Audi TT Forum banner
1 - 20 of 30 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,283 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Wondering how the results will be used? In essence there is more people for some form of change at the moment than there is for maintaining the status quo (268 v 264). In any case 50% of the membership want 'market place' to look differently than it does now and so some form of change is called for (if that was the intention of the poll). :?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,112 Posts
You can make statistics sound like they are saying anything you want, can't you? Tell you what, add options 1 and 2 together and there you have a vote of 290 v 242 for making the market place as restricted as it is now or more so!

For pity's sake, there are 5 options on offer and half the people have voted for one of them. Fair enough, the option for change may have been split but there's still as near as damn it a simple majority to keep things as they are. And what is also clear from the posts on the thread is that a good proportion of votes for change have come from those new members who can't access the marketplace which will have skewed the vote as it is. If the vote had been restricted to those with full access (and there's a good argument for suggesting it should have been) then there would have been a very clear majority. Even as it is though, if this had been a general election it would have been a landslide! So no, it's not a vote for change at all. It might not be what you want but that's how it is.

My understanding was that there has been a vote to satisfy the constant whingers and moaners and make it clear even though the market place may not be exactly the way they want it it is how the majority of us want it, so I think it's time to finally just stop complaining and get on with it.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
33,474 Posts
I think most people see this as a first past the post poll, like the UK general election. This is the way it was presented. There was no second or third vote option allowed to make an individual's choice clearer or decide a tie - you could only vote for one option. There is no tie. The biggest "party" therefore clearly represents keeping things as they are. That's not to say any further developments couldn't evolve and be accommodated of course. To see this as a PR poll and take it as a mandate for change in opposition to the status quo (Option 1) has the difficulty that the other options are disperate. The opposition is split in different directions.

For example, Option 5 (22% in favour) was for no restriction at all (buyer beware) but all other options were in favour of restriction to some extent (totalling 78%). Removal of all restrictions is clearly in the minority and if you read through the comments and analyse the domography, most people who voted for removal of restrictions appear to be newbies. Perhaps that is understandable but obviously the established members who have contributed most to this community and want protection do not agree with that option.

Option 3 (and its less popular partner Option 4) - (23% total) are clearly driven from the idea that cars are less of a security risk because you will likely have a test drive and check documents etc. There's less chance of an issue resulting from the way the forum operates being integral with car fraud. The issue for the forum however is how to allow communication. Allowing immediate PM access can't just be applied to car sales - it's applied to members, who could then PM whoever and wherever they wanted and that's been the main avenue for opportunist fraud. Posting a phone number or email is also a personal security issue. Allowing open posts under a car advert has the difficulty of moderation workload. This needs some consideration to be implemented safely and practically but it may be possible to do so in some way, whilst still being acceptable to people who voted for Option 1, perhaps, but strictly speaking there is no mandate for it.

Also of note is that the options excluding TTOC members as trusted users of the market place, due to them having their personal details on record as surity - Option 2 (5%) and Option 4 (6%) - are clearly in the minority. It would appear that most people can see the sense in the policy regarding TTOC membership.

The majority can rest assured that we will strive to keep forum members secure and act in their best interests if ever making any changes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
250 Posts
John,

Surely you need to deal with the reason why people were/are being scammed so easily??

I think the mere fact that nearly every advert in the sales section flaunts very valuable and personal information which is pure Gold to a scammer needs to be addressed?

If you were to change the way that members post their adverts where absolutely no names, tel no's and email addresses are allowed to be visible as part of the advert itself, this would be at the very least be a step in the right direction in providing a level of security for personal individuals and on the other hand a level of obscurity to any sort of scammer?

If the personal security issues were addressed then there would be absolutely no reason why the sales section could not be opened up to ALL?? Once all personal information is no longer in adverts it is just plain info of what is for sale and by whom (forum nickname) and the price. There is no way to be scammed from that? The next level of security is one which you have in place already where new members cannot PM until they have reached 'XX' posts or reach a certain criterea, this allows new members to see the sales section (which they would like) even if they cannot PM to be able to purchase (just yet) until they have met the required crtierea? This would keep members safe (even safer than they are now), keeps new members happy and also allows maximum advertsment of sellers goods. To me this is a win win situation all round?

