posted on January 28, 2001 05:02:22 PM
There have been many other threads about this topic and I'm curious what you all think. I have been having lots of luck in finding a niche that I can make a profit in. I'm in the process of signing deals with companies to even get more products at lower prices. My items are very reasonably priced and they're getting bids like there is no tomorrow. As a result my ratio of deadbeat bidders in on the rise.
eBay encourages us to leave negatives for non paying bidders. Users who do not leave negative feedback are thought of by some as "bad community members". I believe that this is a success for eBay redirecting the blame to the sellers who already have had to jump through hoops just to get some of the fees back to now take the blame for not risking their feedback. I now have tons of great feedback but could risk my reputation because of bidders who never intending on paying to begin with or just found a better item and feel it won't affect them to have a neg in their file.
In the past month I've had 5 possibly 6 bidders who have not paid. I've already requested the fees, filed a FVF credit form and received some funds back. Of course bold listing fees at $2.00 a pop are gone. I have had to re-list the items which takes more time. When I filed the first form to "work things out" I received a reply from some bidders asking such questions as "When did I win this item" or "Payment is on the way". The payments never arrived. One bidder has won 3 of our auctions and then proceeded to negotiate terms. I explained that we always combine shipping to save them some money. Apparently this was not good enough. They wanted me to cut their bid price 20%! These kind of letters are a pain but are a part of business that we agree to deal with while on eBay.
What we don't agree with is that while we have to request our funds through several steps and several weeks (while eBay keep these funds), we then have to risk our reputation based on the assumption that users read in depth why negative feedback was placed. If I now give negatives to all these bidders we will most likely receive a string of retaliatory negative feedback that our bidders may or may not read into for what they really are. Why should we risk our reputation and profitability to police eBay's site? We've requested credit (which undoubtedly some don't even take the time to do) and even filled out the reasons for the request (non-payment for an item). eBay now has the information that they wish for us to post in their feedback file. Some users I've spoken with even say it is our responsibility to post these comments. Whose responsibility is it to safe guard our credibility with our potential bidders?
I am raising this issue not to start an argument but to raise awareness of a major problem. For every seller that will take the time to discuss this issue, I'm sure some never will. The reason for this post is to point out that if there is not protection against deadbeat bidders (who have already shown a willingness to violate eBay's rules by not honoring their bid) leaving retaliatory feedback. Knowing this there is no reason why they would not further break eBay's rules leaving retaliatory feedback to destroy our reputation with our bidders. eBay has pointed out continuously that it is the bottom line they think of first when they initiate new fees to help their bottom line. No matter how much their "community" protests these raises, they still go forward because they feel increased fees are in the best interest, not to us, but for eBay as a corporation. Yet, eBay will turn to that same "community" to risk our own bottom line and "do what's right" when it comes to deadbeat bidders on their site. I believe we are doing what's right, for our company, protecting our reputation against unwarranted negatives. It's up to eBay to set safeguards in place for the privilege of maintaining users' trust and businesses not us. Until the blame of such things starts falling on the shoulders of eBay, where it should be placed, there is no incentive for eBay to change it.
Even after a user (doing the current perception of the right thing) leaves negative feedback for a deadbeat bidder, it is currently so easy for them to change to a new ID that there is no real deterrent. That one negative in their file becomes erased when they change or "start over". We do not get to "start over" when we get a negative. We'll have to live with that negative or string of negatives warranted or not. We will will then have to hope it does not result in a lack of business. It is hard enough to find a niche in today's market we don't need an unwarranted red mark in it to give us a further handicap. We also are not the ones breaking the rules yet the burden seems to be on us to protect the community from harm. eBay is just a venue, a venue that collects funds from users signed up to use that venue. Those users should be protected from people who abuse that venue as specified in the TOS when we joined. I'd think that it would be in the interest of a multi-billion dollar corporation to protect the users who create it's profit. Until they are forced to however, they have not shown a willingness to do so.
posted on January 28, 2001 05:11:48 PM
Many people state that they never apply for FVF credits; so....... it is my contention that since eBay must examine each issue to determine how best to m-0-n-e-y-t-i-s-e same, that to do NOTHING is the best allocation of resources.
