For sale prices

[Administrator]

Fairly often, cars are listed here at quite unrealistic prices, sometimes thousands of pounds over what a car might actually transact at. Some will feel that this wastes peoples' time, as a car listed well above market value will never sell.

Please use the poll to tell us whether we should have a 'reasonable price' rule for advertised cars here. This would mean that prices would be restricted to about 93% of dealership retail price according to industry figures, which data suggests is about the maximum that private sales transact at.

 

[scz4]

The buyer always determines what the car is worth at the end of the day. I normally avoid any buyer with an inflated price as ironically they're the ones less likely to negotiate, so it's their loss.

In the flip side, I genuinely think some private sellers don't do their research and put up a price on what they hope to get for it or what it owes them. Again their loss if too high. Either way, there's no harm in it, sometimes good for a chuckle.

Surprised by the 93% data point though. If that's the case, I'd always go for the warranted car if you're talking less than £3k on a £40k car.

Ultimately I have no idea how you'd enforce it, even dealership prices vary hugely for the same age, mileage, spec. So what price do you use as a baseline?

 

[Anonymous]

Even on autotrader prices vary massively.
For example there are two 400 sports in black, couple with similar mileage, options will be similar. One is £32k. The other £41k.

I don't think we should have price margins or limits on here.

 

[cj10jeeper]

I think it’s crazy to try to constrain a seller to a maximum price they can ask for.
Id always advertise for above what I expect to achieve for negotiation purposes.

 

[MikeM]

The seller should do their homework first, if it’s unrealistically high nobody will give it a second glance.

 

[ChrisGB]

So, some random new member posts their car for sale for price x, let's say it's a realistic market price. Forum members know absolutely nothing about the car, but the price is "as expected".

A well known forum member posts their identical car for sale, but it has a solid history, a big service and invoice pack, the car and owner are will known to the community, but the price is "optimistic".

What value do you put on this greater knowledge of the car's history and it's owner? I've watched various car club forums talk the value of their cars down. Seems silly to me!

 

[NavigatorNI]

Most buyers will have a fair idea of what they are prepared to pay for the car they want, with due regard for condition, mileage, service history etc. An overpriced car just won't sell and the seller will have to adjust the price down anyway, making the advertised price self regulating. I think trying to control advertised prices here is just making extra work for the admins while simultaneously restricting the seller's freedom to ask for whatever he or she wants.

 

[Administrator]

Thanks for all the replies so far, even if some of them are contradictory to the voting. The view put forward which started this poll was that, as @NavigatorNI says, 'An overpriced car just won't sell', and so these adverts are simply wasting bandwidth and time, but the world seems increasingly illogical and so if you all want cars listed for £5,000 more than they would be at a dealership, we shall let them stay, unless the voting tips the other way all of a sudden...

 

[Anonymous]

Hello

To be honest this is a pointless thread "wasting bandwidth"
so, do people get easily offended by car prices then? .. why don't we ban lower than market value cars then!

 

[Administrator]

Kaspa,

This thread is in response to a member's question on this topic, which seemed worthy of an answer.

Let's keep things civil here, shall we?

 

[Anonymous]

Hang on. I was being chilled and civil thank you!
And in my humble opinion was very civil for me at least

I took this as personal pop at my recent advert for my F type .. why because as soon as I posted my genuine advert this ridiculous poll popped up? if I am wrong then I apologise

if you're not happy with my posts then ban me .. it's a forum talking to strangers that we have in most cases never met

and only joking mind ... if you ban me, I will take you to court under the latest hate crime parliament rulings .. because you are Bullying me to shut up

joke alert .. stop being oversensitive for Christ's sake

Very best regards

 

[JonGreen]

Fairly often, cars are listed here at quite unrealistic prices, sometimes thousands of pounds over what a car might actually transact at. Some will feel that this wastes peoples' time, as a car listed well above market value will never sell.

Please use the poll to tell us whether we should have a 'reasonable price' rule for advertised cars here. This would mean that prices would be restricted to about 93% of dealership retail price according to industry figures, which data suggests is about the maximum that private sales transact at.

With all due respect, why bother starting this thread. Who cares what people ask for their car, as had been said, the buyer ultimately decides the price.
Let them inflate the price all they want..... After all it's not like the old days when you had to buy a copy of Parkers and wait every week for Autotrader to come out, now everything is as at our fingertips.

 

[Anonymous]

We seem to have lost a valuable member as the account now shows as "deleted user". This is a great shame and I hope not because of further private messages behind the scenes.

 

[Administrator]

simpleR, none of the admin team has been in communication with kaspa, though I can't say whether there have been messages between users who are not admins.

Kaspa has decided to delete his account, it was not deleted by an admin. If he is still reading here, his car advert was not the instigating factor.

