I don't see where the article mentions exactly how the "mouse-made doodies" are mined for the energy to power the hack. Possibly by way of methane extraction?
Oh, "doodles", not "doodies". Never mind.
And it suddenly occured to me how much my phone reminded me of the old ST communicators especially when I flip it open to make a call. Too bad I don't have the sound effect to go along.
Save your "suddenly occured to me" and "too bad I don't have the sound effect" for the non-Slashdot crowd. We know better.
Gee, I don't know, maybe by looking at the feedback for the powersellers who have fallen below the 99% positive mark and seeing how many of the complaints say, "Seller didn't have the item!"
eBay doesn't read feedback; it's a member-to-member system. eBay only reponds to reports filed such as "Significantly Not As Described" and "Seller Didn't Ship"
You mean eBay isn't allowed to look and see if feedback is all negative until the feedback is public?
Nope, eBay doesn't do anything about feedback; it is just a collection of opinions, after all. They do take action when the appropriate reports are filed, though.
Of course, you could also make all feedback for a new account immediately public until it reaches a certain feedback value. There are at least a hundred different solutions to this "problem".
And each one has its own problem which is why, though it has been brought up daily throughout the years, it has never been implemented.
For example: Of course, you could also make all feedback for a new account immediately public until it reaches a certain feedback value.
The problem with this approach is that a new seller is liable to build feedback up to a reasonable level through small purchases before they even attempt selling. After reaching your arbitrary threshhold, they could then perpetuate their scams for 30 days. This build-up would be common as few sellers are brave enough to start selling with a (0) by their name that might scare off potential buyers.
Shipping was noted as "priority mail" -- I expected to have it in a week
According to the FTC, seller's have 30 days to drop it in the mail. Unless the auction itself, promised something sooner, your expectations were unreasonable.
After my neutral, seller left me a negative feedback. Is that fair?
Depends. Did you contact your seller with your complaint prior to feedback? The seller may have felt completely justified in leaving you a negative for leaving her a neutral based on unreasonable expectations.
Obvious retaliation.
Unfortunately, that isn't obvious at all. If the neutral you gave was unwarranted, the seller no doubt had a negative experience with the transaction, no matter how fast you paid.
Anyway, I shop where my money is appreciated
I missed the part where your seller didn't appreciate your payment.
I'm sure sellers get hit with scams or whatever, but so what.
So what, indeed. Hurting someone's livelihood is a big deal to some.
If you treat all your paying customers like criminals, you won't have any paying customers.
To use your example, does Best Buy have any paying customers?
It's a cost of business -- plan for it and deal with it
Perhaps this is how some sellers deal with it; by not leaving feedback prematurely so that they can rate the entire transaction.
without alienating customers
If it alienates a buyer that a seller didn't post his opinion of the transaction for the benefit of other sellers, then the buyer has an irrationally inflated opinion of what feedback is. Best not to feed the beasties, lest they grow bigger.
Once I've paid promptly, and follwed instructions, I should get positive feedback.
No, you don't get to decide when someone should post an opinion about you and what that opinion should be based on. And feedback is supposed to be about the entire transaction, not just payment. You can bet others seller's would like to know that after you paid promptly and followed instructions and received your item, that you then turned around and filed a chargeback through PayPal. Or claimed to have received a broken item but actually return a different item, etc, etc.
If the buyer winds up being sleazy just write a rebuttal.
Who is going to bother to read follow-ups to positive feedback? All anyone cares about are how many negs you get and what they are for. Much better to be accurate the first time so that your message actually gets read and will affect the buyer's percentage.
As long as sellers keep holding buyer feedback in 'ransom' for positive seller feedback the feedback system remains broken.
Nobody can hold for ransom something that wasn't yours to begin with. You aren't owed feedback; it is nothing but an opinion given voluntarily, if at all. Furthermore, feedback left for a buyer isn't *for* him, it is *about* him. It is *for* others who might do business with him in the future.
The real problems is that buyers place way too much emphasis on feedback when, in reality, it is next to meaningless for them. Buy on one ID, seller on another and you won't ever have a real reason to fear a negative as a buyer.
Absolutely, a blind system is better than my idea and eBay's current system.
This horrible idea is suggested daily on eBay's feedback message board and shot down for the following reason:
It gives scammers 30 days to perpetuate a scam before negative feedback starts showing up. Scammers would have a field day. The truth is, Buyer's feedback is nearly meaningless. A buyer has little to fear from retaliatory feedback because they almost certainly won't affect their ability to buy, doubly so for sniping. If you sell on the same eBay ID you but with, don't. Get separated IDs and don't fear retaliation on your buying ID.
This horrible idea is suggested daily on eBay's feedback message board and shot down for the following reason:
It gives scammers 30 days to perpetuate a scam before negative feedback starts showing up. Scammers would have a field day. The truth is, Buyer's feedback is nearly meaningless. A buyer has little to fear from retaliatory feedback because negative feedback almost certainly won't affect their ability to buy, doubly so for sniping. If you sell on the same eBay ID you but with, don't. Get separated IDs and don't fear retaliation on your buying ID.
