05

        I agree with you guys. And I understand why it was deleted.
        But I think this deletion highlighted some issues with OzBs search and rules.

        Just to reiterate my main concerns.

        If I want to search for the latest Huggies deal I should be able to find it using the search box. I am sure this is the process most people would use/try. While OzB has this issue you are unfortunately wasting peoples times by them unknowingly uploading dupes.

        If the original post was easily found via search bar I would not have posted.
        I never saw the original, even though I "scan" all deals.
        Also, the original post was posted 3 days before the deal became active.
        I also included a direct link to buy the Huggies online.
        And my post showed a picture of Huggies and this is what interested people would look for.

        I think there is also an issue of hiding a product like this in a list.
        It is a $30+ box of nappies a generally expensive item, not really a discretional item like the $1 chocolate bars.

        Razor blades (Gillette) and Slab of Coke may be a couple of other items that are usually expensive and should not be hidden in a multi post. (if it is an exceptionally good deal - though if not it would be hammered via comments and votes)

        Or change the rule to state heading only. Not everyone reads the fine print when scanning for deals (This include the first line fine print).

        This may also be relevant…

        Special note: Sales, Catalogs and Stores
        If you do post separately it should be an especially good bargain, it may attract a more critical eye from some readers and it might still be unpublished.

        This was an especially good bargain and had good feedback and pos votes until deletion.

        So I think in this instance the generic rules have allowed a good bargain that only went on sale today to be hidden for many of the OzB community.

        • Moderatorneil on 25/09/2013 - 23:28

          If I want to search for the latest Huggies deal I should be able to find it using the search box. I am sure this is the process most people would use/try. While OzB has this issue you are unfortunately wasting peoples times by them unknowingly uploading dupes.

          The search has been around for many years. While search can always be improved, selecting better options in the advanced search, searching by store (easiest/most reliable), or searching by product would have resulted in you finding the duplicate. It's quoted in the first line of the deal posting guidelines and is highlighted on the submission page.

          Also, the original post was posted 3 days before the deal became active.
          I also included a direct link to buy the Huggies online.
          And my post showed a picture of Huggies and this is what interested people would look for.

          OK, but what are you suggesting by pointing out that?

          Razor blades (Gillette) and Coke may be a couple of other items that are usually expensive and should not be hidden in a multi post.

          In your opinion… I personally drink Pepsi Max and use an electric shaver so those 2 are not interesting to me. My point being is just because you find those products interesting, doesn't mean everyone else will. Again, it's a moot point because you are allowed to post individual items separately from the big list of items (if its not in title/first line) with our current community guidelines. There is nothing stopping anyone from doing that.

          Or change the rule to state heading only. Not everyone reads the fine print when scanning for deals (This include the first line fine print).

          If that's what the majority of people want then so be it. Keep in mind, we are receiving reports from users that these deals are a duplicate. It's not something we do as a power trip, it's purely acting on multiple reports.

          So I think in this instance the generic rules have allowed a good bargain that only went on sale today to be hidden for many of the OzB community.

          It's not hidden. I've now added the Huggies item to the title to alleviate that issue. I'm not sure what you are suggesting with the went on sale today comment. Are you implying that deals should only be posted on the day they occur?

          Well, I'm happy to remove the first line issue as a trial if there are no objections.

        • deal88 on 25/09/2013 - 23:48

          Neil,

          Searching a deal should not be a multi task process that people need instructions for. Type what you want in the box and it is found - simple. If this works as it should, possibly there would be a lot less dupes. Why doesn't the main search box search tags - seems bizarre.

          It is good you have added the deal to the title, but no one is going to look at a 3 day old post, and as mentioned people generally are not doing a multi step process advance search for an item. So adding to title does not really fix any issue.

          The deal is "hidden" if no general user can find it using the search box and/or the deal is not in the heading.

          The "went on sale today" comment has been raised by people before. People post deals before they become active. In this instance the multi post was 3 days before the item went on sale. So when the deal was read and is fresh in people minds they are unable to buy it. When I posted my deal, the discounted price was actually available and I included a link to the discounted item so people could purchase the item.

          Also found this comment on your link (similar issue about non active deals)……

          http://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/94757#comment-1267448

    • ModeratorCommonwealth Pig on 26/09/2013 - 10:37

      Do we want to put a duplicate exception to just the title when it's a list?

