Unofficial Suggestion "Cooldown" Period?

[Jymotion]

I was surprised to see the reasoning behind puddingkip's suggestion being closed here: http://backpack.tf/vote/id/51cd8e1fba25368249000008

 

"Price was updated less than 24 hours ago. Please give this item some time to stabilize before repricing."

 

I can certainly understand the concept of allowing an item to stabilize in price before suggesting/accepting an initial price, but it does not make sense to me for this to be a reason to close an update.  If the price was not considered stabilized enough, there should not have been a price listed in the first place.  Proof was provided that it was no longer accurate, but it was closed in favor of keeping the less accurate price.

 

The price has since been updated, so I don't mean to dwell to much on this specific example (which is why I didn't make this a Suggestion Question Thread), but I would like to discuss the principle.

 

Is this an unofficial rule or an isolated incident?  If this is a rule, what is the reasoning behind keeping it in place?

A quick search of the forums for "cooldown" returned this comment from Chief (2 months ago) saying such a policy was unlikely to happen.  This obviously wasn't an official statement or anything, but it just adds to why I was surprised.

[MC22]

mod communication problesm?

[Liddojunior]

I would like a cooldown period because items after suggestions need to stabilize because suggestions greatly influence current trades, and people jump the gun to liquidate or grab items up. 

[polar]

It was discussed in Vincent's thread about unsolds being used as proof.

 

I support it wholeheartedly. There should be a cooldown period, even on new items. Sample size of <24 hours isn't enough to pin down a market price.

[Jymotion]

I would like a cooldown period because items after suggestions need to stabilize because suggestions greatly influence current trades, and people jump the gun to liquidate or grab items up. 

I support it wholeheartedly. There should be a cooldown period, even on new items. Sample size of <24 hours isn't enough to pin down a market price.

 

If there is enough proof to show that the current price is inaccurate, a time limit seems arbitrary to me.  If the sample size isn't big enough, that is one problem, but there are certainly times where new items are traded frequently enough that the proof is sufficient.

 

Even if you feel it is too quick, why not leave it open for a few more hours, allowing the suggester to add proof as it happens?  Why the need to close it?

[MC22]

If there is enough proof to show that the current price is inaccurate, a time limit seems arbitrary to me.  If the sample size isn't big enough, that is one problem, but there are certainly times where new items are traded frequently enough that the proof is sufficient.

 

Even if you feel it is too quick, why not leave it open for a few more hours, allowing the suggester to add proof as it happens?  Why the need to close it?

cuz da mods tired of puddingkip getting too much accepts

 

I think Vincent meant a couple days, not hours.

[Jymotion]

I think Vincent meant a couple days, not hours.

 

If that is true, I would disagree with it even more strongly.

[Christley </3 Peelz]

for some things i think there should be a cooldown

1. keys, cooldown should be a week before next suggestion could be made. why? keysellers take bp.tf price and add 2-4 scrap to it. and when there are no other sellers, they become proof. with new suggestions, it starts all over again.

2. new items should have atleast 24 hours to settle. BUT if the suggestor thinks the accepted suggestion was wrong, he has to prove it within x amount of hours, maybe 3?

3. items that are old or unusuals should not have a cooldown.

 

 

items with a lot of new items coming into the market will take the newest suggestion available and take lowest price. but that doesnt mean it doesnt sell for the highest one. its all because people want fast profit rather than holding on and gambling with the price. which might make it so they are left with a craft hat.

if bp.tf accepted suggestions based of that, a 4 ref strange could be 1.66 ref in ~30 hours. just because people know there's a lot of items coming into the market, and want to get rid of it as they can. regularly items need like 3-4 days before being enough for unsolds. but in new items, they are accepted at like 16 hours.

 

so cooldowns are needed

[Jymotion]

2. new items should have atleast 24 hours to settle. BUT if the suggestor thinks the accepted suggestion was wrong, he has to prove it within x amount of hours, maybe 3?

 

items with a lot of new items coming into the market will take the newest suggestion available and take lowest price. but that doesnt mean it doesnt sell for the highest one. its all because people want fast profit rather than holding on and gambling with the price. which might make it so they are left with a craft hat.

 

regularly items need like 3-4 days before being enough for unsolds. but in new items, they are accepted at like 16 hours.

 

so cooldowns are needed

 

this makes very little sense to me.  if the item is considered too new and unstable, there should be no price listed in the first place. If it is unstable, why would we put a price on it and refuse to change it for a set period of time?

