Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

eBay to Drop Negative Feedback on Buyers

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the didn't-like-the-kvetching dept.

Businesses 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.'"

cancel ×

505 comments

Good (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22332946)

If i want to call the seller a Jew Rat because he is late shipping an incomplete order, that is my right.

Fucking Jews.

Re:Good (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22333242)

If i want to call the seller a Jew Rat...
I just got a mental image of an animated Don Bluth rodent [imdb.com] in a yamulke. Actually, I think some Jewish mice would be more like it. Was the family in this one [imdb.com] Jewish? I don't remember. It's been a while.

Mice are nice. Nicer than trolls, anyway. Well... most trolls [imdb.com] . Nicer than you in any event.

creators continue negative feedback on nazi felons (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22332962)

let yOUR conscience be yOUR guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. there are still some choices. if they do not suit you, consider the likely results of continuing to follow the corepirate nazi hypenosys story LIEn, whereas anything of relevance is replaced almost instantly with pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking propaganda or 'celebrity' trivia 'foam'. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on yOUR brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071229/ap_on_sc/ye_climate_records;_ylt=A0WTcVgednZHP2gB9wms0NUE [yahoo.com]
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080108/ts_alt_afp/ushealthfrancemortality;_ylt=A9G_RngbRIVHsYAAfCas0NUE [yahoo.com]
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/opinion/31mon1.html?em&ex=1199336400&en=c4b5414371631707&ei=5087%0A [nytimes.com]

is it time to get real yet? A LOT of energy is being squandered in attempts to keep US in the dark. in the end (give or take a few 1000 years), the creators will prevail (world without end, etc...), as it has always been. the process of gaining yOUR release from the current hostage situation may not be what you might think it is. butt of course, most of US don't know, or care what a precarious/fatal situation we're in. for example; the insidious attempts by the felonious corepirate nazi execrable to block the suns' light, interfering with a requirement (sunlight) for us to stay healthy/alive. it's likely not good for yOUR health/memories 'else they'd be bragging about it? we're intending for the whoreabully deceptive (they'll do ANYTHING for a bit more monIE/power) felons to give up/fail even further, in attempting to control the 'weather', as well as a # of other things/events.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=video+cloud+spraying [google.com]

dictator style micro management has never worked (for very long). it's an illness. tie that with life0cidal aggression & softwar gangster style bullying, & what do we have? a greed/fear/ego based recipe for disaster. meanwhile, you can help to stop the bleeding (loss of life & limb);

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/28/vermont.banning.bush.ap/index.html [cnn.com]

the bleeding must be stopped before any healing can begin. jailing a couple of corepirate nazi hired goons would send a clear message to the rest of the world from US. any truthful look at the 'scorecard' would reveal that we are a society in decline/deep doo-doo, despite all of the scriptdead pr ?firm? generated drum beating & flag waving propaganda that we are constantly bombarded with. is it time to get real yet? please consider carefully ALL of yOUR other 'options'. the creators will prevail. as it has always been.

corepirate nazi execrable costs outweigh benefits
(Score:-)mynuts won, the king is a fink)
by ourselves on everyday 24/7

as there are no benefits, just more&more death/debt & disruption. fortunately there's an 'army' of light bringers, coming yOUR way. the little ones/innocents must/will be protected. after the big flash, ALL of yOUR imaginary 'borders' may blur a bit? for each of the creators' innocents harmed in any way, there is a debt that must/will be repaid by you/us, as the perpetrators/minions of unprecedented evile, will not be available. 'vote' with (what's left in) yOUR wallet, & by your behaviors. help bring an end to unprecedented evile's manifestation through yOUR owned felonious corepirate nazi glowbull warmongering execrable. some of US should consider ourselves somewhat fortunate to be among those scheduled to survive after the big flash/implementation of the creators' wwwildly popular planet/population rescue initiative/mandate. it's right in the manual, 'world without end', etc.... as we all ?know?, change is inevitable, & denying/ignoring gravity, logic, morality, etc..., is only possible, on a temporary basis. concern about the course of events that will occur should the life0cidal execrable fail to be intervened upon is in order. 'do not be dismayed' (also from the manual). however, it's ok/recommended, to not attempt to live under/accept, fauxking nazi felon greed/fear/ego based pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking hypenosys.

consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

meanwhile, the life0cidal philistines continue on their path of death, debt, & disruption for most of US. gov. bush denies health care for the little ones;

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/03/bush.veto/index.html [cnn.com]

whilst demanding/extorting billions to paint more targets on the bigger kids;

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/12/bush.war.funding/index.html [cnn.com]

& pretending that it isn't happening here;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3086937.ece [timesonline.co.uk]
all is not lost/forgotten/forgiven

(yOUR elected) president al gore (deciding not to wait for the much anticipated 'lonesome al answers yOUR questions' interview here on /.) continues to attempt to shed some light on yOUR foibles. talk about reverse polarity;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3046116.ece [timesonline.co.uk]

Ob (4, Funny)

Mipoti Gusundar (1028156) | more than 6 years ago | (#22332966)

I wish 2 feedback an eBay, plz send codes.

Well Duh (1)

Mikya (901578) | more than 6 years ago | (#22332970)

Was there any doubt in people's minds that eBay cares at all about the buyers? They aren't the consumers from eBay's eyes as they are not the ones that pay the fees, that's the sellers.

Re:Well Duh (3, Insightful)

jnik (1733) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333028)

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

AAPL tanking !! SELL !! Save your shirt !! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22333154)



AAPL tanking !!

SELL !!

Save your shirt !!

SELL !!

Save your shirt !!

And stay away from open windows !!

Re:Well Duh (2, Interesting)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333300)

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 (3, Insightful)

wile_e_wonka (934864) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333124)

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 (2, Interesting)

cream wobbly (1102689) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333540)

...and to continue that line of argument:

If there are already enough, or perhaps too many buyers, then it makes sense to make buying a less attractive prospective.

How might an auctioning business determine that there are too many buyers, and why is that a bad thing? When items are reaching their reserve price within a certain timeframe from the lot being offered; or when items are reaching a high plateau price well before the auction closes.

This would mean that potential buyers are being put off -- and these will be people like me, who've never used eBay, and might venture there to look for something in particular, yet by the time the auction closes find that the price has escalated to a ridiculous amount. That's happened in the past, and it certainly put me off bidding in any auction, real or pretend.

Re:Well Duh (5, Informative)

macdaddy (38372) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333254)

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 (0)

Harold Halloway (1047486) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333316)

Er no, you are completely wrong. eBay has always sided with the buyer at the expense of the seller and these changes further reinforce that bias. The reason for this is simple: the money goes where the buyers go. If you keep the buyers sweet then the sellers have no option but to play by whatever rules eBay sees fit to impose, if they want to access the huge marketplace of buyers which eBay has built up.

Re:Well Duh (1)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333382)

RTFA.

Simple Solution (5, Insightful)

Gotung (571984) | more than 6 years ago | (#22332972)

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

Perfect Solution (5, Insightful)

PackMan97 (244419) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333068)

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:Perfect Solution (3, Insightful)

esocid (946821) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333392)

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 about how to solve this.

I would add one more thing. (5, Insightful)

jwietelmann (1220240) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333492)

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:Perfect Solution (1)

yakumo.unr (833476) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333582)

A sort of Feedback escrow would perhaps be a better idea?, both parties can see the feedback proposed, but it's not made public until they're both satisfied, this gives opportunity to contest/fix problems before things are set in stone.

I expect a decent payout if my idea's used ;op

Re:Simple Solution (1)

Lord Satri (609291) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333090)

I'm not sure it would work. So many buyers/sellers just don't take the time to fill the short feedback form. What happens with your proposition when only one party leaves feedback?

