Ebay bans negative feedback for sellers

[I-S]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7228460.stm

Bad move IMO, I've had to leave bad feedback for buyers who didn't complete transactions, but never had to leave a seller bad feedback.

[The Vee]

indeed, bad move.

[HMG1K]

Yeah - I think what eBay is doing here is quashing the power of free speech!

It clearly doesn't like the bad press it's had on TV programmes in the UK like Watchdog about sellers who are 'bad' sellers and don't fulfil a transaction... and is pulling up the draw bridge on a right to redress...

Lets move this technology-led era of eBay back to the high street. Would you buy anything from a shop in a high street or retail park, no matter how well known it was as a trader or brand, if a sign on the door said something along the lines of: "In the event of anything you buy from XYZ Stores being faulty, XYZ Stores will not accept its return, will not give a refund and will not enter into any correspondence about its condition". ???!!! No ! (Natrually changing your mind about an item doesn't apply on the statute, then it's down to the retailer's discrection.)

Back to the web - anything you buy off the web from a store or company, by the UK statute, your purchace is covered by the Distance Selling Regulation. That is buying from the net, if an item even turns out to not be what you wanted, you can return it for a full refund, minus shipping costs, and you natrually foot the return shipping fee. If it is faulty, the same applies but the seller covers all the shipping costs.

So, what eBay is ultimately doing here is starving the negative publicity it gets because of rouge sellers and blaming its honest and good sellers and buyers. I say give it a few years and the age that is ebay will collapse...

Just like Paypal, which it owns, and refuses to have the 'teeth' it promises to have when a transaction turns sour, eBay is doing the same to this part of its business instead of tackling the problem.

The dot-com bubble that is eBay is soon to pop!

[AncientOfMu]

not good news :thinking: /Grrr :speechles

[I-S]

I doubt that.

eBay is a very powerful force and has totally changed how people buy and sell items. People will adapt to the new rules, even if they feel they are misguided.

Making comparisons between ebay and and a retail store is way off the mark. Compare an online shop to retail store fine, but eBay is not a shop - it is the net equivalent of a car boot sale or fleamarket, and just as in those situations caveat emptor applies.

The feedback system allows good, honest traders to stand out, and the majority of traders are so. It also allows flakes, timewasters, idiots and scam artists to be identified.

[HMG1K]

I doubt that.

eBay is a very powerful force and has totally changed how people buy and sell items. People will adapt to the new rules, even if they feel they are misguided.

Making comparisons between ebay and and a retail store is way off the mark. Compare an online shop to retail store fine, but eBay is not a shop - it is the net equivalent of a car boot sale or fleamarket, and just as in those situations caveat emptor applies.

The feedback system allows good, honest traders to stand out, and the majority of traders are so. It also allows flakes, timewasters, idiots and scam artists to be identified.


Not at all - this will just attract more rogue sellers who know eBay is on their side by giving them added protection in not recieving bad feedback and being able to carry on trading.

If enough (and we are talking millions) across the world over a few years stop using eBay will lead to its slow collapse. Lets not forget the its global ad revenue stream... If you are an advertiser (Sky, HSBC, BT etc) with your own ethics and company reputation in place - would you instruct your ad agency to spend your online budget with a firm which doesn't protect its buyers? Buyers who become so disgruntled they complain on TV, on forums etc... Where national newspapers write feature double page speads...?! No... eBay doesn't sell itself to current or potential advertisers as a flea market - if it did pitch itself to ad agencies in that way, then eBay wouldn't get their spend. we know it's a flea market, we know the good and the bad at the moment - but to deny the honest such basic protection won't work.

[elnevio]

Not at all - this will just attract more rogue sellers who know eBay is on their side by giving them added protection in not recieving bad feedback and being able to carry on trading.
The way I've read it, is that it's only sellers that won't be able to leave neg feedback for buyers in retaliation for a buyer leaving a neg. Buyers will still be able to leave negative feedback.

Whilst I don't agree with removing this power, I can see the point. I have in the past wanted to leave negative feedback for a seller, but haven't done so because I can pretty much guarantee that they will leave a neg for me in retaliation (deducted by looking at their previous negatives and the feedback of the respective purchasers in those cases), even though I have acted in exemplary fashion as a purchaser, i.e. paid up instantly.

So in theory, bad sellers will get more negatives, because purchasers will now not be worried about being negged themselves when they've done nothing wrong. The flipside is that good honest sellers are more at risk from idiot buyers who neg them for the hell of it.

[I-S]

elnevio - right.

A better option IMO would be to require that the seller leave feedback first, and that only once that is done can the buyer leave feedback. Additionally, in order to leave negative feedback, the dispute process should be completed.

It is already the case that buyers can not leave negative feedback for sellers if the seller has completed and closed a non-payment dispute.

[steve190]

Just like Paypal, which it owns, and refuses to have the 'teeth' it promises to have when a transaction turns sour

Not 100% true as I've just successfully won a dispute where the item I purchased never arrived. The seller provided me with a post office tracking number that confirmed the item had never arrived, as it can't be tracked until it has been delivered. /Grrr I started a dispute through paypal and they found in my favour, as the seller refused to refund the purchase price.

[Kieran]

A better option IMO would be to require that the seller leave feedback first, and that only once that is done can the buyer leave feedback

That wouldn't work either. Rogue sellers just wouldn't leave feedback - again shutting the buyer up.

Personally I think some sellers do have an attitude problem and this will help slap them down. What it won't address is scammers from either side - and that's Ebay's big problem at the moment.

[Jimbo]

Whilst I don't agree with removing this power, I can see the point. I have in the past wanted to leave negative feedback for a seller, but haven't done so because I can pretty much guarantee that they will leave a neg for me in retaliation

Absolutely right - for me the feedback system on eBay has always been flawed for this reason and I too have found myself not wanting to damage my own 100% rating even if a package arrives 2 weeks after I paid up and somewhat less than ideal condition. I've never bought anything worth more than £20 on eBay for this reason.

A good seller on eBay will always leave feedback as he despatches the goods, but most will hold back to give themselves power over the buyer. I'm not convinced by eBay's solution though.... I would prefer a mechansim that forced the seller to give feedback before he was allowed to be credited with a positive comment from the seller such that if he didn't he would never get a rating increase. As a buyer you really would be able to tell apart the truly reliable and good sellers if this were the case.