You don’t pay shipping fees on cards on your wants list. If you have a bunch of commons/uncommons on there, that’s on the sender to determine if it’s worth the shipping cost for them.

There is definitely a significant overseas component to Pucatrade. Things to consider: less access to retailers / players so this tool is even more valuable for them, and the fact that the majority of people in the world are not from the USA

My .02: The way Derek did this (i.e. transparently) is perfectly fine by me. As I’ve mentioned in the forums, I’d like to see a “tip this author” option, and this kind of does that.

They’re working rolling this out, i believe the plan is have the cards be at 80% / 60% point value once it’s in place.

Fixed. Thank you. I suppose you could squint and piece it together. 🙂

My stance on affiliate links is directly related to the transparency of it. In this case, Derek explicitly identified it. If it were an embedded link or trick, I’d have that gross feeling.

Pucatrade uses an algorithm that compiles pricing data from TCGplayer and a number of other websites.

I keep trying to convince them to add a feature to off “extra” for a card so that people will send it to you first, but that’s pretty low on their list. They are a very responsive group of guys that really listen to the users requests and the site has improved end over end with new features that are rolled out on a regular basis.

You’re right, it is probably ethically dubious as I have the opportunity to gain tens of dollars worth of Pucapoints.

I am formally encouraging everyone who’s interested in Pucatrade to find someone they know that uses it and ask them for a referral link, that way SOMEONE is getting points to spend. Hell, post them in the comments of this thread! As long as you’re joining Pucatrade, it gets better for everyone involved.

Referral links are so common these days I don’t think twice about them. He’s not pushing it (I didn’t even notice it until I read your comment) so it doesn’t bother me.

It seems a little ethically dubious, though, to use this outlet as a chance for personal gain from readers. Perhaps it would be better to suggest that readers support each other through referring friends in the forums. I gather QS pays you for the time you wrote the article, readers pay QS, and now you have given them an opportunity to bypass that system and pay you directly while using QS.

It does maximize value! I’m not completely sure that it’s wrong, but I do think it is a debate worth having.