EBay to ban negative seller views

[pr_capone]

I have always hated the fact that if I left someone negative feedback for a ****ty product or service..... I knew I would get dinged back.

In fact, I have one negative feedback on my account now and it stemmed from that exact situation.

____________


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7228460.stm

Online auction site eBay has said it plans to overhaul its feedback system and will ban sellers from leaving negative comments about buyers.

EBay said problems were occurring, and slowing down trade, when buyers left negative comments about sellers who then retaliated with their own views.

From May, those selling on eBay will not be able to leave unfavourable or neutral messages about buyers.

The move, which will affect users worldwide, has angered many sellers.

Sellers say it will leave them unprotected.

Tricky customers

Critics of the changes argue that by taking away a seller's right to complain about a problem buyer they will have very little recourse for action when a sale goes wrong.

And they complain that by still allowing buyers to leave dissenting comments about sellers, eBay has skewed the whole trading process.

When both sides have equal access and rights to leave negative comments about each other it is a well balanced trading process, they say. However, eBay counters that problem buyers can still be dealt with.

"If a buyer doesn't pay, the seller can easily contact eBay, we will review any complaint and maybe remove the buyer," a spokesman said.

The changes aim to "improve the overall customer experience", eBay said.

It added that many buyers would not leave negative comments for fear that sellers would retaliate.

As a result, buyers and sellers may not get a fair picture of what is actually happening between trading parties.

It maintains that the majority of transactions go "swimmingly".

EBay says that only a minority of sellers leave negative feedback for buyers.

[IncredibleLee]

I think this is a bad move and leaves the sellers vulnerable. I tihnk a better solution would be to force the seller to leave feedback for the buyer IMMEDIATELY upon receipt of payment and no longer allow them to wait until the end of the transaction. All a buyer has to do is PAY and once they do so, the seller has all the information they need to provide a feedback score.

[kulnet]

Being on both sides of the coin myself, I can see the good and bad with this decision. As noted, sellers will not be able to leave me negative feedback all on account that they delivered a bad product or service. On the other hand, it most definitely limits the recourse of sellers. As a general rule, I won't sell to an individual with x amount of negative feedbacks. Same goes for those with no feedback. I can definitely see where this will leave the seller some what unprotected. Oh well. I guess no system is perfect.

[r0fl]

yeah this is lame.

[jillianbee]

I hate ebay now :(

[ar15kaizoku]

This is great.

I'm sick of paying immediately and having to wait until I receive the product, which may or may not be what I thought I was bidding on and be in good condition, to receive feedback.

This evens the playing field.

Why should a buyer, who bids on an item thinking it will be exactly as described and pays for the item immediately, have to receive negative feedback because their seller was a dud?

Good move on eBay's part.

[bcaroo]

Interesting move on eBay's part.

So far I have been lucky - I get immediate feedback from the seller for paying quickly. I have not received products that "were not as advertised" also. I won't leave feed back until product is received. Who I deal with depends on how much I am spending on the items. The more costly, the more cautious I am. I use a CC for higher priced items rather than paying outright.

I do NOT like when the seller tells me they will leave me positive feedback if I leave them positive feedback. Generally, that tells me something is funny. The 2 transactions are separate and distinct in my mind.

[da.bell]

Yup, got a response from someone that I purchased an item from and they asked me to agree to remove the netrual feedback that I left them. I did but he also stated that eBay was going to disable his account if they didn't bring his rating up.

Today, I don't purchase anything from anyone that doesn't have a 98% or higher with over 2000 items sold. It's a pet peeve for me now. ;)

[ahfrederick]

I think this is a bad move and leaves the sellers vulnerable. I tihnk a better solution would be to force the seller to leave feedback for the buyer IMMEDIATELY upon receipt of payment and no longer allow them to wait until the end of the transaction. All a buyer has to do is PAY and once they do so, the seller has all the information they need to provide a feedback score.

Agreed! I've been on eBay since 1999 and I've had mainly good experience. If you as a buyer PAID for the product then you've done your part. The Seller then should leave feedback and not worry about the feedback of the buyer. Because IF the product is AS PER DESCRIBED, then they have nothing to hide. But that's IF the seller is honest. If the product is not what the buyer was told it would be then he/she have the right to leave negative feedback if the situation is NOT resolved.

[ahfrederick]

Yup, got a response from someone that I purchased an item from and they asked me to agree to remove the netrual feedback that I left them. I did but he also stated that eBay was going to disable his account if they didn't bring his rating up.

That was bad on the sellers part, you shouldn't of agreed to it. IF you were dissapointed as a buyer then you HAVE the RIGHT to leave whatever feedback you see fit.

Today, I don't purchase anything from anyone that doesn't have a 98% or higher with over 2000 items sold. It's a pet peeve for me now. ;)

I agree! I too look at their feedback rating and the number of items they have sold.

[MURF]

I think this is a bad move and leaves the sellers vulnerable. I tihnk a better solution would be to force the seller to leave feedback for the buyer IMMEDIATELY upon receipt of payment and no longer allow them to wait until the end of the transaction. All a buyer has to do is PAY and once they do so, the seller has all the information they need to provide a feedback score.

How about giving the seller an auto feedback method which states how fast payment was received. Would be fairly easy to do regarding any PayPal payment. Or listing the average time post auction to payment. That would speed up payment to Sellers if used as a rating tool.:clap:

[rennyn]

But what about those horrible buyers out there? If they never sell anything they can only receive positive feedback.

The ones who try to scam people, or whine and complain incessently to the seller. There will be no way for sellers to watch out for them.

Stupid system. They should at least be able to leave neutral feedback. Or just 'comments' or something that could be reported if they are inappropriate.

[IncredibleLee]

How about giving the seller an auto feedback method which states how fast payment was received. Would be fairly easy to do regarding any PayPal payment. Or listing the average time post auction to payment. That would speed up payment to Sellers if used as a rating tool.:clap:

That is a great idea too!

[diannnoeora]

Agreed! I've been on eBay since 1999 and I've had mainly good experience. If you as a buyer PAID for the product then you've done your part. The Seller then should leave feedback and not worry about the feedback of the buyer. Because IF the product is AS PER DESCRIBED, then they have nothing to hide. But that's IF the seller is honest. If the product is not what the buyer was told it would be then he/she have the right to leave negative feedback if the situation is NOT resolved.

I agree with this 100%. It really torques my jaw to deal with *****e$ who won't give me feedback until I give them feedback. I've not sold on ebay, but buy quite a lot and I pay immediately. They should give me feedback when I've done my part. I have totally refused to give feedback to sellers, if they don't give feedback on my part of the transaction.

Right now, I'm dealing with a seller who shipped really fast, but a non-working unit. I emailed the seller on the 4th that the unit does not work and I've received no answer. I just emailed again and threatened to go to ebay and tell them that the seller is fraudulent. I also gave a deadline, 2/11/08.

[ahfrederick]

I agree with this 100%. It really torques my jaw to deal with *****e$ who won't give me feedback until I give them feedback. I've not sold on ebay, but buy quite a lot and I pay immediately. They should give me feedback when I've done my part. I have totally refused to give feedback to sellers, if they don't give feedback on my part of the transaction.

Right now, I'm dealing with a seller who shipped really fast, but a non-working unit. I emailed the seller on the 4th that the unit does not work and I've received no answer. I just emailed again and threatened to go to ebay and tell them that the seller is fraudulent. I also gave a deadline, 2/11/08.

Thank you diannnoeora, and I'm sorry about your current situation. I really do hope that it gets resolved in a timely and professional manner. I too am dealing with a seller who will not even respond to my email about tracking information. Sad. We'll see what comes of this.

