Idiot Sellers leaving positive negatives

[*queen.kong*]

I wish I can say that its just the newbie sellers doing it but there are just as many "seasoned" sellers leaving false positives as well.

How are these time wasters meant to be stopped if procedures aren't bring met? I just wish some sellers would get themselves more educated about this site before they decide to go against policy.

All the blocks that I have in place are all for nothing.:|

[viewmont1071]

Have to agree, something needs to be done; but from the comments that are posted here, many sellers say they do not want to waste time with disputes.  And they obviously think that rules and regulations do not apply to them.   Maybe eBay needs to offer bigger carrot or get larger stick.  As there really is not much possibility to refund much more than FVF, I bet they will go for the bigger consequences for sellers who leave false positives. 

carrot and stick

ebay needs to issue generic Non paying bidder feedback with the  $$$ symbol when a non paying bidder dispute is upheld and a strike issued

..... simple....

it would take no longer than a few months month for most of those  sellers who would normally process a NPB dispute close it and then leave a neg/pos  to work out how to issue "the mark".

If positive negative feedback is left pre NPB dispute then the dispute should not be allowed.

When the strike is issued so should be "the mark' which obvciously means that a negative positive cannot be left

It is so simple to tweak the system so that more sellers have confidence in it that it behoves me to believe that ebay )and ebays profits) are quite happy the way it is

and @$18.50 a time for a vehicle auction with reserve (non refundable if a NPB dispute is processed) I can understand why they appear to prefer and "protect" NPB in the vehicle category,

Tyre kickers and car sales go hand in hand

[phorum_junkie*]

3 strikes and you are suspended.

There never was a 3 strikes and you are out policy, it was always an urban myth although ebay used to be more proactive in suspending non payers.

I have to agree that breaching ebay policy is stupid, all they are doing is increasing the numpty non payers feedback score without any positive benefit as far as I can see.and if the buyer does know the ebay policy better than the seller they can get the comment removed and the seller cops a policy violation. Just not worth it IMO. why waste the time when it is not going to stop the buyer from bidding or buying.

[viewmont1071]

3 strikes and you are suspended.

There never was a 3 strikes and you are out policy, it was always an urban myth although ebay used to be more proactive in suspending non payers.

I have to agree that breaching ebay policy is stupid, all they are doing is increasing the numpty non payers feedback score without any positive benefit as far as I can see.and if the buyer does know the ebay policy better than the seller they can get the comment removed and the seller cops a policy violation. Just not worth it IMO. why waste the time when it is not going to stop the buyer from bidding or buying.

I agree totally PJ members that breach policy by not paying for items are stupid and something needs to be done

The positive benefit of neg/pos would appear to me PJ to be 

that it highlights that the sytem does not work..... hence this thread

The second positive benefit would apper to me to be that If I take the time to review and copy/paste the numpty buyers ids highlighted by other sellers onto my blocked bidders list then they cannot buy off me even if ebay removes the NPB  strikes...............

If ebay marked the buyers feedback when they shirked their responsibilities and did not pay then sellers could use automatic blocks and if they felt the need trawl members feedback and block them from bidding or buying

[viewmont1071]

According to JHOS any buyer can get NPB stirikes removed easily and often, so maybe sellers that believe this are resorting to other means of retaliation. Who knows?? Can any one (other than JHOS) confirm that strikes are removed this easily and often??? If so, we need to petition eBay to wake up and adhere to the rules they expect us to follow.

http://community.ebay.com.au/topic/Selling/Buyer-Serial-Offender/600156750

ask pak335 and the multitiude of others.. I notice the Op commented in this thread also

[digital*ghost]

There is an online marketplace where millions of transactions occur every year, and where negs for buyers can be left. If a transaction is cancelled due to non-payment, a generic "No pament received from buyer after X days", where X is the number of days the seller waited for payment (which, aside from letting people know the buyer didn't pay, gives people an idea of the - relative - tolerance level of the seller. I've seen 3 days and 40+ days in such FB). 

As buyers can receive negatives, the comments can contain information other than about issues relating to non-payment (chargebacks, INR claims, unreasonable demands etc etc). 

The system doesn't work so well over there, either, even though sellers can block buyers who have less than their nominated percentage of FB (you can block all buyers with less than 100%, or all buyers with less than 80% - the number is the choice of the seller, and doesn't apply to new members who have 0%). 

That suggests to me that having  the capacity to leave a visual record of any "undesirable' behaviour on a buyer's account may be what motivates people to go through with certain processes, but it doesn't motivate many to protect themselves from entering into transactions with said 'undesirables'. 

For any system to work, be there a visual component to it or not, people have to inform themselves of all aspects of the system and be prepared to participate in all aspects of the system. 

Negs for buyers will not solve the problem. Simply being able to block buyers does not solve the problem. So, IMHO, making as many people as possible informed about whatever system is available and encouraging them to use it to its full extent will do more than lament a system that is not available, and doesn't seem to make much - if any - difference anyway.

Where the system on eBay fails the most is in how easily strikes are overturned, with little to no accountability for the buyer, and if anything needs to change, it's that.

I also think, rather than PayPal introducing DSRs for sellers based on cases opened against them and refunds issued, they should at least consider introducing them for buyers, based on refunds received, chragebacks initiated and cases opened - information which is relayed to any seller they transact with.

[***super_nova***]

I also think, rather than PayPal introducing DSRs for sellers based on cases opened against them and refunds issued, they should at least consider introducing them for buyers, based on refunds received, chragebacks initiated and cases opened - information which is relayed to any seller they transact with.

So, what you are saying is that if buyer has had the misfortune to buy SNAD item, or have not received a parcel, they should be punished !!!  Publicly pilloried?   For god sake.  If buyer does not pay, the seller loses at most few dollars for listing fee; if item is not as described or arrives smashed, or not at all, the buyer could be out of pocket hundreds of dollars. 

There are scammers both buyers & sellers, but seller can potentially scam many people for thousands of $.  If buyer makes couple of chargebacks the bank would be looking into it.  If buyer makes too many claims on PP, they look into it.  If the claims are for items not received, and the seller does the right thing and reports it to AP, they will also look into it.

Unless buyers feel confident to shop on eBay, and feel they are protected, and not made to jump through hoops for the privilege, they will not shop here.  I have number of friends, who bought here couple of items, had a bad experience with rude sellers, found it all complicated and will not be shopping here again.  We need buyers, even those who now and then do not pay, do pay for number of their transactions.  Therefore eBay will not be making anybody NARU unless large percentage of their purchases ends up not paid for.

[digital*ghost]

Umm....where did I say a buyer should be punished?

[***super_nova***]

Publishing how many claims buyer made so seller who is dealing with them can block them is not a punishment? ?:|

[digital*ghost]

Publishing how many claims buyer made so seller who is dealing with them can block them is not a punishment? ?:|

First of all, my suggestion was for PayPal to send that information to sellers the buyer transacts with, meaning that the person must already have made a purchase and paid. I did not mention anything about blocks, nor did I say anything resembling allowing sellers to refuse to deal with someone just because they have made a claim.

Sellers have just as much right to be informed about the people they transact with as buyers, and given the option, they can at least register something if they feel a buyer that has made 25 INR claims out of 100 purchases a risk where in normal circumstances they probably would not have registered it, or used the signature on delivery option with C&S, or even hand it over the counter to be scanned where they usually use a street box. 

[thesoulyearns]

Yeah, all sellers should follow through with the dispute's to help the non-payer get a strike and make the blocks effective.