# Market Place Security Poll - Results discussion and analysis



## BrianR (Oct 12, 2011)

Wondering how the results will be used? In essence there is more people for some form of change at the moment than there is for maintaining the status quo (268 v 264). In any case 50% of the membership want 'market place' to look differently than it does now and so some form of change is called for (if that was the intention of the poll). :?


----------



## Nem (Feb 14, 2005)

I'm really pleased that somebody can also see the true meaning of the results.


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

You can make statistics sound like they are saying anything you want, can't you? Tell you what, add options 1 and 2 together and there you have a vote of 290 v 242 for making the market place as restricted as it is now or more so!

For pity's sake, there are 5 options on offer and half the people have voted for one of them. Fair enough, the option for change may have been split but there's still as near as damn it a simple majority to keep things as they are. And what is also clear from the posts on the thread is that a good proportion of votes for change have come from those new members who can't access the marketplace which will have skewed the vote as it is. If the vote had been restricted to those with full access (and there's a good argument for suggesting it should have been) then there would have been a very clear majority. Even as it is though, if this had been a general election it would have been a landslide! So no, it's not a vote for change at all. It might not be what you want but that's how it is.

My understanding was that there has been a vote to satisfy the constant whingers and moaners and make it clear even though the market place may not be exactly the way *they* want it it is how the majority of us want it, so I think it's time to finally just stop complaining and get on with it.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

I think most people see this as a first past the post poll, like the UK general election. This is the way it was presented. There was no second or third vote option allowed to make an individual's choice clearer or decide a tie - you could only vote for one option. There is no tie. The biggest "party" therefore clearly represents keeping things as they are. That's not to say any further developments couldn't evolve and be accommodated of course. To see this as a PR poll and take it as a mandate for change in opposition to the status quo (Option 1) has the difficulty that the other options are disperate. The opposition is split in different directions.

For example, Option 5 (22% in favour) was for no restriction at all (buyer beware) but all other options were in favour of restriction to some extent (totalling 78%). Removal of all restrictions is clearly in the minority and if you read through the comments and analyse the domography, most people who voted for removal of restrictions appear to be newbies. Perhaps that is understandable but obviously the established members who have contributed most to this community and want protection do not agree with that option.

Option 3 (and its less popular partner Option 4) - (23% total) are clearly driven from the idea that cars are less of a security risk because you will likely have a test drive and check documents etc. There's less chance of an issue resulting from the way the forum operates being integral with car fraud. The issue for the forum however is how to allow communication. Allowing immediate PM access can't just be applied to car sales - it's applied to members, who could then PM whoever and wherever they wanted and that's been the main avenue for opportunist fraud. Posting a phone number or email is also a personal security issue. Allowing open posts under a car advert has the difficulty of moderation workload. This needs some consideration to be implemented safely and practically but it may be possible to do so in some way, whilst still being acceptable to people who voted for Option 1, perhaps, but strictly speaking there is no mandate for it.

Also of note is that the options excluding TTOC members as trusted users of the market place, due to them having their personal details on record as surity - Option 2 (5%) and Option 4 (6%) - are clearly in the minority. It would appear that most people can see the sense in the policy regarding TTOC membership.

The majority can rest assured that we will strive to keep forum members secure and act in their best interests if ever making any changes.


----------



## SonyVaio (Jul 25, 2012)

John,

Surely you need to deal with the reason why people were/are being scammed so easily??

I think the mere fact that nearly every advert in the sales section flaunts very valuable and personal information which is pure Gold to a scammer needs to be addressed?

If you were to change the way that members post their adverts where absolutely no names, tel no's and email addresses are allowed to be visible as part of the advert itself, this would be at the very least be a step in the right direction in providing a level of security for personal individuals and on the other hand a level of obscurity to any sort of scammer?