[novastar]

Being on both sides of the coin myself, I can see the good and bad with this decision. As noted, sellers will not be able to leave me negative feedback all on account that they delivered a bad product or service. On the other hand, it most definitely limits the recourse of sellers. As a general rule, I won't sell to an individual with x amount of negative feedbacks. Same goes for those with no feedback. I can definitely see where this will leave the seller some what unprotected. Oh well. I guess no system is perfect.


I think it's a great new policy to disallow negative feedback from sellers, but eBay should allow sellers to allow for a reply comment to the buyer's negative feedback in order to explain the seller's side of the story regarding the transaction.

That being said, I think that kulnet's tactics in disallawing certain buyers from bidding on his auctions is the best strategy for sellers in avoiding negative feedbacks in the first place - "...As a general rule, I won't sell to an individual with x amount of negative feedbacks. Same goes for those with no feedback."

With eBay's business model, more burden should be placed on the seller to make sure that the transaction go smoothly. This means that the sellers should be held up to a higher standard in providing quality of service and products in exchange for fast payment from buyers. Similar to a brick & motor retail store, the seller has the ultimate decision to whom he'll sell his products to. For example, Macys can refuse to sell their products to anyone who are suspicious looking or they suspect of trying to commit fraud. In this example, Macys has the right to refuse to sell their products to those type of people.

That same due diligence in filtering out potentially fraudulent and troublesome buyers should be required of eBay sellers. You don't have to sell your items to everyone that bids on your listed item...which may result in a lower price at the end of the auction, but if I was a seller, it's worth it in order to avoid potentially fraudulent or troublesome buyers.

In conclusion, regardless whether it's a brick & motar or a online business, at the end of the day, the same old rule (cliche) applies in any type of business transaction..."the customer knows best", but it's the responsibility of the seller to decide if he/she want to do business with that buyer(s) in the first place in order to avoid those potentially problematic buyers. If the buyer seems too good to be true because he/she is the winning bidder and willing to pay much more than you expected for the listed item (especially when the buyers have no feedback history or very limited positive comments), he probably is...cause he's either going to be using a stolen credit card or do something equally sketchy in order to get your auctioned item for nothing.

[leaving_ash]

The simplest solution might be to make feedback sources anonymous and collect and shuffle 2 or 3 before anyone can actually read them. Granted it would create a lag within the feedback system but it would limit reciprocity.

[novastar]

The simplest solution might be to make feedback sources anonymous and collect and shuffle 2 or 3 before anyone can actually read them. Granted it would create a lag within the feedback system but it would limit reciprocity.


leaving_ash,

I think your solution doesn't provide enough transparency. Furthermore, urgency is required when it comes to posting a truly legitimate negative feedback about a seller in order to warn other buyers, especially when the seller has committed fraud.

[NASCAR14FAN]

I buy and sell on Ebay. I have one negtive feedback for a guy that bought a DVD from me I waited a month for hime to send me $15.00. Finally, I left him negative feedback. I kid you not, the very same day he left me negative feedback saying in his comments the only reason he did so, is because I acted first.

I thinks a fairer system would be to elmilinate the negative feedback all together. and include the total number of auctions in feedback Example:

Auctions: 100
Positive: 50
Neutral: 25
Unfiled: 25

This would be a score of 50%

[Dzalumni]

I guess I won't be selling on eBay any more. I'm sure the consignment shop down the road will be willing to pay me fair money for the designer clothing I used to sell on eBay. I've had tons of people not pay and I've left negative for buyer.

Bad move, eBay, bad move indeed.

[novastar]

I buy and sell on Ebay. I have one negtive feedback for a guy that bought a DVD from me I waited a month for hime to send me $15.00. Finally, I left him negative feedback. I kid you not, the very same day he left me negative feedback saying in his comments the only reason he did so, is because I acted first.

