eBay to Drop Negative Feedback on Buyers 505
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.'"
Re:What about non-paying buyers? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Simple Solution (Score:3, Informative)
Honestly, what the hell is Ebay thinking with these changes?
Re:Well Duh (Score:5, Informative)
"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:Buyers are just as big a problem (Score:2, Informative)
Re:What about non-paying buyers? (Score:5, Informative)
Uh...no... (Score:3, Informative)
- http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/listing-shipping.html [ebay.com]
Unfortunately, this policy is commonly ignored. It is quite common to find an item which is $1, shipped by first class mail for under $1, in an envelope costing under $1, which took under 2 minutes to pack, but which the seller wants to charge $12 or more for shipping/handling on. $10 for stuffing an envelope is excessive.
What it is, is a scam by sellers to significantly reduce their "final value fees" by moving dollars from item cost to shipping. The "shipping and handling" is a profit maker for them, in direct violation of eBay policy.
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Informative)
It allows them to have an artificially low selling price for the item. eBay charges them a percentage of the selling price (before shipping), so the lower the selling price the less the seller has to pay eBay.
Re:Screw that; get rid of BUY IT NOW! (Score:3, Informative)
Payment is just the beginning (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Well Duh (Score:5, Informative)
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.
My $0.02 (frequent buyer, occasional seller) (Score:5, Informative)
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:Well Duh (Score:3, Informative)
I use paypal on 99.9% of the auctions I win - so I have usually paid for the item before the seller even knows it has sold.
What really gets me though, is on eBay "neutral" is a dirty word - and in most peoples eyes the same as "negative".
If I win something on ebay, promptly pay, and it takes 4 weeks of me asking via email where my item is - and finally having it arrive way later than promised - why the heck should I give that seller the same degree of feedback (positive) as I give someone who is very prompt with his packages - and is quick to reply to email queries.
I feel that NEUTRAL feedback should be the most common type given out on ebay - and POSITIVE or NEGATIVE reserved for the extreme cases.
Why bother giving feedback at all - if the seller demands positive in order for you to receive positive?