Trade Participation on Pricescope

[Lynn B]

ETA: I respectfully disagree with David. So what is Member A wants to buy Member B's ring and arrangements are made via a PM? How is PS in any way "liable" for this? As Maisie said, we are all adults here.

Lynn, I see your point, but I respectfully disagree on this one for a couple of reasons.

Pricescope states that it provides a place where people can come to learn without feeling as though they're being solicited or pressured. While private transactions aren't quite the same, they are nonetheless sales transactions which strips the claim of a solicitation free environment.

What's not being considered is that PS's name and reputation is most visible at risk if a transaction goes awry. Already, a PS member has posted about a private transaction with another PSer claiming she didn't get paid, and there's all this back and forth about what each party's responsibilities ought to be. If I were a newcomer to PS and read about that, I'd likely be concerned that this may not be a safe haven.

What about the possible damage by word of mouth in other places? I can easily see someone going to other forums saying "Oh, I got ripped off by a member of PS." That strikes against PS's reputation. Beyond that, i can just about guarantee that somewhere down the line, the argument will be made that PS provided the connection and should have done more to protect its members. The courts are full of claims like this, whether it's eBay or other venues.

It's great to think we're all adults here, and yes, most of us behave like it. But it only takes a few who don't to damage the whole.

Interesting perspective, thanks for sharing.

So if that is indeed a legitimate problem, then perhaps a solution (if PMs are brought back and a possible "solution" is even being requested ) is to make that part of the PM "rules". Something like, "In line with PS's mission to maintain a solicitation-free environment, no arrangements may be made to buy or sell via PMs", period. That takes it ALL off of PS. Again, I think that's probably unnecessary, and personally part of what I think is the *problem*... too many rules! But at least there's a legitimate reason that can be drilled down and found with that one.

Now would that prevent people from taking this hypothetical transaction off of PS altogether to say, FB or to e-mail? Nope, absolutely not. Does that matter to anyone here at PS? IMHO, it certainly shouldn't! PS's "hand" can ONLY reach so far! And besides, according to TGal, at least 50 Moms could be buying and selling right now behind the scenes to their hearts content. Not to mention everyone else who has ever met at a GTG or otherwise has "contact" off of PS.

 

[that_someone_special]

I don't know- I have already seen enough PS bashing on other forums about the website, the jewelry, the people and mods that I doubt it would make a difference. You know it's one thing to bash ps and not be a member, but it's another thing to be (or used to be until fairly recently) an active ps member and still bash it. Even if they are using different names on the other forums... Umm.. Hello... Your jewelry stays the same!

 

[Maisie]

That was very cryptic Bean. Care to explain further?

 

[that_someone_special]

Ahhh.. I don't know if this is the right place for this, but when the search function kinda went ka-plooie I used google to find some threads I was looking for so I would do "Such and such and such Pricescope" on google. Wasn't able to find a thread but found a few places where people were talking about ps in a negative way. I even found a post about someone posting a sim on here and seeing if PS people would know it wasn't a real diamond.

The thing is.. is that some people have the same name here as on other forums, or the same picture, but even if they change all of that they still have the same jewelry, so it isn't that hard to find that person on here.

That particular instance was like 2 weeks ago, but I've seen things a few times. Sorry for the off topic. I've been wanting to bring this up but wasn't sure if I could or should..

 

[LtlFirecracker]

I feel that having the option of PM's on PS would better protect my privacy than some of the other ways people have been finding each other.

And once again, I agree with Lynn about PS isolating itself from blogs/social networking sites. That is where internet traffic is going, pretending those places don't exist will not keep people on PS and away from those sites.

Another thing I don't get. PS is on Twitter, and I followed them for awhile. In less than 2 days I had full names of posters regularly on this form. I actually stopped following PS because my twitter account is my full name.

I also think all this discussion with no action has been very discouraging. I was so hopefully that many of the ideas in the suggestion box would be taken. Than PS 2 loaded, and nothing has changed. However, to not be totally neg, the mods did a good job of taking the suggestion I made, PS2 is more Mac friendly for sure.

 

[Allison D.]

So if that is indeed a legitimate problem, then perhaps a solution (if PMs are brought back and a possible "solution" is even being requested ) is to make that part of the PM "rules". Something like, "In line with PS's mission to maintain a solicitation-free environment, no arrangements may be made to buy or sell via PMs", period. That takes it ALL off of PS. Again, I think that's probably unnecessary, and personally part of what I think is the *problem*... too many rules! But at least there's a legitimate reason that can be drilled down and found with that one.

If it really were that simple, I have to think that would have been done already. Declaring what the law of the land is doesn't automatically get compliance, and there's not enough moderator manpower to effectively enforce it.

Lynn, several of us in this thread have noted that in the early days there were very few rules; heck, you could nearly fit them onto a 3 x 5 index card. So what happened; why did admin decide to add more rules? Because people behaved in ways that weren't acceptable to the community, and each new rule added was the product of trying to stop those behaviors.

Again, I am very much in agreement with you that the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction and needs to be righted, but I don't personally believe reinstating PMs would benefit PS. There are many other restrictions that could be relaxed to create a more open place.

Now would that prevent people from taking this hypothetical transaction off of PS altogether to say, FB or to e-mail? Nope, absolutely not. Does that matter to anyone here at PS? IMHO, it certainly shouldn't! PS's "hand" can ONLY reach so far! And besides, according to TGal, at least 50 Moms could be buying and selling right now behind the scenes to their hearts content. Not to mention everyone else who has ever met at a GTG or otherwise has "contact" off of PS.

If I'm reading this right, the premise here is "since there's no way to prevent people from connecting in other venues, what's the point of trying to prevent it on PS? People can go somewhere else and do it anyway." For me, that's akin to saying "well, there's no way to absolutely prevent a someone determined enough from finding a way to break into my house, so I may as well just leave all the doors and windows open at night and disable the security alarm." The fact that someone could break in despite my precautions doesn't mean I want to make it easy for them, especially since the result would be harmful to everyone who lives in my house.

Carrying that analogy, I may realize that guests in my home are capable adults who may not worry at all if I leave the windows and doors unlocked/open. They may even do this themselves at their own homes. But, if they were to be robbed while staying at my house where *I* made the decision to leave the doors unlocked/open, it would be hard for me not to feel at least somewhat as though my judgment contributed to the problem.

But, devil's advocate for a moment. If your contention is that PS can't prevent people from connecting in other venues, doesn't that also make the case that PMs aren't really needed since people can easily connect in other places? An enormous number of PS regulars have managed to do so despite not having PMs.

ETA: I should say, though, that it hasn't been my intent to start a debate about the usefulness of PMs, and I don't have an interest in perpetuating it. I've intentionally abstained from participating in similar discussions about them, but I couldn't bite my tongue anymore in seeing people insist that the loss of PS was attributable only to vendor solicitation especially since I was a consumer when it happened.

 

[Lee Little]

Watching this thread from a distance, it seems that PM's are a tiny piece of the puzzle but nonetheless an important one. If PM's are automatically off at the start then each person has the option to turn on PM's it seems it would be fair. If a person does not want them then just leave them off.
PM's do keep traffic on site rather than requiring them to go elsewhere to connect. I rarely use PM's so it is not very important to me personally but I would like to be able to put my email in my signature. Email boxes are much easier to keep organized and hold much more than a PM box so generally I move PM's to email if there will be considerable exchange. Best regards, Lee

 

[D&T]

I don't think PMs are the solution. When PS 1.0 had no PMs, there was still a TON of traffic. Traffic is way down on PS 2.0 because many people just do not like the new site.