I thinks a fairer system would be to elmilinate the negative feedback all together. and include the total number of auctions in feedback Example:

Auctions: 100
Positive: 50
Neutral: 25
Unfiled: 25

This would be a score of 50%


NASCAR20FAN,

Your experience involving the $15 deadbeat buyer is pretty funny; however, I can empathize with you. That buyer sounds like an immature loser. But at least he's an aberration rather than the norm. In my line of work, I also deal with companies/people that waste my time and money. They've cost me countless of hours and tens of thousands of dollars over the years. However, when a deal goes wrong or blows up in my line of work, it usually involves a $XX,000 (five figures) amount per client.
That's why due diligence in qualifying a potential client is so important to me. There have been many times that I've turn away potential business because of one thing or another about them that didn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling in the pit of my gut.

As for your suggestion, I don't think it provides enough transparency. In an online auction type of business transaction, it requires more transparency rather than less.

I think another way to make it much more fair for both buyers and sellers is for eBay to take more responsibilities in assuming some of the costs and liabilities involving dead beats and frauds. Furthermore, they should also create an optional program for both buyers and sellers to be thoroughly "vetted" similar to a employment background check where they contact references and run a credit report. The cost will be paid by whomever that wants to be in this vetted program.

In addition, as an incentive for being "vetted", eBay could come up with several benefits for people to do so, including lower fees and trouble free guarantees on certain listed items, etc... for the vetted buyers and sellers.

These are the types of solutions that would likely help lower the problematic transactions involving deadbeats and fraud on both sides of the aisle.

[Xray]

Obviously a bonanza if you are only a buyer, a mixed bag if you buy and sell, and completely ludicrous if you mostly or exclusively sell.
In my opinion, a transaction is not successful when *the buyer pays*. It is successful when the buyer gets the item as described, and is happy.
Until that time, it is no more a successful transaction than buying something at walmart then taking it back 4 days later - From walmarts perspective, they can put that sale in the books after the 30 return period.
From an ebay sellers perspective, the transaction is concluded when the buyer has item in hand and is satisfied.
Myself, I leave fb either when the buyer does the same, signaling me of a completed transaction, or if they send me a note "got it, thanks" or whatever.
To leave fb first is asking for egg on your face, as I'll shorty describe.

Amusing are the buyers who state "thank God, now the playing field is level" !.
I fail to see how giving one party 100% and the other 0% can be considered level.
Being a moderate power seller myself, some of you may have no idea how many tacky, impossible to please trolls there are out there in the buying world.
I have 3 negs out of about 1,500, I'll briefly recap these.

* Sold a used zippo lighter for $9. Auction included 4 jumbo high rez pics, with the statement "shows average signs of use, please let the pics be your guide."
These go for about $40 mint, from the 50's.
So the dirz gets the lighter and negs me, saying "shows more than average signs of use" - And this after presumably viewing 4 jumbo high res pics of front, back top and bottom.
So of course I negged her back, and would have felt pretty stupid leaving her glowing fb about her quick payment and what a +++++ assey she is to ebay.

* Sold a 40's silver coin for $22. Buyer immediatly paid, then just as quick asked for a refund, saying they made a mistake, but that he perfectly understands he is comitted to buying it, and no hard feelings if I refuse.
I said no refund, I will do this: Give a 2nd chance to the next highest bidder, which was $2 lower than his. If he accepts, Id refund the payment. If he did not, the transaction would not be voided and I'd mail the item, which was already paid for.
So I gave the next highest bidder 3 days to decide, next day the winner emails me, "well are you going to refund my $$??" I said look, I just told you the situation yesterday, the other guy has not responded yet.
Anyways the messages between us kept getting worse and worse, it was plain I was dealing with a nervous lunatic. Some would have just refunded to get rid of the headache, I myself stand on principle.
Buyer finally admitted in one of his rambling, threatening emails that the reason he wanted a refund was because he simply felt he paid too much.
When I reminded him that one must go through 2 seperate screens and click multiple buttons to place a bid, including one that says "ARE YOU SURE" I just got back more threats, so I told him to file a dispute with ebay/paypal, do whatever you want, you now go in my spam filter.
Left a neg saying item not as described. Filed claim with paypal and lost, due in part to me showing them the email where he said he felt he paid too much.

