@Zoins said:
If the system didn't say you were a robot and repeatedly ask you to identify bicycles, that would be a start.
People complain about bots. The mint does something about it. People complain about what the mint did. Eventually, the mint does something about that...
@MasonG said:
Everybody wants to be the among the ones who get the limited edition item. It's a problem with no solution.
If the system didn't say you were a robot and repeatedly ask you to identify bicycles, that would be a start.
But it wouldn’t increase the number of people who could purchase limited edition items. And I’m pretty sure that most of the dissatisfaction is among those who are unsuccessful in their purchase efforts.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Zoins said:
If the system didn't say you were a robot and repeatedly ask you to identify bicycles, that would be a start.
People complain about bots. The mint does something about it. People complain about what the mint did. Eventually, the mint does something about that...
There is something to be said about doing something that doesn't work, as in with a lot of false positives.
@MasonG said:
Everybody wants to be the among the ones who get the limited edition item. It's a problem with no solution.
If the system didn't say you were a robot and repeatedly ask you to identify bicycles, that would be a start.
But it wouldn’t increase the number of people who could purchase limited edition items. And I’m pretty sure that most of the dissatisfaction is among those who are unsuccessful in their purchase efforts.
I agree. I think people are okay with a system that works well, but from what I've seen, a lot of the dissatisfaction is when the system repeatedly failed to work as one would expected, e.g. showing captchas many times, saying humans were robots, etc.
@Zoins said:
If the system didn't say you were a robot and repeatedly ask you to identify bicycles, that would be a start.
People complain about bots. The mint does something about it. People complain about what the mint did. Eventually, the mint does something about that...
There is something to be said about doing something that doesn't work, as in with a lot of false positives.
There's something to be said about looking for a solution that doesn't exist.
@Zoins said:
If the system didn't say you were a robot and repeatedly ask you to identify bicycles, that would be a start.
People complain about bots. The mint does something about it. People complain about what the mint did. Eventually, the mint does something about that...
There is something to be said about doing something that doesn't work, as in with a lot of false positives.
There's something to be said about looking for a solution that doesn't exist.
If only that were true. Google doesn't have a problem with this and the system seemed to fail on some browsers and work as expected on others.
It's probably better to think of this as growing pains than a solution not existing.
@Zoins said:
I agree. I think people are okay with a system that works well, but from what I've seen, a lot of the dissatisfaction is when the system repeatedly failed to work as one would expected, e.g. showing captchas many times, saying humans were robots, etc.
Ok- so the mint fixes those problems and once people are able to put an item in their cart, they can proceed to checkout and make the purchase. Result? A lot of people will be prevented (repeatedly) from putting items in their cart. But they'll be happier about it? I'm skeptical.
@Zoins said:
I agree. I think people are okay with a system that works well, but from what I've seen, a lot of the dissatisfaction is when the system repeatedly failed to work as one would expected, e.g. showing captchas many times, saying humans were robots, etc.
Ok- so the mint fixes those problems and once people are able to put an item in their cart, they can proceed to checkout and make the purchase. Result? A lot of people will be prevented (repeatedly) from putting items in their cart. But they'll be happier about it? I'm skeptical.
From what I've seen on the boards, people would be happier if they missed out because they were late rather than being subjected to captchas or bot warnings multiple times.
At the end of the day, the Mint put in a program which is okay, but it didn't work well and they should work on improving it. I don't think there's anything wrong with highlighting areas for improvement.
@Zoins said:
It's probably better to think of this as growing pains than a solution not existing.
Do you think there's a solution when there are more buyers who want coins than there are coins to go around? No matter what you do, when the music stops, some people don't get a chair.
@Zoins said:
It's probably better to think of this as growing pains than a solution not existing.
Do you think there's a solution when there are more buyers who want coins than there are coins to go around? No matter what you do, when the music stops, some people don't get a chair.
As mentions above, I think that's fine if people aren't getting false positive rejections.
People want a system that's fair, not to be unfairly blocked and delayed.
@Zoins said:
From what I've seen on the boards, people would be happier if they missed out because they were late rather than being subjected to captchas or bot warnings multiple times.
So instead of multiple captchas and bot warnings, they'll get multiple notices that they can't add an item to their cart and they'll be happier? I'd be surprised.
@Zoins said:
From what I've seen on the boards, people would be happier if they missed out because they were late rather than being subjected to captchas or bot warnings multiple times.
So instead of multiple captchas and bot warnings, they'll get multiple notices that they can't add an item to their cart and they'll be happier? I'd be surprised.
Yes, because the system is working as expected and people are on an even playing field. Everyone knows there's only so many to go around.
I'm surprised you don't see it this way and think it's okay to have so many false positive errors.
