posted on March 7, 2001 03:53:46 PM new
This is on The eBay Announcements Board
*** Feedback enhancements - coming soon ***
Last December, we started a discussion thread to gather your suggestions about how we can enhance the Feedback Forum. In the last several months, we received thousands of comments. We carefully read and evaluated all your opinions, and finally made decisions of what we will do for this round of Feedback revision.
posted on March 7, 2001 04:09:13 PM new
In other words, nothing is being done to prevent or discourage relatiatory feedback. Another opportunity for positive change wasted...
posted on March 7, 2001 06:06:20 PM newAllow member to leave follow up comments without waiting for responses
You will be able to leave follow up comments right after leaving the Feedback. You trading partner will still have the opportunity to respond afterwards.
This feature will help members who had left premature Feedback follow up with proper comments when mistakes were made. However, eBay still highly recommends everyone to think carefully before leaving Feedback.
So basically, you can receive a NEG from someone (for example, a DEADBEAT), and then another "negative" comment right next to it by the same person without giving you the chance to defend yourself first. Lovely.
[ edited by ExecutiveGirl on Mar 7, 2001 06:08 PM ]
posted on March 7, 2001 06:07:39 PM newEmpires, only if you can stop dishonest sellers from falsely filing FVF. Until that happens, you cannot disallow buyers from leaving feedback.
posted on March 7, 2001 06:11:01 PM new
I agree with Empires. Deadbeats should not be able to leave retaliatory NEGS. BUT - I think if they have FVF's filed against them - ebay should allow them to PROVE that they paid. And then, and only then, if they can prove they paid for the item, then ebay should allow them to leave feedback.
posted on March 7, 2001 06:35:39 PM new
Why does the buyer have to prove they paid? If the buyer tells ebay they paid, then it is the sellers word against the buyers.
If I send the seller a check in the mail and the post office loses it, how do I prove I am not a deadbeat. I sent the seller the payment. It's not my fault the post office lost the payment (where have I heard that argument before?)
If ebay stops sellers from leaving feedback when a buyer files fraud charges, how do the sellers feel about that? Does the seller have to prove they did not commit fruad? How?
Stopping one party from leaving feedback is NOT an answer.
posted on March 7, 2001 06:39:58 PM new
Execgirl...what about the buyer who would not pay because the seller added additional fees AFTER the sale ended (fees that were not listed in the auction TOS). Should they be stopped from leaving appropiate feedback because the seller filed for FVF refund? Or the buyer who never recieved the sellers EOA notice and was negged 4 days after the auction ended and then the seller filed the FVF?
posted on March 7, 2001 06:56:26 PM newWhy does the buyer have to prove they paid?
Why shouldn't they? Why should the seller be out all the fees AND the payment? If the buyer says they paid - let them prove it!
If I send the seller a check in the mail and the post office loses it, how do I prove I am not a deadbeat. I sent the seller the payment. It's not my fault the post office lost the payment (where have I heard that argument before?)
It's the BUYER'S job to get payment to the SELLER. IF they mailed the payment, and IF it was "lost in the mail", then the buyer should stop payment on the first payment, and send the seller a 2nd payment - possibly sending it registered or whatever they have to do to get payment TO THE SELLER. Or, if they don't want to stop payment on it, they can just wait and see if it ever turns up and the seller can mail it back to the buyer.
If ebay stops sellers from leaving feedback when a buyer files fraud charges, how do the sellers feel about that?
I would have no problem with that. Any person who has a clear conscience because they know they have done nothing wrong would have nothing to worry about, right? I think the only sellers who would NOT like this plan are those who are dishonest sellers.
And the same goes with buyers. Any buyer who wouldn't like the policy of not being able to leave NEG feedback until they could PROVE they paid should not worry - because they are honest buyers who can prove it, right? The only ones who would not like this are those that are TRUE deadbeats and cannot prove that they paid.
Does the seller have to prove they did not commit fruad? How?
Well, every case is different, I'm sure - but I would say DEFINITELY! If a fraud case is filed against them, they should have to PROVE that they are not frauds!
posted on March 7, 2001 07:48:51 PM newExecutiveGirl, It's the BUYER'S job to get payment to the SELLER.
