closing tag is in template navbar
timefactors watches



TZ-UK Fundraiser
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 91

Thread: Linking to previous SC ad when selling a watch on SC

  1. #1
    Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,429

    Linking to previous SC ad when selling a watch on SC

    Just wondering what the forum etiquette on this as itís happened to me a few times recently.

    Example 1: A Forum member got in touch as they now own a watch I sold via the forum 5 months ago. The person who now owns the watch isnít the person I sold the watch too. They were asking if they could link to my original sales ad in their sales post. I declined as the watch is now 5 months older and has had two new owners, so linking to my old ad has no value. I havenít seen the watch since selling so canít attest to its condition.

    Example 2: Recently my Tudor Pelagos blue was sold via the forum. The new owner decided it wasnít for him and put a sales ad on the forum linking to my original advert. This watch was subsequently traded to someone else...This new owner has also put the watch up on SC and also linked to my original advert. Again the watch now has had two new owners (albeit for a short time, just under 3 weeks) so what value is there linking to my original advert? Again I canít attest to its current condition.

    Personally I think if youíre selling a watch regardless of how long itís been owned then you should do your own sale ad.

    What is the forums view.

    Cheers
    Mike




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  2. #2
    Master Mouse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Lincs, UK
    Posts
    2,247
    Quote Originally Posted by michael.jaye View Post

    Personally I think if youíre selling a watch regardless of how long itís been owned then you should do your own sale ad.
    This.

  3. #3
    Master
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Lancashire
    Posts
    1,631
    They should ask you if they can link the ad...just good manners.

  4. #4
    Don't see any harm in linking to old SC posts. Shows some provenance for the watch and may give factual information and better pictures of the watch.

    Hopefully the present owner will put up some recent pictures (unless passed on immediately) but it's obvious that condition may well have changed.

    You can't really prevent anyone linking to your post, it's in public domain (at least to those with SC access) and anyone could search for it. Might well do this anyway if known that bought on the forum.

  5. #5
    Master
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    location, location
    Posts
    2,275
    I must admit it irks me when I see "here's a link to the original ad - please let me know if any problems with this OP and I'll delete.."

    Why not just PM the OP in the first place to find out for yourself if they have any objections...

  6. #6
    I was looking at something on SC yesterday which linked back to about four previous sales. Good for provenance, but old photos and condition reports arenít really relevant when a watch has moved hands several times.

    I think one reason people do this is to link to photos in a previous ad when they canít (or canít be bothered to) upload their own photos. I find postimage the easiest way to resolve this.

    Not sure what you can do. If you remove your old ad or photos someone will probably be along to complain about that.

    All you can really do is object to the use of your post, in the sales post if necessary.
    Last edited by vortgern; 6th March 2019 at 12:56.

  7. #7
    Master Der Amf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    London
    Posts
    9,188
    I think there needs to be a differentiation between linking back to the old advert to take advantage of the effort put into the it (which needs nice manners) and simply indicating the watch's provenance (which is in itself good manners)

  8. #8
    Master mart broad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Essex
    Posts
    9,693
    Blog Entries
    4
    I purchased the watch in question however it was not for me so i posted it on the SC with fresh photo’s and a link to the original advert with a note asking if this was ok not having had a reply i assumed rightly or wrongly that it was ok a simple no it’s not via a PM would have sufficed as you have been monitoring the watches progress.
    I totally agree however that new and current photo’ s or the condition if it has altered should accompany any SC listing.
    Last edited by mart broad; 6th March 2019 at 13:07.

  9. #9
    Master Lampoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Lincs. The bit with hills.
    Posts
    4,155
    Quote Originally Posted by Der Amf View Post
    I think there needs to be a differentiation between linking back to the old advert to take advantage of the effort put into the it (which needs nice manners) and simply indicating the watch's provenance (which is in itself good manners)
    Spot on.

  10. #10
    Master
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    location, location
    Posts
    2,275
    Quote Originally Posted by mart broad View Post
    I purchased the watch in question however it was not for me so i posted it on the SC with fresh photoís and a link to the original advert with a note asking if this was ok not having had a reply i assumed rightly or wrongly that it was ok a simple no itís not would have sufficed
    Mart,

    Just referring back to my own comment above, if you've PM'd as a courtesy but not had a reply then I feel that's different.

