I do not see how you can force the buyers to pay for GCC as they can contact the seller by email unless you make CC private. To limit sellers to GCC will only limit the number of sellers IMHO. This internet board, as all others exists thanks to the community it serves. There are members(my self not included) which are far more valuable to the site than a 25$ contribution. Their knowledge is what keeps this place going. Foster the community, do not limit it.
I don’t care much either way but voted no as I have a marginal preference for the larger pool of potential sellers.
I’ll also vote no to expand the pool — but if it is implemented, I would like to then throw my support behind sellers only… No reason not to let everyone browse and buy.
strikes me as one more step toward a walled garden
For starters, K&L actually has the legal authority/license to sell wine.
I do not think the owner of this site wants any potential hassle of requiring members to pay for the right to sell wine/beer/spirits in transactions that may or may not be legal. I am not a lawyer.
+1
The other question I have is: Is there a problem with the way it is now?
i am. and it’s tricky to say the least. currently, i think the owners have a good case as a platform so anything that’s posted is not their responsibility. unfortunately, they also tend to moderate these fora quite regularly, which isn’t a great fact. add on the alcohol aspect and there’s more risk (craigslist, facebook marketplace, etc., all ban alcohol sales for obvious reasons). this thread is adding the notion of charging non-licensees (individuals lacking the necessary licenses to sell alcohol) to post on a public community forum. it’s impossible to value the risk in dollars, but each step in the narrative adds risk. so the question must be, does the reward outweigh it?
money?
Where else can a person sell wines without any liabilities for loss or damage?
Typical WB disclaimer.
I believe that you are supposed to be a berserker business to sell on the forum as a business. I saw that rule being broken constantly though.
This is where my head goes as well. Makes complete sense.
Side note…would be interesting to see peoples votes based on GC status. Based on the comments so far, it seems like most of the ‘no’ votes have been from those not willing to pay for GC status themselves.
Put this thread in the GCC page.
Commerce Corner is the FSBO of the wine world, buyers and sellers who don’t want to pay the markups and commissions of auctions. I didn’t notice Victor posting in this thread, seems odd.
Put in an link when posting in cc that takes the poster to the donation/pay location prior to the post being completed
Then they either actively commit to contributing or actively choose not to.
So keep the free will aspect but also make the pathway for contribution linked to cc posting
Probably get more contributions and keep happy the few that chose not to
Over time I’d expect more cc posters to join and then buyers who don’t want to buy from non contributors will be able to sort easily
correct. the better question is to do a version of predictive betting; do you think commerce corner will be more successful* if we start charging to (a) sell, (b) buy, or (c) both?
- defined as more and better offers, but open to other KPIs.
This makes far more sense than a blanket rule.
I like free, but understand the need for the site to pay for itself.
Another option would be sellers - yes, but allow, say 2-5 sales posts from non-GCC folks/year.
You can pose all types of hypothetical questions.
60% in favor of GCC membership to 40% no speaks for itself.
Yep, that’s a good question! But you prob also have to look at ‘successful’ in terms of transactions completed where both partys are satisfied. I’d have to assume limiting CC to GCC members would have a positive effect on that metric.
But either way, as Matt mentioned, I think the results are pretty clear with the voting.
If you ever see it, PLEASE report it