[knoxploration]

Quick suggestion... It occurred to me that the lens review database is close to being able to add a feature that could prove rather useful for myself (and I'd guess many other forum members).

Given the recent climb in lens prices, the "average price" field indicates values below what's currently obtainable for most lenses, because it is skewed by old reviews.

If we were to add one more field (the month and year of purchase) though, we could make a scatter plot of prices over time (perhaps with a trend line showing how the price is changing). That would be pretty darned useful in estimating value when buying lenses.

Obviously, old reviews don't have purchase dates (and we can't just assume the review date is the purchase date, as newer members might be listing lenses they've owned for years). There's a simple solution though - don't plot prices on the graph if the purchase date hasn't been filled in (and perhaps give folks the ability to add purchase dates on their old reviews).

A related feature suggestion if the above was implemented would be to let people submit purchase dates and prices without a review. For example, I haven't owned my lenses for long enough yet to feel comfortable reviewing them - but I could easily add my purchase price and date currently, providing useful info to others on price trends for my specific models.

Hopefully others will see the value in this idea, and not just me. ;-)

[icywarm]

This is kinda tied with the price watch section that was launched last month ... but that is only for low price... this could be good to give an idea of actual vs great one time price...

[Adam]

If you just want to add price and ratings, simply just post that you are doing so in the review body, then submit!

Now as for your main suggestion- it's certainly something that can be done, but not necessarily something that would be of much help, as other confounding factors other than "date of purchase" typically affect price. What do others think about this?

BTW, I'm all for hearing further comments on usability- if you'd like any layout element changed improved, please voice any and all suggestions

[interested_observer]

There is one website that somewhat has this type of information. Take a look at ....

Pentax DA 55-300 MM F/4-5.8 SMC Telephoto Zoom Lens (21720): View Price History at NexTag

The problem is that its for current lenses. Once they are discontinued, the only real indication of current price is from the marketplace in terms of what a lens sold for (if that was listed - which would be very useful), and another area is completed sales from ebay, however that only goes back a few months and is fully dependent upon the item actually selling.

[knoxploration]

This is kinda tied with the price watch section that was launched last month ... but that is only for low price... this could be good to give an idea of actual vs great one time price...

True, plus it also gives the ability to quickly scan a graph for trends. It's much easier to see long term trends (and figure out what are short term bobbles) from a graph, rather than having to trawl through dozens or hundreds of posts in a lengthy thread, all formatted differently.

If you just want to add price and ratings, simply just post that you are doing so in the review body, then submit!

Ah right, didn't know that was allowable. Do the empty reviews show up as reviews still (just with no text), or just get counted in the ratings / average price calculations?

Now as for your main suggestion- it's certainly something that can be done, but not necessarily something that would be of much help, as other confounding factors other than "date of purchase" typically affect price. What do others think about this?

Certainly other factors may come into play, but it would give folks a good idea of what they might expect (and where the price was trending / whether current pricing was considered fair by other buyers.)

To add one more thought to the idea, the addition of a "new" or "second hand" field adjacent to the price entry would allow tracking of new pricing and second-hand pricing separately (either on the same graph with different colored scatter plots / trend lines, or just on two separate graphs).

BTW, I'm all for hearing further comments on usability- if you'd like any layout element changed improved, please voice any and all suggestions

Will do!

There is one website that somewhat has this type of information. Take a look at ....

Pentax DA 55-300 MM F/4-5.8 SMC Telephoto Zoom Lens (21720): View Price History at NexTag

The problem is that its for current lenses. Once they are discontinued, the only real indication of current price is from the marketplace in terms of what a lens sold for (if that was listed - which would be very useful), and another area is completed sales from ebay, however that only goes back a few months and is fully dependent upon the item actually selling.

That's a good example of what I mean, although I think a scatter plot and trend line would be more useful than the extremely jaggy line graph Nextag uses.