  11. #11
    I don't get provenance thing. Does it really matter that watch was owned by Steve, Peter and Mary, sold 7 times in 2 years, lived happy and full live? Why don't we go further - let's add address of shop it was sold, sales assistant photo and quick recap of sales pitch that lead to purchase :-)

  12. #12
    Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Sussex, UK
    Posts
    3,876
    Sometimes, the old links reveal that the current seller expects to get all his money back. This might be alright on occasion, but generally it’s pretty off-putting. For instance, recently an expensive watch was advertised at the same price as a previous sale months before, although the guarantee had since expired and it wasn’t an especially sought-after Watch.
    Surely best to write a fresh sales advert, with fresh photos. And accept that, with known exceptions, the more owners, the more wear, and the less the watch is worth.
    Last edited by paskinner; 6th March 2019 at 13:24.

  13. #13
    Master Onelasttime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Everywhere, yet nowhere...
    Posts
    5,704
    Quote Originally Posted by mart broad View Post
    I purchased the watch in question however it was not for me so i posted it on the SC with fresh photoís and a link to the original advert .
    ^^^^^
    This is the key for me.

    Most links are pure laziness, but as long as the new seller has taken the time to post their own current images I can't see a problem with linking back.

    I suppose you could forgive the catch-and-release link back within a couple of days, but two weeks/months/years? I've seen ads that have linked back four or five posts over 18 months, and half of those were link backs with no pics. Do one lazy bones

  14. #14
    Shouldn't be a big deal if it hasn't been a long time since the original post. Just regard it as a compliment to your sales post. PM is ideal but not mandatory. If there are fresh pics and acknowledgement or request for permission in the new post, it should be ok.

  15. #15
    Master Der Amf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    London
    Posts
    9,188
    Quote Originally Posted by Normunds View Post
    I don't get provenance thing. Does it really matter that watch was owned by Steve, Peter and Mary, sold 7 times in 2 years, lived happy and full live? Why don't we go further - let's add address of shop it was sold, sales assistant photo and quick recap of sales pitch that lead to purchase :-)
    Showing where something has been also shows where it hasn't been. I hope you'll still be enjoying your jovial tone when you find you've accidentally sold someone a fake, have to refund them, but are having trouble working out who originally introduced it into the community.
    Last edited by Der Amf; 6th March 2019 at 14:52.

  16. #16
    Master
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Surrey, UK. OdiŠxere or somewhere in-between
    Posts
    6,980
    Blog Entries
    18
    Curtious to ask to link back (by PM). I would feel irked otherwise

  17. #17
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    South East
    Posts
    605
    I had something very similar a while ago- New owner just linked my advert without asking, just think it's a tad rude by not asking and lazy not taking fresh pictures etc....

  18. #18
    Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,429

    Linking to previous SC ad when selling a watch on SC

    Quote Originally Posted by mart broad View Post
    I purchased the watch in question however it was not for me so i posted it on the SC with fresh photoís and a link to the original advert with a note asking if this was ok not having had a reply i assumed rightly or wrongly that it was ok a simple no itís not via a PM would have sufficed as you have been monitoring the watches progress.
    I totally agree however that new and current photoí s or the condition if it has altered should accompany any SC listing.
    Hi Mart, I wasnít that fussed enough to ask you to amend the advert after you had already put the link in but had you PMíd I would probably have declined. Again itís not a big deal that you linked, the topic is purely to gauge the forum view and to see if it aligns with mine.

    As for people stating that linking to previous advert proves/displays provenance...not sure I completely agree with this. How do people know that the watch in the current advert is the same as the one from the original ad? Yes you buy the seller but a forum member with little feedback can try and piggy back off the feedback of more established members. Not saying this has happened my in example but linking to the previous ad proves nothing to me.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by michael.jaye View Post
    As for people stating that linking to previous advert proves/displays provenance...not sure I completely agree with this. How do people know that the watch in the current advert is the same as the one from the original ad? Yes you buy the seller but a forum member with little feedback can try and piggy back off the feedback of more established members. Not saying this has happened my in example but linking to the previous ad proves nothing to me.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I doubt anyone would try that, there's a good chance the real owner would pipe up.