Jaundiced offline friends of my sometimes joke that eBay ITSELF prolly are ALLA the deadbeats and that the *only* people who realllllly get deadbeats on eBay are loud-mouthed posters.
The ONLY thing I've seen done in regards to deadbeats was an EXTREMELY patronizing comment on the Announcement Board, some time ago, to the effect, "We KNOW that the order YOU have a deadbeat on is HIGHLY frustrating because 100% of that order was ruined."
C-L-U-E-L-E-S-S
0R..........sly like a fox with a sarcastic sadistic sense of humor?
I mean, IF that was an *innocent* statement, for which I do not have the PRECISE QUOTE, then it was made by someone who has NO IDEA what the actual end user's experiences and expectations of eBay are.
posted on January 28, 2001 07:29:52 PM
When I signed up for e-bay I had to leave a credit card number to protect who the sellers or the buyers? I was under the impression that if I bidded on an item and did not pay for it, the cost would be deducted from my credit card. I know they charge my credit card for e-bay fees, but maybe they should have some kind of way for the sellers to recoupe thier money too. Right now I've got a couple of auctions I'm waiting for payment, and I've got an item I've payed for that hasn't been shippied yet. The person hasn't replied top my e-mail, and hasn't told me one way or another if its in the mail or not.
posted on January 28, 2001 08:44:22 PM
I have left upwards of 30 negative feedbacks for deadbeats and only had one wake up enough to retaliate. A response is easy to leave and any retaliatory negative stands out as such. It did not affect our business at all and any positives that were left for us shortly after we received the negative were extra glowing. It was great to see customers stand behind us like that.
I do check bidders feedback and appreciate when negatives are left. It does give me a heads up that there might be trouble.
Anyhow, that's just how I see it, your mileage may vary.
Have a good one.
posted on January 28, 2001 09:02:35 PM
I only leave negs for nonpayments. The negs total about 14 to 15 over the last two years.
Not a single person I have negged left me a retalitory neg. However if I do get one I'm not going to let it upset me. There are lots of reputable sellers on eBay who get weirdo buyers who have mental problems and can't conclude a transaction. Statistically, it seems evident that it will happen to me at some time also. When it does, I will respond to the neg with a simple factual statement like "Gave neg to buyer for nonpayment, this is a retalitory neg." Buyers read that, it makes sense, it doesn't affect their decision to bid or not to bid.
However your points about the NPB and FVR have merit. We don't get paid and we have to jump through hoops to get that final fee back and be able to relist the item. It doesn't make sense. I think once we do the NPB we have to wait another ten days until we can relist.
My suggestion to eBay is that when a seller request the final fee for nonpayment, that eBay posts a nonpayment to the feedback history. It would be a 4th category: positive, neutral, negative and nonpayer.
My next suggestion is that when someone gets another account that the feedback numbers go with it, and leave all feedback that isn't positive. Some buyers get another id because a seller left their name in the feedback, meaning their competition will know who they are. Thus, if the same name and address gets more ids, carry the number of positives, negs and neutrals over to the new ids, don't print the positives, but leave the negs and neutrals for people to read.
posted on January 28, 2001 11:04:00 PM
I don't think you can really have your reputation hurt. If you are a reliable, professional, honest seller who stands behind their items, then you will be ok. No matter what you do you will have at least 2 to 5 percent deadbeats, and you should leave negs for almost all of them.
I've sold full-time on eBay for 3 years now, my feedback is currently 2,186 with 10 negs (8 retaliatory, 2 were deserved), and in the same time I have left 84 negative feedback(s). That's 2.032% out of total 4,134 feedback(s)left for others.
posted on January 28, 2001 11:05:45 PM
I don't think you can really have your reputation hurt. If you are a reliable, professional, honest seller who stands behind their items, then you will be ok. No matter what you do you will have at least 2 to 5 percent deadbeats, and you should leave negs for almost all of them.
I've sold full-time on eBay for 3 years now, my feedback is currently 2,186 with 10 negs (8 retaliatory, 2 were deserved), and in the same time I have left 84 negative feedback(s). That's 2.032% out of total 4,134 feedback(s)left for others.
posted on January 29, 2001 04:37:39 AM
Riz23 -
"I now have tons of great feedback but could risk my reputation because of bidders who never intending on paying to begin with or just found a better item and feel it won't affect them to have a neg in their file. "
A seller willing to give negatives and file the NPB/FVF gets a reputation as a seller who is not a good seller for DEADBEATS.
