New classified ad rule makes no sense; please explain.

[Jim Logajan]

The following new addition to the rules makes absolutely no sense and will have really bad consequences; I'd like the MC to reconsider:

"When a member lists an item for sale, please do not comment on the value of the goods offered, unless specifically requested by the original poster."
​

You do realize that the above rule prohibits comments like "I've seen that plane; it is very nice!"?

Does the rule apply to the classified section, or any section? And if a person makes a comment in another thread about the item for sale is that also prohibited?

What if the seller of an airplane says something equivalent to "Those who have seen my airplane and liked it are free to add comments." Would just those people be allowed to comment?

What if a person happens to know that the thing being sold is not as claimed - possibly even dangerous? That definitely is a comment on value! Is your rule ethical then - or a perversion of free expression that had an unintended unethical consequence?

Why are members who are selling being given preference over members who are potential buyers?

What does the MC think it is hoping to accomplish?

If a member posts something for sale in the classifieds and also on, say ebay, t-a-p, barnstormers, or any other online site, does the prohibition extend to commenting on any of those other sites?

Why is this rule even needed when nothing stops a seller from defending their asking price by reference to market guides and exercising their right to engage in good old fashioned sales dialog?

If you have no confidence in the maxim that the antidote to misinformation is information, why even run a discussion forum? There seems to be no confidence that free expression is the best solution to whatever problem you think you are solving, particularly when the rule list just grows and grows.

Why doesn't the MC bother to ask the community for their opinions before implementing these rules?

 

[TMetzinger]

Perhaps they should have said "please don't comment on the price".

It might be polite to just refrain from comment on any classified ad unless you're an interested buyer or are asked to comment by the seller i.e. "Tim's flown this, he can tell you how clean it is". I remember my dad kicking me on the ankle when I chimed in on one of his negotiations once, and from then on I kept my mouth shut and let him make the deal unless I was asked to chime in.

Perhaps this rule is the kick on the ankle.

 

[Henning]

 

[Henning]

I didn't see a new rule personally; I saw same old rule it always has been restated, or do I remember the old rules wrong?

 

[jesse]

sigh...

Seriously guys. We've had a real problem with people instantly trashing the value of an item in classifieds - so much so - that there is no way in hell I'd post an item for sale in our community.

We do not feel that it's appropriate for someone to speak in a negative manner about an item. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't. I believe the above rule is very very close to what the AOPA board has - along with several other boards like Beechtalk.

The MC has been carefully discussing this issue for weeks and this is what we've settled on.

 

[AuntPeggy]

sigh...

Seriously guys. We've had a real problem with people instantly trashing the value of an item in classifieds - so much so - that there is no way in hell I'd post an item for sale in our community.

We do not feel that it's appropriate for someone to speak in a negative manner about an item. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't. I believe the above rule is very very close to what the AOPA board has - along with several other boards like Beechtalk.

The MC has been carefully discussing this issue for weeks and this is what we've settled on.

Thanks for the explanation.

 

[SCCutler]

Realistically, we want folks to be able to use the board as a forum to get things they are selling in front of a qualified audience, but don't care for the rancor that negative comments about the listed items can create.

If you see something listed for sale, and you think it's too expensive, show them by not buying it.

I would not expect too many folks will get upset at a comment like, "Nice plane," or "I'd sure like to buy that!"

 

[steingar]

Perhaps POA isn't the best place to sell such things. There are other venues.

Of course, a software solution seems possible, a special sort of thread that gets automatically locked, for example. Normally, I abhor any suggestion that makes more work for the valiant and utterly unpaid MC. That said, I don't mind making such a suggestion for a problem that is of their own making.

 

[jason]

The following new addition to the rules makes absolutely no sense and will have really bad consequences; I'd like the MC to reconsider:

"When a member lists an item for sale, please do not comment on the value of the goods offered, unless specifically requested by the original poster."
​

You do realize that the above rule prohibits comments like "I've seen that plane; it is very nice!"?

I don't interpret it in that way. That is a statement of condition. Not a statement of value. You'll notice that this is how the thread for Ed's comanche turned out. "This is a really nice plane". Not "This is a nice plane! It's a bargain at twice the price!"

