New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
I would like to propose that the "no sniping" rule that @DP and others add to their domain auctions is added to the LET rules.
This is to avoid situations where a sniper wins by a few seconds, like this one: https://lowendtalk.com/discussion/comment/4728094/#Comment_4728094
Sometimes there's an auction that I'm interested in but I don't bid when I see that there is no "no sniping" rule.
While I understand your perspective, my personal inclination would be not to make "no sniping" an obligatory rule of auctions on LET
A general remark is that many (if not most) online auctions don't have a no-sniping rule. Most notably, eBay doesn't have a no-sniping rule for their auctions
The other consideration would be the task of enforcing a no-sniping rule properly. There's already a lot of variation among users who hold auctions as to how well (or how poorly) they run their auctions, and if there were a no-sniping rule in addition, this would be yet another rule that users who hold auctions may not apply properly, which would mean more moderation effort on the part of others
Independently of the sniping at the end, that auction is a good example of a user who held an auction but didn't run the auction well
Ah fair enough. Thanks for sharing your point of view, I think you are right. I'll just disregard auctions without that rule.
You know, another perspective is that if one bids high enough in an auction, then one scares away any potential sniper
eBay doesn't show the highest bid, eBay shows that bid that was beat. So even if you are trying to snipe you need to bid higher than what you think the highest bid will be. Also on eBay, you often win for less than the bid you made. Here you can always see the bid you are bidding against, making sniping different than eBay sniping. Comparing this site to website like eBay is unfair because the format is different. Auctions here are more like traditional in person auctions. At in person auctions, the bidding continues until nobody else wants to raise a new bid.
Fair enough -- it's been a long time since I've bid for anything on eBay!
My main point was that if we introduced a no-sniping rule for LET auctions, it would require more moderation effort in order to make sure that the rule was applied correctly in every instance
And it's also the case that a no-sniping rule isn't characteristic of all online auctions
Guerilla marketing
Is this excluding the hosting company's transfer fees or including that?
Any transfer fee that the hosting company asks for -- if they ask for a transfer fee -- is in addition to the selling price for the service
Sometimes the seller offers to pay the transfer fee, sometimes they ask the buyer to
In any case, the transfer fee (if there is one) should be identical to the fee that the hosting company asks for
@jbiloh — could we please get a list of hosting providers and hosting representatives with their usernames on LET, displayed on some dedicated page with link located the menu-header of LET? Something like this would make it really helpful for members to know who is who and tag them, or for conversations in private. This could also be updated when a provider gets a provider or representative tag, making it an additional feature for provider's exposure.
Let the users decide, if a hosting can stay or aren't allowed to join let.
Again in 2026 hosts get flagged by disappearing.
Good idea, working on it right now.
lowendtalk was just down now?
Do birthday threads have the same exemption limit with regards to offers as megathreads?
No
A birthday thread is just an ordinary thread that can be started by any user -- nothing special, really
@angstrom - if a provider advertises an offer with a recurring price, but then changes the price before the first billing period ends by more than 100% - should that considered good behaviour?
Something like this can be used to bypass the rules and advertise for example "first billing term offers" as "recurring offers" to attract LET community, then increase payment before renewal and have automated payments charge a higher amount from customer who maybe does not check their email account for notifications with regards to price change (or even LET comments).
@angstrom
@default here refers to my reply, so you have some context on what he is asking. ( read our tread )
do you basically wish to regulate pricing from what I get from our interactions, or wish to lock in an offer for a x period of time?, as the later is defined by the payment term used at acquisition.
While I agree that this behavior isn't great from a customer's perspective, LET doesn't have a rule against it
While you're right that a provider could in principle abuse the notion "recurring price/offer", in practice, we've seen very few cases of such abuse
Our strategy would be to examine suspected cases of such abuse as they arise or are brought to our attention, bearing in mind (of course) that there can be legitimate reasons for price increases or for decisions to cancel services
@yoursunny
The price should be fair from beginning. The host is to blame for it, but as always, cheap and fast money beföre thinking and then loosing more because lost clients.
Hi @jbiloh,
I purchased the Patron Provider Tag Membership and submitted the required application ticket. How long does the review usually take?Thank you.
7 mths
Is that true? Does it really take seven months?
> @timmmy said: