Should sellers be able to leave negative feedback for non-payments?

[2011emc2]

As a first-time seller, I had a buyer who didn't pay and didn't bother to contact me or respond to my emails. I opened an ‘Unpaid Item’ case, which again got no response, and closed the case today.

Yet the only feedback option available to me was to leave 'Positive' feedback for this buyer.

Really, eBay???

This 'buyer' still has a '100% positive' feedback rating on eBay. How is this honest or fair? Shouldn't a feedback system allow members of a community to comment on their actual dealings with people in that community?

Little wonder some sellers try to sneak in negative comments using the positive feedback option, to try to warn other unsuspecting sellers. Yet eBay deletes these from buyers' profiles.

I think eBay should change its feedback policy in order to allow equal footing for buyers and sellers. So sellers would be allowed to either: (a) leave negative feedback - if only for non-payment; or (b) automaticallly note non-payments into each buyer's feedback profile, so these are clear for all to see.

It's not a problem to demonstrate that a buyer hasn't paid. Why not give sellers the same rights as buyers to leave honest feedback? Wouldn't everyone benefit?

I didn't ship the item because payment never arrived or cleared.  Still, what a negative experience, especially the shocking attitude toward sellers whose fees sustain and enrich eBay.

What is your opinion on eBay's feedback policy for sellers?

(Newbies: FB = feedback, NP = non-payment)

[the3coopers]

Sellers should have right to know such buyer and put them in black list.

It is totally and utterly impractical to read and verify the feedback of buyers before they prurchase. So, even if that buyer had 1,000 Negs, you couldn't stop them from buying from you.

However, EVERY seller has the ability to block non-payers. The blockage works for ALL bad buyers, and it's completely automatic. You don't have to read feedback, you don't have to do a thing!

I am assuming that you don't have the "Non-Payer-Block" set up, which is why you are getting so wound up about the whole thing, correct?

[davewil1964]

I find it interesting that it is usually low FB, hence presumably inexperienced, sellers who advocate this daily.

If any of them bothered to scroll through the first page here, they would find threads already addressing this. And the same answers.

[2011emc2]

lane ends -

I agree that it’s best to avoid meaningless and negative tit-for-tats. I think that would be prevented if eBay automatically factored the non-payment into the buyer's feedback profile and barred them from leaving feedback about that seller.

phorum junkie -

That is why the rules need to be changed. My premise is that profiles should accurately reflect each member’s behaviour in their dealings on eBay. Is that really controversial? Like you, I don’t have a desire to break the rules. What I really want is to change the rules. It is manifestly unfair that sellers who indicate non-payment from buyers - using the very limited means at their disposal - are punished by eBay while buyers who don’t pay get to keep their 100% positive feedback profile. On top of that, other sellers are not warned about their behaviour ... and isn't that the point of feedback?

mia_store -

Thanks for your response and for giving an excellent example of a deadbeat buyer. Why should these sellers have to risk being slapped with a violation to warn others about a buyer who just wastes everyone’s time?

[2011emc2]

coops -

It would be outrageous for a seller to be forced to deal with a buyer who has ‘1,000 negs’. That’s even worse than the woefully deficient feedback system ... and in fact defeats the entire purpose of having feedback.

It’s worth noting that sellers can only block buyers who have refused to pay on two occasions. I would like to block all non-payers, or least be able to tell who they are from their feedback ratings.

davewil1964 -

It’s not important whether this has been brought up before or whether it was brought up by new sellers. What’s important is that the discussion arrives at the correct conclusion and that eBay keeps hearing it from more and more of us. It seems like common sense that feedback profiles should accurately reflect the behaviour of members.

[davewil1964]

However, the current system is better than the previous system, which you seem to be advocating.

Almost all of my items are BIN. In fact only 22,000 out of 9,000,000 (approx 0.25%) items in the category I sell in are auction only. How would negative buyer feedback help any of the 99.75% vet buyers? Or the 0.25% when the buyer bids right at the end? Setting blocks for NPBs does.

Which way is better? Well, experienced sellers seem to prefer the current regime, so that might have some relevance to the discussion.

And eBay rarely read the boards, so if you think this thread will even get looked at, much less sway their thinking, I suspect you will be disappointed.

[2011emc2]

davewil1964 -

The feedback rating is the only information we have when deciding whether or not to enter into a transaction with another member of the eBay community. To quote eBay directly (http://pages.ebay.com.au/services/forum/feedback.html):

“For each transaction, buyers and sellers can rate each other by leaving Feedback. Each Feedback consists of a positive, negative, or neutral rating, and a short comment … Leaving honest comments about a particular eBay member gives other Community members a good idea of what to expect when dealing with that member.”

