eBay Feedback Changes: What do you think?

[ZeroXMarquis]

I was having this conversation with a friend, and thought it would be interesting to hear others opinions on the matter. I'm not quite sure whether this has already been brought up (did a quick search, nothing came up), or if this in the wrong section - if so, a mod can correct this as they deem necessary.

Anywho, eBay proposes to eliminate a seller's ability to leave feedback to the buyer. The idea is that if seller's can't leave feedback, there's no fear for retaliatory feedback from the seller if the buyer feels that the seller deserves something less than positive. Effectively, they believe this will make feedback scores more honest.

Although some people I talk to sincerely disagree, I think this is a great idea. I can recall several instances where I felt forced to leave positive feedback when something worse was required, or actually did leave negative feedback, only to get retaliatory feedback followed by a mutual removal email; I can't even count the times I've received "we will leave feedback after you leave feedback for us" with the package, which is bullshit.

On the flipside, this I think will only work if the seller gets paid via Paypal, and I think that's ultimately why eBay is doing what they're doing: Promote their own company through forced assurance, which is also bullshit. Though the vast majority of people on eBay use Paypal, those that opt to shouldn't feel obligated to do so for a worry free transaction (on their end).

While I agree with the change, I think it isn't without it's faults. There isn't anything stopping a buyer from leaving negative feedback even if everything went okay. For example, let's say I buy something off nbafreak(XXX) and while he shipped everything as described to me in a timely manner, secured, I may know who he or she is, not like them, and spitefully leave feedback as just a "fuck you" The only protection the seller has is the HOPE that I do this consistently to good sellers, and eBay can notice some sort of trend to have it removed... which is again, bullshit.

So, what are your thoughts?

[Outatime]

Yea i'm not sure about the whole thing really. I mean I'm a seller and sometimes I get these buyers that are just douchebags. If they are unhappy with their item, and are irritated enough to "make it an issue" then I'll refund their money. In my opinion, if the item is not something you were happy with, but the seller communicated with you and gave you a refund, I believe they deserve a positive feedback. If you think about it, the buyer gets their money back and there's no harm done. So I'm not sure I understand it meriting a neutral feedback. I've also had transactions where the buyer takes FOREVER to pay. Other sellers out there deserve to know that that person is a slow payer. I've never felt "bullied" into giving a positive feedback so I'm not really in the same boat as those people. Ebay knows what they're doing...I guess

[The_Emperor]

How will buyers be able to build up their feedback if seller's can't leave feedback for them?

[flip_dude]

I leave feedback after the buyer leaves feedback to make sure they are happy with the whole transaction. If I leave feedback after the item was paid, and they were somehow unhappy with the product (i.e. defective item in sealed package), they might give me a negative. But what I can do is exchange the item for a working one. In the end they will be happy and leave me a positive, rather than a negative for something I couldn't control. I've been selling for years and years and have maintained a 100% positive feedback rating.

Also, the way my system is set up, positive feedback is automatically left for those who leave me positive feedback.

[ZeroXMarquis]

How will buyers be able to build up their feedback if seller's can't leave feedback for them?

Buyers will automatically get a positive point. I think the seller can still make a comment, but the blip will be green.

[The_Emperor]

Buyers will automatically get a positive point. I think the seller can still make a comment, but the blip will be green.

If that's the case, then I'd have to agree with this new system.

So simply sending payment will result in positive feedback for the buyer... they've done their part of the transaction so it totally makes sense. Afterall, that's all the buyer is obligated to do so positive feedback is deserved at this point.

Lots of sellers hold feedback hostage and so, like it was said above, the feedback left does not truly reflect how the deal went. Rarely do I encounter sellers who leave feedback immediately after receiving payment. I understand sellers want to protect their feedback, but buyers also want to protect themselves too. This new system could show buyers the true colors of a seller.

But really... if you're a good seller, then what difference does it make? If you've got nothing to hide, then it should be no problem. Regarding defective items (as flip_dude mentioned), I think a reasonable person would contact the seller and notify them of the situation first before leaving a negative feedback out of impulse and frustration. This is what I've always done and always will do (though it's only happened to me once).

[GekiWolf]

This sounds really good, but will this only affect the US eBay, or will it be international?

[Outatime]

If that's the case, then I'd have to agree with this new system.

So simply sending payment will result in positive feedback for the buyer... they've done their part of the transaction so it totally makes sense. Afterall, that's all the buyer is obligated to do so positive feedback is deserved at this point.

Lots of sellers hold feedback hostage and so, like it was said above, the feedback left does not truly reflect how the deal went. Rarely do I encounter sellers who leave feedback immediately after receiving payment. I understand sellers want to protect their feedback, but buyers also want to protect themselves too. This new system could show buyers the true colors of a seller.

