check out this sellers terms

Grantus86

I pretty much pay as soon as what i'm bidding for ends as i'm watching it right to the last seconds.

In other news i am selling some clothes on ebay and i took pictures of them hanging upon a hook on my door, so they are hanging up on a hanger on the hook, and had a queary from someone asking if the door and hanger were included in with the clothes :rotfl:

I've now had to revise my listings to add the terms 'door & hanger not included!'

StaffsSW

sexylulubelle wrote: »

:rotfl:I agree

Ummm - have you seen your signature?!!!

BlueCow1975

When I am buying on Ebay I tend to avoid the sellers with the ridiculous terms and conditions. I have no objections to terms and conditions that are reasonable and stated in friendly terms. Those sellers with huge bold print and underlined I WILL NOT and I CANNOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR blah blah blah put me off totally as I tend to think what the heck would they be like if there was an actual issue with my item. Most of the time I can locate a less hostile sounding seller and I buy from them.

I am a business seller on Ebay and simply offer reasonable customer service. Yes, there are the odd nightmare buyers but I have been lucky and they have been few and far between. Simple common sense is often all that is needed.

[Deleted User]

milfhunter wrote: »

Have you looked at some of the threads on this forum -even some of the posts on this very thread. Martin is a very intelligent man so why would he want to let some of these people to trade under his good name and reputation?

All I'm saying is that at first glance the ability to leave "one way" negative feedback puts me off ebay, and if there was another similar site that seemed to me "fairer" I'd be more inclined to use it. From the complaints I see on this site it seems that ebay is now almost engineered to disadvantage sellers. I am not asking for much, I think, just the ability to criticise a buyer if he/she takes the p*ss. In the absence of equal treatment for buyers and sellers, I may feel I have to use ebay, but what seems to me like the relative ease with which I could be ripped off is a big negative.

Why was negative feedback for buyers stopped?

WR

pitkin2020

Wild_Rover wrote: »

All I'm saying is that at first glance the ability to leave "one way" negative feedback puts me off ebay, and if there was another similar site that seemed to me "fairer" I'd be more inclined to use it. From the complaints I see on this site it seems that ebay is now almost engineered to disadvantage sellers. I am not asking for much, I think, just the ability to criticise a buyer if he/she takes the p*ss. In the absence of equal treatment for buyers and sellers, I may feel I have to use ebay, but what seems to me like the relative ease with which I could be ripped off is a big negative.

Why was negative feedback for buyers stopped?

WR

It was stopped because sellers abused it, if the buyer left a neg some sellers would leave a neg even if the buyer did everything right. the problem with feedback is its just an opinion and isn't always factual. Just read this forum at some of the reasons some people leave less than 5 stars or leave a neutral/negative feedback and half the reasons are just being petty.

Crowqueen

Wild_Rover wrote: »

All I'm saying is that at first glance the ability to leave "one way" negative feedback puts me off ebay, and if there was another similar site that seemed to me "fairer" I'd be more inclined to use it. From the complaints I see on this site it seems that ebay is now almost engineered to disadvantage sellers. I am not asking for much, I think, just the ability to criticise a buyer if he/she takes the p*ss. In the absence of equal treatment for buyers and sellers, I may feel I have to use ebay, but what seems to me like the relative ease with which I could be ripped off is a big negative.

Why was negative feedback for buyers stopped?

WR

Sellers have many more responsibilities and much more control over their sales than buyers do over their purchases.

Say you didn't receive an item and seller says "tough, I can prove I sent it, go away". You open a dispute and they fight you all the way. You eventually get the money back. Then you leave feedback honestly saying why you didn't have a good experience with this seller.

Seller then negs you back.

Is that fair?

Say the item arrives unwashed, smelly and in poor condition when it looked better on the listing. The seller refuses to allow you to return it. You file a dispute and you get your money back. You leave a neg.

Seller leaves one back.

Is that fair?

Very little after the buyer pays is their responsibility. This is the case not only on eBay but on most commercial sites. The only reason why eBay had negative feedback for buyers was that they thought they could have a "community" - when commercial transactions are governed by a lot of rules which safeguard the consumer and put a lot of responsibilities on the shoulders of the seller, who, after all, has all the benefit of a healthy business and a job, or at least cash-in-hand to spend as they want. The buyer is paying out for an item or a service, and that's where the "community" aspect ends - with that money comes the decidedly un-level playing field between buyer and seller. eBay is not Facebook with money - most if not all buyers are there to buy items, not participate in some game where they pay people but that person can then chew them out for having the temerity to have a problem with the transaction.

So allowing sellers to retaliate was preventing buyers from leaving honest feedback and driving them away from eBay.

There are options to deal with non-payers which mitigate the damage they can do - then you can set preferences to prevent people with strikes bidding on or buying your items. That takes care of virtually the only problem that buyers are responsible for. You don't completely avoid non-payers - there's always the first or second time - but with 2 strikes they are banned from many listings as a result of the tools eBay give sellers, so their incidence should be drastically reduced.

Yes, there are problem buyers and scammers, but there are issues in any line of business with theft or damage; hopefully the reward is worth the risk and if it isn't then you should indeed stay away. For most of the last nine years though, for me, the reward is definitely worth the risk.