I've followed this thread just to see what resolutions would come of it, and I'm not much into debating or negativism, but I do agree with Laila here, sorry to go slightly off topic. The new format is not as user friendly as before. I used to post more often to help others when they needed help finding pictures or links since I'm not as knowledgeable in a techical sense so I try to help out in other ways. tje New PS 2.0 is more time cosuming now, more regulations about pictures without Logos (If i find a pictures from past threads with logos, I have to copy to my own desktop, remove logos and reupload, with the extra html stuff- oops I copied and placed in the end of the bracket, nevermind, gotta go back and delete, where is my dang cursor...etc and the added extra steps to link to pictures is just that much more longer process for me to help out (where before, I could just do a click, copy drag drop, with logos or not, therefore threads that I would normally open to quickly link or paste a picture, I don't jump so quickly, even logging on, is a chore, once logged on, I'm back to my profile page or main page, and now I have to hunt down the thread that I actually want to comment on, if I'm not already logged on. Search Function needs some serious attention as well, 75% of my search comes up as "no suitable matches found". Sorry maybe this needs to go into the troubleshooting thread

 

[psadmin]

I feel that having the option of PM's on PS would better protect my privacy than some of the other ways people have been finding each other.

And once again, I agree with Lynn about PS isolating itself from blogs/social networking sites. That is where internet traffic is going, pretending those places don't exist will not keep people on PS and away from those sites.

Another thing I don't get. PS is on Twitter, and I followed them for awhile. In less than 2 days I had full names of posters regularly on this form. I actually stopped following PS because my twitter account is my full name.

I also think all this discussion with no action has been very discouraging. I was so hopefully that many of the ideas in the suggestion box would be taken. Than PS 2 loaded, and nothing has changed. However, to not be totally neg, the mods did a good job of taking the suggestion I made, PS2 is more Mac friendly for sure.

Hi LtlFirecracekr,

All the suggestions are taken into account even PM, but as you can all see both Lynn and Allison have excellent thought out opposing arguments. Many of the other features are also in the same boat and I am looking at it from various considerations.

With PS 2.0 being only in its first 3 months I have been focusing on the stability and functionality as DT kindly has pointed some out being most important at this time such as the "Search functionality". Once things are more stable and easier to use you will then see many suggestions in the works.

I do appreciate everyones suggestion about the functionality and there general opinion, but I would like to bring back the focus to the trade participation at this time.

And kindly request that new features and suggestions are added to the suggestion box area located here:
https://www.pricescope.com/forum/suggestion-box-help-pricescope-improve/.

For everyones convenience there is a PM thread already started and is available here:
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/an-alternative-to-pms.130670/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/an-alternative-to-pms.130670/[/URL]

In addition for those that have not noticed the new platform has given us the functionality to have a members only section.
At this time we have created the area for member get together for some privacy aspect and considering moving certain forums such as The Family & Home so threads like the PS mommies can have more privacy.

 

[John P]

After reading everyone suggestions I am making the following changes immediately...

Thank you for the update and changes Andrey.

 

[John P]

Regarding PM reinstatement - and remembering that this thread is about Trade Participation (hey look, it's the on-topic killjoy!):

I was once a diamond consumer; a long time ago on a board far, far away. As a newbie I was approached by trade members privately, offering to make me “better deals” than those discussed in public threads. I don’t recall if it was against policy in that place and time but I remember the “hush-hush” nature of the exchanges eventually left a bad taste. As a result I was more comfortable dealing with the sellers making public comments. That was me, though. I liked the safety of the public chorus more than the secret and seductive whispers... But they were indeed seductive (!) and I have no doubt that many other sales were quietly converted in that manner.

Four years later, after becoming a member of the trade, I wound up learning how deep two rabbit holes go: (1) The scandalous behavior of some of the “professionals” in the big world of diamonds & jewelry. (2) The profound level of ingrained suspicion maintained by many in the business (no offense intended friends). For some it seems like a natural defense mechanism. Perhaps the two rabbit holes are related?

