poll Should comments be allowed in sales threads?

[Dave]

I personally think it is a daft rule not to allow comments in sales threads, especially for websites.

Take this thread for example: https://www.namepros.com/threads/ea...keting-website-for-sale.1065993/#post-6577384

I posted in the above thread highlighting that the basics of security, with regards to the ssl certificate, were not even checked before offering the website for sale. Things like this are red flags that need to be public attention in my opinion. My post was removed.

Posts that highlight honest pros or cons to a product or service being offered for sale should be allowed. Outright derogatory or negatively biased posts of course should not be allowed.

Anyone else agree?

Edit: Just to make it clear. I think questions are already allowed but this post is more to do with general comments that provide worthwhile information about a product/service that does not need to be worded as a question.

 

[BrandMart]

Comments are a 'must' for website marketplace IMO. Websites take more time to develop and flip. Buyers and sellers need to discuss things and keep them open for others to review too. If they take their conversations to DMs, seller will be replying to same question from 100s of buyers lol.

 

[MapleDots]

Hi Dave,

Comments in sales threads are not allowed.
We understand you are trying to help and we appreciate your efforts, but in the future please use the report button.

Also, if you notice others violating this rule, please use the Report feature instead of replying to them, so that we can get things back on track (on topic).

Please refer to this thread for further clarification:
https://www.namepros.com/threads/pointing-out-a-scam-to-warn-others.1043956/

Rule: 6.1.1 No Sales Crashing: Do not post anything in a sales listing that could devalue an item or hinder a sale from taking place successfully.

These are the rules. Please refer to the link above.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Peace,
Kenny

Sorry, but your post does not really go with the context of the topic.

1. Yes you did clarify that comments are not allowed.

2. Everything else is what we are debating, we don't need

 

[MapleDots]

I still say....

Leave it up to the domain owner, simple and easy.

In the post he says

Comments = Allowed
Comment = Not Allowed

I don't see why it has to be so complicated and why the moderation has to be so heavy handed.

I remember I said comments welcome in one of mine and it was moved to appraisals.

Crappers, that was not what I wanted

 

[Eric Lyon]

Buyers and sellers need to discuss things and keep them open for others to review too. If they take their conversations to DMs, seller will be replying to same question from 100s of buyers lol.

That's how it works now:

To clarify, constructive and relevant questions are allowed.

Comments/Statements are not allowed.

---

I remember I said comments welcome in one of mine and it was moved to appraisals.

A sales thread was moved to Appraisals because you said comments were allowed? That sounds like a mistake. Could you link me to it so I can investigate?

Thanks,

 

[Dave]

Thanks for everyone's input on this and for the discussion.

@Eric Lyon I know the poll only has a small amount of voters but still the percentages are something you guys may want to take note of.

 

[Eric Lyon]

Leave it up to the domain owner, simple and easy.

In the post he says

Comments = Allowed
Comment = Not Allowed

This is how it will work once we have a system in place to support it:

Added Note: We plan to add a feature that allows sellers to delete any comments/posts they want from their sales listings, which is similar to some other marketplaces, so that's another reason we don't want members to get into the habit of depending on comments in sales threads and we want members to use the report button. Once we add that feature, sellers will be able to delete those comments on their own and the only option will be the report button.

Before we can allow that, we have to separate bids/offers from other comments/questions, because otherwise, comments can be used to bump sales threads and that can lead to manipulation of the bumping limits. We hope to add that feature soon.

 

[james haw]

Just chewing the fat..

I think NamePros should consider allowing certain comments, for example the following;

• "This domain name/website is also currently being auctioned at [proof]"
• "This website has a clear bug or problem"
• "The WHOIS information for this domain name is somewhat suspicious"
• "This domain name only recently sold a few days ago for much more money. Can you explain why you're listing it for a cheaper price"?

I understand that moderating only allowed types of comments could be bothersome though.

I think we should just report these things and let mods determine if they should be put to the seller or not. Such things should be funnelled through certain users only, otherwise grey areas are formed from difference in user opinion and we end up with all kinds of messages being argued to be valid.

You stated "explain why you're listing it for a cheaper price" but isn't that up to them? Sure I'm a suspicious/cautious person too, and my dodgy-radar is going off, but you can't throw accusations at people like that.

Also, where does one draw the line with these things? Can I say it's not worth what they are asking because it should be using Symfony, Twig, and doctrine, but instead has legacy code with mysql_ functions?
I know, I sound anal, but honestly this is the issue - where do you draw the line when "vetting" what someone is selling? We all have different opinions on it, which is why the forum has a simple rule of we can post "none".

As much as I'm all for helping others more vulnerable or less experienced/knowledgeable etc, it's up to the buyer to determine these things. All we can do is report actual problems such as the seller doesn't have rights to sell it, etc.
Anything else is subjective.

 

[james haw]

that of course includes the website resolving and any certificates being valid.

Does a website have to resolve for it to be valid to sell? Surely the code and DB etc is the website, it's just not currently hosted.

SSL is not essential for a website.

When you're selling a website you need to make sure the basics are done right at least

Who determines "the basics"? There is no such clear cut list. Yours is different to mine, Bob's different to Sally's and so on

I agree it's nice to have rules and make sure people are covered by requirements, to protect them and keep things clear cut, but it's so hard to even begin to form a clear cut list that states what is and isn't required when selling a website.

For starters, what is even the definition of a website? If I am trying to sell a "website" that has no SSL, isn't hosted, is only 10 lines of HTML, 1 image, and 5 lines of CSS that aligns it all, is that not a "legitimate" website that has "all the basics"?

I just think there are way too many parameters and scenarios to make a preplanned list. If you see something potentially dodgy, report it and let mods handle it. imo

 

[Eric Lyon]

Friendly note:

The following thread is a subset of this thread specifically about pointing out scams/suspicious listings:

• https://www.namepros.com/threads/pointing-out-a-scam-to-warn-others.1043956/

Let's please use that thread for that topic, and let's use this thread for all other types of comments (excluding potential/confirmed scams) in sales threads.

Thanks,

 

[Dave]

Does a website have to resolve for it to be valid to sell? Surely the code and DB etc is the website, it's just not currently hosted.

SSL is not essential for a website.

Yes it pretty much is these days. Especially if you're collecting any kind of personal information about your visitors or customers. Google announced in 2014 that SSL would become a search ranking factor and would give more trust to sites that had full SSL.

When you're buying a website you're not just buying the code or db. You're possibly buying a business, traffic, an existing customer base etc. If the site isn't correctly setup or easily accessible then it raises big questions about the site owner's capabilities elsewhere.