"if a member is narued on ebay, then all negative feedback left by that member, perhaps positive feedback as well, should be wiped off everyone's feedback..."
////////////////////////////////////////////////
Approximately 95% of NARUd users - that have been members for more than 180-days - are reinstated within 30-days of having been NARUd.
EBAY currently wipes out FB left by NARUd members who were registered for less than 90-days.
In June, all FB that is more than 24-months old will be removed and archived. The %s and the total numbers will remain, but the old comments will be gone.
The most serious problem in FB - for sellers - is that non-paying "buyers" and scam-artist "buyers" can still leave NEGs. EBAY cannot change this because it would prevent honest buyers - who found out they were being scammed and refused to pay - from leaving FB to warn other buyers.
Smart sellers are moving away from EBAY and starting their own sites. "Customer Service" - and not bogus FB - will determine if those sites prosper. EBAY will still be a good place to advertise, but fewer experienced sellers will rely on the venue as a place to make sales.
Folks Who Bite Get Bitten. Folks Who Don't Bite Get Eaten.
Especially now that eBay owns Paypal, when the buyer makes a payment through Paypal (which you have to assume probably 80% of transactions are), they should automatically get positive feedback - their part is done. They paid for the item.
Disagree...
My belief is that a transaction is NOT complete until the buyer has received his or her item and is happy with it. Rating a buyer is more than just how quickly they have paid, though a swift payment is nice and appreciated, how well a customer handles any issues that arise are just as important. Since we are all human there are issues that sometime arise, such as the post office is slowwww, or they hold a package at the post office, these are things we have no control over, there are also mistakes made, though we all try very hard to be perfect, these issues do happen.
We will leave feedback when a transaction is completed to everyone's satisfaction. How I know that a buyer is happy is when they receive their item and either email me to tell me of the reciept, or they leave me feedback, in either case I will at that time leave feedback.
I post my OPINION about the transaction when the transaction is over, it's not over until there is nothing more the buyer needs from me.
- I am a seller with over (800) 100% feedbacks, and no MWs. 'I paid fast' is not reason to receive a positive. A buyer must also: Pay with legitimate funds; not make false charge back; not say item not delivered (it was); not complain 'S&H too high'; not attempt feedback extortion; not send profane emails. LOTS of things a fast-paying buyer can do to lose their positive & make a seller's experience lousy.
Why do some of you EQUATE me leaving a somewhat debatable neutral with an obvious RETALIATORY NEGATIVE? This simply blows my mind. OK, we can argue all day long that I should not have given him a neutral because there seems to be some debate over what neutral means (although there is no debate in my mind), but the issue is that he retaliated with a NEGATIVE. So, lets be consistent here. With your logic, then the seller should never leave feedback at all until the buyer leaves feedback. That is so very wrong.
"We will leave feedback when a transaction is completed to everyone's satisfaction. "
///////////////////////////////////////////
For many years, I argued that the "buyer had done his/her part" simply by paying promptly. I was right to do so, because EBAY used to be a fun, polite, and civil place. During the past year, EBAY has become a pit of viperous buyers who hate all sellers and will do anything to cheat and damage those sellers. That has forced sellers to re-evaluate their FB policies.
Anybody who does not see the "war dynamics" of the relationships between buyers/sellers, should read the EBAY boards to see just how divided the two groups REALLY are. Good sellers/buyers suffer from the circumstance, but it is what it is.
If 99% of buyers/sellers are good, that still leaves us with a few million bad ones. The bad buyers have ALL of the advantages within EBAY/PayPal; the ONLY defense that honest sellers have left is to wait until "everybody is happy" before leaving FB.
Folks Who Bite Get Bitten. Folks Who Don't Bite Get Eaten.
"With your logic, then the seller should never leave feedback at all until the buyer leaves feedback. "
/////////////////////////////////////////////
Absolutely.
In the instant case, the seller's position would be that he left a NEG because the buyer left a stilted-positive and a neutral, AFTER the seller had done everything he could to solve a problem that the seller did not create.
The seller's FB was subsequent, but not retaliatory. The seller's view of the transaction was "negative." That is not retal, it is simply the seller stating his view.
Folks Who Bite Get Bitten. Folks Who Don't Bite Get Eaten.