* Neg #3. Guy gets another coin, pays quickly. That night ebay sends me a message saying that the account which won the auction was hijacked, and that I should disregard the sale. So I go to ebay live help, told them the story, they asked "has it been paid for" I said yes, it has. They said well, you can do what you want, maybe you should request their contact info. So I did, and gave the guy a phone call. He sounded like he was in a chemically induced stupor, but I explained the situation, I said look ebay said your account was hijacked and I wanted to personally verify with you that everything was in order before mailing the item. He said yep I have some problems, all taken care of now, so I said fine, item will be sent the next day.
2 days later I got a neg saying BAD SELLER PAID BUT SELLER WILL NOT SEND STAY AWAY - Again, I would have felt like quite a dork leaving this immediate payer nothing but praise.


I perfectly understand that there are sham/rude/obnoxios sellers, its a 2 way street though. We can now expect pretty much a flood of negs from emboldened, empowered buyers now with nothing to keep them in check.
If I send an item paid for the very next day and the PO takes 10 days to deliver it to Tachuwannee, Arizona, I will get a neg for that, with no recourse.
In fact, they don't have to actually "buy" anything, they can commit to buying it then leave a neg without ever having paid for anything - A dream come true for all those vengeful hacks and trolls out there.
Many moderate selling power sellers like myself with lose their status, as you must maintain a certain fb level to keep it. Power sellers, by the way, get a few perks such as lower fees, and rely on this status to make selling on ebay viable. Combined with their new rate increases, this new feedback thing will cause many to stop selling or pursue other venues, resulting in less competition and thus higher prices for the buyers.
Rather ironic, since ebay does not make $ #1 from any buyers, their fortune is exclusively made on the backs of the sellers [though obviously yes, there must be buyers in the equation to make the venture work].

Myself, I'll be forced to simply jack up shipping charges to at least partially cover the increased fees associated, not only with the across the board increases they are starting, but also because of the ineviatable loss of my power seller status due to the negs coming from the emboldened buyers - I expect others to follow the exact same logical course.
You can say "well if you are a good seller no worry at all". Untrue. Everything I sell I have multiple high res pics, honest description highlighting not only selling points, but any flaws. I go to the po at least 3 times a week, and when payment is received there is never more than 2 days before I have it in the mail [except for payments received on FRI night, 3 days]. I don't rake on shipping, and often even underestimate shipping. Still, knowing the mindset of a large percentage of buyers, I fully expect unjustified negs to come rolling in, and they will.
So buyers, you got your cake, may not be exactly free though. You are the ones who will be for paying the increased postage you can pretty much expect to see across the board due to these bonehead policy changes, and the subtle but sure price increases due to decreased competition.
The only thing that will change this though is, of course, ebays bottom line.
They will more than willingly kick their work horses in the leg some more if their profits increase.

[novastar]

Hi Xray,

Interesting stories you've provided with respect as to how the minds of the stupid and ethically challenged works. ;)

I guess that's generally the most troublesome aspect of the quasi-retail type of business model found on eBay. Hypothetically, I wonder how Walmart (as a brick & motar retail store) would handle those same buyers if it occured to them, where those same buyers want to return the equivalent Walmart items back to Walmart for a refund within 30 days. I actually don't shop at Walmart (no interest) and not familiar how they deal with their customers with respect to returns.

Anyway, those buyers probably have similar attributes to people seen on such shows as "The Jerry Springer Show". They're wretched behavior causes me to think of certain terms - trailer trash, dumb shi* and lowlife.

I'm glad that I don't have to deal with those types of petty and inconsiderate characters in my line of work. They obviously never learned to take responsibility for their own mistakes.