But really... if you're a good seller, then what difference does it make? If you've got nothing to hide, then it should be no problem.

I have a negative feedback from some German guy who didn't speak English. He couldn't pay me, and left ME a negative feedback because I left him one for not paying. I mean it was only one negative transaction, but all it took was that one negative to make it so that i don't have 100% positive feedback. I agree with Ben on waiting until the transaction is 100% complete before giving positive feedback. There are too many "what ifs". Case in point I have a buyer right now in the UK who purchased two items from me, and he hasn't received the first one I sent out. As the seller, it's my responsibility to get the item shipped out to him and provide him with a customs number. Once that's happened, it's up to the mailing service to get it to him. If there's some sort of problem with the mailing system, it won't matter to him because he'll have his positive feedback, open a paypal dispute with me and probably get his money back. And I'm left with a negative feedback for something that's out of my control. I dunno.

[Stinging Scorpina]

eBay and PayPal have gone to shit in the past year with all their changes.

eBay is trying to pull the "Seller's can't leave feedback" that Amazon has always (to my acknowledge) been doing. They must be getting tired of having to remove some of the messages that go to far. I've seen a lot of court shows with eBayers suing each other and they always make the point to say "He/She also left me a rude comment saying I was a bad seller/buyer!" The most recent one I seen was "She posted on my feedback page that I was a foreigner!"

I was watching an eBay special on TV a few months ago and they were talking about all of these users complaining and filing complaints.. and how Meg Whitman (President of eBay) has been selling her eBay stock. Some of the folks on the special said they don't think eBay will be around in 5-10 more years.

[ZeroXMarquis]

Some of the folks on the special said they don't think eBay will be around in 5-10 more years.

Doubtful, extremely doubtful. eBay is still highly profitable, and the brand name its created over the last 15 or so years, plus there's very little competition and the fact that a seller won't be able to get as much as they could for a particular item (on average) had they not listed on eBay... eBay may be rough around the edges, but it'll be around for quite some time.

[Zenoff64]

I have a negative feedback from some German guy who didn't speak English. He couldn't pay me, and left ME a negative feedback because I left him one for not paying.

But ebay revokes that feedback if they verify the seller did not pay. I've had them revoked 3 time in the past because the buyers were being complete idiots.

[Outatime]

But ebay revokes that feedback if they verify the seller did not pay. I've had them revoked 3 time in the past because the buyers were being complete idiots.


I contacted them, they said there was "nothing they could do about it". That's why it's still in my feedback. I explained the situation, and was still assed out.

[Stinging Scorpina]

Doubtful, extremely doubtful. eBay is still highly profitable, and the brand name its created over the last 15 or so years, plus there's very little competition and the fact that a seller won't be able to get as much as they could for a particular item (on average) had they not listed on eBay... eBay may be rough around the edges, but it'll be around for quite some time.

I could actually careless if it went down or doesn't. I stopped using eBay all together. It brings more drama in one transaction than you could get here on this board in a year tops. :005: But it doesn't change the fact eBay has been getting a lot of negative comments in the public eye lately.

The funny thing is Meg said on the special they do their best and catch all of the fraud that goes on. Their staff is well trained. It's funny, because for almost 2 years I was selling Power Rangers and Sentai bootlegs and not one of them was "caught" or taken down.

They actually took down a legit auction for some PR toys I was selling because they toys hadn't been "released in the UK yet". LMAO.

Good fraud team. Very good.

[Garo]

I hate new ebayers who are not used to the feedback system. Instead of rating the transaction they rate the item. Which is why i go a neutral once. I still have 100% positive but ima bit concerned as to in the future if some newbiew gets an item of me and doesnt like itand gives the item a negative and it will ruin my perfect score.

I also leave positive feedback asoon as payment is recieved before i even post the item. As i see it if they have paid then thats all they need to do its up to me to make sure they get their item and are happy with it. I wont wait until they have it to leave feedback because they had already held their end of the bargain by paying. Personaly i see the " wait until they leave me positive feedback " thing as a bit sneeky. No offense to anybody that does that but it just seems like your waiting for them to not be happy so you can leave them a neutral or a negative despite the fact they may of paid you within 5 mins of auction end.

[A]

I could actually careless if it went down or doesn't. I stopped using eBay all together. It brings more drama in one transaction than you could get here on this board in a year tops. :005: But it doesn't change the fact eBay has been getting a lot of negative comments in the public eye lately.

