posted on July 24, 2001 04:04:08 PM new
kiawok: I am just as concerned about spam as you are... but I've seen the mock ups (some months ago) for the one you've posted about in this thread... and while I'm all FOR ways to discourage BOTTOM FEEDERS and REAL SPAMMERS etc., I am not comfortable with an "automated" Spam tick counter.
I feel there is too much room for abuse,(think of the early days with the automated NPB process... how some folks were falsely "marked" as NonPaying Bidders) and not enough recourse after the fact. Until eBay can address those real concerns, I believe they have made the right decision to withhold the potential menace lurking within the Automated Spam Tick counter "tool".
Really, that's all I should say on this subject... besides, this thread is suppose to be about the new policy on eMail addresses and URLs as User I.D.s
posted on July 24, 2001 04:24:34 PM new
Sorry Dottie, but I don't share your concerns of abuse, even if it was automated. Let's face it, no SELLER in their right mind is going to report a potential customer for Spam. Sooooo, that only leaves ONE reason why a person would be reported, which would be for contacting a BUYER, or potential BUYER, when they have not bid on their item.
IMO any seller that contacts another user attempting to make an under the table deal, deserves what they get. Also, if you read the same report I did, it also mentioned 4 warnings before you were locked out of the eBay online form system. Nothing really happened until the 5th warning within a 6 month period. WoW.
It also stated that after 30 days you would be "unblocked" or reinstated and once again allowed to use the system.
Let's face it, this doesn't compare at ALL with the old NPB system, which meant on the last warning you became NARU for 30 days.
No mention of NARU at all was mentioned in this report, only the loss of using the eBay online form system.
The ONLY reason eBay would have for not following through with this feature is that it would cost them more overhead [extra customer support staff] than what it's worth to them.
IMO this feature [or now non feature] is directly related to this latest post on the AB.
posted on July 24, 2001 07:50:20 PM new
"What has been designed [and not yet released] is a functionality [their word, not mine] that allows recipients of eBay forwarded messages to easily report Spam complaints to eBay, via the online form itself. "
I think I will add to my TOS: "I do not report anyone who contacts me, spam or not, so feel free to communicate."
Bottom feeders don't bother me, my email has a delete button.
posted on July 24, 2001 08:24:14 PM newBottom feeders don't bother me, my email has a delete button.
I'm not concerned about bottom feeders emailing me, I'm concerned about them contacting MY customers, who bid on MY items, that were created by ME, and paid for by ME.
Imagine someone walking around a B&M auction house & asking the bidders who were bidding on YOUR items if they would like to purchase THEIR item for a few dollars less.
posted on July 24, 2001 08:50:05 PM new
Poor eBay, they get so many complaints about spam. (Uh huh, yeah right, in a pig's eye.) And, oh by the way, the new system also helps discourage off-site trading. But our real concern is that our customers are getting spam mail. D'oh. How about spamming my customers with Half.com advertisements in every EOA notice eBay sends? C'mon, get real.
eBay wears that "only a venue" like a shield. When I complain that I get 50 deadbeat customers a month, "we're only a venue." But when it's spam, eBay will go to the mat for me? Oh, sure.
