Should a BST thread really be that cheap?

[schockergd]

I just want longer time periods

 

[swiftmoney]

I appreciate the people saying let it rest, but while it's on the table.. I think one small thing that would improve the forum for buyers (edit: and probably sellers too): when providers pay again after a thread closes then for shit's sake reopen the existing thread, don't make a new one, and another new one, with links to the last eighteen threads, etc.

I really miss the threads by the best providers with hundreds of replies spanning multiple years.

$.02

This seems to be a very awesome suggestion.
Absolutely love this idea.

You can then also filter by replies, which would display all of the legit threads.

This would solve the whole issue.

 

[rusvik]

It's not a problem differentiating low quality services from high quality services, it's a huge time suck though, and a massive pain in the ass to have a few good threads amongst thousands that are shit, with no reliable way to filter them based on current forum metrics. (You can't filter by replies because of the 10 day rule, for example).

Yes this, If I want a cheap ass, shitty spun content + tier 2 spam links service, then that shit is available on Fiverr.

Why pay a premium for it here.

There's a place for QUALITY spam and it certainly isn't SENUKEX + AMR + Scrapebox.

 

[Leith]

+1 for Nanexo's idea on using Stickies.

I also wouldn't mind paying $300 or so for a months thread. But the sticky idea does sound cool.

 

[cardine]

I appreciate the people saying let it rest, but while it's on the table.. I think one small thing that would improve the forum for buyers (edit: and probably sellers too): when providers pay again after a thread closes then for shit's sake reopen the existing thread, don't make a new one, and another new one, with links to the last eighteen threads, etc.

I really miss the threads by the best providers with hundreds of replies spanning multiple years.

$.02

Agree with this. It really should have just been a recurring subscription to keep your thread permanently open. WickedFire makes more money (rebills ftw), sellers make more money because of the social proof of having a thread with 10+ pages of replies (which then make them more likely to continue to rebill), and buyers can more easily sort through what's worth it and what isn't.

 

[capone2009]

If you want a change then make stickies for the "best" services and keep the normal rates as is. WF is the perfect place for 2nd tier links and stuff like that, why get rid of that? If only "professional" sellers can afford to sell their services here there would be much less services to choose from and the prices would go up. Or am I missing something here?

 

[BlueYonder]

I just want longer time periods

Ditto. Longer is better for the seller. I also think that longer time periods give people who used the service an opportunity to comment about it in a way that's highly visible. Perhaps weekly extensions of $5 to $10 are possible?

IMHO, $30 - $35 is correct pricing, approximately what you'd pay for a small classified ad for a couple of weeks in a local paper (pls hold the Don Lapre jokes). Higher fees make it difficult for college students and people in third world countries to scrape up enough cash to advertise.

If the rate is to be much higher, the point of the BST has to be reconsidered: Is it intendended as a place for WF members and quality vendors to get together, or a money making thing for WF? High fees mean lower access, consumer choice and vendor participation.

 

[Leith]

Ditto. Longer is better for the seller. I also think that longer time periods give people who used the service an opportunity to comment about it in a way that's highly visible. Perhaps weekly extensions of $5 to $10 are possible?

IMHO, $30 - $35 is correct pricing, approximately what you'd pay for a small classified ad for a couple of weeks in a local paper (pls hold the Don Lapre jokes). Higher fees make it difficult for college students and people in third world countries to scrape up enough cash to advertise.

If the rate is to be much higher, the point of the BST has to be reconsidered: Is it intendended as a place for WF members and quality vendors to get together, or a money making thing for WF? High fees mean lower access, consumer choice and vendor participation.

+1 for the Weekly extensions.

 

[nialtaylor07]

I would suggest $75 for 1 month long thread. Anyway,current system is not that bad as it keeps market fair by forcing sellers to prove their effectiveness every week.

 

[swiftmoney]

All BST's should be permanent and set up on a subscription.
The subscription ends, the thread ends, simple.

Legit threads will last longer, get more replies and will be easier to find.
Poor threads with no rep will be easy to filter out.

Better overall experience for both buyers and sellers.

Just my opinion but I really would like to see this.

 

[nmridul]

One idea -
Modify the iTrader logic and multiply the payment amount with the rating. So some one selling $1 stuff does not get 1000 itrader while one selling a $1000 stuff gets only 1 trader.
Make it mandatory for everyone to provide iTrader for any transaction they do here because I don't see many members providing iTraders and currently iTrader and Old threads are the only way to judge a provider or buyer.

I like Webhostingtalk's membership plus sticky scheme. There are the top web hosting providers there along with hundreds of web hosts running hosting from their basements. And the forum seems to run without much hassle.

Some things that are simple to implement -
Members can start a thread only once in 7 days if you are a normal member (premium members can post every 3 days or so).
Can only bump once a day only.
Stickies for a day, for a week, for a month.

 

[Red_Virus]

Let's keep a thread starting fees at mix $XXX and that price allows the thread to go for a month, the next month goes on a PayPal subscription. So you keep it or cancel it when you want.

I think that would also fix a lot of problems with the multiple accounts and thread bumps.