 

if bp.tf accepted suggestions based of that, a 4 ref strange could be 1.66 ref in ~30 hours. just because people know there's a lot of items coming into the market, and want to get rid of it as they can.

 

If the market is being flooded and people are trying to get rid of them as fast as they can, why wouldn't the price drop?  the item is not inherently worth 4 ref.  If people are scrambling to sell it for less, then it is worth less.  In puddingkip's suggestion, he showed plenty of people selling their items below the listed price.  yes, it had been <24 hours, but considering how many examples he could find in such a short time period, it was clearly possible to buy for that amount.

[Santa Heavy]

this makes very little sense to me.  if the item is considered too new and unstable, there should be no price listed in the first place. If it is unstable, why would we put a price on it and refuse to change it for a set period of time?

 

-snoop dog-

I agree here. The original price shouldn't have been accepted if it's unstable. The mods need to communicate better with new items so that a decision could be made. For many items it is almost impossible to price them in the first 24 hours due to variances in the offers and prices of those who sell set the item at. If suggestions like that occur I call for the cleverpun method. 

 

The cleverpun method: The art of assigning yourself to suggestions containing many unsolds in order to keep track and see if those unsold become sold. This lets the mod (and everyone) see the accuracy of the suggestion more clearly. This item's original price was a mistake, so cooldowns shouldn't really be applied here.

http://backpack.tf/vote.php?skip=0&defindex=5639&quality=6&priceindex=0&all=1 - as we can see here the second pricing was accepted only a day after the first.

[Christley </3 Peelz]

this makes very little sense to me.  if the item is considered too new and unstable, there should be no price listed in the first place. If it is unstable, why would we put a price on it and refuse to change it for a set period of time?

 

 

If the market is being flooded and people are trying to get rid of them as fast as they can, why wouldn't the price drop?  the item is not inherently worth 4 ref.  If people are scrambling to sell it for less, then it is worth less.  In puddingkip's suggestion, he showed plenty of people selling their items below the listed price.  yes, it had been <24 hours, but considering how many examples he could find in such a short time period, it was clearly possible to buy for that amount.

if there isnt a price listed, the price will be even more unstable. sales ranging from 2 ref to 2 keys.

 

if the market is flooded with them, it doesnt mean the price should be lower. again with how unsold proof is normally considered to be proof after like 4 days, but on newer items like 16-18 hours. so they never have a chance to sell in the time most items get.

[Jymotion]

if there isnt a price listed, the price will be even more unstable. sales ranging from 2 ref to 2 keys.

 

What is your point in saying this?  If sales are ranging from 2 ref to 2 keys we should absolutely not be setting a price for it!  It is not our job to stabilize the market.  It is our job to document it once it is stabilized.

 

if the market is flooded with them, it doesnt mean the price should be lower.

 

If by "flooded", you mean way more sellers than buyers, then how can you say the price will not be driven down?  I'm not saying we should consider 2 hour old trades to be "unsold".  I'm saying that if there are several sellers and successful buyers below the current listed price, then the time between suggestions should be irrelevant.  The example trade from the OP is not removing any price due to "unsolds", it is including a range with a low end that is quite common.

[Christley </3 Peelz]

What is your point in saying this?  If sales are ranging from 2 ref to 2 keys we should absolutely not be setting a price for it!  It is not our job to stabilize the market.  It is our job to document it once it is stabilized.

 

 

If by "flooded", you mean way more sellers than buyers, then how can you say the price will not be driven down?  I'm not saying we should consider 2 hour old trades to be "unsold".  I'm saying that if there are several sellers and successful buyers below the current listed price, then the time between suggestions should be irrelevant.  The example trade from the OP is not removing any price due to "unsolds", it is including a range with a low end that is quite common.

times are not irrelevant. if people see something drop very fast, and hard. people do the smart choise of selling it lower than the suggested price. the problem this brings is that it will be used as proof instantly, because people are scared of a drop even further. if you give time between the suggestions, you will see that the amount of people selling lower will actually get lower, UNLESS the price is really needed to be brought down. if you suggest a pricechange based on those scared traders, then of course the price will get lower.

the cooldown for suggestions would make it so that the scared sales are sorted out, and when the scared hype has died down, price will settle. if it still happens to be at the same price as the scared sellers, then you make a suggestion based on that.

ive seen some suggestions that has been accepted based on all that. and the suggestor has gathered quite a few of those trades, while i cant gather enough counter proof than my own due to tf2ops search system.