BTW, I bought a few things on eBay over the years and I've actually made a mistake in bidding on a listed auction for a vintage Rolex watch before. I misread the description and should have done my due diligence in asking the seller more detailed questions. I knew it was my fault and took responsibility for it. I told the seller about my mistake and offered to pay the seller the eBay fees he incurred plus an additional 5% of the price (my winning bid was close to $5,000) of the Rolex for his troubles if he would re-list the watch for someone else to buy. He was understanding and considerate enough to re-list the Rolex and accepted payment for the eBay fees incurred with my mistake, but he refused my offer of the 5%. He was a good guy to let me off the hook like that and he even gave me a positive feedback aftwards. I wonder what would most other sellers do if this occured to them (or something similar)? ;)

[Xray]

Thanks for adding your perspective novastar.
I ought to say that I buy as well, having a couple hundred buying transactions on the same account as I sell [alot of sellers like to create seperate accounts for buying and selling, for some reason].
I expect to leave fb first, and I do. When item is in hand, as described in reasonable time, I leave +. Have never had a reason so far to neg any seller, would do it with no thought of getting a retaliation if I had to.

Theres no easy solution for this. But ebays decision to give such a completely uneven advantage against the very people who make it its fortune is telling.
They must have calculated that the majority of their highest earning sellers are going to stick with ebay no matter what they do ... And that may be true.
I am a casual seller basically selling odds and ends for cigarette/gas money. I am a union carpenter and often pull in over $2,500 a week for months on end.
Every little bit certainly helps these days, especially since I got 5 kids, but loss of ebay income for me would barely affect me. I'd be more disappointed with losing the general excitement of auctions.

Many others don't have that luxury and rely on their ebay income almost exclusively, and therefore are not in a position to make waves or protest by limiting or stopping their sales.

I have read the various proposals here of compromise, none hit the mark. If either party in the transaction knows they operate with impunity, they have a license to do as they please.
Solutions that might be acceptable to me:

* People fret like little children over their 100% rating. So, instead of sellers leaving them negs, have another category of ratings called strikes, which only can be issued by sellers to buyers. These do not affect the rating, but can at least warn others of a problem buyer, and can allow the seller to publish their side of the story.
A buyer leaves a - for a seller because an item has not arrived in 7 days.
So the seller can leave a strike, which does not affect their rating, saying "Negged me because item not there in a week? Sorry dont control PO delivery" or some such.
buyer happy because precious rating is not affected, seller satisfied that at least his version of events are on record for anyone concerned.

[Xray]

NASCAR20FAN,
I think another way to make it much more fair for both buyers and sellers is for eBay to take more responsibilities in assuming some of the costs and liabilities

You might as well stop right there. As anyone who has ever dealt with ebay "customer service" knows [and yes, I use the term very losely], ebay was, is and always will be loath in the extreme to taking on any responsibility, costs or liabilities whatsoever.
When a problem occurs, their favorite stock reply is "we remind you that ebay is only a venue" - A bland way of saying "tough ****, work it out yourself".

The only savings grace I can think of for their often abysmal attitude towards their patrons and money makers is that, were we in their position, we would probably do the same.

[Wayne 1]

Bad idea Ebay! Apparently the folks running your company are asleep at the switch!:ohcrap:

[Normbuddha]

I am really unsure how I think of this. I usually buy on ebay I have only sold one item and recieved great feedback from the buyer on the item. (I have excellent ratings but don't use my ebay account very often I have been a member since 04 but only have 10 feedbacks).

However I do like the idea that someone mentioned to eliminating the negative feedback and instead doing strikes or something else. When I buy I am one of those buyers as soon as I find out I won the auction I immediately pay for the item so it can be shipped as soon as possible by the seller.

