I Don't Understand the Compaints about E-bay's New Feedback

[Archive]

Posted By: Hagar Henderson

I posted this as a side note on another thread but I've heard so many gripes in other threads that I thought it deserved it's own thread. (Sorry Leon, I know this isn't about vintage cards but it is highly relevant as this deals with the major source in which we obtain our cards, vintage or otherwise)

I don't understand why people are complaining about the new feedback for E-bay. The buyer's only responsibility is to pay for the item. How can a buyer screw up unless they did not pay? If they didn't pay, the seller should obviously still have the merchandise. There's not really a loss in that case except for the hassle of re-listing. You can even offer it to the next highest bidder. However, there's a lot of ways that a seller can screw up. Plus, seller's can report this to E-bay and E-bay takes action. So, a buyer has a lot more to lose than a seller. It takes a great leap of faith to send a money order to someone for hundreds or thousands of dollars for cards that you haven't even seen in person. However, once the seller has that money order in hand, there is nothing the buyer can do except click on the negative feedback button.

The old system guaranteed that each party would receive the same feedback, which is pointless. That's why there are sellers with tens of thousands of transactions and 100% positive feedback. Think about it logically. Is that realistic? Are these sellers so good that they had 10,000 transactions and NOT ONE of their customers had a gripe? The old feedback system did not work due to sellers using feedback to retaliate against a buyer. The only time I've received negative feedback was because the guy forgot to ship my order and I emailed him 3 weeks later asking where my order was. He put it in the mail the next day. I left negative feedback. Then he responds with negative feedback against me! How did I deserve a negative? I paid via Pay Pal 5 minutes after the auction ended! In my mind, sellers abused the system which led to it's demise. The entire feedback system has been a joke. Having 99.9% positive feedback means nothing because everybody gave everybody else positives for fear of retaliation. If you look at average seller feedback you would think that there is never a problem transaction on E-bay.

The result of this will be a shift in what is considered "good" as far as feedback. Everyone won't have over 99% positives. It may end up that having 95% positive feedback means you are a top notch seller, whereas now, I won't go near you if you "only" have 95% positive.

Sellers, if you operate like a true business and shoot for customer satisfaction, I do not think you will find your sales hurting due to this change. You may lose business due to absurd oil prices that are hurting disposable income, but that's a different issue.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rawn Hill

I have had no problems with ebay as I am a buyer only.

Rawn

[Archive]

Posted By: Hagar Henderson

I think in the end, it will benefit both buyers and good sellers. Right now a seller's feedback is meaningless in my eyes. If someone has a high feedback rating under this new system, it will mean a lot more to me and I may make purchases that I previously would not have touched.

For all of you sellers, think about this. If you provide good service you will still earn good feedback. That's one way to separate yourself from the competition. Right now everyone has over 99% positives so it's all meaningless. Under the new system, if you have 95% positives but your competition only has 80%, customers are going to come to you instead of the other guy.

[Archive]

Posted By: James Gallo

A buyer buys a graded card, cracks the slab and returns it. He will win through paypal and the seller with be screwed.

It is cut and dry. Ebay and paypal provide no protection for the seller.

In your example the buyer sends a money order (which is EXTREMELY rare these days) what happens when the seller sends the card and the buyer says they didn't get the card.

I think your really over simplifying things if you think the only thing the buyer has to do is pay for the item.

I have had a huge number of overseas buyers never pick up their package and they come back. I end up losing out $20-40 on shipping and they get it all back.

If you have only bought and never sold on ebay they you just wouldn't get it. When a seller takes their first $1000+ hit on a scum bag that says they didn't get a package when you know they did it becomes clear.

The old feedback system wasn't perfect but buyers aren't always perfect or right and now sellers have no way to state this.

Also with the new feedback system a neutral is pointless so it might as well be pos/neg, and negs now count against you anyway.

I have never gotten a negative from someone that has contacted me about a problem. Most of the time it is a new ebay user and they just leave a neg.

Also, I bought something from a seller, had an issue with it and he refunded my whole purchase. Some people would rather take a hit and keep it at 100%.

The feedback system is only good for new ebay users and ones that constantly have problems. Beyond that it is still pointless.

