The rigged "community pricing" system...

I've been pointing this out for years, but here's a screenshot that demonstrates that the current "community pricing" system is not up front. They claim we get it at the lowest price that bids cover the costs. But then they set intervals that bump up the prices. In this case $3 increments. Often $5. Sometimes $10.

Link (It won't let me link an image in...)

This chart looks like this because I had originally bid $12. Had they made the bidding increments $1 apart, The price would clearly be $12 per book for everyone. Since they want to keep it at $13, they literally rigged the $12 to not work. It's not a transparent, or ethical, approach in my view.

Logos, please address this. It's frustrating. But worse, it brings into doubt the integrity of Faithlife.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Kevin A

It is pretty obvious to me that this is just a coding issue where bids at the higher end of the scale will lead to the scale re-adjusting and the increment size increasing. You can see from you image that there are bids at $18/19, which would of been the top of the scale for $1 increments. (see https://www.logos.com/product/38878/the-work-of-st-optatus-bishop-of-milevis-against-the-donatists).

Maybe it was in $3 intervals, when you bid, perhaps it is another coding issue, but the point is that is very likely an automated system.

Sure this could maybe be looked at to handle cases like yours better, but allowing your $1 of frustration to lead you to question the integrity and ethics of a Faithlife in a public forum I think is a bigger issue you should perhaps address.

DMB

Yep, Kevin got it right ... re-think destroying an organization for a dollar.

But your frustration is historic. They start the bid range, so it's guaranteed to fail! The bid increments are wrong! They never highlight key CP resources, and so on. Through the years, it's been emotional.

In my book, doom is that the initial bid range can pretty much finish off a CP before it gets started. Like starting a mine shaft in the wrong place ... more digging is more digging. It can't get better.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1105324#Comment_1105324

ALL CP listings should begin at $1 for one week, then be bumped up based on some algorithm.

Bobby Terhune

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1105330#Comment_1105330

Faithlife knows what there projected costs will be, they also have many years of experience to estimate how many will bid on the project. I believe they set the starting prices to be realistic in relation to the projected demand. if demand exceeds expectations then the price obviously goes lower.

But i believe that once a title has crossed the line, then the increments should be at 1.00

Dr Jason Harris

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1105317#Comment_1105317

It is pretty obvious to me that this is just a coding issue where bids at the higher end of the scale will lead to the scale re-adjusting and the increment size increasing. You can see from you image that there are bids at $18/19, which would of been the top of the scale for $1 increments. (see https://www.logos.com/product/38878/the-work-of-st-optatus-bishop-of-milevis-against-the-donatists).

Maybe it was in $3 intervals, when you bid, perhaps it is another coding issue, but the point is that is very likely an automated system.

Sure this could maybe be looked at to handle cases like yours better, but allowing your $1 of frustration to lead you to question the integrity and ethics of a Faithlife in a public forum I think is a bigger issue you should perhaps address.

No. It's not a coding issue or an algorithm. It takes some custom design to make sure that any bid above the cost line but below the price they want to charge will go down to zero. I'm not web designer, but I am an accountant and that much is obvious.

The intervals often change in a given product. That's not my concern. My concern is that whatever interval they use, the price must be allowed to settle at the actual point at which the bids cover the costs. And Logos makes a point not to let that happen. Even though they say that is what will happen. So no, this is not just frustration. It's a settled pattern and a policy that has been raised with them many times over a decade or so. It's deliberate and it's questionable. At best.

So I am questioning it. It does cast a shadow on the integrity of the organisation. And if you think integrity is somehow scaled on how much money is at stake, maybe that's a bigger issue that you should perhaps address. Seriously, what is it with some people who have to try to shame anyone who raises an issue like this? Feel free to disagree, but don't try to shame people or imply they have a spiritual problem for raising an issue like this. Ok?

Dr Jason Harris

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1105324#Comment_1105324

Yep, Kevin got it right ... re-think destroying an organization for a dollar.

We Christians have got to get past the notion that questioning someone or challenging them or pointing out a problem is somehow hateful or destroying them. It's not. It's ok to point out a problem with an organisation. And if they would have addressed it when it was brought up with them privately on many occasions, it wouldn't even be up in public.

Not having a go at you. Just pushing back for the reasons outlined in my response to Kevin.

But your frustration is historic. They start the bid range, so it's guaranteed to fail! The bid increments are wrong! They never highlight key CP resources, and so on. Through the years, it's been emotional.
In my book, doom is that the initial bid range can pretty much finish off a CP before it gets started. Like starting a mine shaft in the wrong place ... more digging is more digging. It can't get better.

Yeah, this is another issue with the system, and I agree, it is frustrating. They put up a book with the lowest possible bid as $30 or something. It's manipulating the system to push for higher bids and is also questionable. Why does a Christian company choose to act questionably like this?

Bobby Terhune

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1105370#Comment_1105370

Jason,

its not a conspiracy ! I really think faithlife believes that price or close to it is what it will take to successfully cover costs. its taken years to get the Loeb collections into production (Since 2013).

It seems as if people put in low bids and then just wait to see if it well go into production. Then if there bid is too low, the up their bid the last week of bidding.

if everyone bid what they would be willing to pay, things would go much faster. as it is now, by the time a title covers cost, I've forgotten I had even bid on it.

Dustin Mackintosh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1105370#Comment_1105370

Thank you for the feedback, Jason. There definitely appears to be a bug in the community pricing graph where your $12 bid shows at 0%. This is a result of a fix we pushed out yesterday when the page wasn't loading at all after the bid interval changed. I understand you have concerns about bid intervals in general. Though I can't speak to that I can ask someone with more context there to weigh in. In the meantime, our team is fixing that graph.

PetahChristian

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1105380#Comment_1105380

Thanks for the link (and the fixes), Dustin. It's good to have some background for this graph issue!

PetahChristian

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1105370#Comment_1105370

It's ok to point out a problem with an organisation.

Organizations are made up of many people who don't necessarily lack integrity.

And if they would have addressed it when it was brought up with them privately on many occasions, it wouldn't even be up in public.

That's merely an excuse we use to justify what we do. It doesn't necessarily make what we say right or honorable.

I think this all comes back around to having to give account for all the careless words we say.

Why does a Christian company choose to act questionably like this?

I think the bigger question is why Christians in general choose to act questionably. I don't think it's an issue with a company. I think it's an issue with our hearts.

Dr Jason Harris

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1105379#Comment_1105379

its not a conspiracy ! I really think faithlife believes that price or close to it is what it will take to successfully cover costs. its taken years to get the Loeb collections into production (Since 2013).
It seems as if people put in low bids and then just wait to see if it well go into production. Then if there bid is too low, the up their bid the last week of bidding.

if everyone bid what they would be willing to pay, things would go much faster. as it is now, by the time a title covers cost, I've forgotten I had even bid on it.

No, it's not a conspiracty. It's basic maths. Your explanation suggests that you don't understand how the mathematical formula of community pricing works (for instance, no one is questioning or disagreeing with their calculations of the cost of the production).

