Ebay Scandal

Kay_Peel

Patchwork Cat - you are being a bit inconsistent aren't you?

You feel victimised when buyers neg you after Royal Mail has failed to deliver your items, but you think sellers should be able to highlight buyers who claim that an item has not arrived? You're not serious, are you? It's a nonsense.

Thank you to SomeBozo who reminds us why the feedback system needed a major overhaul.

Wig

Lowellcrooks,

Have you said to the sellers that paypal has refunded you the money and you will have access to the money in a few months time, and asked them if they want their money back when you get it from paypal? Atleast be completely honest with them and offer them the money.

thevogon

That's not nonsense - its perfectly true. Many buyers try and claim items did not arrive when a relative, their partner, or even third party etc signed for them - or even blatently fraudulently. It is up to the buyer to provide a safe delivery address, and if they dont then the seller should be able to warn other sellers

I had a buyer claim a Wii did not arrive over christmas, and when I asked UPS the driver said he delivered it but forgot to get a signature. When she tried to claim I noticed that she just listed a brand new wii for sale using my listing with the exact same games and accessories...

She realised she might be able to get away with fraud so she tried it on - this is not uncommon.

However the most rediculous feature at the moment is the 'Neutral' feeedback that clearly isnt neutral.

Wig

To bring this back slightly ontopic, I remembered yesterday, that sellers also had a rule change recently that greatly benefited the dishonest ones, namely secret bidding, making Ebay into a shillers paradise.

This latest feedback rule change has hit sellers, but remember the secret bidding hit buyers.

patchwork_cat

Why is it a nonsense - if buyers are allowed to comment that an item has not arrived why should a seller not be able to as well. What is sauce for the goose.

You think it is a nonsense for a buyer with a lost item to be identified, but not a nonsense for a seller with a lost item. I have been quite careful to not attack you personally - I don't think in your last post that you have extended the privilege.

You are criticising me for wondering how many of my sellers have really had an item missing and feel that I should be identified as having items go missing , well if a buyer had a lot of items going missing then that should be identified too as either they are fraudulent or possibly have a fraudulent post office.

If as you would have it I am responsible for all mistakes made by the post office then I should at least be able to identify to other sellers that there is a potential problem there.

Wig

thevogon wrote: »

That's not nonsense - its perfectly true. Many buyers try and claim items did not arrive when a relative, their partner, or even third party etc signed for them - or even blatently fraudulently. It is up to the buyer to provide a safe delivery address, and if they dont then the seller should be able to warn other sellers

I had a buyer claim a Wii did not arrive over christmas, and when I asked UPS the driver said he delivered it but forgot to get a signature. When she tried to claim I noticed that she just listed a brand new wii for sale using my listing with the exact same games and accessories...

She realised she might be able to get away with fraud so she tried it on - this is not uncommon.

The bit in red is not exactly true, ok it is true if the buyer wants to recieve the goods, but, the responsibility for a "safe delivery" lies 100% with the seller.

People bid & pay for goods to be delivered on Ebay, they have a right that those goods are delivered, there is no responsibility on the buyer to pay extra for insured delivery, recorded delivery or any other type of guarantee.

The person selling chose to go into the distance selling game, whether for profit or for de-cluttering it does not matter, that person chose to become a distance seller of goods. And the only way to protect themselves 100% is to insure the parcels.

Big business like Amazon & Play etc don't bother to insure every parcel because they have such a high turnover that the odd crook does not affect them, it would cost them more to pay for insurance on all parcels than the cost of replacing the few that go missing.


I often laugh - and get annoyed - when I see Ebay listings with various degrees of postage fees some inc insurance or recorded delivery. It is totally irrelevant to a buyer, I pay the minimum fee, If I don't recieve the goods I would make a claim against the seller, it is not the buyers responsibility to insure delivery.

I note in your example tha you used a "signed for" UPS delivery i.e. you protected yourself. I assume you made a claim against UPS?

StaffsSW

SomeBozo wrote: »

Moving the thread back to the original discussion.

I am a seller and buyer on ebay. I specialise in one paticular item, I am the only seller on ebay of this item. I usually sell one per week.

I really think sellers (small time and power) have got their knickers in a twist over this for no real reason.

All thats happened is the balance of power has shifted to the middle. In past years power sellers could hide negs or a string of negs in their high % popularity rating. Couple this with the "neg me and ill neg you" mentality and the feedback rating was not working. The whole point of it was to be honest for all.

People who leave unjustifed negative feedback (sellers and buyers) were always out there, they are not new.

Some Bozo

The new SNP policy means that you are one of the highest risk sellers on eBay - with 4/5 sales a month, it will only take one unjustified neg or neutral to put you on 30 days suspension, and if you can not list anything in that time, then you will not have a chance to improve your score, leading to permanent suspension.

I agree, feedback was never the best, but it's effectiveness as a performance indicator has been devalued even more now, yet it is being used as the number one method of ridding the site of small sellers.

SomeBozo

stevew8975 wrote: »

The new SNP policy means that you are one of the highest risk sellers on eBay - with 4/5 sales a month, it will only take one unjustified neg or neutral to put you on 30 days suspension,

The feedback system did not change this! Its always been like this!

All thats changed is that as a seller, I can't neg back!

See my point?

SomeBozo

frivolous_fay

SomeBozo wrote: »

The feedback system did not change this! Its always been like this!

All thats changed is that as a seller, I can't neg back!

See my point?

No I don't.
In the old days, your old feedback counted. Now you could have years, or thousands of positives, and it won't count unless you got it recently.

StaffsSW

The SNP policy was updated late last month - it was previously based on 90 days trading, but is now based on 30 days worth of feedback (regardless of how many sales you have made) - meaning it is now much easier to get sanctioned.