You need to see it from the sellers side at least a little bit. Anyway I could write a book about the amount of problems I have had from buyers, that either have no common sense or just don't know how to do things.

James G

Looking for 1915 Cracker Jacks and 1909-11 American Caramel E90-1.

[Archive]

Posted By: scgaynor

Any system that gives one side too much power is going to cause problems. As somebody that has dealt with many a problem customer, If I was still selling on ebay, I would be furious over the new rule. The threat of a negative has often been the one thing that finally got payment for an item that somebody won. Now if somebody feels that they paid too much (buyers remorse), they have no reason to pay for it.

In my opinion it is the single dumbest thing ebay has ever done. It's as if they said "screw you seller, we don't care about you....what are you going to do, go someplace else?"

Scott

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

There are dishonest sellers and dishonest buyers.

What happens if a buyer gives bad feed back because the $1 shipping is too high (even though stated), and all the seller can do is give Positive feedback in response. How is that a good situation?

Also note that sellers in the old system have used feedback as blackmail, to get unwarranted things from the seller. "I will give you bad feedback if you don't give me ...."

How can sellers identify bad buyers (late pay, no pay, scams, theft, unwarranted even lying feedback, etc) if buyers can only receive positive feedback? How can YOU as a seller identify these bad buyers? Even if you don't sell now, you will sometime in the future and will desire a way to identify good versus unreliable buyers. There are scam artist sellers, and are also scam artist buyers. In the past, the common way to identify the worst of the worst buyers is by looking at their feedback. When a buyer had a (-3) feedback with complaints that he never paid, you would know to not allow him to place a bid in your expensive auction. Under the current system, the seller would have a perfect 100% feedback.

Some sellers abused the feedback system, including using it as blackmail against innocent buyers, and there's no doubt this is the reason why the system has changed.

I also tend to believe that, in a 100 point system, 99.5 is considered low and 98.5 really low, there's something wrong with the scoring. In a 100 point system, 99 percent of the scores aren't supposed to fall within 98-100, and 96 isn't supposed to be considered failure. In most college courses, 93% on a test will give you an A.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve

The buyer's only responsibility is to pay for the item


I disagree, the buyer's responsibility ends when he receives the item, is satisfied, then tells the seller either via feedback or email.

Then and only then is the transaction complete. Too many things can go wrong between the time the buyer pays and he actually gets the item in hand.

As a buyer I leave feedback first. As a seller I leave it after the buyer does or after 30 days. If after 30 days I have not heard from the buyer I can safely assume he has the item and is happy. You would be surprised how many positives I get after I do that.



Steve

edit: typo

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

Seems like a simple solution would be to have a system where neither feedback is posted until both are posted. Then there can't be retaliation. I don't know why nobody ever thought of this.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: Hagar Henderson

James, the examples you gave are outright fraud. I'm not thinking along those lines because I doubt that someone who is going to steal $1000 worth of your cards is going to care about getting a negative feedback. If E-bay gives them the boot, they will come up with some other scam. As a seller, you are running a business. Unfortunately fraud is a cost of doing business. I think E-bay should have a completely separate behind the scenes fraud investigation department where buyers and sellers could report scammers. Obviously scammers are bad for E-bay whether they are a buyer or seller.

Honestly, how often do these fraudulent buyers strike you? Can some of you heavy volume sellers give me an estimated percentage of sales that are fraud?

Regardless, I do not think that feedback is going to stop the fraudsters. They are criminals that just don't care what feedback you give them. Fear of law enforcement is the only thing that these people fear.

Check Amazon.com's Marketplace policies. If you aren't familiar with Amazon's Marketplace, it's basically like E-bay with "buy it now" prices. If a buyer has a dispute with a seller, the buyer is first required to contact the seller to ask for resolution. The seller has 3 days to respond with a resolution. You communicate completely through the Amazon website and Amazon keeps records of both the buyers and sellers communication with each other. If the seller does not make things right, Amazon may step in and refund the buyer. In other cases, if Amazon finds the seller in the right, they rule in favor of the seller.

I guess no system is going to be perfect, but the old E-bay feedback system was just a joke.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hagar Henderson

By the way, I have sold a few things here and there on E-bay but I've never been ripped off. I have set up at shows and have had items stolen. I do know how that hurts.

If you are really selling heavy volume in cards, you might be better off setting up your own website. You can then set your own policies.

[Archive]

Posted By: Stephen

Although I've sold my fair share of cards I deal mostly with designer clothing...I feel that some buyers will take advantage of the no negative policy and start asking for partial refunds stating they are not completely satisfied (shipping was delayed, shipping was to much, measurements were perfect, etc). We've all had those buyers that ask 20 questions after they have won the auction and email us everyday about shipping status. It won't be long before we start giving 10% refunds to save our feedback.

I agree with the other comments that say that Paypal and eBay protect the buyer only.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe Drouillard

Hello all,

I also don't see any real harm to the new policy. When I sell on eBay I always give positive feedback as soon as someone pays. If I screw up when I sell a card I always stand behind the transaction and make it right with the buyer. So far I have over 1800 positive feedbacks with no negatives. This will probably change with the new system, but I think it may also discourage some sellers who play games with their buyers. Hopefully, it should also weed out some of the scammers who sell fakes. In away, eliminating retalitory feedback will make all sellers treat their customers better. That's not a bad change for any of us.

Best wishes,

Joe

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

I agree that the former system was lacking, and it's not as if eBay is tampering with perfection.

I don't think a perfect feedback system can be made, as their are always trade offs.

[Archive]

Posted By: James Gallo

"Check Amazon.com's Marketplace policies. If you aren't familiar with Amazon's Marketplace, it's basically like E-bay with "buy it now" prices. If a buyer has a dispute with a seller, the buyer is first required to contact the seller to ask for resolution. The seller has 3 days to respond with a resolution. You communicate completely through the Amazon website and Amazon keeps records of both the buyers and sellers communication with each other. If the seller does not make things right, Amazon may step in and refund the buyer. In other cases, if Amazon finds the seller in the right, they rule in favor of the seller."


By this statement you are saying that Amazon takes upon the risk and covers both parties. This is the problem. Neither Ebay no Paypal provide any protection for the seller and limited for the buyer.

My wife bought a vacum on ebay for $100. It comes in the mail packed like crap, used with nothing but the main piece, paypal was able to get a whole $40 back for her and the rest just vanished into cyber space.

As I stated I don't think I have EVER heard of any seller winning a paypal dispute.

I have damn near 4000 feedback with only 11 negative. I do a damn good job of taking care of the customer, but when I get screwed for no reason and the buyer wins ever case I have a problem. In the past I would get some satisfaction with knowing I was able to warn others about a bad buyer, this has now been taken away from me.

As I said I could write a book with all the stories and issues I have had with ebay and paypal. The problem is multi layered, but the biggest issue is that ebay just doesn't care and as a previous poster has stated they don't care about the seller's as we don't have any place else to go.

Well if they institute this new forced paypal policy I will be off ebay for good.

Ebay thinks they are the end all be all and that all the buyers and sellers will just accept any changes they make, however based on the wonderful feedback this feedback change got and all the other new changes, I see more and more people leaving ebay which may end up being good for us all.

The old system didn't work, but this new system gives the buyer too much control and it will be the beginning of the end in my opinion.

James G

Looking for 1915 Cracker Jacks and 1909-11 American Caramel E90-1.

[Archive]

Posted By: LetsGoBucs

I don't buy via Amazon nor do I sell any items. As a buyer on ebay I can say that things were getting ridiculous in terms of sellers refusing to give feedback until they got a Positive feedback. And when I say ridiculous, over the past two years I bought about 30 items via ebay and didn't receive any feedback. It reached the point that I didn't even bother to send emails after paying regarding the lack of feedback.

My own opinion is that once I've fully paid for an item and the seller has received payment, then feedback should be given. If I took two weeks to pay via paypal then I should get a negative feedback, if I try to negotiate the price after the auction - negative. If I pay 5 minutes after the auction closes - positive. Once I receive the goods then I should give feedback. Received in one week and well packaged - positive. Received in three weeks and well packaged - neutral. Received in one week but not what was described - negative. Received in three weeks but seller sent an email after three days letting me know her children are sick and she won't get to it for a week or so - positive. Etc, Etc. I agree completely with the comment prior that no feedback system should be set up so that 99% is a "bad" seller. Ebay isn't my life, I sometimes forget or sometimes procrastinate or other things happen. I would expect that sometime I will win an auction but forgot that I bid/won until a week later when I log onto ebay. Likewise I would expect that a seller gets sick, car breaks down, etc.