I just bought an item from a seller that met the 98% feedback rule and had around 20 negatives for the month, but since the seller had such positive ratings overall I decided to buy from him. I ordered the item and paid for it on a wednesday nite. The following wednesday I emailed the seller and asked if I could please have a tracking number to track my items journey to my home and to ask where my item was since it had been almost a week since buying the item. The seller informed me that the item wasn't shipped until monday of that week and to expect it in 3-7 business days. I could respect this and was gratefull for the seller emailing me back, even though he still didn't provide a tracking number. I waited another week and contacted the seller on a saturday and told the seller to please let me know the status of my item by a tracking number or I would be forced to leave negative feedback for the seller because it had been 11 business days (20 days since originally paying for the item) since I had originally purchased the item. I left negative feedback for the seller and filed a dispute with paypal for item not recieved.

I hated to leave negative feedback but felt that I had no choice, because I hadn't received an email back from the seller even though I gave the seller 2 business days to reply since I had left the message on a weekend. The seller was quick to respond back with in the next day and asked to mutually withdraw feedback and that they had issued me a refund. I was unsure to mutually withdraw the feedback but went ahead and withdrew it once I got my money back. I am still unsure if this was the right thing to do because I feel that by mutually with drawing the feedback future buyers will be unaware of problems the seller has had. I was also unsure that if I left negative feedback that I wouldn't get dinged and recieve negative feedback even though I paid for the item with in 24 hours and patiently waited for the item to ship and gave the seller multiple chances before leaving the negative feedback.

There needs to be another way to let future buyers know that they have had an issue with a seller but not harming the sellers rating or offering more protection to sellers to protect them from non payers and trolls that just try to harm the buyer. I also feel that this should also be in effect for buyers as well, just because a seller has a 98 or above rating doesn't mean that nothing will go wrong. I also wonder about sellers that mutually withdraw ratings because it doesn't effect either the seller or the buyer. There should be a way to rate this so buyers can be aware of mutually with drawn ratings and be aware of the issues surrounding the transaction and that way the buyer can use thier best judgement and decide if they still would like to buy from the seller.

Or maybe we need to do what some game rooms do for the minors and have a set of pre-set comments that a seller or buyer can leave for each other if a buyer chooses positive feedback for a seller than the buyer has x amount of choices of positive feedback to leave and cannot add thier own feedback, this could apply to negative feedback as well. These are just ideas and sorry if this post is sooo long but I wanted to share my experience that even though a seller has a great rating it doesn't always mean good things can happen.:ranting1:

[novastar]

You might as well stop right there. As anyone who has ever dealt with ebay "customer service" knows [and yes, I use the term very losely], ebay was, is and always will be loath in the extreme to taking on any responsibility, costs or liabilities whatsoever.
When a problem occurs, their favorite stock reply is "we remind you that ebay is only a venue" - A bland way of saying "tough ****, work it out yourself".

The only savings grace I can think of for their often abysmal attitude towards their patrons and money makers is that, were we in their position, we would probably do the same.


Hi Xray,

Thank you for posting your very poignant reply to me. Comments like yours brings much more than just facts in conveying one's opinion/point of view...it adds a touch who the members really are offline and a bit of humanity in which we often lose with communication via the internet.

That being said, I believe there's a way for the masses of unsatisfied eBay members to force eBay to change their policies for the better. My suggestion is to create a grass roots based movement in sueing eBay by its members in "small claims court" through out the US.

Small claims court is unique legal venue for the common everyday people to sue eBay for failing to "vett" eBay members properly. The main problems that has arisen over the years with eBay compared to all of the well known brick & mortar "auction houses" (e.g., Christie's, Sotheby's, Lyon & Turnbull, and Bonhams) is that these auction houses do a proper job in "vetting" both buyers and sellers in order to minimize fraud and deadbeats.

eBay has not properly done their due diligence in this respect and as such, they are in part legally liable for these problems that occurs on their online auctions.