If the personal security issues were addressed then there would be absolutely no reason why the sales section could not be opened up to ALL?? Once all personal information is no longer in adverts it is just plain info of what is for sale and by whom (forum nickname) and the price. There is no way to be scammed from that? The next level of security is one which you have in place already where new members cannot PM until they have reached 'XX' posts or reach a certain criterea, this allows new members to see the sales section (which they would like) even if they cannot PM to be able to purchase (just yet) until they have met the required crtierea? This would keep members safe (even safer than they are now), keeps new members happy and also allows maximum advertsment of sellers goods. To me this is a win win situation all round?

The only people that may not be too happy with the removal of personal info is perhaps those that may not frequent the forum too often but pop a sales advert up with their mobile number etc.. so they can be contacted via other means as opposed to through the forum (PM facility). If this happens to be the case then these people are not really contributing to the forum and just using the forum? Cutting personal info from being allowed in adverts would (should) cause members to participate in the forum more too?

Just my thoughts and opinions, I think with a few little changes the sales section could be enjoyed by more peple and also be safer for all sellers too.


----------



## A3DFU (May 7, 2002)

Mark Davies said:


> You can make statistics sound like they are saying anything you want, can't you? Tell you what, add options 1 and 2 together and there you have a vote of 290 v 242 for making the market place as restricted as it is now or more so!
> 
> For pity's sake, there are 5 options on offer and half the people have voted for one of them. Fair enough, the option for change may have been split but there's still as near as damn it a simple majority to keep things as they are. And what is also clear from the posts on the thread is that a good proportion of votes for change have come from those new members who can't access the marketplace which will have skewed the vote as it is. If the vote had been restricted to those with full access (and there's a good argument for suggesting it should have been) then there would have been a very clear majority. Even as it is though, if this had been a general election it would have been a landslide! So no, it's not a vote for change at all. It might not be what you want but that's how it is.
> 
> My understanding was that there has been a vote to satisfy the constant whingers and moaners and make it clear even though the market place may not be exactly the way *they* want it it is how the majority of us want it, so I think it's time to finally just stop complaining and get on with it.


Fully agree with you Mark


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

SonyVaio said:


> Just my thoughts and opinions


Yes, except the frauds that people have suffered have had nothing whatsoever to do with people posting personal information in threads so pretty much all you've had to say is irrelevant. Explanations of what has happened have been posted several times in this and the related thread - I suggest you take the time to read them and get a better understanding of the issue at hand.


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

I have to agree with Mark too.

This has been discussed, analysed and disputed to death and now there has been a free, democratic vote on the subject. There is a clear choice and one choice has more votes than any other. I didn't vote for the winning choice but nevertheless accept it.

This isn't 'pick 'n' mix' so trying to combine other options to dispute the outcome is clutching at straws and we should just move on with the result, implement it and live with it.

Job done.


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

okie doke i have been thinking about this ongoing problem of scammers spammers and general bad peeps trying to part users from money. http://scammers.freeforums.net/ its a free forum setup that i wouls suggest to be used only by senior admin from all of the main car forums.......ok well maybe just audi ones to start with. it has taken me 15 minutes without my flipping glasses to make this and if setup properly could be the main place for senior admin to pass info on about baddies....and all known web based info on them........for forum banning purposes and also for police requiring all info that can then be located within one forum.
only an idea and if its pants just say so and i will go back to sleep :?


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Gazzer said:


> okie doke i have been thinking about this ongoing problem of scammers spammers and general bad peeps trying to part users from money. http://scammers.freeforums.net/ its a free forum setup that i wouls suggest to be used only by senior admin from all of the main car forums.......ok well maybe just audi ones to start with. it has taken me 15 minutes without my flipping glasses to make this and if setup properly could be the main place for senior admin to pass info on about baddies....and all known web based info on them........for forum banning purposes and also for police requiring all info that can then be located within one forum.
> only an idea and if its pants just say so and i will go back to sleep :?


Damned good and pro-active idea mate!


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

spank you rich....i do occasionally try to be helpful in life :?