Does the rule apply to the classified section, or any section? And if a person makes a comment in another thread about the item for sale is that also prohibited?

What if the seller of an airplane says something equivalent to "Those who have seen my airplane and liked it are free to add comments." Would just those people be allowed to comment?

What if a person happens to know that the thing being sold is not as claimed - possibly even dangerous? That definitely is a comment on value! Is your rule ethical then - or a perversion of free expression that had an unintended unethical consequence?

Why are members who are selling being given preference over members who are potential buyers?

I really can see what you're saying with this line. The problem is that most people aren't really potential buyers. They're just commenting on the asking price of the item that is for sale. They're basing their comments on nothing more than a couple lines in an ad and a couple of pictures.

What does the MC think it is hoping to accomplish?

There has been a rash of "it's not worth that" comments lately. You'd think that it would be common courtesy to let members sell items. It is not the responsibility of the other members of the community to keep the seller honest, nor to set his/her asking price. Let's assume, for just a minute, that as the owner of the item they may actually know more about its value than some guy who has been browsing barnstormers. After all, they know the actual condition of the item while some random commenter just knows what it says in the ad.

I'll readily admit that many aircraft owners may have unrealistic expectations about what their item will fetch, but that doesn't mean that other disinterested parties should feel free to drive down their asking price. If the price is too high, the item likely won't sell. It may be that the owner of the item expects to take a much lower price, but they are starting high to give themselves room to negotiate. It is not the job of other forum members to drive down the price for the buyer.

If a member posts something for sale in the classifieds and also on, say ebay, t-a-p, barnstormers, or any other online site, does the prohibition extend to commenting on any of those other sites?

Which of those sites allow unmoderated inline comments on the asking price of the item?

If you're asking for an interpretation of the rule. I don't believe it to be a violation of the rule to see an ad on ebay and post a link to it here with a comment on the item for sale. I see it to be a violation to comment on a listing posted on our site by the seller of the item. This is my opinion and is how I will vote if/when a post is reported to us.

Some of my favorite threads on the purple board are the "deal or no deal" threads. In truth, I love people posting links to potential deals and seeing the discussion take place. But a drive by "meh, it's not worth that" isn't the same thing.

Why is this rule even needed when nothing stops a seller from defending their asking price by reference to market guides and exercising their right to engage in good old fashioned sales dialog?

If you have no confidence in the maxim that the antidote to misinformation is information, why even run a discussion forum? There seems to be no confidence that free expression is the best solution to whatever problem you think you are solving, particularly when the rule list just grows and grows.

In truth, I agree with you. This rule shouldn't be needed. I believe that it is just common courtesy to not comment on the asking price of a negotiation that you're not involved in. In practice, though, people can't seem to stop themselves.

I believe that a seller should need to (and will have to) defend his asking price while in negotiations with an interested buyer. I don't believe that he should have to defend his asking price to an uninvolved third party who has done next to no market research. If the price is too high, he will have no interested buyers. I agree that the market works. It doesn't need any help from people not involved in the transaction.

Why doesn't the MC bother to ask the community for their opinions before implementing these rules?

The wording that we used is what is in use over on the red board. I think that we would be open to a rewording of the rule to accomplish the intended goal while minimizing unintended consequences. Feel free to propose new wording here and we may discuss it in private.

 

[Old Geek]

On the other hand, what about this....

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=48460&highlight=airmap

The seller clearly stated that the maps could be updated. I politely inquired "where". After a fashion it was concluded that they couldn't be updated. I had no interest in buying the unit.

 

[poadeleted21]

My $0.02. If I put something up on the Internet for sale with discussion enabled. Feel free to tell me it's overpriced. I would look at it as an opportunity to defend my price and tell you how great my item is, or lower it. I've been shopping for planes for the past few months. Except for 2 sellers, everyone was out of touch or sleazy trying to hock off junk. I have prevented 2 friends from buying extremely overpriced POSes in the past couple of months due to a sleazy seller with $'s in his eyes. My view, if you put it up for the peanut gallery, well, that's what you did. I get what you're trying to do, that's protect sellers but there's a lot of buyers that don't know any better and silence from the panel might be viewed as endorsement.