Lastly, can you imagine what would happen to eBay if suddenly they start receiving service notices as being "defendant" in thousands of small claim cases throughout the country? I don't care how big they are, this will literally ground their business to a screeching halt and force them to re-evaluate their "vetting" process/ responsibilities and hopefully force them to make the site better for both buyer and sellers in the future.

[Xray]

True novastar, people tend to, perhaps unavoidably, think of people on the other end of an online auction transaction as mere automons, never really stopping to think that they are people with lives, families, homes, jobs just like them.
Like any other cross section of folks, most are good, some are bad. Most will play straight with you, some will mess you around - And like anything else where these is $$$ to be made, you will find a certain percentage, from both sides, have nothing else in mind but pure fraud.
I think this mindset is almost exclusively from buyers, since they are the "serve-ee's" waiting to be "served" ... Much as a customer at any eatery expects prompt and courtious service, or no tip for the waitress.
Sellers on the other hand are ever eager to please, to keep a good rating, and the way to do that is to please the buyer, so most cater very much to the buyers needs, and even whims.
Ebay has seemed to evolved this mindset also, seeing the buyers as the "customers" to be pleased, even though, as stated, they have never made 1 single $ from a buyer. To a degree, this is true - Without buyers, there would be no sellers, and no ebay. But to a degree also, the reverse must be true - No sellers, nothing to buy, buyers look elsewhere to buy, no ebay ... which is why I think they should strive to at least throw sellers some type of bone, instead of ***** smacking them across the face with these across the board fee hikes and exclusive pro buyer policies like the feedback thing.


I doubt if what you suggest would pan out. Can't give you a reason for my doubts offhand, other than there must be some very good reasons why it won't.
Most likely could be found in ebays TOS, which one must agree to before doing any business there.
If you got a few spare minutes/hours/days to dive into hundreds, if not 1,000's, of ebay/paypal horror stories [mostly from sellers, and mostly former sellers] try this http://www.paypalsucks.com/ , and be sure to click on the "forums" link if you really want to get into some nitty gritty details.

[novastar]

...I doubt if what you suggest would pan out. Can't give you a reason for my doubts offhand, other than there must be some very good reasons why it won't.
Most likely could be found in ebays TOS, which one must agree to before doing any business there.
If you got a few spare minutes/hours/days to dive into hundreds, if not 1,000's, of ebay/paypal horror stories [mostly from sellers, and mostly former sellers] try this http://www.paypalsucks.com/ , and be sure to click on the "forums" link if you really want to get into some nitty gritty details.


Hey Xray,

Thanks for the reply. I agree with you on all points and furthermore, your last point regarding your doubt regarding my "small claims court" idea has made me also re-think that notion. I'll have to run this litigation idea with my brother who happens to be an attorney to get his thoughts on it.

I guess the main issue with litigation would be how eBay markets the site and services as well as how they imply to users of their "vetting" process to ensure a safe marketplace /venue for auctions. "Implied promises or expectation as a result of the marketing practices to members of their services" - That's the key issue regardless of their terms of service when it comes to a person having a good case in winning a lawsuit against eBay. I'll have to look at the link you provided and learn more about it.

Take care!

[rennyn]

This is just still a horrible idea. "Do this or I'm gonna leave you negative feedback and you can't do anything about it!"

[Nemo]

I think eBay needs to tweak that some more.I understand the protection given to the buyer, but the seller needs more options. I do both buying and selling on eBay. I have had sellers refuse to go back and give me the positive feedback after a transaction because they are "too busy" and even had one blacklist me because I kept contacting him to request feedback AFTER I PAID FOR THE ITEM. :bang:What a loser. But in the final analysis, most sellers are honorable and service oriented so they need options to protect them from unreasonable customers.

[Wayne 1]

I've been on both sides of the fence frequently as a seller and a buyer, the biggest problem I have seen has been dishonest sellers. There are alot of azz*oles out there. I still don't agree with Ebay though, don't pull the teeth out of the system for the sellers, otherwise why bother with feedback at all?:deal: