"The" Rares List Guide - Do not ask about new UR's!

[DaDwarf]

Sorry to interrupt, I had a question about one of our new rares list options.
One of them DD mentioned was:

Remove higher demand pets and have them in a seperate post with trades linked so people can get an idea what they could pay plus leave rest as is with minir edits.

I'm just curious about this and want to know a bit more. My first instinct to this says that it could just make demand skyrocket and get all sorts of insanity. I just want to know what the real benefit of this would be? I understand that removing demand pets from the rares list could help, especially with giving them a range so it's easier for demand to fluctuate and easier to deal with. I guess my worry is just that having it be like this, is there a chance demand would spike for these even more than what we're dealing with now?

Well, people have expressed that a range might just make pets go for only the hoghest of their range so the alternative was to just have a complilation of trades pets went for with dates when they went for that so that people can judge by themselves what they want to trade? If they see 5 trades for a sunback being two nons and one for it going for three then hopefully theyd understand that two is fairer then three would be?

So it would give more of a visual then a range would do?

[nickjr]

@Imabox that all makes sense but you didn't actually address my concern, I think? xD

"that number best represents that population without getting every single person to respond"
Isn't there a missing modifier here?? 0.o shouldn't this be "that number of randomly selected people best represents that population without getting every single person to respond" and I'm still not convinced that self-selected poll answerers are randomly selected

and I thought that the error margin is supposed to account for the variation and risk that comes with randomness, not the heavy bias in self-selection?

[ElementalInsanity]

Well, people have expressed that a range might just make pets go for only the hoghest of their range so the alternative was to just have a complilation of trades pets went for with dates when they went for that so that people can judge by themselves what they want to trade? If they see 5 trades for a sunback being two nons and one for it going for three then hopefully theyd understand that two is fairer then three would be?

So it would give more of a visual then a range would do?

Oh, alright that makes a bit more sense. I'm definitely more into visuals like that, the picture rares list is what's helped me the best, tbh.
I guess my worry with that is that people would see those trades and then demand more than two nons, which then means the normal would be three nons and so forth? Or is that not a worry with this?

[Imabox]

@nickjr There are different types of selection. A random selection is just one form of selections you can use for a survey, but it's not the only option. Random selections are used to give an equal opportunity and prevent bias from the researcher. Which there would be no bias from the research (aka us) and no it's not going to be a 100% equal opportunity because it would involve people who just see the forum(s) that the poll is going to be in, but it's the closest to it that we can get while still getting a good sample size.

In this situation if we were to send 400 messages out asking for their response it wouldn't help us at all. They might not respond, they might not trade at all, they might not use the list or care about the list. Doing it randomly (through like PMs - even if we send out enough to get 400 responses) vs creating a poll isn't going to alter the accuracy. Our focus is to get a proper representation of the population (that trades or uses the list). The poll is just the easiest way to do it.

No we are not randomly selected who answers, but the only restriction we are giving is which thread(s) we are putting the poll in and people might not view the thread(s), however it shouldn't matter because it we post it here or like the FTT we will be getting a representation of people who actually trade. All we care about is what people think is the best change to the list. To be honest we don't even need it to be perfect since this isn't a research project. And again if self-section wasn't a reliable source it would never be used, but it is. Not just for those catchy headline article, but proper research as well...even in person. People will post flyers on walls asking people to help with their labs and research projects. They are not directly going to people asking them to do...people are choosing to go of their own accord.

To sum of all this the reason we would post a poll in the FTT or this thread instead of sending out a random PM to everyone is because it is easier and would get us a better representation of traders which are the people who matter here.

@ElementalInsanity No I'd say it's a concern as well because that is kind of the issue we currently have. Solloby brought it up earlier that the big issue we have is people are offering the highest amount for a pet, but then want an even higher offer if they trade off that pet. To be honest I'm not sure of the best way to address the issue, but it is very much is an issue. In proper world people would see them asking for higher than what they go for and say no way I'm not going to pay that, but sadly they ARE paying that much. Someone paid a Non for their Raven and holds an auction wanting a UR Phoenix for their Raven even when ever offer in the auctions is a Sorbet. Normally people would see no way I can try and get a Raven for a Sorbet, but for someone reason traders are going for it and offering the Non or even the Phoenix and then Sorbet isn't the norm anymore. The only way to maybe fix that is to prove through trades that the Raven is only going for a Sorbet so you don't need to offer more than that, but I don't really know if it would fix anything. I might be getting off topic of what you said, but the point is...yes it is something to worry about XD

[namjoon♡]

Well, people have expressed that a range might just make pets go for only the hoghest of their range so the alternative was to just have a complilation of trades pets went for with dates when they went for that so that people can judge by themselves what they want to trade? If they see 5 trades for a sunback being two nons and one for it going for three then hopefully theyd understand that two is fairer then three would be?

