It is disturbing that few here are looking at this objectively.
What if Ebay came out and said, "Guess what, we have a new policy that will prevent feedback extortion thereby allowing buyers to get a much better overall picture of how a seller treats and handles their bidders. This will be accomplished by allowing buyers the ability to leave appropriate feedback without fear of getting a retalitory negative feedback left for them in return. When future potential buyers look at the feedback left by previous buyers, they can be confident there are no negative feedbacks that should have been left but were not. This will also help to weed out bad sellers, giving buyers a higher confidence level in the entire system, ultimately rewarding the sellers as well".
Perhaps it is our selfish side that wants the ability to neg someone - deserved or not - if we ourselves are negged. As a seller I can see this and am sympathetic to this. But who does that help? Retalitory feedback is counterproductive to everyone but the person leaving the feedback. If the buyer gets enough negs, then of course sellers have the option of cancelling bids and blocking that seller. How often does that happen? I don't know but I will bet that it is exponentially less often than a buyer being screwed by a seller.
I think it much more beneficial for the entire community - buyers included - if bad sellers are outed by feedback and either mend their ways or else stop selling. This will never happen unless people are free to leave appropriate feedback.
Are there buyers that should be banned? Are there buyers that deserve negs? You betcha! However, a seller (of anything) is running a business, and just as B&M must do, so should cyber-sellers be able to absorb a few errant transactions. Ebay has plenty of mechanisms in place to protect sellers. And I doubt that many sellers come out behind. Certainly there are acceptions, but the needs of the many clearly outweighs the needs of a few. And there are without a doubt more buyers than sellers.
Instead of looking at this in a narrow-minded "me" point-of-view, try to look at it as a good thing that will help everyone in the long run.
<< <i>Excellent news! I have been an advocate for this for a long time! Sellers should not be able to leave any feedback, good or bad for a buyer. All allowing that does is to promote feedback extortion and skewed feedback numbers for the people that need to have feedback left for them, the sellers.
I DO NOT care what other buyers feedback is, I am not buying from them. I only want to know how a seller treats people. The VERY few deserved negatives on buyers by sellers do not make up for the fact that buyers do not leave deserved negative or neutral feedback on sellers for fear of retalitory feedback. If you are a seller and cannot handle a couple of bad transactions from sellers that you would rather not do business with, you should think about quitting your business and getting into another industry.
BRAVO Ebay!
Were you and Ron on the same ward? Your not one of those sleeze balls on ebay are you? No
"Sounds nice, but in reality it's a load of crap. I was talking to a Powerseller today, somebody who has perfect feedback across thousands of transactions and does about a million dollars a year, and he just got hosed out of $1300 by PayPal when the buyer filed a chargeback. Why? Because even though he followed all the rules - shipped to the confirmed address, used signature confirmation, etc - the name of the person who signed for the item was different than the name on the PayPal account."
...........this is some of the most disturbing Paypal crap yet;
I follow their absurd rules to a tee , and because some bimbo delivery person on the other end , (totally out of my control)
.......fails to get the right signature on the signature conformation label - I get screwed out of my coin AND the money the buyer sent me ???
I DON`T THINK SO ! - I`M going to cancel my Paypal account and will accept only Postal Money orders as the only form of payment .
<< <i>What if Ebay came out and said, "Guess what, we have a new policy that will prevent feedback extortion... >>
That would be great. What they're doing, however, is enabling feedback extortion by buyers who will know there's nothing a seller can do to alert the "community" (I hate that word, but since you used it in your post, I figure it's fair game) that the buyer is a scumbag.
<< <i>Perhaps it is our selfish side that wants the ability to neg someone - deserved or not - if we ourselves are negged. >>
No- I always leave feedback first (at least for now). What I want is to be able to give a deadbeat bidder the feedback he deserves.
<< <i>Certainly there are acceptions, but the needs of the many clearly outweighs the needs of a few. >>
Sounds awfully collectivistic- are you *sure* you know what Ron Paul stands for?
edited to add... I'm a buyer on eBay too. As a buyer, I think this change sucks.
<< <i>Russ does that now become a post office problem? they allowed a signature other then the intended person?
Steve >>
You'd think so, but no. It would only be a post office problem if the shipper used restricted delivery, which is not a requirement under the PayPal SPP.