 

[SCCutler]

There is no problem with public comments on price, so long as the seller has asked for them. Absent that, just exercise some common courtesy and don't "stomp" on for-sale ads.

 

[wabower]

Are questions permitted regarding subjective statements?

If a seller says "this plane is a great value!" is that the end of the discussion?

 

[Henning]

Are questions permitted regarding subjective statements?

If a seller says "this plane is a great value!" is that the end of the discussion?

From the sounds of it, yes, end of discussion, or rather, discussion may not begin. If the OP asks "Is this plane a great value?" then you may begin a discussion. No questions about price/value, no comments about price/value may follow.

 

[poadeleted21]

From the sounds of it, yes, end of discussion, or rather, discussion may not begin. If the OP asks "Is this plane a great value?" then you may begin a discussion. No questions about price/value, no comments about price/value may follow.

Buyer beware then. My buddy recently thought about pulling the trigger on a 172 because it had a shiny 430 (not even WAAS) in the plane. it was at least 100% overpriced. Dude wanted 40,000 for an early 1970s 172 with factory crappy cessna radios, stock interior a hideous paint job and a 430 in it, plane was 3000SMOH and 11,000TT. Unless 430s are selling for 25K these days. I couldn't see it.

 

[Everskyward]

On the other hand, what about this....

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=48460&highlight=airmap

The seller clearly stated that the maps could be updated. I politely inquired "where". After a fashion it was concluded that they couldn't be updated. I had no interest in buying the unit.

Nothing wrong with asking questions but when you get your answer no need to post, "Well then it's only worth $xxx." If you think it's only worth $xxx, that's what you offer to the seller in private.

 

[gismo]

There is no problem with public comments on price, so long as the seller has asked for them. Absent that, just exercise some common courtesy and don't "stomp" on for-sale ads.

I fully concur with a "no stomping" policy but the "new rule" is poorly written if that was the full intent. You might want to try again or at least include an explanation of what's OK and what's not. My personal preference would be something that prohibits anything negative unless the OP asked for comments.

 

[Henning]

There's no real way to write it any better. If it has to be written in legaleze ready to go to court, the situation is lost. People should very well understand the intent of this rule. If they cannot/will-not abide by that as written, a clean up of semantics will do nothing to further the cause. Besides, there is nothing to be done besides remove the post which has been available and used all along.

 

[jason]

Are questions permitted regarding subjective statements?

If a seller says "this plane is a great value!" is that the end of the discussion?

Well, it depends. What I can tell you is how I'll vote when asked to enforce it. Other members of the MC may vary a little but, based on our discussions, I'd say we're all pretty close.

First, of course you may ask questions. We're all enthusiasts and we love looking at and discussing airplanes. IMHO, questions such as

has the tail AD been completed?

or

who performed the engine overhaul

are totally appropriate as they are not calling into question the value of the item. But Questions such as

So it's a horrible paint job that needs to be replaced immediately but still rates a 7/10? Whose method for rating paint jobs is being used?

are out of line.

Once the seller responds with his/her answers, that doesn't mean that it's fair game to follow up with "oh, in that case it's only worth $x0,000". Each interested party is allowed to form their own opinion of the asking price based on the description/pictures/answers.

The truth is that most truly interested parties will probably be asking questions privately as they probably wouldn't want anybody else getting a sense of how good of a deal they are working toward. If they're not a party to the transaction, why are they the enforcer of the asking price in The Classifieds?

Another thing that is in bounds is if you KNOW that something is being misrepresented. To me that does NOT mean that it's ok to call bash a seller that says

It's the finest skyhawk on the market

The buyer is able to make that judgement for themselves.

To me, though, it is ok to point out that an aircraft represented as "No damage history" has an NTSB record after a forced landing in a field that that resulted in a prop strike. In that case, the posting party is grossly misrepresenting the item for sale and, as such, it is likely to be deleted from the board.

