posted on July 4, 2001 07:20:35 PM
I've been on eBay 4yrs. and over 2k positives and 142 neg. Most of the negs were from the early days when you didn't have to associate a feedback to an auction. I had people give me negs because "asking price is too high" reason.
PepperAlso is the exception to searching for and reading past feedbacks. Does anyone think that a buyer is going to look throught over 50 pages of feedbacks and find and read the negs to see why it was given and what my response was? Fat chance!
Every time I have someone ask me why so many negs, and would like to bid but are afraid that they will get screwed. I have a boilerplate reply I send them. I say that why does everyone focus on the negs and ignore the positives.
I also say that on the average only 25% of the satisfied people leave a positive but 100% of the dissatisfied leave a negative.
I tell them that my feedback should really be 8k, so the 142 negs are less than 2%. But the visible negs are 7%.
I've been notified by eBay that in order to retain my Power Seller status, I must maintain less than 5% negatives and I have 30 days to bring it above that percent. Fat chance, so good by Power Seller status.
I long ago quit giving negative to anyone for the same reason as others.
It in not my Duty to warn other sellers!
Let them find out the same way I did!
The only responsibility I have it to keep my negs low in my own account!
Until eBay blocks the ability to leave a neg by the buyer when I file an NPB, then I will follow up and file them. A few lousy dollars in FVF is not worth risking getting a retaliatory neg after I file it. Let the other sellers be the martyr's and get the negs.
I completely agree that the feedback system is so skewed towards the buyer that it's completely broken and useless.
[ edited by robotnik on Jul 4, 2001 07:21 PM ]
posted on July 4, 2001 08:27:27 PMDoes anyone think that a buyer is going to look throught over 50 pages of feedbacks and find and read the negs to see why it was given and what my response was? Fat chance!
Ummm..... I do it too, except I have been known to go over 100 pages back and also look at the FB of the person who left the neg.
posted on July 4, 2001 09:27:22 PMDoes anyone think that a buyer is going to look throught over 50 pages of feedbacks and find and read the negs to see why it was given and what my response was? Fat chance!
Ummm..... I do it too, except I have been known to go over 100 pages back and also look at the FB of the person who left the neg
Even with vrane (which 99.999% of ebay bidders are clueless about), I simply do not have the time to devote such effort to one purchase. A quick scan of the summary page and that's it for me ... and probably most users who have similarly busy schedules.
I have 1900+ FB, no negatives, mainly because:
1) I've been blessed to have avoided short-fused wackos so far;
2) Customer service par excellence;
and
3) I do not use the feedback forum to "punish" deadbeats.
The feedback system isn't for dealing with deadbeats. The NPB procedure is, and I make full use of it because it actually has some consequences.
I never look at my bidders' feedback before an auction ends, anyway, so any sellers who've "sacrified themselves" for me did so for nothing, quite frankly.
posted on July 4, 2001 09:40:54 PM
However, I do look at the feedback of all my bidders, and have cancelled bids of bidders I felt were not going to complete the transaction, based SOLELY on what others have said about the bidder. That is what it is there for.
Why should I let a NPB screw me out of my listing fee if I can do something to prevent it? Heck no. That is what feedback is for, and when you either refuse to leave it out of fear of a retalitory, or are too lazy or too "busy" to do it, you do the sellers on eBay that take the time to check out their bidders an injustice.
So, fountainhouse, when I lose my listing fees because you didn't leave a neg to warn me about a deadbeat, can I come to you to refund my money????
posted on July 4, 2001 10:15:51 PM
Sorry, rewassago, I'm not responsible for your sales anymore than you're responsible for mine.
I sell full-time. If I spend all my time scrutinizing the feedback of folks who might end up the high bidders on my auctions, there'd be precious little time left for selling!
Besides, what's the point? Most times the person who was high bidder all week is outbid before it ends, many times in the last seconds of the auction, preventing a bid cancellation.
posted on July 4, 2001 10:34:27 PM
"Why should I let a NPB screw me out of my listing fee if I can do something to prevent it? "
What can you do to prevent this from happening? Anyone is capable of not paying, they may have zero feedback, they may have 100 feedback. It happens.