I can't comment on how buyers might or are ripping people off, but I can say that with this new system I've suddenly started to get feedback. Unfortunately there is theft in any retail situation, and that I have experienced first hand. Whether its via ebay scams or shoplifting or larger thefts, retailers experience loss in almost every industry that I'm aware of. Its wrong of course but I know of no foolproof way of prevention. But I do know that the previous feedback system in no way was adding any real value from my own perspective.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joseph Shirley

I am going way out on a limb here with my opinion. I AGREE WITH ALL OF THE ABOVE STATEMENTS! (except for the 10% refund to save feedback, I would take the neg before allowing anyone to blackmail me). Now that we have solved that problem, I can now move on to what I want for breakfast. I wonder if there is an all of the above choice listed on the menu?

[Archive]

Posted By: boxingcardman

A few points here:

1. Paypal does screw over sellers but there is a solution: Don't take it. I do not accept it any more. People can readily send me a check or money order. If they use a Postal MO, I can cash it at the PO and ship at the same time.

2. I agree that feedback had become meaningless, more or less. I got burned a couple of times by sellers with great feedback.

3. A buyer's task is over when he pays for the card. Period. And I do not think a buyer has the obligation to post feedback unless and until the item is in hand. What else is there to post before then, "great job taking my payment"?

4. I rarely posted feedback under the old system; just wasn't worth it. I did nof feel I could accurately rate the transaction because a retaliatory negative was worse for me than a negative would have been for the seller.

5. Ebay's policies appear to be geared towards pushing out the small fry seller and favoring the larger sellers, store users, power sellers, etc. The best match searching thing is a joke obviously designed to promote bigger sellers rather than actually give the best match, as is the waiting for certain feedbacks, etc. I think ebay's longer term business model is to move from being the world's garage sale to being its biggest retailer. Plus, I think they are worried that one of these days they are going to be stuck hard in a lawsuit over the rampant fraud on the site, so they are taking all sorts of "window dressing" actions to prove they are doing all they can to stop it. That's why they are experimenting with paypal-only purchases in Australia, changing feedback to promote "honest feedback" from buyers, hiding ID's to prevent tracking of shillers and cheats (no complaints + no embarrassing articles like the ones on BRSZ = no problem), etc.

Sic Gorgiamus Allos Subjectatos Nunc

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

I have a very simple system. I pay on weekends(send a check), notify the seller that a check is in the mail and kindly request that no feedback be left for me(and in turn I will leave no feedback). Sometimes to my chagrin they leave it anyway.

I have never had a problem.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve

3. A buyer's task is over when he pays for the card. Period. And I do not think a buyer has the obligation to post feedback unless and until the item is in hand. What else is there to post before then, "great job taking my payment"?




I agree and to take it a step further the seller has no obligation to post feedback before the buyer has the item in hand and is satisfied. If the buyer is not satisfied then the seller should make it right. Then and only then is the transaction complete.

IMO the transaction is complete when both buyer and seller are satisfied. Paying is simply one part of the transaction. I have received PSA 9 cards that I'd like to return.


Edited to add: Ebay should make buyers leave feedback first. That way sellers would know that the buyer is happy.

Since sellers can no longer leave a negative how would that hurt anyone?


Steve

[Archive]

Posted By: Tony Gordon

The new feedback system opens the door for scammers because the scam only works when the scammers have a high feedback score. For example, if a buyer with 80% feedback claims he/she didn’t receive their card, I won’t believe it and won’t refund their money. But when a buyer with 99% feedback claims they didn’t receive their card, I’ll believe them and refund their money. Now that buyers can’t get negatives, how do I differentiate between scammers and honest buyers?

I was getting two or three scammers a month for a few years before I decided to change my policy from leaving feedback as soon as I received payment to leaving feedback after the buyer left me feedback. Now I’m down to one scammer every six months.