      I'm for this change. I think some deals can be somewhat hidden in the body of the post, even if it is the first line.

      I feel it's unlikely that many people read the preview of the post body when just browsing for deals.

  • deal88 on 25/09/2013 - 23:10

    Neil, you mentioned the exception…
    The duplicate gains an excessive amount of positive votes (50+) and reaches the front page.

    In what time frame?

    The original only had 21 votes in 3 days, my dupe already had 28 in a a few hours.

    You would also be aware that time of posting would also effect the speed at which votes occur.

    I have also noticed this was a dupe from the same original post.. http://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/117374
    How long did it take them to get 58 votes?

    I understand that this was not on the first line but it does show that this deal was better received than the multi item post.

    So do the rules need a rethink?
    Or do the MODs need the option to show some discretion and not have hard and fast rules that could hide some good deals?

  • Moderatorneil on 25/09/2013 - 23:49

    In what time frame?

    At time of unpublish. 50 votes are a significant number because it gets posted to Facebook and Google+ once it reaches that threshold.

    I have also noticed this was a dupe from the same original post.. http://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/117374

    That item is mentioned on line 8 of the deal. As per the community duplicate guidelines.

    Exceptions
    * The original deal is a list of multiple items and the item is not contained in the title or first line of the original deal.

    So that's fine.

    How long did it take them to get 58 votes?

    The 50th vote was on 24/09/2013 - 11:51

    The deal was posted 23/09/2013 - 19:30 so roughly 16 hours.

    I understand that this was not on the first line but it does show that this deal was better received than the multi item post.

    But what if a report was made/a mod acted when it was at 3 votes?

    So do the rules need a rethink?

    If you have a suggestion that would work then we are happy to hear it. 1st line for the exception seems to be the crux of the issue.

    Or do the MODs need the option to show some discretion and not have hard and fast rules that could hide some good deals?

    Mods do show discretion all the time (there are some many grey areas!) but this is a specific issue we discussed on this particular thread and includes a specific community rule agreed on. While I understand your issue and sympathize, we need to be consistent. I used moderator discretion on an ice cream deal and I never heard the end of it. So damned if we do, damned if we don't. :)

    • deal88 on 26/09/2013 - 00:01

      The Icecream deal was in the heading of the original post. People read the headings, this was clearly a dupe.

      Also interesting this comment (from your link)….
      people don't search? and if they do search then because of the stupid default search sort method on this site. it sorts by most popular deals rather than most recent. it happily shows results from half a year ago before results from yesterday which might be buried well down the list.

      I agree with this and believe it is why you are getting some dupes. I did this search and got useless results. No dupe was found so I posted.

      Surely the search can be quickly changed to include tags. I did note that tonester did tag Huggies and the OzB search bar still did not find the deal. this is how bad the OzB search currently is.

      • Moderatorneil on 26/09/2013 - 00:24

        I can't speak for OzBargain searches but searches in general go by how many times the word appears in the deal.

        For the Woolworths list deal, it appears once in the description and once in the tags.

        If you look at the search results, you will see

        • the top result lists the word Huggies 7 times in the first deal

        • the second result lists the word about 11 times

        etc. etc. so all results on the first page have the keyword appear more than 2 times.

        A similar Google search for Huggies ozbargain.com.au also results in the Woolworths list deal not showing in the results.

        So what I'm trying to get at is the default outcome of a search engine is to bring up the most relevant result. Both Google and the OzBargain search engine do that.

        What you want is a different outcome for the search engine and that is to list your results by date.

        If you simply click the sort by date box underneath, the Huggies offer are the top results.

        Same with Google, if you change to sort by the past week it brings you the Huggies deal in the 5th position (this may be different depending on your search patterns).

        I think there is a "best practice" argument about search but I'm not best to comment on that.

      • Moderatormoocher on 26/09/2013 - 09:43

        PS. i would not have posted the deal or raised this issue if i found the Huggies deal during a basic search.
        Right now the OzB search is no good and typing Huggies into the "Search deals and forum topics" box gives bad results.

        For the sake of completeness, I'll point out that I tested searching for 'huggies' in 'Search deals and forum topics' input box yesterday before Neil added 'huggies' to the title. The search results did come up with the combined post that contained huggies but it was on the second page. I understand that most people will not look past the first page.

