In article
>I propose that we adopt the Shutterbug Equipment Description Standard
>as the standard for the group. I'll enter it once in this post so
>everyone can see what is says. If there appears to be consensus, would
>the appropriate person please add it to the FAQ? [...]
Having been a subscriber to Shutterbug for many years, and a too-often
purchaser of equipment from the classifieds, I have long found the
Shutterbug ratings too vague for most people to use accurately. Part
of the problem may lie in the absurd part of the descriptions regarding
percent of original finish (intact?): the "90-99% original finish",
for instance (Does that mean that if 10% of the original finish is
completely missing, but 90% remains, that the piece of equipment qualifies for an "Ex +" rating?! ;-). Since there is some vagueness,
the majority of sellers tend to stretch the ratings a bit (at the very least!). The Shutterbug ratings may still be useful (with the "%" nonesense excised), though a 0-10 rating system (allowing fractional ratings), combined with a verbal description of any faults that
detract from perfect condition, may be more useful (though many people who post on rec.photo.marketplace fail to give any description of the condition [or price {or, sometimes, even the model}] of items they
are offering for sale - which mystifies me....).
Hope This Helps