RandomGuy
06-23-2006, 02:13 AM
Nothing at all personal in the post. Just one rule which I see is pretty stupid.
The rule where you must have a picture of the item. Yes, pictures are good.
But what can a picture of the actual item prove, which a stock photo can't.
Ok, say the item is BRAND spanking new. Never touched. What difference is there between that, and the manufacturer's pictures?
I understand that it'd be a good idea to have the actual picture for a used item, or something which is not brand new, but this rule is kind of stupid.
I don't know if its serious enough for you guys, but this problem is now very serious to me. I had a buyer for an item which costed 1000+$, thats money I could have gotten back... but now my money is still in the middle. The buyer didn't see the thread when he wanted to post his interest.
Anyways its not even about my situation. I for one am not complaining, IA is the shit, and free advertising, yeah.... But it could be way better if you can make an amendment to this one stupid rule... about having pics of the exact item. (even over 50$) if the item is brand new. Make it not required to have an exact pic of the item when a stock photo would be sufficient. (in the case that it is brand new)
All i'm askin for is that if its a new item, what is the need for having an exact pic. Sure pictures are easy to take, but in the case you can't take one... It does get a little hard at times, sometime the item isn't right in front of you, you forget, etc, and you need the $ asap...
anyways this post isnt dogging you at all, just a simple suggestion. I'm sure a bunch of others will think its legit.
The rule where you must have a picture of the item. Yes, pictures are good.
But what can a picture of the actual item prove, which a stock photo can't.
Ok, say the item is BRAND spanking new. Never touched. What difference is there between that, and the manufacturer's pictures?
I understand that it'd be a good idea to have the actual picture for a used item, or something which is not brand new, but this rule is kind of stupid.
I don't know if its serious enough for you guys, but this problem is now very serious to me. I had a buyer for an item which costed 1000+$, thats money I could have gotten back... but now my money is still in the middle. The buyer didn't see the thread when he wanted to post his interest.
Anyways its not even about my situation. I for one am not complaining, IA is the shit, and free advertising, yeah.... But it could be way better if you can make an amendment to this one stupid rule... about having pics of the exact item. (even over 50$) if the item is brand new. Make it not required to have an exact pic of the item when a stock photo would be sufficient. (in the case that it is brand new)
All i'm askin for is that if its a new item, what is the need for having an exact pic. Sure pictures are easy to take, but in the case you can't take one... It does get a little hard at times, sometime the item isn't right in front of you, you forget, etc, and you need the $ asap...
anyways this post isnt dogging you at all, just a simple suggestion. I'm sure a bunch of others will think its legit.