Another facet of the issue is that buyer feedback is not something you ever see until the person clicks on your listing, so you can't really be pre-emptively warned about any buyer. As buyers, we have to be informed when we make purchases to avoid sellers who are obviously deliberately ripping their buyers off or failing to live up to the standards eBay (and other sites like Amazon and Play) set for their buyers. That's why negatives for buyers really weren't effective at preventing people from buying.

Plus there were some new EU consumer regulations coming into effect in 2008 which prohibited aggressive behaviour towards customers and the timing of the global change strongly hinted that eBay considered sellers being able to leave negs for buyers fell foul of these laws. Trust me, I was against it when it first came in, but when I had a problem with a seller later on the same year I understood why the system shouldn't in all honesty allow a seller who hadn't sent my item, hadn't communicated with me before I opened a dispute/claim and only got in touch when I left him a negative feedback should be allowed to neg me in return.

It's the buyers' money. Therefore they have considerably more rights to decent treatment than sellers do.

suited-aces

Crowqueen wrote: »

Sellers have many more responsibilities and much more control over their sales than buyers do over their purchases.

Say you didn't receive an item and seller says "tough, I can prove I sent it, go away". You open a dispute and they fight you all the way. You eventually get the money back. Then you leave feedback honestly saying why you didn't have a good experience with this seller.

Seller then negs you back.

Is that fair?

Say the item arrives unwashed, smelly and in poor condition when it looked better on the listing. The seller refuses to allow you to return it. You file a dispute and you get your money back. You leave a neg.

Seller leaves one back.

Is that fair?

Very little after the buyer pays is their responsibility. This is the case not only on eBay but on most commercial sites. The only reason why eBay had negative feedback for buyers was that they thought they could have a "community" - when commercial transactions are governed by a lot of rules which safeguard the consumer and put a lot of responsibilities on the shoulders of the seller, who, after all, has all the benefit of a healthy business and a job, or at least cash-in-hand to spend as they want. The buyer is paying out for an item or a service, and that's where the "community" aspect ends - with that money comes the decidedly un-level playing field between buyer and seller. eBay is not Facebook with money - most if not all buyers are there to buy items, not participate in some game where they pay people but that person can then chew them out for having the temerity to have a problem with the transaction.

So allowing sellers to retaliate was preventing buyers from leaving honest feedback and driving them away from eBay.

There are options to deal with non-payers which mitigate the damage they can do - then you can set preferences to prevent people with strikes bidding on or buying your items. That takes care of virtually the only problem that buyers are responsible for. You don't completely avoid non-payers - there's always the first or second time - but with 2 strikes they are banned from many listings as a result of the tools eBay give sellers, so their incidence should be drastically reduced.

Yes, there are problem buyers and scammers, but there are issues in any line of business with theft or damage; hopefully the reward is worth the risk and if it isn't then you should indeed stay away. For most of the last nine years though, for me, the reward is definitely worth the risk.

Another facet of the issue is that buyer feedback is not something you ever see until the person clicks on your listing, so you can't really be pre-emptively warned about any buyer. As buyers, we have to be informed when we make purchases to avoid sellers who are obviously deliberately ripping their buyers off or failing to live up to the standards eBay (and other sites like Amazon and Play) set for their buyers. That's why negatives for buyers really weren't effective at preventing people from buying.

Plus there were some new EU consumer regulations coming into effect in 2008 which prohibited aggressive behaviour towards customers and the timing of the global change strongly hinted that eBay considered sellers being able to leave negs for buyers fell foul of these laws. Trust me, I was against it when it first came in, but when I had a problem with a seller later on the same year I understood why the system shouldn't in all honesty allow a seller who hadn't sent my item, hadn't communicated with me before I opened a dispute/claim and only got in touch when I left him a negative feedback should be allowed to neg me in return.

It's the buyers' money. Therefore they have considerably more rights to decent treatment than sellers do.

:T

Soolin, any chance you can pull this post into a separate thread and sticky it? It's the perfect answer to a very common complaint.

soolin

suited-aces wrote: »

:T

Soolin, any chance you can pull this post into a separate thread and sticky it? It's the perfect answer to a very common complaint.

I agree it is a good common sense response. Crowqueen, can you cut and paste this to the 'useful tips; sticky thread please- we can then link people to it as necessary.

soolin

I would just add as well that I recently won something one evening and as I was away I did not pay until 2 days later. I never realised that made me such a very bad buyer, but frankly if my item had been un necessarily delayed or seller refused to sell to me or any other such daft nonsense I would have been happy to have reflected their silliness in my feedback.

pitkin2020

suited-aces wrote: »

:T

Soolin, any chance you can pull this post into a separate thread and sticky it? It's the perfect answer to a very common complaint.

Really?? The only examples given were from a bad seller. What about the seller who does post and the buyer does actually receive but claims not to have, or the buyer who receives it as it is described but claims its not!! Its ok to say its all the sellers fault because ebay will 99% of the time side with the buyer anyway.

A buyer who gets 2 strikes against them doesn't prevent anything it just means they set up a new account, whereby a seller with good feedback who gets a few negs has to ride it out or lose all the positive feedback they have earned.

Ebay is a faceless transaction, just like people on here they can hide behind a username and when they feel like it they can change to a new username. If ebay brought in security checks and limited the number of accounts you can have, whilst assigning those limited number of accounts to an actual bank account/credit card and address to prevent people just signing up loads of accounts it may go some way.

When people realise they can't just walk away from a transaction or everytime they claim an INR or ask for a partial refund was logged to that account they may think twice about playing the system.