        There is currently another thread discussing search result order and another one containing a comment from Scotty about the search result order. That first thread might a better place to discuss the search issue. This thread is for the supermarket dupes and Neil has already proposed a change to exclude the first line for determining a dupe.

    • tonester on 26/09/2013 - 00:26

      I used moderator discretion on an ice cream deal and I never heard the end of it.

      yes that dupe meant i had to wait a few more months before scoring a popular deal badge :)

  • deal88 on 26/09/2013 - 00:13

    Why doesn't the greyed out dupe link to the original post?
    If this happened to my Huggies deal it would be fine.

    Possibly link only works for logged in members?
    Or maybe only logged in members see these dupes in grey - missing for others.

    In this instance…

    My huggies deal would be greyed out
    There is no reference to me as a poster so I get no credit
    Anyone interested can click on the greyed out area to see what the huggies deal was.
    Credit then goes to the original poster.

    I think this would work well.
    And solves my issue (and others) with your search not being able to find latest deals easily.

  • Moderatorneil on 26/09/2013 - 00:32

    Why doesn't the greyed out dupe link to the original post?

    It does. For all users (except the OP/Mods) who access this deal, you are automatically forwarded to the duplicate deal. The OP sees the deal in full but at the top is the reason for unpublishing and a link to the duplicate deal.

    Try it on another browser (not logged in) to confirm.

    For all logged in users who access the Woolworth store, the deals are greyed out with a link to the duplicate. Same thing if you went through all the new deals to find it.

    I think this would work well.
    And solves my issue (and others) with your search not being able to find latest deals easily.

    Cool! So all solved then?

    • deal88 on 26/09/2013 - 00:38

      Did not realise I had to click on the word "duplicate".
      I have previously tried to click on the grey box.

      Search still rubbish and needs to be fixed to stop other people posting dupes and not finding latest deals. And should search tags automatically.

      Also, with all the feedback above from MODs about needing to do advanced searches to find a product. Have the MODs lost touch with the common people? You guys know all the tricks, short cuts and work arounds. The site needs to work how the average person or new user would use it. It is little use giving instructions to me on an advance search if every other normal user is also having issues. The site needs to be intuitive.

      • Moderatorneil on 26/09/2013 - 01:15

        Have the MODs lost touch with the common people? You guys know all the tricks, short cuts and work arounds.

        Play the ball not the man. Mods are common people. They are all users who have been promoted to mods (some from user->power user->mod). I understand you are frustrated with the situation but it's not mods on power trips or thinking every user knows how to use the search.

        I've simply stated the facts. You've mentioned a few times now that you don't feel the search works for you. We are all agreeing that search can be improved and is on the agenda.

        The suggestion for removal of the first line is up for discussion. If there are no objectors or other issues with that, then it will be implemented.

        The site needs to work how the average person or new user would use it. It is little use giving instructions to me on an advance search if every other normal user is also having issues. The site needs to be intuitive.

        Agree. We are always progressing the site to be more intuitive but there are always better ways to do things. The argument over whether to show results by relevance vs. posting date is something Scott has the answer to. But perhaps having the advanced search opened by default (default is closed) would assist you and other users looking for results via posting date?

        If you have any clear suggestions, then feel free to make them.

  • tonester on 26/09/2013 - 10:17

    if a dupe makes it to the front page but is then unpublished, does it remain on the front page in grey?

    if it doesn't currently stay, then i suggest that we change it so it does, which would then keep it still visible to logged in users, somewhat highlighting that it was good enough to reach the front page

    the dupe would still redirect to the original deal

    it has also been previously suggested that dupe votes be added to the original deal - doing so might again indicate that there are good items within the deal

    otherwise, i would probably be in favour of leaving the rules as is, to reduce the risk of excessive deals

    but perhaps good moderator discretion is best :)

  • nahi11 on 26/09/2013 - 17:43

    Keep both. The single posts tend to the really 'speacial' deals.

  • [Deactivated] on 26/09/2013 - 20:58

    My thoughts:

    1. I didn't know there were duplicate supermarket posts until you mentioned it. So it hasn't been too big a problem to date I guess. If it happens with a few things, no big deal, because…

    2. I looked the compare-a-tron today - for the first time! So those other individual items that get posted - I would see them, when I would see the compare-a-tron.

