eBay to Drop Negative Feedback on Buyers

Trip Ericson writes "ArsTechnica is reporting that eBay plans to drop negative feedback on buyers. It's just one of a number of changes eBay will be making in the near future. 'eBay's data shows that sellers are eight times more likely to retaliate in kind against negative feedback, a figure that has grown dramatically over the years. In an attempt to mollify sellers, eBay will initiate a handful of seller protections to offset the inability to speak ill of a buyer. Negative and neutral feedback will be removed if a buyer bails on a transaction or if the buyer has his or her account suspended. Buyers will have less time to leave feedback, and won't be able to do so until three days after the auction ends. eBay is also pledging to step up monitoring and enforcement of its policies around buyers who behave very badly.'"

Simple Solution

[Gotung (571984)]

Keep both parties feedback hidden, until both have left feedback. Zero chance for retaliation. Problem solved.

Perfect Solution

[PackMan97 (244419)]

I couldn't agree more.

There are times where I've wanted to leave negative or neutral feedback, but won't because I know I'll get retaliated and the negative feedback hurts me a lot more than it hurts a power seller with 10,000 transactions.

It seems standard practice these days that a seller won't even leave feedback until they see what you've written.

Re:

[esocid (946821)]

It seems standard practice these days that a seller won't even leave feedback until they see what you've written.

I would definitely vouch for that. In my eyes the seller's only business with leaving you feedback is how you payed for the item. Was it timely, was it the correct amount, etc? I've argued with a seller about not leaving feedback for a purchase, and refused to leave any for them until mine was received. Needless to say, I still don't have any from that seller.
But I agree 100% with the parent ab

Re:Perfect Solution

[mcmonkey (96054)]

I would definitely vouch for that. In my eyes the seller's only business with leaving you feedback is how you payed for the item. Was it timely, was it the correct amount, etc?

I disagree. I mostly a buyer through ebay, although I do have the occasional sale, and the deal isn't done until the buyer says the deal is done.

The seller has the money. But only the buyer knows that the money has been paid and the item arrived and there wasn't any damage in transit and the description was accurate to the buyer's satisfaction and...

In my eyes the seller's only business with leaving you feedback is how you payed for the item.

What if the buyer complains the item isn't new, when the auction clearly stated it was used? What if the buyer claims the item never arrived, when the seller has a tracking number from the shipping service saying it was delivered? Especially given the way PayPal operates outside the normal banking system and credit card charges can be disputed, even if the seller thinks payment is in hand, the deal isn't really done until the buyer says the deal is done.

As a buyer, I don't expect the seller to leave feedback until I provide feedback indicating the transaction is complete. As a seller, I don't leave feedback until the buyer does the same.

That said, I have tempered my feedback in the past knowing the other party can retaliate. I agree 100% with you agreeing 100% with the parent. Keep feedback hidden until both parties leave feedback (or some period of time has passed, so if one party suspects he will get negative feedback, he can't just not leave feedback to keep the other feedback hidden forever.)

I would add one more thing.

[jwietelmann (1220240)]

The GP's solution allows bad sellers to avoid negative feedback by simply not posting any feedback themselves. To prevent that, eBay should also, after a period of time, display any feedback left by either party and disallow anymore feedback for the transaction.

Also, just so we're clear, neither party's feedback should figure into the other party's overall rating until that feedback is displayed. It doesn't take a genius to figure out who left negative feedback about you when your rating falls.

Re:Simple Solution

[elrous0 (869638)]

It wouldn't work in that form. All a scammer seller would have to do is never leave feedback for his buyers, then they're negative feedbacks on him would forever remain hidden. It might work if there were some predetermined time limit at which both the feedbacks would become visible, even if one side were missing (and after which no feedback could be given).

Re:

[feed_me_cereal (452042)]

it's 'herd', not 'heard', btw :)

Re:Simple Solution

[alexgieg (948359)]

Keep both parties feedback hidden, until both have left feedback. Zero chance for retaliation. Problem solved.

This is how it's done on MercadoLivre, the Brazilian auction site purchased by eBay some years ago (but for some reason not integrated into the eBay ecosystem): both the buyer and the seller have 'x' days to rate each other and write comments explaining the reason for the rating; neither can see the rating received before both rated each other (or the timer has run out if one preferred not to rate, at which case the rating is automatically set as "neutral"); once both can see each other granted ratings and comments, they both have 'y' days to write a reply to their respective ratings/comments, so that 3rd parties can judge based on the whole set of rating, comment and reply (if any). IMHO, it works fairly well.