Basically they use a function to find the intercept of the cost line and the price x bids line. At that intercept, p=c/b (where p=price, c=cost, b=number of bids at the given price). And Logos says/implies that this intercept p will be the p we are charged. But then charges a higher p because they have artificially limited the p at which a person may b, therefore resulting in a higher p than would be required to cover c. It's not complicated maths but Logos acts like it is when they get challenged on it. And people who don't understand the maths just knee-jerk defend Logos.

Dr Jason Harris

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1105380#Comment_1105380

Thank you for the feedback, Jason. There definitely appears to be a bug in the community pricing graph where your $12 bid shows at 0%. This is a result of a fix we pushed out yesterday when the page wasn't loading at all after the bid interval changed. I understand you have concerns about bid intervals in general. Though I can't speak to that I can ask someone with more context there to weigh in. In the meantime, our team is fixing that graph.

Right. My concern wasn't about the graph at all. It is and has always been about bid intervals. Not their existence above the $1 mark, but their role in creating higher prices.

I only brought up the graph because it accurately shows, in graphical form, the thing you guys have been doing for years. And when you accidentally graph out your policy for people to see, it is obvious how flawed the policy is.

Dr Jason Harris

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1105392#Comment_1105392

Organizations are made up of many people who don't necessarily lack integrity.

I didn't say they do. I said the organisation is acting questionably; in a way that raises questions about their integrity. And yes, it is possible for an organisation made up of mostly people of integrity to lack integrity. Organisational actions are fair game for scrutiny and critique. Especially Christian organisations.

That's merely an excuse we use to justify what we do. It doesn't necessarily make what we say right or honorable.
I think this all comes back around to having to give account for all the careless words we say.

Just to be very clear, I would have had no problem bringing it up publicly regardless of whether it was addressed privately already. I was just pointing out that they could have fixed this on multiple occasions and have continually chosen not to. And shame on you for acting like criticising and challenging is somehow wrong or dishonourable. It's not. And your attempt to insinuate that I'm doing something wrong is ugly. I'm raising the issue because it is a valid, real issue. I have a masters in accounting to back the claim. And I'm very, very happy to argue the maths or the ethics here as I have already done quite happily. Open discussion is healthy and good. And I'm entirely open to criticism or correction or clarification. But it is a disturbing commentary on the state of Christianity how many here feel entitled to try to shame me for raising the issue. And silence me from questioning a Christian organisation. It's disturbing.

I think the bigger question is why Christians in general choose to act questionably. I don't think it's an issue with a company. I think it's an issue with our hearts.

Of course it is. And we do it because we're sinners. Which is no justification. And a company is an entity run by a collective of human hearts acting as an entity and therefore challengeable as an entity.

David Wanat

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1105456#Comment_1105456

Alternatively, if those designing the system don’t have MBAs, they could be thinking “at this price point we need X people to bid, and at that price point we need Y bidders.”

Don’t assume that whatever goes against a preferred model must be guided by self-interest. That’s something to be proven, not assumed.

Bradley Grainger (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1105454#Comment_1105454

Basically they use a function to find the intercept of the cost line and the price x bids line. At that intercept, p=c/b (where p=price, c=cost, b=number of bids at the given price). And Logos says/implies that this intercept p will be the p we are charged. But then charges a higher p because they have artificially limited the p at which a person may b, therefore resulting in a higher p than would be required to cover c. It's not complicated maths but Logos acts like it is when they get challenged on it. And people who don't understand the maths just knee-jerk defend Logos.

I'm sorry, I'm not quite understanding what you're saying.

Let's say the production cost is $30,000 and by the time the bidding closes, there are 2,345 bids. (Not enough to cover it at $12, but enough at $13.) Are you saying that Faithlife should calculate the intercept point and charge everyone $12.79 so that production costs are precisely covered and no more?

If so, that might be more "fair", but that's not how community pricing is advertised. From https://www.logos.com/communitypricing/about, "Everyone who bids at or above the winning bid will pay the winning bid amount."

PetahChristian

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1105540#Comment_1105540

Basically they use a function to find the intercept of the cost line and the price x bids line. At that intercept, p=c/b (where p=price, c=cost, b=number of bids at the given price). And Logos says/implies that this intercept p will be the p we are charged. But then charges a higher p because they have artificially limited the p at which a person may b, therefore resulting in a higher p than would be required to cover c. It's not complicated maths but Logos acts like it is when they get challenged on it. And people who don't understand the maths just knee-jerk defend Logos.

I'm sorry, I'm not quite understanding what you're saying.

I think the artificial limitation that Jason mentions (highlight mine) is that larger bid intervals exclude a slightly lesser bid that would also cross the line.

E.g., for the $3 bid interval, you may only be able to bid $10 (unsuccessful, not over line) or $13 (successful, over the line), when $12 would also have been over the line. He thinks it's rigged that people get charged $13, when $12 would also have been successful (if the bid interval had been $1 instead of $3).

Vincent Chia

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1105545#Comment_1105545

I have been a Faithlife customer and Logos user for decades.

I continue to see Community Pricing as a privilege, not as an entitlement.

FL is a business after all. It needs to be profitable to be sustainable. They don't owe us anything.

Community Pricing is an opportunity for us to acquire the desired product at a much lower price. That, I think, ought to be a privilege.

Bradley Grainger (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1105545#Comment_1105545

I think the artificial limitation that Jason mentions (highlight mine) is that larger bid intervals exclude a slightly lesser bid that would also cross the line.

Sure, I can see that, but I don't believe we've communicated any obligation on Faithlife's part to resize the bid intervals to every $1 (or every $0.50, or every $0.10) in order to enable everyone to make the minimum possible bid.

E.g., for the $3 bid interval, you may only be able to bid $10 (unsuccessful, not over line) or $13 (successful, over the line), when $12 would also have been over the line. He thinks it's rigged that people get charged $13, when $12 would also have been successful (if the bid interval had been $1 instead of $3).

I see this specific example is exacerbated by (apparently; I don't know the details) $12 and $18 bids previously being available before the intervals were changed to $10, $13, etc.

However, my previous point stands. When a CP product goes into production, everyone is charged "the winning bid amount", not the minimum possible amount, be it a nice "round" number like $12 (which could have been a bid) or the mathematically lowest-possible number, e.g., $12.79.

PetahChristian

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1105560#Comment_1105560

No problem there, I've been fine with CP, and grateful for the chance to bid on products at a lower price than pre-pub would be!

Lew Worthington

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1105563#Comment_1105563

Yeah, I don't see any problem at all with CP. It seems like a great option. And if I don't think it's worth the bid, I don't bid.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1105540#Comment_1105540

Let's say the production cost is $30,000

MY point, is that if FL was in the habit of setting a $1 MAX bid and letting that percolate for a week or two, I think people would get into the habit of bidding on CPs on a regular basis. I'm not exactly sure how and at what point you might have to bump it up to $2 or $3 dollars, but I do think everyone would be surprised, if not shocked, at how many folks decided to regularly bid on dirt cheap resources. I don't know where $30K stands in terms of average CP costs, but if people were given a chance to bid just $1 and that was the ONLY possible bid, you could probably get 30,000 folks to pony up that buck. This tactic also would be greasing human psychology rather than poking it with a stick. Going back 15-20 years (pretty much since CPs started, whenever that was), I have complained about the bidding process FL employs because it fundamentally ASSUMES bidding dynamics that ignore basic human psychology. FL did implement my suggestion that the outrageously oppressive "Your bid will fail" should be replaced with "Your bid may not succeed". But there are any number of other inherent structures in the CP process that essentially RUN CUSTOMERS OFF rather than encourage maximum customer engagement.