My opinions on this subject (both trade and consumer) are in-line with Allison’s but if, as Andrey says, PMs are again being considered:

1. I suggest they be for consumers-only: Trade members are given links in their signatures. Any consumer who wants to make private contact can do so via linked website. Giving trade members PMs in this environment fosters suspicion that "seller X is reading threads and using PMs to interfere with YZ sales-in-progress (sic)..." Regardless of whether it’s happening or not, the existence of unmonitored private channels for sellers is suspicion-fodder for whispered rumors, speculation, accusation and nonsense – especially since monkeyshines happened back when PMs existed before, and several current vendors (perhaps more than I know) suspect or have confirmed that they were burned.

2. Social networks are everywhere. Cyber "gangs" cannot be controlled by Pricescope. People will find somewhere to do it. I certainly understand the Admin's desire to keep PS from becoming an embattled subterranean circus of cliques, shills and grudge-crusaders. If the decision is made to open the PM gates will it be possible to monitor for policy abuses like shilling, spamming, campaigns against vendors/individuals, saying "ni" to old ladies, gangmongering, etc? I know another private forum that calls their message system "DM" for "direct messaging" to defeat the notion of absolute privacy. They let it be known that moderators read all DMs. Hooliganism is forbidden.

Speaking of forbidden, I respect the fact that these comments are being allowed. Forum policies prevent “venting” about forum policies and I apologize to the moderators if addressing PMs relative to consumers is overstepping the latitude granted for the topic at hand.

 

[that_someone_special]

To stay on topic then, I'm going to say that once trade members leave, I think regular consumers have and will leave as a result.
So while this thread IS about trade participation, I think there is a much larger picture that is affecting trade participation and people leaving the site. But, I am only saying this as a rocky talk lurker.

 

[risingsun]

I guess that we are posting about PM's in this thread because of the potential for abuse by trades people and others soliciting business. I belong to several very large forums, larger than PS. All of them have PM's. These forums have high ticket items, so there is potential for shilling and other abuses. The rules are simple. No buying and selling via emails. If such transactions are discovered, you are banned from the site. I was approached by another poster and I responded by reminding her of the rules. I never heard from her again. We also have a report PM function for our PM's, if needed. We have something called the Market Place. This is a forum where you can buy and sell goods. There are requirements to belong to the MP and you have to apply to be considered. I'm not suggesting this for PS, but it does work on other forums. There are things I would like to say to other posters, with whom I have become close. I don't want to do it on the boards, if it is of a personal nature. My experience with PM's has been extremely positive. I will continue to advocate for PM's. I think it enhances forums, such as these, and it keeps the members on PS instead of other sites.

 

[Karl_K]

To stay on topic then, I'm going to say that once trade members leave, I think regular consumers have and will leave as a result.
So while this thread IS about trade participation, I think there is a much larger picture that is affecting trade participation and people leaving the site. But, I am only saying this as a rocky talk lurker.

not really, there are maybe 3 or 4 threads a week where trade input would be helpful.
The rest of them are handled very well by the pro-sumers.
The decimation of the pro-sumer ranks is a much more serious problem than lack of trade members.
Adding more trade members into the mix would be a very bad idea if they have the wrong attitude toward pro-sumers.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Regarding PM reinstatement - and remembering that this thread is about Trade Participation (hey look, it's the on-topic killjoy!):

Saying "ni" to old ladies

Oh, what sad times are these when passing ruffians can say Ni at will to old ladies. There is a pestilence upon this land, nothing is sacred. Even those who arrange and post in forums are under considerable economic stress in this period in history

We will say "Ni" to you again if you do not appease us.
We are now the Knights who say... "Ekki-Ekki-Ekki-Ekki-PTANG. Zoom-Boing. Z'nourrwringmm. "

 

[that_someone_special]

To stay on topic then, I'm going to say that once trade members leave, I think regular consumers have and will leave as a result.
So while this thread IS about trade participation, I think there is a much larger picture that is affecting trade participation and people leaving the site. But, I am only saying this as a rocky talk lurker.

not really, there are maybe 3 or 4 threads a week where trade input would be helpful.
The rest of them are handled very well by the pro-sumers.
The decimation of the pro-sumer ranks is a much more serious problem than lack of trade members.
Adding more trade members into the mix would be a very bad idea if they have the wrong attitude toward pro-sumers.