<< <i>"With your logic, then the seller should never leave feedback at all until the buyer leaves feedback. "
/////////////////////////////////////////////
Absolutely.
In the instant case, the seller's position would be that he left a NEG because the buyer left a stilted-positive and a neutral, AFTER the seller had done everything he could to solve a problem that the seller did not create.
The seller's FB was subsequent, but not retaliatory. The seller's view of the transaction was "negative." That is not retal, it is simply the seller stating his view. >>
Exactly.
Like it or not, it is what it is. Don't hate the player, hate the game. On and on...
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
Why do some of you EQUATE me leaving a somewhat debatable neutral with an obvious RETALIATORY NEGATIVE? This simply blows my mind.
I don't disagree with the neutral... This seller had poor communication, based on your side. Then again, I would had waited to give up all of my feedbacks, just to see what his reply would be to the neutral. Or I would had just moved on with NO feedback left.
OK, we can argue all day long that I should not have given him a neutral because there seems to be some debate over what neutral means (although there is no debate in my mind), but the issue is that he retaliated with a NEGATIVE.
Giving you a NEG., was wrong in my book. He was a jerk in doing it. The only thing I would had done different with the feedback you left... I would had stated something about his "Poor Communication"!
Your feedback to the seller... "Item never showed up. Refunded money."
Based on what you have stated with your feedback, the seller had "NO" control over the lost item.
Now if I really had to leave one I would had left this one...
"Item never showed up, Refunded given after filing a claim with eBay. Poor Communication, left 3-4 emails."
Then I would had done a follow up... with another follow up feedback.
So, lets be consistent here. With your logic, then the seller should never leave feedback at all until the buyer leaves feedback.
Yes, if it's in my feedback policy, which is in my listings, if you don't agree with it, please do not bid. Not all sellers are like this jerk, if I did something to receive a neutral, I will take it and move on.
Just my policy and my two cents...
Strom, I agree with you. I read the boards all the time and understand what you are saying.
"I read the boards all the time and understand what you are saying. "
/////////////////////////////
That, I think, is a reference to the "EBAY boards;" where the depth of the divide between sellers/buyers is fully revealed.
I also would not leave retal FB, if I had failed to solve a buyer's problem. If I solved the problem and still got poor FB, I would likely NEG the buyer.
On the communication issue: Solving the problem is ALOT more important than sending hand-holding emails about a tiny-money item. Pestering good sellers with emails is not a good way to get what a buyer is seeking. I am not at all interested in receiving repeated reminders that a $5.00 item is AWOL; tell me once, wait a while for the item to arrive, let me refund/replace. (My profit on such an item is MUCH less than $1.00.)
I would expect that the seller in the instant case would now realize that all "missing item" problems should simply be handled through EBAY/PayPal. Those resolutions take ALOT longer than the time that passed in the instant transaction; nothing is "lost" until 30-days pass, under PayPal's scheme. The "replacement-solution" is also generally taken off the table.
Why should sellers even try to solve problems, if positive results still yield poor FB?
TIP TO ALL Sellers: If you want to buy anything on EBAY, use your "buying-ID," not your selling ID. Bad FB means almost NOTHING to a buyer's ability to use EBAY.
Folks Who Bite Get Bitten. Folks Who Don't Bite Get Eaten.
As a buyer, I see both neutrals and negatives as being not positive. Not positive is not good. Not good is definatly not good. And that's what a neutral is to me.
That being said, I try and look at the feedback (ignoring the positives) and decide for myself who's been ripped off, and who's just not easily satisfied. And of course who is being a flat out jerk.
Shane, I definatly don't think you deserved a negative, so for your arguement, I'm on your side.
But I still don't think the seller deserved a neutral, from my point of view, it might as well be a neg if I don't read what you said. And I won't read it once it falls from the first 200.
That, I think, is a reference to the "EBAY boards;" where the depth of the divide between sellers/buyers is fully revealed.
Strom, Yes, I was talking about the eBay boards too.
TIP TO ALL Sellers: If you want to buy anything on EBAY, use your "buying-ID," not your selling ID. Bad FB means almost NOTHING to a buyer's ability to use EBAY.