The background to this poll is that a forum member commented on this topic, and proposed that we should introduce a rule, JonGreen please take note. The board owner could simply have taken a decision, but instead, the fair and democratic thing was done, and it was put to a vote. I'm puzzled as to why this led to such a heated atmosphere. I must say that some of the behaviour we have here is pretty immature and disappointing, but having been around bulletin boards since their earliest days, that isn't much of a surprise.

 

[Lunar]

It’s not a surprise, but having been a member for some years it was one of the great things about this forum that people acted with courtesy and respect, unlike plenty of other forums.

I believe the growth in membership comes at a price and unfortunately we are now starting to pay it.

Perhaps it’s not too late for everyone to just take a step back and maybe not rush to make pointed comments.

After clocking up over 60k miles I sold my F-Type over a year ago now but have still been regularly checking and commenting where I believe I can assist those members with less experience / knowledge of running an F-Type.

…let’s see how things progress and that will be a barometer for me as to my continuing membership.

 

[TH51]

The background to this poll is that a forum member commented on this topic, and proposed that we should introduce a rule, JonGreen please take note. The board owner could simply have taken a decision, but instead, the fair and democratic thing was done, and it was put to a vote. I'm puzzled as to why this led to such a heated atmosphere. I must say that some of the behaviour we have here is pretty immature and disappointing, but having been around bulletin boards since their earliest days, that isn't much of a surprise.

As I see it the wording of the two options offered in this vote is what led to the heated atmosphere. Who would make the decision as to whether any asking price is 'reasonable' or 'elevated'?

My vote would have gone to an option that reflected my view that anyone placing an advert for their car can decide what they ask for it. Then, as has always been the case, potential buyers can decide whether they want to make an offer allowing negotiation to start.

 

[Administrator]

TH51, the post accompanying the poll answers your question, 'This would mean that prices would be restricted to about 93% of dealership retail price according to industry figures, which data suggests is about the maximum that private sales transact at'.

To re-iterate once more, a member put forward the view that an advertisement which lists a car thousands of pounds over the dealership retail value wastes peoples' time, and should not be allowed. 'Unrealistically elevated' seems a fair description of that to me but I take note of your thoughts.

 

[cj10jeeper]

I fully agree with TH51 around the wording itself causing much of the 'heat' in the posts.

I asked AI what it thought about the choices within a poll and bias in the options and it cleverly looked at the poll on here, seemingly able to identify I had read the poll (scary actually..)

Response is:

Absolutely, the wording of poll questions can introduce bias, whether intentionally or unintentionally. This happens when the phrasing influences how people interpret the options or prompts them to answer in a specific way.

For example, in the forum poll you're viewing, the two options seem to guide participants towards specific conclusions:

"Yes, prices should be reasonable." This suggests that having reasonable prices is a straightforward and agreeable choice.

"No, I'm happy to see adverts for cars at unrealistically elevated prices." This phrasing makes the second option sound exaggerated and even absurd, potentially deterring people from choosing it.

Such wording can create a psychological nudge, steering voters toward the option that appears more rational or socially acceptable. This is often referred to as "framing bias."

To avoid this, polls should use neutral and balanced language for all options. For instance:

"Yes, we should set guidelines for reasonable prices."

"No, sellers should have complete freedom to set their asking prices."


The fact that the poll is currently 90% against suggests to me the motion is not liked at all, biased and perhaps responses reflect what AI is suggesting around being nudged.
Food for thought about polls and their wording

 

[Taggy's Lad]

I love that AI suggests that the herd would be nudged towards the first option, and currently 86% of forum voters have gone the other way! We drive F-Types: coincidence? Perhaps not :lol:

 

[NavigatorNI]

I fully agree with TH51 around the wording itself causing much of the 'heat' in the posts.

I asked AI what it thought about the choices within a poll and bias in the options and it cleverly looked at the poll on here, seemingly able to identify I had read the poll (scary actually..)

Response is:

Absolutely, the wording of poll questions can introduce bias, whether intentionally or unintentionally. This happens when the phrasing influences how people interpret the options or prompts them to answer in a specific way.

For example, in the forum poll you're viewing, the two options seem to guide participants towards specific conclusions:

"Yes, prices should be reasonable." This suggests that having reasonable prices is a straightforward and agreeable choice.

"No, I'm happy to see adverts for cars at unrealistically elevated prices." This phrasing makes the second option sound exaggerated and even absurd, potentially deterring people from choosing it.

Such wording can create a psychological nudge, steering voters toward the option that appears more rational or socially acceptable. This is often referred to as "framing bias."

To avoid this, polls should use neutral and balanced language for all options. For instance:

"Yes, we should set guidelines for reasonable prices."

"No, sellers should have complete freedom to set their asking prices."


The fact that the poll is currently 90% against suggests to me the motion is not liked at all, biased and perhaps responses reflect what AI is suggesting around being nudged.
Food for thought about polls and their wording

+1