I don't really disagree with anything you've said. But what I'M saying is that anyone leaving PS- trade members, prosumers or consumers is not good for PS.I guess I could liken it to an eco system where PS needs a balance of all people and one "group" going extinct would not be good for any of us. What good is this site if it is only trade members? Or only prosumers and consumers? There is a fine line..

Yes, adding more trade into the mix would be bad if they don't like prosumers, but then again, everyone leaving PS wouldn't be that great either. Bigger picture..

 

[perry]

All the suggestions are taken into account even PM, but as you can all see both Lynn and Allison have excellent thought out opposing arguments. Many of the other features are also in the same boat and I am looking at it from various considerations.

... Cut Section ...

For everyones convenience there is a PM thread already started and is available here:
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/an-alternative-to-pms.130670/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/an-alternative-to-pms.130670/[/URL]

... Cut Section ...

Despite the fact that the PM discussion in this thread might be considered a hijack of the original topic - it started as a relevant discussion.

The referenced previous thread shows both the benefits and problems of older threads. Yes, there is a previous thread - which in my opinion did not delve into the issue near as well as this thread has; but, the problem with PS in general - and PS 2 in specific is how would we find it if we wanted to discuss the issues? Also, like a great many subject that are discussed every so often - why would we want to find an old thread versus having a current discussion - which speaks to the nature of PS in general.

Concerning PM's: I think someone should summarize all of the pro's and con's identified in this thread - and then they should become part of a FAQ page on PM's and their history on PS - regardless if they are restated or not.

Have a great day,

Perry

 

[John P]

not really, there are maybe 3 or 4 threads a week where trade input would be helpful.
The rest of them are handled very well by the pro-sumers.

With respect to my friend Karl who - like me - has been on both sides of the consumer/trade relationship, I feel the sentences above may be limited in scope.

In The Time Machine HG Wells projects a world where two classes cease healthy interaction and civilization dissolves until neither group is whole anymore... Without technological expertise the upper class' knowledge base is diluted over time until they become cattle; blithely repeating each day. And without a social hierarchy to guide morality and resource-allocation the working class become monsters; maintaining the world's infrastructure only so they can feed on the cattle.

Mind you, I'm not painting myself or my peers as light-sensitive cannibals. I'm saying that Wells' novel is classic for a reason: It illustrates that a healthy symbiosis is critical for the continued evolution of interactive classes in a community.

Yes, adding more trade into the mix would be bad if they don't like prosumers, but then again, everyone leaving PS wouldn't be that great either. Bigger picture..

Agree with both Karl and Bean on this - which is why the word healthy is emphasized.

Cheers,

 

[John P]

We are now the Knights who say... "Ekki-Ekki-Ekki-Ekki-PTANG. Zoom-Boing. Z'nourrwringmm. "

I didn't know you were called Dennis.

 

[risingsun]

We are now the Knights who say... "Ekki-Ekki-Ekki-Ekki-PTANG. Zoom-Boing. Z'nourrwringmm. "

I didn't know you were called Dennis.

He might be Patsy

I agree with you about trades people not having PM's on this site. It is easy enough to access our trades people, without the risk of PM's facilitating "backroom" deals. How is it fair that PSers can meet through GTG's, but can't speak to each other on PM's. If this is to remain a vibrant community, we need to move forward with the times. If the luxury car forums allow PM's, and they do, what are we afraid of. Please respect the people in this community to behave as adults. If they cannot, then develop consequences for violating forum rules. I believe that fewer rules and swifter consequences could make a difference.

ETA: I would like to point something out. Last January, I suggested that we create a subforum called "Tech Talk," where the posters doing higher level research could take their work and discuss it, argue it and have at it to their heart's content. No one, except Regular Guy, even commented on this suggestion. Now it has become a reality. When I make a suggestion, it is because I think that it truly could make a difference. I would like admin to take my suggestions within this context. It is based upon my work with group dynamics. The PS group has already changed the dynamics by finding other ways to communicate with each other. This is not a secret or a surprise. The group norms have changed. Why not accomodate your core demographic by allowing them to communicate, in private, on this forum.

