In this thread, Revolving Dork said:
Today we’ve added the option to filter your results in items: tags, titles searches by a price range!
Search for items using the search bar at the top of any page, and you’ll see the new Price filter tool on the right side of the screen.
Simply enter a minimum and a maximum price, click on “Show Items”, and you’ll see only listings within your price range.
With this revision we’ve also increased the number of results shown per page to 21, from the original 15 (It always has to be divisible by 3 for the gallery view!). We think this will make it easier to browse through more listings more quickly.
Capping off this update, we’ve also removed the ability to sort items by their views on all pages. This particular feature has been broken for a while now, so we’re going to keep it out of the public eye until we can get a better solution online.
Let us know if these changes are helpful!
Apparently when the change was first made, it removed the item views column from individual shops, as well as removing it from search results. But that shop item views column has been returned now.
UPDATE by GreenMamba (February 8, 2008)
Observant seller SingingSky found a glitch in the newly added sort-by-price-range feature.
I just noticed when you put a price range in the new search function, and then “sort by” it resets to all listings, and you have to re-enter the price range.
This could be potentially annoying for buyers…
You should be able to define your price range and then sort your heart out!
At least I feel this would be more convenient :)
Within the hour, RevolvingDork reported the issue resolved - another super-fast fix by admin.
February 8th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Oooh, angrybird, what a good point! Every time the issue of copying or using trademarked characters comes up in the forums, the one thing I hear over and over again is why use something someone else has thought of, come up with your own ideas!
I get the small fish/big pond analogy, but why not be inspired by the *idea* and come up with your own way to illustrate it. Adultify it (is that a word|?) and Etsyfy it and make something original up from the inspiration.
Thank you angrybird for bringing up this point!
February 8th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
OOOO, angrybird, now there’s a point I haven’t seen put forward on this idea. Yikes.
February 8th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Whether it is permitted or not, I just think it is quite unimaginative for a handmade craft community to use someone else’s creation for their own promotion.
February 8th, 2008 at 9:41 am
That is what bothers me most about this. It seems highly improper to me to engage the community in a project that may transgress copyright law. If Etsy is ever targeted for litigation over this (hypothetical, no indication this would happen), it seems reasonable to assume that all the individual participants could be a party to the action as well.
I’m so sick and tired of the ‘top secret’ or ‘private’ line that is always used when Etsy doesn’t want to answer tough questions or give necessary clarification. As soon as Etsy included the community in Rob’s Swimmy and co. it became every Etsian’s business.
The refusal to give a simple, direct answer to a simple, direct question has me wanting to pull my hair out.
February 8th, 2008 at 9:00 am
So was the half pipe removed to make way for the Swimmy exhibit?
February 8th, 2008 at 3:15 am
Yeah, so would the Charlie Brown people. I heard they once sued a church for using Lucy in one of its’ fliers. *S*C*A*R*Y* It’s kind of fascinating to watch the lemming jump, though, isn’t it?
February 8th, 2008 at 1:25 am
I’ve mostly been steering (swimming?) clear of this too, apart from making it known that I find the use of Swimmy as a kind of business plan or guiding light to be cringeworthy!
But I do have issue with Etsy encouraging users to ‘make a Swimmy’ without making it clear if permission has been granted for all of those users to make use of someone else’s character - or that to be in keeping with fair use provisions it needs to be a parody.
People keep saying ‘it’s just a fish’, but if you swap Swimmy with the much more widely known and highly protected Mickey Mouse, I seriously doubt that Disney would agree with, ‘it’s just a mouse!’ - they’d eat those people for dinner!
February 8th, 2008 at 12:01 am
If I were in their shoes I would have just said “used with permission” in the first place and avoid even the appearance of impropriety. (or actually if I were in their shoes I wouldn’t be reading a kiddie book to a bunch of adults, but I digress) But I also think the issue might have been beaten to death, just a tad. Just asking the question is not the same as accusing them of wrongdoing. I don’t think merely asking the question is wrong. But I also like to choose my battles, and this isn’t a battle I would have given a high priority to. (even if I could still post on the forums, LOL) If Etsy gets sued, that’s Etsy’s problem. *shrug*
The colored pencil is mightier than the sword anyway. I protest through humor and satire, sometimes. ;)
February 7th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Ive been battling my feelings on this all day long. I don’t uite feel the way some of the more demanding posters feel with comments about worrying how their images might be handled, but I also didn’t care for the dismissive tone in Sarah’s posts that they have it under control.or that she couldn’t explain it further because us no nothings wouldn’t comprehend the complex legalities that must exist with this sort of thing. But if I were in their shoes, would I feel compelled to show my permission slip from the company or would I, in the face of all the drama just say it’s between me and the copyright holder and no one elses business.
I agree that they should hold themselves up to a higher standaRD above reproach and set an example, and they don;t seem to be doing that.