As someone else said, as soon as negative feedback is removed because of NPB, then I will consider leaving it. Until then, I see no reason to do so. It's stacked against the seller, and it can only hurt them. It doesn't hurt buyers! If you are only a buyer (as I am with one of my ebay addresses) I really don't care if I got a negative.
Also, as someone else pointed out who had too high a % of negatives though they had lots of positives, the e-mail you get from a buyer saying they are worried probably accounts for a very small percentage of the people who might bid. If I saw someone with that ratio, I would not email, I would simply just not bid! Sorry, but that is the way I see it
posted on July 4, 2001 11:03:09 PM
eBay has successfully brainwashed many of it's users! LOL This could be so simple. All eBay would have to do is reward people for leaving feedback as well as receiving it. An easy link showing how many feedbacks (negative and positive visible with an easy sort option) were left by a user could help indicate how often they leave comments on transactions. This could help clearly illustrate a retaliatory negative should one occur. Maybe even stars for feedback left? How about an 800 number and a T-shirt?
Why won't eBay do this? Simple. They don't have to. They have established that if you don't leave feedback, you are not doing some sort of duty for your fellow eBayers. If you mention that you don't want to leave feedback, you're instantly vilified for it. The same reasons that most give for insisting that leaving a negatives is important, shows how unimportant it really is. It's extremely important to leave a negative and risk the retaliation yet, it is easily over looked by potential bidders? Why then would one assume it would work on the other side? Why for the offending user wouldn't they be able to claim that their negative too was unjustified? I thought the FVF gave eBay the information they needed regarding a lack of payment? Yet it is up to us to tarnish our record?
All this accomplishes is tarnishing a user's record who is already out the cost to sell, their time and even more fees if they want to relist. The obligation of policing the site is the sellers and not eBay's? Must have missed that one in the commercials. What eBay has done is an excellent job superimposing duties that they don't want to invest in on to their user base. Even more offensive is that for not leaving a negative feedback, the user risks being looked upon in a negative light themselves? After a horrible transaction and lost insert fees we're the jerks if we don't then stick our neck out even farther? Stop touching the stove if it burns you! Why would anyone assume that a user who violated your terms or sent you shoddy merchandise will amazingly play by the rules when it comes to feedback?
eBay most assuredly will not do anything to help except spread more unsubstantiated propaganda. If it is not propaganda, I'd sure like to see a survey proving their line that "most bidders will see through a retaliatory negative by reading the entire history of the transaction." I've yet to see even an attempt at a survey. Again, it's not in eBay's interest to do so. You won't see any statistic that supports their instructions. It allows eBay to stay "in the dark" so to speak of the financial impact on the user base by doing this. If they did come up with a survey that did not support this finding, they could be sued in a class action for losses over it's entire user base. With no survey, inquiries or specific numbers from any other sources eBay can maintain a plausible deniability. None the less, you will see customer service personnel telling users how important it is to believe in this ridiculous fairy tale. "Most users will look past an unwarranted negative feedback." If this is truly the case, surely there is some documentation to support it?
All eBay would have to do is let sellers file their non paying bidder reports and let bidders file complaints for unacceptable merchandise or lack of merchandise. If any user has pending litigation against them, a notice should be generated by eBay letting the potential seller or bidder know that the person they are buying from, or selling to has some sort of negative record on file. Again, it is not in eBay's best interest make these file available to its user base. This being the case, if eBay won't put their own butts on the line for their "beloved community" then why should the members of that community be expected to do so? Yet, again and again, it is spouted off by eBay staff and users alike that it is a user's duty to leave negative feedback. "Other bidders will see through it." They will? Please feel free to police a billion dollar company's site until your bids fall off the deep end but personally I find it down right offensive. eBay and it's huge infrastructure will still be publicly traded. The "community members" will be the ones left not being able to pay the rent. eBay's margin for error is just a tad larger than the average user's.