Agree
As you already know, communication is a big part when dealing with eBayers. It shouldn't take 3-4 emails to get an answer or a having to file with eBay. Just talking about this case only.
While I can see where many of you are coming from, I still believe that a seller should leave feedback once a payment has been received. I have done this for over five years now and have yet to receive a negative. I do realize by doing this I am at risk with someone who may leave an unjustified negative or neutral - however, as it does seem fairly rare (at least for someone who doesn't list more than 150 auctions a year like me), I think I will continue to take that chance. Most buyers (myself included) like to see that the seller left them prompt feedback thanking them for a quick payment. In regards to the neutral that FrankHardy left, I believe that if he personally felt it was justified then it was certainly the right thing to do. I would not have left a neutral for fear of receiving a retaliatory negative or neutral (since I don't have that many transactions, I would like to keep 100% positive feedback to keep buyer confidence). The neutral he left was right to do if he felt it was - and did not deserve retaliatory feedback as he already did his part by paying for the auction. This is, of course, my opinion....and everyone has an opinion so this is not meant to conflict others or cause an arguement, these are just the personal rules or opinions that I follow when conducting business. This is an interesting thread with a lot of interesting perspectives.
airjoedan, your practice is trusting and can be seen as fair, but how can you say that you are completely happy with every aspect of the deal when you don't know if the customer is completely happy? And not if, but when you eventually come across a buyer that is unfair and leaves you unfair feedback, you won't be able to... OK I'm going to say it, "RETALIATE". Because lets face it, some people need a good retaliation .
I guess we can agree to disagree. However, I do want to clear something up. I did not pesture him with emails. I only emailed him after about 3 weeks of the 2 items not showing up, and every couple of weeks thereafter. I spaced them out pretty good, I think. Also, it wasn't just the $6 item in question. It was both items which totalled roughly $18 including shipping. Also, as far as communication goes, I would ask him questions like, "Has items been sent? Did you get delivery confirmation? Exactly what address did you send it to?" So on and so forth." He would reply with some unclear, vague email like "Items sent." That's it. He really seemed like he did not care one way or another about the transaction. Plus, he only refunded and sent the O'Neil auto when I filed a complaint with Ebay. In other words after about a month and half of trying to work it out, I finally tried to do something about it. That's when he finally sent the replacement and gave refund. It's not as if I didn't give him time, and it's not as if I hounded him every day either, but that's the way I am portrayed in this situation. I sell more than I buy, so I understand it from a seller's point of view too. There is no way I would treat a customer the way that I have been treated in this transaction.
I only leave feedback first for those that I know will not be a problem. new buyers with 1 transaction I wait till I see that everything is ok, if they have 2 or more from me I'll leave one telling them that item is on the way.
Sellers should leave feedback when they know the deal is done. The deal is not done upon payment.
"I believe that if he personally felt it was justified then it was certainly the right thing to do. "
//////////////////////////////////////////////
Does that mean if the seller "personally felt" that leaving a NEG was justified, "then it was certainly the right thing to do"?
As we all know, there is often a big difference between what "feels right," and what "is right."
I have had many accounts on EBAY and have done thousands of transactions in numerous categories. For years, I always left FB upon payment; the current environment is not the same as it used to be.
One interesting thing I have found in the past few months:
If a seller does not leave FB first, he/she is - based on wide-spread anecdotal reports - less likely to receive ANY FB from a given buyer. I would say I have personally noticed a +/- 10% difference, since I stopped leaving FB upon payment. (Regular buyers receive FB upon payment, new buyers do not.)
Some buyers have become militant in demanding via email that sellers "go first." Some times I comply, usually not.
Folks Who Bite Get Bitten. Folks Who Don't Bite Get Eaten.
"There is no way I would treat a customer the way that I have been treated in this transaction. "
//////////////////////////////////
It appears that you had to wait longer than you should have to get the problem resolved. However, the delayed outcome was a good one for you; I think that fact should have carried great weight.
BUT, if I was part of the transaction (buyer), it is clearly possible that I might have a different view. However, I have never even emailed a seller until about 30-days had passed without receiving the item.
Items are seldom lost. They come when they come. There is really nothing either the buyer/seller can do to make that different.
