Options
WHY I AGREE WITH EBAY'S NEW POLICY (ONE SIDED FEEDBACK)
silvereagle
Posts: 290 ✭
Ok. I know a lot of people are against ebay's new policies. I am only talking about 1 here. I agree with the new policy of 1 sided feedback because in the past a majority of sellers got inflated positive feedback because buyers are afraid to leave negative feedback even if it deserved. Buyers were always afraid their negative feedback would be returned even when it wasnt deserved. To me, if the buyer pays what he is supposed to in reasonable time then he has fulfilled his end of the deal. Ebay has always had a policy in place to kill the acciounts of deadbeat buyers. I know if you get 3 or 4 no pay strikes ebay kills your account, however there are many sellers with 30 or 40 negatives and still are able to sell. Some sellers even used to state on their auction that they always return negative feedback which to me is like feedback extortion saying that you have to give them positive whether they deserve it or not unless you want a negative. The whole thing always favored sellers as they would say in theirlisting something like " i reserve the right to sell outside of ebay" at the same time a lot of them would also say something like " a bid is a contract and if you win you are legally obligated". So in other words, I can back out but you cant. Sellers routinely back out of deals with their no reserve auction doesnt bring what they had hoped. If buyers bid and win then back out they get a negative strike wheras sellers dont. The feedback system is the only thing in place to make sellers play fair and it was very often manipulated by using retaliatory feedback to force buyers to leave positives. Buyers who bid, win and dont pay will still have their accounts killed by ebay when they get the 3 or 4 strikes, therefore feedback for buyers isnt that important. By using 1 sided feedback it ensures that a buyer is leaving true feedback and not just positive feedback because he doesnt want a negative himself. jmo
0
Comments
<< <i>Buyers who bid, win and dont pay will still have their accounts killed by ebay when they get the 3 or 4 strikes, therefore feedback for buyers isnt that important. >>
If feedback for buyers isn't that important, why is there such a fuss about the chance of getting an undeserved neg?
I mean- it's not like sellers have ever been immune from undeserved negs, you know...
The second problem is that many deadbeats never get a strike because the seller is afraid of:
Problem number three: Even if a buyer doesn't pay, they can still neg the seller at will.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>Its because ebay doesnt kill a sellers account when he reaches a certain number of negatives but their is a policy in place to give stikes to non paying bidders and eventually their accounts are deleted. >>
NPB strikes are not the same as feedback, so I think it's a mistake to compare how they affect buyers/sellers. A buyer can (or could, in the past) get just as many negs as a seller and have nothing happen to him.
<< <i>That is in itself [a policy in place to give stikes to non paying bidders] a one sided policy that favors sellers which they seem to never have had a problem with. >>
True enough, but I don't see where feedback has anything to do with it.
Buyers have to engage in REALLY BAD conduct to get the boot.
There are scamster buyers who have worked EBAY for years,
and they rarely have to even change their IDs.
But....
I really have always thought that FB for buyers was nonsense.
Sellers should be scored by legitimate buyers. And, ALL sellers
and buyers should be verified/screened before they can buy/sell.
EBAY is the wild-west, and I know how to survive there. They
can change the rules all they want to, and I still ain't going to
be run off.
Their system is "unfair;" such is life.
doesnt a seller have to report the buyer for not paying unless he is willing to go ahead and pay all the associated fees on a deal that never happened ?
<< <i>Sellers routinely back out of deals with their no reserve auction doesnt bring what they had hoped. >>
I've been on ebay 9 years and this has never happened to me.
<< <i>Russ ,
doesnt a seller have to report the buyer for not paying unless he is willing to go ahead and pay all the associated fees on a deal that never happened ? >>
The seller only gets the fees back if they report the buyer. Which gives the buyer a nonpayment strike.
Who in their right mind would turn in a buyer, make them mad and they'll neg ya. But don't worry you'll get your fees back.........no thanks.
Alan
<< <i>doesnt a seller have to report the buyer for not paying unless he is willing to go ahead and pay all the associated fees on a deal that never happened ? >>
Yes and, as I noted, many sellers don't do this because the deadbeat can still neg at will. That makes the UPI system worthless.
Russ, NCNE
IMO though the fact is that there are lots and lots and lots of bad sellers on ebay yet virtually all sellers have super awesome feedback. How many sellers overgrade their coins, cancel auctions that dont reach what they hoped for, take forever to send coins, dont send coins at all, charge stupid shipping and handling fees, list intentionally misleading information such as an ungraded coin listed as PCGS MS 69 just because they think it would get a 69. Then when you get the coin you realize it would be lucky to get a 62. Well anyway, most sellers like that have 99% positive feedback.