I don't know how the US version of eBay works, but if it really allows one side to see the other's rating/comment before requiring him to also rate/comment, it's utterly broken. For me, however, the proposed solution doesn't seem to make sense. Adopting MercadoLivre's system would have been better.

Re:Simple Solution

[smitty97 (995791)]

Great idea! AAAAAA++++++++ ebayer! QUICK PAYMENT would do business again! A+A+A

Re:Simple Solution

[The Cisco Kid (31490)]

I've been thinking the exact same thing for some time.

AS an ebay buyer, I don't leave feedback about shipping and accuracy of item until after the seller leaves feedback regarding my payment and communication. Often this leaves the transaction feedbackless, even if there was nothing wrong with it.

Heck, when I use paypal to make payment five minutes after auction close or buyitnow, my positive feedback should damn near be automatic, since ebay owns paypal and has everything integrated anyway.

Hiding feedback until both sides had entered it would work well. The other party could see that you had left feedback, but not wether it was +/- or what you said, until after they had entered theirs.

Re:

[EllisDees (268037)]

Have a time limit of 60 days to leave feedback. If you haven't left any by that point, all feedback left will show up and you can't retaliate.

Honestly, what the hell is Ebay thinking with these changes?

Re:Simple Solution (80 day delay)

[stuartkahler (569400)]

Have a time limit of 60 days to leave feedback. If you haven't left any by that point, all feedback left will show up and you can't retaliate.
If I'm running bogus auctions to rake in money before anyone notices, this could give me an extra 80 days before new victims get any warning.

In defense of the feedback change

[elrous0 (869638)]

As someone who both sells and buys on ebay, I have to say this is a change I welcome. Most of the bad sellers out there use retalitory feedback as an essential part of their scam. I ran into one of these guys once who didn't ship the item until I started threatening him. When I looked deep into his feedback, it was clear this was his standard practice. But on the surface the guy looked golden, with little negative feedback. I finally got the item, but left him a neutral feedback to warn others. He responded with a retaliatory negative on me, and there was absolutely no way for me to respond to it (since they've apparently taken off the feedback feature they used to have that let you post an explanation). It still pisses me off to this day, as it's the only non-positive I have in almost 200 feedbacks.

You can never really be sure about who you're buying from as long as sellers can hold this Sword of Damocles over buyers' heads. They need to at least put a time limit on sellers' window to leave negative feedback, so they can't still be holding it over a buyer's head long after the buyer has paid.

I can understand why power sellers would be upset by this. But there are so many scammer sellers on ebay today, relative to just a few years ago, that something like this was probably necessary. The primary purpose of feedback is for buyers to judge the trustworthiness of the seller. And while it also lets a seller judge a buyer as well, this isn't nearly as important, IMHO.

Re:

[SkankinMonkey (528381)]

A more interesting application they could have applied would have been to give buyers and sellers a 30 day window to leave feedback. Feedback left would stay off the record for this time period and then become magically available. This would encourage more truthful feedback and alleviate some of the fear of negative feedback from sellers issues.

Re:In defense of the feedback change

[ftobin (48814)]

Interesting idea, but you have to make sure that you account for a seller who builds up a good rating, and then "spends" his rating in 30 days, scamming buyers, who don't see the updated ratings until up to a month too late. One could work around this by making the rating anonymous during the 30-day period, though.

Sellers need protection too

[sjbe (173966)]

As someone who both sells and buys on ebay, I have to say this is a change I welcome. Most of the bad sellers out there use retalitory feedback as an essential part of their scam.

And what about the good sellers? Do we no longer care about them?

I made my living off eBay for 2 years and trust me when I say there are at least as many crooked buyers as there are sellers. Arguably more in fact because the way eBay is set up its easier to be a crooked buyer than a crooked seller. Yes, we left retaliatory feedback for buyers who gave us unjustified negative feedback. Nobody is perfect but there are way too many people who will try to screw sellers over if the sellers have no means of redress. Want to get something for free of eBay? Buy with PayPal and use the magic words "not as described". Send back an empty box (for proof of return) and PayPal will automatically give the money back. Happened to us multiple times. Oh, and "not as described" works for cases of buyers remorse too, even if it was completely accurately described and you have a no return policy. After all, eBay doesn't know and doesn't give a shit.