It’s not that they got screwed it’s how they got screwed. This point is just not that hard to get. Now a solution that the mint might actually implement...another story entirely. The point is not even really debatable as the mint admitted again that their antibot technology hosed up legitimate customer attempts.
100% positive transactions with SurfinxHI, bigole, 1madman, collectorcoins, proofmorgan, Luke Marshall, silver pop, golden egg, point five zero,coin22lover, alohagary, blaircountycoin,joebb21
I have long been an advocate of the Mint doing something to modify how limited edition coins were allocated / sold. I have a regular job (I am off today) and cannot participate in the 'Goes on sale at noon tomorrow' feeding frenzy's. I have bought many many items from the Mint over the years and that accounts for nothing. It used to not be so bad but since about the mid aughts I just sort of have given up on getting anything that is limited from them.
A side note (sort of): I used to work at a company where one of the VP's was into buying ASE's etc. from the mint along with his father in law who evidently ran a couple of companies. When a limited edition ASE went on sale at noon, I would be at my desk working away as I could not go try and get any and he would stop by at about 1 or so and tell me how many he and his father in law were able to get using their own accounts and getting folks at the father in laws company to buy for them. I would just have to say something like 'Wow that is great, I am glad for you!' Not fun...
300,000 people click on add to cart in the same instant. Hope you have wall street level priority internet that can shave 0.0001 seconds off of your request so that you can move up the list for what time you clicked.
Which is a point I made earlier, depending on the number of Bots in play by individual users (one user can have multiple bots in play) the results are the same as a DOS attack
100% positive transactions with SurfinxHI, bigole, 1madman, collectorcoins, proofmorgan, Luke Marshall, silver pop, golden egg, point five zero,coin22lover, alohagary, blaircountycoin,joebb21
There is no perfect process waiting out there but there is room for improvement. Why not try to make it better?
I'm not buying that Congress and the Mint aren't communicating on the feasibility and fairness of ultra low mintages. Neither party is making unilateral decisions. If the number is a potential PR disaster than the Mint should speak up, and vice versa.
You are over complicating and mason is simplifying. If you lost a race because the guy next to you is faster that’s how it goes, if you lost the race because your lane had holes in it, did you still lose yes..was it a fair race...no. Did people complain about bots with the ERP yes...because it was f’d up cheating that the mint should have seen coming. So the mint fights bots with a substandard system that dorks it up and this is better how? Of course people are going to complain last year crash was the bots...this year crash was the antibot software. I think people can accept losing, it is tougher when you lose because of a pothole in your running lane. Just not that hard to get unless you are Spock. I get it and I did not lose I got my coin and went through all the crashes and locks and bicycles and trains and nonsense. It was pure luck just like the ERP last year. To still win with holes in your lane is great but does not mean those that did not do not have a valid point.
100% positive transactions with SurfinxHI, bigole, 1madman, collectorcoins, proofmorgan, Luke Marshall, silver pop, golden egg, point five zero,coin22lover, alohagary, blaircountycoin,joebb21
@jmlanzaf said:
Until someone's order gets delayed by the post office and they miss out. It now becomes a lottery system run jointly by USM and USPS. That won't cause ANY complaints.
I see the smiley, but still wanted to point out that back when you had to mail in your order to the mint, there were complaints about the process in Coin World's letters to the editor when people didn't get the coins they wanted.
@jmlanzaf said:
It's another case where everyone defines "fair" as whatever gets them the coin.
I was also on a t1 and wondered if it contributed to the challenges as well. Enough people have said why they are angry and only some of it has to do with not getting one. To the flipper, I give a rats butt, for the collector that now has zero chance to complete a series...that sucks.
100% positive transactions with SurfinxHI, bigole, 1madman, collectorcoins, proofmorgan, Luke Marshall, silver pop, golden egg, point five zero,coin22lover, alohagary, blaircountycoin,joebb21
It’s not called t1 anymore? Damn I am old, what is it called now? Pretty sure work still has a t1 but maybe they have all gone cable?
100% positive transactions with SurfinxHI, bigole, 1madman, collectorcoins, proofmorgan, Luke Marshall, silver pop, golden egg, point five zero,coin22lover, alohagary, blaircountycoin,joebb21
Meanwhile on this board nhlsm666 who had what, 13 of the 2019 enhanced? has another dozen of the ASE.
All there is for these releases is an ecosystem of which most in the coin community are willing participants and gamers. The only true way to address complaints here would be to vastly increase mintage and stop allowing returns. Everything else people will just be complaining about the new system they are also trying to game.
@MasonG said:
Everybody wants to be the among the ones who get the limited edition item. It's a problem with no solution.
If the system didn't say you were a robot and repeatedly ask you to identify bicycles, that would be a start.
As if the verification process for those of us whose information is already on file there weren't enough, during the opening bell of any and/or all offerings. All we can do is try.