 

[Regular Guy]

"Trade Participation on Pricescope ....."

....for what. It's not a complete sentence.

Trade participation on Pricescope...for cattle?



Ira Z.

P.S....(eta...)... ummmm......having been lured in by the mirage of seeing this thread go on for days & days...I'll also throw in for PMs. I don't care much about the drama aspect. I'd vote for making it work any way that's reasonable, to include make a minimum number of posts requirement, calling them direct mails, or anything you like. It would help keep some spice. But, it's just a vote, and I'm easy. It's OK to leave them off, too. But, if I had my druthers, I'd allow them to stay, & allow trademembers to participate and behave.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

[quote="risingsun]I didn't know you were called Dennis.

He might be Patsy

Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

 

[risingsun]

[quote="risingsun]I didn't know you were called Dennis.

He might be Patsy

Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

[/quote][/quote]

I'm being repressed!!

We need a subforum for the Python fans

 

[Matata]

I can't remember if this has been suggested yet, but to increase Trade participation, why not invite them (after implementation of the new rules/policies)? PS Admin can issue invites to tradespersons they believe will enhance the forum, maybe give some sort of incentive for newbies.

 

[Lynn B]

... Now would that prevent people from taking this hypothetical transaction off of PS altogether to say, FB or to e-mail? Nope, absolutely not. Does that matter to anyone here at PS? IMHO, it certainly shouldn't! PS's "hand" can ONLY reach so far! And besides, according to TGal, at least 50 Moms could be buying and selling right now behind the scenes to their hearts content. Not to mention everyone else who has ever met at a GTG or otherwise has "contact" off of PS.

If I'm reading this right, the premise here is "since there's no way to prevent people from connecting in other venues, what's the point of trying to prevent it on PS? People can go somewhere else and do it anyway."

Yep, you are basically "reading me right".

For me, that's akin to saying "well, there's no way to absolutely prevent a someone determined enough from finding a way to break into my house, so I may as well just leave all the doors and windows open at night and disable the security alarm." The fact that someone could break in despite my precautions doesn't mean I want to make it easy for them, especially since the result would be harmful to everyone who lives in my house.

Carrying that analogy, I may realize that guests in my home are capable adults who may not worry at all if I leave the windows and doors unlocked/open. They may even do this themselves at their own homes. But, if they were to be robbed while staying at my house where *I* made the decision to leave the doors unlocked/open, it would be hard for me not to feel at least somewhat as though my judgment contributed to the problem

Allison,
I'm gonna be really candid here. I usually LOVE your analogies and typically find them extremely well-thought-out and often quite brilliant. But this one, honestly, leaves me scratching my head. Who or what IS this BOOGEY-MAN here? I mean, really?! We are talking about people (a few? a lot? who knows? who cares?) who have a web-site in common potentially talking "behind-the-scenes" about diamonds or what-not... maybe becoming friends... maybe not... maybe meeting...maybe not... whatever it is that people do in similar situations and that is probably being repeated thousands of times a day around the globe?!!!) Maybe I'm just too much of a concrete thinker, but I am just aghast at this (what seems to me to be irrational) level of fear I am seeing and hearing. I just don't understand it. At all.

But, devil's advocate for a moment. If your contention is that PS can't prevent people from connecting in other venues, doesn't that also make the case that PMs aren't really needed since people can easily connect in other places? An enormous number of PS regulars have managed to do so despite not having PMs.

Yes, absolutely! I have tried to make it clear (albeit apparently unsuccessfully so! ) that I do not think that PMs (or DMs as John mentioned) are absolutely necessary for PS to be a growing, thriving site. I think it would be a VERY nice convenience, personally, but my main objection has been (and continues to be) the fact that members are treated like children by not being allowed to choose how much identifying information they wish to share in their profiles or in their posts. Period. That decision being made and enforced for us by management is a large part of what I think is crippling PS.

