Limited Quantity Guidelines Sliding Scale Suggestion

LMalakaiA on 17/02/2023 - 23:03

A moderator suggested I post my take on the current Limited Quantity guidelines and a way to improve it here.

"Limited Quantity - If your deal has limited quantity, please mention it in the description. As a general guide, deals with less than 10 items in stock at the time of submission may be unpublished, but moderators may, at their discretion, allow deals to stay if they are potentially useful to the community."

I'm currently trying to post market leading low volume high value product offers from a smaller retailer. But the posts are removed citing the Limited Quantity guidelines and not having 10 units in stock. I fully understand the reason for this but do think there is a slightly more elegant solution than benefits everyone.

The problem it creates is when dealing with low volume, higher value items large retailers are more likely to be able to carry the required 10 items in stock and meet the benchmark for having their offers posted. This can lead to users who are interested in low volume high value items only seeing bargains from retailers that can carry that level of stock and not necessarily seeing the best bargains available.

My suggestion is to change the blanket 10 items in stock guideline to a sliding scale or range for moderators to have a better tool for allowing more bargains/deals/offers to be posted from a wider range of sources.

If the deal is worth $1 then a higher volume of stock would be required to meet the limited quantity guideline. If the deal is worth $10,000 or over a lower amount of stock would be required to meet the limited quantity policy. You then draw a line between those two points to get a sliding scale guideline as to what is acceptable, and tweak the numbers as the community see's fit.

I think this would reduce the missing out expired deal factor, level the field amongst retailers and get more bargains in-front of users.

Thanks for reading.

Site Discussion

Comments

  • AustriaBargain on 17/02/2023 - 23:09

    If it's like a $10,000 TV or $200,000 car then I can see your point, not many of us would buy those items anyway. But some might.

    • Jimothy Wongingtons on 17/02/2023 - 23:25
      +2

      I’m gonna assume it’s watches, from watson’s, based on op’s posts

      • AustriaBargain on 17/02/2023 - 23:55

        If he is associated with the business or brand somehow then I'd say no, it is inappropriate. It'd be like gaming the system rather than organically finding a great deal on a luxury item. If he is associated then he can negotiate that the business offers at least 10 of a watch at a good price. And if it's not a good deal people won't upvote it. Tide comes in, tide goes out. Never a miscommunication.

  • spackbace on 17/02/2023 - 23:54

    I mean, you're only suggesting this because it's self-serving for your own rep posts…

    https://www.ozbargain.com.au/user/446704/nodes

    • MalakaiA on 18/02/2023 - 10:18

      Yes I have that bias but it is not the only bias. I wouldn't mind if this was adopted and the scale didn't benefit me as I think it is a bit more equitable than the blanket rule.

  • Muzeeb on 18/02/2023 - 00:06
    -2

    OPs username is greek for (profanity) so I'm going to say no.

    • MalakaiA on 18/02/2023 - 10:22

      If you drop the i it would be, otherwise its a name which i choose from a character in the wing commander series <3

  • Settero on 18/02/2023 - 00:06

    10 items is a pretty low bar. There are few examples where I see this being a benefit.

  • Moderatoralvian on 18/02/2023 - 01:28

    We disclose the following facts to give background and context to this policy change proposal.

    • User MalakaiA is an associated user for Watsons Jewellers.

    • A deal from Watsons Jewellers for Seiko watches was removed on 15/2/2023 for reason that there were insufficient quantities. OzBargain generally requires a minimum of 10 units for at least one of the products on offer to constitute a deal. We may suspend the policy if the offer is "potentially useful" to our user community.

    • The available quantities were: 3x $667 watch, 1x $1250 watch, 1x $2980 watch.

    • User MalakaiA mentioned as evidence previous posts by Watsons Jewellers "that had positive user engagement levels". The moderation team thought that positive user engagement levels are the results of good customer services and good historical bargains, but these had little to do with the 5 Seiko watches being useful to our user community. We therefore refused a request to suspend our insufficient quantity policy.