In disclosure I'm quite bitter against eBay. They raise rates every six months like clockwork. Some of their (and especially PayPals) dispute resolution policies are insane. They screw honest sellers in a variety of ways (I'll enumerate if anyone's interested) and basically make it nearly impossible to make any money selling on eBay. Being a Power Seller is nearly worthless. We sold literally millions of dollars of products on eBay, they made hundreds of thousands of dollars on our work, had a 99.6% positive feedback and eBay treated us like garbage the whole time.

Some folks have suggested that feedback not appear until both parties have left feedback. Not a bad idea but unlikely to be a panacea either. High volume sellers simply don't have time to leave honest and accurate feedback for every transaction. There just aren't enough hours in the day and the cost/benefit just doesn't justify spending the time. Plus I guarantee that some people will leave negative feedback no matter what (think "feedback trolls") without any redress if it is unjustified. At least until recently sellers could make a case that they were being unfairly treated.

Great change

[SkankinMonkey (528381)]

I always hated leaving feedback because the sellers made you leave feedback first. This led to things occurring like, a seller not having items to ship and having to either refund you, or in many cases, send you a similar item without any notification. When you leave negative feedback (as you should) they'd leave negative feedback as well.

If sellers are going to act like stores, then they should have customer service like one and be willing to suck up the bad comments like normal retailers do. Leaving negative feedback was a childish tit for tat response and actually discouraged me from leaving any feedback whatsoever for a long time.

Huh?

[Travoltus (110240)]

Why should a seller need to leave feedback EXCEPT when the customer doesn't pay or there is an unnecessary return (all of which can be factually documented)?

Is there some kind of "Customer was a doodoohead" thing going on?

Re:

[macbuzz01 (1074795)]

I had a seller refuse to combine shipping after I had purchased two items. He said he would have if I had asked before purchasing. The package arrived with $1.00 of postage for which I had paid $12.00 I didn't think highly of this and left him two neutral feedbacks. He left me a negative and a neutral to "teach me a lesson". After a month of back and forth emails he agreed to remove the negative feedback, but never once thought he was in the wrong. This is the scenario where the feedback system falls ap

Re:Huh?

[LinuxDon (925232)]

Quote: "What difference does it make to you if you pay $12 shipping on a $5 item, or $5 shipping on a $12 item? None! I hate buyers like you."

What reason does a seller have for charging more than the actual shipping costs, other than making up for the too small selling price? (And therefore showing up more positively in the search results)
While I understand this practice very well, it remains a misleading practice which eBay should prohibit.

I don't think that charging 1200% of the actual shipping costs is realistic anymore. (Regardless of the "handling" costs, whatever that may be!)

However, I agree that if a buyer agrees to do business with a seller using such a practice (and clearly mentioned it upfront) the buyer should be prepared to actually pay this cost.
Personally, I prefer not to do any business with sellers utilizing this practice.

Is this a good idea?

[madsheep (984404)]

I think it's obvious the data about the vindictive nature of many sellers may be accurate. However, being able to leave negative feedback for buyers is important and I think they need to find a way to make it work better. If you're selling a high priced item (or really any item for that matter) and you get some bozo that bids with no intention of paying, this can be pretty detrimental to a sale - especially if it's time sensitive (tickets, special event going on, motivated to sell, etc.). Sometimes these same people that are selling these items time sensitive or not, want to be able to look at their top bidders and know if they're serious. You might have a guy with 25 positive feedback, but when you see he has 35 feedback total with 10 negatives for not following through on his last 10 transactions, it's good to be able to cancel/block this guy.

There are obviously some flaws with the system (human flaws right?), but there should be a good remedy to make this work a little better.

Re:Is this a good idea?

[EggyToast (858951)]

I don't know if you use eBay for selling things, but you can't have a buyer that does that. A single non-paying charge ("Unpaid Item Claim") that goes unanswered will cause them to delete your account. If you have an excuse, you can maybe get 1 to slide, but 2?

The vast majority of negatives towards buyers are retaliatory, since those who don't pay lose their accounts pretty quickly. And as long as a buyer has a feedback rating of 1, they're generally fine as a buyer. It's the sellers where people seriously evaluate the feedback and both having a huge amount of feedback and "fake" feedback that's not accurate is useless.