<< <i>What if Ebay came out and said, "Guess what, we have a new policy that will prevent feedback extortion thereby allowing buyers to get a much better overall picture of how a seller treats and handles their bidders. This will be accomplished by allowing buyers the ability to leave appropriate feedback without fear of getting a retalitory negative feedback left for them in return. >>
They can easily do that without completely eliminating the good seller's ability to warn other good sellers about deadbeats and whackos. Just tie the seller's ability to leave negs in with the seller's overall performance rating. If they have a crappy track record for customer service and a history of retaliation it's easy enough to make that determination with the current coding.
"And the First Rule of Business? The Customer is ALWAYS Right!"
thats a load of crap. its a two way street. "customers" could learn some manners, turn off the cell phone, have some courtesy and stop thinking they are entitled to be treated like royalty.
Maybe ebay should allow buyers to be rated just like they always have been:
Pays promptly Payed as agreed Requires cash (did not pay)
I believe ebay and a few other online auction sites are the only places where sellers have ever been allowed to publicly rate buyers. Credit reporting agencies have been around a long time, but the information they collect is not public. The Better Business Bureau has been around a long time also and they do not collect ratings on buyers either - only sellers. If a complaint is filed the company is allowed to give their side of the story which becomes part of the record.
The ebay feedback will work much the same. Sellers will be able to respond to negs and give their side. I believe a lot of people read the negative feedback and not just the score. At least I do, and I take the content and seller response into account. It's usually (but not always) easy to pick out the legitimate complaints by the seller response or lack thereof.
I really believe these changes will help weed out some of the sleeze bags that sell overgraded junk. I also think it will improve the level of service in general. For example - those sellers that do not ship promptly are going to get dinged, those that charge $10 for shipping and actually send $1 are going to get dinged, and those sellers putting up doctored or misleading photographs or overblown descriptions are also going to get neg'd.
Who is General Failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
the feedback system is a joke and I can't stand it now. If they decide to do this new version I will hate it even more.......what moron is coming up with these ideas at EBAY??
check out my feedback.....id....coins-and-sports-cards-and-stuff......I just had someone leave me two negatives that was brand new. they bought items and then refused to pay for them. then they leave me negatives.....this guy had ZERO feedback but yet he is able to scar my feedback score with two bogus negatives.
I e-mailed ebay, and called them....they don't care...and did nothing about it. you'll never be able to talk to someone over the phone who is high up enough to ever get anything done with that company.......if enough of us e-mail our concern about the new ideas that might work, seems like it has in the past.
<< <i>this guy had ZERO feedback but yet he is able to scar my feedback score with two bogus negatives >>
And, he's now been NARU'd from eBay and you're still stuck with the damage. On the plus side is that once the new policy is implemented, the feedback left by booted bidders will vanish. That doesn't help in this case, but will in the future.
ebay person told me he has not officially been suspended, it's pending. it's within 90 days of him registering with ebay, so the neg's would be erased if he is "officially" suspended. blah blah blah........
<< <i> I believe ebay and a few other online auction sites are the only places where sellers have ever been allowed to publicly rate buyers. Credit reporting agencies have been around a long time, but the information they collect is not public. The Better Business Bureau has been around a long time also and they do not collect ratings on buyers either - only sellers. If a complaint is filed the company is allowed to give their side of the story which becomes part of the record. >>
Yes, but are those ratings posted on the storefront windows for everyone to see? And if the shipping rate is clearly stated, why should this be a category for a buyer to review? Part of the new policy would grant priority and discounts to those whose ratings were above a certain level
nstead of looking at this in a narrow-minded "me" point-of-view, try to look at it as a good thing that will help everyone in the long run.
Sounds like a "buyer only" talking. Walk a few years in the moccasins of a seller and you may have a different perspective. For every 99 great buyers on Ebay, there's one sociopath who takes out his frustration through the feedback system. The new policy will only exacerbate this. I've managed to keep 100% positive feedback for 8 years by busting it to take care of customers, but I've still been threatened a few times. I've never threatened retaliation, but I know it's all that keeps a few "characters" out there in check.
"The current system prevents buyers from leaving honest feedback as they fear retaliation from the sellers if they leave a negative. This makes it hard for buyers to distinguish between sellers while making bidding or buying decisions. In addition, when buyers receive negative feedback, they reduce their activity in the marketplace, which in-turn harms all sellers."
Of course another way to have solved the retaliatory neg problem would have been to institute a tighter timeframe for the seller to leave a neg than the buyer or preclude him from leaving a neg IF the buyer left one first.
Who cares if you can't leave a "neg" as long as you can still leave NEGATIVE COMMENTS!?
All that means is a seller should check the ACTUAL comments given to a buyer in the "positive" feedback (as well as the followups to them) and then decide whether or not to cancel their bids and or block them. This change only affects the numerical computation and as a practical matter, not much else as presumably, sellers will still be free to "say" whatever they want regardless of the "characterization" of the feedback as "positive.