I know this...Bob said very early in the CP process that he didn't care what the closing price was--it could be 1 person bidding $30K, or 30K people bidding $1--he just wanted to cover the expenses. If that is still true, THEN FL IS BUNGLING CP BADLY.

EVERY SINGLE CP SHOULD BE INTRODUCED AT $1 AS THE ONLY AVAILABLE BIDDING LEVEL FOR AT LEAST ONE WEEK TO ONE MONTH. If FL made this new policy a regularly advertised *ATTRACTION!!* on the home page, I seriously doubt it would take long before almost every CP was closing in record time...at one dollar a pop. If the resource doesn't close in the first month, bump the bid to $2 FOR THOSE WHO BID FROM THAT POINT FORWARD, then do the same for subsequent months, giving customers who bid less the option of bumping their bids to $2 or $3 if they want to hasten the project. JUST TRY IT AND SEE.

scooter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1105619#Comment_1105619

EVERY SINGLE CP SHOULD BE INTRODUCED AT $1 AS THE ONLY AVAILABLE BIDDING LEVEL FOR AT LEAST ONE WEEK TO ONE MONTH. If FL made this new policy a regularly advertised *ATTRACTION!!* on the home page, it seriously doubt it would take long before almost every CP was closing in record time...at one dollar a pop. If the resource doesn't close in the first month, bump the bid to $2 FOR THOSE WHO BID FROM THAT POINT FORWARD, then do the same for subsequent months, giving customers who bid less the option of bumping their bids to $2 or $3 if they want to hasten the project. JUST TRY IT AND SEE.

FL, please consider David's idea. Try it on a half dozen resources, and see how the bidding bounces.

Perk CP up; give it some juice; let the bidders loose. CP is dusty, musty, and fusty, which leaves me feeling crusty.

FL: action or no?

Dr Jason Harris

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1105540#Comment_1105540

I'm sorry, I'm not quite understanding what you're saying.
Let's say the production cost is $30,000 and by the time the bidding closes, there are 2,345 bids. (Not enough to cover it at $12, but enough at $13.) Are you saying that Faithlife should calculate the intercept point and charge everyone $12.79 so that production costs are precisely covered and no more?

If so, that might be more "fair", but that's not how community pricing is advertised. From https://www.logos.com/communitypricing/about, "Everyone who bids at or above the winning bid will pay the winning bid amount."

No. I'm saying that in that scenario, you are perfectly justified in charging the $13. But not $14 or $15. Which is what is happening. You are not rounding up to the nearest dollar. You are rounding up to the nearest $3. Or the nearest $5. In the screenshotted case, $12 would have almost certainly crossed the line, but because the intervals were arbitrarily set at $3 intervals ($10 bids or $13 bids), the price was rounded to the nearest $3, not the nearest $1.

You're correct that faithlife has now changed the fine print to cover themselves technically... sort of. Originally, it was overtly stated that the lowest price that covered the cost would win. Now you say the lowest "bid" which allows you to arbitrarily round up by as much as $4.99 (If the cost is covered at $10.01 but the bid intervals are $5, you guys charge $15, not $10 and not $11). Again, while the fine print technically covers you sort of, it violates the logic of what community pricing is supposed to be and what users are led to think it is.

Dr Jason Harris

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1105560#Comment_1105560

Sure, I can see that, but I don't believe we've communicated any obligation on Faithlife's part to resize the bid intervals to every $1 (or every $0.50, or every $0.10) in order to enable everyone to make the minimum possible bid.

That's exactly how you have marketed this product for many years now and to the present. The whole logic of community pricing, including the logic of the name "community pricing," is that the price will be the lowest price that covers the cost. Sure, like I said, you've adjusted the fine print so you're covered. But the average person reading it wouldn't know that "bid" is being used to justify charging as much as $4.99 more than cost per person. An additional income of up to $11,700+ in the scenario you gave of 2,345 bids, by the way. So no, it's not above board. And yes, that is exactly how this programme is represented.

Dr Jason Harris

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1105619#Comment_1105619

MY point, is that if FL was in the habit of setting a $1 MAX bid and letting that percolate for a week or two, I think people would get into the habit of bidding on CPs on a regular basis. I'm not exactly sure how and at what point you might have to bump it up to $2 or $3 dollars, but I do think everyone would be surprised, if not shocked, at how many folks decided to regularly bid on dirt cheap resources. I don't know where $30K stands in terms of average CP costs, but if people were given a chance to bid just $1 and that was the ONLY possible bid, you could probably get 30,000 folks to pony up that buck. This tactic also would be greasing human psychology rather than poking it with a stick. Going back 15-20 years (pretty much since CPs started, whenever that was), I have complained about the bidding process FL employs because it fundamentally ASSUMES bidding dynamics that ignore basic human psychology. FL did implement my suggestion that the outrageously oppressive "Your bid will fail" should be replaced with "Your bid may not succeed". But there are any number of other inherent structures in the CP process that essentially RUN CUSTOMERS OFF rather than encourage maximum customer engagement.
I know this...Bob said very early in the CP process that he didn't care what the closing price was--it could be 1 person bidding $30K, or 30K people bidding $1--he just wanted to cover the expenses. If that is still true, THEN FL IS BUNGLING CP BADLY.
EVERY SINGLE CP SHOULD BE INTRODUCED AT $1 AS THE ONLY AVAILABLE BIDDING LEVEL FOR AT LEAST ONE WEEK TO ONE MONTH. If FL made this new policy a regularly advertised *ATTRACTION!!* on the home page, I seriously doubt it would take long before almost every CP was closing in record time...at one dollar a pop. If the resource doesn't close in the first month, bump the bid to $2 FOR THOSE WHO BID FROM THAT POINT FORWARD, then do the same for subsequent months, giving customers who bid less the option of bumping their bids to $2 or $3 if they want to hasten the project. JUST TRY IT AND SEE.

That is brilliant. I think the problem would be that we'd just end up with a bunch of products in the production queue for years. Also, while Bob's statement was no doubt true at the time, it's bad business. If 30,000 bid $1 and get the product produced, that's 30,000 core customers who will never buy the product at retail or discount later and FL need that revenue source.

Dr Jason Harris

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1105478#Comment_1105478

Alternatively, if those designing the system don’t have MBAs, they could be thinking “at this price point we need X people to bid, and at that price point we need Y bidders.”
Don’t assume that whatever goes against a preferred model must be guided by self-interest. That’s something to be proven, not assumed.

When someone with an MPA tells them it's wrong, perhaps acting in good faith requires listening and fixing it. I'm not asking for my "preferred model." I'm asking for a model that is above board and transparent. "I'm just an amateur" doesn't cut it in business. Less so for Christians in business. Faithlife has highly educated professionals in business, accounting, and coding on staff who could easily explain to them how to be above board on this. Over a decade, they've chosen to change the fine print instead. That's my concern.