But yes, otherwise quite similar, and nicely shows how this could be useful. There are a few similar examples from other price tracking sites, but they're sadly all easily gamed by less reputable merchants to get click-thrus, and also only track certain online retailers. We'd have the advantage here, with users themselves entering the data, that it would be merchant agnostic (since the individual merchants wouldn't be identified, and any merchant's price could show up if a member made a purchase and reported it), and that it would count not only online prices, but also brick and mortar pricing.

The other big advantage would be that we'd have the ability not only to track new pricing, but also second-hand pricing.

[Class A]

I like the suggestion but comparing the number of reviews with the number of items sold on the market place, I think it would be much more useful if one could get a history of the prices a certain item sold for. This would give sellers and indication what they might ask for an item and buyers could judge whether they are dealing with a bargain or not. Obviously a lot depends on condition and other factors but still, as a general ballpark figure, historic marketplace prices would be very useful.

[Flickeroo]

I think the idea is good, but thinking about t further I see a logistic problem with tracking the used market.
1- Used gear isn't necessarily found only with sellers online such as Keh, Adorama or B&H.
2- On eBay, people tend to not calculate how much they paid in shipping costs. Someone charging $75 for shipping will obviously have less bids on an item, making up the value on shipping. But human nature being what it is, LBA being like fishing or gambling, the reviewer will only list the price he paid for the item itself.
3- Bargain hunters (which I am one) will also go to garage sales, pawn shops, bazaars, craigslist, kijiji to name a few of the sources where you can find someone who sells gear without knowing the true value of the items they are selling.
One example is that I bought a whole bunch of stuff from an individual for $50 in a garage sale. A pristine Spotmatic, with three Super Taks (135 f2.5, 50 f1.4, 35 f3.5) and filters, extension tubes, and even a thing I've never seen anywhere: a telescope visor that you attach in the back of a lens changing any lens into a...monocular? I can't even explain it properly. All that for a total of $50!
Now, was I going to tell the man "listen, I feel bad that you're selling all this at that price. Why don't I pay at least triple what you're asking for?"...obviously not.
But then if I go to the review section, separate my pricing and say I bought the 50 f1.4 for the equivalent of $10$, it makes the whole average go down significantly.

All my gear I bought well below the market value. I got an FA 100mm F2.8 for $140, an FA 50mm F1.4 for $115.

Get a few people like that (and I am sure there are) and suddenly people in the PF Marketplace seem like they are ridiculously overcharging.

I love seeing (and envying) people that had the motherlode of all LBA findings for almost nothing, but when you get to the point of tracking and compiling that data it just clouds the actual value of these items.

Unless...

Unless we make a special section where the actual price chart doesn't get affected. LBA bliss: People enter what they paid for an item where they KNEW it was well below the market value. A boasting section if you like. But it should not unfairly affect the overall value of the second-hand market price.

What do you think?

Flickeroo

---

Last edited by Flickeroo; 05-16-2010 at 08:06 AM.

[knoxploration]

I think the idea is good, but thinking about t further I see a logistic problem with tracking the used market.
1- Used gear isn't necessarily found only with sellers online such as Keh, Adorama or B&H.

Not an issue. People can list the price they bought, no matter where they bought it from.

2- On eBay, people tend to not calculate how much they paid in shipping costs. Someone charging $75 for shipping will obviously have less bids on an item, making up the value on shipping. But human nature being what it is, LBA being like fishing or gambling, the reviewer will only list the price he paid for the item itself.

Maybe some people's human nature tends that way -- mine certainly doesn't. Shipping, sales tax, whatever. It's all part of the item cost to me.

That said, it's easily solved. Simply put a bold note next to the price field, stating that the price should include all directly related costs (shipping, handling, insurance, tax, duties, etc. -- but not extended warranties, etc.)

