suggestion: when sorting by value, put unpriced unusuals first

[naknak]

maybe even all unpriced items

[Karam]

mhm, why ? i think showing the most value first is better, it is sorting from the most value to the least, and the unpriced ones are of no value unless someone goes and price it. I see no reason for this really

[Hatch Rawer Beryl]

mhm, why ? i think showing the most value first is better, it is sorting from the most value to the least, and the unpriced ones are of no value unless someone goes and price it. I see no reason for this really

 

So.... You're saying that unusuals that haven't been priced on bp.tf yet are worthless? Interesting theory.

 

Now, I would support some form of this. I wouldn't like having a potentially valuable item on the bottom of my backpack when I sort for value.

[Karam]

So.... You're saying that unusuals that haven't been priced on bp.tf yet are worthless? Interesting theory.

 

Now, I would support some form of this. I wouldn't like having a potentially valuable item on the bottom of my backpack when I sort for value.

 

I didn't mean that, if they have no price on this site, why should they be first ? that was my point, sorry for confusion ^^

[F CHARLIE]

I didn't mean that, if they have no price on this site, why should they be first ? that was my point, sorry for confusion ^^

 

 

Upvote. Those r very new and active items of interest. I hate scrolling down to check their history, others on outpost etc.

[naknak]

Upvote. Those r very new and active items of interest. I hate scrolling down to check their history, others on outpost etc.

Exactly.  When I use sort by value, it's usually on someone else's backpack, and because they want to pay in items.  A few times I've told people their whole backpack is not enough to buy <whatever> when in fact they had strange pan or new effect unusual down below the crates and weps.