Member $avings: $4,430,807.02
|
CDs Available: 88,024
|
Members Online: 16
Your source for swapping cds online... Listen...Swap...Save!
Discussion Forums - Questions about SwapaCD
Topic: Wishlist position question
Club rule - Please, if you cannot be courteous and respectful, do not post in this forum.
|
|||
|
I have a CD on my wishlist that shows: Position: 1 of 2 Estimated Position in 2 Weeks: 2 Okay, what does this mean?? How can I be #1 now yet expect to be #2 in 2 weeks? Does this mean someone else has it ranked higher than I do and will get offered it first? If that's the case, then why say I'm #1 if I'm not? (I thought only Blockbuster did that with their queues - it was the reason I quit their service) I'm confused! |
|||
 |
|
||
|
My understanding is yes you can and will be passed in line depending on how you rank the cd. This is from a link you can find on your wish list: --------------------------------------------- Rank: You "rank" your Wish List by which CDs you desire to receive the most. The Rank of "1" is the CD you want the most. Ranks can be adjusted by clicking and dragging the bar on the left hand side of each Wish or by entering a new rank into the box and clicking the "Move" button. The order you rank your CDs is not necessarily the order you will receive them, but your position in line for a CD will improve faster if you rank the CD higher. If you rank a CD too low then you may be passed by some members who rank the CD higher. Example Scenario: I add a CD to my list with a rank of 10. In 1 month you add the same CD to your list but rank it number 1. It would then take approximately 1 more month for you to pass me in line for the CD. If you would of ranked the CD 8th instead of 1st then it would take approximately 10 more months to pass me in line. This example shows that the most important factor is how long you leave a CD on your Wish List but ranking them higher will help you get those you want most. Members with a long Wish List will see CDs ranked lower moving much slower than those near the top. Position: Each CD on your Wish List will show two position numbers. The first is your position in the line of members wanting that particular CD. The second is the position SwapaCD estimates you will be in 2 weeks. The number is only an estimate but takes into account how often the CD is posted and your current rank for the CD. Often you can improve your estimated position by giving the CD a higher rank. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Last Edited on: 6/14/07 12:08 PM ET - Total times edited: 1 |
||
|
|
||
|
I interpret that to mean that you are number one in line now, but you won't be for long. If that CD is posted today, it will be offered to you. But after two weeks, someone who has ranked it higher will have passed you in line, so the CD will be offered to them first. Last Edited on: 6/15/07 12:01 AM ET - Total times edited: 2 |
||
|
|
|||
| That makes sense Sheryl - I just couldn't wrap my brain around the concept yesterday. Thanks for the responses. Now to decide whether to move it up in rank or let it be... | |||
|
|
||
|
I have to say that the ranking issue, as I understand it from that post, has just completely thrown out the idea of FIFO. We now have 2 systems to determine who gets a cd first. So are they saying that the Johnny Cash Personal Files, a CD I've had on my wishlist since August 8, 2006, will go to someone else REGARDLESS OF THE FACT THAT I'M #1 of 2 because someone who may join today has it ranked #1 on their list? How is this fair in the least? How does this follow FIFO? So now I'm supposed being penalized? There can't be 2 determining factors. When you're waiting in line at the DMV you go on a FIFO system, they don't have you wait in line and then say "well this guy that just walked in the door, REALLY wants to go through the line right now." |
||
|
|
|||
|
It seems to me to still be more equitable than only 10 on your wishlist. If you have a cd ranked at #150 of 200, and I add that cd to my wishlist a few weeks later as #1 of 35, we both still have a better shot of eventually getting those cd's without having to constantly scan the daily posts. Under the old system, I'd be the only one of us to even have it wishlisted - right? |
|||
|
|
||
|
It does make for a more complicated system than FIFO, but I also suspect that in the end it will be more equitable - in just a week, I've already been offered 2 wishlist CDs, after a wishlist dry spell that had lasted months and months. I've also pretty much stopped scanning the Posted Today page, which is a huge time-saver for me. It was getting really tiresome seeing the same CDs posted over and over again, especially since when I did spot something of interest, it was usually already taken anyway. I see your point, Alex, that it isn't fair for someone to jump ahead of you in line. But I think they're attempting to address the concern that large or unlimited wishlists allow early adopters to dominate the trading by loading up their wishlists and occupying all the top positions in line. That model would make it very difficult for new users to join in and would in turn discourage site growth. These are arguments I've seen made over at PBS before. I guess we'll see how it plays out. |
||
|
|
|||
|
I'd be extremely interested in learning more about the specifics of the algorithm being used, and in how accurate the position estimate is. I'm also very curious about the "granularity" of the two week time period. Is that just a representative arbitrary period or more specific? I.E. - If I'm 2nd out of 3 for a CD now, and I adjust my ranking so it indicates in two weeks I'll bump up to 1st out of 3, is that a hard cutoff or more of a rolloff? If I raise my ranking up not quite enough for it to trigger a visible change, would that mean I'd probably bump up to 1st in just a little OVER two weeks - or just stay at 2nd place indefinitely? In any event, I'm overall happy about the change, even if it's a bit of a Black Box in terms of not knowing how (exactly) it works. It's been a bit of a time-sink to adjust everything, too - and will definitely require more upkeep for those of us geeky enough to care about such things!  Overall, a definite improvement - but really would like to know more specifics about the calculations! |
|||
|
|
||
| I haven't decided whether or not I like it yet... | ||
|