@countessalmirena wrote:
4channel, I see where you're going with this. Interesting idea... but I don't think that it can really play out in that way with regard to buyer feedback and tracking (especially overseas).
For instance, sellers can't give buyers negative feedback. That means that a problem buyer can't be identified by the feedback they have received.
It becomes even worse when one considers how many sellers have automatic positive feedback set up to be given upon payment. A buyer who behaves like a lunatic post-sale will still have his/her green dot and positive comment - falsely indicating that the buyer was reliable, honest, etc.
You're right in pointing out that some sellers might well be willing to post low-value goods without tracking to buyers who they perceive to be low-risk. Maybe this would be mostly in domestic transactions, though. (I don't think that insurance can come into it, though. The risk in sending goods worth insuring - without actually insuring them - isn't just the buyer's behaviour; it's also to ensure that if the parcel goes missing en-route, there's a remedy.)
But... keep in mind that a seller sending to an overseas buyer is not going to have the same protections as a seller sending domestically. The EU distance regulations are extraordinary in that the seller ends up with the short end of the stick if the item doesn't arrive when an arbitrary and possibly unrealistic delivery date is reached, or if the buyer decides - after the item's been posted - that he/she doesn't want it any more... and so on. There's also the fact that eBay.com's and eBay.co.uk's (and so on) protection for sellers is not the same as eBay.com.au. Sending anything of value to any overseas buyer without tracking is an invitation to be punched in the eye, I think.
My idea of a seller offering a cheaper post to aa buyer with a FB of say 20 is because it shows they are not "fly by night" buyers.
Being an established buyer, I am no risk to sellers and I have never had an item go missing in the mail on its way to me in the 18 years I've been here on eBay. Only 2 occasions. The first was a UK seller and I think he used my money to by drugs. He had a whole lot of negs around the time of my sale. Then he was blocked from selling. I rung him after a month and he said .... "Oh yeah, no worries mate". He was lying of course. Other seller an Australian seller never sent my item. He had at least a dozen negatives around my sale time too. He was a bit of a crooked seller on other sites, I have dealt with him before. Bad grading but he always sent the stuff. Who knows what happened to him.
Nearly all the sellers I deal with offer cheaper postage anyway.
You're right with higher value items. It's best for both seller and buyer to have tracking. I should have added **bleep** should be items below $50 etc.. Actually, I forgot about that one. 
Your post reminded me.
@digital*ghost wrote:
@4channel wrote:For overseas shipping, the most economical AirMail should be available to the buyer with a FB ratingf over say 20. The price of postage these days is way too much.
Sure, but as long as we would be forcing sellers to offer a cheap postage method that precludes them from having protection under the MBG, the buyer should also be excluded from protection if they make the choice of the cheapest postage option.
Sellers choose their postage methods based on all known risks and which ones they are prepared to take, if buyers want to take that choice away from sellers, then they either need to be prepared to take on the risk / responsibility for that, or quit demanding selllers do things their way, and / or having every option they want made available to them regardless of whether the seller is ok with it.
Some sellers have their settings wrong anyway. Not talking about the GSP ones, but some other sellers even have an item on post without tracking double normal post.
I hear you about the risks and expectations etc., in part I agree. But buyers who have established solid buying history with a secure post office box should be given the consideration.
( And to the person that may swoop down to counter me with PO boxes representing scams etc.. give it a rest will you! )
And as for GSP, I still maintain that it's a crooked scheme and destroyed a lot of the good in eBay but if sellers who want it for whatever perceived / imaginary benefit they shouldn't be forced to change from that.
@4channel wrote:
I hear you about the risks and expectations etc., in part I agree. But buyers who have established solid buying history with a secure post office box should be given the consideration.
No - if buyers want to make business decisions on behalf of sellers, there is only one way they can ensure they have the right to do so, and that is to buy a controlling interest in that business. (That'll be $1 million for anyone interested in dictating my postage options 
).
Sellers who do not listen to their buyers (potential or existing) run the risk of making poor business decisions, but sellers who accomodate (or even try to) every single whim, demand or expectation of just about any buyer who asks and / or presents well is a poor business decision in itself. (And by "presents well", I'm referring to the suggestion it's based on feedback - feedback for buyers is nought but a nice suit, it makes 'em look nice, might generally indicate how much disposable income they have, but testifies very little to their actual character, reliability, or trustworthiness).