----------



## Ikon66 (Sep 12, 2003)

Gazzer said:


> http://scammers.freeforums.net/


Jamman for moderator :wink:


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

Ikon66 said:


> Gazzer said:
> 
> 
> > http://scammers.freeforums.net/
> ...


well bud i wouldn't want the job i can assure you lol, too much 5hit to take and i like to give out......xx
but this idea came from a phone conversation with John H and some thoughts i had from what he said about the whole problem.
of course i assume you have already thought of similar ideas to put forward to the team being a top moderator security for the site??


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Gazzer said:


> spank you rich....i do occasionally try to be helpful in life :?


I was being serious! :?


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

rich the problem was it had Gazzer on the post bud, so auto knew it wouldnt be taken serious m8ee as that is how i am viewed i guess. (no ones fault but my own) however bud i find a problem that just starts as an itch then a scratch and then it is now peeing me off so it needs sorting. that is how i have viewed the comments and topics regarding the for sale section.

imagine a forum where every major known scammer was barred for life due to a sharing of information and minds on these tossers whose sole goal is to cheat someone of money.
this may all be total rollocks in some peeps eyes, however if it starts a ball rolling that grows until forums are auto protected within hours of a scammer complaint............then maybe just maybe it has done its job ?


----------



## BrianR (Oct 12, 2011)

Mark Davies said:


> You can make statistics sound like they are saying anything you want, can't you? Tell you what, add options 1 and 2 together and there you have a vote of 290 v 242 for making the market place as restricted as it is now or more so!
> 
> For pity's sake, there are 5 options on offer and half the people have voted for one of them. Fair enough, the option for change may have been split but there's still as near as damn it a simple majority to keep things as they are. And what is also clear from the posts on the thread is that a good proportion of votes for change have come from those new members who can't access the marketplace which will have skewed the vote as it is. If the vote had been restricted to those with full access (and there's a good argument for suggesting it should have been) then there would have been a very clear majority. Even as it is though, if this had been a general election it would have been a landslide! So no, it's not a vote for change at all. It might not be what you want but that's how it is.
> 
> My understanding was that there has been a vote to satisfy the constant whingers and moaners and make it clear even though the market place may not be exactly the way *they* want it it is how the majority of us want it, so I think it's time to finally just stop complaining and get on with it.


Just read the above Mark. First of all I was asking a question and not making a statement. My point is that everyone 'full members and not' were' included in the vote; if everyones view was not deemed as equal because of their membership status, then why include them in the first place? I dont see it as a landslide; the water is muddied by having so many questins - for and against may have been more clear. Indeed the current outcome is what I voted for (so pls don't second guess my intentions). The outcome as I saw it, and I am allowed to see it differently than you, may not line up with what I or you feel or want, but that doesn't make it invalid. Just because you think it and say it doesnt always make your view the only truth or indeed right. Others are entitled to have a view too you know, the very basis of democracy :? I am guessing that if the vote for change had been a clear winner you would have made arguments against that and manipulted the numbers to make your argument sound correct? Fact is the result is not clear regardless of how it is banged together (given the forum wants to attract members and sticking two fingers up to them isnt the best way of doing that). Fact is, regardless of how it is wrapped up, as many people want change as don't (and that includes some of those who have been here contributing for a good while now). Referring to people as whingers and moaners because you want the debate to end isn't helpful and discourages participation. Especially coming from someone who (like myself) appears to have something to say about most things and voices those things ongoing. So you say 'get *on with it' *and so we all just should - because you say so? If you are bored of the thread Mark and can't see the point then I suggest don't contribute to it. But please don't put others who do want to contribute off from doing so and contributing an answer to the question I asked.


----------



## BrianR (Oct 12, 2011)

Gazzer said:


> okie doke i have been thinking about this ongoing problem of scammers spammers and general bad peeps trying to part users from money. http://scammers.freeforums.net/ its a free forum setup that i wouls suggest to be used only by senior admin from all of the main car forums.......ok well maybe just audi ones to start with. it has taken me 15 minutes without my flipping glasses to make this and if setup properly could be the main place for senior admin to pass info on about baddies....and all known web based info on them........for forum banning purposes and also for police requiring all info that can then be located within one forum.
> only an idea and if its pants just say so and i will go back to sleep :?