[Jymotion]

times are not irrelevant. if people see something drop very fast, and hard. people do the smart choise of selling it lower than the suggested price. the problem this brings is that it will be used as proof instantly, because people are scared of a drop even further. if you give time between the suggestions, you will see that the amount of people selling lower will actually get lower, UNLESS the price is really needed to be brought down. if you suggest a pricechange based on those scared traders, then of course the price will get lower.

the cooldown for suggestions would make it so that the scared sales are sorted out, and when the scared hype has died down, price will settle. if it still happens to be at the same price as the scared sellers, then you make a suggestion based on that.

ive seen some suggestions that has been accepted based on all that. and the suggestor has gathered quite a few of those trades, while i cant gather enough counter proof than my own due to tf2ops search system.

 

You say that people who sell it lower than the suggested price are "do[ing] the smart choice", but then you go on to describe them as "scared".  This phenomenon is not some sort of irrational hysteria.  If I acquire a brand new item and want to sell it, and see that there are dozens/100+ other sellers trying to do the same, I will either need to sell for slightly less or risk not selling my item.  That is the core of free market competition.  If this occurs on a large enough scale, we should treat it like any other item that has 15+ links of sellers below the current listed price.  If you have dealt with items immediately after updates (as I'm sure you have), you would have to have witnessed the hype die down and the market value drop.  That is naturally what new items do, both in the real world and the mannconomy.

 

You seem to be greatly concerned with the repercussions of suggestions.  That is none of our concern.  We document the current price.  You also seem entirely focused on seller.  Why should we misrepresent the true market price by leading buyers to believe it is near impossible to buy for less than the listed price?  Using puddingkip's suggestion as an example, disallowing that range represents the falsity that buyers can buy for 0.66.  Once again, I am not supporting the idea of removing 1 ref from the price.  I am simply saying that the abundance of 0.66 ref sellers should be represented on the spreadsheet.

 

The only real reason I can see for not allowing such updates is the unwillingness of moderators constantly update the price.  I am not asserting or implying that Vincent or any other mods are lazy.  I'm saying that is the only reasoning I could find myself agreeing with.

[polar]

If there is enough proof to show that the current price is inaccurate, a time limit seems arbitrary to me.  If the sample size isn't big enough, that is one problem, but there are certainly times where new items are traded frequently enough that the proof is sufficient.

 

Even if you feel it is too quick, why not leave it open for a few more hours, allowing the suggester to add proof as it happens?  Why the need to close it?

 

My opinion on the whole matter is this. Prices on items fluctuate by time of day and day of the week. Personally, I think most items should really have a cooldown period of 1 week. Brand new items may have an exception of ~1 day. But the variability in price on weekends compared to weekdays and time of day is so significant that there MUST be a sample size >24 hours to get accurate price data. Neither of these time points are arbitrary.

[♠Derpeh♤]

I agree on this, for some new items that literally change prices drastically in half a day and to be unable to report them due to a "rule", it is clear that most items should have a cool down period, however when the proof is somewhat iron proof and undeniable i dont see why it should be closed. (quite obvious that the price of the summer ticket is already selling regularly for 2 recs)

 

Taking the strange enforcer for example literally had 2 changes within 1 day as the original price was set quite high due to hype, and had heaps of people selling lower already.

[polar]

Taking the strange enforcer for example literally had 2 changes within 1 day as the original price was set quite high due to hype, and had heaps of people selling lower already.

 

Again, prices on items are variable with a 24 hour time period. Buds don't sell at the same price at noon as at midnight. Can't take a sample size of <24 hours in pricing items.

[Jymotion]

Buds don't sell at the same price at noon as at midnight.

 

You must see the difference between buds and an item that is less than two days old.

[polar]

You must see the difference between buds and an item that is less than two days old.

 

I was using buds as an example because that gap is most easily evident from the tf2finance graphs. The same variation applies to all items. I have a lot more success buying and selling items at certain times of the day. Just can't go by a few hours of data.

[Jymotion]

I was using buds as an example because that gap is most easily evident from the tf2finance graphs. The same variation applies to all items. I have a lot more success buying and selling items at certain times of the day. Just can't go by a few hours of data.

 

It's a horribly irrelevant comparison, though.  Buds are usually covered by a 1 key range with nearly all trades occuring inside it.  It's a very stable price because nothing has changed about the item in a long time.  Brand new hats, however, are subject to much quicker changes (99% of the time, it's a decrease in price).  The people who want the item right away pay a premium to buy it.  A few hours later, several more sellers enter the market, and the price falls to the point that the less desperate people are willing to pay for it.  Eventually, the only buyers that are left are the ones who were willing to wait for a decent price and the flood of sellers stumble over each other to get rid of the item.  It literally follows this pattern with every update.