The true intent of this rule is to stop the bashing going on when people post items for sale. It's simply not necessary. The truth of the matter is that we'll only investigate and vote on posts that are reported to us through the "reported posts" system. That means that somebody has to be offended enough by the comments to report them (or that one of us reports it ourself). The problem that we've had lately is that there have been a LOT of posts reported for this stuff, but we haven't had a rule that gave us grounds to take action on them. I find it extremely unlikely that somebody will report a post that states

what a bargain! If I had money I'd buy it right now at twice the price!

If it were reported, the MC would vote on it.

You have a ton of knowledge and experience buying and selling aircraft, Wayne. I've personally appreciated your insight into the different makes and models over the years. I hope that if I ever buy an airplane, I'll be lucky enough to have somebody like you to help guide me through the process. We're just trying to make sure that people selling items on our board are treated in a courteous manner. Openly bashing what they're selling or their sales techniques or their asking price simply isn't courteous.

 

[jason]

I fully concur with a "no stomping" policy but the "new rule" is poorly written if that was the full intent. You might want to try again or at least include an explanation of what's OK and what's not. My personal preference would be something that prohibits anything negative unless the OP asked for comments.

I welcome suggestions on a reworded policy. If one of us likes it better we'll propose the change to the rest of the MC and put it to a vote. This is the best that we could come up with. As with any rule, the true definition will come as it's enforced.

 

[comanchepilot]

I'll give it a try:

"Comments pertaining to the monetary or other value of an item for sale, or its appropriateness for a particular use, are subject to the general Terms of Service of use of this website and forum[hyper link the relevant TOS here]. Comments may be edited or deleted in the sole discretion of the owner and management of this website and forum."

Thats what you mean. Sometimes its just easier to a) say it plainly and b) remind people we are all guests here. . .

I've taken in my practice to avoid legalese wherever possible and drafting plain language comments - or if legal verbosity is needed for the sake of a court in the future - drafting an addenda which sets forth in plain English the intent of the parties to the transaction, the discussions had prior to the final agreement and what each side is trying to accomplish. This provides the context not otherwise available - its freely editable by both sides - each side can have a statement - and the agreement controls to the extent the intent differs on a particular issue. you have no idea how that has resolved future problems in language disputes as to what things mean.

 

[Old Geek]

To put it really, really bluntly, does POA want to be a discussion forum or a Trade-A-Plane?

I thought it wanted to be a discussion forum.

 

[jason]

To put it really, really bluntly, does POA want to be a discussion forum or a Trade-A-Plane?

I thought it wanted to be a discussion forum.

Neither, really. We want more than that.

We want to be a welcoming community of pilots and friends. We want to be a resource for both prospective an experienced pilots alike.

We do NOT want to be a cliquish little club that scorns and belittles those that don't live up to our preconceptions of them or their abilities.

 

[gismo]

To put it really, really bluntly, does POA want to be a discussion forum or a Trade-A-Plane?

I thought it wanted to be a discussion forum.

AFaIK, nothing in PoA policy forbids any form of comment regarding an item for sale in the classifieds if said comment is posted in a thread in a discussion forum (i.e. not in classifieds).

 

[jason]

AFaIK, nothing in PoA policy forbids any form of comment regarding an item for sale in the classifieds if said comment is posted in a thread in a discussion forum (i.e. not in classifieds).

Our intent is to curb the stomping in The Classifieds, but the rule makes no mention of that specific subforum.

Other rules still apply as well. If somebody were to start a thread with the purpose of stomping on an ad in The Classifieds it may very well be reported as a personal attack.

Let's just let civility rule. We have traditionally not been oppressive moderators and that isn't likely to change with the addition of this rule. Just play nice and it won't be an issue.

 

[wabower]

Since you have now quoted my post twice, what do you find offensive about the question? The seller's post stated that the paint was 7/10 and in another sentence stated that it was horrible and that he would be repainting it soon. Are those statements consistent in your view?