Re:Simple Solution (2, Informative)

EllisDees (268037) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333192)

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 (1)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333214)

What happens with your proposition when only one party leaves feedback?
The feedback gets posted as soon as the feedback-leaving window for the other party (60/90 days) closes.

Re:Simple Solution (2, Interesting)

bvimo (780026) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333230)

>What happens with your proposition when only one party leaves feedback?

Ebay waits for a period of time - 30 days - and then withdraws the feedback option, adds a comment that they didn't bother and publishes yours.

Re:Simple Solution (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333108)

You fool! You could have "con"sulted a cool half million out of them for that solution.

Seriously, I can't see any flaw in it. There's no disincentive to leaving feedback, and as long as you continue to receive reminders as now, you're not any more likely to forget. I can't see the downside, which makes it rather bizarre that eBay seems to have gone the wrong way.

Re:Simple Solution (4, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333160)

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:Simple Solution (-1, Offtopic)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333212)

Oh, now I did it. I type "they're" instead of "their." Cue a heard of onrushing /. grammar-Nazi's to point out the difference to me as if I, a grown literate adult, did it intentionally instead of mistakenly.

Re:Simple Solution (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22333328)

Rather than point out your bad spelling, I would instead like to take this opportunity to razz you about that massive chip on your shoulder.

Re:Simple Solution (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333574)

It comes from having to deal with anal-retentive engineers all day.

Re:Simple Solution (2, Funny)

feed_me_cereal (452042) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333520)

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

Re:Simple Solution (1)

dmsuperman (1033704) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333174)

This would defeat the whole point of the feedback in the first place, which is to see who is a strong seller and who isn't. I will personally be upset if we can't leave negative feedback anymore, as I rely on feedback as an indicator as to how reliable the seller is.

Re:Simple Solution (1)

AlecLyons (767385) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333478)

They are only talking about dropping negative feedback against buyers, buyers could still give negative feedback on sellers. The GP post sounds like a really good idea to me.

Re:Simple Solution (1)

Plunky (929104) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333248)

or make it unpossible for the seller to leave feedback until the buyer has.

IMHO the seller ought to leave feedback as soon as they have received payment. I always do when I'm selling something, it seems fair.

Re:Simple Solution (1)

JrOldPhart (1063610) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333602)

Huh?

Re:Simple Solution (5, Interesting)

alexgieg (948359) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333266)

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 (5, Funny)

smitty97 (995791) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333360)

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

Re:Simple Solution (3, Insightful)

The Cisco Kid (31490) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333386)

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:Simple Solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22333398)

Except if you know that you did something wrong, you simply would not bother leaving feedback yourself. Presto.. no negative feedback.

In defense of the feedback change (5, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 6 years ago | (#22332976)

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:In defense of the feedback change (2, Insightful)

SkankinMonkey (528381) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333030)

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 (5, Insightful)

ftobin (48814) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333070)

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.

Re:In defense of the feedback change (1)

SkankinMonkey (528381) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333144)

Anonymous would work for high volume sellers, but probably not for smaller ones. I'm not sure if high volume sellers are the main problem or not so I can't really say. What may be ideal is giving a buyer or seller 5 days or so to file feedback within the initial feedback filing (2 or 3 days after the auction) otherwise no feedback is listed. During that time they cannot see what feedback was left for them. There are many ways to address this and eBay may have simply taken a cheap way out is what I'm suspecting as I think about this more.

Re:In defense of the feedback change (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333176)

30 days may actually be too long. Serial scammers will just need to plan their initial bogus positive transactions 30 days ahead (they already create their JoeNotAScammer23123 accounts well ahead of time), and they can come and go within a month.

What's wrong with simply revealing both parties' feedback simultaneously, as soon as both of them have provided it?