3- Bargain hunters (which I am one) will also go to garage sales, pawn shops, bazaars, craigslist, kijiji to name a few of the sources where you can find someone who sells gear without knowing the true value of the items they are selling.
One example is that I bought a whole bunch of stuff from an individual for $50 in a garage sale. A pristine Spotmatic, with three Super Taks (135 f2.5, 50 f1.4, 35 f3.5) and filters, extension tubes, and even a thing I've never seen anywhere: a telescope visor that you attach in the back of a lens changing any lens into a...monocular? I can't even explain it properly. All that for a total of $50!
Now, was I going to tell the man "listen, I feel bad that you're selling all this at that price. Why don't I pay at least triple what you're asking for?"...obviously not.
But then if I go to the review section, separate my pricing and say I bought the 50 f1.4 for the equivalent of $10$, it makes the whole average go down significantly.

Buying at a bargain price isn't a problem, for two reasons. One, because bargain or not, it's a real price. Bargains do happen, and so does price gouging. In the real world, the two will largely cancel each other out in the graph.

Also, I'd suggested using a scatter graph. That's the kind where there's not a line (other than perhaps a trend line) -- so each individual date and value has its own position marked on the graph. With a scatter graph, it'd be easy to see values that are out of whack with then-current pricing trends, whether they're too high or too low.

Now, you do bring up one other interesting issue though, and that's what happens when multiple items are purchased in a group without individual pricing. Say I buy three lenses, a flash and a portrait grip on Ebay or at a yard sale -- how do I list individual prices when none were ever given? My suggestion for that case would be simply to state in the same bold note that says tax etc. should be included, that if there wasn't an individual price for the item at the time of sale, then no price should be entered in the field.

[Flickeroo]

Not an issue. People can list the price they bought, no matter where they bought it from.

Agreed. I brought that up to show that sources that have constant availability for a particular item are good pointers to show second-hand value, but not the only possible option one may have. Other sources, such as garage sales, 99% of the time you won't find the photographic gear you're looking for if you're looking for one particular item.

Maybe some people's human nature tends that way -- mine certainly doesn't. Shipping, sales tax, whatever. It's all part of the item cost to me.

That said, it's easily solved. Simply put a bold note next to the price field, stating that the price should include all directly related costs (shipping, handling, insurance, tax, duties, etc. -- but not extended warranties, etc.)

Mine does. But now that you've mentioned it, I'll be more careful. Good point.


Buying at a bargain price isn't a problem, for two reasons. One, because bargain or not, it's a real price. Bargains do happen, and so does price gouging. In the real world, the two will largely cancel each other out in the graph.

I don't agree on that one. If people are knowledgeable of the item they purchase (many on this Forum forgot more than I'll ever learn), they'll know. Price gouging is difficult nowadays because of the easy access to comparison. Even a newbie like I am can verify the approximate price of an item before buying it. Sure, there will always be some amount of price-gouging, but if people do take the time to look at price charts, they will not succumb to a price-gouger.

Also, I'd suggested using a scatter graph. That's the kind where there's not a line (other than perhaps a trend line) -- so each individual date and value has its own position marked on the graph. With a scatter graph, it'd be easy to see values that are out of whack with then-current pricing trends, whether they're too high or too low.

Agreed. But for it to be in any way valuable you need to have a LOT of data to work with. Otherwise out of whack values will have a major influence on the overall chart.

Now, you do bring up one other interesting issue though, and that's what happens when multiple items are purchased in a group without individual pricing. Say I buy three lenses, a flash and a portrait grip on Ebay or at a yard sale -- how do I list individual prices when none were ever given? My suggestion for that case would be simply to state in the same bold note that says tax etc. should be included, that if there wasn't an individual price for the item at the time of sale, then no price should be entered in the field.

I agree with your last point. I apologize that I don't know how to multi-quote yet (I tried the multiquote button, but nothing was happening.) I should maybe review Adam's tutorials more carefully!

[Adam]

I like the suggestion but comparing the number of reviews with the number of items sold on the market place, I think it would be much more useful if one could get a history of the prices a certain item sold for. This would give sellers and indication what they might ask for an item and buyers could judge whether they are dealing with a bargain or not. Obviously a lot depends on condition and other factors but still, as a general ballpark figure, historic marketplace prices would be very useful.

This could be something we could look into in the future, as that's actually quite a brilliant idea.