<< <i>
<< <i>Russ ,
doesnt a seller have to report the buyer for not paying unless he is willing to go ahead and pay all the associated fees on a deal that never happened ? >>
The seller only gets the fees back if they report the buyer. Which gives the buyer a nonpayment strike.
Who in their right mind would turn in a buyer, make them mad and they'll neg ya. But don't worry you'll get your fees back.........no thanks.
Alan >>
I would think all sellers would. If you are sellling a $1000 coin wouldnt it be $50 or so ? Plus if it is really a deadbeat buyer he will do it again and when he gets 3 or 4 and gets his account erased isnt the negative gone ?
The second problem is that many deadbeats never get a strike because the seller is afraid of:
Problem number three: Even if a buyer doesn't pay, they can still neg the seller at will.
agreed.
Ebay policies and changes SUCK for good sellers who are gonna get hosed by deadbeats who face NO RECOURSE.
It is not worth the NEG.
I am sure EBAY is happy about this, since they will NOT have to
refund the money that they allowed a SCUMBAG to steal from me.
The trend - after enough sellers get burned and fed-up - will be
toward BINs, with Immediate Payment Required.
.............
The latest scrape to the wounds is that if sellers accept PayPal,
they must accept it for international sales, too. That was supposed
to roll out in July, but it has arrived early on my SYIF tonight.
Like I cannot wait to send stuff to Italy after being "paid" via PayPal..........NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!
<< <i>
<< <i>Who in their right mind would turn in a buyer, make them mad and they'll neg ya. But don't worry you'll get your fees back.........no thanks. Alan >> >>
I would think all sellers would. >>
but
<< <i>I will not file a NPB. It is not worth the NEG. >>
Well, I'm glad that's settled.
<< <i>I will not file a NPB.
It is not worth the NEG. >>
I filed two this month. One I just closed. The other I'm waiting to close. In the first case, the buyer did respond so they can neg me. But, according to the new eBay rules, the buyer has to "specifically call out poor seller performance, item condition or transaction problems" during the UPI process. If they don't, the neg will be removed. He didn't. We shall see.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>
<< <i>doesnt a seller have to report the buyer for not paying unless he is willing to go ahead and pay all the associated fees on a deal that never happened ? >>
Yes and, as I noted, many sellers don't do this because the deadbeat can still neg at will. That makes the UPI system worthless. Russ, NCNE >>
Russ, This is where I use the mutual agreement withdrawl. I don't need a reason for a buyer to change his mind. Neither do most retailers with good customer service. --Jerry
Under the current ebay arrangement, it's not about good customer service - it's about questionable buyer behaviors that can go unchecked.
1) A feedback neg for a non-paying bidder strike is not a good tradeoff, even if the non-paying bidder strike is totally justified.
2) Good customer service is not strongly enough correlated to positive feedback, especially when the buyer is a bad actor.
3) One bad acting bidder can screw up the feedback from the previous 49 transactions and still make the seller look suspect.
Ebay = no idea what they are doing, except for collecting fees, that is.
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>Russ, This is where I use the mutual agreement withdrawl. >>
Which contributes to making the UPI system worthless.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>Russ, This is where I use the mutual agreement withdrawl. >>
All this means is that eBay has succeeded in getting rid of scumbag sellers who retaliate in order to get a mutual feedback withdrawal and replace it with a system where bad bidders can jerk sellers around with impunity and force 'mutual agreement' to not follow through with the sale. Either way you're making someone who got screwed lie back and take it because of fear of an unjustified negative.
Very well-stated, Ziggy.
I knew it would happen.
It is not worth the NEG. >>
I filed two this month. One I just closed. The other I'm waiting to close. In the first case, the buyer did respond so they can neg me. But, according to the new eBay rules, the buyer has to "specifically call out poor seller performance, item condition or transaction problems" during the UPI process. If they don't, the neg will be removed. He didn't. We shall see.
Russ, NCNE
I filed two recently too, and they closed without a response from either bidder. It's a good point though - a seller should really balance the amount of the lost fees vs. the possibility of a neg, which hurts business. In my case the listing fees were probably not worth the risk.
<< <i>It's a good point though - a seller should really balance the amount of the lost fees vs. the possibility of a neg, which hurts business. In my case the listing fees were probably not worth the risk. >>
For me, it has nothing to do with the fees, and everything to do with the integrity of the system. The UPI strike block provided by eBay is useless if sellers weenie out.