Re:In defense of the feedback change (1)

SkankinMonkey (528381) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333218)

Yea, I agree that some variation of your idea is probably the best way to do it. Although they may want to avoid making it seem like they're punishing sellers or buyers either way. Sellers have always had the upper hand on eBay though which is a horrible thing for consumers.

Re:In defense of the feedback change (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22333200)

Why did you only leave a neutral feedback? If he didn't ship until you threatened him, he's a bad seller. Setting a neutral feedback with that complaint isn't going to be noticed.

I guess all the other feedback you eventually found was also neutral? Why compound the problem by not leaving the proper type of feedback?

Re:In defense of the feedback change (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333542)

Back when I first started out on ebay, I remember the etiquette being something like "If you receive the item and keep it, no matter how long it takes, you shouldn't leave negative feedback." Of course, that was before the scammers started really showing up in large numbers. It retrospect, knowing that he would leave retalitory, of course I wish I had made it negative.

Re:In defense of the feedback change (1)

mapsjanhere (1130359) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333258)

it got really bad when they introduced the "feedback mutually withdrawn feature". I nearly fell for a guy with 99+% positive, until I started to dig through the list and noticed the huge amount of "withdrawn". If you recalculated his approval rating with those, he was below 95%, and that guy was a professional "power" jewelry seller.

Feedback (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22332978)

Why not allow both buyer and seller to leave feedback, but neither party is able to read the other person's feedback for, say, a week? In other words, you give feedback before seeing what feedback is left for you. Wouldn't that solve all of these retaliation-feedback problems?

Re:Feedback (2, Interesting)

KarmaOverDogma (681451) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333104)

That's an interesting idea. Another idea could be something like what is used here on /.

Buyers and sellers could "opt-in" to a moderated rating system. Under such a system, meta-moderators could rate buyer or seller feedback as "fair" or "unfair" depending on the justification for the rating by the buyer/seller. Buyer or seller could leave the the moderated user-rating system at any time, but could not re-enter once they leave. "Fair" ratings would remain, while "unfair" ratings would not, and enough "unfair" rating would be noted in the respective accounts.

That would still leave the question of who watches the watchers, or how one could get to meta-moderate, but it's a place to start.

Just my 2 cents.

Re:Feedback (1)

acvh (120205) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333310)

moderated feedback could work, but would certainly involve more overhead. (is slashbay.com registered yet? I'll bet is is now.)

ebay has indeed become something different than it once was. the good is still there (oddball items from people's basements, etc), but it is mostly a haven for people who bought the "how to get rich on the internet" books.

another option for them could be Karma - an aggregate rating that doesn't show individual scores. I have found, however, that the best way to insure a decent experience is to email a seller before bidding: ask a question, and make a decision to bid on the nature and quality of the answer.

Re:Feedback (2, Funny)

Thwomp (773873) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333454)

(is slashbay.com registered yet? I'll bet is is now.)
I believe it's owned by Network Solutions.

Buyer feedback - Zonk (0, Offtopic)

russ1337 (938915) | more than 6 years ago | (#22332980)

Wow, I really thought this article was going to have some real meat to it. Unfortunately it left me wanting more.

Def not want anymore from Zonk.

Re:Buyer feedback - Zonk (3, Funny)

Mushdot (943219) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333098)

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

Great change (5, Insightful)

SkankinMonkey (528381) | more than 6 years ago | (#22332984)

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.

What about non-paying buyers? (2, Interesting)

CmdrPorno (115048) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333012)

Don't non-paying buyers deserve negative feedback? It sounds as if their plan would eliminate this type of feedback as a consequence. The solution I had always thought of would be to require that sellers, once prompt payment is received, post feedback before a buyer can leave feedback for them. Of course, this would create the same situation where a slow-paying buyer could leave retaliatory feedback for a neutral or negative piece of seller feedback, but I believe this would be much less prevalent than it is now.

Re:What about non-paying buyers? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22333096)

There is already a way to report a non-paying bidder. If you go through that process and the buyer doesn't respond and show that they paid, then a mark goes against them on the account. Feedback is not needed for this.