    Why was today the first time? Well first, I already get all the catalogues in the mail. Second, I saw some things in it today I thought I might be interested in. Until I went to WW & Coles that is. Most of them I didn't buy because even on sale, most WW & Coles "discounts" are more expensive than Aldi, or even other products on their own shelves.

    e.g. The Weet Bix special - it was only a cent more or less per 100g than WW homebrand wheat biscuits. The Banana Boat sunscreen was about double the price of WW Select 50+ Sunscreen (which we purchased instead). The deodorant - there were a few cheaper brands. The shampoo - ditto.

    This is why I usually don't read the compare-a-tron. But I would certainly notice individual items that really WERE a bargain that someone recognised as such, and so posted separately from the compare-a-tron.

    In other words, the long lists might be discounts, but they are usually NOT cheap - there is nearly always a comparable product that is cheaper.

    Anyway, I vote keep it as it is, unless of course some twit starts posting > 50% of the items from every WW/Coles catalogue individually.

  • Moderatorneil on 26/09/2013 - 21:12

    Just for clarity, we have been having individual and long list posts since June 2012.

    The suggestion put forth yesterday is whether the first line of the description count in the duplicate exception

    • rekabkram on 26/09/2013 - 22:25

      I don't think that the first line should be included, I don't decide if I'm interested in a deal from reading the first line it's the title. If I think there's any chance that I'll have an interest in the contents then I click on and give the deal a read.

      On a side note, would a possible way around issues such as this be to being able to subscribe to brands and products in the same way that we can subscribe to stores? That way if someone is after an iPhone 5C they'll get an email everytime a deal is posted and in the case of the dupe thread from yesterday if the OP had subscribed to deals from Huggies then he/she would've had an email come through from the compare Woolies/Coles deal.

      • Moderatorneil on 26/09/2013 - 23:18

        The tagging is inconsistent. The majority of the time tags are either not put in or are incorrectly tagged. Much of the tagging and cleaning up is done by moderators/power users after the deal has been posted.

        Scott's comment on tag subscription

  • Moderatorneil on 03/10/2013 - 00:33

    I have made the change to the guidelines and removed 1st line from the duplicate exceptions. Let's see how it goes.

    • tonester on 03/10/2013 - 02:42

      thanks, neil…

      what about my question/suggestion re duplicates on the front page?
      http://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/71407#comment-1610352

      if a dupe makes it to the front page but is then unpublished, does it remain on the front page in grey?

      if it doesn't currently stay, then i suggest that we change it so it does, which would then keep it still visible to logged in users, somewhat highlighting that it was good enough to reach the front page

      • Moderatorneil on 03/10/2013 - 09:37

        That's a feature request. I've added it to the queue

      • Moderatormoocher on 03/10/2013 - 09:58

        Just to clarify, we currently only show greyed out nodes to logged-in users on the new deals page, not the front page.

        After thinking about it, I am not in favour of showing greyed out listings on the front page for these reasons:

        1. We currently grey out all unpublished nodes on the new deals page, not just dupes. To only grey out dupes on the front page adds complexity to the query and display the front page, which is heavily visited and would add load to our system.
        2. Since the dupe exception rule has just been changed to exclude the first line of a deal, it should be quite easy to spot and find dupes now (search works much better if the search term is in the title). I see little gain in keeping a spot for the dupe in the front page - it's valuable real estate :)
        3. I don't think it's aesthetically pleasing to have a greyed out listing on the front page. Those who are keen will go to the new deals page to see all the deals in reverse chronological order, which includes a record of unpublished ones.
        • tonester on 03/10/2013 - 12:32

          We currently grey out all unpublished nodes on the new deals page, not just dupes. To only grey out dupes on the front page adds complexity to the query and display the front page, which is heavily visited and would add load to our system.

          i didn't suggest this but rather keeping all unpublished deals on the front page as greyed out

          Since the dupe exception rule has just been changed to exclude the first line of a deal, it should be quite easy to spot and find dupes now

          hope so but it's happened before, especially due to timing issues such as when deals are posted before being active
          http://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/83784

          (search works much better if the search term is in the title)

          it should but unfortunately not always
          http://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/3664?page=4#comment-1567386

          I see little gain in keeping a spot for the dupe in the front page - it's valuable real estate :)

          making the front page indicates a good deal so if you remove the dupe then how about then adding the dupe's votes to the original deal?

          I don't think it's aesthetically pleasing to have a greyed out listing on the front page. Those who are keen will go to the new deals page to see all the deals in reverse chronological order, which includes a record of unpublished ones.

          keen for what? knowing all deals or just good ones?

          how often do deals reach the front page before being unpublished?