This horrible idea is suggested daily on eBay's feedback message board and shot down for the following reason:
It gives scammers 30 days to perpetuate a scam before negative feedback starts showing up. Scammers would have a field day. The truth is, Buyer's feedback is nearly meaningless. A buyer has little to fear from retaliatory feedback because they almost certainly won't affect their ability to buy, doubly so for sniping. If you sell on the same eBay ID you but with, don't. Get separated IDs and don't fear retaliation on your buying ID.
4. eBay is tolerating auctions where the seller does not actually have the product in question, may not be able to get it in a timely manner, and does not say so in the auction. This discourages buyers.
And how would eBay know if the sellers doesn't have the product?
Pay with a credit card via PayPal and your risk as a buyer drops to zero. If there is a problem, you can initiate action with PayPal. If they can't help you, you can file a chargeback with your credit card company.
The solution is to have two IDs, one to buy with and one to sell with. Then you can neg your sellers as appropriate without affect your own ability to sell. Wallah! The best of both worlds.
What if their "playing" in the tree was K-I-S-S-I-N-G? As we know, this can lead to baby, in a baby carriage. The DNA testing was probably just a pre-emptive one for paternity or, possibly, cooties.
Any time there is a viable third candidate, no candidate will get 50%. That's a mathematical fact.
That "fact" is no such thing. If Perot kept his 19% and Clinton had taken 8% more while Bush Sr. took
8% less, then Clinton would have won with 51%.
There already is a great independent music and movie industry that often does not rate its content, why not extend this to video games?
While what you are saying is true for independent music, it doesn't apply to independent films. Most independent films are submitted to, and receive a rating from, the MPAA.
The MPAA film ratings bureau is made up of representatives of the actual film industry
That is incorrect. The MPAA is made up of lay-people whose sole qualification is that they are a parent.
The ratings are decided by a full-time Rating Board located in Los Angeles.... There are no special qualifications for Board membership, except that the members must have a shared parenthood experience, must be possessed of an intelligent maturity, and most of all, have the capacity to put themselves in the role of most American parents so they can view a film and apply a rating that most parents would find suitable and helpful in aiding their decisions about their children and what movies they see.
Omnipotence does not include the ability to do the logically impossible (although the physically impossible is possible for the omnipotent). People who believe that God is omnipotent (and understand the issues) don't believe that God can create a stone so heavy even he can't lift it, any more than they believe that God knows whether the statement "this statement is false" is true or false, or any more than they believe that God can make 2=3.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see where the article mentions exactly how the "mouse-made doodies" are mined for the energy to power the hack. Possibly by way of methane extraction? Oh, "doodles", not "doodies". Never mind.
Save your "suddenly occured to me" and "too bad I don't have the sound effect" for the non-Slashdot crowd. We know better.
Gee, I don't know, maybe by looking at the feedback for the powersellers who have fallen below the 99% positive mark and seeing how many of the complaints say, "Seller didn't have the item!"
eBay doesn't read feedback; it's a member-to-member system. eBay only reponds to reports filed such as "Significantly Not As Described" and "Seller Didn't Ship"
Nope, eBay doesn't do anything about feedback; it is just a collection of opinions, after all. They do take action when the appropriate reports are filed, though.
Of course, you could also make all feedback for a new account immediately public until it reaches a certain feedback value. There are at least a hundred different solutions to this "problem".
And each one has its own problem which is why, though it has been brought up daily throughout the years, it has never been implemented.
For example: Of course, you could also make all feedback for a new account immediately public until it reaches a certain feedback value.
The problem with this approach is that a new seller is liable to build feedback up to a reasonable level through small purchases before they even attempt selling. After reaching your arbitrary threshhold, they could then perpetuate their scams for 30 days. This build-up would be common as few sellers are brave enough to start selling with a (0) by their name that might scare off potential buyers.
According to the FTC, seller's have 30 days to drop it in the mail. Unless the auction itself, promised something sooner, your expectations were unreasonable.
After my neutral, seller left me a negative feedback. Is that fair?
Depends. Did you contact your seller with your complaint prior to feedback? The seller may have felt completely justified in leaving you a negative for leaving her a neutral based on unreasonable expectations.
Obvious retaliation.
Unfortunately, that isn't obvious at all. If the neutral you gave was unwarranted, the seller no doubt had a negative experience with the transaction, no matter how fast you paid.
Anyway, I shop where my money is appreciated
I missed the part where your seller didn't appreciate your payment.
I'm sure sellers get hit with scams or whatever, but so what.
So what, indeed. Hurting someone's livelihood is a big deal to some.
If you treat all your paying customers like criminals, you won't have any paying customers.
To use your example, does Best Buy have any paying customers?