  20. #20
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Maidenhead-ish UK
    Posts
    878
    I'm surprised anyone thinks they own a post on an internet forum. An FS post should certainly contain new pictures & description of condition but linking to previous SC posts is perfectly acceptable & doesn't, in my view, require any permission.

    Are you saying no-one should link to any post in any sub-forum? Why is SC a special case?

  21. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Der Amf View Post
    Showing where something has been also shows where it hasn't been. I hope you'll still be enjoying your jovial tone when you find you've accidentally sold someone a fake, have to refund them, but can't work out who you should be pursuing yourself.
    That makes absolutely no sense nor is it relevant. You could simply do that by checking your e-mail inbox, your paypal account, your bank account, your regular e-mail address etc...

    In regards to the original question, I have to agree with the OP especially with a watch thats changed hands several times what would be the point? A simple use of the search function or a PM to the seller could find out who the previous owners where. The only time it would be of any use would be a quick sale for example a watch bought, arrives, didnt like it and put it straight up for sale without any use. I get the idea that some peoples photos are better than others but if the seller posts a few pictures of their own, asks the previous seller for permission and gets it then links to that thread because they are better pictures I dont really see the problem.

  22. #22
    Master
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    England and Spain
    Posts
    2,790
    I couldn't care if a sale has been linked to a previous sale or not.

    If you trust the seller, then who cares about the previous owner and if you don't trust the seller, then why even consider dealing with them.

  23. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Pointy View Post
    I'm surprised anyone thinks they own a post on an internet forum. An FS post should certainly contain new pictures & description of condition but linking to previous SC posts is perfectly acceptable & doesn't, in my view, require any permission.

    Are you saying no-one should link to any post in any sub-forum? Why is SC a special case?
    I think its more a case of simply being polite, its not about "ownership" of a post rather the use of a photo of what was someones property and the fact someone went to some time and effort to post those pictures that someone else is now using.

  24. #24
    Grand Master Dave+63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    East Sussex
    Posts
    10,591
    Personally, I couldnít care less if someone linked to one of my ads as a part of their listing. Iíd expect them to have done a proper listing with photos though.

    Nothing annoys me more than having to go through three or four links to actually see what the watch looks like!

  25. #25
    Grand Master Foxy100's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Die FuchsrŲhre
    Posts
    13,242
    I wouldn't care either, if you're worried about it delete the whole ad bar the price or don't list a watch for sale in the first place. If someone says 'here's the ad I bought it from' or 'here's the last time it was sold here' or whatever then surely they're just making it easy for the buyer? As a prospective buyer I'd want to see fresh pics and have assurances the watch looks the same but you'd be silly as a buyer to only look at an old ad (two weeks, two years, whatever) and assume that's what you're receiving.

    Incidentally I don't want anyone quoting this post without my permission.
    You can live in your car but you can't drive your house.

  26. #26
    Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,429
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Pointy View Post
    I'm surprised anyone thinks they own a post on an internet forum. An FS post should certainly contain new pictures & description of condition but linking to previous SC posts is perfectly acceptable & doesn't, in my view, require any permission.

    Are you saying no-one should link to any post in any sub-forum? Why is SC a special case?
    No, Iím not saying that. Iím asking what the forums view is on etiquette of posting links.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  27. #27
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Maidenhead-ish UK
    Posts
    878
    Quote Originally Posted by robert75 View Post
    I think its more a case of simply being polite, its not about "ownership" of a post rather the use of a photo of what was someones property and the fact someone went to some time and effort to post those pictures that someone else is now using.
    I still don't see what is special about an SC post; they're all just posts on a forum. If the issue is the time & effort I'll bet posters like Jocke & LTF put infinitely more into their watch photo posts than anyone ever put into an SC post & I don't see anyone saying they shouldn't be linked to. If someone spent hours on a review post no-one would object to linking to it.

    For clarity I'm talking about SC posts that have decent recent pictures & description, not lazy one liners with a link to previous posts.