    • User MalakaiA argued that our policy disadvantages small retailers, such as Watsons Jewellers, compared to large retailers. This is because small retailers are unlikely or unable to hold large quantities of stocks of expensive items. (It was unclear what distinguishes a small retailer from a large retailer, and what items are expensive.) This proposal is an attempt to redress this disadvantage for small retailers.

    • BewareOfThe Dog on 18/02/2023 - 01:47

      +1 Mod

      PS I already have 5 Samsung Galaxy watches, so I don't need a Seiko.

    • MalakaiA on 18/02/2023 - 10:00

      The only other thing I would add here is the conversation also covered trying to discover how or if it would be possible to ever post if stock of specific items rarely exceeds 10.

      For example 100 different (but similar) items being discounted for a period of time could not be posted if no individual item exceeds 10 in stock.

  • alvian on 18/02/2023 - 02:24

    Interpolate a linear function for the endpoints:

    $1 item - 10 minimum units
    $10,000 item - 1 minimum unit

    Resultant equation:

    Minimum units = (11111 - value) / 1111, for values $1 to $10000

    Watch value Available units Proposed minimum units (rounded down) Satisfy proposed rule?
    $667 3 9 No
    $1250 1 8 No
    $2980 1 7 No

    Result: Deal unpublished (insufficient quantity)

    Let us get the deal published instead.

    Interpolate a function for the points:

    $1 item - 10 minimum units
    $667 item - 3 minimum units
    $1250 item - 1 minimum unit

    Resultant equation:

    Minimum units = value^2 * 2749/484959222 - value * 770389/53884358 + 2428261486/242479611, for values $1 to $1250.

    Proposed minimum units Value threshold
    10 $0.01 — $73.05
    9 $73.06 — $149.77
    8 $149.78 — $232.20
    7 $232.21 — $321.84
    6 $321.85 — $420.98
    5 $420.99 — $533.51
    4 $533.52 — $666.99
    3 $667.00 — $840.92
    2 $840.93 — $1249.99
    1 $1250.00 +
    • MalakaiA on 18/02/2023 - 09:53

      Thanks for doing the math.

      I'd prefer a scale that benefits the community rather than my own wants.

  • try2bhelpful on 18/02/2023 - 06:33

    Allow people to mention it in the Forums. In the case of an associated person they would, still, need to highlight that.

  • holdenmg on 18/02/2023 - 07:44

    Thought for the day:

    If you are posting a Watch deal that is going to be viewed on a Tablet, Laptop or Mobile Phone, those reading the listing can already see the current time on the device in front of them.

  • Jimothy Wongingtons on 18/02/2023 - 07:45

    Sounds like trying to clear out random special orders or aged stock? Otherwise why not allow back orders at same price.

    • MalakaiA on 18/02/2023 - 09:44

      Backorders are allowed at the same price if asked for, the website won't allow users to do it automatically as that would be misleading on our shipping timeframes and not a great customer experience when some items maybe be out of stock at the supplier level.

      • Jimothy Wongingtons on 18/02/2023 - 11:08

        Imo if backorders are allowed you got a better case.

        What is the general lead time?

        • MalakaiA on 18/02/2023 - 11:18

          Generally weeks. It can be complicated though as it changes based on many factors.

  • mapax on 18/02/2023 - 09:47
    +2

    Just post them in the limited quantities thread. If it’s a true bargain it will sell quickly, unless of course your real motivation is to just use OzBargain as free advertising…

    • MalakaiA on 18/02/2023 - 10:50

      I will find that and take a look :) thanks.

      My motivation was seeing non associated user posting offers (with stock levels no different to when I post) and the level of positive engagement for both parties that generates. I thought I could share some that are really good offers occasionally (google merchant centre gives easy access to price benchmarks that I don't think are available to the public?). Is that a win win scenario or am I missing the mark?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join