I'm not saying that negative feedback isn't important. It is. I've been forced to wait up to 90 days just to leave it and not get dinged with a retaliatory. There will be those saying that 90 days is just more time for those who deserved the negative feedback to rip off others. This is very true. Now if that same logic is applied to eBay they should be tripping over themselves to make the site safer in the first place. Yet, that logic is not applied to them. The user who has had the bad transaction to begin with is the one on the spot to fall on the sword. I'm not the one not honoring my bids or stealing funds. Leave my "duty" out of it. My duty is to my family and to protect my bottom line! The resentment that eBay has generated around those who don't want to lose their good standing and potential higher profits is ridiculous. I would like to have the choice as to help out the community or keep my feedback as attractive as my items. Until I am presented with a percentage of users that do actually read through the feedback and it doesn't affect, I can't make a reasonable decision. The only fail safe decision is to protect my feedback integrity. After all, "Most Bidders" could be 51% or 95%. That is a large margin for error.
As morally wrong as it is it's a brilliant business strategy. They have not had to invest much into the improvement of the system against unwarranted negative feedback. We're too busy fighting amongst ourselves to demand anything. They won't change unless it is profitable or they face a serious loss of business. The important numbers to remember here are eBay's monthly registered user rate. Boy how the statistics come pouring out when it stands to help them considerably! A good growth rate is paramount especially in the Internet sector right now. Things that might negatively impact business such as a retaliatory feedback survey will never see the light of day. eBay is just following a long history of seasoned propagandists who let only the numbers out that help them and will even impose an obligation (for someone other than themselves of course) in the interest to get the results or services they desire. As long as there is no established percentage of users who read into feedback more deeply, they can pretty much state any opinion they please. A comment like "most bidders can figure out that it is an unjustified negative comment" is pretty hard to defend without actual data. Using that very same logic, it should then be equally as easy for eBay to differentiate between retaliatory, negative comments and remove them as they are against eBay's rules.
eBay has done a stellar job with their propaganda messages and spin. Rather than directing the focus on why eBay doesn't make its site more user friendly, or give users the tools to protect themselves, they actually have other users who will stand by and pressure someone else to commit possible feedback suicide on their behalf. The small time seller, snuffed out in the line of duty. I assure you that eBay will not be by their side when the bills come due. They'll be too busy finding new ways to cut costs using it's own user's energies. Since they did it once, only bigger and better campaigns will follow. The fact is that they will pull it off. I have no doubt.
Hypothetical scenario: A seller has 16 feedback, all positive and gleaming. This user sells 7 items to one user who has 750 comments that are dotted with the occasional negative feedback. Who will the 7 negatives affect more if the transaction goes sour? All the bidder has to do is decide that they've over extended themselves and not want to pay. Those seven comments will count as only a -1, moving the sellers feedback down to 15. Still all seven comments would come back to back to back to back to back to back to back. If bidders really do read through the feedback and that string of seven are the most recent, will a potential bidder risk it? What is the incentive for bidding? Could it be possible it might detour at least some potential bidders?
True Scenario: I sold around 150 items all at one time a while back. They all ended in about a 7 day span. 5 of the bidders were deadbeats. If I had neg'd them all at the same time (well after all the other items were paid for and positives left) I may have gotten a string of five retaliatory negatives, all in a row. Why would someone bid when they could just find another auction and not risk it? I waited 90 days to leave the feedback to try and avoid this problem. Still, some would be upset because I didn't do it promptly. It's hard to be compassionate for the "community's" best interest when that same community has no compassion for my potential for loss of revenue. Again, what's the incentive? That someone might do the same for me? PLEASE DON'T! I would have extreme compassion for your lack of revenue not to mention it would plain "bum me out!" It's eBay's responsibility to fix the problem. In the end, risking your own neck will just hurt YOU! Again, if retaliatory feedback is so easily read through and deciphered then eBay should have no problem deciphering it either and removing it along with the offending party from their site.
eBay needs to take charge. They have the funds and then some. We pay fees. Lots of them! Let eBay improve their own site or lose the business. This business of harassing users who have already had a bad transaction to leave negative feedback has really got to stop. I really wish that any user who everyone is all over to "do their duty," regardless of the impact of a retaliatory negative could delegate their feedback to another user. Then we could see just how many would step up to the plate and leave a negative for the good of "the community" risking a retaliatory negative on their own feedback history. If bidders truly read through it, then it shouldn't matter who gets the negative.