Re:What about non-paying buyers? (4, Informative)

EggyToast (858951) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333418)

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.

Huh? (5, Insightful)

Travoltus (110240) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333016)

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:Huh? (3, Interesting)

macbuzz01 (1074795) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333198)

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 apart.

Re:Huh? (1)

LordNimon (85072) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333528)

That's because he wasn't wrong. You were. When you bid on the item, did you know that the shipping would be $12? If so, that's what you agreed to pay. Of course the actual postage would be less. It always is! You should not be concerned with the actual shipping charge. Your only concern is the total cost with shipping. 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.

Re:Huh? (1)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333532)

Charging $12 for $1 of shipping is perfectly legal, as it is $12 of "shipping and handling". You only paid $1 for the shipping, but $11 for the handling. You should complain about that to ebay and your local lawmaker, not the shipper.

Re:Huh? (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333558)

Shipping scams are rampant on eBay. The reason is that they are charged outside of the normal ebay system and therefore aren't subject to eBay's listing fees and such. Hence why you see normal items with a "Buy It Now!" price of $4.99 and then a $74.95 shipping & handling fee.

Re:Huh? (1)

mgblst (80109) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333620)

Well, there are two arguments to this. One is that you agreed to but at the said price, why should someone give you a discount after you have already agreed to buy them. This doesn't happen in the real world. You don't buy something from a shop, then give them a ring when you get home and ask for a discount. And postage costs isn't just for the item postage, you have to include packaging, and travelling to the post office, and taking time of work.

Is this a good idea? (4, Insightful)

madsheep (984404) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333034)

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? (2, Funny)

notjim (879031) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333576)

I just hope slashdot follows suit by getting rid of negative moderation.

I know I do it (1)

Chemisor (97276) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333046)

I don't leave negative feedback for sellers either. It just doesn't seem worth it. So the seller gets a negative feedback from me and his score goes from 99.99 to 99.98 positive, due to the sheer amount of feedback an active seller has. Then he leaves a negative feedback for me (tit-for-tat is standard practice), and my feedback score drops by one or two percent. Is that a good trade? Hell no! So I just leave a neutral if I'm really feeling vindictive. Sure you can argue that I would be helping others avoid a scammer, but I'd say the price of having a bad feedback rating is still higher than my desire to do that.

Good Change (4, Interesting)

zulater (635326) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333048)

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? (2, Interesting)

Lord Satri (609291) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333050)

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?

Re:There is no bad buyers? (1)

mgblst (80109) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333656)

There are other ways to be a bad buyer. You can claim that the item never arrived, or that the item arrived broken, when it was sent working.

Account suspension (2, Interesting)

esocid (946821) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333052)

So let me get this straight. If your account is suspended for any reason, any negative feedback you have or will leave will be removed? I think this is pretty ridiculous, speaking as an individual who had his account suspended FOR NO REASON. And from what I hear this is a pretty common occurrence. It does state

Feedback removal due to member's suspension is permanent and will not be reinstated for any reason, except if the member was suspended by mistake.
but how do they determine that. I complained about it until I was reinstated, but every, EVERY, time I log in I get that old suspension notice. I think they are doing a disservice by removing negative and neutral feedback. That is one way to judge whether a seller is honest and/or trustworthy to give you what you are buying. Some sellers won't send you exactly what is described, so should they be rewarded for that? I just think ebay is changing, but just not for the better.

Who cares? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22333062)

Only niggers use ebay anyway. Niggers selling shitty fake goods.

Damn those niggers.

Probably a good move. (2, Interesting)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333064)

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!

I used to like E-Bay (4, Interesting)

Sturm (914) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333078)

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 (4, Insightful)

edwardpickman (965122) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333110)

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.

