Forum:Zero Stock Store Locations
I'm sure others have done it. I've done it several times now and it really irks me. You need an item such as a certain seed, gem, food item, whatever it may be. Maybe you want to feed farm animals for cheap. Whatever it may be. So naturally you turn to general stores over the GE for some of these items due to the, sometimes vast, difference in an item's price between the two. Or maybe you're trying to buy the item but it won't sell on the GE even at 1.5x the guide price. So you pull up an item's Wiki page and scroll down to the section for store locations. Then you proceed to head to one of those locations only to find out once you get there that the base stock is zero.
Let's take raw lobster for example. You scroll down and you see close to a dozen (ten) shops listed there under the store locations section. You also see that the price for raw lobster is significantly lower than the GE price, which would make a large difference when buying in bulk. However not one single shop on that list has any stock, so in the end it appears to be a bit misleading.
I propose we add something to the store locations module that filters out listings with zero stock. I'm aware that zero stock items were placed there as a way to sell things for higher than the GE buy price back when that was something players actually did while GE prices were lower. But nowadays that doesn't hold any merit. The price that's displayed is the shop's buy price. Falling back on the raw lobster example, the shop sell price is only 85 coins. Zero stock items don't have any use anymore. So I'm proposing that we filter them out to keep things relevant, tidy, and save the time of players who don't always pay attention to stock values before running off to shops in search of items.
Any thoughts?01:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose - I disagree that the information should be removed from the page altogether with a filter. Players who want to sell to shops can get a higher price at these stores than the general stores. It's information that may not be relevant to you specifically, but is factually correct and relevant to the article. For an example of a specific use case where this information would be helpful: what about Ironmen accounts that want to sell these items to these stores because they don't have access to the GE?
All line items, including the raw lobster example, currently state that the base stock is 0. If you want to make it clearer that the stock is 0, I'm open to seeing what those options look like, but I don't think the solution should be removing this information from the pages altogether with a filter.22:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- I like MrDew's suggestion - having it as an opt-in toggle leaves the information intact while also giving the end user additional functionality to customize results according to their preferences. 22:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- I actually forgot about ironmam accounts, that makes more sense now. However I still feel there should be some sort of better indication that the shops have a stock of 0. MrDew's suggestion sounds like it would work nicely. 23:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose - per aescopalus. I wouldn't however be opposed to an opt-in in preferences where you can filter these out if you wish, but I am unsure if this is something many people would get use of.22:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Much prefer MrDew's suggestion below - would be in support of this 22:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Comment - I'm wondering if the filtering you had in mind might look something like what is already done for monster drops. For example, see Waterfiend#Main_drop; clicking the cog in the upper-left corner of the table opens a menu of options that allow you to opt-in to filtering rows out (e.g. members items). This filter decision is stored in your browser's local settings, thus it is remembered and re-applied across page loads. If something like that were added to shop stock tables, would that both provide the functionality you're after while addressing the concerns of the current opposition? MrDew (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose The base stock column is pretty clear, in my opinion, so this seems like a problem people might have once at most then understand to check there beforehand. As for making it more visible with opt-in preferences, this seems like clutter that might be a big solution to a small problem. 10:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose - Because the base stock column is already there. It should also be noted that, while specialty shops offered more for their stock items in the past, that is no longer the case (for example, Gerrant and the Lumbridge general store both offer 85 coins for lobsters; the Varrock sword shop and the Lumbridge general store both offer 100 coins for a steel sword). I can't swear that there aren't exceptions, but if all shops offer the same amount for items, they can all be sold to a general store without loss. Oshtur (talk) 03:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose - As others have pointed out, the table already shows base stock, so this seems to me to be just additional clutter. I wouldn't be opposed to the concept of a filter, but I can't think of a good way of implementing it that wouldn't make it basically useless. If we have an opt-in checkbox, then taking the effort to check it is the same as glancing to the right to check the stock. I would support the proposal if I see a good implementation, which I don't see one as of now. Elkswampdog (talk) 15:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC)