From what I have been able to gather is that the ability to leave negative feedback was being abused by many and too often became a tool of “he said – she said” where a buyer would post perhaps a truthfully negative feedback about a seller, only to have the seller, out of spite, reply with a similar negative feedback or vice versa. Users were becoming hesitant to report negatively, even if the transaction warranted negative feedback in fear of a reprisal in the form of a false negative. The feedback system was severely flawed in this respect and I don’t know how else they could have addressed the issue.
My guess is Ebay figured the Seller’s rating was more important than a buyers. As a buyer, what is one of the first things you do when looking at and thinking about bidding on an item? You look at seller’s rating, feedback and history. This happens with almost every transaction from a buyers standpoint, it certainly does for me as a buyer. Especially in regards to the autograph side of our hobby where a sellers rating and track record is extremely important. But how many sellers take the time to investigate the rating and feedback of each and every bidder to see if they have negative feedback or a previous un-paid auction win? My guess is very very few. My guess is that sellers rarely, if ever, utilize a buyers feedback during the auction to reject a bid based on feedback, rating or their history. As a result a buyer’s rating, feedback and history is much less relevant and important to Ebay than the seller’s is.
Ebay keeps track of buyers who don’t pay when you as a seller report them. I’m not sure how many “did not pay” instances a buyer is allowed but I wouldn’t think it would be many.
|