The Aircraft Bluebook publishes the criteria for using their paint rating methods, and the Aircraft Appraisal Association (of which I'm a member) provides similar guidelines as well as hands-on training to new members. The Purchaser Representative training contains similar materials, and I assume others who provide valuation services do the same. I use all of these services regularly, but have never seen one where 7/10 and horrible are used synonymously. Have you?

I can't remember ever questioning a price on an ad, and usually don't pay much attention to them. But when the ad is accompanied by a lengthy puff piece that is both highly subjective and self-contradictory, it seems logical to ask questions about those specific items. Or does the seller have free rein to say whatever he wants with the knowledge that it must be accepted as true just because he said so?

Well, it depends. What I can tell you is how I'll vote when asked to enforce it. Other members of the MC may vary a little but, based on our discussions, I'd say we're all pretty close.

First, of course you may ask questions. We're all enthusiasts and we love looking at and discussing airplanes. IMHO, questions such as or are totally appropriate as they are not calling into question the value of the item. But Questions such as are out of line.

Once the seller responds with his/her answers, that doesn't mean that it's fair game to follow up with "oh, in that case it's only worth $x0,000". Each interested party is allowed to form their own opinion of the asking price based on the description/pictures/answers.

The truth is that most truly interested parties will probably be asking questions privately as they probably wouldn't want anybody else getting a sense of how good of a deal they are working toward. If they're not a party to the transaction, why are they the enforcer of the asking price in The Classifieds?

Another thing that is in bounds is if you KNOW that something is being misrepresented. To me that does NOT mean that it's ok to call bash a seller that says The buyer is able to make that judgement for themselves.

To me, though, it is ok to point out that an aircraft represented as "No damage history" has an NTSB record after a forced landing in a field that that resulted in a prop strike. In that case, the posting party is grossly misrepresenting the item for sale and, as such, it is likely to be deleted from the board.

The true intent of this rule is to stop the bashing going on when people post items for sale. It's simply not necessary. The truth of the matter is that we'll only investigate and vote on posts that are reported to us through the "reported posts" system. That means that somebody has to be offended enough by the comments to report them (or that one of us reports it ourself). The problem that we've had lately is that there have been a LOT of posts reported for this stuff, but we haven't had a rule that gave us grounds to take action on them. I find it extremely unlikely that somebody will report a post that states If it were reported, the MC would vote on it.

You have a ton of knowledge and experience buying and selling aircraft, Wayne. I've personally appreciated your insight into the different makes and models over the years. I hope that if I ever buy an airplane, I'll be lucky enough to have somebody like you to help guide me through the process. We're just trying to make sure that people selling items on our board are treated in a courteous manner. Openly bashing what they're selling or their sales techniques or their asking price simply isn't courteous.

 

[poadeleted21]

Personally (And I'm not criticizing your policy), being in a buyer's and seller's shoes right now, I'd appreciate the criticism both ways. I posted my plane for sale here, because I was ready to defend the price or lower it (Which I did). It seems to me if you're trying to hock stuff on a message board, you outta be ready to talk about the plane and why you feel its worth the costs, it is a discussion board after all. Again, not trying to criticize the policy, I see where you're coming from. But as a buyer, I'd be much quicker to pick up the phone and call someone about a plane on a message board if the mods didn't only allow glowing praise of the wares. Seems the new policy protects sellers, but from what I've found the buyers need the most protection and a board like this would be helpful in doing so. There's a lot of overpriced junk on the market and I can assure you there's some unwitting buyers that can't see past a snazzy paint job or a pretty GPS. My opinion is, if you post an ad on a message board, your putting it up for critique.

My advice is what you paid for it.

 

[Everskyward]

But as a buyer, I'd be much quicker to pick up the phone and call someone about a plane on a message board if the mods didn't only allow glowing praise of the wares.

No problem with that. You can also privately ask someone here what they think if there is someone's opinion you trust.

 

[gismo]

I welcome suggestions on a reworded policy. If one of us likes it better we'll propose the change to the rest of the MC and put it to a vote. This is the best that we could come up with. As with any rule, the true definition will come as it's enforced.

How about:
"When a member lists an item for sale, please do not post negative or derogatory comments on the value or condition of the goods offered, unless specifically requested by the original poster."