On the face of it it sounds like a great idea Gaz - really proactive solution focussed contribution.


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

Brian,

Your 'question' included a statement which appeared to be a highly disingenious manipulation of the poll results, which if intentional would tend to indicate a certain bias towards a change of policy for the market place. If however, as you now say, your preference is to keep things as they are then I would still question your interpretation of the poll.

It quite simply doesn't say people want change. It doesn't say people want the market place opened up. It quite _emphatically_ says people want the restrictions to stay. And that's got nothing whatsoever to do with my opinion - it's a purely objective analysis of the results. So when you come along and make a suggestion the poll says people want change - the exact opposite of what it actually says - then you should expect to be picked up on it.

The four options offered other than keeping things as they are cannot be added together to produce your suggested result that 'the majority want change' because some are mutually exclusive. If you take the basic polarities of keeping it the way it is or opening it up completely then _less than half as many _wanted it opening as wanted to keep the restrictions. Even if you add in those who wanted to open up the market for just car sales to those who want it opening completely you still don't get close to the vote for keeping it as it is. The remaining two options amount to just tinkering and one even suggests greater restrictions, but both are hugely in a minority and so have no significant influence on the outcome.

So if you were asking the question 'Does this poll result say people want change?' then no, the poll _does not _suggest the forum wants change. It quite clearly says the forum prefers matters to stay the way they are, and says it so convincingly that frankly it's an argument-ender - and that's the way it should be treated.


----------



## SonyVaio (Jul 25, 2012)

Mark Davies said:


> SonyVaio said:
> 
> 
> > Just my thoughts and opinions
> ...


Mark,

I am more than willing to get up to speed and learn just how people have been scammed etc... The fact that there is so much valuable info so freely given away in so many adverts in the sales section I quite frankly am NOT suprised there is scamming going on.

You say there has been explanations in this and related thread but can you please either quote or link me to the exact posts you are on about. I'm new on here as you're well aware need pointing in the right direction please.

If scammers have not been getting to people via the personal info that posters have given away in their adverts then it can surely only be via the PM system? So if scamming is not happening via the leaking of private info in adverts why lock the sales section down in the first place?

I peronally cannot see the benifit of the sales section being locked down for all to view? Locked for posting, not really of benifit either. Then it is down to any would be scammer if so interested in an item to have to post up 'their' details for any seller to use.

PM system - this should be the only official way of a would be buyer contacting a seller, having a post count to enable PM access is fair enough and helps a little in the security side of things - I can appreciate this. However! - if people are being scammed through the PM facility then this is down to each individual being 'WISE' to any standard scam tactics and if something is too good to be true then it normally IS!

So unless you can point me to reasons how people are being scammed (which is apparently not because of giving vital persaonal security information away in the advert) I can only assume it is through people own stupidity in going along with some confidence tricksters PM, or paying for something which is too good to be true, or paying for items via PayPal (GIFT) and thus removing all protection available.

If the scamming is nothing to do with any of the above and is to do with some form of group buy then this has nothing to do with posts, PM's, personal info nor anything to do with the normal running of the sales section, therefor why lock the sales section down?

As said please link to posts you refer to.


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

It's not an issue of what information people give out or the methods of communication.

The problems have arisen not where people have advertised items for sale but where they have posted wanted ads, asking for parts. The crooks trawl the motoring forums looking for such ads and then contact the member involved saying they have the parts they are looking for. The member sends the money for the parts and then the parts never show up. Because the person selling the parts have never advertised them for sale it's not as if the payments are going via PayPal connected to an eBay listing so that people would at least have someone to complain to. You can say people need to be wise, but if you post up saying you want something and a member gets in touch to say they have it then what are you going to do? Of course you're going to send them the money - it was the whole point of putting up the wanted ad in the first place! It's difficult to suggest what precautions people should take because clearly they can't expect anyone to send them the goods before they've sent the money.

