Removal of legitimate feedback is hurting honest buyers and sellers

[godspeedpluto]

Where’s the sense in having a feedback forum that can be manipulated at the discretion of a judge who’s in place to protect the defendant and the prosecutor?

Allowing eBay to remove comments or feedback without both parties being informed to justify this action has created a system where nothing is ever quite as it seems. Not only does this completely invalidate the concerns of the buyer, it also removes the opportunity to share legitimate consumer warnings regarding the safety or quality standards of the products that seller is providing.

It would seem these actions are taken to placate sellers who have “hurt feelings”, rather than being caused by any legitimate breach of feedback policies. If eBay are going to tout emotive terms such as “Trust and Safety Department” and offer “Buyer Protection”, why does this make their methods immune from questioning?

I don’t feel the need to elaborate on the circumstances that have driven me to write this. It’s not a petty whinge, it’s not about money or scams or items not as described. This is quite serious and people are at risk of being exposed to a highly toxic product. I can’t beat this machine it’s far too big for me to take on, all I really wanted to say is don’t take 100% positive feedback as gospel, it could just mean this seller gets their own way 100% of the time. Unfortunately for the deserving top sellers, it’s devaluing their reputation as there’s no way of telling who is the genuine sheep and who is the wolf in a costume.

[davewil1964]

If it's that dangerous report it to the police/fair trading.

Given the amount of buyers who come onto the boards with issues with sellers with atrocious feedback, most don't read feedback anyway.

If you contact eBay by phone and your feedback was factual, you should be able to get the feedback reinstated.

[godspeedpluto]

Thanks Dave, and I agree there's a lot of buyers who refuse to take responsibility for their choices and then consequently vent their anger with themselves toward sellers with childish or uninformative feedback and sadly this helps no one.

With regards to this item however, I contacted Fair Trading, however because I received a refund for the item, from a buyer/seller transaction level, the issue has been rectified. It also seems that offering an item via auction hugely diminishes the responsibility of the seller. You have made me think it may be worth contacting the ACCC though. Cheers 🙂

http://www.productsafety.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/973751/fromItemId/973697

Note: The monitoring of acceptable or safe levels of formaldehyde (serious misnomer in and of itself) in any products only apply to items manufactured in Australia. The rules become very blurred on the obligations of importers and their duty of disclosure.

[lyndal1838]

If you phone ebay you should be able to get the feedback reinstated as long as it was factual and did not contain bad language.

I have done it in the past.

[phorum_junkie*]

There was no suitable option in your poll for people who think feedback is of so little importance in the scheme of things that we have better things to do than waste time over some silly coloured dots on a computer screen!

[moon.harvest]

The poll is silly.

It sounds like youre talking about corporate cover ups here. I think this is bigger than feedback.

 Tell us what your feedback said and I'll tell you why it was removed.

[godspeedpluto]

Feedback is only as informative and useful as the people who leave it, just as polls only reflect opinions from the sample of people who voted in them. I prefer to be given the opportunity to make decisions based on all the information available, rather than having this information filtered by a biased judge.

So by "better things to do" I'm guessing you mean trolling forums and leaving off-topic remarks. However if you take another look I think you'll find there is suitable option for you: I prefer other people to make my decisions for me. You've demonstrated my point perfectly.

[***super_nova***]

How can eBay judge if what you are saying is correct?  If a seller is selling something that is toxic there are other places to report them and the appropriate authorities will take steps.  If you still have it call the health department in your state and start from there. 

[godspeedpluto]

It's about freedom of speech, not corporate cover ups. The other thing that's really stunned me after reading these threads is how willing sellers are to jump to the defence of other sellers when they have absolutely no information on the issue that has been raised. It seems the general consensus is buyer bad: seller good, regardless of context.

I made this post because I'm genuinely concerned for the health and well-being of all other people. For the record, I have a written admission from this seller that backs up the feedback left, I have photographs of the item and it's condition and witnesses who can confirm the items toxicity. I have contacted eBay by phone to query the removal but have been told the seller disputed it on grounds of defamation.

The comment was factual and contained no inappropriate language or threats, what it did contain was the truth about a product that without a doubt would have an impact on their reputation, because it shows that what they are selling is dangerous. Just because they feel this was defamatory does not legally entitle it to that definition.  Both the seller and the buyer (me), are located in NSW and the law is on my side with this one. But like I said in the initial post, I don't have the energy for this, I wanted people realise that 100% positive feedback is providing a false sense of security.

My motivation was to protect people from being exposed to a dangerous chemical because I sincerely care about your health, not for my own gains or through a desire to go anonymously power-tripping to bring down the standing of a good company. I was trying to help, not invite more attacks on my character or intentions.

New South Wales Consolidated Acts

DEFAMATION ACT 2005 - SECT 25
25 Defence of justification
It is a defence to the publication of defamatory matter if the defendant proves that the defamatory imputations carried by the matter of which the plaintiff complains are substantially true.

31 Defences of honest opinion
(1) It is a defence to the publication of defamatory matter if the defendant proves that:
(a) the matter was an expression of opinion of the defendant rather than a statement of fact, and
(b) the opinion related to a matter of public interest, and
(c) the opinion is based on proper material.

[godspeedpluto]

Q. "How can eBay judge if what you are saying is correct?"

A. Because I have evidence to support it.

The question should be why are they willing to take away any right of reply in favour of a seller who has no evidence to back up their claim. These are bully tactics, nothing more, nothing less.