I think the artificial limitation that Jason mentions (highlight mine) is that larger bid intervals exclude a slightly lesser bid that would also cross the line.
E.g., for the $3 bid interval, you may only be able to bid $10 (unsuccessful, not over line) or $13 (successful, over the line), when $12 would also have been over the line. He thinks it's rigged that people get charged $13, when $12 would also have been successful (if the bid interval had been $1 instead of $3).

Yup.

I have been a Faithlife customer and Logos user for decades.

I continue to see Community Pricing as a privilege, not as an entitlement.
FL is a business after all. It needs to be profitable to be sustainable. They don't owe us anything.

Community Pricing is an opportunity for us to acquire the desired product at a much lower price. That, I think, ought to be a privilege.

It is neither, Vincent. It is a transaction. And transactions should be above board and transparent.

Of course it's a great thing that they offer community pricing. I agree. And I appreciate it greatly. But just because you're offering someone a great product at a great price doesn't mean you can act questionably. For instance, hidden charges or misleading descriptions are unethical regardless of how good the deal is (I'm not saying Logos is doing that here). So again, this comment just comes across as another Christians trying to shame me for not being more grateful instead of addressing the issue at hand. Christians need to stop trying to shame people they disagree with. Seriously, stop it.

Dr Jason Harris

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1105774#Comment_1105774

Alternatively, if those designing the system don’t have MBAs, they could be thinking “at this price point we need X people to bid, and at that price point we need Y bidders.”

Don’t assume that whatever goes against a preferred model must be guided by self-interest. That’s something to be proven, not assumed.

I think the artificial limitation that Jason mentions (highlight mine) is that larger bid intervals exclude a slightly lesser bid that would also cross the line.

E.g., for the $3 bid interval, you may only be able to bid $10 (unsuccessful, not over line) or $13 (successful, over the line), when $12 would also have been over the line. He thinks it's rigged that people get charged $13, when $12 would also have been successful (if the bid interval had been $1 instead of $3).

Yup.

I have been a Faithlife customer and Logos user for decades.

I continue to see Community Pricing as a privilege, not as an entitlement.

FL is a business after all. It needs to be profitable to be sustainable. They don't owe us anything.

Community Pricing is an opportunity for us to acquire the desired product at a much lower price. That, I think, ought to be a privilege.

It is neither, Vincent. It is a transaction. And transactions should be above board and transparent.

Of course it's a great thing that they offer community pricing. I agree. And I appreciate it greatly. But just because you're offering someone a great product at a great price doesn't mean you can act questionably. For instance, hidden charges or misleading descriptions are unethical regardless of how good the deal is (I'm not saying Logos is doing that here). So again, this comment just comes across as another Christian trying to shame me for not being more grateful instead of addressing the issue at hand. Christians need to stop trying to shame people for raising concerns. It's a toxic culture.

David Wanat

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1105776#Comment_1105776

Alternatively, if those designing the system don’t have MBAs, they could be thinking “at this price point we need X people to bid, and at that price point we need Y bidders.”

Don’t assume that whatever goes against a preferred model must be guided by self-interest. That’s something to be proven, not assumed.
When someone with an MPA tells them it's wrong, perhaps acting in good faith requires listening and fixing it. I'm not asking for my "preferred model." I'm asking for a model that is above board and transparent. "I'm just an amateur" doesn't cut it in business. Less so for Christians in business. Faithlife has highly educated professionals in business, accounting, and coding on staff who could easily explain to them how to be above board on this. Over a decade, they've chosen to change the fine print instead. That's my concern.

And when somebody points out that a system might not be "rigged," but be operating under a different mode of thinking, perhaps that's a sign one should step back rhetoric?

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1105368#Comment_1105368

So I am questioning it. It does cast a shadow on the integrity of the organisation. And if you think integrity is somehow scaled on how much money is at stake, maybe that's a bigger issue that you should perhaps address. Seriously, what is it with some people who have to try to shame anyone who raises an issue like this? Feel free to disagree, but don't try to shame people or imply they have a spiritual problem for raising an issue like this. Ok?

Next time we go up I-5 from Seattle, we'll scan for the shadow. Sorry, but a dollar is a dollar. By the way, the forum does have multiple Master of Accountancy grads, along with multiple everything else. Rather ecclectic bunch.

MWW

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1105781#Comment_1105781

Changing the conversation. So how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1105783#Comment_1105783

Changing the conversation. So how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Depends on the available bid points [:P]

Dr Jason Harris

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1105778#Comment_1105778

And when somebody points out that a system might not be "rigged," but be operating under a different mode of thinking, perhaps that's a sign one should step back rhetoric?

Stop acting like we can just pick a "mode of thinking" that suits and insist people not question it. There is such a thing as an above board, honest, transparent mode of thinking. And Christians are obligated to find one.

The system is rigged.

This is only one of the ways it is rigged. Another way it is rigged is that the lowest possible bid is set very high. On many projects, the lowest bid is $20 or sometimes much more. You cannot claim to be letting the community decide the price based on bids when you only let them make high bids. That's rigging.

Are their motives wrong? I won't presume to know. But when a lot of people raise the issues again and again over a decade+ and the practice is changed, but only to fine-tune the fine print, it doesn't speak well of the motives.

Next time we go up I-5 from Seattle, we'll scan for the shadow. Sorry, but a dollar is a dollar. By the way, the forum does have multiple Master of Accountancy grads, along with multiple everything else. Rather ecclectic bunch.

Not really following your logic here...? Seattle? Shadow? Multiple accountancy grads? I don't understand the meaning of a single sentence you wrote. Sorry. Perhaps you can clarify.

Changing the conversation. So how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

You've got dismissive down to a fine art.

Vincent Chia

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1105776#Comment_1105776

I have been a Faithlife customer and Logos user for decades.

I continue to see Community Pricing as a privilege, not as an entitlement.

FL is a business after all. It needs to be profitable to be sustainable. They don't owe us anything.

Community Pricing is an opportunity for us to acquire the desired product at a much lower price. That, I think, ought to be a privilege.
It is neither, Vincent. It is a transaction. And transactions should be above board and transparent.

Of course it's a great thing that they offer community pricing. I agree. And I appreciate it greatly. But just because you're offering someone a great product at a great price doesn't mean you can act questionably. For instance, hidden charges or misleading descriptions are unethical regardless of how good the deal is (I'm not saying Logos is doing that here). So again, this comment just comes across as another Christian trying to shame me for not being more grateful instead of addressing the issue at hand. Christians need to stop trying to shame people for raising concerns. It's a toxic culture.

Jason, there's no need to be touchy about this. Keep your victimization card. I was just voicing my opinion on the matter.

WIll I feel like you are trying to shame me if you didn't agree with my opinion/proposition? That's jumping the gun.

And what? "Toxic?" You gotta be kidding me.

If you don't like differing opinions, don't get into a forum discussion. My 2 cents.

Dr Jason Harris

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1105872#Comment_1105872

Jason, there's no need to be touchy about this. Keep your victimization card. I was just voicing my opinion on the matter.

