SELLERS can no longer leave NEGATIVE FEEDBACK on eBay

[Steve Bellayr]

In the US the market place is designed to protect the buyer not the seller. Most frauds occur from the seller's side not the buyer. There are protections which the seller needs to incorporate in his/her business plan. As I stated most commercial sellers have return policies. I have been to auctions where the buyers after purchasing the item returned that day for a full refund...no questions asked. The good thing that is overlooked with ebay is that until its existence a smaller seller had no outlet for seller excessive items except to another dealer at best 40% or a yard sale. (Auctions did not quarantee a good price.) Buying for resale which is what most of the sellers do (You may be the exception.) now have a new market & income. This is demonstrated by how many large dealers now put their excess inventory on ebay with reserves only 10% lower than their asking price. If ebay were not profitable these large dealers would not be using its service. Not to disregard the above comment. It is very true that dealing with the public is less than pleasant for retail merchants or any one that needs to do that for a living on a daily basis. My argument is that ebay is a new outlet for sellers which for the most part realize prices that they could not have prior to ebays inception.

 

[rich815]

Personally as a seller when someone pays I leave them a positive feedback immediately. They did their side of the bargain and trusted me to send them the item by putting their money on the line in advance. I completely expect the same from sellers when I am a buyer.

Unfortunately it's become the norm for sellers to hold their feedback for you hostage by not leaving any feedback even after you paid until you leave them positive feedback first. Something seriously wrong with that and creates a false system in which seller's who inaccurately describe theri item or outright lie in their descriptions get away with it.

 

[foto_fool]

At first blush this seems like a ridiculous policy - the asymmetry is inherently unfair. However, I'm not going to be so quick to condemn it until I see how it plays out.

It seems to me that most of the complaints we make on this forum about the shortcomings of eBay revolve around fraudulent sellers rather than deadbeat buyers. In my personal experience on eBay I have had far more problems with sellers than I have with buyers. I have never left negative feedback for a seller because the ones that most deserve it are the ones most likely to leave retaliatory feedback.

In the real world, merchants are rated all the time but as individual consumers our only rating is our credit score. I'm probably not going to sell anything on eBay for a while, until they give me access to buyers' credit scores.

 

[Dektol Dan]

I've bought/sold on eBay before it went public, before all the artwork and pictures, and before Paypal (money order please)....back when it was cheap, but on the whole way more risky in some ways and safer in others. This was way back when only people with good jobs could afford a computer, and they had intelligence enough to manage to get it on the net at $.25 a minute through a modem. These were the eBay buyer and sellers.

I've lived through the scammers (it works perfect but sold as is), stolen property, a**holes who bid their own items up and thieves that disappear into the night. I have retaliation feedback to prove it.

I've met some very nice folks and landed some outrageously good deals. I've taken a couple of big hits but on the whole I'm way ahead.

However, these days I buy on eBay and sell on Craig's list and Amazon. eBay costs at least 10 times more than it did back in the day. If their fees don't get you (Paypal), the shipping will.

 

[Thardy]

Cool; now I can sell junk, get the money, not ship it, and I'm protected from that evil customer that paid for a dud! Excellent, Smithers...

Now come on, that NEVER happens. 😀

 

[Kim Coxon]

In many ways, I can only see this as improving things on eBay. Nearly all of the sales that go to experienced buyers are placed in the last few seconds. The buyer has never had control over these and cannot put any filters on it. This changes none of that. If a buyer tries feedback blackmail, fails to pay etc, their feedback will be removed so will not affect the sellers rating. I have seen countless complaints on this and every other forum I visit about retaliatory feedback etc and haow the present system fails to provide a complete picture because of fear of it. The good sellers will also reap a big benefit from repeat custom as it will improve their score and help to negate any effects of "problem" buyers.

Apart from country restrictions etc, you have not been able to control who bids on your auction or who wins it. Therefore, the buyers feedback was rather meaningless. If you want to be able to control who buys your item, you have always had to use a forum such as the classifieds here. As far as eBay is concerned, as long as they do take action on NPB, and feedback extortion, then this is more likely to improve things.

Kim

 

[George S.]

What's the big deal? If the buyer sent the money, they lived up to their end of the deal. Why should a buyer get negative feedback? How much further can it be examined?

