Hello Frank.

There is a way to add a discount and add an additional amount to the order using the "Admin Discounts" field. Enter a negative amount to add to the order, enter a positive amount to deduct from the order.

I've put in a request to have the ability to manually update the unit price and shipping discount. BV does have the ability to recalculate real time rates while editing an order. This is good for adding new items and recalculating shipping cost.

I second that. One of my clients will make heavy use of the phone ordering add order ability, I haven't started on the site yet so I hadn't looked at it myself, but I do know he will need to be able to give discounts at the time of the order...

Voting for this functionality as well!

However, there are two sides to this functionality:

a: I am a merchant running a store by myself, I have no one around me that I need to put my faith into, no worries.

b: I am a merchant with 15 Sales Reps. For some reason I keep selling certain products at an extremely discounted rate when I have not authorized any sales or discounts during this time period....I call HR....investigation....

If this functionality is to be integrated, I strongly suggest that attention be paid to administrative roles and it's relationship to Pre-Processed Order Editing Capabilities.

While most merchants would love to trust every single employee of their company.....everybody has a friend who knows someone that knows someone that can get you deal...and I think BV should take this into account during development.

Stefan, we're investigating this feature for Service Pack 2. We currently do not have an ETA on SP2 yet. It is however in the works.

I think maybe somewhere in the Bug Reports section we should start a sticky thread listing features that were in BVC2004 that are gone from BVC5 as a request list for SP2.

Nick that's true of course, but there aren't many programs the remove features as part of an "upgrade".

These were key features we're talking about that were often added because of user requests. To have them dropped in this version seems to be counterproductive.

Particularly the shared choice situation I mentioned seems to greatly limit the flexibility of that feature and there seems to be no real reason for the change other than it wasn't included. Even in the manual example of shared choices you use "color" as the shared choice. What are the chances that EVERY product a merchant sells that has a shared choice of color has the same colors available? Probably close to zero for any store of size. With the current scheme it's a one shot deal, if you want the label to read "Color" you can only use it once with one set of colors. The old way you could have "Brand X Colors" and still have "color" appear on the site side.


Maybe I'm not understanding the implementation behind shared choices but I never expected we'd go backwards with features.


EDIT: Come to think of it part of the reason for this change is probably related to how choices are used now with image swapping etc, which means ultimately this feature may not be useful for anyone looking for single skus even if it were re-implemented because of the logic behind choices.

BetterBuilt I don't see your point. We're looking for features of previous versions to not be removed from new versions of the same software. without explanation or warning and without any migration path.

If you had shared choices in BV2004 what happens to them in BV2005 with the new system, they just get dropped? How could shared choices even get merged properly if the previous version displayed "Display Name" and now the new version displays "Property Name". The answer is anyone performing an upgrade that utlized the previous feature is in for a show stopping surprise. I don't think asking for consistency is reaching.

Okay fair enough, but all I'm trying to tell you is that most would believe BV5 is the upgrade especially considering there is a migration tool. I do understand how features such as the one that prompted this thread get dropped (and hopefully replaced later), the difficulty I'm having is in understanding how any shop owner could convert from 2004 to BV5 in some cases. IE, the shared choice situation is puzzling. It just seems to me that more consideration could have been given to consistency in core logic.

For those that used property names AND display names in their shared choices, is upgrading even an option at this stage?

I think the thread has run it's course at this stage. I would like to see this feature re-implemented AT LEAST for Product Modifiers and see no reason why it can't be. IE, a Property Name and a Display name. Otherwise shared choices have been severely depricated in BVC5