WIll I feel like you are trying to shame me if you didn't agree with my opinion/proposition? That's jumping the gun.
And what? "Toxic?" You gotta be kidding me.

If you don't like differing opinions, don't get into a forum discussion. My 2 cents.

Your comment, in context, was having a go. So don't act like I'm being touchy when I call you on your passive aggressive approach. I don't know or care if you intended to belittle my concern by saying you are just grateful. You did belittle my concern by saying you are just grateful. And yes, that is toxic. It is toxic to subtly guilt people into shutting up about concerns and complaints. Whether you are doing it consciously or not.

Seems to me I'm holding my own just fine in a forum discussion.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1105774#Comment_1105774

That is brilliant. I think the problem would be that we'd just end up with a bunch of products in the production queue for years.

There's only one way to find out, and that's give it a try...with a juicy CP, not something that's DOA.

Also, while Bob's statement was no doubt true at the time, it's bad business. If 30,000 bid $1 and get the product produced, that's 30,000 core customers who will never buy the product at retail or discount later and FL need that revenue source.

It's only bad business if what you describe is the goal. I don't remember exactly what he said, but Bob mentioned something about not looking to make a ton of money off of CPs, at least initially. His focus was more on adding tons of public domain titles to the Logos stable in a financially sustainable way. These resources are useful for padding base packages and have other business uses rather than just selling them as stand alone products. I think he was more concerned about increasing available titles over making maximum bank on CPs. That may have changed with time.

My point regarding ALL LOGOS TITLES is that FL should be absolutely maximizing the concept that e-books (especially Logos value-added hyperlinked books) are NOT THE SAME ANIMAL as hard copy books, and they should be marketed as wholesale commodities rather than premium individual resources. The searchable, hyperlinked nature of Logos products generates an inherent desire to own as many books as possible even if you may not read every book you purchase individually cover-to-cover. The goal is to maximize search returns and the larger one's library the better. In some ways, with certain publishers, Bob and FL have succeeded in that goal, but there are still many publishers who try to squeeze hardback prices out of ethereal digital resources.

Anyway, whether it's CPs or standard PrePubs, increasing the size of the overall Logos stable makes the whole FL product more appealing. But at some point, diminishing returns set in. I have many books I'd still like to get in Logos, but to be totally honest with myself, I know for a fact I will never read (in the sense of read through) most of what I buy. I'd have to read at least 5 books a day on average to get through what I already own, and that's not including the 2000 hard copy books I own, which I've been buying more of recently. That's also basing my math on dying at a ripe old age, as opposed to having the need to read anything at all curtailed by the return of Yeishuua`, which I expect is more likely. So, as I've always said, for me at least, VALUE--CRAZY GOOD VALUE--is the primary factor that will motivate all future purchases. To boil it all down, unless I'm getting crazy good value on CPs, I'm just not motivated. If they were a buck each, though...I'd probably make a change in my buying habits.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1105865#Comment_1105865

Next time we go up I-5 from Seattle, we'll scan for the shadow. Sorry, but a dollar is a dollar. By the way, the forum does have multiple Master of Accountancy grads, along with multiple everything else. Rather ecclectic bunch.

Not really following your logic here...? Seattle? Shadow? Multiple accountancy grads? I don't understand the meaning of a single sentence you wrote. Sorry. Perhaps you can clarify

Seattle: just south of Bellingham Washinton, where your 'shadowy' organization is HQ'd

Shadow: from all their (your questions) questionable practices

Masters in Accounting: your quote: "I'm raising the issue because it is a valid, real issue. I have a masters in accounting to back the claim. And I'm very, very happy to argue the maths or the ethics here as I have already done quite happily."

Myke Harbuck

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1105880#Comment_1105880

Jason, there's no need to be touchy about this. Keep your victimization card. I was just voicing my opinion on the matter.

WIll I feel like you are trying to shame me if you didn't agree with my opinion/proposition? That's jumping the gun.
And what? "Toxic?" You gotta be kidding me.

If you don't like differing opinions, don't get into a forum discussion. My 2 cents.

Your comment, in context, was having a go. So don't act like I'm being touchy when I call you on your passive aggressive approach. I don't know or care if you intended to belittle my concern by saying you are just grateful. You did belittle my concern by saying you are just grateful. And yes, that is toxic. It is toxic to subtly guilt people into shutting up about concerns and complaints. Whether you are doing it consciously or not.

Seems to me I'm holding my own just fine in a forum discussion.

Jason,

I hope you can see how your original argument, that may indeed have some validity, or at least some need for further discussion, has gotten lost in the mud of emotionalism, debate, and the need to have the 'last word.'

So, I'm not sure that you've served your purpose well here at all (I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that you disagree with this statement). I get that you say this OP wasn't intended as a personal attack on the character of the organization, but that's exactly how many, myself included, have perceived it.

As such, perhaps you could have better worded your OP? Perhaps you could have just objectively stated your concerns and the math that supports those concerns? Injecting words like "integrity" and "rigged" into the OP drew the argument away from the math, whether you intended it to or not, and towards the issues of morality and intent. In the future, consider a less inflammatory and polarizing way to express your concerns. Perhaps use less hyperbole and just stick to "the facts man" (Sgt Friday's words, not mine).

Another thing to consider. In addition to the OPs nonconstructive language, the incessant need to fire off retaliatory responses to every single opinion expressed in the replies is also counterproductive. You're simply adding more fuel to the fire, which, in turns, causes your main concern to get further lost in the mix. As I read this, it seems to me that before you've even finished reading replies, you're ready to fire off your own reply to them. Take a moment [breathe] to ponder not just what others are saying, but WHY they are saying it. Perhaps they are ALL wrong in their facts and their assumptions, and you are 1000% right. But, again, WHY are they saying what they are saying? Could it, again, point back to the way in which you framed your original post? Just something to think about.

I'm still a rookie here, even after 1000 posts and 10 years, but one thing I've learned from others in this forum is that the WAY you voice a concern or criticism is important. It makes the difference between people listening to you and wanting to stand with you to make a difference and people being alienated by you and indifferent to your cause simply because they don't like your rhetoric (irrespective of the accuracy of your facts).

Can you at least take just a moment and consider why you've offended some, and what might have been the results had you framed your concerns differently:

Title:

Perhaps "Concerns with Community Pricing" would have worked better

"Rigged" conveys only that you are emotional over the issue, and does more to cause loyal customers to defend FL rather than consider your concerns. Again, inflammatory language.

Whether you think so or not, you ARE attacking the character of the company when you say that something is "rigged." Oxford defines rigged as "to conduct something fraudulently to produce a result that is advantageous to a particular person." So your choice of words is a direct attack on the character of the organization and those that lead. I get that it wasn't your intent, but you're basically accusing them of fraud. That's not necessary, and actually violates the forum guidelines. You seem to me to be a highly intelligent guy, so I don't get the need to inject the inflammatory and accusatory language here.

"It's not a transparent, or ethical, approach in my view."

"Logos, please address this. It's frustrating. But worse, it brings into doubt the integrity of Faithlife."