        • Moderatormoocher on 03/10/2013 - 13:18

          i didn't suggest this but rather keeping all unpublished deals on the front page as greyed out

          Ok thanks for clarifying that. I will now respond in light of that - that you mean including unpublished deals on the front page but greyed out.

          making the front page indicates a good deal

          Unpublishing a deal means that we don't want it to be displayed for some reason. It could be a dupe, or deal not active, or a company is threatening to sue us if we don't take it down (!), or something else. For greyed out deals, there may not always be a link like in the case of a dupe. How useful would it be to have a greyed out section that only shows a title and reason for unpublishing, without any way for the user to actually access the deal? e.g. "Register for a free xxx worth $20 with free shipping (requested by XYZ store)". So I guess what I'm saying is - is it justifiable to use the real estate on the front page to display an unpublished deal that may not be accessible, at the cost of pushing another good front page deal out of the list (onto the second page)?

          making the front page indicates a good deal so if you remove the dupe then how about then adding the dupe's votes to the original deal?

          Ok this is another feature request. I'm not sure it's safe to presume that the user would be happy to apply his/her votes to the original. e.g. What if the original is a combo, say 10% off skype cards and half price coke cans, and the dupe is for half price coke cans? Voter may think that 10% off skype cards is a joke because it's currently 50% off somewhere else and not vote.

          keen for what?

          By keen I meant users that go beyond the front page deals.

          how often do deals reach the front page before being unpublished?

          I did a query on the database and there have been 15 of those in the last 6 months. About a third are dupes, the others were requested by store.

        • tonester on 03/10/2013 - 15:40

          How useful would it be to have a greyed out section that only shows a title and reason for unpublishing, without any way for the user to actually access the deal?

          better than not knowing anything - and anyway, greyed out nodes appear on the new deals page

          Ok this is another feature request. I'm not sure it's safe to presume that the user would be happy to apply his/her votes to the original. e.g. What if the original is a combo, say 10% off skype cards and half price coke cans, and the dupe is for half price coke cans? Voter may think that 10% off skype cards is a joke because it's currently 50% off somewhere else and not vote.

          at least it would indicate that there is something good within the combo

          i assume that people vote +ve because there's at least one thing that they find worthwhile rather than voting on a deal as a whole overall on balance

          if the dupe is not visible at all on the front page then without transferring votes how else could the bargain quality of that item be highlighted and votes not be wasted?

          15 of those in the last 6 months

          so not too many to cause real estate issues?

        • Moderatormoocher on 09/10/2013 - 12:16

          We've discussed your two suggestions and will be implementing displaying the greyed out deals on the front page, but not adding the votes for dupes to the original.

        • tonester on 09/10/2013 - 14:25

          thanks :)

        • Moderatorscotty on 21/10/2013 - 08:38

          @tonester — we are now showing unpublished deals even on the front page (greyed out with title only), only for the logged in users.

  • tonester on 23/10/2013 - 09:35

    slightly off-topic, but could we re-instate the woolworths online tag so that it doesn't redirect to woolworths deals, to be like http://www.ozbargain.com.au/tag/coles-online?

    it would help with searching for free delivery and discount promo codes :)

    • Moderatorscotty on 23/10/2013 - 10:04

      As per tagging guidelines, people should not tag the merchants. You should be able to search discount code against a domain as well. For example

      Pro tip: Add domain:<domain name> to restrict the result set to deals / forum posts linked to that domain.

      • tonester on 23/10/2013 - 10:54

        thanks :)

  • Captain Obvious on 29/12/2013 - 22:05

    Alrighty so it's been suggested that I come here and share my thoughts regarding the posting of duplicates. Whilst I understand the reason for the relaxing of the policy, it's not a good idea. What we're seeing now is multiple postings for the same deal simply because they are focusing on different aspects of the deal - at th emoment it seems to be Big W and JB Hi-Fi.

    All we need to do is have a single post that covers all of the deals from that retailer and just list a few sample deals for different major sections. It makes the front page tidier, makes the deals easier to find, and makes it easier for people to share information regarding the deals by having a single centralised area.

  • nahi11 on 01/03/2020 - 12:38
    -1

    I think the supermarkets should have to pay a fee to ozbargain to redistribute their catalogue.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join