Experience has shown us that the same individual will be doing this on multiple forums. Some research was done and we found one guy had been popping up and doing this all over the place. The restrictions are there to prevent these crooks from casually browsing through our forum looking for these opportunities to rip people off. Yes, they could sign up, spend a few weeks posting away to get access to the forum and then start looking, but that's a lengthy process which makes their whole business that much more difficult, and it also prevents them just instantly signing up with a new account when they've been caught out. It does seem to be detering them up to now. If they can't even see our marketplace they go and do their dodgy dealing elsewhere.

Hopefully that explains it a bit better for you.


----------



## SonyVaio (Jul 25, 2012)

Thanks Mark, yes explained very well now.

Although! If the person advertising the 'Wanted' advert did not give away any personal info then this would leave the only form of communication to be done via PM (the ONLY way I believe it should be done for initial contact)? So if PM was the only way then any scammer would still have to be part of the forum to get their post count up prior to being able to scam - just like they would have to do at the moment?? This means there would be no diference to how things are now except the sales/wanted section could still be open to all?

This surely takes us straight back to there being no need to lock down the sales section at all and just implement a couple of small minor changes?

1. Leave current post count requirement to access PM facility to allow a level of security.
2. ALL adverts must have NO personal info in them - both Sales or Wanted adverts!
3. All initial buying/selling contact to be done via PM (with no personal info in adverts then PM would be the only way?).

Personally I would like to see the sales section opened up to all and there must be a way to allow this. If those putting up advertisements are wise then there shouldn't be an issue with the minor changes I've suggested? Then if advertisers also use paypal for payments (DO NOT USE 'GIFT' facility unless you know and truely trust the recipient! You have NO protection when money is sent as a gift!).

I think if people look at what I've said and suggested logically then this could allow the opening of the sales section to all, provide higher level of security to advertisers than what is in place currently and also embrce the wishes/wants of new members (being abele to see the sales section) even if they cannot contact, buy or sell on the site until they have reached the desired post count to enable the PM access? This would rely on current members changing the way in which they post adverts so they no longer insert personal info in them, this would be key the system staying secure.



Thoughts and opinions are always welcome.


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

Sony, i hear you and agree on some points! But......the fact remains that whatever security is put in place someone will auto try to circumnavigate it to either bend or abuse the rules. my personal belief is that some way is found to run a holding account for any money until the goods arrive then send it on to the seller once no dispute is proven. even that has potential problems with it............who holds the account and how many have access etc etc


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

The holding account idea was mooted a while back, but it raises the question of just how much are you prepared to pay for someone to manage that for you? You can't just ask the mods to do it - it's far too much work and effort to expect of anyone giving their time up for free. And then, someone is effectively running a clearing bank service for you, which is likely to find itself under banking regulations and so we'd probably be operating illegally.

SonyVaio, I don't really see where your suggestion takes us. If I get it right you are suggesting the market place adverts be open for all to see but that people are restricted to only responding by PM. Well, the people perpetrating the scams have done so by making contact by PM, not by phoning people directly. Sure, they've not had a very high post count when they've done it and you could say that should ring alarm bells, but frankly we have a lot of perfectly honest people who don't really want to get that involved in discussion forums but would use the market - it's not uncommon for people with lowish post counts to buy and sell. In a virtual environment it's just not possible to distinguish who is honest and who is not.

What it comes down to is that the current restrictions mean a scammer has to go through some preparatory effort before they can even see if there is an opportunity for them. It's not failsafe but it does seem to be enough to put them off. It's working, it's simple, it doesn't require constant monitoring and effort from the mods. It's providing some degree of protection and the downside really isn't that big a deal. All it means is people whom we don't know that well don't have the opportunity to buy and sell here. Well, all those people advocating the opening of the market place do so saying people just need to look out for themselves and be careful. I'd suggest 'being careful' would include not doing business with strangers you know nothing about, so we wouldn't be buying and selling to new members anyway - so those new members are not missing out on anything, are they?