I was a buyer of an inexpensive older manual SLR. I am in USA, seller was in Netherlands. I sent the money and received a rust encrusted piece of metal that once may have been an SLR. I mean a total write-off, only usable maybe as a doorstop. You wouldn't even want this thing in your house. I spent a lot of time trying to talk to the seller and return it. He stonewalled me and said: "The camera was in working condition when I put it in the box to ship it." Impossible. I left him negative feedback and he retaliated. His comment isn't even understandable, but still shows up as a negative. I now have one negative. He even left eBay and came back under another name. His feedback is forever visible under my name, but my negative feedback is not shown under his new name. Is that fair to me? eBay refused to do anything to either remove it or link it to his new name.

So now, he looks squeaky clean, and I have a negative! Why should I have a negative after dilligently sending him payment?

This new policy would seem to prevent what happened to me. I say- Good Idea!

 

[kevin m]

I have never left negative feedback for a seller because the ones that most deserve it are the ones most likely to leave retaliatory feedback.

That's the truth. I left my first negative a couple of months back (long story, the guy was an ass) and got hit with retaliation feedback even though Paypal had already refunded my money. When I brought this to ebay's attention and asked that the feedback be removed, they acted as though they had no connection to Paypal, when, in fact, then own them outright.

Ebay has gotten too big for its own britches. It's nothing more than an online, global bulletin board, really, but initially it was a GODSEND to have a venue to cut out the worthless camera store middlemen and let buyers and sellers deal with each other directly. I put together my Leica kit, modest as it was, by trading my way up the ladder, mainly thru ebay.

 

[Kim Coxon]

You could also do the same thing and join under a new name then you will have a clean record as well. 😉

Kim

What's the big deal? If the buyer sent the money, they lived up to their end of the deal. Why should a buyer get negative feedback? How much further can it be examined?

I was a buyer of an inexpensive older manual SLR. I am in USA, seller was in Netherlands. I sent the money and received a rust encrusted piece of metal that once may have been an SLR. I mean a total write-off, only usable maybe as a doorstop. You wouldn't even want this thing in your house. I spent a lot of time trying to talk to the seller and return it. He stonewalled me and said: "The camera was in working condition when I put it in the box to ship it." Impossible. I left him negative feedback and he retaliated. His comment isn't even understandable, but still shows up as a negative. I now have one negative. He even left eBay and came back under another name. His feedback is forever visible under my name, but my negative feedback is not shown under his new name. Is that fair to me? eBay refused to do anything to either remove it or link it to his new name.

So now, he looks squeaky clean, and I have a negative! Why should I have a negative after dilligently sending him payment?

This new policy would seem to prevent what happened to me. I say- Good Idea!

 

[Thardy]

Personally as a seller when someone pays I leave them a positive feedback immediately. They did their side of the bargain and trusted me to send them the item by putting their money on the line in advance. I completely expect the same from sellers when I am a buyer.

Unfortunately it's become the norm for sellers to hold their feedback for you hostage by not leaving any feedback even after you paid until you leave them positive feedback first. Something seriously wrong with that and creates a false system in which seller's who inaccurately describe theri item or outright lie in their descriptions get away with it.

I also think a seller should leave positive feedback when the buyer pays.

When I used to buy stuff on eBay I was amazed at how sellers would behave. They would have mounting negative and neutral feedbacks for extremely slow shipping, broken or missing items, and just plain junk listed as mint, and then call the buyer stupid, an ebay newbie, crazy or worse. Then they would leave a negative feedback.

So a guy with very few transactions would end up with a 60% rating.

I really don't see how buyer feedback affects anything. The seller gets his money via paypal, credit card, MO, wire transfer, THEN he mails out his "mint" item. If he doesn't get the money he keeps the item. It is merely an inconvenience and maybe loss of a usage fee (I admit I'm ignorant on what it cost to use these services).

The buyer is the one who has to totally trust the seller to keep up his end of the bargain.

 

[George S.]

I think I'll just forget about ebay altogether and stick to RFF, pnet, and RFF's sponsors. Altho I did have one bad experience on pnet, but that's another story...

 

[Thardy]

I think I'll just forget about ebay altogether and stick to RFF, pnet, and RFF's sponsors. Altho I did have one bad experience on pnet, but that's another story...

Just buy from a store.

 

[George S.]

Just buy from a store.