Note how omitting just a few words might lead to a more constructive conversation. Sure, it's not as satisfying emotionally when you're passionate about an issue or upset about what you perceive to be a serious injustice on FL's part, but in the end it's less constructive, as this thread well demonstrates.

I'm sure you ready to fire one off at me, and have likely already formulated your response before finishing this reply, but at least attempt to look at this from 30,000 feet and see what you might can learn here, instead of just what everyone else needs to learn from you. And remember that we are a "community" here [hence: community.logos.com]. As such, we have a responsibility to use rhetoric that is fair to all and that isn't insulting to others in the community. The position, "I'm sorry you are offended, but this needed to be said" really doesn't work well here, especially when there were much better ways to say what (perhaps) needed to be said.

Perhaps I am naive, but any posts that call into question the integrity of the FL organization, or that accuses them of a conspiracy (not you, other OPs), or that call their business practices "unChristian" (not you, other OPs), or that accuse them of "lying" because they didn't meet an obligation or misscommunicated something (not you, other OPs) only cause me to defend FL. Sure, they are not perfect. But we're operating on their servers, using their forums, and have the audience of their staff in these forums, so why should they be subjected to character assassinations or other unnecessary attacks? They shouldn't.

I hope you can step back, take a breath, and see how this could have been handled a little differently.

Blessings to you brother. I do hope your CP concerns can be properly addressed to your satisfaction.

Bill Anderson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1105897#Comment_1105897

Myke,

Thank you for your post here. It was greatly constructive in promoting ways we can more constructively dialogue with each other.

GaoLu

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1105898#Comment_1105898

Myke,

Thank you for your post here. It was greatly constructive in promoting ways we can more constructively dialogue with each other.

[Y]

David Wanat

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1105865#Comment_1105865

And when somebody points out that a system might not be "rigged," but be operating under a different mode of thinking, perhaps that's a sign one should step back rhetoric?

Stop acting like we can just pick a "mode of thinking" that suits and insist people not question it. There is such a thing as an above board, honest, transparent mode of thinking. And Christians are obligated to find one.

The system is rigged.

This is only one of the ways it is rigged. Another way it is rigged is that the lowest possible bid is set very high. On many projects, the lowest bid is $20 or sometimes much more. You cannot claim to be letting the community decide the price based on bids when you only let them make high bids. That's rigging.

Are their motives wrong? I won't presume to know. But when a lot of people raise the issues again and again over a decade+ and the practice is changed, but only to fine-tune the fine print, it doesn't speak well of the motives.

In moral theology, we call that rash judgment. In logic, we call that begging the question.

I don't see the point of continuing this.

Dr Jason Harris

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1105895#Comment_1105895

Seattle: just south of Bellingham Washinton, where your 'shadowy' organization is HQ'd
Shadow: from all their (your questions) questionable practices

Masters in Accounting: your quote: "I'm raising the issue because it is a valid, real issue. I have a masters in accounting to back the claim. And I'm very, very happy to argue the maths or the ethics here as I have already done quite happily."

So you were just ridiculing me?

In moral theology, we call that rash judgment. In logic, we call that begging the question.
I don't see the point of continuing this.

I think you're missing the point. You're acting like this is an attack on their motives primarily. It's not. It's a criticism of a system that is mathematically unjustified. Would it be rash judgement/begging the question to say I know their motives are wrong? Maybe. I don't know that for sure. But objectively speaking, the facts are that the system has been created, mathematically speaking, to benefit them. They have erred on the points I raise. And in their favour. I am questioning/challenging their motives, yes, but only subsidiarily. That doesn't mean I know for sure. But it does mean they need to address it substantively.

Jason,
I hope you can see how your original argument, that may indeed have some validity, or at least some need for further discussion, has gotten lost in the mud of emotionalism, debate, and the need to have the 'last word.'

So, I'm not sure that you've served your purpose well here at all (I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that you disagree with this statement). I get that you say this OP wasn't intended as a personal attack on the character of the organization, but that's exactly how many, myself included, have perceived it.

As such, perhaps you could have better worded your OP? Perhaps you could have just objectively stated your concerns and the math that supports those concerns? Injecting words like "integrity" and "rigged" into the OP drew the argument away from the math, whether you intended it to or not, and towards the issues of morality and intent. In the future, consider a less inflammatory and polarizing way to express your concerns. Perhaps use less hyperbole and just stick to "the facts man" (Sgt Friday's words, not mine).

Another thing to consider. In addition to the OPs nonconstructive language, the incessant need to fire off retaliatory responses to every single opinion expressed in the replies is also counterproductive. You're simply adding more fuel to the fire, which, in turns, causes your main concern to get further lost in the mix. As I read this, it seems to me that before you've even finished reading replies, you're ready to fire off your own reply to them. Take a moment [breathe] to ponder not just what others are saying, but WHY they are saying it. Perhaps they are ALL wrong in their facts and their assumptions, and you are 1000% right. But, again, WHY are they saying what they are saying? Could it, again, point back to the way in which you framed your original post? Just something to think about.

I'm still a rookie here, even after 1000 posts and 10 years, but one thing I've learned from others in this forum is that the WAY you voice a concern or criticism is important. It makes the difference between people listening to you and wanting to stand with you to make a difference and people being alienated by you and indifferent to your cause simply because they don't like your rhetoric (irrespective of the accuracy of your facts).

Can you at least take just a moment and consider why you've offended some, and what might have been the results had you framed your concerns differently:

.

Title:

Perhaps "Concerns with Community Pricing" would have worked better

"Rigged" conveys only that you are emotional over the issue, and does more to cause loyal customers to defend FL rather than consider your concerns. Again, inflammatory language.

Whether you think so or not, you ARE attacking the character of the company when you say that something is "rigged." Oxford defines rigged as "to conduct something fraudulently to produce a result that is advantageous to a particular person." So your choice of words is a direct attack on the character of the organization and those that lead. I get that it wasn't your intent, but you're basically accusing them of fraud. That's not necessary, and actually violates the forum guidelines. You seem to me to be a highly intelligent guy, so I don't get the need to inject the inflammatory and accusatory language here.

OP

"It's not a transparent, or ethical, approach in my view."

"Logos, please address this. It's frustrating. But worse, it brings into doubt the integrity of Faithlife."

Note how omitting just a few words might lead to a more constructive conversation. Sure, it's not as satisfying emotionally when you're passionate about an issue or upset about what you perceive to be a serious injustice on FL's part, but in the end it's less constructive, as this thread well demonstrates.

.

.

I'm sure you ready to fire one off at me, and have likely already formulated your response before finishing this reply, but at least attempt to look at this from 30,000 feet and see what you might can learn here, instead of just what everyone else needs to learn from you. And remember that we are a "community" here [hence: community.logos.com]. As such, we have a responsibility to use rhetoric that is fair to all and that isn't insulting to others in the community. The position, "I'm sorry you are offended, but this needed to be said" really doesn't work well here, especially when there were much better ways to say what (perhaps) needed to be said.

Perhaps I am naive, but any posts that call into question the integrity of the FL organization, or that accuses them of a conspiracy (not you, other OPs), or that call their business practices "unChristian" (not you, other OPs), or that accuse them of "lying" because they didn't meet an obligation or misscommunicated something (not you, other OPs) only cause me to defend FL. Sure, they are not perfect. But we're operating on their servers, using their forums, and have the audience of their staff in these forums, so why should they be subjected to character assassinations or other unnecessary attacks? They shouldn't.

