fecking ebay...

[SamNichols]

Fecking shenanigans occurred. I bought an item. Didn't receive it, so at seller's request went through a lengthy paypal refund claim. Got it in my favour nearly two months later, but I had previously felt the urge to leave 'neutral' feedback. What does this imply? Neutrality i.e. didn't receive a good or bad experience. Paid for product, didn't get it, received the money back (is this a 'good' experience?). What did he give me in return? Negative feedback! Paid for product and rightly complained when i didn't receive it and got punished for it. Not buying from ebay anymore.

 

[Richie1964]

I have to say I have done a LOT of Ebaying over the past few years, and 99.99% of the time it has been great.

 

[asterix]

My ebay experiences have been good so far. Only mishap was when the seller put the wrong house number on and it was delivered a few houses away. When we'd worked out what happened, I went round to the neighbour and found they had opened the package, found a DVD and had been watching it!

 

[barq]

I do a lot of selling on ebay and I have to say that retaliatory feedback is pretty much an occupational hazard. You've done the right thing, but unfortunately someone else has abused the system. You can reply to feedback so I'd be tempted to leave a factual and calm reply on your feedback saying "Retaliatory feedback left by non-performing seller". Don't let it put you off ebay, most sellers are good and feedback isn't everything. Anyway there is nothing to stop you opening a new ebay account if you want to wipe the slate clean.

I do sympathise though. I had 100% +ve feedback on my main selling account and one non-payer spoiled it by giving me retaliatory -ve feedback.

 

[Panter]

I always say this about ebay but its interesting how its percieved as some vast store.

It is of course just a collection of individuals, most good and some bad.

I do think it could be managed better, the feedback system is pretty poor in my opinion, as highlighted above.

Personally I've had no bother, but then I am ultra cautious, always checking the feedback of what they sold and to who to try and get the bigger picture.

 

[bonj2]

You should always leave negative feedback if you think the other person didn't act as he should have done. e.g. if he made an honest mistake, then that doesn't warrant negative feedback - but then if he refused to communicate, that does.
And never leave feedback first if you think there's a chance the other person might leave you negative - and your planning to leave neutral constitutes a chance he might leave negative.
Although i do think that the feedback system is fatally flawed in that it even allows retaliatory feedback - both should have to leave it at the same time.
Did you know most ebay shops have software that waits for your feedback and then leaves exactly the same feedback for you automatically.

 

[barq]

Each party is able to make one comment about the feedback left - so they CAN respond which is why you should be factual and not call them every name under the sun!

In more general terms, I don't see how you could possibly coordinate both parties leaving the feedback at the same time. They could move to a system where you can't see your feedback until you have left theirs, but that would produce other problems (c.f. The Prisoner's Dilemma). I try to encourage people to leave honest feedback because if everyone just leaves positives then it becomes meaningless. I ended up with an undeserved neg, but anyone who bothered to read the feedback would realise it was retaliatory and most likely ignore it. With a suitable response Sam will hopefully get a similar outcome. Sellers who leave retaliatory feedback get a bad name pretty quickly - in ebay selling communities it is frowned upon because it taints all ebay shops.

 

[bonj2]

In more general terms, I don't see how you could possibly coordinate both parties leaving the feedback at the same time.

Well I don't mean actually at exactly the same chronological time, I mean transactionally atomic - i.e. at the same 'time' with respect to the order of proceedings.

They could move to a system where you can't see your feedback until you have left theirs

exactly, that's what I meant...

but that would produce other problems (c.f. The Prisoner's Dilemma).

Hmmm... interesting, I'll have a read...

 

[barq]

Sorry Bonj, I took your idea too literally.

If I'm right about the prisoner's dilemma applying to a changed eBay system then you'd see a whole lot more negative scores as the 'logical' move would be for both parties to give negative feedback. Obviously many scores would be unfair, but it might be that over time naughty ebayers would have significantly worse scores. But I doubt ebay would do it because users would HATE it!

 

[bonj2]

Sorry Bonj, I took your idea too literally.

