It took more than a little digging. Most of his feedbacks were positive. But when you got deep into them, you started to see a pattern of statements like "Had some shipping problems but finally got it" and "Said he had a family problem that delayed shipping," occasionally indispersed with the rare, but more telling, neutral or negative "Didn't ship until I complained to ebay." Digging even deeper, it was clear that he never gave a buyer feedback until after they had given him positive feedback and he always retaliated with negative feedback to anyone who gave him a neutral or negative. He was clearly gaming the system, but a surface level look didn't give away the story.
Certainly, I would have dug a lot deeper for a higher-priced item. But he specialized in $10-$15 items.
People invest a lot of time learning a certain UI, the way it does things and the interface. For technical people like us, it's not that difficult to learn a new UI (since we have an appreciation of the underlying works). But for non-techies, learning a new UI (particularly one that makes as much use of the terminal/command line as most Linux distros do) can be a major hassle. It's just not worth it for most people, just for some nominal security benefits and to save the $100 or so that Windows adds to the typical computer.
Ubuntu is making some inroads, with a more user-friendly GUI. But most people just don't see the value.
It doesn't serve an "instructive purpose" because the mistake in question is usually just a simple one that the original poster obviously would have caught with a more careful proofread (the presumption that they are completely unfamiliar with some simple grammatical rule is actually quite insulting). For example, a grammar-Nazi favorite is the "their/they're/there" mistake. Now, there isn't a single speaker of the English language with even a high school education that doesn't understand the distinction between these three words. When people mix them up, it's not because they don't understand the difference, it's because their typing got ahead of their proofing as they were spilling out their argument (in fact, when I just typed one of the "theirs" in this sentence I had started to type out "they're" before I caught myself). Therefore, correcting them with a snide "You obviously don't know the distinction between these three terms, let me explain it to you..." serves only to insult, not instruct.
Most reasonable people see a simple mistake like that and think "He just made a common mistake and didn't catch it on proofing." A grammar-Nazi seems to lock in on it as if it somehow invalidates everything else in the entire post, and is then compelled to post a smug response that demonstrates to the world his knowledge of grammar (inevitably making a grammatical or spelling error in his own correction).
You're working under the presumption that grammar and typos are related to the quality of the argument, when (in actuality) they're only related to the quantity of the proofreading. Yes, I suppose it is polite to proof even a short argument at least once. But even English Literature Ph.D.'s make mistakes (mistakes that can easily be missed even after several proofreads). Such mistakes don't detract from their argument. At most, they're a minor distraction (or, on/., an all-too-major distraction). Certainly, I would be offended if I were serving on someone's dissertation committee and they handed in a dissertation with a serious grammatical/spelling error in every other sentence (showing that they hadn't even done the most basic proofread). But to expect a high level of proofing in a short/. post is insane.
And even the most intelligent of us have our particular hang-ups. I am all-but-dissertation on a Ph.D. from a major university, but I still have hangups with words like "necessary" (which I would misspell every time if it weren't for the salvation of spell-check) and "they're/their/there" (of course I know the difference, but for some reason I still find myself mixing them up sometimes when I'm typing). We all have our weak spots on spelling and grammar. I even corrected a few of them while proofing this very post (and probably still missed some).
Back when I first started out on ebay, I remember the etiquette being something like "If you receive the item and keep it, no matter how long it takes, you shouldn't leave negative feedback." Of course, that was before the scammers started really showing up in large numbers. It retrospect, knowing that he would leave retalitory, of course I wish I had made it negative.
Oh, now I did it. I type "they're" instead of "their." Cue a heard of onrushing/. grammar-Nazi's to point out the difference to me as if I, a grown literate adult, did it intentionally instead of mistakenly.
It wouldn't work in that form. All a scammer seller would have to do is never leave feedback for his buyers, then they're negative feedbacks on him would forever remain hidden. It might work if there were some predetermined time limit at which both the feedbacks would become visible, even if one side were missing (and after which no feedback could be given).
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.
The truth is that "Zonk," "CowboyNeal," etc. are actually just programs running on a server in Wisconsin. But the programs have a serious memory leak problems which only get worse if the server isn't rebooted ever few months. The guy who was supposed to reboot it this time couldn't afford the gas to Wisconsin.
The only thing they're "on target" for a this point is a huge class-action lawsuit from all the investors dumb enough to sink money in this obvious piece of vaporware over the last ten years.
It's not a question of literacy. It's a question of missing the forest for the bark on one of the trees. To ignore someone's entire argument (irrespective of its quality) to focus on a grammatical mistake they made in the text is the height of mindless obsessiveness. It serves no instructive purpose and distracts others from the meaningful dialogue that SHOULD be taking place.
Aside from the student and teacher ID's, the other stuff has been around at least since I was a kid (for the last 30 years). I'm sure there was a time before driver's licenses, police roadblocks, and ID/passport requirements for travel but I would hardly call those things "recent."
Since when have "Islamic Isolationists" done anything even CLOSE to this sophisticated? We're talking a bunch of Islamic hillbillies who strap crude nail-bombs to themselves and walk into markets. Even the 9-11 hijackers used nothing more sophsticated than some basic flight training and fucking box-cutters.
Suddenly these guys have a submarine and the sophistication to locate and cut deep-sea communications cables?
I love/. Anytime I need to be reminded that I am surrounded by obsessive, moderately autistic, anal-retentive nerds I only have to misspell a word or make even the most basic grammatical mistake. It's like baiting a field for virgin hunting.
Mars-3, Valentina Tereshkova, the Mir, and Sergey Korolyov were just propaganda? Thank God, I thought they were real. Well, good thing the U.S. media protected me from any information about them for all those decades then.
