- Forums
-
Pricing
- Community Pricing
- Pricegrid
- Spreadsheet
- Browse Suggestions
- Latest Changes
- Unusual Pricelist
- Browse by Item
- Browse by Effect
- Steam Community Market
- Market Pricelist
-
Trading
- Classifieds
- Classified Listings
- Utilities
- Calculator
- Premium Search
- Statistics
Sold @ 5 ref: http://i.imgur.com/OF6iLUM.png
2 Buyers at 4 ref: http://imgur.com/KxhDh1N
scm reflects a raise is in order
upvoting
I don't trust a sale that has the name of the buyer covered up. I also think that it better if you had more buyers at 5 ref, because simply posting one who is willing to pay extra doesn't constitute a raise in price.
Its completely fine to cover up the name to hide the identity of the trader. If you disagree with this suggestion, you should provide counter proof or a counter suggestion
What my main point was that more proof is needed than a single sale done by the OP himself. The buyers and successful sales should be present on the opening post. I should not have to go out of my way to find successful sales of 5 ref in order to make a judgement. It is the job of the OP to convince me that there is a need for raise by use of evidence that they provide.
Hiding the name does seem fishy.
But a single sale is enough for items that have a small market.
It could very well be the OP's alt for all we know, which is why I don't trust it.
did't know that hiding buyer's name can cause problems - http://i.imgur.com/28lOy5i.png
Heres the same trade with buyer's name not covered then. Hope it helps somewhat
I've seen people do it all the time tho :P
Not saying it's wrong, just saying that it's a bit suspicious :p