Re:Buyers are just as big a problem (2, Informative)

Dr. Smoove (1099425) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333344)

Dude, I think your problem is you're being far too nice. You need to be a prick on Ebay. Ebay is full of dickheads and mentally handicapped people. I love the offers that come to you like "il pay u $STARTINGBID 2 inclood shiping rite now". What do I look like fucking Wal-Mart, free shipping and shit? Eat a dick, if you want it bid on it. You give people the slightest leeway or the slightest indication that you are a nice guy, they will abuse you. When this guy whined about not being able to use the camera, you should have posted him a link to the manual. Maybe find an instructional course on photography and give him a link to that. Instead of saying "I will be forced to leave negative feedback", leave negative feedback. I sell a decent amount of Sun equipment on Ebay, and have had responses from people who clearly didn't read the whole description. I paste a link to the original auction and say "please re-read the description." That's all. Also, with PayPal, withdraw to your bank account immediately after receiving payment (always require immediate payment for buy it now too). If someone tries to activate the "buyer protection" shit to scam on you, you call your bank and tell them to cancel the transaction -> paypal. Your bank will listen, PayPal won't.

I heard somewhere (4, Interesting)

techpawn (969834) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333146)

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?

Useless change... (1)

binaryspiral (784263) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333178)

They take away the only thing keeping people honest - the threat of negative feedback? What's the point of even having feedback then?

Paypal used to be useful - you could contest the charge and do a chargeback if seller was trying to screw you. But now they're the same faceless corporation, in it for the commission.

Re:Useless change... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22333412)

Negs on buyers (remember, they aren't dropping negative feedback in general) aren't much of a threat anyway, the buyer pays before the thing is shipped so it's the seller that needs to be trustworthy and therefore have a track record.

It only get better... (1, Interesting)

owlnation (858981) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333202)

The joy that is 2008 continues. First we'll lose Yahoo, then AOL gets some more nails in their coffin and NOW...

...eBay is committing corporate suicide!

While admittedly this is a change that has needed to happen for a very long time -- eBay is overrun by crooked sellers -- this is sure to drive away yet more honest sellers away from eBay. You have to be really determined to sell there. You have to really need to - it's far from fun already, and it's hard to make money if you're honest.

eBay is run by marketing droids, the majority of whom never use their product themselves -- and it shows. But maybe with this change at least we'll see the end of $1 item, $10 shipping -- something it would have been easy for eBay to deal with years ago if they cared.

Again, it shows how far search needs to come to be truly useful. If search met people's needs, companies like eBay would never need to exist.

Re:It only get better... (1)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333612)

The joy that is 2008 continues. First we'll lose Yahoo, then AOL gets some more nails in their coffin and NOW... ...eBay is committing corporate suicide!
Yeah, and this was supposed to be just another year of the Linux desktop.

We have been a trusted company on eBay since 2001 (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22333220)

We maintain multiple powerseller accounts with positive feedback totaling almost a combined 20,000 unique positive feedbacks. This is the worst thing imaginable for sellers. There will no longer be a balanced system, and sellers will have no way of protecting themselves from poor buyers because they will simply have 100% positive feedback. Sellers depend on other sellers to leave legitimate feedback as a guide for the integrity of the bidder. eBay has begun shifting (under a new CEO) to a format of mainly new inventory with the focus entirely on the buyer. What they do not realize is that sellers are their employees, and they are consistently ignoring the needs of sellers to provide them with revenue (i.e. increasing final value fees, listing fees, removing negative feedback). I am extremely frustrated with eBay, and along with many others, will be participating in a powerseller boycott in the following week.

Good riddance (3, Interesting)

77Punker (673758) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333414)

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:We have been a trusted company on eBay since 20 (1)

peccary (161168) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333428)

Sellers depend on other sellers to leave legitimate feedback as a guide for the integrity of the bidder.
The key here is "legitimate" feedback. It is equally the same for buyers and sellers (and many people are both). EBay was cool in the 90s, but it's been overrun by opportunists. I no longer bother with EBay as the time investment and risk are just too high. If EBay can't solve their reputation problems, they'll be supplanted. Mark well when they pull out their patent portfolio and start suing competitors -- that will be the beginning of the end.