I hope you can step back, take a breath, and see how this could have been handled a little differently.

Blessings to you brother. I do hope your CP concerns can be properly addressed to your satisfaction.

Myke,

I appreciate your feedback. I think you're trying to be charitable and helpful and I appreciate that. I think you assume some things about me that aren't true as well. Mostly that because I use language you view as emotive that I'm responding primarily emotionally. There is some truth in that, but not quite the way you assume it.

First, I was about to agree with you that the term "rigged" implies both fact and motive and go change it with a clarification that I mean merely fact, not motive. But looking back at the OP, it is again very clear to me that this is rigged. If you haven't opened the image and looked at the chart, please do so and you will see that the $12 price point is clearly not following the same formula as the rest of the graph. I cannot think of a way in which that could happen either in mathematics or in coding without specifically, intentionally writing code that overrides the formula. FL have responded that it was the result of a "quick fix." Which will satisfy most people and shroud it in mystery for those who don't know the code/maths. But there's no quick fix that needs to override one price point on an otherwise intact, and still open for business, product auction. So yes, I am saying I think it's rigged. If FL can offer some other explanation, I'll be happy to admit I was wrong. But they have engaged me multiple times and haven't contradicted me on this point. In short, I think someone, somewhere did this and it reflects very badly on FL. And that needs to be investigated by FL and corrected.

Second, you say I've used hyperbole, been inflammatory, and been polarising. I don't see hyperbole. The others are true only in that I have accused FL of behaviour (no doubt by one or some, not all) that is questionable at best. I'm sure that inflames people who are loyal to FL. But I didn't say it to make them mad. I said it because I think it's true and I did give the math to demonstrate it. If people are more loyal to FL than they are to the truth, and therefore choose to be inflamed and polarised regardless of the truth of the matter, that is wrong. Loyalty to an organisation over the truth is at catastrophic proportions in Christianity in our day. And before you say I just used hyperbole, consider that I am aware of thousands... thousands of cases in which Christians chose loyalty to the organisation over loyalty to the truth in protecting the organisation instead of the victims of crime and evil. And here is where I am emotional. I have the scars of that perverse loyalty on my body and being. So no, I don't take responsibility for saying things that inflame people if those things are true. And if I haven't said them in unnecessarily inflammatory ways. I've been quick to admit the issues are probably not rooted in malice. And it's probably more a result of committee incompetence or poor understanding of the issues that has caused it. I'm not trying to say FL is a terrible, corrupt organisation. I love FL, use it almost daily, value them and what they do, think they provide an amazing service to the church, and have said so on this thread. But I have also raised this issue for years and been largely ignored.

Third, when you say we are operating on their servers, you raise a serious issue. Our use of their servers is not a courtesy to us; it is their product. We would not spend a single dollar on Logos if it didn't come with an implied, lifetime guarantee that we will be able to use that product. So I don't think it's appropriate to say they should be treated as our benefactors when they have a legal and ethical obligation to supply the product we are purchasing. That said, I fully agree that accusations should be avoided if possible and we should do our best to be kind and gracious to each other.

Fourth, and this relates to my second point, "character assassination" is, ironically, quite an inflammatory term. But it implies that the accusations are unfair and unfounded. That is not the case here. I have given the maths. I have addressed the issue privately over many years. I have been willing to explain my concerns to them carefully here. So it's not a malicious attack designed to just hurt them. It's an attempt to get them to address this seriously when all other attempts have failed over many years. And I'm not the only one who has raised these issues. Even on this thread.

And the real danger, to which I'm incredibly sensitive as you may by now perceive, is that people should not assume any criticism of the organisation is just a malicious "character assassination." Sometimes it's true. Sometimes the lives of vulnerable people are in the balance. And that means that organisations—Christian organisations especially—should not brush criticism aside casually. And Christians should not allow loyalty to the organisation to cause them to assume that any accusation is untrue and invalid. Christians, because they are good, should always be willing to stand beside the little guy and kindly but firmly insist that the organisation be transparent and accountable.

Of course I realise the stakes aren't that high here. I get that. But the principles are the same. Exactly the same. I have had one person after another on this thread try to shame me into shutting up. And that is toxic. And toxic is not an over-inflammatory word for it. That shaming is the very same method that was used to perpetuate the perpetration of horrific crimes against my family for four decades and keep people out of prison. And I'm personally dealing with enough similar cases of this same thing in the church this week to demonstrate that it is not an isolated event; it is a culture. Christians, churches, and Christian organisations must learn to be transparent and accountable. Christians must learn to require that of them. And we must learn to see that it is sin to allow our loyalty to any organisation to keep us from giving the vulnerable individual an honest hearing and assistance in holding the organisation to account.

Again, I appreciate the spirit of your comment Myke. I have taken it on board. I do recognise the validity and importance of the principles you've addressed. And I do hope you will consider my response as written in a spirit of love and good will.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1106039#Comment_1106039

Seattle: just south of Bellingham Washinton, where your 'shadowy' organization is HQ'd
Shadow: from all their (your questions) questionable practices

Masters in Accounting: your quote: "I'm raising the issue because it is a valid, real issue. I have a masters in accounting to back the claim. And I'm very, very happy to argue the maths or the ethics here as I have already done quite happily."

So you were just ridiculing me?

Jason, from your post count I take it you are relatively new in the forums. We are asked to maintain a living room atmosphere (see guidelines) and, like any living room we have some people with unique styles of communication. Denise does not ridicule people ... she does provide very cryptic, humorous, and insightful input. She is also very knowledgeable on the mathematical foundations of AI applied to the Bible ... many of us wish we had access to her self-built application.

You will find yourself a respected spot in the living room by using language that carries a truth value (in the logical sense) rather than language that carries judgment and emotion -- at least until you know you can predict the response of the room. We are, in general, an accepting group sometimes slipping off into bizarre humor.

Bradley Grainger (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1106039#Comment_1106039

First, I was about to agree with you that the term "rigged" implies both fact and motive and go change it with a clarification that I mean merely fact, not motive. But looking back at the OP, it is again very clear to me that this is rigged. If you haven't opened the image and looked at the chart, please do so and you will see that the $12 price point is clearly not following the same formula as the rest of the graph. I cannot think of a way in which that could happen either in mathematics or in coding without specifically, intentionally writing code that overrides the formula. FL have responded that it was the result of a "quick fix." Which will satisfy most people and shroud it in mystery for those who don't know the code/maths. But there's no quick fix that needs to override one price point on an otherwise intact, and still open for business, product auction. So yes, I am saying I think it's rigged. If FL can offer some other explanation, I'll be happy to admit I was wrong. But they have engaged me multiple times and haven't contradicted me on this point. In short, I think someone, somewhere did this and it reflects very badly on FL. And that needs to be investigated by FL and corrected.