I was always under the impression this was the reason my financial information was kept ( and is kept) there. Instead, many of us were banned. Strange ways : stranger days.
Practice makes perfect & nobody is perfect. So, practice being nobody and be perfect !
@Cameonut said:
The mint desperately needs a better and more fair method to sell modern crap rarities.
Limited edition items sold by lottery. Notification of upcoming sales posted on mint's website 90 days before entry period begins. 30 day entry period, by mail or online, with provision for buyers to confirm (either online or by phone) that their entry has been accepted.
There'd likely need to be some refinements, but that'll get you started.
@Cameonut said:
The mint desperately needs a better and more fair method to sell modern crap rarities.
Limited edition items sold by lottery. Notification of upcoming sales posted on mint's website 90 days before entry period begins. 30 day entry period, by mail or online, with provision for buyers to confirm (either online or by phone) that their entry has been accepted.
There'd likely need to be some refinements, but that'll get you started.
Lotteries will result in the same problem. People with big networks/family, etc. will get them all. It doesn’t reward people trying to get it. We all had an equal shot to get the coin. The windows and captchas we saw weren’t because the mint was singling us out. It was mostly random based on how we used the site, when we reloaded, etc.
The site crashed, but sites crash under that kind of load. If it didn’t crash they would have sold out in seconds. I say keep the system the same. Do what you can to stop bots, but don’t change the overall way they sell products.
Comments
People complain about bots. The mint does something about it. People complain about what the mint did. Eventually, the mint does something about that...
Lather, rinse, repeat.
But it wouldn’t increase the number of people who could purchase limited edition items. And I’m pretty sure that most of the dissatisfaction is among those who are unsuccessful in their purchase efforts.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
There is something to be said about doing something that doesn't work, as in with a lot of false positives.
I agree. I think people are okay with a system that works well, but from what I've seen, a lot of the dissatisfaction is when the system repeatedly failed to work as one would expected, e.g. showing captchas many times, saying humans were robots, etc.
There's something to be said about looking for a solution that doesn't exist.
If only that were true. Google doesn't have a problem with this and the system seemed to fail on some browsers and work as expected on others.
It's probably better to think of this as growing pains than a solution not existing.
Ok- so the mint fixes those problems and once people are able to put an item in their cart, they can proceed to checkout and make the purchase. Result? A lot of people will be prevented (repeatedly) from putting items in their cart. But they'll be happier about it? I'm skeptical.
From what I've seen on the boards, people would be happier if they missed out because they were late rather than being subjected to captchas or bot warnings multiple times.
At the end of the day, the Mint put in a program which is okay, but it didn't work well and they should work on improving it. I don't think there's anything wrong with highlighting areas for improvement.
Do you think there's a solution when there are more buyers who want coins than there are coins to go around? No matter what you do, when the music stops, some people don't get a chair.
As mentions above, I think that's fine if people aren't getting false positive rejections.
People want a system that's fair, not to be unfairly blocked and delayed.
So instead of multiple captchas and bot warnings, they'll get multiple notices that they can't add an item to their cart and they'll be happier? I'd be surprised.
Yes, because the system is working as expected and people are on an even playing field. Everyone knows there's only so many to go around.
I'm surprised you don't see it this way and think it's okay to have so many false positive errors.
Why do you think the system isn't fair? Because there are delays? Do you think the mint is selectively blocking and delaying specific people?
It’s not that they got screwed it’s how they got screwed. This point is just not that hard to get. Now a solution that the mint might actually implement...another story entirely. The point is not even really debatable as the mint admitted again that their antibot technology hosed up legitimate customer attempts.
100% positive transactions with SurfinxHI, bigole, 1madman, collectorcoins, proofmorgan, Luke Marshall, silver pop, golden egg, point five zero,coin22lover, alohagary, blaircountycoin,joebb21
People didn't want bots and the mint tried to accommodate that desire? Be careful what you wish for, I guess.
I have long been an advocate of the Mint doing something to modify how limited edition coins were allocated / sold. I have a regular job (I am off today) and cannot participate in the 'Goes on sale at noon tomorrow' feeding frenzy's. I have bought many many items from the Mint over the years and that accounts for nothing. It used to not be so bad but since about the mid aughts I just sort of have given up on getting anything that is limited from them.
A side note (sort of): I used to work at a company where one of the VP's was into buying ASE's etc. from the mint along with his father in law who evidently ran a couple of companies. When a limited edition ASE went on sale at noon, I would be at my desk working away as I could not go try and get any and he would stop by at about 1 or so and tell me how many he and his father in law were able to get using their own accounts and getting folks at the father in laws company to buy for them. I would just have to say something like 'Wow that is great, I am glad for you!' Not fun...
K
Order by mail. Like the old days
Problem solved
Martin
300,000 people click on add to cart in the same instant. Hope you have wall street level priority internet that can shave 0.0001 seconds off of your request so that you can move up the list for what time you clicked.