The only people that may not be too happy with the removal of personal info is perhaps those that may not frequent the forum too often but pop a sales advert up with their mobile number etc.. so they can be contacted via other means as opposed to through the forum (PM facility). If this happens to be the case then these people are not really contributing to the forum and just using the forum? Cutting personal info from being allowed in adverts would (should) cause members to participate in the forum more too?

Just my thoughts and opinions, I think with a few little changes the sales section could be enjoyed by more peple and also be safer for all sellers too.

:)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
20,317 Posts
Mark Davies said:
You can make statistics sound like they are saying anything you want, can't you? Tell you what, add options 1 and 2 together and there you have a vote of 290 v 242 for making the market place as restricted as it is now or more so!

For pity's sake, there are 5 options on offer and half the people have voted for one of them. Fair enough, the option for change may have been split but there's still as near as damn it a simple majority to keep things as they are. And what is also clear from the posts on the thread is that a good proportion of votes for change have come from those new members who can't access the marketplace which will have skewed the vote as it is. If the vote had been restricted to those with full access (and there's a good argument for suggesting it should have been) then there would have been a very clear majority. Even as it is though, if this had been a general election it would have been a landslide! So no, it's not a vote for change at all. It might not be what you want but that's how it is.

My understanding was that there has been a vote to satisfy the constant whingers and moaners and make it clear even though the market place may not be exactly the way they want it it is how the majority of us want it, so I think it's time to finally just stop complaining and get on with it.
Fully agree with you Mark
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,112 Posts
SonyVaio said:
Just my thoughts and opinions
Yes, except the frauds that people have suffered have had nothing whatsoever to do with people posting personal information in threads so pretty much all you've had to say is irrelevant. Explanations of what has happened have been posted several times in this and the related thread - I suggest you take the time to read them and get a better understanding of the issue at hand.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,838 Posts
I have to agree with Mark too.

This has been discussed, analysed and disputed to death and now there has been a free, democratic vote on the subject. There is a clear choice and one choice has more votes than any other. I didn't vote for the winning choice but nevertheless accept it.

This isn't 'pick 'n' mix' so trying to combine other options to dispute the outcome is clutching at straws and we should just move on with the result, implement it and live with it.

Job done.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,084 Posts
okie doke i have been thinking about this ongoing problem of scammers spammers and general bad peeps trying to part users from money. http://scammers.freeforums.net/ its a free forum setup that i wouls suggest to be used only by senior admin from all of the main car forums.......ok well maybe just audi ones to start with. it has taken me 15 minutes without my flipping glasses to make this and if setup properly could be the main place for senior admin to pass info on about baddies....and all known web based info on them........for forum banning purposes and also for police requiring all info that can then be located within one forum.
only an idea and if its pants just say so and i will go back to sleep :?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,838 Posts
Gazzer said:
okie doke i have been thinking about this ongoing problem of scammers spammers and general bad peeps trying to part users from money. http://scammers.freeforums.net/ its a free forum setup that i wouls suggest to be used only by senior admin from all of the main car forums.......ok well maybe just audi ones to start with. it has taken me 15 minutes without my flipping glasses to make this and if setup properly could be the main place for senior admin to pass info on about baddies....and all known web based info on them........for forum banning purposes and also for police requiring all info that can then be located within one forum.
only an idea and if its pants just say so and i will go back to sleep :?
Damned good and pro-active idea mate! :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,084 Posts
Ikon66 said:
Gazzer said:
http://scammers.freeforums.net/
Jamman for moderator :wink:
well bud i wouldn't want the job i can assure you lol, too much 5hit to take and i like to give out......xx
but this idea came from a phone conversation with John H and some thoughts i had from what he said about the whole problem.
of course i assume you have already thought of similar ideas to put forward to the team being a top moderator security for the site??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,838 Posts
Gazzer said:
spank you rich....i do occasionally try to be helpful in life :?
I was being serious! :?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,084 Posts
rich the problem was it had Gazzer on the post bud, so auto knew it wouldnt be taken serious m8ee as that is how i am viewed i guess. (no ones fault but my own) however bud i find a problem that just starts as an itch then a scratch and then it is now peeing me off so it needs sorting. that is how i have viewed the comments and topics regarding the for sale section.