"we then have to risk our reputation based on the assumption that users read in depth why negative feedback was placed. If I now give negatives to all these bidders we will most likely receive a string of retaliatory negative feedback that our bidders may or may not read into for what they really are"
You can place a comment on any retalitory negatives: "RETALIATION: Did not pay, filed FVF and left neg."
Bidders are more understanding than you think
posted on January 29, 2001 05:20:14 AM
I give all customers the benefit of waiting for a very long time before leaving negative feedback.
I wait for 14 days to send a second notice and send an NPB alert at the same time. This gets response from more than half, and a payment.
After 10 more days I send a final notice. I then wait 10 more days and file FVF and leave a negative.
In 28 months I have left approximately 40 negatives. I have 2 negatives out of 1363 feedback of which 1053 are from unique users.
I feel that if the negative is worded properly and is only factual the bidder won't leave retalitory feedback.
This is the last negative that I left for a deadbeat:
Bid, Won, Never Paid, Sent 2nd Notice NPB/FVF & phoned to no avail after 48 day
I expect to get a negative now and then. It's all part of the game. As stated previously most bidders can see that the negatives I receive are retalitory so I don't worry about them. They are going to happen.
It would be great to have a blemish free record, but if you sell on eBay long enough you will get a negative.
Just do your part as best you can with the flawed feedback system and you will feel better about yourself.
posted on January 29, 2001 06:55:46 AMRiz23 I AGREE AGREE AGREE!!!
After jumping through all the ebay hoops,I have left one neg in my ebay career (for NPB), and recieved the retaliatory neg back for it. That's 100% for you statisticians out there. It ain't worth it. I won't do it again, and all those ebay cops can kiss my patootie if they think I'm going to police their site and thin out my feedback ratio for some crazy game player who will just register with a new ID.
DarcyW: Excellent suggestion, the 4th category posted by ebay without risk of retaliation to us sellers would be a fantastic thing, but of course, ebay is pretty busy protecting their buyers and can't be bothered with us sellers.
I still don't understand why or how ebay can justify allowing NPB's to give feedback! Once the FVF is filed, that should be the end of it for the bidder.
posted on January 29, 2001 12:55:30 PM
For the record:
I have posted over 40 negs in the past year, received my first retaliatory less than two weeks ago. I knew it would just be a matter of time. I usually leave a simple and factual neg ~ this bidder peeved me when they sent me an UNsigned PERSONAL check (I dont accept checks and have absolutely no use for unsigned ones!) I wasn't quite as professional as usual. oh well. 600= positives and one neg. Not bad. It is my responsibility as a buyer and seller to leave info regarding an auction ~ retaliatory negs are pretty transparent.
Have you seen my other thread?
Help! I'm being violated
I'm currently being harassed through my bidders ... retaliatory negs are a fact of life but where is eBay when these jerks start to contact nervous newbies???
sheesh!
C'mon eBay ~ let's get with the program and get rid of the deadbeats! Why do you continue to let this go on???
kick the soapbox out from under me I'm outta here
chepistar
posted on January 29, 2001 06:02:44 PM
Thank you all very much for taking your time to post to this thread. I appreciate it very much. Let me take the time to clarify a couple of things that were touched on above. Before I do please remember, I am just expressing my opinion. At times it's heated and perhaps a bit sarcastic but never is it directed at any one poster or individual. I respect all of your opinions and honestly appreciate when you all take your own time to read, reply and discuss these subjects.
First of all I now have over $500.00 dollars in merchandise that I am currently holding in the hopes that they will be paid for from bidders I have not even heard from in over 21 days. I give them the full amount of time until my fees are refunded, including my 14 day policy for payment to be sent. Upon sending my final fee request that actually refunds my fees to my account, is when my merchandise may be re-listed. So deadbeats actually are affecting my business whether it be from a retaliatory feedback or just tying up merchandise that could be paying the bills. Again, I'd have to defer to my previous comments on the probable mindset of someone who already shows a willingness to break the rules with no interest of the ramifications toward those they hurt in the process. Simply put, they've already hurt us way more than a little red negative could have by taking money and our inventory out of circulation for a month or more. If I set aside $500.00 for a month, I'd hope there would be some return on it.