  28. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Pointy View Post
    I still don't see what is special about an SC post; they're all just posts on a forum. If the issue is the time & effort I'll bet posters like Jocke & LTF put infinitely more into their watch photo posts than anyone ever put into an SC post & I don't see anyone saying they shouldn't be linked to. If someone spent hours on a review post no-one would object to linking to it.

    For clarity I'm talking about SC posts that have decent recent pictures & description, not lazy one liners with a link to previous posts.
    I am sure Jocke and LTF will have strong views about using their images without acknowledgement or permission and rightly so.

  29. #29
    Grand Master Neil.C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    SE England
    Posts
    23,455
    Re linking previous SC ads, I'd be more suspicious of why a watch has had multiple owners in a short time period.

    Some underlying problem - or just horrible?
    Cheers,
    Neil.

    My Speedmaster website:

    http://www.freewebs.com/neil271052

  30. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Pointy View Post
    I still don't see what is special about an SC post; they're all just posts on a forum. If the issue is the time & effort I'll bet posters like Jocke & LTF put infinitely more into their watch photo posts than anyone ever put into an SC post & I don't see anyone saying they shouldn't be linked to. If someone spent hours on a review post no-one would object to linking to it.

    For clarity I'm talking about SC posts that have decent recent pictures & description, not lazy one liners with a link to previous posts.
    I wouldnt use photos by either of those two either without their permission its called being polite.

  31. #31
    Master Der Amf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    London
    Posts
    9,188
    Quote Originally Posted by robert75 View Post
    That makes absolutely no sense nor is it relevant.
    You're quite right, that was so poorly expressed it lost its sense. I've edited it.

    The important thing about the chain of sales being visible is that it allows you to see who originally brought it into the forum, and where they got it from.
    Last edited by Der Amf; 6th March 2019 at 15:02.

  32. #32
    Master Chinnock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Essex
    Posts
    7,278
    Personally I don't have a problem with this, it shows the transparency of this forum which for many expensive watches isn't a bad thing, however fresh photos etc must be included. Just linking without any effort to newest sales post on the other hand is not acceptable.

  33. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Der Amf View Post
    You're quite right, that was so poorly expressed it lost its sense. I've edited it.

    The important thing about the chain of sales being visible is that it allows you to see who originally brought it into the forum, and where they got it from.
    Why it is important?

    genuine question, because of as I wrote - I don't get "provenance" part. Actually I don't care much who owned watch before seller, because of any potential problem will be between him and me, not Peter who bought it new 6 years ago, sold to John, who serviced last year and sold to Scott who part exchanged it with current seller.

  34. #34
    Grand Master Foxy100's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Die FuchsrŲhre
    Posts
    13,242
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJEN View Post
    I am sure Jocke and LTF will have strong views about using their images without acknowledgement or permission and rightly so.
    He was talking about linking to them, for example like this (I know it's not a sales post, but we're not in SC):

    https://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.p...-A-rare-PC-day

    Not taking them to use on another website or whatever. It's a link so you can go to see their own post. It's nothing else.
    You can live in your car but you can't drive your house.

  35. #35
    Grand Master
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Wakefield, West Yorkshire
    Posts
    16,942
    Quote Originally Posted by Normunds View Post
    I don't get provenance thing. Does it really matter that watch was owned by Steve, Peter and Mary, sold 7 times in 2 years, lived happy and full live? Why don't we go further - let's add address of shop it was sold, sales assistant photo and quick recap of sales pitch that lead to purchase :-)
    You're missing a trick here. In some cases it makes no difference, but in some it does. If a well regarded forum member has owned a watch and psossibly had it serviced/sorted out to his own high standards that counts for a lot. Also, if a watch has been owned from new by someone who's well-regarded it's all to the good.

    Sometimes it doesn`t add anything, but there are enough times when it does to make it worthwhile. in the past I`ve sold watches on here and the new owner's decided to sell them on, in each case they've asked whether they could quote/reference my original AD and I`ve been happy.

    The primary issue with any watch is its condition at the point of sale, it's a mistake to assume its past will confirm its still in good condition, but it can help.

  36. #36
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Maidenhead-ish UK
    Posts
    878
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJEN View Post
    I am sure Jocke and LTF will have strong views about using their images without acknowledgement or permission and rightly so.
    But that's an entirely different issue: I'm talking about linking within this forum to a post they have made, which is what this discussion is about. Clearly using their images outside without permission is not correct, although I still believe that a link to a post they have made is not an incorrect thing to do.