imagine a forum where every major known scammer was barred for life due to a sharing of information and minds on these tossers whose sole goal is to cheat someone of money.
this may all be total rollocks in some peeps eyes, however if it starts a ball rolling that grows until forums are auto protected within hours of a scammer complaint............then maybe just maybe it has done its job ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,283 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
Mark Davies said:
You can make statistics sound like they are saying anything you want, can't you? Tell you what, add options 1 and 2 together and there you have a vote of 290 v 242 for making the market place as restricted as it is now or more so!

For pity's sake, there are 5 options on offer and half the people have voted for one of them. Fair enough, the option for change may have been split but there's still as near as damn it a simple majority to keep things as they are. And what is also clear from the posts on the thread is that a good proportion of votes for change have come from those new members who can't access the marketplace which will have skewed the vote as it is. If the vote had been restricted to those with full access (and there's a good argument for suggesting it should have been) then there would have been a very clear majority. Even as it is though, if this had been a general election it would have been a landslide! So no, it's not a vote for change at all. It might not be what you want but that's how it is.

My understanding was that there has been a vote to satisfy the constant whingers and moaners and make it clear even though the market place may not be exactly the way they want it it is how the majority of us want it, so I think it's time to finally just stop complaining and get on with it.
Just read the above Mark. First of all I was asking a question and not making a statement. My point is that everyone 'full members and not' were' included in the vote; if everyones view was not deemed as equal because of their membership status, then why include them in the first place? I dont see it as a landslide; the water is muddied by having so many questins - for and against may have been more clear. Indeed the current outcome is what I voted for (so pls don't second guess my intentions). The outcome as I saw it, and I am allowed to see it differently than you, may not line up with what I or you feel or want, but that doesn't make it invalid. Just because you think it and say it doesnt always make your view the only truth or indeed right. Others are entitled to have a view too you know, the very basis of democracy :? I am guessing that if the vote for change had been a clear winner you would have made arguments against that and manipulted the numbers to make your argument sound correct? Fact is the result is not clear regardless of how it is banged together (given the forum wants to attract members and sticking two fingers up to them isnt the best way of doing that). Fact is, regardless of how it is wrapped up, as many people want change as don't (and that includes some of those who have been here contributing for a good while now). Referring to people as whingers and moaners because you want the debate to end isn't helpful and discourages participation. Especially coming from someone who (like myself) appears to have something to say about most things and voices those things ongoing. So you say 'get on with it' and so we all just should - because you say so? If you are bored of the thread Mark and can't see the point then I suggest don't contribute to it. But please don't put others who do want to contribute off from doing so and contributing an answer to the question I asked.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,283 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
Gazzer said:
okie doke i have been thinking about this ongoing problem of scammers spammers and general bad peeps trying to part users from money. http://scammers.freeforums.net/ its a free forum setup that i wouls suggest to be used only by senior admin from all of the main car forums.......ok well maybe just audi ones to start with. it has taken me 15 minutes without my flipping glasses to make this and if setup properly could be the main place for senior admin to pass info on about baddies....and all known web based info on them........for forum banning purposes and also for police requiring all info that can then be located within one forum.
only an idea and if its pants just say so and i will go back to sleep :?
On the face of it it sounds like a great idea Gaz - really proactive solution focussed contribution. :p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,112 Posts
Brian,

Your 'question' included a statement which appeared to be a highly disingenious manipulation of the poll results, which if intentional would tend to indicate a certain bias towards a change of policy for the market place. If however, as you now say, your preference is to keep things as they are then I would still question your interpretation of the poll.

It quite simply doesn't say people want change. It doesn't say people want the market place opened up. It quite emphatically says people want the restrictions to stay. And that's got nothing whatsoever to do with my opinion - it's a purely objective analysis of the results. So when you come along and make a suggestion the poll says people want change - the exact opposite of what it actually says - then you should expect to be picked up on it.