I'd also add a note: "This rule in now way implies that valid questions regarding the item(s) offered cannot be posted".

 

[poadeleted21]

Case in point, You really don't want the seller of the plane mentioned here
http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showpost.php?p=936678&postcount=28

listed on this site with nothing but glowing praise and it seems a couple of folks in the gallery would considering purchasing this plane if they had the money.

Your new policy would protect the seller, that plane and those avionics spent time underwater during the TN floods and were pencil whipped back into service. IIRC the seller also played a role in getting his son killed by strapping on the wrong propeller to a plane that subsequently crashed. Then refused to work with the NTSB/FAA on the crash and did all sorts of unscrupulous things. I wouldn't buy it at 1/10th the asking price and would feel I'd be doing a buyer a good service if I stated as much.

I would have no idea who to PM that might be interested in it, and they would have no idea to PM me so that I could point them to the floods and NTSB reports.

 

[Everskyward]

Case in point, You really don't want the seller of the plane mentioned here
http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showpost.php?p=936678&postcount=28

listed on this site with nothing but glowing praise and it seems a couple of folks in the gallery would considering purchasing this plane if they had the money.

Your new policy would protect the seller, that plane and those avionics spent time underwater during the TN floods and were pencil whipped back into service. IIRC the seller also played a role in getting his son killed by strapping on the wrong propeller to a plane that subsequently crashed. Then refused to work with the NTSB/FAA on the crash and did all sorts of unscrupulous things. I wouldn't buy it at 1/10th the asking price and would feel I'd be doing a buyer a good service if I stated as much.

Jason already addressed that issue here.

Another thing that is in bounds is if you KNOW that something is being misrepresented.

 

[Jim Logajan]

I understand the rule was motivated by good intentions.

But the rule appeared very close on the heels of some mildly irate dialog on this classified ad thread:

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=49993

Tim Winters (but not the OP) publicly objected to a post whose only content was "Good luck." He then quoted the AOPA forum rule that, oddly enough, seems to be identical to the rule the MC has been discussing for weeks. (Though the MC did add a "please.")

So - was the "good luck" sincere or cynical? This is the kind of question the MC will be called on to vote on. Doesn't really matter what your vote would be, you'd find yourself adjudicating ugly ambiguous cases. If you are willing to keep the rule and put in the effort it may require, maybe you should consider charging an advertising fee. Otherwise the sellers get the benefit of free advertising (the kind where feedback isn't possible) at your expense (in time.)

Also - if the members of the MC would please go to Amazon.com or even many aviation product sales sites, please note that customers are allowed to post unflattering reviews of products, including berating of the sales price. Retailers would normally be expected to want to suppress negative comments, since they would cut into sales. Yet all these sites have realized the psychological dynamics that makes it advantageous to allow such comments.

So the ripped-off AOPA rule is actually contrary to the public comment policies employed by the most successful online retailers.

If you could simply remove the rule I for one would still appreciate it. If you must have a rule, how about a nice generic one like "Show respect at all times." But of course you already have that in the Rules of Conduct

Thank you for considering my views.

 

[timwinters]

Jim, your Tilley is ugly and I wouldn't give you $1 for it if you tried to sell it.



Seriously...common courtesy is all anyone is looking for...and "good luck" wasn't the ONLY post I was referring to...was it?

I mean, you conveniently failed to mention the:

Wow... I just got a MINT and I mean Mint 172m. Origional paint, windows and interior are perfect. Bought from the second owner that had it over 30 years. 2600tt and 900 smoh. Paid $30,500.
Being priced right is what sells....

And that was the one that was really over the top and drove my commentary.

Besides, I'm really trying to understand why this would cause you and Wayne so much butt hurt. What's the issue? Is it that hard to remain silent and show someone respect and courtesy?

I'm really having a hard time understanding the vehement opposition.

 

[JoeSelch]

...

Besides, I'm really trying to understand why this would cause you and Wayne so much butt hurt. What's the issue? Is it that hard to remain silent and show someone respect and courtesy?

I'm really having a hard time understanding the vehement opposition.

