@joethenuts wrote:
to k1ooo this is not for you only,
this is a forum on ebay ,we read things that go on everyday from ebay and using ebay like postage , when we buy on ebay ,we are buying from strange ids genarally ,so we have a seling ids to check and help us on who th buy from , now buyers can have there buying private or not show up what they buy or have it as is. all this info is available on this forum for forum users, just like there posts and other posters posts. many atime different answeres come up, now what comes up on these boards should stay on these boards.
under no way is info gathered from trolling another site or what ever , should be put on these forums ,that arnt about yourself.
its not your business ,its not for everyone to know,know a poster who posts or reads here who has there buying record hidden for what ever reason , should not have another poster getting info from another site ,to then expose it here.
[now we have this op who asked how other posters got info , and was told , then later said the excact thing there words something like there private buying were exposed and thought it was not right , and all i have said i agree. i agree.
Most of the people who come to the boards are seeking help or advice regarding problems with specific transactions. Unfortunately we only hear one side of the story on the forums and are asked to offer advice based on this one sided story. Further investigation of the transaction often shows things can be very different to what we are being told. By raising this transaction on a public internet forum, they are asking others to asses and advise on that particular transaction.
Although this case is reasonably genuine and the OP had some grounds for concern, ( hence my apology ) there are still extenuating circumstances that forum poster's where unaware of.
In the OP,s case the buyer requested combined post for two transactions with $2.00 post charged for each transaction. ( $4.00 total post cost ) After two days the seller had not communicated or combined post ( as advertised in listing ) . The OP was indicating they where considering defecting the seller for lack of communication and high postage costs. ( $4.00 for large envelope and padded bag ). After checking the sellers feedback using the tool under discussion in this thread, I was able to see the seller had some of the best feedback I have seen, including perfect stars for communication and only the slightest ding in postage costs. I named the two non desript items in the context, that yes, they should be able to be combined , but the weight difference may increase post costs. By naming the every day items, other forum users could see the logic in this advice. I further urged the OP to give the seller a bit more time to respond before defecting them, based on the perfect feedback score for communication. I suggested there could be a genuine reason for the lack of communication such as health or family problems.
I would not have been able to make these assumptions without being able to view the transaction and the sellers feedback. Soon after, the OP advised the problem had been resolved. It is highly likely the seller with near perfect feedback and an exceptional service record could now be wearing an unfair defect from the OP, had they followed the course of action they where initially suggesting.
I believe in this case the OP had some fairly genuine concerns, but things where getting blown a little out of perspective. Often when looking into transactions we find glaring examples where OP,s have been very dishonest in their description of transactions, often deliberately hiding important information from forum users. If they bring these transactions to a public internet forum and ask for advice on them, it is reasonable to assume the full transaction will be looked at from all angles by contributors who are trying to offer genuine advice and assistance. This does not need to involve other unrelated transactions though, unless they show an ongoing pattern of dishonesty.
hehe
3BrNBBRz4UYdo+!~~60_7.JPG "chameleon54"){kind=avatar}