Folks Who Bite Get Bitten. Folks Who Don't Bite Get Eaten.
<< <i>airjoedan, your practice is trusting and can be seen as fair, but how can you say that you are completely happy with every aspect of the deal when you don't know if the customer is completely happy? And not if, but when you eventually come across a buyer that is unfair and leaves you unfair feedback, you won't be able to... OK I'm going to say it, "RETALIATE". Because lets face it, some people need a good retaliation . >>
I understand what you are saying, howevever I have always personally felt that all I expect from the buyer is a timely payment - when I receive that they deserve a positive. As a seller, I am taking the risk in not being able to retaliate - but it is just not what I hold as my own "practice". Everyone has their own way but this is how I do mine. It has worked so far.....but then again, if I ever receive an unjustified negative or neutral, I'll probably wish I would have followed your policy. It can go either way. Real interesting topic.
<< <i>"I believe that if he personally felt it was justified then it was certainly the right thing to do. "
//////////////////////////////////////////////
Does that mean if the seller "personally felt" that leaving a NEG was justified, "then it was certainly the right thing to do"?
As we all know, there is often a big difference between what "feels right," and what "is right."
I have had many accounts on EBAY and have done thousands of transactions in numerous categories. For years, I always left FB upon payment; the current environment is not the same as it used to be.
One interesting thing I have found in the past few months:
If a seller does not leave FB first, he/she is - based on wide-spread anecdotal reports - less likely to receive ANY FB from a given buyer. I would say I have personally noticed a +/- 10% difference, since I stopped leaving FB upon payment. (Regular buyers receive FB upon payment, new buyers do not.)
Some buyers have become militant in demanding via email that sellers "go first." Some times I comply, usually not. >>
I can see your side of things and I do agree in many ways. To me, the feedback system is a warning for prospective buyers and sellers of how that other person is conducting business. In this case, FrankHardy left a neutral - now when people search for negatives and neutrals of this seller, they will have proper warning that the seller can possibly take 45 days to issue a refund and/or doesn't communicate effectively with the buyer. In the case of the seller leaving a retaliatory negative....is he warning other sellers that this buyer may leave a negative or neutral if they aren't timely in processing refunds and/or communicating effectively throughout the transaction? I don't think the negative was justified - if anything, the seller should have retaliated with merely a neutral as he received, certainly nothing worse. In my experience, I have always sucked it up in this situation to protect my feedback - that being said, I've never left a negative or a neutral in over 600 eBay transactions...I've only left positives. While this isn't warning others of problems, it does protect my feedback rating. FrankHardy took the risk of leaving what he felt was the appropriate feedback and even though he received retaliatory feedback, gave all of us a warning on that seller's practices. Not saying that the seller is bad - but saying that we now know refunds aren't timely and communication isn't that great. I think this whole thing can go either way with anyone's own opinon and/or practices.
I have a 100% feedback I have never left a negative or neutral even though some people have deserved it and I still have 100%, That is the reason why I still have 100%, The ebay feedback system is flawed but If you want to keep your score good, as a seller some times you have to swallow it and unless you have lost tons of money just let it go and leave a positive or nothing at all, most people are decent and want to get things resolved. It mainly comes down to one thing with the current feedback system let some things go or suffer the rath of a mad customer or seller. I offer a 100% money back guarantee no matter what even if they just changed their minds, it sucks sometimes when the thing they are returning is exspensive but they are happy and probally will buy from you again, Also I have went to insurance required, I had some texbooks get lost in the mail over 200. none of them took the insurance option but I gave them a complete refund and took the loss, I had bought some faulty mailing paper from dollar General and the packing came back with out the books. I think we as sellers need to think of our customers, if my customers are happy I am happy. (remember misery loves company. always treat your customers as you would want to be treated.) I think the negative was wrong because the seller did offer insurance, BUT The seller was WAY WRONG because he has probally lost a customer forever.
Comments
left by that member, perhaps positive feedback as well,
should be wiped off everyone's feedback..."
////////////////////////////////////////////////
Approximately 95% of NARUd users - that have been members
for more than 180-days - are reinstated within 30-days of
having been NARUd.
EBAY currently wipes out FB left by NARUd members who were
registered for less than 90-days.