They're butt hurt because Scott M is no longer here to be butt hurt for them.

(btw, I'm a fan of common courtesy and don't think there's really any way to write that into a rule such that the tender-butts won't find way to object ... Kinda like common sense, tricky)

 

[Everskyward]

So the ripped-off AOPA rule is actually contrary to the public comment policies employed by the most successful online retailers.

We are not an online retailer. The Classifieds section is provided as a courtesy to our members who want to advertise something. If you look at Trade-a-Plane online, Barnstormers or Controller.com you don't see any comments.

 

[Henning]

Wow, well I want in on a big whoppin' slice of butthurt too...WTFFMD

 

[Tom-D]

I believe this whole thread isn't worth the internet space it takes up, with way too many posts, and stuff like this can bee had for a lot less.

 

[Alexb2000]

I believe this whole thread isn't worth the internet space it takes up, with way too many posts, and stuff like this can bee had for a lot less.

No kidding. I just got a mint and I mean MINT classified ad rule, original wording, font, punctuation, it has everything, even low TT for WAY less than this language cost.

Good Luck!

 

[wabower]

And the results of that policy are obvious when the same ads appear month-after-month with no sale, primarily because the doofus owner is/was clueless about the market for his cream-puff and doesn't plan to do any market research to figure it out. But maybe the publications like it because it increases ad revenue.

1. That's what I've got in it.
2. That's what they're selling for in Trade-a-plane.
3. I figure it only takes one buyer at my price.
4. That's what it's worth to me.
5. If I can't sell it for that price I'll keep it.
6. The only calls I get are sorry-ass lowball tire-kickers buyers anyway.

But I'd be the first to agree that we certainly don't want anybody who wants to sell his pride and joy to suffer even the slightest discomfort to his tiny-hiney. Would it be possible to get an audio of the "polite muted golf applause" that would play any time such listings are posted?:wink2:

We are not an online retailer. The Classifieds section is provided as a courtesy to our members who want to advertise something. If you look at Trade-a-Plane online, Barnstormers or Controller.com you don't see any comments.

 

[jason]

Since you have now quoted my post twice, what do you find offensive about the question? The seller's post stated that the paint was 7/10 and in another sentence stated that it was horrible and that he would be repainting it soon. Are those statements consistent in your view?

I've actually only quoted it once. I had first included a link to your reply in my original response to the thread, but quickly edited it out as I didn't think it fair to call out specific members without them being involved in the thread.

Honestly, what I didn't like about your question is that you didn't answer it in the way that you did in this post. You're an amazing encyclopedia of aircraft purchasing and ownership information. We can all learn a lot from what you know. But sometimes it just comes out as belittling. I really like you and I know that others here do as well. It's just hard to look at what you wrote to this guy and not read it as belittling and "know it all"...even if you do.

The Aircraft Bluebook publishes the criteria for using their paint rating methods, and the Aircraft Appraisal Association (of which I'm a member) provides similar guidelines as well as hands-on training to new members. The Purchaser Representative training contains similar materials, and I assume others who provide valuation services do the same. I use all of these services regularly, but have never seen one where 7/10 and horrible are used synonymously. Have you?

I can't remember ever questioning a price on an ad, and usually don't pay much attention to them. But when the ad is accompanied by a lengthy puff piece that is both highly subjective and self-contradictory, it seems logical to ask questions about those specific items. Or does the seller have free rein to say whatever he wants with the knowledge that it must be accepted as true just because he said so?

No, they're not allowed to post known inaccuracies. However it's hard to disprove puffery ("best skyhawk kwown to man" stuff)...and there is no point in trying to do so. Feel free to ask questions. It'd just be nice if the questions were friendly. This should be a place where people gather to talk about airplanes and flying. If I were standing on a ramp talking to a guy about an airplane that he was selling, I'd ask him questions and learn about what he was selling. I wouldn't tell him that he's out of his mind. Let's just all be friendly to each other.

This rule is NOT meant to be a blank check for sellers to post anything they want. It's meant to curb people from jumping all over listings to trash them before the conversation has a chance to play out.