Which is a point I made earlier, depending on the number of Bots in play by individual users (one user can have multiple bots in play) the results are the same as a DOS attack
100% positive transactions with SurfinxHI, bigole, 1madman, collectorcoins, proofmorgan, Luke Marshall, silver pop, golden egg, point five zero,coin22lover, alohagary, blaircountycoin,joebb21
There is no perfect process waiting out there but there is room for improvement. Why not try to make it better?
I'm not buying that Congress and the Mint aren't communicating on the feasibility and fairness of ultra low mintages. Neither party is making unilateral decisions. If the number is a potential PR disaster than the Mint should speak up, and vice versa.
You are over complicating and mason is simplifying. If you lost a race because the guy next to you is faster that’s how it goes, if you lost the race because your lane had holes in it, did you still lose yes..was it a fair race...no. Did people complain about bots with the ERP yes...because it was f’d up cheating that the mint should have seen coming. So the mint fights bots with a substandard system that dorks it up and this is better how? Of course people are going to complain last year crash was the bots...this year crash was the antibot software. I think people can accept losing, it is tougher when you lose because of a pothole in your running lane. Just not that hard to get unless you are Spock. I get it and I did not lose I got my coin and went through all the crashes and locks and bicycles and trains and nonsense. It was pure luck just like the ERP last year. To still win with holes in your lane is great but does not mean those that did not do not have a valid point.
100% positive transactions with SurfinxHI, bigole, 1madman, collectorcoins, proofmorgan, Luke Marshall, silver pop, golden egg, point five zero,coin22lover, alohagary, blaircountycoin,joebb21
If "fair" is your goal, online purchasing at the time of your order will not get you there. Read ElKevvo's post above to see why.
T1? 1995 called...
I see the smiley, but still wanted to point out that back when you had to mail in your order to the mint, there were complaints about the process in Coin World's letters to the editor when people didn't get the coins they wanted.
It would appear so
I was also on a t1 and wondered if it contributed to the challenges as well. Enough people have said why they are angry and only some of it has to do with not getting one. To the flipper, I give a rats butt, for the collector that now has zero chance to complete a series...that sucks.
100% positive transactions with SurfinxHI, bigole, 1madman, collectorcoins, proofmorgan, Luke Marshall, silver pop, golden egg, point five zero,coin22lover, alohagary, blaircountycoin,joebb21
mint to demand
mint to demand
It’s not called t1 anymore? Damn I am old, what is it called now? Pretty sure work still has a t1 but maybe they have all gone cable?
100% positive transactions with SurfinxHI, bigole, 1madman, collectorcoins, proofmorgan, Luke Marshall, silver pop, golden egg, point five zero,coin22lover, alohagary, blaircountycoin,joebb21
mint to demand is possibly the one single thing that can complete the numismatic side of the United States Mint completely shutting down.
I can't think of Any Single Idea Worse than mint to demand...
T1 has a bandwidth of 24 phone lines - a miserable 1.544 Mbps
It was a big deal to have one back then.
Meanwhile on this board nhlsm666 who had what, 13 of the 2019 enhanced? has another dozen of the ASE.
All there is for these releases is an ecosystem of which most in the coin community are willing participants and gamers. The only true way to address complaints here would be to vastly increase mintage and stop allowing returns. Everything else people will just be complaining about the new system they are also trying to game.
As if the verification process for those of us whose information is already on file there weren't enough, during the opening bell of any and/or all offerings. All we can do is try.
I was always under the impression this was the reason my financial information was kept ( and is kept) there. Instead, many of us were banned. Strange ways : stranger days.
Practice makes perfect & nobody is perfect. So, practice being nobody and be perfect !
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
You fools are being played by the us mint.
It is far easier and much less stressful to OPT OUT of the us mint ordering quagmire. I DO.
There is no modern crap that is worth the drama.
The mint desperately needs a better and more fair method to sell modern crap rarities. And the common crap.
“In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." - Thomas Jefferson
My digital cameo album 1950-64 Cameos - take a look!
Limited edition items sold by lottery. Notification of upcoming sales posted on mint's website 90 days before entry period begins. 30 day entry period, by mail or online, with provision for buyers to confirm (either online or by phone) that their entry has been accepted.
There'd likely need to be some refinements, but that'll get you started.
Lotteries will result in the same problem. People with big networks/family, etc. will get them all. It doesn’t reward people trying to get it. We all had an equal shot to get the coin. The windows and captchas we saw weren’t because the mint was singling us out. It was mostly random based on how we used the site, when we reloaded, etc.
The site crashed, but sites crash under that kind of load. If it didn’t crash they would have sold out in seconds. I say keep the system the same. Do what you can to stop bots, but don’t change the overall way they sell products.