IMHO, PMs would then just be the icing on the cake.

Did this clarify things a bit? I hope so. Thanks!

ETA: Just trying to get the multiple quoting boxes right!!! OY!!!

 

[Todd Gray]

Regarding PM reinstatement - and remembering that this thread is about Trade Participation (hey look, it's the on-topic killjoy!)

Ha! This reminds me of John trying to get us to stay on topic during the last Infinity Diamond Symposium in Dallas! If you think it's difficult to keep a forum thread on topic, you should try getting a room full of tradespeople who are all eager to ask questions and add their experience to the topic being presented. For the record, since I was sitting next to Peter Yantzer of the AGS Laboratory, I blame him for distracting me with tempting statements such as "Oh that reminds me, this is cool..."

I have to disagree with Karl regarding the statement pertaining to prosumer presence being sufficient to address questions on PS with the understanding that I have tremendous respect for the people who have achieved prosumer status by sharing a passion for diamonds / jewelry and spending endless hours learning about them and sharing their expertise with other people...

While it is true that many of the questions presented on Price Scope have been answered enough times by tradespeople that the prosumers now possess the knowledge (or ability to search the archives) to answer them accurately... I wonder, how much diamond related knowledge would they truly and accurately possess and have access to if it were not for the fact that tradespeople decided to openly and freely share their knowledge on forums such as this to begin with?

What if Holloway never shared his HCA with the public beyond introducing it as a diamond selection tool? What if he never decided to openly discuss the methodology and thought process behind it? What then would you actually know about it?

What if Sergey restricted use of DiamCalc to trade members only? Perhaps Karl would never have possessed the knowledge, nor the tools to create the Octavia. He certainly might not have ever developed a relationship with a trade member to get it produced.

What if independent gemologists such as Neil Beatty, David Atlas, Marty Haske, Bill Lieberumn (deceased) and others never contributed or shared their expertise on public forums? I wonder if even my own trade level relationships would have developed with them to the extent that they have.

"We'd find the information online" is a reasonable initial response... but will you? Do you realize how much of the information shared on PS was initially released as proprietary data cloaked behind password protected walls within trade member only web sites, or released as reports to lab members and then shared with the public by permission which was obtained by trade members who thought the members of the forum might enjoy learning about it?

I recall a time not so long ago when most diamond related information was considered to be proprietary by the trade, heck, we got sued in a class action lawsuit for disclosure of proprietary information to the public when we released the site back in 1996. How much would you know about ASET and reflector technology if people within the industry did not discuss it with you? It wasn't that long ago that I tried to point out that consumers were putting a lot of weight into their buying decision upon a single ASET image taken at the best angle of interpretation rather than relying on the actual ASET technology as used by the AGS Laboratory which relies on more than 240 viewing angles.

Do you know what the trade thinks about PS? Most of them think it's a hassle and not worth their time, that's why they're not here any more. Most of them don't even visit PS any more and you know what they claim to have discovered? That their loyal customers take care of all their promotion needs for them, without their ever needing to contribute another minute of their time, without their needing to spend another penny advertising on the forum, especially since most of them have web sites which rank quite well for all of the major search terms related to the products they sell... And without advertising revenue, the forum might cease to exist, then where would consumers get answers to their diamond related questions? Oh yea, from the web sites belonging to the tradespeople. Doh!

 

[Karl_K]

context people context :}

To stay on topic then, I'm going to say that once trade members leave, I think regular consumers have and will leave as a result.

me:

not really, there are maybe 3 or 4 threads a week where trade input would be helpful.
The rest of them are handled very well by the pro-sumers.
The decimation of the pro-sumer ranks is a much more serious problem than lack of trade members.
Adding more trade members into the mix would be a very bad idea if they have the wrong attitude toward pro-sumers.