I really don’t buy into these comments that fraud is the price of doing business. In reality, fraud is what closes down businesses. I also have been selling cards at flea markets and card shows since the late 1970’s and have lost very little stock to theft. I still do shows
every single weekend and might lose a dime card here or there but my expensive star cards are safely locked in a display case.

I’ve been selling cards on eBay for seven years and have only one negative that came from a buyer who claimed she did not receive her card. I asked her to give me her address so I could check my records and be sure I sent it to the right address. She never emailed her address but did send a negative.

Amazingly, I haven’t been hit with a barrage of negs now that I can’t leave any in return. Though, I fully expect them to come and when they do, I’m done with eBay.

As a buyer, you should be concerned that sellers are leaving or getting ready to leave eBay. Frankly, dismissing sellers concerns does not help the situation.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jimmy

If you treat the process like a business, then you should have no problems. I do feel bad for the folks that like to list once and awhile. I have built my services around these issues so my customers do not have to worry about the eBay process.

Jimmy

J&B Sports Auctions

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

I am not the regular on ebay that some of you are, but is this idea not worth a comment?

"Seems like a simple solution would be to have a system where neither feedback is posted until both are posted. Then there can't be retaliation. I don't know why nobody ever thought of this."

JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Jim - interesting thought. Here's why it wouldn't fly in my opinion:
If a seller is a jerk in one of his sales, then as long as that seller never leaves feedback for the buyer, no one will ever see the feedback the buyer left about how the seller is a jerk. In effect, you're giving each party control over whether any negative comments get displayed about them.

[Archive]

Posted By: dan mckee

I used to leave + FB as soon as payment arrived. I had a few idiots nix me for stupid reasons so I stopped leaving FB first. One guy bought an R314 and left me a neutral stating that his son thought is was a card. 2 others left me negatives for not accepting paypal which I will NEVER accept and am in full agreement with Scott Gaynor and Adam.

Now those few rare occasions aside, I only have 1 problem with the new system. As a seller, if a buyer doesn't pay and the NPB process has been completed and it was proven he didn't pay, then as a seller, I should be able to leave him a negative to warn other sellers.

Other than this situation, I like the fact that the seller can't retaliate as I am a buyer and a seller. Yes as a seller I will get a few nut cases that won't let me fix a problem before nixing me but as a buyer, I can clobber the sellers trying to retire off of extra shipping charges.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

"Jim - interesting thought. Here's why it wouldn't fly in my opinion:
If a seller is a jerk in one of his sales, then as long as that seller never leaves feedback for the buyer, no one will ever see the feedback the buyer left about how the seller is a jerk. In effect, you're giving each party control over whether any negative comments get displayed about them."

Thanks for the feedback. What if a 30 day limit was put on so that if the second party had not posted their feedback in 30 days or 45 days or whatever, then the solo feedback gets posted anyway without an option for later retaliation?
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank B

The most common abuse of the feedback system was sellers using it improperly.
Buyers abused it as well but sellers were the ones most often going against
the spirit and intent of the system, many on every sale and even stating it in
their listing. "You leave feedback for me and then you get yours" etc.
Instead of it being an honest evaluation of the other parties actions it was
used to retaliate for a received negative or feedback was withheld to coerce
a buyer into giving a positive. When abused like that the system is worthless
anyway. Since it was the most prevalent form of feedback abuse it was addressed.
Is it perfect? No. But had it not been so widespread it would not have led to the change.
It ends up penalizing guys like Dan even though he tried to honor the intent of
the system.

Many sellers also think potential buyers are scared off by any rating
that is less than 100%. Most buyers realize that a couple negs means next to nothing
due to the a-hole factor on Ebay. A seller with 800 sales and a few negs is no big deal.
People understand that buyers (especially new Ebayers) misuse the system.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve

I remember the time a seller of vintage material forced a buyer
into leaving positive feedback first (with the promise of a free extra card)
then after the buyer left the positive this vintage seller negged his customer.

All this over the simple fact that the buyer was late in making the original payment.


The buyer did not get the free card.


I have no problem leaving feedback first when I am a buyer.


Steve