 

If we are going to approve an initial price for an item that is still considered "unstable", then we should be updating it when it is clearly evident that loads of sales occur below our price.  If we are not willing to update an obviously innacurate price, we should not be pricing it to begin with.

[Jymotion]

bumping due to the new update

 

A price reduction for The Mair Mask was just accepted 4 hours after another suggestion had been accepted.  Considering it was a different moderator from the example in my OP, perhaps the mods should discuss this policy.

[Distinctively Vincent]

As mentioned, it was agreed during the unsold discussion that a cooldown period was much needed. It was discussed privately with the other admins during that time as well. The matter of 'stability' is less about the overall item itself, but the issue of potential influence of backpack.tf. Rapid nonstop suggestions leads to backpack.tf leading the market, rather than following. That is what is meant by time for the item to restabilize- to ensure that what's being seen is the market itself and not traders reacting to rapid suggestions on this site.

 

It worked out remarkably well for the summer claim check, an item everyone knows would drop rapidly, and it's an excellent example of why the period is needed. People kept trying to chase it as quickly as possible, but after the 24 hour period, the price was clearly recognized as 0.33-0.66 when the bulk of suggestions within the 24 period were trying to argue 0.66-1 ref. A cooldown period not only allows some time for an item to restabilize, but allows for a clearer picture that one cannot get in mere hours after a recent accepted price.

 

There are exceptions to the cooldown period as discussed in the unsolds topic, and the recent Mair Mask example falls under those exceptions. The exceptions are:

1. When resuggesting an old price out of the belief a suggestion was unfairly accepted. There is no need to wait to do so.

2. Due to Valve Intervention (sales, crates, etc. that may have an immediate impact on the market)

 

The Mair Mask falls under this- the new crate drastically changed the situation for its held items. So because the prior Mair Mask price was suggested before the crate was released, the release of the crate negates the cooldown period.

 

Let me know if there's any further confusion and I'll do my best to clarify.

[Jymotion]

 Thanks for the response

 

People kept trying to chase it as quickly as possible, but after the 24 hour period, the price was clearly recognized as 0.33-0.66 when the bulk of suggestions within the 24 period were trying to argue 0.66-1 ref. 

 

I'm not quite sure how this proves anything.  Of course the suggestions during the 24 hour period were between the two prices.  They occured between the two suggestions chronologically.  The way I see it, the seemingly arbitrary cooldown period only led to the price being outdated for its duration.

 

Your example doesn't fit the issue of "leading the market rather than following it".  There obviously had to be a point between 1 ref and 0.33-0.66 ref where the price was 0.66-1 ref and it was suggested with convincing proof.  Perhaps if after the 24 hours passed, the market value clearly remained at 1 ref, you could dismiss the earlier sellers at 0.66 as panicked quicksells, but that wasn't the case and it clearly wasn't going to be the case.  I'm not saying every item needs to be priced immediately as small changes happen, but I don't believe they should be closed without consideration when they are suggested.

[Distinctively Vincent]

Yeah, that one wasn't meant to be an example of leading the market. I brought it up to illustrate the other issue- not enough time having passed to get a clear picture of the market. Suggesting immediately after the prior suggestion could ONLY be a negigible change of 0.66-1, with the vast majority of the proofs being those already used in the prior suggestion. By the time it would pass it'd already be outdated. Giving some breathing room allowed for a real change to be made, and one that could stand without necessitating another suggestion immediately after passing.

[Jymotion]

By the time it would pass it'd already be outdated. Giving some breathing room allowed for a real change to be made, and one that could stand without necessitating another suggestion immediately after passing.

 

But you closed it when it was accurate!  How can you be sure the previous price wasn't outdated by the time it was accepted?

 

I don't know.  I think we disagree in that I believe it should be a case-by-case analysis of the proof and you belief in a flat policy.  Puddingkip showed 11 different traders selling below the current price, which I felt was clear proof the price was inaccurate.  0.33-0.66 ref could have easily been suggested when 0.66-1.00 became outdated.  Agree to disagree, I suppose.

 

edit: question about the policy.  Are the Mair Mask and other Summer items now under cooldown?  Is they locked to their initial damage control suggestions for 24 hours?