    The entire web is just links so I don't see why it would be an issue if I put a link to a post made by Jocke or LTF on a post in the Pistonheads forum (given that it's in an open-access forum - which it is, I just tried a test post on PH).

  37. #37
    Master snowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Hampshire
    Posts
    9,322
    I see no harm in linking to a previous ad as long as it's part of a new ad, with recent photos, and the person who put up the earlier ad doesn't mind.

    Unless a watch has passed in and out of the sellers hands in a few days, though, the photos in a previous ad prove little (damage COULD occur in minutes, but you take on trust what people say), but I'd still want to see a current photo or two before buying a watch.

    I've posted ads with a link back to a previous ad, but always checked with the previous seller that it was OK (as I recall, apologies if at some point I didn't), but not INSTEAD of proper description (again, I may be wrong, but I rarely shift things on quickly, so it's unlikely).

    The important bit is the current condition, but sometimes people have taken pictures on a different strap or in different light and that can make the difference to whether a watch appeals to me or not, so it's good to see as many photos of the watch as possible.

    M
    Last edited by snowman; 6th March 2019 at 17:43.

  38. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Pointy View Post
    But that's an entirely different issue: I'm talking about linking within this forum to a post they have made, which is what this discussion is about. Clearly using their images outside without permission is not correct, although I still believe that a link to a post they have made is not an incorrect thing to do.

    The entire web is just links so I don't see why it would be an issue if I put a link to a post made by Jocke or LTF on a post in the Pistonheads forum (given that it's in an open-access forum - which it is, I just tried a test post on PH).
    Sorry, I misunderstood.

  39. #39
    Master MakeColdplayHistory's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,079
    When selling a watch I always state where I bought it from. I don't really know why - to some people it may not matter where I bought it - but I do. If I bought it from SC I'll post a link to the sales thread. If I was interested in buying a watch from SC, one of the things I do is search SC for that watch so as a buyer I would see the old sales thread anyway. I believe the convention/rule? is that we leave all old sales threads anyway so linking to it is just helping the buyer find it quicker.

    I always post new photos of any watch I'm selling. I would never use someone else's photos in my own sales thread but have no issue linking to a thread that contains them - it's clear in that case whose photo it is and that it is not current.

    I've always been a bit bemused when people ask me if they can link to one of my old sales when it's already there for anyone to see.
    Last edited by MakeColdplayHistory; 6th March 2019 at 18:35.

  40. #40
    Master sweets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Bristol - UK
    Posts
    3,492
    I think everyone likes a bit of provenance for a watch, so to say where is comes from is totally reasonable, especially if it comes from within the community.
    To link there is also good (it saves viewers a search), but permission should be asked.

    And previous sales posts should not really be relied upon for the photos, all sellers should take photos of what they are selling.

    But for me, if asked, there is also no reason at all to withold such permission to link back. What a seller may have said 6 months ago may not be relevant to the watch now, but it would have been true when listed, and the previous seller should be happy to stand by it. It costs them nothing to have people look at it again, so why not let them, every time?
    It may describe more service history, parts replaced, or just give more provenance.

    So, I think it is polite to ask, every time.
    It is also polite to give permission, every time.

    Dave

  41. #41
    Master mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    London
    Posts
    4,690
    A quick PM to make sure that the previous seller is aware of the proposed link just seems courteous. It seems equally courteous to say yes, btw.

    What I find totally infuriating is a sales post that relies totally on that link - no description of condition, no new photos etc. Thatís lazy in the extreme and in my opinion the seller doesnít deserve to make the sale.

    Worst of all is a sales post that starts with the words ďThis is a quick/lazy sales post...Ē. Thatís just disrespectful to the community - make an effort, for goodness sake!