Re:We have been a trusted company on eBay since 20 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22333484)

Ah, cry me a river.

The number of times I've had sellers screw me over (by doing things like charging twice as much postage as actually ends up on the package - funny that, where's the rest of the money going? Into your pocket? That's NOT SHIPPING, retard) have just put me off buying things on ebay anymore.

Just make sure... (1)

ari_j (90255) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333290)

Just make sure that I can still leave feedback after I've actually received an item, including the possibility that I may have to work with the seller for a while to get it delivered. For instance, buying a car or a boat in another state drastically increases the length of time between the end of the auction and the time at which I know enough to leave informed feedback. Also, if a seller ships an item to the wrong address or if he can't get around to shipping it for a week, sometimes I am willing to forgive him and work with him to get my purchase into my hands, but I don't want to give up the ability to leave feedback for him in the event that the item does turn out to be a bobcat.

Re:Just make sure... (1)

Fierlo (842860) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333654)

I think it's worth pointing out that the buyer can still leave feedback. It's the seller that can't leave negative feedback. It helps to eliminate the problem of power sellers not leaving feedback until the buyer leaves feedback. If you leave negative feedback on someone with 10,000 transactions, he's still close to 100% positive (assuming he was close before). If that person retaliates, and leaves negative feedback on someone's third transaction, that hurts them a lot more.

Happened to me (1)

ktappe (747125) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333304)

I still have an e-mail from a seller in which he threatened to leave me negative feedback if I left him negative feedback, after I e-mailed him 2 weeks into a transaction asking where my merchandise was. eBay is right to make this move--I didn't touch their site for a year after that experience. I'm sure there are bad buyers out there and that this will correspondingly anger sellers, but as an occasional seller myself, I simply do not ship merchandise until I receive payment. The seller does have more power due to this option.

Real solution:mutually blind feedback (1)

G4from128k (686170) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333306)

The solution is to allow arbitrary feedback, but not allow buyers or sellers to see the other party's feedback before submitting feedback themselves. The buyer or seller would be told that they received feedback, but would not get to see it until they either submitted their own feedback or clicked a box that they will forgo the right to submit feedback (the system might also have a time-limit on submitting feedback). That way, no "revenge" feedback is possible. Ebay could also tweak the ratings so that participants that refuse to submit feedback have slightly lower ratings.

Sellers should have to post feedback first (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22333320)

I think the system can be easily fixed by making the sellers post feedback first, before the buyer is able to provide feedback. Think about it: the buyer's obligation is fully satisfied when he/she pays; only subsequently is the seller's obligation (delivering the purchased goods to the satisfaction of the buyer) satisfied. Assuming that the seller would not ship the product unless the buyer had fulfilled their obligation, they have all information they need to post feedback prior to the time of shipping.

ebay changes (1)

throwaway18 (521472) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333346)

There is a very large number of posts in ebay's forums from sellers complaining about this.

If I was a larger seller I'd be trying to get together with other big sellers to create a private system to share information about scamming/deadbeat/irrational/insane buyers and hijacked accounts.

On another note, ebay UK has announced that all prices must included VAT (value added tax) if it is going to be charged. In typical ebay fashion until now their help pages said that VAT would be included but they refused to enforce it so lots of people have had the irritating experiance of being unexpectedly asked to pay 17.5% more. People should have read the small print in the auction saying VAT would be added but it's easily done when you are tryign to grab a bargain.

Oh well... (4, Interesting)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333390)

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.

Generally Speaking: (1)

Beefslaya (832030) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333396)

You can pretty much tell if the person leaving a negative feedback is a TOOL or not.

The solution would be to allow for a "middle of the road" feedback, or a dispute feedback option.

That would take care of the "He didn't give me what I wanted." type entries.

