Should Ebay reintroduce negative feedback for buyers ?

[haolove13]

I have been talking with a few friends lately and we all seem to be suffering from the same problem. It seems that there are a lot of people who are not paying for goods or leaving low feedback scores that are not deserved.

Ebay does not seem to help when we suffer from these problems as I noticed one person had SIX non paying complaints in his positive only feedbackand he was still bidding on items.

Another non paying bidder with a score of 1 had also received four non paying complaints that were turned into positives and I could not leave feedback as I made a non paying claim as well.

He is still bidding on Ebay.

If sellers could warn other sellers it would help us save a lot of time and money.

what do others think?

[garrcc]

Perhaps in a "non paying" buyer's feedback a differnt coloured dot - eg blue should appear - but with no comment. That may act as warning to sellers....and not allow an annoyed seller to write an impolite comment about the "non buyer"

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@garrcc wrote:

Perhaps in a "non paying" buyer's feedback a differnt coloured dot - eg blue should appear - but with no comment. That may act as warning to sellers....and not allow an annoyed seller to write an impolite comment about the "non buyer"

---

i think that is a great suggestion, but it could only be implemented once the UID process had been followed and concluded with no payment.

You cannot claim non performance of a contract until legal avenues have declared that to be the case. To do so prematurely could amount to defamation.

[garrcc]

Yea ....spot on. If the buyer fails to comply with the transaction & Ebay declare it as "Non Paying Buyer"...then I think they deserve some form of visible aginst their feedback ...but with no comment...and as Ebay now does - a non paying strike, plus a non payer should not be allowed to leave feedback for the seller..

I think if  comments are allowed ...then it turns into a slanging match and it all becomes meaningless.

[bbanjar]

Something has to be done. I am presently proceeding with 2 UID's against a bidder who now has 11 Positive feedbacks all warning about lack of contact and unpaid items and judging by the number of items the bidder is continuing to bid on there could end up another 20 or 30 such such feedbacks. 

This is my first such experience and the protection supposedly offerred by the feedback system is meangingless. This particular bidder has a 100% positive feedback and continues on his bidding with the blessing of ebay.

The UID system offers an obvious means of providing useful information to sellers that should not be able to be abused. The opportunity is so obvious one wonders why ebay hasn't introduced such a feature long ago.

[*crikey*mate*]

He isn't doing it with the blessings of eBay. He is doing it because your fellow sellers have failed to apply the procedures and processes that eBay puts in place to help protect you.

Every one of those 11 Positive Feedbacks for non payment represents a seller who did not open up a UID and have a strike issued against this buyer.

A buyer only needs 2 strikes and sellers can then set their blocks to exclude anyone with more than one strike from purchasing their items.

This is a classic example of how the feedback system DOES fail other members, it happens when members MISUSE it for purposes other than it is intended.

Furthermore, how is eBay to become aware of such members if no one issues them the strikes in order to come to the attention of eBay in the first place.

It's all well and good saying "eBay should do something", but they don't evenhave a chance if they don't know. All they see atm is a member who is getting green dots indicating that people are happy.

[thecatspjs]

Not sure how anyone can know if those 11 sellers that left feedback for a non payer, did not issue a strike ?

None or one or more of those sellers could have left feedback, then closed a dispute with a strike being issued.

The timing of the purchases may come into play for such a non-paying pest also, with some of this type making multiple purchases over a shortish time frame before strikes are issued or the non-payer could have had some of the strikes they received from ebay removed. 

Unlike bid retractions, non payment strikes are not transparant.

[bbanjar]

I think you are missing the point.

The UID process could quite easily be set up to provide some visible indication of a member who has abused the system and not had it reflected in his feedback rating.

I realise that removing the means of sellers giving neutral or negative feedback avoids nasty exchanges or possible defamation cases, but it hasn't been repla\ced with anything that provides a visible indication of members who have not honoured their obligations.

The UID process could provide such objective rather than subjective feedback.

From an occasional sellers point of view, the fear of having someone damage ones public feedback rating is the motivation to ensure the buyers interests as well as your own are protected.

Protecting ones public reputation is a powerful motivator for most people in most walks of life I believe.

[*crikey*mate*]

I do understand all that you are saying. I don't think that any system is or will be perfect and all are open to abuse if one chooses.

I still don't understand how a visible indication of a members non payment helps to protect a seller any more than the strike system does.

Why does it need to be visible?

What's on your mind with this statement? "The UID process could provide such objective rather than subjective feedback."

Knowing a buyer's feedback/unpaid item history, is not going to protect any seller from a BIN or last minute auction snipe if the seller doesn't have relevant blocks in place.

Don't get me wrong, I think it'd be great to have a visual representation and it might even make some non payers think twice before failing to honour their obligation, But I am still to be convinced that it would be of any great benefit if it is for the purpose of protecting a seller from a non payer or unfavourable feedback.

more than happy to learn though.

[bbanjar]

Your last paragraph provides answers to your earlier question regarding visibility. 

I do think that being identified as a non payer will be a deterrent for some of those considering not honouring their contract.

This form of self regulation is more likely to ensure a well behaved market place.

The statement ""The UID process could provide such objective rather than subjective feedback."  refers to the feedback system as it is as being very subjective, whereas if the UID process once completed provided some form of acknowledgement that such a dispute had been completed, that would be objective feedback and not able to be abused, merely factual information.

[*crikey*mate*]

ok, but how would the latter sit in with eBay's policy that disputes etc cannot be mentioned in feedback?

Feedback Policy Overview

and the strikes, whilst invisible, do provide acknowledgement that such a dispute was completed.

I can see benefit, I can, but the practicalities and the implementation and management of it would be enormous. So many "what if" scenarios. legitimate reasons why people may be unable to go through with a purchase. Not serial non payers, but the innocent "old ladies' who don't understand how the system works when they first start using, the inexperienced eBayer, those that face difficulties following a purchase, even though their intentions were good at the time. Honest mistakes (as in mis read an item description like our motor bike helmet guy). Do people like this deserve to be publically shamed and branded?

Even if we could see this, how does that stop the serial's. They'll just snipe or BIN.

Sure, if we could see, we might accidentally come across some red flags as we puruse other people's feedback, or it may provide encourage people to alert other people on the boards....

but something is happening atm, not sure what, but something is. eBay are "hiding" feedback and purchases etc, and I do believe that they would have just cause to do this - are there some kind of new privacy laws? a lot of disputes surrounding this where eBay may be held liable? I don't know, but I don't believe that they're doing this to purposely try and be secretive or some hidden overt profit driven agenda. There are changes happening, and whilst we may not know why, there has to be a reason.

if anything, eBay would want as much information as possible to be available to the Trading Board members, simply because they rely on the answers and guidance provided on the social forums to direct traffic away from their call centres and customer support.

The less transparent that the information is, the more workload is placed on the call centres and this costs eBay money.