Amen to that. Aside from some small items, practically all my shopping is done on YJ and I guess here. Personally, this particular change only gives more of a disadvantage to the seller because the buyer can easily leave a negative mark with no retaliation. I've run into numerous members who do things like that just for shits and giggles. I resolved two transactions in the past where that happened, so I know first hand. A helpful change would be to require the buyer to leave feedback first, and then the seller can proceed to say what he/she has to, and give the appropriate mark. Replying to feedback is nice, but almost all the time, both people involved say they weren't at fault.

[ZeroXMarquis]

I disagree A, the buyer should not under any circumstance have to leave feedback first. Once the buyer has paid, they've done what they're supposed to do. Sellers, especially bad ones, leave negative feedback as retaliation against people who have paid for their item. I agree that Buyers should have some type of accountability, but once the money is sent, especially something like Paypal that shows it was sent, the positive feedback should be left, and the buyer should get the last word.

[Lisa J]

Simple solution: Feedback can't be seen by either party until both have left feedback. That way, you don't know what they've said (and vice versa), so you're forced to be honest.

[ZeroXMarquis]

^^^

Friggin' brilliant. Some people would be paranoid, but still... that seems like the best compromise.

[Reimon Marika]

ebay's slogan should now be

"Let the seller beware!":shame::mad::P

[A]

I disagree A, the buyer should not under any circumstance have to leave feedback first. Once the buyer has paid, they've done what they're supposed to do. Sellers, especially bad ones, leave negative feedback as retaliation against people who have paid for their item. I agree that Buyers should have some type of accountability, but once the money is sent, especially something like Paypal that shows it was sent, the positive feedback should be left, and the buyer should get the last word.

I don't know, the amount of buyers who leave bad feedback in retaliation definitely outnumber the amount of sellers who do the same thing. The seller has no reason to leave bad feedback unless the buyer never pays. At the very least, they would retaliate because of a late payment. But once the money is sent, that doesn't really take the buyer off the hook. They may have completed the most important part of the transaction, but they can easily say they never received the item, or something of the like. Stepping out of the eBay world for a moment, when someone buys something from a store, and everything goes smoothly, they praise the store. They tell friends about it, recommend it, or whatever else. People pay, but they also get something in return. And the last part of the transaction is the buyer receiving their item(s). That completes everything. Once that occurs, they should be the ones to begin the feedback process. If the seller leaves feedback first, that leaves open the possibility of receiving a bad mark. I know it's the same vice versa, but it's even more of a possiblity because the person hasn't even received their item(s). Even if the seller does everything they're suppose to, the buyer could simply leave a negative. And that's that. If the buyer gives the mark to the seller first, then that pretty much assures the transaction was completed. Based on how it went, the seller would respond with the appropriate mark.

[ZeroXMarquis]

Snip

I know, but the exact thing could be said about sellers (you conceded this to be fair). What is a buyer to do if they don't get what they agreed to, and are out a sum of money? The seller shouldn't worry about receiving a bad mark if they've done their job right (delivery confirmation helps against the whole buyer not receiving the item problem). Your scenario only works when the buyer is leaving positive feedback; but when negative feedback is deserved, it's quite hard to leave it knowing that the person will just retaliate.

The solution is as simple as Lisa described.

[A]

I know, but the exact thing could be said about sellers (you conceded this to be fair). What is a buyer to do if they don't get what they agreed to, and are out a sum of money? The seller shouldn't worry about receiving a bad mark if they've done their job right (delivery confirmation helps against the whole buyer not receiving the item problem). Your scenario only works when the buyer is leaving positive feedback; but when negative feedback is deserved, it's quite hard to leave it knowing that the person will just retaliate.

The solution is as simple as Lisa described.

Delivery Confirmation is not a requirement, so having such a rule would be helpful, but we're looking at this in the general aspect (DC isn't always used). If they never receive and item, they first attempt to solve the problem by talking with the seller. If that results in nothing, then the negative mark is justified. Retaliation is expected either way. If the seller leaves feedback first (once payment arrives), and the buyer actually reveives the item(s), but claims he did not (keep in mind DC wasn't used), then the buyer would likely leave the negative mark while the seller loses out. Assuming the transaction is completed without any problems, the buyer should be first to leave feedback. It marks the fact that the transaction was completed (the buyer received their item(s)). When the seller receives the payment, that's only one half of the transaction.

[Peter]

Although some people I talk to sincerely disagree, I think this is a great idea. I can recall several instances where I felt forced to leave positive feedback when something worse was required, or actually did leave negative feedback, only to get retaliatory feedback followed by a mutual removal email; I can't even count the times I've received "we will leave feedback after you leave feedback for us" with the package, which is bullshit.

