Ebay changes their feedback system

[STL]

I think it makes sense to an extent. Sellers are the ones trying to sell and they have the obligation to ensure they satisfy the customer so that eBay continues to be a viable forum for the sale of goods.

THe problem though is how do you as a buyer get rated? THe seller should be able to check that the guy has at least 10 feedback or something. If the guy has zero then tooder-loo.

The most important part still is getting what you paid for. To that extent, I think Paypal and eBay need to look at their limited dispute resolution mechanisms. I mean complaining through eBay can be a massive pain when u've paid for items via bank deposit yet bank deposit is an understandably much more preferable medium to sellers as well as for buyers who don't want to dip into their credit card and be responsible with their expenditures.

So I don't think it goes far enough but it's a start.

[1orion2many]

I can understand the sellers not being able to use negative feedback as a weapon against the buyers for giving them negative feedback but they should be able to access the negative for a person that renigs on paying for an item.

[iceburn]

i will give a BIG THUMBS UP!!!!

[i_amtrunks]

I think it would've been better to make the seller give feedback first, since once the Buyer has paid, the buyer has done their part of the deal.
I know I have been given negative rating for the sole reason that I gave a negative rating to the seller.

Of course that would more than likely lead to buyers giving sellers retaliatory negative feedback.

[Adzma]

I think it would've been better to make the seller give feedback first, since once the Buyer has paid, the buyer has done their part of the deal.

That's what I've always wanted eBay to do. This new system is going to be good, but if the buyer genuienly deservers a negative rating, then there could be a problem. There are several rare occasions when I have been cheated by a seller, but I don't leave negative feedback purely because they would simply give me a negative rating. I'm sure eBay will refine this policy after some initial testing if they see fit.

[griffin]

If a buyer doesn't pay for an item, the seller reports them and ebay can remove them - so the claim that sellers won't be able to weed out bad buyers is false. If sellers aren't able to leave feedback against buyers, we will actually see weeding out of bad sellers, because buyers are too afraid that they will get retaliatory negative feedback in return.

I think it would've been better to make the seller give feedback first, since once the Buyer has paid, the buyer has done their part of the deal.

I asked ebay if they could make a rule for when a feedback standoff occurs, that the seller gives it first, since the buyer earnt it first. They responded to say that people don't have to leave feedback, so they weren't going to have anything in their help guide about it.

If they do change the feedback system to prevent sellers from giving feedback (forcing them to report legitimate issues instead), I'd certainly start leaving feedback to the sellers who deserve it, both good and bad.

[dirge]

I think it makes sense to an extent. Sellers are the ones trying to sell and they have the obligation to ensure they satisfy the customer so that eBay continues to be a viable forum for the sale of goods.

This is the crux of it for me. When the dust settles, a buyer being ripped off loses a lot more than a seller who has a non-paying bidder. Keeping in mind that sellers have the option of selling to the second highest bidder and are able to relist items, I don't think sellers stand to lose anywhere near as much as buyers.

I do agree with the comments above that sellers should be forced to leave feedback first, but the changes being outlined are still an improvement on the current system. The current system has evolved into one where sellers have left buyers unable to warn other buyers about bad sellers. I'd rather sellers having to relist than buyers being straight out ripped off and unable to say anything because of manipulative sellers.

[Soundwarp]

This is the crux of it for me. When the dust settles, a buyer being ripped off loses a lot more than a seller who has a non-paying bidder. Keeping in mind that sellers have the option of selling to the second highest bidder and are able to relist items, I don't think sellers stand to lose anywhere near as much as buyers.

I do agree with the comments above that sellers should be forced to leave feedback first, but the changes being outlined are still an improvement on the current system. The current system has evolved into one where sellers have left buyers unable to warn other buyers about bad sellers. I'd rather sellers having to relist than buyers being straight out ripped off and unable to say anything because of manipulative sellers.

I think it will work.

[jaydisc]

It would be great if feedback was kept confidential until both parties completed it. That way, the concept of retaliation would ideally go away.

I always agreed with most of you that the seller should give feedback once the money has been received, but I do think that how a buyer handles a bum situation should also be evaluated.

As a seller, quite often I write my buyer afterwards asking if everything was OK. This has gotten a tremendously positive reaction and should hopefully thwart off any potentially negative feelings brewing or at least give me a chance to resolve.

It's tough to find the perfect solution. However, I think experimentation and change will only get us closer.

[Adzma]

It's tough to find the perfect solution. However, I think experimentation and change will only get us closer.

Yep, that's what it all boils down to.