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)

[mia_store]

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?

You're right. I am a novice seller. Now I've learned.

[2011emc2]

At this point, no one is advocating a return to the old system where buyers were subjected to dishonest and malicious feedback from unscrupulous sellers.

I support sellers having the ability to block NPBs, although I would prefer that (a) clear instructions about blocking NPBs be included in eBay’s ‘Selling - Getting Started’ guide and (b) sellers be allowed to block any NPB, not just those who have done a runner on two transactions.

This still does not change my premise. NPBs should just not be walking around with ‘100% positive’ FB ratings. I find it interesting that the same person who says ‘throw the book’ at sellers who leave false positives (about non-payment, no less) then says ‘heaven forbid’ NPs be allowed to spoil the perfect 100% positive FB ratings of NPBs.

I have yet to hear a good reason why NPs should not be factored into FB rating calculations. I’d support eBay factoring these in, so it’s clear that there’s been due process and no malice involved. I’d also support placing a mark such as a dollar sign with a line through it (thx viewmont1071) where it’s clearly visible to the rest of the community. Again, I’d support eBay putting the mark there so it’s clear that there’s been due process and no malice involved.

I think these changes would give the FB system more transparency, consistency and integrity.

[2011emc2]

digital*ghost wrote:

“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.”

So much to be wary of on eBay! I would totally support a FB system that warns sellers about these kinds of buyer behaviours as well as NPBs.

[digital*ghost]

I have yet to hear a good reason why NPs should not be factored into FB rating calculations.

.

Sorry - I alluded to it but did not expand on it... Because it maintains a certain level of buyer confidence in the site. That in itself has pros and cons, but contrary to the theory that "sellers pay the fees", it's buyers who pay the fees (with the exception of any insertion fees due on an unsold item, but the way eBay is now set up, if you're running consistent sales - enough to be paying insertion fees - you're effectively running a business whether you define it that way or not, and as such should be factoring such costs into selling prices...IMO, at least), the end result of which is that, as a member who doesn't currently participate in the forums once noted: Buyers [ultimately] pay for everything, therefore they are given priority preference by eBay.

They are given an environment where they feel confident to continue to spend money, even if they don't pay for every single purchase.

Yes, the suggestion behind that is that a visual record alters buyer behaviours, but the one eBay seek to prevent is not returning to the site. I know some will say "good riddance" in regards to a NPB, but it's based on the assumption that one seller's NPB won't become every seller's NPB. I would suspect that the number of active members who purchase and never pay for anything is low enough to be inconsequential, therefore there is some value both to sellers and eBay for keeping the rest here - not having a visual record of non-payment is one of the ways they do it.

[davewil1964]

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.

Indeed, pj, I'm using one now.

My point was that experienced sellers don't generally advocate a return to the old system, so I really don't understand what you are quoting me in reference to.

[the3coopers]

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.

This is the really important thing - bad buyers simply DO NOT CARE if they get negatives or not. Look at the two deadbeats who've been identified in this thread - they just keep buying, don't they?

And for those who wish to block buyers who have Negs, consider this... Let's say there is a shonky seller who cops a Negative because they made a really good buyer's life hell for them during a transaction. So, in retaliation, that shonky seller leaves a Negative for the buyer that says "Non Payer - AVOID"...

OK now, would you deal with that (negged) buyer or not? (and remember, you have absolutely no way of determining if the Non-Payment is true or not)

[the3coopers]

Have a look at this clown. i had to block him to stop him bidding on one of my items

(ID removed)

With no ramification why would you try to protect your feedback score.

Why not simply set in place the Buyer Requirements to block these kinds of people?

There ARE ramifications for non-payers - they are BLOCKED from buying from me. What about you, why do you need to manually check each bidder?

[viewmont1071]

Why not simply set in place the Buyer Requirements to block these kinds of people?

There ARE ramifications for non-payers - they are BLOCKED from buying from me. What about you, why do you need to manually check each bidder?

Because some sellers prefer to check manually especiallly smaller sellers that have the time.

The plain fact is ebays unpaid item system and policy is not being followed by many sellers  both experienced and in experienced........ by controlling those sellers that issue negative positives and would prefer "the mark"  ie $ with the comment NON payiing bidder    but only after they  raise and finalize a non paying bidders dispute..... then the strike system will work better for those that use it now and have their blocks in place ......................... over 80% of those (buyers and sellers) members  that have voted in the poll agree.

Sorry - I alluded to it but did not expand on it... Because it maintains a certain level of buyer confidence in the site. That in itself has pros and cons, but contrary to the theory that "sellers pay the fees",

A member lists an item 10 times .... it does not sell..............who pays the fees??

[digital*ghost]

Sorry - I alluded to it but did not expand on it... Because it maintains a certain level of buyer confidence in the site. That in itself has pros and cons, but contrary to the theory that "sellers pay the fees",

A member lists an item 10 times .... it does not sell..............who pays the fees??

Any particular reason you didn't quote me in full? You know, the bit where I said....

with the exception of any insertion fees due on an unsold item,

There was a but in there, too. To avoid further issues, I'll reiterate that part as well.

If you're a casual seller, it's likely (but not a given) that no one is paying listing fees for unsold items. If you're not eligible for free listings, then you likely (though again, it's definitely not a given) that you have the wherewithall to factor the costs of selling into the practice of selling. One of the costs of selling is listing fees on unsold items. If you're factoring that into your prices, guess who's paying them?

In other words, at the end of the day, you're supposed to make a profit, and that only happens if the buyer pays for everything.

[viewmont1071]

In other words, at the end of the day, you're supposed to make a profit, and that only happens if the buyer pays for everything.

That is if youi treat ebay as a business

Some casual sellers especially collectors will run at a loss..... not everybody is here for "business"

Would  a Non paying bidder acknowledgement mark left on a members  feedback trigger members that currently leave negative positives to use the NPB system??

yes or no

.................... Do you think those members that leave negative positives could be put into the same category that others put NPB into in that they do not care re ebay policy and will continue to leave negative positives??

yes or no

Those members that leave negative positives can also be buyers. How does limiting that members account or closing it equate with promoting buyer confidence or numbers??

Why is it that the members poll numbers appeared skewed towards the bottom two options???