I doubt that there are very many people here who don't already have to "card in" to do most of that stuff already. I already have to show my employee ID to get into work, many students and teachers at schools also have school ID's, you already have to show an ID to fly, etc. And God help you if you get pulled over by a cop or stopped at a roadblock and don't have at least three or four forms of "papers" (in my state we have to show license, registration, plates, proof of insurance, and blow into a breathalyzer if they want to really fuck with you).
The federal ID debate is simply a matter of how much we want to centralize it.
Once again, I get the strangest sense that Paul Verhoeven somehow foresaw this. Verhoeven worked his way through college in the Netherlands working as a gas-station attendant and would later go on to direct the movie "Robocop." Coincidence? Perhaps not...
First of all, there are other bizarre coincidences, such as the appearance of a DVD in the movie "Robocop" (ten years before DVD would actually debut), the "President Schwarzenegger" reference in "Total Recall" (long before his political career), the 9-11 satire in "Starship Troopers" (four years before 9-11), etc.
Did he use his Ph.D. in mathematics to construct a time machine (perhaps to come back and have sex with a young Elizabeth Berkley)? Is he the prophet of our age? And what more does this portend? Are invisible men next?
Slashdot Mirror
Certainly, I would have dug a lot deeper for a higher-priced item. But he specialized in $10-$15 items.
But will it run on Linux?
Ubuntu is making some inroads, with a more user-friendly GUI. But most people just don't see the value.
Most reasonable people see a simple mistake like that and think "He just made a common mistake and didn't catch it on proofing." A grammar-Nazi seems to lock in on it as if it somehow invalidates everything else in the entire post, and is then compelled to post a smug response that demonstrates to the world his knowledge of grammar (inevitably making a grammatical or spelling error in his own correction).
And even the most intelligent of us have our particular hang-ups. I am all-but-dissertation on a Ph.D. from a major university, but I still have hangups with words like "necessary" (which I would misspell every time if it weren't for the salvation of spell-check) and "they're/their/there" (of course I know the difference, but for some reason I still find myself mixing them up sometimes when I'm typing). We all have our weak spots on spelling and grammar. I even corrected a few of them while proofing this very post (and probably still missed some).
It comes from having to deal with anal-retentive engineers all day.
Back when I first started out on ebay, I remember the etiquette being something like "If you receive the item and keep it, no matter how long it takes, you shouldn't leave negative feedback." Of course, that was before the scammers started really showing up in large numbers. It retrospect, knowing that he would leave retalitory, of course I wish I had made it negative.
Oh, now I did it. I type "they're" instead of "their." Cue a heard of onrushing /. grammar-Nazi's to point out the difference to me as if I, a grown literate adult, did it intentionally instead of mistakenly.
It wouldn't work in that form. All a scammer seller would have to do is never leave feedback for his buyers, then they're negative feedbacks on him would forever remain hidden. It might work if there were some predetermined time limit at which both the feedbacks would become visible, even if one side were missing (and after which no feedback could be given).
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.
Both /. and this writer are located in the U.S., where this is the correct grammar.
The truth is that "Zonk," "CowboyNeal," etc. are actually just programs running on a server in Wisconsin. But the programs have a serious memory leak problems which only get worse if the server isn't rebooted ever few months. The guy who was supposed to reboot it this time couldn't afford the gas to Wisconsin.
The only thing they're "on target" for a this point is a huge class-action lawsuit from all the investors dumb enough to sink money in this obvious piece of vaporware over the last ten years.
I just hate it when a good argument gets obscured by a long thread of /.er's pointing out the commenter's improper use of "its" vs. "it's."
It's not a question of literacy. It's a question of missing the forest for the bark on one of the trees. To ignore someone's entire argument (irrespective of its quality) to focus on a grammatical mistake they made in the text is the height of mindless obsessiveness. It serves no instructive purpose and distracts others from the meaningful dialogue that SHOULD be taking place.
Oh, all this conspiracy theory stuff about the NSA/CIA is a bunch of crap. There is no way that they coul&`+'${`%&NO CARRIER
Aside from the student and teacher ID's, the other stuff has been around at least since I was a kid (for the last 30 years). I'm sure there was a time before driver's licenses, police roadblocks, and ID/passport requirements for travel but I would hardly call those things "recent."
Suddenly these guys have a submarine and the sophistication to locate and cut deep-sea communications cables?
I love /. Anytime I need to be reminded that I am surrounded by obsessive, moderately autistic, anal-retentive nerds I only have to misspell a word or make even the most basic grammatical mistake. It's like baiting a field for virgin hunting.
Mars-3, Valentina Tereshkova, the Mir, and Sergey Korolyov were just propaganda? Thank God, I thought they were real. Well, good thing the U.S. media protected me from any information about them for all those decades then.
Kids say the darndest things, or so Bill Cosby would have us believe.
The federal ID debate is simply a matter of how much we want to centralize it.
"I can still hear it screaming in that fire we had. After that I decided to just go back to the old-fashioned pumps."
They prefer the term "Muslim," you insensitive clod!
First of all, there are other bizarre coincidences, such as the appearance of a DVD in the movie "Robocop" (ten years before DVD would actually debut), the "President Schwarzenegger" reference in "Total Recall" (long before his political career), the 9-11 satire in "Starship Troopers" (four years before 9-11), etc.
Did he use his Ph.D. in mathematics to construct a time machine (perhaps to come back and have sex with a young Elizabeth Berkley)? Is he the prophet of our age? And what more does this portend? Are invisible men next?