It's a cost of business -- plan for it and deal with it
Perhaps this is how some sellers deal with it; by not leaving feedback prematurely so that they can rate the entire transaction.
without alienating customers
If it alienates a buyer that a seller didn't post his opinion of the transaction for the benefit of other sellers, then the buyer has an irrationally inflated opinion of what feedback is. Best not to feed the beasties, lest they grow bigger.
No, you don't get to decide when someone should post an opinion about you and what that opinion should be based on. And feedback is supposed to be about the entire transaction, not just payment. You can bet others seller's would like to know that after you paid promptly and followed instructions and received your item, that you then turned around and filed a chargeback through PayPal. Or claimed to have received a broken item but actually return a different item, etc, etc.
If the buyer winds up being sleazy just write a rebuttal.
Who is going to bother to read follow-ups to positive feedback? All anyone cares about are how many negs you get and what they are for. Much better to be accurate the first time so that your message actually gets read and will affect the buyer's percentage.
As long as sellers keep holding buyer feedback in 'ransom' for positive seller feedback the feedback system remains broken.
Nobody can hold for ransom something that wasn't yours to begin with. You aren't owed feedback; it is nothing but an opinion given voluntarily, if at all. Furthermore, feedback left for a buyer isn't *for* him, it is *about* him. It is *for* others who might do business with him in the future.
The real problems is that buyers place way too much emphasis on feedback when, in reality, it is next to meaningless for them. Buy on one ID, seller on another and you won't ever have a real reason to fear a negative as a buyer.
This horrible idea is suggested daily on eBay's feedback message board and shot down for the following reason:
It gives scammers 30 days to perpetuate a scam before negative feedback starts showing up. Scammers would have a field day. The truth is, Buyer's feedback is nearly meaningless. A buyer has little to fear from retaliatory feedback because they almost certainly won't affect their ability to buy, doubly so for sniping. If you sell on the same eBay ID you but with, don't. Get separated IDs and don't fear retaliation on your buying ID.
It gives scammers 30 days to perpetuate a scam before negative feedback starts showing up. Scammers would have a field day. The truth is, Buyer's feedback is nearly meaningless. A buyer has little to fear from retaliatory feedback because negative feedback almost certainly won't affect their ability to buy, doubly so for sniping. If you sell on the same eBay ID you but with, don't. Get separated IDs and don't fear retaliation on your buying ID.
This horrible idea is suggested daily on eBay's feedback message board and shot down for the following reason: It gives scammers 30 days to perpetuate a scam before negative feedback starts showing up. Scammers would have a field day. The truth is, Buyer's feedback is nearly meaningless. A buyer has little to fear from retaliatory feedback because they almost certainly won't affect their ability to buy, doubly so for sniping. If you sell on the same eBay ID you but with, don't. Get separated IDs and don't fear retaliation on your buying ID.
4. eBay is tolerating auctions where the seller does not actually have the product in question, may not be able to get it in a timely manner, and does not say so in the auction. This discourages buyers.
And how would eBay know if the sellers doesn't have the product?
Pay with a credit card via PayPal and your risk as a buyer drops to zero. If there is a problem, you can initiate action with PayPal. If they can't help you, you can file a chargeback with your credit card company.
The solution is to have two IDs, one to buy with and one to sell with. Then you can neg your sellers as appropriate without affect your own ability to sell. Wallah! The best of both worlds.
What if their "playing" in the tree was K-I-S-S-I-N-G? As we know, this can lead to baby, in a baby carriage. The DNA testing was probably just a pre-emptive one for paternity or, possibly, cooties.
And I suppose that this is administered by dogs with bees in their mouth and when they bark, they shoot bees at you?
Any time there is a viable third candidate, no candidate will get 50%. That's a mathematical fact. That "fact" is no such thing. If Perot kept his 19% and Clinton had taken 8% more while Bush Sr. took 8% less, then Clinton would have won with 51%.
While what you are saying is true for independent music, it doesn't apply to independent films. Most independent films are submitted to, and receive a rating from, the MPAA.
That is incorrect. The MPAA is made up of lay-people whose sole qualification is that they are a parent.
See http://www.mpaa.org/Ratings_HowRated.asp
Sure they can. What they can't do is eat their cake and have it, too. S'got to be the mostly widely misused phrase of all time.
Since when is respect idolatry?
> That way, if it looks too good to be true (as 'Robots' did to me... Lord, what a dud!) You can bite my shiny metal ass!
Everybody loves Eric Raymond http://geekz.co.uk/lovesraymond/
About 25 lbs. *rimshot*
the Mothra of toaster ovens or the King Ghidorah of filing cabinets?
Omnipotence does not include the ability to do the logically impossible (although the physically impossible is possible for the omnipotent). People who believe that God is omnipotent (and understand the issues) don't believe that God can create a stone so heavy even he can't lift it, any more than they believe that God knows whether the statement "this statement is false" is true or false, or any more than they believe that God can make 2=3.
Starships Unlimited is a fantastically additicting 4X game. Battleship Chess isn't too shabby, either.
Both can be found at http://www.apezone.com/
Greg