In June, all FB that is more than 24-months old will be removed
and archived. The %s and the total numbers will remain, but the
old comments will be gone.
The most serious problem in FB - for sellers - is that non-paying
"buyers" and scam-artist "buyers" can still leave NEGs. EBAY
cannot change this because it would prevent honest buyers - who
found out they were being scammed and refused to pay - from
leaving FB to warn other buyers.
Smart sellers are moving away from EBAY and starting their own
sites. "Customer Service" - and not bogus FB - will determine if those
sites prosper. EBAY will still be a good place to advertise, but
fewer experienced sellers will rely on the venue as a place to make
sales.
Disagree...
My belief is that a transaction is NOT complete until the buyer has received his or her item and is happy with it. Rating a buyer is more than just how quickly they have paid, though a swift payment is nice and appreciated, how well a customer handles any issues that arise are just as important. Since we are all human there are issues that sometime arise, such as the post office is slowwww, or they hold a package at the post office, these are things we have no control over, there are also mistakes made, though we all try very hard to be perfect, these issues do happen.
We will leave feedback when a transaction is completed to everyone's satisfaction. How I know that a buyer is happy is when they receive their item and either email me to tell me of the reciept, or they leave me feedback, in either case I will at that time leave feedback.
I post my OPINION about the transaction when the transaction is over, it's not over until there is nothing more the buyer needs from me.
- I am a seller with over (800) 100% feedbacks, and no MWs. 'I paid fast' is not reason to receive a positive. A buyer must also: Pay with legitimate funds; not make false charge back; not say item not delivered (it was); not complain 'S&H too high'; not attempt feedback extortion; not send profane emails. LOTS of things a fast-paying buyer can do to lose their positive & make a seller's experience lousy.
Shane
///////////////////////////////////////////
For many years, I argued that the "buyer had done his/her part" simply
by paying promptly. I was right to do so, because EBAY used to be a
fun, polite, and civil place. During the past year, EBAY has become a pit
of viperous buyers who hate all sellers and will do anything to cheat
and damage those sellers. That has forced sellers to re-evaluate their
FB policies.
Anybody who does not see the "war dynamics" of the relationships
between buyers/sellers, should read the EBAY boards to see just
how divided the two groups REALLY are. Good sellers/buyers suffer
from the circumstance, but it is what it is.
If 99% of buyers/sellers are good, that still leaves us with a few
million bad ones. The bad buyers have ALL of the advantages within
EBAY/PayPal; the ONLY defense that honest sellers have left is to
wait until "everybody is happy" before leaving FB.
at all until the buyer leaves feedback. "
/////////////////////////////////////////////
Absolutely.
In the instant case, the seller's position would be that he left
a NEG because the buyer left a stilted-positive and a neutral,
AFTER the seller had done everything he could to solve a problem
that the seller did not create.
The seller's FB was subsequent, but not retaliatory. The seller's
view of the transaction was "negative." That is not retal, it is
simply the seller stating his view.
<< <i>"With your logic, then the seller should never leave feedback
at all until the buyer leaves feedback. "
/////////////////////////////////////////////
Absolutely.
In the instant case, the seller's position would be that he left
a NEG because the buyer left a stilted-positive and a neutral,
AFTER the seller had done everything he could to solve a problem
that the seller did not create.
The seller's FB was subsequent, but not retaliatory. The seller's
view of the transaction was "negative." That is not retal, it is
simply the seller stating his view. >>
Exactly.
Like it or not, it is what it is. Don't hate the player, hate the game. On and on...
I don't disagree with the neutral... This seller had poor communication, based on your side. Then again, I would had waited to give up all of my feedbacks, just to see what his reply would be to the neutral. Or I would had just moved on with NO feedback left.
OK, we can argue all day long that I should not have given him a neutral because there seems to be some debate over what neutral means (although there is no debate in my mind), but the issue is that he retaliated with a NEGATIVE.
Giving you a NEG., was wrong in my book. He was a jerk in doing it. The only thing I would had done different with the feedback you left... I would had stated something about his "Poor Communication"!
Your feedback to the seller... "Item never showed up. Refunded money."
Based on what you have stated with your feedback, the seller had "NO" control over the lost item.