But see, I think that's a good idea. That way the buyer can't blackmail the seller with the threat of negative feedback (which has happened to me).

As a buyer, you should leave feedback for the person anyway. I totally agree with A on that one.

[flip_dude]

One time, an eBayer left me Neutral feedback because his airmail items arrived on the 12th day when it was stated that the average time was 7-10 days. At least the neutral didn't affect my 100%.

But that could have easily been a negative from him/her.

[ZeroXMarquis]

Delivery Confirmation is not a requirement, so having such a rule would be helpful, but we're looking at this in the general aspect (DC isn't always used). If they never receive and item, they first attempt to solve the problem by talking with the seller. If that results in nothing, then the negative mark is justified. Retaliation is expected either way. If the seller leaves feedback first (once payment arrives), and the buyer actually reveives the item(s), but claims he did not (keep in mind DC wasn't used), then the buyer would likely leave the negative mark while the seller loses out. Assuming the transaction is completed without any problems, the buyer should be first to leave feedback. It marks the fact that the transaction was completed (the buyer received their item(s)). When the seller receives the payment, that's only one half of the transaction.

There's no reason for a seller not to use delivery confirmation UNLESS they're shipping out of country, and even then, there are shipment methods that include it... so, if a seller doesn't use it and they get screwed, lesson learned. The transaction is supposed to be completed when the seller leaves feedback, not the other way around. The buyer is the first to put himself on the line, and is supposed to be the first to be commented on. You can argue against that logic (as it is flawed contingent on persepective) but it is eBay's logic. The buyer's responsibility is to pay for the item - once that's done, they're supposed to be ranked positively or negatively, not whether or not the transaction is completed, as the onus to complete the transaction falls on the seller (and if all goes well, they get a positive mark).

The buyer was never meant to leave feedback first, and that you argue that a buyer should expect to receive negative feedback if they leave it (or vise versa) only shows how flawed the feedback system really is. The new proposed system probably will result in more honest feedback.

[A]

One time, an eBayer left me Neutral feedback because his airmail items arrived on the 12th day when it was stated that the average time was 7-10 days. At least the neutral didn't affect my 100%.

But that could have easily been a negative from him/her.

And what did you leave him/her? I'm sure it was probably neutral/negative, unless you already had left positive feedback (one of the flaws I pointed out).

There's no reason for a seller not to use delivery confirmation UNLESS they're shipping out of country, and even then, there are shipment methods that include it... so, if a seller doesn't use it and they get screwed, lesson learned. The transaction is supposed to be completed when the seller leaves feedback, not the other way around. The buyer is the first to put himself on the line, and is supposed to be the first to be commented on. You can argue against that logic (as it is flawed contingent on persepective) but it is eBay's logic. The buyer's responsibility is to pay for the item - once that's done, they're supposed to be ranked positively or negatively, not whether or not the transaction is completed, as the onus to complete the transaction falls on the seller (and if all goes well, they get a positive mark).

The buyer was never meant to leave feedback first, and that you argue that a buyer should expect to receive negative feedback if they leave it (or vise versa) only shows how flawed the feedback system really is. The new proposed system probably will result in more honest feedback.

There is a reason for the seller not to use Confirmation, and that's the simple fact that it's a personal choice. Unless it was required, there's no reason for a seller to use it. Now I was referring to the physical transaction between the two. It's completed once the buyer receives their item(s). The feedback merely completes the eBay aspect of it all. But once the buyer receives their thing(s), it's their duty to notify the seller. Feedback is apart of this. And it's not the buyers that put themselves on the line, nor is that eBay's logic. If it was their logic, sellers would be required to leave feedback first. The seller is taking a chance once the highest bidder wins their item(s). Listing fees have already been paid by that time, and thus, the seller's money along with their item(s) are both on the line. Once the buyer pays, it's their duty to inform the seller, as well as everyone else that they received the item(s) safely. If their job was over, we would never hear from buyers again.

I never argued the feedback system on eBay wasn't flawed. In fact I'm pointing out what would actually make it better. It's common sense for someone to expect a negative mark if they leave that type of feedback to a user who can still leave feedback themselves.

[Lisa J]

Y'know....all this "who comes first, who comes second" wouldn't be an issue if either party didn't know what feedback they received until both of them leave feedback. All you would get is a notice saying that feedback was given on a certain transaction, but not told exactly what kind of feedback. Sim. ple.

[Zenoff64]

Y'know....all this "who comes first, who comes second" wouldn't be an issue if either party didn't know what feedback they received until both of them leave feedback. All you would get is a notice saying that feedback was given on a certain transaction, but not told exactly what kind of feedback. Sim. ple.