Good Change

[zulater (635326)]

I've had issues with two sellers like this. One sent me a game without a CD key and then furnished me with the first quick google search for one. The other sent me an item that wasn't what I bought. Neither would return my emails until I left negative feedback and of course I got negative feedback and a withdrawal request the same day. The bad sellers were using negative feedback on a buyer to push for a withdrawal to keep their record clean. I have quit purchasing from ebay for other reasons but it is a good change.

There is no bad buyers?

[Lord Satri (609291)]

From my point of view, this is a good thing to remove negative feedback for buyers. My personal experience three years ago is when I gave a 'neutral' feedback to a seller that inflated the shipping price after the bid's closing, with no mention at all of the extra fees in the item description, that seller gave me my only negative feedback. I fought for a long while, and realized eBay support sucks and they're not really helping, and then, disgusted, stopped shopping on eBay except on rare occasions (prices are generally higher on eBay than elsewhere and the purchase is somehow riskier, but sometimes you find things hard to find anywhere else).

It's hard to be a "bad buyer", either you pay the amount, either you don't. No?

Probably a good move.

[LWATCDR (28044)]

These days most sellers are using paypal so you don't have to "slow" buyers.
A few years ago I bought a motherboard on EBay. I paid for insurance and waited. It never came we tried to contact the seller and nothing. We contacted paypal and they said that the seller claimed to have shipped it and we had waited too long. So I contacted my bank and they reversed the charge.
All the time the seller protested that he had sent it. We mentioned that we did pay for it to be insured but that didn't seem to make any real difference.
My wife wouldn't post negative feedback because when she check this guy had a bunch of new negative feedback about not shipping stuff.
Every buyer that gave him negative feed back got negative feedback from him!

Re:Probably a good move.

[RareButSeriousSideEf (968810)]

So I contacted my bank and they reversed the charge.

Wait, did you actually get your bank to undo a completed PayPal transaction? ...and PayPal in turn to pass the chargeback on to the bad seller? If so, wow... I didn't know this was possible. How long after the transaction was it, and did you have to plead, beg or yell to make it happen?

I used to like E-Bay

[Sturm (914)]

Way back in the day, E-Bay used to be a great place to find and buy some pretty neat stuff. I bought several Sega GameGears, a complete C64 with original TV "monitor" (all in the original boxes), several "vintage" PC games and other odds and ends you couldn't easily find in other places.
Unfortunately, for the last several years, E-Bay has become a haven for scam artists and people who try to sell crap in bulk. It feels more like a cheap flea-market than an actual auction.
I hope E-Bay can turn things around by focusing a bit more on the individual buyer, but I'm not optimistic.

Buyers are just as big a problem

[edwardpickman (965122)]

I've lost hundreds of dollars hanging onto my 100% because of obnoxious buyers. I had one insist on overnighting a camera back to me after he couldn't figure out how to use it. I wound up refunding everything including the overnight charges. As part of that same sale two buyers in a row bailed out on me and Ebay tried to charge me both times. The first buyer didn't even respond after running up the sale price. The second guy claimed he didn't mean to bid eventhough he bid in the last 20 seconds of the sale. When I said I'd have to leave negative feedback he agreed to pay for it but then I wound up eating the overnight shipping when he whined about not being able to use the camera. I've had other problems with buyers as well as sellers but most of the trouble I've had was with buyers. Too many people get caught up in the excitement of bidding then don't want to go through with the purchase. It's not just odd collectables that get run up beyond what people are willing to pay it's often common items that aren't common to see on Ebay. I stopped selling through Ebay because it was too hard to keep my 100% and I hate dealing with Paypal. Also when Ebay made errors and overcharged me it took three months to get them to respond and refund the money.

I heard somewhere

[techpawn (969834)]

That since eBay was losing the social aspect of the site to mySpace and Facebook that it had in the great long ago. It was going back to the core of it's business and that was to make sellers happy to move more stuff and generate more clicks. If people don't know they're buying from a troll they're more likely to try to buy from them and this would fit with the business of eBay... to make the Seller happy and get ad revenue.

Or am I thinking eBay is just being an evil corporation or no reason?

Oh well...

[SharpFang (651121)]

I look at a seller's negatives, skip the ones which seem dumb, then check the comments of buyers who gave negatives that sound reasonable. If they get negatives from the seller, I label the seller "vengeful asshole" and pick a different one.

