eBay to Drop Negative Feedback on Buyers

Trip Ericson writes "ArsTechnica is reporting that eBay plans to drop negative feedback on buyers. It's just one of a number of changes eBay will be making in the near future. 'eBay's data shows that sellers are eight times more likely to retaliate in kind against negative feedback, a figure that has grown dramatically over the years. In an attempt to mollify sellers, eBay will initiate a handful of seller protections to offset the inability to speak ill of a buyer. Negative and neutral feedback will be removed if a buyer bails on a transaction or if the buyer has his or her account suspended. Buyers will have less time to leave feedback, and won't be able to do so until three days after the auction ends. eBay is also pledging to step up monitoring and enforcement of its policies around buyers who behave very badly.'"

Comments

Re:Well Duh

[macdaddy]

You might want to actually *read* the article. It's a novel idea, I know.

"In order to clamp down on the practice of tit-for-tat feedback, eBay will begin preventing sellers from leaving negative feedback on buyers."

I was going to summarize this but that one sentence is about as basic as it gets.

Re:What about non-paying buyers?

[EggyToast]

And any feedback they left is removed, meaning that bidders who don't pay can't influence the system. It's a nice touch, if you ask me, and one of the things that most sellers complaining about the change are ignoring.

Payment is just the beginning

[sjbe]

If I walk into a brick and mortar store do they have the right to investigate my background and decide to tell me that they do not want to sell their goods to me because I did something they do not like in my past? Wrong comparison. Try going to a high dollar Southeby's auction without getting pre-qualified as a legitimate bidder. Trust me, you aren't going to be allowed to bid on the Monet painting without proving you can pay for it. Even in low dollar auctions if you don't pay you won't be allowed back to the next auction. Furthermore, a bricks and morter store can see you and that provides information about your trustworthiness. If you are behaving in a suspicious manner they have every right to refuse the sale. Lots of retailers keep track of problem customers and refuse them service if they step over the line. The whole reason for the feedback system is so buyers AND sellers can have information about the other party in the transaction. If this information is asymmetrical (favoring the buyers in this case) then the sellers are going to get screwed more often. Trustworthiness information should be transparent.

There are only 2 relevant ratings, they paid or not. Bullshit. I've had buyers give me a negative feedback complaining about my shipping speed literally 1 minute after the auction closed and before they had even paid. I'm not supposed to be able to respond to that? There are lots of crappy things a buyer can do besides not pay.

Re:Well Duh

[pbhj]

>>> "do they have the right to investigate my background and decide to tell me that they do not want to sell their goods to me because I did something they do not like in my past?"

Yes actually. It's called a credit reference check. Of course if you pay cash for most transactions you're fine. There are other restrictions like having age ID, having a driving license (hiring a vehicle), etc..

Also displaying goods is known (IIRC, in the UK) as an "offer to treat" and doesn't obligate the retailer in anyway to sell you the goods (but if they do sell them then they are obligated to do it in the proper manner, eg at the right price, etc.). This issue often arises when selling to children - no matches and paraffin, no eggs and flour, you get the idea.

If I don't like the look of you I won't let you in or will quickly usher you out of my store. If I've just seen your picture in the paper associated with anti-social behaviour then I'd be even more inclined to do that. Larger stores in most cities have a "store watch" or similar that bars people who have been caught shoplifting or which ensures suspected shoplifters are escorted around the store. So, this sort of thing does translate from/to the web/traditional retail environments.

Buyers of course have ample opportunity too to know about who they are buying from. There are lists of registered companies (with details of directors and other personnel). Also there are established mechanisms (trademark law and other consumer rights laws) that protect buyers at traditional retail outlets.

Basically I think your whole argument is pure bunkum.

My $0.02 (frequent buyer, occasional seller)

[Crazy Man on Fire]

I consider myself to be a good eBay buyer and seller. I always leave honest feedback. Most has been positive, but some has been negative.

I've received no negative feedback as a seller, despite several disputes that I eventually resolved with the buyers.

The biggest problem I've had with eBay is that they don't enforce their policies on the seller. I've won several no reserve auctions for high value items at a fraction of the items' value. Just as a winning bidder has an obligation to pay, a seller has an obligation to sell to the winning bidder. Lame excuses abound when the seller finds that the item didn't fetch what they were expecting. I've heard "my apartment was robbed, sorry" or "I can't sell for such a low price" despite winning auctions.

Aside from sellers to bid up their own auctions, sellers who refuse to sell at the close of the auction are the worst part of eBay. I've filed complaints with eBay in each instance, and then nothing. eBay won't discuss the complaint with me for privacy reasons. I doubt the seller even got a slap on the wrist. I've never won an auction and refused to pay, but my guess is that there are much more serious consequences for buyers in this situation than for sellers who refuse to sell.