    Simon


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  42. #42
    Master sean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Coventry & Toronto
    Posts
    3,881
    Quote Originally Posted by Normunds View Post
    Actually I don't care much who owned watch before seller, because of any potential problem will be between him and me, not Peter who bought it new 6 years ago, sold to John, who serviced last year and sold to Scott who part exchanged it with current seller.
    Quote Originally Posted by walkerwek1958 View Post
    You're missing a trick here. In some cases it makes no difference, but in some it does. If a well regarded forum member has owned a watch and psossibly had it serviced/sorted out to his own high standards that counts for a lot. Also, if a watch has been owned from new by someone who's well-regarded it's all to the good.
    I might be more likely to buy a watch that'd been owned by certain members with stellar reputations and I probably wouldn't touch a watch that had been in the possession of certain others with shadier backgrounds. Links to prior sales in a SC post saves a little bit of time on the necessary due diligence.

    But as others have said, provide your own photos and description. A link back to another person's sales post claiming nothing's changed in the interim, whether true or not, is lazy and off-putting.

    Would I ask permission? Probably not. It isn't something anyone couldn't find anyway, but having said that, politeness costs nothing.

  43. #43
    I think itís a nonsense.

    Using someone elseís photos, Iíd expect permission to be sought - but linking to a advert/sale that anyone could search for on the forum, then Iím sorry but some people are just too precious and need to get over themselves. Itís neither wrong or impolite to link to it, itís just a bloody fact, especially if they the current seller now own the watch bought from that ad.
    It's just a matter of time...

  44. #44
    Grand Master Dave+63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    East Sussex
    Posts
    10,591
    Quote Originally Posted by Omegamanic View Post
    I think itís a nonsense.

    Using someone elseís photos, Iíd expect permission to be sought - but linking to a advert/sale that anyone could search for on the forum, then Iím sorry but some people are just too precious and need to get over themselves. Itís neither wrong or impolite to link to it, itís just a bloody fact, especially if they the current seller now own the watch bought from that ad.
    The main problem as I see it (and itís not just sales corner), is that many people see a thread that theyíve created as belonging to them.

    Many times Iíve seen phrases like ďitís my thread, please keep it on topicĒ or similar. What we need to do is remove the concept of ownership; non of us own anything we post in this (or any other) public forum.

    On that basis, thereís no need to ask permission to link to or quote an existing thread.

  45. #45
    Master
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Wirral
    Posts
    4,280
    Quote Originally Posted by Omegamanic View Post
    I think itís a nonsense.

    Using someone elseís photos, Iíd expect permission to be sought - but linking to a advert/sale that anyone could search for on the forum, then Iím sorry but some people are just too precious and need to get over themselves. Itís neither wrong or impolite to link to it, itís just a bloody fact, especially if they the current seller now own the watch bought from that ad.
    I concur.

  46. #46
    Can I quote your post?

  47. #47
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    4,666
    There are much bigger things to get upset about, than a link to something you posted on an internet forum.

  48. #48
    Master
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Wirral
    Posts
    4,280
    Quote Originally Posted by Kingstepper View Post
    Can I quote your post?
    Feel free. Can I quote yours? Oh, err wait....

  49. #49
    Master murkeywaters's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Near the sea
    Posts
    2,459
    Personally I like it when there is a trail of links as long as the person selling puts up recent pictures, you often find out a lot more about the watch good or bad, as for permission well that's subjective, good manners says you should ask..

  50. #50
    Master sweets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Bristol - UK
    Posts
    3,492
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave+63 View Post
    The main problem as I see it (and itís not just sales corner), is that many people see a thread that theyíve created as belonging to them.

    Many times Iíve seen phrases like ďitís my thread, please keep it on topicĒ or similar. What we need to do is remove the concept of ownership; non of us own anything we post in this (or any other) public forum.

    On that basis, thereís no need to ask permission to link to or quote an existing thread.
    Oh I am not so sure on that.
    I have written quite a few things and taken quite a few photos for forum posts that I have later found all over the internet, from a mini potted histroy of Lemania found pasted into Ukrainian Ebay Listings to my pictures of an old Wittnauer Chronograph now part of someones watch database.
    None of them were credited or permission sought, and it is annyoing, as in both cases they were taken for free and then used to bolster someone else's commercial offer.

    We do own what we write and photographs we take, the least others can do is ask before appropriating them. It's just manners.
    It has always been forum etquette to ascribe photo credits to ones that we have not taken for ourselves.
    This is just an extension of that.

    Dave

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •