eBay FINALLY Does Something About Feedback

[Mindfield]

I don't normally read eBay newsletters unless there are promo days coming up. But in browsing their newsletter about their "eBay Tools" package, I noticed this blurb:

 

Announcing Some Important Changes to Feedback

We've made some important changes to the Feedback system which will be great news to Sellers. First, negative feedbacks left by users who do not first attempt to resolve their situation through the UPI or INR process will be neutralized. We're also removing all feedback left by users who were suspended within 90 days of registration and not allowing negative feedback to be left by new users without first completing an online Feedback tutorial. Learn more about these changes.

 

Looks we're finally going to be able to do something about retaliatory and/or gratuitous negs.

 

It's about damn time.

[Hendra]

How soon they are going to implement the change?

[Mindfield]

"...later in 2005..." is the closest approximation the announcement gave.

 

Hey, at least it's been pounded into their heads that the feedback system is grossly flawed and needs repair in the form buyers and sellers being able to deal effectively with wrongful negs. It's only been a few years late...

Edited July 14, 2005 by Mindfield

[Christophero Sly]

What do UPI and INR stand for?

[jetset]

I don't normally read eBay newsletters unless there are promo days coming up.  But in browsing their newsletter about their "eBay Tools" package, I noticed this blurb:

 

Announcing Some Important Changes to Feedback

We've made some important changes to the Feedback system which will be great news to Sellers. First, negative feedbacks left by users who do not first attempt to resolve their situation through the UPI or INR process will be neutralized. We're also removing all feedback left by users who were suspended within 90 days of registration and not allowing negative feedback to be left by new users without first completing an online Feedback tutorial. Learn more about these changes.

 

Looks we're finally going to be able to do something about retaliatory and/or gratuitous negs.

 

It's about damn time.

891204[/snapback]

 

I agree, but wherea the protection for buyers? Sellers should always leave feedback immediately upon receiving payment. Most dont anymore, which is of course a way for a seller to protect themselves when selling damaged goods, ripping people off on shipping, etc... What happens to the buyer who does in fact try to resolve the problem, but is refused, then leaves the appropriate neg and gets one in retliation?

Great news for sellers, especially for the scumbags who are out to screw people and use the fededback as a bargaining chip.

Bad news for buyers who buy from a*holes who dont give appropriate feedback when they get thier money.

 

Maybe at least this is a step in the right direction, but for now all this does is protect the sellers imo, and its the buyers who need protection.

Edited July 14, 2005 by jetset

[Hendra]

Sellers should always leave feedback immediately upon receiving payment. Most dont anymore, which is of course a way for a seller to protect themselves when selling damaged goods, ripping people off on shipping, etc... What happens to the buyer who does in fact try to resolve the problem, but is refused, then leaves the appropriate neg and gets one in retliation?

 

There are 2 sides of the coin for this:

First side of the coin:

1. If I as a seller leaves a fb first and the buyer satisfied with the item, but never returns any fb, then I would be really pissed. There are people whose ratio of receive and leave fb is 100 to 1 or something. Read my 1st message in this thread to find out what I mean.

2. To often, a new Ebayer, being unsatisfied with the item, IMMEDIATELY leaves a neg fb to a seller without making any attempt to contact the seller first.

 

The other side of the coin:

1. If I as a buyer, leaves a pos fb after receiving the merchandise in satisfactory condition, but the seller never returns the fb even after a polite request, I would be really pissed too.

2. The one you just mentioned.

 

I am an Ebayer, both buying and selling. Currently, my policy is to leave a pos fb first. But there are some occasions where the other side just never return any fb, even after a polite request. If this trend keep going on and on, and if the ratio between the fb I left vs the fb I received become larger and larger, then I would be forced to never leave any fb anymore until the other side leaves one, or until the other side requests for a fb and promise that they will do the same.

Just my 2 cents.

[Mindfield]

First side of the coin:

1. If I as a seller leaves a fb first and the buyer satisfied with the item, but never returns any fb, then I would be really pissed. There are people whose ratio of receive and leave fb is 100 to 1 or something. Read my 1st message in this thread to find out what I mean.

 

Unfortunately, feedback being completely voluntary, there's nothing that can be done to compel people to leave feedback.

 

2. To often, a new Ebayer, being unsatisfied with the item, IMMEDIATELY leaves a neg fb to a seller without making any attempt to contact the seller first.

 

However, under the new rules, new eBayers (those who joined within the last 90 days) must go through a sort of feedback primer before they're allowed to leave a neg. I don't know how effective this is, but regardless the possibility that the user will just skip it all and neg anyway is covered by the neutralization policy regarding feedbacks left when the one leaving the neg has not tried to resolve the issue through one of the dispute methods.

 

With regards to the dispute process itself -- both sides have to make an attempt to resolve the issue or else negative feedback would be nullified.

[Albert]

It's interesting to see that they are going to make some fairly significant changes to address the problem of negative feedbacks. I'm sure eBay is aware that retaliatory feedbacks are a serious detriment to their feedback system. It's sad that it is taking them this long to even attempt to address the issue.

 

As a seller, I always leave positive feedback shortly after I receive payment, before I even ship out the item. Only once have I received a negative, and that was when a buyer in Canada was upset that he had to pay customs charges (the negative was later removed). While many people do not leave feedback at all, enough do that this really hasn't been too much of a problem. I don't hound people to leave feedback, I don't think it's worth the time and I don't want to sound like a nag.

 

..Al

[Mindfield]

What do UPI and INR stand for?

891247[/snapback]

 

Unpaid Item/Item Not Recieved

[scuffy1]

These changes will help alot I think but for me I sell alot and dont ever worry about feedback. I wait 30 days usually to make sure a buyer has got his stuff and doesnt try to claim damage or non reciept (I always insure and have delivery confirmation) but I leave everyone feedback after 30 days or after I recieve it wichever comes first. To many people are so consumed by feedback.... as a buyer a negative doesnt affect you so why sweat it? If you get ripped off or have a reason to leave a negative then leave it and dont worry about the jerk seller who leaves you one back.

 

 

BTW I have recieved a couple negs from buyers who dont know how to email when theres a problem like damage in shipment or whatever so I do think these changes would help.

[Christophero Sly]

What do UPI and INR stand for?

891247[/snapback]

 

Unpaid Item/Item Not Recieved

891319[/snapback]

 

Thanks.

[sku_u]

Meh, if they want to seriously address the broken feedback issue, they'd make feedback invisible until BOTH parties have left feedback. This change does almost nothing except make their personal grievance response team less important. It is completely self serving on their end.

[gospeedde]

I have a question about this. Under the new system, you have to open a dispute to leave a neg. So, if you open a dispute for some reason (i.e. your game arrives in a thousand pieces with a note saying haha sucker) and the seller ends up giving you your money back, does that mean you CAN'T leave a negative since the situation was "resolved"?

[Albert]

Meh, if they want to seriously address the broken feedback issue, they'd make feedback invisible until BOTH parties have left feedback.  This change does almost nothing except make their personal grievance response team less important.  It is completely self serving on their end.

891407[/snapback]

Ahh, yes, I wonder why they have chosen not to do as you suggest. It certainly would encourage both parties to leave feedback, and also discourage people from unjustifiably leaving negative feedback. Certainly there must be some disadvantages to this method?

 

..Al

[Albert]

I have a question about this.  Under the new system, you have to open a dispute to leave a neg.  So, if you open a dispute for some reason (i.e. your game arrives in a thousand pieces with a note saying haha sucker) and the seller ends up giving you your money back, does that mean you CAN'T leave a negative since the situation was "resolved"?

891423[/snapback]

You can probably still leave the feedback, just that you can't leave the negative feedback until you've at least tried to go through one of these alternate routes first. Might make it easier for the seller to get the negative feedback removed, especially if he/she uses PayPal to refund the amount of the auction. But until eBay reveals details about these changes, it's all speculation at this point.

 

..Al

[sku_u]

Meh, if they want to seriously address the broken feedback issue, they'd make feedback invisible until BOTH parties have left feedback.  This change does almost nothing except make their personal grievance response team less important.  It is completely self serving on their end.

891407[/snapback]

Ahh, yes, I wonder why they have chosen not to do as you suggest. It certainly would encourage both parties to leave feedback, and also discourage people from unjustifiably leaving negative feedback. Certainly there must be some disadvantages to this method?

 

..Al

891446[/snapback]

 

If anyone can think of any, please let the world know. Epinions and Amazon have been using this method for a long time. I fail to see how Ebay's feedback system is useful in any way. What they are proposing will now make it even less likely that someone will receive a negative feedback therefore making feedback even more meaningless than before.

[Albert]

If anyone can think of any, please let the world know.  Epinions and Amazon have been using this method for a long time.  I fail to see how Ebay's feedback system is useful in any way.  What they are proposing will now make it even less likely that someone will receive a negative feedback therefore making feedback even more meaningless than before.

891455[/snapback]

What do Amazon and Epinions use feedback for? Didn't Amazon get rid of their auctions? And I agree, waiting until both parties leave feedback does seem like the obvious means to make feedback more balanced and useful. And I do think eBay's changes will help good sellers, but yes, there is potential for abuse. One of the better changes is preventing new users (users with

 

..Al

[Mindfield]

If anyone can think of any, please let the world know.  Epinions and Amazon have been using this method for a long time.  I fail to see how Ebay's feedback system is useful in any way.  What they are proposing will now make it even less likely that someone will receive a negative feedback therefore making feedback even more meaningless than before.

891455[/snapback]

 

Not necessarily. Part of what made it meaningless were the stupid retaliatory feedbacks left by disgruntled members who didn't like the fact that they were negged -- even if it was justified. That just leaves black marks on otherwise reputable members for no better reason than that they righteously negged someone else -- and this is the very reason so many are afraid to leave negs in the first place, which is just one more thing that made feedback useless; if you can't accurately depict the result of a transaction through feedback without fear of baseless retaliation, then the whole process becomes pointless.

 

Just look at the last set of negs I got. They were from a seller who massively overstated the value of a set of auctions on the customs form, resulting in a payment due on my part of $50 -- absurd, especially when the actual value of the auction was about a tenth of what he declared it at. I wasn't going to pay for his stupid mistake and then have to wrestle with Canada Customs and maybe be reimbursed in six months. So I discussed it with the seller through E-Mail and on the phone and it was agreed that I would refuse the shipment, he would get it back and refund what I paid on the auction. Next thing I know I get the refund -- with negs for each of the auctions for my trouble.

 

If these new changes were in place back then I could have had them removed (after going through the INR presumably) and I'd probably be at 99.9% right now. (The other tenth of a percent was a whole other thread and a whole other species. :-))

 

Now, I'd definitely agree to the hidden feedback rule -- if feedback was kept hidden until both parties have left feedback then it would much more likely encourage others to ensure that they do leave feedbak, lest feedback left for them not be counted towards their overall rating.

[hookem]

Meh, if they want to seriously address the broken feedback issue, they'd make feedback invisible until BOTH parties have left feedback.  This change does almost nothing except make their personal grievance response team less important.  It is completely self serving on their end.

891407[/snapback]

Ahh, yes, I wonder why they have chosen not to do as you suggest. It certainly would encourage both parties to leave feedback, and also discourage people from unjustifiably leaving negative feedback. Certainly there must be some disadvantages to this method?

 

..Al

891446[/snapback]

Sounds like a pretty darn good idea to me. Why haven't they done it? Feedback stays hidden unless it is mutually agreed (i.e. both parties say positive, feedback shows up right away)... if there is a negative/positive, it goes into a "resolution period"... That gives the seller or buyer a guaranteed opportunity to try to make things right. If the party who would receive the negative responds in that period, but the person leaving the negative does not (or their account gets suspended), the negative never appears.

 

For buyers, it would mean you have to be extra diligent to make your complaint heard. I would not have a problem with this.

 

For newbies or people just trying to retaliate, the extra work just might filter them out.

[YOK-dfa]

Sounds like a pretty darn good idea to me.  Why haven't they done it?  Feedback stays hidden unless it is mutually agreed (i.e. both parties say positive, feedback shows up right away)...

891501[/snapback]

Maybe Amazon has a patent on it? (as they have with other pretty obvious 'inventions').

[Albert]

Sounds like a pretty darn good idea to me.  Why haven't they done it?  Feedback stays hidden unless it is mutually agreed (i.e. both parties say positive, feedback shows up right away)...

891501[/snapback]

Maybe Amazon has a patent on it? (as they have with other pretty obvious 'inventions').

891539[/snapback]

You never know, but I doubt it. But please, don't give them any ideas!!

 

..Al

[supercat]

Ahh, yes, I wonder why they have chosen not to do as you suggest.  It certainly would encourage both parties to leave feedback, and also discourage people from unjustifiably leaving negative feedback.  Certainly there must be some disadvantages to this method?

891446[/snapback]

 

Well, if someone never ships an item and never leaves feedback for the people who pay, he'll never get a neg.

 

IMHO, the scale should be extended to distinguish 'annoyance' negs from unresolved black eyes (people who accept payment without shipment, or people who accept shipment and revoke payment). In some cases, an issue which is 'resolved' should clear any black mark (e.g. if an item not received is a result of a fire at a UPS facility) while in other cases it should not.

 

Still, it would probably not be unreasonable to allow people to submit a tentative positive feedback with the minimum acceptable return feedback to post it (e.g. I may decide to give someone a positive if they give a neutral or positive, but may be disinclined to give one it if they leave a negative).

[Mindfield]

Still, it would probably not be unreasonable to allow people to submit a tentative positive feedback with the minimum acceptable return feedback to post it (e.g. I may decide to give someone a positive if they give a neutral or positive, but may be disinclined to give one it if they leave a negative).

891897[/snapback]

 

Which is exactly the way it is now -- except replace "submit" with "withhold" and remove the word "tentative."

 

The only way that the feedback system will work is if nobody is afraid to post their true experiences via positive, negative or neutral feedback, by giving them the means to dispute and ultimately have removed frivolous negs.

 

The way it is right now, the actual comments can be removed in certain situations, but the strikes against you remain no matter what. That makes some people afraid to leave negs for fear of getting one back out of spite. That just doesn't work.

[MegaManFan]

Maybe feedback should simply expire over time, positive or negative. That way if you got an undeserved retaliatory over two years ago it would eventually just be expunged from your record.

[jetset]

Maybe feedback should simply expire over time, positive or negative.  That way if you got an undeserved retaliatory over two years ago it would eventually just be expunged from your record.

891924[/snapback]

 

Yeah but what about *deserved* negs? For that matter how about positives? I tend to agree the "invisible" feedback system would work best. I would bet 90% of the auctions that wind up with no feedback on either side are when a seller withholds the feedback simply to protect himself, and the seller decides " if he didnt have the common courtesy why should I? " Maybe the hidden feedback system would resolve that.