Easier to say than to do if you're looking for say- a flash snych cord from 1954.
The good thing about ebay is everything imaginable is there. But the a-holes have ruined it.

 

[kevin m]

Just buy from a store.

From the frying pan, into the fire.

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

I once left negative feedback on an Amazon Marketplace deal; the first time ever in hundreds of buys there.

The seller was incensed and would not let the matter drop.

If Amazon Marketplace sellers could leave feedback on buyers I am sure she would have left me very negative feedback.

As said upthread I had kept my end of the deal by paying immediately, but the video tape she sent was completely unacceptable. Although it was new in box it stank of tobacco that we couldn't make go away.

As the video was for a young client in a non-smoking home I had to buy a replacement myself. So in order to sell one item at a modest profit I had to buy two and make a big loss.

To have received negative seller feedback would have been adding insult to my injury.

 

[sanmich]

Any screening system should allow good differentiation between excellent, good, fair and poor performance.

By now, I have experienced a few transactions with high score sellers that ranged from poor to complete crooks. That shows that the retaliation feedback is disuasive enough to turn the whole system into close to pointless.

Sure, deadbeats will continue to buy and will now more easily leave a negative. But they will to every seller. So now, in the mass, there will be some differentiation.
Of course that doesn't mean the new way is good or effective, but IMHO, a change was really needed.

After they recover from the shock to see their new, lower feedback baseline, good sellers may even find themeselves in a better position because their concurent will have much poorer scores.

Screening....

 

[Ducky]

I never thought it was very objective anyway. I had a running email battle with a seller over a false listing. I finally offered to meet a starbucks since things ge easier over coffee. We are ar opposite ends of the country. Anyway, she got a kick out of my suggestion and all ended well, at least for me (full refund plus all postage).
Email is so easily misunderstood. I rarely give feedback based on things said in email.
I quit the bay months ago, both the bay and paybud screwed things up on me.

 

[luketrash]

As someone who buys 95% of the time on ebay vs selling, I -HATE- it when sellers wait for you to post feedback about them so they can lie about you.

I pay immediately with paypal 5 minutes after items end, and many times deal with SLOW shipping, misrepresented products, etc..

It's amazing how KEH's UG rating is every Joe Camera's EX+++ rating on ebay.

 

[sepiareverb]

Well as a buyer and seller I sure don't like the change. As a seller, I don't like that I'll not be able to get a feeling for how reliable they are when someone emails me a "will you ship to wherever' question. Now, if they have a 80 feedback score I just say no, if it is 100 I'll check into it for them. With the new system all buyers will have 100, and so I need to go by number of transactions only, which is something I don't like. Someone with only 15 transactions is then less reliable than someone with 200 transactions even if their feedback under the old system would be 80. As it is now I don't mind working with buyers with a low number of transactions if they have good feedback. That won't last. I'm much more likely to not accept bids from folks with less than some number of feedback.

I very rarely leave negative feedback, or even neutral feedback. Stuff never comes, it takes weeks to hear back from a seller I'll leave negative feedback. I've only left negative feedback for a buyer once, took forever to pay, and didn't answer emails or 'messages' through ebay, even though they were being active, and won auctions after mine. I'd have to leave positive feedback for this? Sorry.

Ebay says I can open a dispute, and choose not to leave feedback at all- they'll ban the bad buyers. What does that do for the next few poor saps down the line until a deadbeat buyer gets the axe?

Again, I've had almost only good transactions on ebay, but find this an ill-advised change to a system that seemed to be working fine. A better approach may have been a means for buyers who feel retaliated against to open some sort of dispute. This seems to throw the feedback system into a waste of time.

They don't make it easy to find, but one can email ebay and complain.
http://contact.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAP...gestions+to+eBay&instruction=&expirationDate=

 

[crawdiddy]

Excellent! It's about time.

How many ebay buyers in this thread related stories about intimidation regarding leaving any type of negative, or even neutral feedback about a seller? Close to 2 dozen.

And why do buyers seem to have this nearly universal reaction? Because 90% of sellers only leave feedback after the buyer has.


ebay Sellers:
You don't like this change? Answer truthfully-- Did you leave feedback for sellers as soon as they paid? Or did you wait to see their feedback first?

The system has been biased toward unscrupulous sellers for a long time. It's about time to level the playing field.