Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;SuperDave, post: 2389697, member: 1892&quot;]I wasn&#039;t; I was only referring to the efficiency and capability with which they acted upon my reporting, and I was probably one of the....more enthusiastic reporters of bad auctions. Nothing I ever reported went without action, and I never saw a hint of other than complete efficiency from them. I reported <b>lots</b> of auctions.</p><p><br /></p><p>Then again, I provided proof of my point with every report. I explained the specific problem, and offered links when necessary. It didn&#039;t take an &quot;expert&quot; to determine the accuracy of what I reported.</p><p><br /></p><p>If they do it again - <b>when</b> they do it again, if I get my way - they need to build it right the first time, with a realistic view of what&#039;s possible and necessary. I believe that a sufficiently-efficient system, populated by people who know numismatics, the Ebay system and most importantly how to acquire the information needed for an accurate adjudication, could make enough of a dent in the problem to reduce the number of people willing to test them in the first place. That would reduce the amount of manpower.</p><p><br /></p><p>They just have to accept the idea of paid experts, given incentive via compensation to devote sufficient hours to the task to make it work. And other experts - like Colonial John, for instance - who cold be on-call for email questions. You don&#039;t have to cover every_single_coin in expert fashion; there would obviously have to be some difficult cost/benefit analysis for the more arcane problems. </p><p><br /></p><p>Doug, do you have a feel for the volume of reports CCW used to receive?[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in