Once I took the risk and got screwed by such one. He never got a comment from me. He paid up by court order, 1x the sales value for me, and 20x to a charity of the jury's choice.

eBay Abuses its Monopoly

[Doc Ruby (173196)]

The problem is that when sellers get negative feedback, they retaliate against the buyers. So eBay's solution is to prevent negative feedback? Why doesn't eBay prevent seller retaliation? Prevent a seller from posting negative feedback against any buyer who posted negative feedback to that seller in the past month. Investigate claims from buyers of mere retaliation, and stop sellers from posting any negative feedback for a month on the first violation, stop for six months on the second, suspend their account for a month on the third, suspend for six months on the fourth, and shut them down on the fifth confirmed retaliation. Or some other aggressive policy that shows everyone that mere retaliation isn't worth it.

Instead, eBay will stop all negative feedback. Which is the only feedback that I ever look at, to see what will go wrong (things going right is the expected default, until I look at feedback). That will turn all eBay transactions into uncertainty, which is bad for the entire market.

But I guess eBay can rely on its monopoly (look it up, it means "market controller", not "sole marketer") to keep business roaring. Remember that eBay also controls PayPal, the unregulated Internet global banking monopoly, and Skype, the unregulated Internet global telco (not yet a monopoly, but gaining...). While eBay was protecting the consumer, those global market dominances in retail, banking and telephony were not such a threat. But now that they're showing the corporate bias towards secrecy to "solve" problems of abuse, they need a hard look.

Someone's got to protect the consumer, even if it means just forcing eBay to allow consumers to inform each other what sellers and eBay are working against them. It doesn't have to be a government. Something like Froogle's reviews [slashdot.org] could harness people power around the world to do it even better.

Reactions from a fully supportive eBay seller

[Port1080 (515567)]

I sold full time on eBay for about two years - I quit because I moved on to a better job, but my father still sells on eBay part time. From my perspective this is a good change. There is no way to leave "honest" negative feedback because of fear of retaliation, so one way or another the system had to change. Buyers need to be able to see negative feedback far more than sellers do - sellers have all the power, not buyers. The buyer sends the money, then the seller sends the goods. There is no point where the seller has neither money nor goods - but during the entire shipping process, the buyer is without his money and without his goods. So, unless you're a complete idiot seller, there's simply no way to get scammed on eBay. It's very easy, on the other hand, for buyers to get scammed. The worst thing that can happen to you as a seller is to have the buyer just not pay - but if that happens, you can file a non-paying bidder report to eBay and they will refund your final value fees, so even there you really don't lose out (they don't refund the listing fees, but considering they just lowered listing fees, this is even less of an issue now than it used to be - and you're also allowed to offer the item to the underbidder if the first bidder didn't work out, or relist the item). The other difficulty you may have as a seller is that if your buyer pays with PayPal or a credit card, he or she may file a fraudulent chargeback against you. This may be something you can use feedback to protect yourself against, but it's really an imperfect system. It's always been difficult to censor buyers based on feedback anyway - what are you going to do if the buyer bids at the very last minute, and you don't have time to cancel their bid and block them? eBay did allow you to set conditions for buyers and back out of the sale if the buyer didn't meat them, but it was always a difficult thing to enforce, anyway. As a seller you simply have to realize that there are a few small risks that come with retail (such as chargebacks, returns, and the occasional cranky buyer).

Brick and mortar retailers are just as exposed (or even more exposed) to these problems. If eBay sellers want to be taken seriously, they just need to accept the there will occasionally be issues. The mantra of all successful retail businesses is that "the customer is always right". Whatever losses you take from the occasional return or other problem are more than made up for by the boost to your reputation you get by having customers view you as a fair and flexible retailer. If you want to be in retail, you've just got to have thick skin. I'm sure eBay has made the decision that if sellers can't accept selling by the terms of the normal retail environment, then they really don't need to be selling on eBay. All they will do is lower buyer's confidence and hurt the site's reputation

Separate Buyer/Seller Feedback

[esme (17526)]

I think it would be much better to have separate buyer/seller feedback. If I'm buying something, I don't care if the seller has lousy buyer feedback. And vice versa. Having the two sets of feedback in one pool is what makes retaliation really serious -- one bad seller retaliating against you can affect your reputation as a seller.

Not showing the feedback until both parties have commented is another good idea. That would help even more.

-Esme

Screw that; get rid of BUY IT NOW!