Comments
What if Ebay came out and said, "Guess what, we have a new policy that will prevent feedback extortion thereby allowing buyers to get a much better overall picture of how a seller treats and handles their bidders. This will be accomplished by allowing buyers the ability to leave appropriate feedback without fear of getting a retalitory negative feedback left for them in return. When future potential buyers look at the feedback left by previous buyers, they can be confident there are no negative feedbacks that should have been left but were not. This will also help to weed out bad sellers, giving buyers a higher confidence level in the entire system, ultimately rewarding the sellers as well".
Perhaps it is our selfish side that wants the ability to neg someone - deserved or not - if we ourselves are negged. As a seller I can see this and am sympathetic to this. But who does that help? Retalitory feedback is counterproductive to everyone but the person leaving the feedback. If the buyer gets enough negs, then of course sellers have the option of cancelling bids and blocking that seller. How often does that happen? I don't know but I will bet that it is exponentially less often than a buyer being screwed by a seller.
I think it much more beneficial for the entire community - buyers included - if bad sellers are outed by feedback and either mend their ways or else stop selling. This will never happen unless people are free to leave appropriate feedback.
Are there buyers that should be banned? Are there buyers that deserve negs? You betcha! However, a seller (of anything) is running a business, and just as B&M must do, so should cyber-sellers be able to absorb a few errant transactions. Ebay has plenty of mechanisms in place to protect sellers. And I doubt that many sellers come out behind. Certainly there are acceptions, but the needs of the many clearly outweighs the needs of a few. And there are without a doubt more buyers than sellers.
Instead of looking at this in a narrow-minded "me" point-of-view, try to look at it as a good thing that will help everyone in the long run.
<< <i>Excellent news! I have been an advocate for this for a long time! Sellers should not be able to leave any feedback, good or bad for a buyer. All allowing that does is to promote feedback extortion and skewed feedback numbers for the people that need to have feedback left for them, the sellers.
I DO NOT care what other buyers feedback is, I am not buying from them. I only want to know how a seller treats people. The VERY few deserved negatives on buyers by sellers do not make up for the fact that buyers do not leave deserved negative or neutral feedback on sellers for fear of retalitory feedback. If you are a seller and cannot handle a couple of bad transactions from sellers that you would rather not do business with, you should think about quitting your business and getting into another industry.
BRAVO Ebay!
Were you and Ron on the same ward?
Your not one of those sleeze balls on ebay are you? No
...........this is some of the most disturbing Paypal crap yet;
I follow their absurd rules to a tee , and because some bimbo delivery person on the other end , (totally out of my control)
.......fails to get the right signature on the signature conformation label - I get screwed out of my coin AND the money the buyer sent me ???
I DON`T THINK SO ! - I`M going to cancel my Paypal account and will accept only Postal Money orders as the only form of payment .
<< <i>What if Ebay came out and said, "Guess what, we have a new policy that will prevent feedback extortion... >>
That would be great. What they're doing, however, is enabling feedback extortion by buyers who will know there's nothing a seller can do to alert the "community" (I hate that word, but since you used it in your post, I figure it's fair game) that the buyer is a scumbag.
<< <i>Perhaps it is our selfish side that wants the ability to neg someone - deserved or not - if we ourselves are negged. >>
No- I always leave feedback first (at least for now). What I want is to be able to give a deadbeat bidder the feedback he deserves.
<< <i>Certainly there are acceptions, but the needs of the many clearly outweighs the needs of a few. >>
Sounds awfully collectivistic- are you *sure* you know what Ron Paul stands for?
edited to add... I'm a buyer on eBay too. As a buyer, I think this change sucks.
<< <i>Russ does that now become a post office problem? they allowed a signature other then the intended person?
Steve >>
You'd think so, but no. It would only be a post office problem if the shipper used restricted delivery, which is not a requirement under the PayPal SPP.
<< <i>What if Ebay came out and said, "Guess what, we have a new policy that will prevent feedback extortion thereby allowing buyers to get a much better overall picture of how a seller treats and handles their bidders. This will be accomplished by allowing buyers the ability to leave appropriate feedback without fear of getting a retalitory negative feedback left for them in return. >>
They can easily do that without completely eliminating the good seller's ability to warn other good sellers about deadbeats and whackos. Just tie the seller's ability to leave negs in with the seller's overall performance rating. If they have a crappy track record for customer service and a history of retaliation it's easy enough to make that determination with the current coding.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>100! >>
oops, you got 99. Sorry!