That said, I don't always file the UPI. I only do it when the bidder jacks me around, strings it along, or ignores the multiple eMails I send. That's the type of bidder it's designed for. The bidder who's honest and upfront with me gets a pass.
Russ, NCNE
Apparently you missed the thread a week or two ago (i searched for it but cant find it because i forgot how it was titled) where a bidder was leaving negative feedback for just about everything he bid on. The old system was not great where a retaliatory negative was always possible-But the new system is worse. Gives the bidder too much power.
Sellers who sell alot of items may not be hurt by a few negatives, but the seller who sells only occasionally could be hurt by one undeserved negative.
Ebay has taken steps to make the bidder and high volume sellers king(for obvious reasons--PROFIT). Low volume sellers will be hurt the most. JMO. Bob
<< <i>
<< <i>Russ, This is where I use the mutual agreement withdrawl. >>
All this means is that eBay has succeeded in getting rid of scumbag sellers who retaliate in order to get a mutual feedback withdrawal and replace it with a system where bad bidders can jerk sellers around with impunity and force 'mutual agreement' to not follow through with the sale. Either way you're making someone who got screwed lie back and take it because of fear of an unjustified negative. >>
It happens to me perhaps once a quarter and it's just part of business. I try to make ebay business just like any other sale. If I guy calls up (off ebay) and says "Ok, I'll take that gold buffalo for your offered price of $1399". I'll say thanks and look forward to delivering it. If before sending the check he calls back and says, "I've changed my mind. I just have spent too much money on coins this month and will have to wait", I then have two options.
The first option, which I choose, is to thank him very much and urge him to call back when he is ready. I might even follow up and call him the next month.
The second option, which it sounds like others here would prefer, it to tell him he is now on my "do not call" list (blocked) and don't call back. Get your buffalos elsewhere. You have jerked me around and I won't tolerate it.
That's how I run my ebay business, just like it wasn't on ebay.
--Jerry
If someone has what I want, I can contact the seller and meet him head on. I don't need the cheerleaders after the fact and my buyers don't need to cheer for me. As long as they're happy, I'm happy.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
the real problem is the whackjob who doesn't like the way that you wrote thier name on the outside of the package and gives you a negative for 'bad shipping' or some other such frivolous reason. they are out there and there is nothing that ebay will do to these whackjobs. sellers can block them, but they usually have to get burned at least once before they know what is coming. as to blocking bidders that are dropping lots of negs - hah! there was a thread in the last couple of days where someone set a block for negs and the ebay software did not enforce the block so this is useless as well.
as for the comment about low volume sellers being hurt the most, ebay does not care about nor want the occasional seller - their entire business model is based on the power sellers and the BIN sales (not even the auctions anymore - they want BIN listings because they are usually gone quicker - thus lower overhead and faster fees).
Total Copper Nutcase - African, British Ships, Channel Islands!!!
'Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup'
I'm not sure about that. A listing is a listing, and generates the same fees whether it's someone who lists once a month or 100 times a day. The overhead's the same. I think Ebay dangles the powerseller carrot to try to encourage smaller volume sellers to sell more. And with BIN's, they charge extra to include that option in an auction. It wouldn't make sense to do that if you wanted to push listings toward BIN's.
Overland Trail Collection Showcase
Dahlonega Type Set-2008 PCGS Best Exhibited Set
<< <i>...As a seller I just won't give any feedback at all. >>
"at all"? Like, even when you receive feedback? You've just abandoned the feedback process all together?
<< <i>ebay does not care about nor want the occasional seller - their entire business model is based on the power sellers and the BIN sales (not even the auctions anymore - they want BIN listings because they are usually gone quicker - thus lower overhead and faster fees).
I'm not sure about that. A listing is a listing, and generates the same fees whether it's someone who lists once a month or 100 times a day. The overhead's the same. >>
The technology cost may be the same, but the cost of customer service goes down with fewer and larger sellers.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>If you can't give feedback truthfully, then what good is it. As a seller I just won't give any feedback at all. >>
Buyers appreciate feedback. I appreciate my buyers, so I leave it for them. Why do you want to punish your customers for eBay's decision?
Russ, NCNE
But of course EBay over reacted and instead of going after those scam sellers they just banned all sellers from leaving feedback. It’s like that unfair teacher we all recall, one kid was acting up and she punished the whole class.
BTW: why does it seem like a neutral feedback count equally as a negative one does? It’s negative plus neutral divided by total… shouldn’t neutral be at least .5 or not count at all?
Like, positive plus one…. Negative minus one… neutral… well neutral?