Waah my item didn't arrive bad naughty seller

Hintza

Silly thread started to get a reaction....

wigglebeena

windswept wrote: »

How would you feel if you leave a neutral and then the parcel finds it's way back to you? It just might after 3 weeks.

Very foolish, bad and NAUGHTY! In fact the item has now turned up: bad naughty me!

It's not really about truth or lies, though: the main thread of my thoughts on the matter were about what constitutes useful feedback for other sellers. If a neutral was ACTUALLY regarded as neutral - rather than 'mildly negative' which is how it seems to be seen in fact - then sellers could take note of a buyer with, ahem, several undelivered items and make their own judgments and decisions. (Obviously this could equally well flag up a dodgy local sorting office: which would also be useful all round, for buyers as well as sellers).

But, judging by reactions here, the taboo against leaving a 'mild negative' (aka neutral, neither good nor bad), makes the fb system less useful than it could be.

Not that any thread that gets into semantics is ever any use to anyone in the long run.

wigglebeena

Hintza wrote: »

Silly thread started to get a reaction....

I'll cop to that... but there was also some serious intent laced in there somewhere...

soolin

wigglebeena wrote: »

Very foolish, bad and NAUGHTY! In fact the item has now turned up: bad naughty me!

It's not really about truth or lies, though: the main thread of my thoughts on the matter were about what constitutes useful feedback for other sellers. If a neutral was ACTUALLY regarded as neutral - rather than 'mildly negative' which is how it seems to be seen in fact - then sellers could take note of a buyer with, ahem, several undelivered items and make their own judgments and decisions. (Obviously this could equally well flag up a dodgy local sorting office: which would also be useful all round, for buyers as well as sellers).

But, judging by reactions here, the taboo against leaving a 'mild negative' (aka neutral, neither good nor bad), makes the fb system less useful than it could be.

Not that any thread that gets into semantics is ever any use to anyone in the long run.

I accept that a neutral should be just that 'neutral' but that still implies you were not happy and that the transaction was not a positive one for you. Since the buyer is not responsible for the Royal mail, would it be an honest reflection to mark the transaction as 'not positive' when the only thing that has gone wrong was due to the Royal mail?

You stated quite clearly that you were not accusing the buyer of lying, yet your posts rather gave the impression that as the Royal mail had never let you down before it *must* be the fault of the buyer in this case, which by implication suggested you thought he was lying.

FloFlo

OP, I take it sales are slow if you are wasting time making up scenarios to get a reaction.

wigglebeena

soolin wrote: »

I accept that a neutral should be just that 'neutral' but that still implies you were not happy and that the transaction was not a positive one for you. Since the buyer is not responsible for the Royal mail, would it be an honest reflection to mark the transaction as 'not positive' when the only thing that has gone wrong was due to the Royal mail?

You stated quite clearly that you were not accusing the buyer of lying, yet your posts rather gave the impression that as the Royal mail had never let you down before it *must* be the fault of the buyer in this case, which by implication suggested you thought he was lying.

Well, I think fb would be more useful if it was in fact intended to be an objective evaluation of the whole transaction - rather than an assessment of the life, manners and morals of the buyer/seller. Which, again, seems to be how it's actually used. There again, you can't fight the system, it is what it is. Like arguing with gravity.

As to the whole 'lying' thing, we've done the whole go-round on that, no point repeating myself.

soolin

wigglebeena wrote: »

Well, I think fb would be more useful if it was in fact intended to be an objective evaluation of the whole transaction - rather than an assessment of the life, manners and morals of the buyer/seller. Which, again, seems to be how it's actually used. There again, you can't fight the system, it is what it is. Like arguing with gravity.

.

The feedback though is left for the buyer, not Royal mail, so my point remains. What has the buyer actually done that was not positive? I agree that from your point of view the transaction was not 100% positive, but you can't mark the buyer down for something outside of his control.

So following your argument I assume you feel that the buyer should leave you a neutral as the transaction was not positive from their point of view as they had the inconvenience of waiting for a refund when they expected goods? My own view would be that the buyer also should leave a positive as you had done what he expected and should not be penalised through fault of the Royal Mail.

Soo

Cute_'n'_Quirky

Blacksheep1979 wrote: »

My policy is to post stuff with a traceable method of delivery - especially if its worth more than standard mail protection.

Traceable?? You have got to be joking!

I have had three parcels delivered to my home this last week, all Recorded Delivery - no signature was requested. In each case the parcel was underneath other stuff, so was 'missed'.

I have had this out with my local sorting office a few times, to no avail.

Our postmasters attitude is that the RD fee is not high enough for them to bother.

Cute_'n'_Quirky

Similarly, I send ALL of my sold goods out by Recorded Delivery.

The Buyers leave feedback. I check the RD - never signed for in 9/10 cases.

Royal Mail should be ashamed of themselves.

windswept

And that is why recorded delivery should NOT be used for ebay!