It just seems to come down to people feeling a little disgruntled because they are excluded from a part of the forum. But it is necessary and it is only temporary. As I've said before I don't see why the greater membership should knowingly expose themselves to financial risk just to spare a few people a minor, temporary inconvenience and spare their delicate sensibilities.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Just to add some more information that may have been forgotten - when the market place was visible we were finding new members who couldn't PM yet, were contacting established members who had advertised in the market place, openly on other threads where they found them posting. This caused complaints and an excessive workload for the moderators to clean up.


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

John-H said:


> Just to add some more information that may have been forgotten - when the market place was visible we were finding new members who couldn't PM yet, were contacting established members who had advertised in the market place, openly on other threads where they found them posting. This caused complaints and an excessive workload for the moderators to clean up.


John, will there ever be a fool proof way to solve this problem of scammers? who knows is my guess. however i do think we need to keep looking at the problem on how to move forward proactively and my forum suggestion for senior mods from all reputable car forums to share info on scammers.


----------



## Phil_RS (Mar 2, 2010)

SonyVaio said:


> Thanks Mark, yes explained very well now.
> 
> Although! If the person advertising the 'Wanted' advert did not give away any personal info then this would leave the only form of communication to be done via PM (the ONLY way I believe it should be done for initial contact)? So if PM was the only way then any scammer would still have to be part of the forum to get their post count up prior to being able to scam - just like they would have to do at the moment?? This means there would be no diference to how things are now except the sales/wanted section could still be open to all?
> 
> ...


Whilst I agree with some of your points, the fact remains that the majority of the forum is in favour of leaving it how it is. And, from scanning through the posts in the poll thread it was overwhelmingly clear that a large proportion of those voting for it to be opened up were those with low post counts and who are less active on the forum.

Ultimately, the forum admin are trying to look out as much as possible for the established forum members and if that means a few new members are disgruntled and unable to see past the reason why then so be it in my honest opinion.

I appreciate there will be a group of people who have been on the forum for a long period of time who typically don't post who this has adversely affected but the whole point of the forum is to link joint minded people together in an online communit that gets involved in discussions. The point of the forum is not the classified section!


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

Phil_RS said:


> SonyVaio said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks Mark, yes explained very well now.
> ...


i was chatting to a customer on the phone when this post came up and as browsing whilts yakking i just asked my client what the timescale is to join the club these days? between 6-16 weeks minimum. this is a golf club membership at £1800 per annum plus parking permit and hire charges if required.

so maybe puts it into perspective on our problem and the fact that it is instant access with no fee's or charges.


----------



## SonyVaio (Jul 25, 2012)

All,

I can see both sides of the coin on this subject and thankyou for those that have posted up opinions and obsevations on the subject.

The problem with scammers is not limited to this site and indeed affects many forums. I'm a member of a couple of other forums and on these forums there is no restriction to 'VIEW' sales sections like there is here. On the other forums there is a need to gain a post count to enable PM facility (which is a good level of security) and although it is not a rule on the other forums, you just don't get people inserting valuable personal info into sales/wants adverts and this is a massive help in deterring those unwanted scammers.

I have access in to the sales section so really I shouldn't be bothered about the restrictions, it can however take some members who do not post often a very long time to gain access though. As always you are never going to please everyone and I respect the views of the longer established members and admins, as such this is the last post I'm going to make on the sales access issue.

Thanks again to all.


----------



## Wallsendmag (Feb 12, 2004)

Sorry I've been told to shut up and toe the party line


----------



## Ikon66 (Sep 12, 2003)

Wallsendmag said:


> Changes to maket place access coming soon stay tuned for the news


Interesting that you know this considering your many posts state your aversion to the TTF :roll:


----------