Just a question for you, what is your take on sellers that state that if a buyer refuses insurance on a package, it is the buyers responsibility?
I really am curious. I don't mean to put you on the spot, but as a buyer the attitude that I am responsible to get payment to a seller no matter what, but the seller has no responsibility if I don't pay for insurance just ticks me off.
If as a buyer I take the same stand with the seller as you stated for the buyer, I would expect the seller to get the item to me and be responsible even if I did NOT take the insurance. (Works for me, I no longer need to purchase insurance. Saves money on shipping .)
posted on March 7, 2001 07:58:31 PM new
Gisi - If a buyer sends a check or MO & it is lost, all they are out is a piece of paper, which can either be re-written or refunded by the issuer of the MO, the buyer would be out nothing. A seller is typically dealing with a one of a kind item, on which a duplicate would not be as easy to replace as would writing a second check & making an additional attempt to get payment to the seller.
posted on March 7, 2001 07:59:50 PM newGreg: I offer ALL my customers insurance. Not only do I offer it, I strongly suggest they get insurance and I tell them the importance of insurance on their package. If they downright DECLINE the insurance and refuse to pay the 60¢ for insurance, then why should the SELLER be responsible if the package is lost or damaged during shipping because the BUYER was too cheap to spend 60¢ on insurance? (60¢ is through U-Pic insurance, BTW).
This is an entirely different issue, anyways.
In the past 2 1/2 years I haven't had one package lost or damaged in the mail, so I haven't had to deal with this situation, and am only commenting on what I think should be done if this was to happen.
As a BUYER, when I purchase something, I usually pay the extra for insurance. And if I choose NOT to get insurance - I would take the full responsibility if the item was to get lost or damaged in the mail. I would NEVER blame the seller! What would I have to complain about?
"Hey seller, you warned me to get insurance and I was too cheap to pay for it, so now it's your fault it was lost in the mail!" ??????
I think it all comes down to people being responsible for their own actions and to quit trying to find another party to blame.
posted on March 7, 2001 08:24:47 PM new
I have had problems with buyers who say they sent checks or MO's to me. They seem to get this idea, in one case, that I should just send them whatever they bid on. I never get payment. In some cases it's an excuse to get out of paying, in others the PO probably lost it. I tell them to show me proof that a check or MO cleared with my signature. Why can't ebay do that? I have, so help me, next to my computer, a letter mailed at a PO not more than 15 miles from where I sit now. It bears a stamp saying it was sent by accident to, get this, SRI LANKA! It took over 2 months to get there and back. Fortunately, the fellow didn't want to argue and sent another check, but I've had to deal with whiners who expect me to ship even if I have not gotten payment.
posted on March 7, 2001 08:32:38 PM newcomicjunkie, I am out $8.00, that is what my credit union charges to stop payment on a check.
ExecutiveGirl, does this mean you would agree with a buyer who asked the seller to pay $.60 insurance on the payment and if they refused and the payment was lost then it would be the sellers responsibility.
It has to be one way or the other. Either both parties are responsible to get it there or neither party is responsible if insurance is declined.
Since both sides of the transaction are worth the same amount (obviously since it is an exchange of money for goods), it would seem like insurance would be required on both sides or neither. If the buyer is responsible for the insurance on the package, then the seller is responsible for the insurance on the payment.
I don't understand where some sellers come up with the concept that a buyer better get the payment to the seller or the seller will neg, but if the buyer doesn't pay for insurance it is not the sellers problem if the buyer's package is lost and the buyer better not neg the seller over the lost package.
Greg
P.S. To some extent I am playing Devil's Advocate here, but I am trying to find out if sellers are looking for a level playing field or if they just don't want to deal with the problems that come with selling.
For the most part, I have had very good experiences buying on eBay. I will continue to buy.
posted on March 7, 2001 08:43:18 PM newJust a question for you, what is your take on sellers that state that if a buyer refuses insurance on a package, it is the buyers responsibility?
It's buyer's responsibility to get payment to seller.
It's seller's responsibility to get the stuff to buyer.
posted on March 7, 2001 08:46:30 PM newIt has to be one way or the other. Either both parties are responsible to get it there or neither party is responsible if insurance is declined.
exactly
Imagine a buyer demanding that a seller pay extra for "optional" insurance.
posted on March 7, 2001 08:50:33 PM newdoes this mean you would agree with a buyer who asked the seller to pay $.60 insurance on the payment and if they refused and the payment was lost then it would be the sellers responsibility.
Like comicjunkie posted earlier, it is quite easy to stop payment on a MO. You can go to the place you purchased the MO, and get a new MO and have the old MO cancelled. When a seller mails something, it's not just a payment. It's an item. An item where most sellers don't have another identical item laying around. Something that is not easily replaceable. The buyer doesn't HAVE to cancel the MO or stop payment on the check - but if the seller was to cash both payments (should they both end up arriving) then the buyer would easily have a fraud case against the seller.
All I know is when I buy something from someone, I take responsibility and do whatever I have to, to get my payment to the seller. If that means sending a 2nd payment by Priority Mail, then that's what I would have to do. And if I was to decline insurance on the package, I would not blame the seller if the item was lost or damaged during shipping.
posted on March 7, 2001 09:32:06 PM new
Since it is so easy to cancel the money order, would the seller like to pay the $.80 for the postal money order instead of the insurance?
I don't use money orders (it costs me extra, and I have to wait in line at the post office for 30 minutes). I pay by check. It costs me $8.00 to put a stop payment on a check, will the seller take the hit for the stop payment? If someone else cashes the check, should the seller refund the stolen money because they did not insure the payment?
Get Real, there is responsibility on both sides. It is a buyer's responsibility to get payment to the seller. It is the sellers responsibility to get the item to the buyer. If the seller wants to include insurance on every package that is fine, but don't weasel out of it by telling the buyer they are responsible for a lost or damaged package if they don't buy insurance.
I can't count the number of times I have read on this board, about sellers who shrug off the responsibility of getting a package to a buyer. Sellers who try and force a buyer to take responsibility by giving the OPTION of buying insurance. Sellers who claim it is not their responsibility if the post office loses the package and the buyer did not buy the OPTIONAL insurance. Yet those same seller turn around and state it is the buyer's responsibility to get the payment to them, PERIOD. NPB. FVF. NEG. for no payment.
Maybe if buyers stated giving sellers NEGs for not getting packages to them, sellers would start taking some of the responsibility.
Sellers, until that package arrives, it is your responsibility. (Until the payment arrives at the seller, it is the buyers responsibility).
posted on March 7, 2001 09:47:53 PM new Sellers, until that package arrives, it is your responsibility.
I agree 100%, the item is still mine, until it safely reaches the hands of the high bidder.
I seldom insure lower $ items [$100 & under] but wouldn't hesitate for a moment to reimburse the FULL costs of the transaction if that $75 item went MIA.
Retaliatory feedback will *always* be a way of life for sellers on eBay, and there isn't a damn thing that can be done by eBay that will ever satisfy both parties.
I've seen sellers file a NPB warning & leave negs because they didn't receive payment within 10 days. Should the high bidder not be able to return neg feedback in a case such as that? I would certainly think so.
posted on March 7, 2001 10:13:54 PM new
There will always be a problem with the feedback system, so no matter what changes are made it will never please all of us.
When a buyer is sending payment (for example
you send payment to the Electric Co. and the check does not get there, SO WHAT DO YOU DO,,,wait for them to turn off your Electric?
No, you send another payment) Electric Co. don't care if it got lost in the mail,
When a Seller ships your item and it gets lost while in the hands of the postoffice, what do you expect the seller to do?????
THAT'S WHAT INSURANCE IS FOR, LOST ITEMS,,,,DAMAGED ITEMS.....A seller always has a receipt for shipping even if the buyer does not take out insurance.
I as a seller can not take the responsibilty
for the postoffice THAT'S WHY YOU NEED TO TAKE OUT INSURANCE. Also if a buyer sends a check and it doesn't arrive within 10 days,
I feel they should find a way to send another payment to the Seller.
posted on March 8, 2001 03:39:50 PM newWhen a Seller ships your item and it gets lost while in the hands of the postoffice, what do you expect the seller to do?????