Riz23
I have Nothing Prophetic To Say At The Moment & Probably Never Will.
posted on July 4, 2001 11:52:01 PM
Leaving negs for NPB bidders does serve a purpose, to make some sellers feel morally superior. The "common good" is much better served by recovering your fees and hastening their departure from eBay. If every seller recovered their fees it would be much more effective than the simple(minded) pleasures of negging. I leave positive feedback as soon as a buyer pays (even lates) and NO feedback for NPB. This acts as a form of mutually assured destruction in case they are thinking of negging me for recovering my fees. So far in 1100+ sales it's warded off any negs. Long story short, I don't care about your business just mine. The opinion that a seller with no negs is suspect, is I think very much in the minority among buyers.
My eyes hurt ...It might be the Rum and Cokes I’ve been sippin
on all day.....but I think it may because I read your piece twice...
Thankyou Thankyou....
“Leave my "duty" out of it. My duty is to my family and to protect my bottom line”
Pure poetry my eBay brother......you also say “ They won't change unless it is profitable or they face a serious loss of business”. ...After all the eBay sellers have tons and tons
of bogus Negs on their score card....and all newbie are afraid to bid...and it
starts to slow down FVF fees....maybe we will be lifted to our feedback bondage.
Hey bemused
you said
"If every seller recovered their fees it would be much more effective than the simple(minded) pleasures of negging".
This is true....but once again eBay has made it so time consuming ..that
many seller like my self just chock it up ad a cost of doing eBay business
and add to the eBay (whats ya gona do fund)...I have always said that
if eBay where appreciated the common seller they would refund both listing fee
and FVF fee to qualified sellers with out question...kind of the flip side to the
Power Seller coin ..that ask us to refund any unhappy bidder...
I don't scroll through all 200 pages of feedback to check negs, I use vrane's feedback widget. I can check all the negs of a seller in just a few seconds.
But I DO check the feedback of a seller. And I read their responses, and if something seems weird, I check the feedback of the person who left them feedback. I have been scammed several times by sellers with *high* feedback (2-3,000) so I definitely research before I make a purchase.
In my opinion, If the neg was deserved, I don't care if was as buyer or seller; If they aren't trustworthy as a buyer, then what would make them trustworthy as seller? and visa versa.
posted on July 5, 2001 11:19:47 AM
I think people make more out of their feedback ratings than they are worth. If a bidder won't buy something based on some deadbeat's retaliatory rant, you probably don't want that bidder's business.
The only thing that feedback says is what your track record is like and is this someone I should have confidence doing business with. How big the numbers are is largely irrelevant unless there are patterns of irresponsibility.
Expecting perfect feedback is like expecting a perfect world...not in touch with reality.
posted on July 5, 2001 12:57:47 PM
First, I forget who mentioned this, but I dont think 10+ pos are a lot (as a buyer, I have 29, I dont think this is a lot), most of my deadbeats have low fb, anyway. As a seller, mine are currently 1568, 4, 3; it is impossible to make everyone happy, and of those 7, none are retaliatory, they all got positives...I have left plenty of negs too.
As for a bidder to change their ID, that person still needs to put a CC on file or have a trackable email address.
I dont think it is that difficult to have 99% pos fb, and this is good to me; if any newbie or any bidder expects you to be perfect, then _____ 'em. As a buyer, I skimmed over 6000 fb's of a seller whose CDs I bid on, read all their negs/neutrals, and he had satisfactory responses to most of them, and the bidders seemed like (another word I cant say). Thats it.