Now if I really had to leave one I would had left this one...
"Item never showed up, Refunded given after filing a claim with eBay. Poor Communication, left 3-4 emails."
Then I would had done a follow up... with another follow up feedback.
So, lets be consistent here. With your logic, then the seller should never leave feedback at all until the buyer leaves feedback.
Yes, if it's in my feedback policy, which is in my listings, if you don't agree with it, please do not bid. Not all sellers are like this jerk, if I did something to receive a neutral, I will take it and move on.
Just my policy and my two cents...
Strom, I agree with you. I read the boards all the time and understand what you are saying.
/////////////////////////////
That, I think, is a reference to the "EBAY boards;" where the
depth of the divide between sellers/buyers is fully revealed.
I also would not leave retal FB, if I had failed to solve a buyer's
problem. If I solved the problem and still got poor FB, I would
likely NEG the buyer.
On the communication issue: Solving the problem is ALOT more
important than sending hand-holding emails about a tiny-money
item. Pestering good sellers with emails is not a good way to get
what a buyer is seeking. I am not at all interested in receiving
repeated reminders that a $5.00 item is AWOL; tell me once,
wait a while for the item to arrive, let me refund/replace. (My
profit on such an item is MUCH less than $1.00.)
I would expect that the seller in the instant case would now
realize that all "missing item" problems should simply be handled
through EBAY/PayPal. Those resolutions take ALOT longer than the
time that passed in the instant transaction; nothing is "lost"
until 30-days pass, under PayPal's scheme. The "replacement-solution"
is also generally taken off the table.
Why should sellers even try to solve problems, if positive results still
yield poor FB?
TIP TO ALL Sellers: If you want to buy anything on EBAY, use your
"buying-ID," not your selling ID. Bad FB means almost NOTHING to
a buyer's ability to use EBAY.
As a buyer, I see both neutrals and negatives as being not positive. Not positive is not good. Not good is definatly not good. And that's what a neutral is to me.
That being said, I try and look at the feedback (ignoring the positives) and decide for myself who's been ripped off, and who's just not easily satisfied. And of course who is being a flat out jerk.
Shane, I definatly don't think you deserved a negative, so for your arguement, I'm on your side.
But I still don't think the seller deserved a neutral, from my point of view, it might as well be a neg if I don't read what you said. And I won't read it once it falls from the first 200.
////////////////////////////
No.
But, most high-end buyers view it as a NEG that another buyer
was afraid to leave.
Even Tool-Haus groups NEG/NEUTS in the same batch.
Neutrals are VERY BAD. Soft-Positives are BAD.
depth of the divide between sellers/buyers is fully revealed.
Strom, Yes, I was talking about the eBay boards too.
TIP TO ALL Sellers: If you want to buy anything on EBAY, use your
"buying-ID," not your selling ID. Bad FB means almost NOTHING to
a buyer's ability to use EBAY.
Agree
As you already know, communication is a big part when dealing with eBayers. It shouldn't take 3-4 emails to get an answer or a having to file with eBay. Just talking about this case only.
Thanks
Thanks,
Joe
I guess we can agree to disagree. However, I do want to clear something up. I did not pesture him with emails. I only emailed him after about 3 weeks of the 2 items not showing up, and every couple of weeks thereafter. I spaced them out pretty good, I think. Also, it wasn't just the $6 item in question. It was both items which totalled roughly $18 including shipping. Also, as far as communication goes, I would ask him questions like, "Has items been sent? Did you get delivery confirmation? Exactly what address did you send it to?" So on and so forth." He would reply with some unclear, vague email like "Items sent." That's it. He really seemed like he did not care one way or another about the transaction. Plus, he only refunded and sent the O'Neil auto when I filed a complaint with Ebay. In other words after about a month and half of trying to work it out, I finally tried to do something about it. That's when he finally sent the replacement and gave refund. It's not as if I didn't give him time, and it's not as if I hounded him every day either, but that's the way I am portrayed in this situation. I sell more than I buy, so I understand it from a seller's point of view too. There is no way I would treat a customer the way that I have been treated in this transaction.
Shane
Sellers should leave feedback when they know the deal is done. The deal is not done upon payment.
