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.'"
Simple Solution (Score:5, Insightful)
In defense of the feedback change (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Great change (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there some kind of "Customer was a doodoohead" thing going on?
Re:Well Duh (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:In defense of the feedback change (Score:3, Insightful)
Is this a good idea? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Perfect Solution (Score:5, Insightful)
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:In defense of the feedback change (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Buyers are just as big a problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well Duh (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Simple Solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Simple Solution (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Perfect Solution (Score:3, Insightful)
But I agree 100% with the parent about how to solve this.
I would add one more thing. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Reactions from a fully supportive eBay seller (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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! (Score:5, Insightful)
THAT'S why I stopped using Ebay, not some stupid feedback issue.
TWW
Re:Is this a good idea? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Simple Solution (80 day delay) (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Well Duh (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Perfect Solution (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
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.)
Looking at negative feedback (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
If the seller had been interested in good service, they should have combined shipping. They were not interested in good service, so they did not get good feedback.
Combined with violating eBay policy on handling charges, I think that the buyer was in the right, and the seller was quite in the wrong. The buyer would have been justified in leaving negative feedback.
Re:Well Duh (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Well Duh (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Well Duh (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Perfect Solution (Score:2, Insightful)
Same with me. I've had a few small problems, specifically one where something was a lot more "used" than it appeared, but I've got 100% positive feedback. The cost of leaving negative feedback for something like that is too high.
And I noticed the other day that one said proclaimed that his system would automatically post positive feedback about the buyer as soon as the buyer gave him positive feedback. That just doesn't seem right.
Re:eBay Abuses its Monopoly (Score:1, Insightful)
If a sniper pays more than you were willing to pay, well, he was willing to pay more.
If a sniper wins an item for less than you were willing to pay, well, next time YOU need to bid more.
The rules of the game are known in advance. If you don't like the result then don't play.
Re:Couldn't come at a better time (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:In defense of the feedback change (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Well Duh (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Simple Solution (Score:3, Insightful)
100 pages of "AAAAAAAAA++++++A+A+A+==!@£ GR8 WOULD HAVE BUYERS BABIES" just serves to hide any negative comments. I'd rather just see a list of negative comments and the user's reaction to them. Last I checked, eBay wouldn't let you just view bad reactions, though they were thinking about it.
Re:Screw that; get rid of BUY IT NOW! (Score:3, Insightful)
I understand that this means it's not an auction. But I don't want an auction, I just want to buy stuff, and eBay has the sellers.
Re:Well Duh (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Sellers need protection too (Score:2, Insightful)