@digital*ghost wrote:
The problem is, eBay doesn't really need to compete for sellers. Most sites worth selling on don't, because the majority of sellers will always follow buyers, not the other way around. Buyers will go wherever they can get what they need and/or want, how many other buyers or sellers are there, or how successful the site or business is, is 100% irrelevant to that choice, and these days they are spoilt for choice - sellers who need third-party sites with organic traffic, not so much.
eBay's policies are designed to compete for buyers, and I suspect they have deemed (on behalf of themselves and sellers) that the rewards outweigh the risks. I believe their approach is that they would rather have 100 scamming buyers get their way, than risk one genuine buyer being let down by their seller or the MBG policies. It's a typically American approach to justice, in that sense.
I don't support their approach, by the way, especially because they half-a$$ it on both sides, I'm just saying the underlying principle is understandable to me. I definitely think there are better and more fair ways many of these situations could be dealt with, and as it stands now, it doesn't even guarantee a buyer with a genuine problem will have that problem successfully resolved, which often defeats the purpose of their actions in the first place. What the site really needs is fewer algorithms and less automated decision making, and more staff trained in making impartial, fact and evidence based decisions. Feels like a pipe dream at this point in time, though.
I agree. The money comes from the buyer after all.
What ebay is lacking is a way to identify fraudulent buyers faster. I have a lot of buyers with very high number of red in their Feedbacks Left for Others screen. There are a handful of them in particular with over 80% of their Feedbacks Left for Others in bloodbath crimson with comments like "Did not receive" or some other complaints. They seem to be professionals who buy items they know are not tracked from the prices. I have been regularly looking up a couple of these people for years. They have not changed, and they are still here among us. Why are these not banned yet?
I understand that it is hard to finger-point someone as a fraudster when they have done it only once or twice. But when they have been doing it for years with 80% of their purchases having one sort of problem or another, mostly did not receive, then they are clear fraudsters in my book.
Granted, when I see a buyer with that sort of record making a complaint, I always stand firm and let them go through ebay/PP claim and take the red, and it is quite often that ebay/PP side with me. So ebay/PP already know that these buyers are at the very least very suspicious. So why not just ban them? The majority of sellers will just refund these fraudsters and let them keep the goods in the hope for a green FB. Sellers lose, obvious fraudsters win again.
I have seen a few accounts deleted by ebay over the years, so it can happen that they ban a buyer. I wonder what the criteria is, 100% refund and keep the goods for 1000 transactions? 2000 freebies?