So eBay 'sells' FB as a useful and meaningful mechanism that promotes fairness and honest dealings between members, then ensures that it cannot work as it's supposed to work.

I am not actually advocating the previous system (or indeed the system described above by eBay). To quote my first response to coops:

“I would not support any system that allows dishonest or malicious feedback in any form … I think I would still support having NPs recorded and figured into the buyer’s profile by eBay, once it has been established that the buyer did not pay for the item. This would prevent malicious feedback from unscrupulous sellers, while making the system more fair, accurate and accountable for everyone’s benefit.”

Pulling rank is not particularly relevant or convincing. So what if I’m a new seller? My premise is still valid: NPs should be factored into a buyer’s feedback rating. How absurd that such important and relevant FB is systemically excluded, leaving non-paying buyers to maintain 100% positive FB ratings.

And it appears that sellers more experienced than either of us do care about NPs and do take calculated risks to warn others - follow the link provided in the above response posted by mia_store.

[rumplebear1951]

The feedback rating is the only information we have when deciding whether or not to enter into a transaction with another member of the eBay community

If all sellers had their non paying bidder blocks in place then buyer feedback would be irrelevant...they simply would not be able to bid on your items in the first place.

The only reason that sellers get away with leaving false positives is because most buyers do not realise that they can report them.

Just as an aside...don't ever assume that feedback rating of posters on these forums equates with experience.

[viewmont1071]

It appears that many members in the forum microcosm  would prefer that NPB strikes wre at least acknowledged ie

after a non paying bidder dispute is raised and ebay in it's sole discretion issues the strike that if it was recorded either by a running count or by a $ sign with a cross through it and an unemotional non paying bidder then ebays strike system will work better

It would work better because those that leave negative positives now would be more likely to raise a dispute ( not that we know that they do not raise a npb dispute) so that they could see "the mark" on the NPB feedback.

It would not take long for those that rarely or those that never ever review ebay's policies to  seek information as how to leave "the mark."

More members opening NPB disputes means that the automatic blocks can work better.... the lookers could look the blockers could block......simple 😐

Some people need transparency to support a system and also need to see results before they are convinced to follow suit.

That is just human nature.

[phorum_junkie*]

I find it interesting that it is usually low FB, hence presumably inexperienced, sellers who advocate this daily.

Have you never heard of posting ids?

Most, if not all of the sellers who prefer the new system have selling ids, mine have well over 2,000 feedback between them and that is tiny compared to some you are referring to.

Most of us also were selling under the old system so know that this way is better.

If sellers go through the unpaid item process and also have their buyer blocks in place then anyone who doesn't pay more than once cannot bid on/buy any of your items.

[digital*ghost]

The feedback rating is the only information we have when deciding whether or not to enter into a transaction with another member of the eBay community.

In the grand scheme of things (as in, on a per transaction basis), the percentage of transactions that occur on eBay where one has the opportunity to decide if they'll enter into a transaction with a buyer is minimal.

Certain blocks can be put in place to prevent it entirely, but if a block doesn't take effect, the only circumstances in which you can decide if a buyer makes a purchase from you is a) if they have been blocked and send a request to be allowed to buy, b) if you're running an auction and they bid with enough time left to enable you to peruse their profile and cancel the bid if desired, c) submit an offer via one of the listing formats that allows it.

In all other circumstances, you don't get a choice. They bid/buy and you are automatically entered into a transaction with the other person. As eBay do not have a system you can use that relies - in part - on a visual element to be able to block someone, which is why the visual element is often considered inconsequential, or impractical - as has been noted by several members already, though I do think viewmont makes a valid point in terms of what motivates people to participate in a system that leaves a visual record.

Personally, I don't care about a visual record of payment history. NPBs take up so little of my time and I wouldn't increase it by looking at their profile - an action that won't make them pay after they've purchased my item, anyway. If there was to be any visual system that allows sellers to protect themselves from certain buyer behaviours, NPBs are way down the end of the list in terms of my own priorities. Fraudulent chargebacks & PayPal claims, feedback extortion and/or other attempts to negotiate additional terms post-purchase and a few other things would be much higher. But I also know that "good" buyers often fear negative feedback, and "bad" buyers generally don't, so the changes it would bring about might not benefit sellers the way you think.