So it would give more of a visual then a range would do?

Oh, alright that makes a bit more sense. I'm definitely more into visuals like that, the picture rares list is what's helped me the best, tbh.
I guess my worry with that is that people would see those trades and then demand more than two nons, which then means the normal would be three nons and so forth? Or is that not a worry with this?

Yah, maybe a new person to the rates list and how this all works, may click on one trade and assume that a ur tiger goes for the moon swirl, although it doesn't. What if you did a format like this -

[insert pet picture here]
-pet name-

Fair trade offers
[list=][*] Example 1
[*] Example 2
[*] Example 3[/list]

Over the top/overlay/unfair trades
[list=][*] Example 1
[*] Example 2
[*] Example 3[/list]

Decent/Reasonable/Not too big overtrades
[list=][*] Example 1
[*] Example 2
[*] Example 3[/list]

I don't know if that would be okay - but people will see like a decent amount of overpay vs fair trades vs just out of wack trades. Just throwing out a thought, as this would help me personally.

OR you could do trades that maybe you have received @DaDwarf? Since you've 'made' this along with others, possibly you could post your trades for your joker or raven dog? Just another thought!

OR people from the community can post theirs ?

[DaDwarf]

My trades are the same as any others, theres nothing special orso about my personal trades xD and i didnt make the thread, i actually wasnt even part of the thread until like 2011/2012 and only got ownership in.. 2014/2015 i think? So im just current owner, not the creator of the thread xD

Not to mention that most of my older pets i achieved before any of this greedy demand trend started so i dont think those type of trades reflect much now a days. Like i got my collection joker for an advent which was considered overpay back in 09 lol since its a community effort, trades shown wouldnt have any names on them, just a date of when a trade happened. No usernames numbers or snything, just hyperlink and date.




about a fair/unfair value on trades shown im not sure, i just think itd be a collection of examples what a pet goes for, also showing trades of them going below or for their current list placement (any trades after the rarity change in 2010 perhaps?) so people get an idea what the pet went for and goes for now? I mean we could do a 'considered fair' trade at two nons for the sunback and then everything else is overpay but then youd get the same issue that we have now, that people dont find the list to be relieable because it doesnt match with rates?

[nickjr]

@Imabox -scratches head- I get all of that and those are the exact reasons I also prefer a poll but... ah nevermind lol I think maybe I haven't been explaining myself clearly, so we're just gonna go in circles if I try again lol

@DD I'm not sure what you mean by "since its a community effort, trades shown wouldnt have any names on them, just a date of when a trade happened. No usernames numbers or snything, just hyperlink and date."? Our sharetrade links have the sharing user's ID in them right after the trade ID number.

[DaDwarf]

@nickjr i meant more like, it wouldnt say 'dadwarf made this trade on datehere' but just say ' sumback for thisthis datehere'.

Actually didnt know shared trade links show id numbers lol thats new info to me xD

[ElementalInsanity]

@Imabox See that is part of my worry with doing that, but of course I believe no matter what sort of rares list we do we'll end up having this sort of problem. And no haha, you were on topic with what I was saying. ^^

@sensational If we end up going that route, I would say that's somewhat of a good idea, actually. The problem with that is the never-ending cycle of people seeing the overpay and still considering that the norm. ^^ However, I also agree with DD. Then we would get a majority of people who wouldn't find the list reliable because they wouldn't feel it's matching current rates well.

All in all, I'm growing more fond of the idea of a separate thread that shows demand with current trades or at least in theory. Then like what Imabox and myself have said, we still could just end up with the issue we currently have. Someone seeing most trades the Raven goes for a Sorbet but then wanting more than that because of the one trade with a non. ^^"

[kee;]

I first wanted to say that I have been following along with the discussion the entire time. I've posted a handful of times, but mostly I've just been reading along so I still know what's been discussed.

@sensational- I like most of your idea. I think it may be more useful in the way DD described it though. One of the problems that created this entire discussion was that trading was too rigid, there was no rr for users to decide what they though was fair, unfair, etc. By listing out trades and defining them as fair, slight overpay, etc. wouldn't it be going back to making trading more structured?
I like the idea of having links to trades with each pet, but I think it would be best to just list them with dates and not define them by their fairness, as DD mentioned. This way, users who are looking to trade for a particular pet or trade off one they already have can look at the reference trades and decide for theirself what they think it fair.

I hope I made sense and didn't just repeat what someone else has said. XD

-kee