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

Simple Solution

[Gotung]

Keep both parties feedback hidden, until both have left feedback. Zero chance for retaliation. Problem solved.

Re:Simple Solution

[alexgieg]

Keep both parties feedback hidden, until both have left feedback. Zero chance for retaliation. Problem solved.

This is how it's done on MercadoLivre, the Brazilian auction site purchased by eBay some years ago (but for some reason not integrated into the eBay ecosystem): both the buyer and the seller have 'x' days to rate each other and write comments explaining the reason for the rating; neither can see the rating received before both rated each other (or the timer has run out if one preferred not to rate, at which case the rating is automatically set as "neutral"); once both can see each other granted ratings and comments, they both have 'y' days to write a reply to their respective ratings/comments, so that 3rd parties can judge based on the whole set of rating, comment and reply (if any). IMHO, it works fairly well.

I don't know how the US version of eBay works, but if it really allows one side to see the other's rating/comment before requiring him to also rate/comment, it's utterly broken. For me, however, the proposed solution doesn't seem to make sense. Adopting MercadoLivre's system would have been better.

Re:Simple Solution

[smitty97]

Great idea! AAAAAA++++++++ ebayer! QUICK PAYMENT would do business again! A+A+A

In defense of the feedback change

[elrous0]

As someone who both sells and buys on ebay, I have to say this is a change I welcome. Most of the bad sellers out there use retalitory feedback as an essential part of their scam. I ran into one of these guys once who didn't ship the item until I started threatening him. When I looked deep into his feedback, it was clear this was his standard practice. But on the surface the guy looked golden, with little negative feedback. I finally got the item, but left him a neutral feedback to warn others. He responded with a retaliatory negative on me, and there was absolutely no way for me to respond to it (since they've apparently taken off the feedback feature they used to have that let you post an explanation). It still pisses me off to this day, as it's the only non-positive I have in almost 200 feedbacks.

You can never really be sure about who you're buying from as long as sellers can hold this Sword of Damocles over buyers' heads. They need to at least put a time limit on sellers' window to leave negative feedback, so they can't still be holding it over a buyer's head long after the buyer has paid.

I can understand why power sellers would be upset by this. But there are so many scammer sellers on ebay today, relative to just a few years ago, that something like this was probably necessary. The primary purpose of feedback is for buyers to judge the trustworthiness of the seller. And while it also lets a seller judge a buyer as well, this isn't nearly as important, IMHO.

Re:In defense of the feedback change

[ftobin]

Interesting idea, but you have to make sure that you account for a seller who builds up a good rating, and then "spends" his rating in 30 days, scamming buyers, who don't see the updated ratings until up to a month too late. One could work around this by making the rating anonymous during the 30-day period, though.

Great change

[SkankinMonkey]

I always hated leaving feedback because the sellers made you leave feedback first. This led to things occurring like, a seller not having items to ship and having to either refund you, or in many cases, send you a similar item without any notification. When you leave negative feedback (as you should) they'd leave negative feedback as well.

If sellers are going to act like stores, then they should have customer service like one and be willing to suck up the bad comments like normal retailers do. Leaving negative feedback was a childish tit for tat response and actually discouraged me from leaving any feedback whatsoever for a long time.

Huh?

[Travoltus]

Why should a seller need to leave feedback EXCEPT when the customer doesn't pay or there is an unnecessary return (all of which can be factually documented)?

Is there some kind of "Customer was a doodoohead" thing going on?

Perfect Solution

[PackMan97]

I couldn't agree more.

There are times where I've wanted to leave negative or neutral feedback, but won't because I know I'll get retaliated and the negative feedback hurts me a lot more than it hurts a power seller with 10,000 transactions.

It seems standard practice these days that a seller won't even leave feedback until they see what you've written.

Re:Perfect Solution

[mcmonkey]

I would definitely vouch for that. In my eyes the seller's only business with leaving you feedback is how you payed for the item. Was it timely, was it the correct amount, etc?

I disagree. I mostly a buyer through ebay, although I do have the occasional sale, and the deal isn't done until the buyer says the deal is done.

The seller has the money. But only the buyer knows that the money has been paid and the item arrived and there wasn't any damage in transit and the description was accurate to the buyer's satisfaction and...

In my eyes the seller's only business with leaving you feedback is how you payed for the item.

What if the buyer complains the item isn't new, when the auction clearly stated it was used? What if the buyer claims the item never arrived, when the seller has a tracking number from the shipping service saying it was delivered? Especially given the way PayPal operates outside the normal banking system and credit card charges can be disputed, even if the seller thinks payment is in hand, the deal isn't really done until the buyer says the deal is done.

As a buyer, I don't expect the seller to leave feedback until I provide feedback indicating the transaction is complete. As a seller, I don't leave feedback until the buyer does the same.

That said, I have tempered my feedback in the past knowing the other party can retaliate. I agree 100% with you agreeing 100% with the parent. Keep feedback hidden until both parties leave feedback (or some period of time has passed, so if one party suspects he will get negative feedback, he can't just not leave feedback to keep the other feedback hidden forever.)

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.

I would add one more thing.

[jwietelmann]

The GP's solution allows bad sellers to avoid negative feedback by simply not posting any feedback themselves. To prevent that, eBay should also, after a period of time, display any feedback left by either party and disallow anymore feedback for the transaction.

Also, just so we're clear, neither party's feedback should figure into the other party's overall rating until that feedback is displayed. It doesn't take a genius to figure out who left negative feedback about you when your rating falls.

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.