If I'm right about the prisoner's dilemma applying to a changed eBay system

I've had a think about it, and it wouldn't apply at all.
Because if you consider the game theory, then in the prisoner's dilemma ... the only reason it's a dilemma, is that for each player, he leaves himself better off by betraying. Not so with leaving negative feedback on ebay.

then you'd see a whole lot more negative scores as the 'logical' move would be for both parties to give negative feedback. Obviously many scores would be unfair, but it might be that over time naughty ebayers would have significantly worse scores. But I doubt ebay would do it because users would HATE it!

No it wouldn't, because people aren't naturally spiteful. There'd be no reason to leave negative feedback in most cases as there would be nothing to gain from it!
The feedback system would be a true representation of what people thought of the purchase - not a representation of what people thought of the purchase and the resulting feedback.
It's a false representation if people only leave positive feedback to maintain their own pristine 100% score...

 

[bonj2]

I think the trait of people to be perfectionists is idiotically crass sometimes.

 

[barq]

That's a fair point about the reward so I've changed my mind.

Although I wonder if there are other more subtle factors at work with ebay. For example you can mutually withdraw feedback, but you only have the leverage to get the other person to withdraw if you've left them something nasty too. A tactical move might be to always leave a -ve, so if you get one back you can negotiate its withdrawal. Hardly anyone would actually do that though because it is such an obscure move and (like you say) most people aren't spiteful.

I make hundreds of pleasant ebay transactions a year but every few months I get someone who applies the most bizarre logic to the whole interaction. So someone doing what I've described above certainly isn't beyond the realms of possibility. The sort of system you are describing probably would work quite well - although I'm sure there must be other pitfalls we haven't thought of!

 

[barq]

I think the trait of people to be perfectionists is idiotically crass sometimes.

Yep. I've seen buyers and sellers loose money rather than take a negative. Unfortunately this also encourages blackmail - although thankfully ebay will usually intervene.

 

[bonj2]

That's a fair point about the reward so I've changed my mind.

Although I wonder if there are other more subtle factors at work with ebay. For example you can mutually withdraw feedback, but you only have the leverage to get the other person to withdraw if you've left them something nasty too. A tactical move might be to always leave a -ve, so if you get one back you can negotiate its withdrawal. Hardly anyone would actually do that though because it is such an obscure move and (like you say) most people aren't spiteful.

Well, if you were to implement the 'transactionally atomic' feedback idea then you would probably remove the option to withdraw - because I think feedback withdrawal is only really relevant when retaliatory feedback has occurred and both want to exercise the opportunity to 'kiss and make up'. But if dual negative feedback occurs when neither knows that the other has left negative, then they both must have been genuinely unhappy with the other's handling of the transaction. Therefore this should stay. The point with ebay is it shouldn't have anything to do with game theory - the buyer and seller aren't 'opponents' as such, they are simply people who presumably don't know or trust each other but are undertaking an agreed transaction in which a level of trust is required.
The point of feedback should be simply an accurate representation of that transaction - nothing more.
Generally people in the world are primarily interested in their own gains - but given that those gains are optimized, they're quite happy to help others to gain. Most people will normally only do another down if they feel aggrieved. Whether that aggrieval is justified (say, if they didn't receive the item) or whether it's 'unjustified' (say, if they just didn't think they were particularly polite, or failed to respond within the 8 minutes they were online for) is irrelevant - but it's a matter of opinion what the definition of 'justified' is, doesn't it. All dual negative would mean in a transactionally atomic system is that both parties feel aggrieved. It wouldn't be able to cast any judgement on the relative level of aggrieval or how justified the aggrieval is, but I don't think any system could possibly hope to do that.

The sort of system you are describing probably would work quite well - although I'm sure there must be other pitfalls we haven't thought of!

Yes I'm sure you're right.
The 'politics of perfectionism' may be one, as I've said, but that may just be me being cynical. There may be other more mundane ones.

 

[stevenb]

This is why I want to knock ebay on the head.
I've been lucky so far...had a couple of time wasters...but generally most people have been great....and I have 100% and 105 score.

Some people are just timewasters...don't take it to heart I suppose, especially if your feedback up to then has been 100%....plus you can reply to there neg. FB....just to clarify things.