<< <i><< Sellers will no longer be able to leave negative or neutral Feedback for buyers. This change will occur in May, 2008. >>
I foresee a lot of "positive" feedback from sellers, in all caps, saying "AVOID, AVOID, THIS BUYER SMELLS OF ELDERBERRIES" >>
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
Shipping not free? Neg the seller!
Breath mint not included in the package? Neg the seller!
Today Tuesday? Neg the seller!
There are are people out there that will neg just because they can do so without fear of reprisal. Period.
1/2 Cents
U.S. Revenue Stamps
$1300 is a pretty stout rip, in my book...
enough to buy 288 dozen minnows for bait.
thats a load of crap. its a two way street. "customers" could learn some manners, turn off the cell phone, have some courtesy and stop thinking they are entitled to be treated like royalty.
Pays promptly
Payed as agreed
Requires cash (did not pay)
I believe ebay and a few other online auction sites are the only places where sellers have ever been allowed to publicly rate buyers. Credit reporting agencies have been around a long time, but the information they collect is not public. The Better Business Bureau has been around a long time also and they do not collect ratings on buyers either - only sellers. If a complaint is filed the company is allowed to give their side of the story which becomes part of the record.
The ebay feedback will work much the same. Sellers will be able to respond to negs and give their side. I believe a lot of people read the negative feedback and not just the score. At least I do, and I take the content and seller response into account. It's usually (but not always) easy to pick out the legitimate complaints by the seller response or lack thereof.
I really believe these changes will help weed out some of the sleeze bags that sell overgraded junk. I also think it will improve the level of service in general. For example - those sellers that do not ship promptly are going to get dinged, those that charge $10 for shipping and actually send $1 are going to get dinged, and those sellers putting up doctored or misleading photographs or overblown descriptions are also going to get neg'd.
the feedback system is a joke and I can't stand it now. If they decide to do this new
version I will hate it even more.......what moron is coming up with these ideas at EBAY??
check out my feedback.....id....coins-and-sports-cards-and-stuff......I just had someone
leave me two negatives that was brand new. they bought items and then refused to
pay for them. then they leave me negatives.....this guy had ZERO feedback but yet he
is able to scar my feedback score with two bogus negatives.
I e-mailed ebay, and called them....they don't care...and did nothing about it. you'll
never be able to talk to someone over the phone who is high up enough to ever get
anything done with that company.......if enough of us e-mail our concern about the new
ideas that might work, seems like it has in the past.
<< <i>this guy had ZERO feedback but yet he
is able to scar my feedback score with two bogus negatives >>
And, he's now been NARU'd from eBay and you're still stuck with the damage. On the plus side is that once the new policy is implemented, the feedback left by booted bidders will vanish. That doesn't help in this case, but will in the future.
Russ, NCNE
it's within 90 days of him registering with ebay, so the neg's would be
erased if he is "officially" suspended. blah blah blah........
<< <i>
I believe ebay and a few other online auction sites are the only places where sellers have ever been allowed to publicly rate buyers. Credit reporting agencies have been around a long time, but the information they collect is not public. The Better Business Bureau has been around a long time also and they do not collect ratings on buyers either - only sellers. If a complaint is filed the company is allowed to give their side of the story which becomes part of the record. >>
Yes, but are those ratings posted on the storefront windows for everyone to see? And if the shipping rate is clearly stated, why should this be a category for a buyer to review? Part of the new policy would grant priority and discounts to those whose ratings were above a certain level
Sounds like a "buyer only" talking. Walk a few years in the moccasins of a seller and you may have a different perspective. For every 99 great buyers on Ebay, there's one sociopath who takes out his frustration through the feedback system. The new policy will only exacerbate this. I've managed to keep 100% positive feedback for 8 years by busting it to take care of customers, but I've still been threatened a few times. I've never threatened retaliation, but I know it's all that keeps a few "characters" out there in check.
Of course another way to have solved the retaliatory neg problem would have been to institute a tighter timeframe for the seller to leave a neg than the buyer or preclude him from leaving a neg IF the buyer left one first.
Who cares if you can't leave a "neg" as long as you can still leave NEGATIVE COMMENTS!?
All that means is a seller should check the ACTUAL comments given to a buyer in the "positive" feedback (as well as the followups to them) and then decide whether or not to cancel their bids and or block them. This change only affects the numerical computation and as a practical matter, not much else as presumably, sellers will still be free to "say" whatever they want regardless of the "characterization" of the feedback as "positive.