That merchandise eventually will come back into circulation. With a negative comment that does not violate the guide lines set up by eBay, retaliatory or not it stays on your account forever. I got burned a while back with a bidder who was bidding like wild fire and then immediately leaving negatives. I contacted eBay and 27 negatives later he was banned.
Link Removed To Protect Rights Of NARU User Who Left The 27 Negatives
I applied to have my feedback corrected and eBay declined. eBay eventually suspended this user for what I assume was leaving excessive, false negative feedback, but eBay chose to leave those comments on all those seller's permanent records even after I asked time and again for help on behalf of myself and all who'd been affected. I learned then there is no protection. Rather than place the blame on the other sellers who received negatives from this user, I place the blame with eBay. A responsible thing to do would have been remove the ridiculous comments left by this one idiot. They could not see fit to do so. The reason was that "once feedback is placed, eBay may not change or remove it" that was eBay's standard speech before eBay changed their own policy. They did tell me I could go get a court order! I'm so glad they really care about their beloved community.
If eBay won't risk themselves getting in trouble why should I risk my own reputation? I'm glad that others who have bought into eBay's lectures on morals have not been hurt by retaliatory feedback. The point I am making is that it should be a given that you're not hurt by these people! It should not be something you hope for as the best case scenario! The fact is that if it was in eBay's best interest to protect us, eBay would change that policy in a second just as they did the feedback issue that was supposedly unchangeable because it was the law. Everyone has bought in to this morality lecture that eBay presents so readily that it's never been a problem for eBay. They don't have to control the problem because the users will pressure others to do it for them!
Do you realize that I've now had to list the items, wait 7 days for them to close, send out my end of auction notices, wait 14 days for payment that never comes, pay the fees, send out reminder E-mails that I know aren't coming back, apply for the privilege of getting our fees back, wait another 10 days to "work it out", then finally request our credits? After all that we don't even get all our fees back! Then, after keeping $500.00 of merchandise on the shelf that now has to be re-listed, I face a morality issue of placing negative feedback "for the good of the community"?! eBay wove one heck of a story and boy has it worked. I'll tell ya' if a person had gone through all of that, the last thing I would be doing is lecturing them on their moral obligations to the community! I'd be angry at eBay (and I am!) for even suggesting that a person should have to do such a thing!
To wrap it all up what I'm mad about here is that eBay has successfuly taken advantage of our sense of "community" and in fact the community itself. eBay conveniently uses this word to fit it's needs. To us it is something more and they know this! By adding morals into the equation eBay saves a butt-load of money. They basically enlist 5,000,000,000 agents for their moral cause. These agents don't get benefits and they don't get paid. This is in eBay's best interest as it directly means they make more money. They do not hesitate to do this as it is in their best interest to do so. If I try to do what is in my company's best interest, I get pressured by the community. This is the same community that eBay is using to do it's work for them! In my opinion this is hypocrisy generated by the biggest hypocrite of all. After all, I send my final value requests to eBay. Why can't eBay leave the offending bidders a negative? If the claim is that "potential bidders will know the difference by thoroughly reading through your feedback" (because we all know how long we look at feedback when we are bidding at the end of an auction), why can't eBay take their own advice and thoroughly read through my 500+ positives and decide the bidder who I took the 31 day minimum process to recoup my fees might just be a dead beat?
One last question for everyone: Has there ever been an occasion where you saw some negative comments in a file and decided not to bid as it wasn't worth the risk? Whether it was because there were other sellers with similar auctions with no problems that you could buy from or you just didn't feel like reading through 10 pages of feedback to find out what those 6 negatives were all about.
Using eBay's own assumption that every bidder (neat assumption) will read through all your feedback and make the correct decision then it stands to reason that such a veracious reader of feedback would also take a perfect record over a stained record any day. Why bother with seller 789zz who has 750 positives and 4 recent negatives, when seller xyz33 has 750 perfect comments and sells for the same price? What's the motivation to come to 789zz who with all their good intentions placed negative feedback in the files of his deadbeat bidders (for his "beloved" community that coincidentally would string him up at sundown if he didn't do it - thanks eBay) to protect others from them? Well at least 789zz can have the warm feeling in his heart knowing he did "the right thing" (according to eBay who stands to lose revenue if they have to do something about the problem themselves) for his beloved community, that in turn helped him build his house on the prairie and they all had tea and lived happily every after...la la
posted on January 29, 2001 06:29:44 PM
The link has been removed in compliance with your request and AW's guidlines to protect the rights of the now NARU user who left the negative feedback. FYI - This user used an E-mail that bounced, a phone number that does not work and an address that returns mail. I'm kind of curious about AW's policy on protecting people who don't exist? Thx
posted on January 29, 2001 09:50:20 PM
Since I started selling this past summer, I've been amazed at the # of people whose computers crash weekly, houses burn down, have bizarre illnesses... it's just crazy! I would love to find out why people bid on things when they know they're never going to pay. Sigh.... it's never going to happen! I wish eBay would charge the cc those bidders signed up with, otherwsise what's the point of doing that (besides proving that you're 18).
Deadbeats are *my* biggest concern with eBay -- not spam! and I wish they'd fix it!
posted on January 29, 2001 10:19:50 PM
This illustrates my point perfectly. It took merely 11 minutes or so for a notice to be placed saying I violated a user's right to privacy. This same user has left 27 negatives but still several months after being NARU still gets the benefit of the doubt. This user has all fraudulent information but amazingly is still protected. I've asked now almost 4 hours ago what the rules are regarding users who don't have one bit of real information in their profile. Do they really exist? Does privacy exist for people who are not real?
I have as of yet to receive a reply. If however I left that link up, you better believe this thread would have been locked quick style. This perfectly illustrates how much bull people who play by the rules go through. We have to constantly jump through hoops just to play within other people's rules. These rules actually benefit the jerks who want to rip us off. They not only benefit these jerks, they work quickly for them long after they've inflicted their damage.
I'm sickened that the almighty eBay's grasp has affected the judgment of AW. I can't even post a link to a rotten person's exploits to illustrate eBay's short comings. When sites start protecting the frauds and run pointing to their TOS, that shows me one thing. Your TOS are ridiculous! Actually they're insulting. Cancel my membership for all I care as I will not be a part a site who's rules specifically protect the rights of frauds and or figtiscous individuals who run around causing harm to others and even go as far to obstruct the discussion of such matters.
Go ahead and reply with the standard "We allow discussion but it is against our TOS to link directly to another site" or whatever is closest to that. It just helps show the point I am making.
It's a true indication of who AW is looking out for and I want no part of it. See my TOC (Terms Of Compliance) are in direct contrast with your TOS. The difference is that my site traffic is not my lively hood. Therefore I'm not going to waste my time trying to discuss issues in a forum that throws penalty flags immediately but won't answer a complying member's questions with that same urgency.
I'd rather just have a conversation. Ya' know, one where you can just discuss stuff. No silly rules. No forums telling you to leave out important things, like the actual proof someone acts in a spiteful fashion.
I apologise that your request for clarification was not seen earlier. For future reference, if you have a question for the Moderators, it will be seen much faster if you post directly to the Moderator's Corner or email [email protected].
You were asked to remove the link because the Community Guidelines require that any identified party be invited to participate in the discussion. Not to necessarily to protect their privacy, but to notify them of the discussion and afford them the opportunity to respond. If someone was here discussing your auctions, the same deal would apply and they would be required to invite you.
If you wish to provide a link, be prepared to meet the requirements outlined in the Community Guidelines as follows:
1. Email an invitation to the other party providing a link to this thread and the CGs (and CC that invitation to [email protected])
2. Email your name, address and telephone number to [email protected]. The CGs require this information be on file with AW and as the Moderators do not have access to your registered information, the email is requested to confirm this requirement is met.
3. The thread must be locked for 24hrs to allow the invited party time to receive your email and consider participating.
If the email invitation bounces, this will be taken into consideration by the Moderation team and may possibly result in opening of the thread early. It still has to be issued.
If you disagree with the AW Community Guidelines, you are welcome to address your concerns directly to [email protected]
posted on February 1, 2001 11:54:11 AM
I would leave the negative feedback. Even if they retaliate you can still reply to that can't you?
Maybe you could add something to your auction that states, that because of many bidders not paying, you will take action (such as negative feedback or placing for collection) on bidders that bid and do not pay?