Steve
it was certainly the right thing to do. "
//////////////////////////////////////////////
Does that mean if the seller "personally felt" that leaving a NEG
was justified, "then it was certainly the right thing to do"?
As we all know, there is often a big difference between what
"feels right," and what "is right."
I have had many accounts on EBAY and have done thousands
of transactions in numerous categories. For years, I always
left FB upon payment; the current environment is not the same as
it used to be.
One interesting thing I have found in the past few months:
If a seller does not leave FB first, he/she is - based on wide-spread
anecdotal reports - less likely to receive ANY FB from a given buyer.
I would say I have personally noticed a +/- 10% difference, since
I stopped leaving FB upon payment. (Regular buyers receive FB
upon payment, new buyers do not.)
Some buyers have become militant in demanding via email that sellers
"go first." Some times I comply, usually not.
Steve
have been treated in this transaction. "
//////////////////////////////////
It appears that you had to wait longer than you should
have to get the problem resolved. However, the delayed
outcome was a good one for you; I think that fact should
have carried great weight.
BUT, if I was part of the transaction (buyer), it is clearly
possible that I might have a different view. However, I
have never even emailed a seller until about 30-days
had passed without receiving the item.
Items are seldom lost. They come when they come.
There is really nothing either the buyer/seller can do
to make that different.
<< <i>airjoedan, your practice is trusting and can be seen as fair, but how can you say that you are completely happy with every aspect of the deal when you don't know if the customer is completely happy? And not if, but when you eventually come across a buyer that is unfair and leaves you unfair feedback, you won't be able to... OK I'm going to say it, "RETALIATE". Because lets face it, some people need a good retaliation
I understand what you are saying, howevever I have always personally felt that all I expect from the buyer is a timely payment - when I receive that they deserve a positive. As a seller, I am taking the risk in not being able to retaliate - but it is just not what I hold as my own "practice". Everyone has their own way but this is how I do mine. It has worked so far.....but then again, if I ever receive an unjustified negative or neutral, I'll probably wish I would have followed your policy. It can go either way. Real interesting topic.
- Joe
<< <i>"I believe that if he personally felt it was justified then
it was certainly the right thing to do. "
//////////////////////////////////////////////
Does that mean if the seller "personally felt" that leaving a NEG
was justified, "then it was certainly the right thing to do"?
As we all know, there is often a big difference between what
"feels right," and what "is right."
I have had many accounts on EBAY and have done thousands
of transactions in numerous categories. For years, I always
left FB upon payment; the current environment is not the same as
it used to be.
One interesting thing I have found in the past few months:
If a seller does not leave FB first, he/she is - based on wide-spread
anecdotal reports - less likely to receive ANY FB from a given buyer.
I would say I have personally noticed a +/- 10% difference, since
I stopped leaving FB upon payment. (Regular buyers receive FB
upon payment, new buyers do not.)
Some buyers have become militant in demanding via email that sellers
"go first." Some times I comply, usually not. >>
I can see your side of things and I do agree in many ways. To me, the feedback system is a warning for prospective buyers and sellers of how that other person is conducting business. In this case, FrankHardy left a neutral - now when people search for negatives and neutrals of this seller, they will have proper warning that the seller can possibly take 45 days to issue a refund and/or doesn't communicate effectively with the buyer. In the case of the seller leaving a retaliatory negative....is he warning other sellers that this buyer may leave a negative or neutral if they aren't timely in processing refunds and/or communicating effectively throughout the transaction? I don't think the negative was justified - if anything, the seller should have retaliated with merely a neutral as he received, certainly nothing worse. In my experience, I have always sucked it up in this situation to protect my feedback - that being said, I've never left a negative or a neutral in over 600 eBay transactions...I've only left positives. While this isn't warning others of problems, it does protect my feedback rating. FrankHardy took the risk of leaving what he felt was the appropriate feedback and even though he received retaliatory feedback, gave all of us a warning on that seller's practices. Not saying that the seller is bad - but saying that we now know refunds aren't timely and communication isn't that great. I think this whole thing can go either way with anyone's own opinon and/or practices.
- Joe
Shane
That seller sux.
Steve
Collecting Jordan graded cards,
Jordan #d cards,
Wanted: Bill Quackenbush cards