The four options offered other than keeping things as they are cannot be added together to produce your suggested result that 'the majority want change' because some are mutually exclusive. If you take the basic polarities of keeping it the way it is or opening it up completely then less than half as many wanted it opening as wanted to keep the restrictions. Even if you add in those who wanted to open up the market for just car sales to those who want it opening completely you still don't get close to the vote for keeping it as it is. The remaining two options amount to just tinkering and one even suggests greater restrictions, but both are hugely in a minority and so have no significant influence on the outcome.

So if you were asking the question 'Does this poll result say people want change?' then no, the poll does not suggest the forum wants change. It quite clearly says the forum prefers matters to stay the way they are, and says it so convincingly that frankly it's an argument-ender - and that's the way it should be treated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
250 Posts
Mark Davies said:
SonyVaio said:
Just my thoughts and opinions
Yes, except the frauds that people have suffered have had nothing whatsoever to do with people posting personal information in threads so pretty much all you've had to say is irrelevant. Explanations of what has happened have been posted several times in this and the related thread - I suggest you take the time to read them and get a better understanding of the issue at hand.
Mark,

I am more than willing to get up to speed and learn just how people have been scammed etc... The fact that there is so much valuable info so freely given away in so many adverts in the sales section I quite frankly am NOT suprised there is scamming going on.

You say there has been explanations in this and related thread but can you please either quote or link me to the exact posts you are on about. I'm new on here as you're well aware need pointing in the right direction please.

If scammers have not been getting to people via the personal info that posters have given away in their adverts then it can surely only be via the PM system? So if scamming is not happening via the leaking of private info in adverts why lock the sales section down in the first place?

I peronally cannot see the benifit of the sales section being locked down for all to view? Locked for posting, not really of benifit either. Then it is down to any would be scammer if so interested in an item to have to post up 'their' details for any seller to use.

PM system - this should be the only official way of a would be buyer contacting a seller, having a post count to enable PM access is fair enough and helps a little in the security side of things - I can appreciate this. However! - if people are being scammed through the PM facility then this is down to each individual being 'WISE' to any standard scam tactics and if something is too good to be true then it normally IS!

So unless you can point me to reasons how people are being scammed (which is apparently not because of giving vital persaonal security information away in the advert) I can only assume it is through people own stupidity in going along with some confidence tricksters PM, or paying for something which is too good to be true, or paying for items via PayPal (GIFT) and thus removing all protection available.

If the scamming is nothing to do with any of the above and is to do with some form of group buy then this has nothing to do with posts, PM's, personal info nor anything to do with the normal running of the sales section, therefor why lock the sales section down?

As said please link to posts you refer to.

:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,112 Posts
It's not an issue of what information people give out or the methods of communication.

The problems have arisen not where people have advertised items for sale but where they have posted wanted ads, asking for parts. The crooks trawl the motoring forums looking for such ads and then contact the member involved saying they have the parts they are looking for. The member sends the money for the parts and then the parts never show up. Because the person selling the parts have never advertised them for sale it's not as if the payments are going via PayPal connected to an eBay listing so that people would at least have someone to complain to. You can say people need to be wise, but if you post up saying you want something and a member gets in touch to say they have it then what are you going to do? Of course you're going to send them the money - it was the whole point of putting up the wanted ad in the first place! It's difficult to suggest what precautions people should take because clearly they can't expect anyone to send them the goods before they've sent the money.

Experience has shown us that the same individual will be doing this on multiple forums. Some research was done and we found one guy had been popping up and doing this all over the place. The restrictions are there to prevent these crooks from casually browsing through our forum looking for these opportunities to rip people off. Yes, they could sign up, spend a few weeks posting away to get access to the forum and then start looking, but that's a lengthy process which makes their whole business that much more difficult, and it also prevents them just instantly signing up with a new account when they've been caught out. It does seem to be detering them up to now. If they can't even see our marketplace they go and do their dodgy dealing elsewhere.

Hopefully that explains it a bit better for you.
 
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
Top