Send another one, or, if that's not possible, a full refund.
posted on March 8, 2001 04:02:40 PM new
What you said I have to disagree with.
Why should the seller send another(if it is available) or send a refund. THAT'S WHAT INSURANCE IS FOR. The seller can show that they sent the item, so why would you hold the seller responsible? Your not dealing with a large corporation, your dealing with lots of Moms and pops here on Ebay.
A large dept. store can re-ship another item because they cover there lose with there own insurance.
I can not even see the logic in what you are saying, I'm sorry but if the buyer would really expect a refund just because the postoffice messed up Take INSURANCE ON YOUR ITEM AND LET THE POSTOFFICE MAKE GOOD FOR IT.
I personally would not ship anything over 5.00 if the buyer doesn't take insurance. and if the buyer insists I tell them I am not taking on any responsibility if a problem arises.......
posted on March 8, 2001 07:18:06 PM new
tonimar~
Yes, if the electric company loses my check, I would send another rather than waiting for my service to be cut off. But the electric company is responsible for making sure that service is provided, without extra funds to insure it. This is the point some on this thread are trying to make. The buyer and seller both have responsibilities, you can't put all the burden of responsibility exclusively on either the buyer or the seller.
Citygirl
posted on March 8, 2001 07:39:17 PM new
ExecutiveGirl is right. If a seller has to file FVF on a deadbeat the deadbeat should NOT be allowed to leave feedback unless he/she can prove that payment was made (copy of the canceled check or money order receipt).
If the buyer can prove that payment was made, the onus would then fall upon the seller to prove that the item was shipped or his/her neg for the bidder would be removed and the bidder would be allowed to leave feedback but not the seller. Simple and effective. No he said/she said involved, just hard documentation.
posted on March 8, 2001 07:45:23 PM new
dubyasdaman-
Suppose you are the winning bidder, and you send your check to the seller. After a week or 10 days, he files for a FVF refund because he says you never paid, and he leaves you negative feedback. You, of course, are prevented from leaving feedback, since the check was never cashed, and therefore, no proof of payment exists.
posted on March 8, 2001 07:50:55 PM new
I would like to hear the law that sg52 says is very clear. I do not know of any law that states if you have proof of shipment that you are still liable for the product.Isn't that one thing that insurance is for?
posted on March 8, 2001 07:55:46 PM new
it really doesn't matter a rat's patoot if the law is clear or not, because not too many people are going to hire an attorney to file a lawsuit (or even file for small claims themselves) over five dollar widget. I would wager that few would take those extreme steps against the loss of a 20 dollar widget, either. The higher you go in value the more likely people are to take legal action. If I were selling a $15 item of used clothing which was lost in the mail, I would not be shaking in my shoes expecting the Postmaster to file for fraud nor would I be hiding from the process server come to present me with paper for a small claim lawsuit.
Be that as it may, it's my policy to refund for items lost in the mail. I've only had one out of several hundreds of transactions, and i did refund, because it's the right thing to do. For items over 25.00 I buy insurance myself.
I refund because I feel it's the right thing to do, not because "the law is clear".
posted on March 8, 2001 07:57:02 PM newdubyasdaman, fine and if a buyer has to file fraud charges against a seller then the deadbeat seller should NOT be allowed to leave feedback unless he/she can prove that item was shipped (copy of the delivery receipt or insurance receipt) and the item arrived.
After all, the sellers around here say it is the buyers responsibility to get payment to the seller, so it must be the sellers responsibility to get the package to the buyer, Right?
tonimar1 you said: THAT'S WHAT INSURANCE IS FOR, LOST ITEMS,,,,DAMAGED ITEMS, then why don't all sellers pay for insurance, since it is the sellers responsibility to get the item to the buyer.
Why do sellers insist that it is the buyer's responsibility to purchase the insurance. Insurance only covers the seller. Why should I, the buyer, pay to cover the seller's butt.
When sellers can give me a good reason to purchase insurance (other then covering their butt), I will think about it. Until then, it is the sellers responsibility to get the package to me, with or without insurance.
.)