Today I got an email from a lady who claims she did not get her item that was shipped in April. This is after she acknowledges receipt at the time and left positive feedback. Not a problem. Just possibly braindead, but I'll play along for now...
The thing is, when I went to check out her feedback I noticed a statement that of her 700+ FB's that 6 were negatives converted to neutrals after members went NARU. Nothing unusual, you might think....
HOWEVER when I looked closely those NEUTRALS were originally clearly and without doubt POSITIVES that got changed to NEUTRALS!!!!
THIS SUCKS if eBay is changing positives to neutrals when their issuers go NARU! Are they nuts???
posted on August 28, 2001 07:19:49 AM new
snakebait, I guess you haven't been on ebay long enough to remember when ALL feedback went neutral when a person was NARU. Enough of us complained to ebay about that to convince them to alter their system so this no longer happens. If you have an example of this happening recently (within the past year or so), please point to it.
posted on August 28, 2001 07:30:23 AM new
I've been around long enough to remember how a NARU's feedback was converted, and I wish eBay had left well enough alone. IMO all the complainers created was a situation where bogus negs stand forever, even if the twerps are suspended. Nice work!
As far as I'm concerned once a registered user becomes NOT a registered user their feedback should follow them into la-la land.
NARU = No feedback record on the site.
eBay used to have a funny little term for deleted feedback. Apparently feedback is NEVER deleted, it's simply expired. Hmmmmm.
If that's the case if & when someone NARU'd returned, eBay could simply unexpire the feedback.
I can't for the life of me understand why feedback exists on a users profile, if the user that left it no longer exists?
posted on August 28, 2001 09:41:38 AM newI can't for the life of me understand why feedback exists on a users profile, if the user that left it no longer exists?
Since the feedback is a record of a specific transaction that fact that one person involved in that transaction is no longer a member doesn't invalidate the success/non-success of the the trade.
If we were to use that same logic on other aspects of feedback then as soon as the transaction is no longer in ebay's data base the feedback should change to neutral.
The user may no longer be here but the transaction DID occur.
posted on August 28, 2001 09:46:37 PM new
It appears I wasnt aware of this change in feedback policy, though I've been around a few years now...
However, the feedback system as a whole is worse than useless. Had a deadbeat create an account and go on a one day spending spree where he bought ALOT of stuff off me and three other vendors. And never paid anybody. Two months passed, with NPB and FVF's already filed - he still has zero feedback.
I myself left neutrals, since negatives are more likely to piss him off enough to retaliate, and I really dont want black marks from a twirp.
As long as eBay allows retaliatory negs from deadbeats and kooks I simply will not be issuing any negs, regardless of how much they richly deserve it.
Deadbeat and fraudulent users should have ALL their feedback removed from the system once they go NARU. Its a different story for those who rebel against their stupid TOS or don't pay their ebay bills. Their credibility is not suspect there, and ebay needs to learn to differentiate.
posted on August 28, 2001 10:07:47 PM new
It takes MANHOURS to differentiate. THAT is why many Ebay situations are handled with the stroke of a broad brush that is bound to make some large segment of their users upset.
posted on August 28, 2001 10:10:13 PM new Since the feedback is a record of a specific transaction that fact that one person involved in that transaction is no longer a member doesn't invalidate the success/non-success of the the trade.
Amy
Sorry, that doesn't make any sense when it comes to eBay feedback records. The fact that their was a seller, and a high bidder, does not make a "transaction". Any punk with an agenda, or a twerp who decides to go on a bogus bidding spree, can leave neg feedback for each & every auction they were high bidder on. Would you consider that a transaction, even if the punk/twerp was NARU'd shortly after the supposed "transactions" took place? Does it invalidate the success/non-success of the trade, damn straight it does. Would it be a perfect solution - IMO no, but it would be a hell of a lot better than leaving bogus feedback standing from a deadbeat bidder who is suspended within 2 weeks of registering.
Your argument is along the same line of reasoning that eBay used to "attempt" to convince the masses of why neutral feedback should be allowed even when a transaction didn't take place. It didn't take long before eBay saw how flawed that logic was.
I spent the better part of 2 years trying to convince Pierre, Jeff Skoll, Griff, and anyone else that would listen at eBay why ALL feedback should be tied to a transaction number. Yes, I'm all for that, but when someone gets the heave ho, their feedback record is nothing more than a worthless number.
The ONLY reason that eBay didn't run with this is because of the hundreds of whimpering whiners who complained when their feedback number dropped a few points.
You are correct that anything requiring more 'work' on ebays part simply wont fly as they are increasing prices and decreasing services.
However you are incorrect that any real 'work' would be required to differentiate between NARU'd users.
A simple check box at the place for reason for suspension should allow any two bit programmer to differentiate between fraudulent and non-fraudulent 'offenses' and delete feedback accordingly.
The 'work' involved is in the actual suspension. The categorization of it can be automated. They seem to have plenty of time to suspend people.
posted on August 28, 2001 11:39:51 PM new
Kiawok...I wouldn't call those who asked repeatedly for ebay to stop changing feedback to neutral when a user goes NARU (either administratively or by user choice) whiners. I would call them ebay users who have the same right you do to have an opinion. The fact that all those users didn't agree with your viewpoint doesn't make them whiners.
You may feel the present method is flawed but the fact is, you were outvoted
posted on August 29, 2001 06:40:18 AM new
Snakebait - Exactly!
Amy - Outvoted? Ha-ha-ha-ha Since when has eBay been a democracy? I called them whiners because from what I saw on the boards that's exactly what they were. People were whimpering when their feedback dropped from 1245 to 1244 overnight. OMG, the horror of it all!!!!
If eBay REALLY listened to their users they would have fixed the feedback situation [remember the days of neg feedback parties?]
long before they did.
Snakebait is correct, the only REAL reason they won't change it is due to the fact that there's no financial incentive to do so.