[nagora (177841)]

I came here for a goddamned auction, not to see some pathetic imitation of an ordinary High Street. It drives me up the wall when I search for something and get back 50 items all at the same price, all "Buy it Now" only, and almost all from the same bloody seller in Hong Kong.

THAT'S why I stopped using Ebay, not some stupid feedback issue.

TWW

My $0.02 (frequent buyer, occasional seller)

[Crazy Man on Fire (153457)]

I consider myself to be a good eBay buyer and seller. I always leave honest feedback. Most has been positive, but some has been negative.

I've received no negative feedback as a seller, despite several disputes that I eventually resolved with the buyers.

The biggest problem I've had with eBay is that they don't enforce their policies on the seller. I've won several no reserve auctions for high value items at a fraction of the items' value. Just as a winning bidder has an obligation to pay, a seller has an obligation to sell to the winning bidder. Lame excuses abound when the seller finds that the item didn't fetch what they were expecting. I've heard "my apartment was robbed, sorry" or "I can't sell for such a low price" despite winning auctions.

Aside from sellers to bid up their own auctions, sellers who refuse to sell at the close of the auction are the worst part of eBay. I've filed complaints with eBay in each instance, and then nothing. eBay won't discuss the complaint with me for privacy reasons. I doubt the seller even got a slap on the wrist. I've never won an auction and refused to pay, but my guess is that there are much more serious consequences for buyers in this situation than for sellers who refuse to sell.

Re:

[jnik (1733)]

And how does this explain them dicking over the sellers with the new feedback policy?

Re:

[geminidomino (614729)]

How does it dick over the sellers to not be able to retaliate? TFS says they're going to replace it with other steps for seller protection, so I think you're venturing into hyperbole territory.

Re:Well Duh

[Stanislav_J (947290)]

It "dicks over" (great phrase) a seller like me because if someone bids on a high-value item, now I will have no way of knowing if they have stiffed or otherwise screwed other sellers previously. A lot of sellers have personal policies about protectively refusing or canceling bids from bidders with a significant percentage of negative feedback. Now when someone bids on my auction, he/she may have stiffed the last three sellers they deal with, and I'm clueless.

Every time eBay changes its policies, it makes it more and more of a crapshoot to try to sell anything on there. But they are the 800-pound gorilla of the online auction world, which means the hassles are still to some extent mitigated by the much larger audience viewing ones auctions. Whenever crap like this comes down from on high at eBay, you will hear sellers rant and rave about how they are going to take their business elsewhere. Most don't; a few do but quickly return when they try using the smaller auction sites and see their income plummet.

Payment is just the beginning

[sjbe (173966)]

If I walk into a brick and mortar store do they have the right to investigate my background and decide to tell me that they do not want to sell their goods to me because I did something they do not like in my past?

Wrong comparison. Try going to a high dollar Southeby's auction without getting pre-qualified as a legitimate bidder. Trust me, you aren't going to be allowed to bid on the Monet painting without proving you can pay for it. Even in low dollar auctions if you don't pay you won't be allowed back to the next auction. Furthermore, a bricks and morter store can see you and that provides information about your trustworthiness. If you are behaving in a suspicious manner they have every right to refuse the sale. Lots of retailers keep track of problem customers and refuse them service if they step over the line. The whole reason for the feedback system is so buyers AND sellers can have information about the other party in the transaction. If this information is asymmetrical (favoring the buyers in this case) then the sellers are going to get screwed more often. Trustworthiness information should be transparent.

There are only 2 relevant ratings, they paid or not.

Bullshit. I've had buyers give me a negative feedback complaining about my shipping speed literally 1 minute after the auction closed and before they had even paid. I'm not supposed to be able to respond to that? There are lots of crappy things a buyer can do besides not pay.

Re:Well Duh

[pbhj (607776)]

>>> "do they have the right to investigate my background and decide to tell me that they do not want to sell their goods to me because I did something they do not like in my past?"

Yes actually. It's called a credit reference check. Of course if you pay cash for most transactions you're fine. There are other restrictions like having age ID, having a driving license (hiring a vehicle), etc..

Also displaying goods is known (IIRC, in the UK) as an "offer to treat" and doesn't obligate the retailer in anyway to sell you the goods (but if they do sell them then they are obligated to do it in the proper manner, eg at the right price, etc.). This issue often arises when selling to children - no matches and paraffin, no eggs and flour, you get the idea.