Instead, let the buyer be a little more descriptive of the situation (not the 60 character limit they give you).

Froogle to the Rescue (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333420)

Google's Froogle shopping search filter should rate eBay sellers [google.com] just like it rates other "stores". Not rate just eBay itself, but per seller. Google should allow reviewers posting reviews from their eBay account to have weighted review points, or their own rating, and discard reviews posted from someone who received a negative review from their target in the past month or so.

eBay is a market monopoly that needs balancing. If eBay is stopping its own users from being that counterbalance to its own users, then someone like Google, which exists to just connect users together with each other's content, is a great counterbalance.

eBay has always been "buyers beware" (1)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333440)

eBay has always been "buyers beware" and recently I've had some bad experiences from sellers. Usually, it's from sellers who are unwilling to send an item that I've snagged at a low cost (no, I don't use sniping software). The last one I let get away, as it's becoming so commonplace. Problems with counterfeit merchandise are also common I've heard, though I don't think that I've been a victim of it (though I once thought I had). But when has a seller been burnt by a buyer? I have to assume that is a lot less common, with the exception of credit card fraud, and that is a) a felony and b) easier to recover.

Even less time? (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333444)

Reducing any of the time periods is a bad idea...
Sometimes buying from international sources takes a significant amount of time to ship, and yet paypal only give you a limited time to make a claim...
Also some unscrupulous sellers will try to keep you waiting around for the claim or feedback period to expire.

The only 2 negative feedbacks i have on my ebay account were retaliatory, one seller sold me bad goods (google for fastmemoryman - he does it a lot), and another didn't like the fact i won a no reserve auction for less than he wanted, so he started making ridiculous demands (we had arranged a weekend collection in advance, but when i won at a low price he said i could only collect during working hours, and when i arranged to have someone else collect he started coming up with other excuses, like saying the item was at his company warehouse and he cant get in during the week, and he doesn't have access to a car to bring it home so i can collect it from him at the weekend - and then the next time i called him, his girlfriend answered and said he cant come on the phone because he's driving).

eBay Abuses its Monopoly (3, Interesting)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333494)

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.

Not the right thing to be complaining about (1)

travdaddy (527149) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333496)

This is not the right thing to be complaining about, another change that goes along with this is that final value fees are increasing from 5.25% to 8.75%. That makes items ending for $25.00 fees equal $2.19 instead of the current $1.31.

Less time to leave feedback = not good (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333508)

I don't live in the USA, although about 80% of the stuff I've purchased through ebay has come from the States. Typically, I have to wait between 3 to 5 weeks for an item to get to me from the USA from the date it's been delivered... if they don't leave time for me to leave feedback, I'll be more than a bit choked.

Also, of course, there's the issue of how to deal with sellers who delay in shipping in the first place... which adds even further to the amount of time it takes until the buyer can completely fairly evaluate the transaction.

Then of course there's the fact that cutting out sellers leaving feedback for buyers makes it orders of magnitude more difficult for new sellers to get established, as many buyers (myself included) will not buy from sellers who has not yet received any feedback.

Reactions from a fully supportive eBay seller (4, Insightful)

Port1080 (515567) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333570)

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 (3, Insightful)

esme (17526) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333578)

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

Protect the Seller? How about the buyer,,, (1)

Russell2566 (1205416) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333588)

As someone who sells things on ebay those bad feed back markings are helpful. I don't want to waste my time selling something I'm making a tiny profit on bickering with a crappy customer who is just looking for something for free...

I'm more concerned about protecting the buyers more. My company bought a generator last year for a decent chunk of change and literly did not get any in turn for my money. Neither E-Bay or PayPal cared. 4 months later and 3 canceled ebay accounts later [mine] they finaly banned the company from selling and we got out money back...

Screw that; get rid of BUY IT NOW! (4, Insightful)

nagora (177841) | more than 6 years ago | (#22333592)

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

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...