,,,,,,,,,,,,
The forum would go on for a long time with the knowledge pool that is here now.
It is deep enough with rounds 100% of the time, less so with some other shapes.
The keeper of that pool is the pro-sumers not the trade members.
Yes that pool did indeed come from trade members over the years but they are not the keepers of the keys.

 

[Karl_K]

Regarding PM reinstatement - and remembering that this thread is about Trade Participation (hey look, it's the on-topic killjoy!)

Ha! This reminds me of John trying to get us to stay on topic during the last Infinity Diamond Symposium in Dallas! If you think it's difficult to keep a forum thread on topic, you should try getting a room full of tradespeople who are all eager to ask questions and add their experience to the topic being presented. For the record, since I was sitting next to Peter Yantzer of the AGS Laboratory, I blame him for distracting me with tempting statements such as "Oh that reminds me, this is cool..."

I have to disagree with Karl regarding the statement pertaining to prosumer presence being sufficient to address questions on PS with the understanding that I have tremendous respect for the people who have achieved prosumer status by sharing a passion for diamonds / jewelry and spending endless hours learning about them and sharing their expertise with other people...

While it is true that many of the questions presented on Price Scope have been answered enough times by tradespeople that the prosumers now possess the knowledge (or ability to search the archives) to answer them accurately... I wonder, how much diamond related knowledge would they truly and accurately possess and have access to if it were not for the fact that tradespeople decided to openly and freely share their knowledge on forums such as this to begin with?

What if Holloway never shared his HCA with the public beyond introducing it as a diamond selection tool? What if he never decided to openly discuss the methodology and thought process behind it? What then would you actually know about it?

What if Sergey restricted use of DiamCalc to trade members only? Perhaps Karl would never have possessed the knowledge, nor the tools to create the Octavia. He certainly might not have ever developed a relationship with a trade member to get it produced.

What if independent gemologists such as Neil Beatty, David Atlas, Marty Haske, Bill Lieberumn (deceased) and others never contributed or shared their expertise on public forums? I wonder if even my own trade level relationships would have developed with them to the extent that they have.

"We'd find the information online" is a reasonable initial response... but will you? Do you realize how much of the information shared on PS was initially released as proprietary data cloaked behind password protected walls within trade member only web sites, or released as reports to lab members and then shared with the public by permission which was obtained by trade members who thought the members of the forum might enjoy learning about it?

I recall a time not so long ago when most diamond related information was considered to be proprietary by the trade, heck, we got sued in a class action lawsuit for disclosure of proprietary information to the public when we released the site back in 1996. How much would you know about ASET and reflector technology if people within the industry did not discuss it with you? It wasn't that long ago that I tried to point out that consumers were putting a lot of weight into their buying decision upon a single ASET image taken at the best angle of interpretation rather than relying on the actual ASET technology as used by the AGS Laboratory which relies on more than 240 viewing angles.

Do you know what the trade thinks about PS? Most of them think it's a hassle and not worth their time, that's why they're not here any more. Most of them don't even visit PS any more and you know what they claim to have discovered? That their loyal customers take care of all their promotion needs for them, without their ever needing to contribute another minute of their time, without their needing to spend another penny advertising on the forum, especially since most of them have web sites which rank quite well for all of the major search terms related to the products they sell... And without advertising revenue, the forum might cease to exist, then where would consumers get answers to their diamond related questions? Oh yea, from the web sites belonging to the tradespeople. Doh!

Todd that's why I pushed for a cut research forum so we could seek the next generation technology and information without getting in the way of the day to day help that goes on here.
It will eventually filter up and that is a good thing.

 

[Todd Gray]

Yes that pool did indeed come from trade members over the years but they are not the keepers of the keys.

Certainly they are not the keeper of the keys, but I'd venture to say that the forum is better off for having both prosumers and trade members present as a contributory resource.

 

[Karl_K]

Yes that pool did indeed come from trade members over the years but they are not the keepers of the keys.

Certainly they are not the keeper of the keys, but I'd venture to say that the forum is better off for having both prosumers and trade members present as a contributory resource.

agree