There was a bug in the community pricing page that would crash the page if a user had placed a bid at a value that was no longer one of the default bids, e.g., bidding at $12 or $18 before the bids were changed to $10, $13, $16, $19. This was reported by multiple customers here: https://community.logos.com/forums/p/191552/1104992.aspx#1104992

The "quick fix" was to stop the page crashing.

This "quick fix" introduced another bug, which you noticed: now the value for those bids was calculated as 0% instead of 'bidAmount * bidCount / productionCost'.

I cannot think of a way in which that could happen either in mathematics or in coding without specifically, intentionally writing code that overrides the formula.

There's a very simple explanation: most modern computer languages initialise all values in a new array to zero. Unless these are specifically, intentionally overwritten, they will stay at zero. No intentional code needs to be written to "override the formula"; instead, all that needs to happen is for a default value (of zero) to be neglected to be overwritten because the loop in the code is only processing bids by using the current bid interval.

But they have engaged me multiple times and haven't contradicted me on this point.

I thought this had been clearly identified as a bug on the page we were working to fix, so I didn't specifically address it.

There definitely appears to be a bug in the community pricing graph where your $12 bid shows at 0%. ... In the meantime, our team is fixing that graph.

Just to be clear: there is no "specific, intentional" logic in our community pricing graph that "rigs" the graph to display 0% for a legitimate bid. This is a known bug in the graph rendering code.

Dr Jason Harris

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1106062#Comment_1106062

There was a bug in the community pricing page that would crash the page if a user had placed a bid at a value that was no longer one of the default bids, e.g., bidding at $12 or $18 before the bids were changed to $10, $13, $16, $19. This was reported by multiple customers here: https://community.logos.com/forums/p/191552/1104992.aspx#1104992
The "quick fix" was to stop the page crashing.

This "quick fix" introduced another bug, which you noticed: now the value for those bids was calculated as 0% instead of 'bidAmount * bidCount / productionCost'.

Hey Bradley, Thanks for the explanation. I was wrong to believe this chart was a direct result of the problems I see in the community pricing system. When I said "Since they want to keep it at $13, they literally rigged the $12 to not work," I was wrong and I apologise. I accept that there was nothing shady about the rendering of this chart and will link to this in the OP [edit: tried, it won't let me].

-----

The rest of the OP, and the primary point of this thread remains. The system is designed to round up by as much as $4.99 per person per product. Potentially much further if the intervals are set at $10 or $20. As I've pointed out, this has the potential to result in charges easily into the tens of thousands of dollars above the cost of production as demonstrated already in this thread. The fine print, as I've agreed, technically covers you legally. But ethically, how do you justify this? How do you justify calling it "community pricing" when the logic of the community choosing the price by bidding to find the price that will cover costs is not followed? And how do you resolve the moral dilemma of having a system that gives the impression of being the above mentioned thing when it is in fact not doing that?

Dr Jason Harris

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1106041#Comment_1106041

...we have some people with unique styles of communication. Denise does not ridicule people ... she does provide very cryptic, humorous, and insightful input...

I've noticed...

I didn't find her comments humourous or insightful; I found them dismissive, belittling.

You will find yourself a respected spot in the living room by using language that carries a truth value (in the logical sense) rather than language that carries judgment and emotion -- at least until you know you can predict the response of the room. We are, in general, an accepting group sometimes slipping off into bizarre humor.

Thanks for the equal parts rebuke/invitation to the living room. Not really sure this is my cup of tea though. I'm afraid I'll give the cousins a frightful shock with my ill manners. Thanks though.

Joseph Turner

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1106074#Comment_1106074

The rest of the OP, and the primary point of this thread remains. The system is designed to round up by as much as $4.99 per person per product. Potentially much further if the intervals are set at $10 or $20. As I've pointed out, this has the potential to result in charges easily into the tens of thousands of dollars above the cost of production as demonstrated already in this thread. The fine print, as I've agreed, technically covers you legally. But ethically, how do you justify this? How do you justify calling it "community pricing" when the logic of the community choosing the price by bidding to find the price that will cover costs is not followed? And how do you resolve the moral dilemma of having a system that gives the impression of being the above mentioned thing when it is in fact not doing that?

Jason, as Bradley pointed out, if the cost to produce ends up being $12.79, then they do indeed round up to $13. Where are you getting that "The system is designed to round up by as much as $4.99?" You would have to know exactly the amount for each bid to cover the cost and have an example of them rounding up by more than a dollar, but you don't know the exact amount needed per bid.

Another thing you are not considering is that many people could potentially drop their CP bid before it goes into production, and that little bit that was rounded up might help recover that loss of bidders.

I don't mean for this post to sound combative. I would just be interested to know where you are seeing that they round up by more than within the dollar?

Bradley Grainger (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1106085#Comment_1106085

Where are you getting that "The system is designed to round up by as much as $4.99?"

He's positing a hypothetical example where the bids are $5, $10, $15, $20, $25 and the math works out so that the production costs would be covered exactly at a price of $15.01.

Because $15.01 is greater than $15, that bid doesn't succeed, so the winning bid is $20. This is "rounded up by $4.99" from the mathematically lowest-possible price that would have covered production costs.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1106041#Comment_1106041

she does provide very cryptic, humorous, and insightful input

And too often, a bit excessively translucent. Smiling.

Joseph Turner

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1106103#Comment_1106103

Where are you getting that "The system is designed to round up by as much as $4.99?"

He's positing a hypothetical example where the bids are $5, $10, $15, $20, $25 and the math works out so that the production costs would be covered exactly at a price of $15.01.

Because $15.01 is greater than $15, that bid doesn't succeed, so the winning bid is $20. This is "rounded up by $4.99" from the mathematically lowest-possible price that would have covered production costs.

Ah, that makes sense. I guess I just see all that as baked into the way ti works. I know it going in.

PetahChristian

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1106103#Comment_1106103

Where are you getting that "The system is designed to round up by as much as $4.99?"

He's positing a hypothetical example where the bids are $5, $10, $15, $20, $25 and the math works out so that the production costs would be covered exactly at a price of $15.01.

Because $15.01 is greater than $15, that bid doesn't succeed, so the winning bid is $20. This is "rounded up by $4.99" from the mathematically lowest-possible price that would have covered production costs.

It’s been my experience when a losing bid (like $15 in that hypothetical example) is so close to the line, that bidders will advertise it to get enough new bidders to make $15 successful.

CPers have successfully driven 20-hour Mobile Ed courses from $200+ down to $50, because FL does adjust the graph to allow much lower bids to be possible (and successful).

Although this Ezekiel 17-hour Mobile Ed has an initial minimum bid of $100, FL will likely lower it eventually. Their openness to do that goes against the concept that people will be overcharged ($80+) by a “rigged” system.

https://www.logos.com/product/192163/mobile-ed-ot362-book-study-ezekiel

I’d suggest that for examples where prices were “rounded up,” that there are plenty of actual cases where people paid less due to minimums being lowered.

Rather than the CP system being “rigged” in FL’s favor, it’s probably more balanced than we realize, where paying a little more vs. saving a little more averages out.

If someone is unhappy with having to pay $1 or $5 more for CPs, then advertise them to your friends and fellow forum members, to get more new bids and lower the price. The power to save money on CPs is most definitely in the hands of the bidders!