If I don't like the look of you I won't let you in or will quickly usher you out of my store. If I've just seen your picture in the paper associated with anti-social behaviour then I'd be even more inclined to do that. Larger stores in most cities have a "store watch" or similar that bars people who have been caught shoplifting or which ensures suspected shoplifters are escorted around the store. So, this sort of thing does translate from/to the web/traditional retail environments.

Buyers of course have ample opportunity too to know about who they are buying from. There are lists of registered companies (with details of directors and other personnel). Also there are established mechanisms (trademark law and other consumer rights laws) that protect buyers at traditional retail outlets.

Basically I think your whole argument is pure bunkum.

Re:Well Duh

[Necreia (954727)]

That doesn't resolve it, that just makes the buyer blackmailing the seller.

Simply put, the buyer is to bid and then pay-- the rest is the responsibility of the seller. So by being able to mark a buyer as 'non-paying' in their new system will have huge effects on their buying ability, while buyers can still rate the seller without fear of the "I'll rate you when you rate me" blackmail.

This is a great change.

Re:

[wile_e_wonka (934864)]

I'm sure eBay understands that there are no sellers without buyers. If people are afraid to purchase items on eBay because of jerk sellers, then people won't buy things, and good sellers will use a more reputable service to sell, so eBay will take in fewer fees. In order to survice, eBay needs to keep up its reputation with the end consumer, not merely the entity with which it directly involves itself (the seller, via fees).

Re:Well Duh

[WNight (23683)]

Auctions need to be extended 5 minutes after the last successful bid. Then sniping and snipers go away.

Maximize *this*.

Re:Well Duh

[WNight (23683)]

If you couldn't snipe, couldn't you still place a maximum bid? You know, decide on what you'd be willing to pay and enter the number? Then be told if you win, like everyone else? The software already has a feature for this.

What you want is to trick people who don't know about sniping and who treat eBay like a meatspace auction. As everyone else sees it, if people get "carried away", that's not "too high", it's "what the market will bear".

You say that you wouldn't bid if you couldn't snipe because prices would go too high, but you somehow think that you're helping people by staying and keeping them low (and winning them yourself.)

You've "helped" nobody except yourself. The seller would have gotten more if people had bid the item up. The buyers would have gotten more if they'd had a chance to win.

If you left eBay what would happen? People would still buy things, as people have got to have their crappy collectibles. Regular buyers would have a chance of winning, so they'd stay. Sellers would get higher prices, so they'd stay.

Maybe there'd be a problem with people skipping out, but then there'd be a way to put down a deposit, or people would really use escrow services, or you know, solve the problem without your help.

Meh, if eBay didn't suck it wouldn't be phasing out negative comments, they'd give you more ways to spot people who always reply negatively to any criticism. Frankly, they deserve people like you.

Re:Well Duh

[macdaddy (38372)]

You might want to actually *read* the article [arstechnica.com]. It's a novel idea, I know.

"In order to clamp down on the practice of tit-for-tat feedback, eBay will begin preventing sellers from leaving negative feedback on buyers."

I was going to summarize this but that one sentence is about as basic as it gets.

Re:Well Duh

[phillips321 (955784)]

in the future do everyone a favour and don't bother sending the accused to the article,
instead send them here www.rtfa.co.uk

Re:

[Mushdot (943219)]

Sorry, we're going to have to remove this negative feedback, Mr russ1337.

Good riddance

[77Punker (673758)]

The people with 20,000 feedback are the hardest to deal with anyway. They always have the crazy descriptions that are borderline unreadable, take minutes to load, and have the shipping price buried in something that looks like a legal document.
You won't be missed by the buyers during your silly little boycott.

The only time I've gotten a bad deal on E-Bay was some "power seller" that sent me a radio with a bad tape player and then tried to take me to arbitration over the bad feedback!

Re:What about non-paying buyers?

[EggyToast (858951)]

And any feedback they left is removed, meaning that bidders who don't pay can't influence the system. It's a nice touch, if you ask me, and one of the things that most sellers complaining about the change are ignoring.

Re:Couldn't come at a better time

[NeutronCowboy (896098)]

And this is why I don't shop from people with perfect feedbacks. Ignore the good feedback, read the negative feedback. If the negative feedback is coherent, well laid out and contains proper spelling and grammar, I will ignore any comments from the seller about the negative feedback. Haven't had a problem so far. Then again, I shop about once every 3 years on eBay.