Thats actually pretty brilliant. The only possible flaw is that the percentage change would be noticable, even if the rating is not. And if they chose to not have the percentage to change untill the other feedback was left, the user could choose not to leave feedback at all to avoid potential negatives if their feedback was already acceptable.

[Crazy Firebird]

Y'kno, of the 26 or so feedbacks I've gotten through eBay, I've only gotten 1 negative from a bitch of a seller who did NOT believe the truth of my being away from the internet over my birthday back in '06 and said I was making things up and trying to bullshit her out of a payment.

I had sent positive feedback to her on Jan 10th 2006, she left negative feedback to me and Jan 29th 2006, long after I tried paying her for the item and explaining my week or so of no replies to emails as I was over 200k's from my computer and my laptop did not have a internet connection for me to get said emails and act on them whilst I was stuck at my mother's place over my birthday.
And there was no way I could get out of being stuck there for that week or atleast get access to my mother's internet to check up on things regarding that purchase.

Now, does that sound fair? A person stuck without internet access for a week or so comes home to find his inbox loaded with emails complaining about why they haven't sent payment yet, tries to get in contact with the seller and calmly explain the situation, to which the seller cries "Bullshit!" and doesn't care to hear the buyer's side of the story.

[Lisa J]

Thats actually pretty brilliant. The only possible flaw is that the percentage change would be noticable, even if the rating is not. And if they chose to not have the percentage to change untill the other feedback was left, the user could choose not to leave feedback at all to avoid potential negatives if their feedback was already acceptable.

It would be that the feedback would not go into effect until both parties do what they have to do. After that, the percentage and score will be effected.

I remember when I first signed onto eBay to buy things, and I'd always leave feedback for the seller, but they did not do so in return. So I appeared to be a newbie for quite sometime. That's annoying, especially when I paid for my crap very quickly. Now I don't have that problem so much, but it still happens to many folks.

[Lisa J]

Y'kno, of the 26 or so feedbacks I've gotten through eBay, I've only gotten 1 negative from a bitch of a seller who did NOT believe the truth of my being away from the internet over my birthday back in '06 and said I was making things up and trying to bullshit her out of a payment.

I had sent positive feedback to her on Jan 10th 2006, she left negative feedback to me and Jan 29th 2006, long after I tried paying her for the item and explaining my week or so of no replies to emails as I was over 200k's from my computer and my laptop did not have a internet connection for me to get said emails and act on them whilst I was stuck at my mother's place over my birthday.
And there was no way I could get out of being stuck there for that week or atleast get access to my mother's internet to check up on things regarding that purchase.

Now, does that sound fair? A person stuck without internet access for a week or so comes home to find his inbox loaded with emails complaining about why they haven't sent payment yet, tries to get in contact with the seller and calmly explain the situation, to which the seller cries "Bullshit!" and doesn't care to hear the buyer's side of the story.
If I'm going to be out of town for a week (or even a few days), I would let the seller know beforehand.

Second, imagine that you're a seller and you hear BS excuses for taking a while to pay for an item all the time. It gets frustrating after while.

But lastly, if you did pay her after the week or so, I would have left a neutral feedback. The transaction did go through, but it took longer than expected. I think that's fair enough.

[Crazy Firebird]

Not even ~I~ knew that I was going to be out of town for a ~week~ over my birthday, I assumed it was only going to be for 1 day, 2 at the most.

As for the payment, I never got around to getting it done as she refused to give me the bank detail to send a Direct Deposit (my only form of payment at the time until I finally got Paypal around March '06) as she kept crying "Bullshit" over each of my emails in which I calmly told her the truth about being stuck without a internet connection to check my emails and send payment.

In the end I could have taken it to eBay for a mutual withdrawal of feedback and cut connections with her over her withholding information for payment, but not knowing how to do so at the time I didn't.

[Reimon Marika]

they definately seem to be protecting the buyers over the sellers though...

[Lisa J]

Not even ~I~ knew that I was going to be out of town for a ~week~ over my birthday, I assumed it was only going to be for 1 day, 2 at the most.

As for the payment, I never got around to getting it done as she refused to give me the bank detail to send a Direct Deposit (my only form of payment at the time until I finally got Paypal around March '06) as she kept crying "Bullshit" over each of my emails in which I calmly told her the truth about being stuck without a internet connection to check my emails and send payment.

In the end I could have taken it to eBay for a mutual withdrawal of feedback and cut connections with her over her withholding information for payment, but not knowing how to do so at the time I didn't.

Dude, I wouldn't give you my bank details either. I can withhold my personal info as much as I want except for my address (if you want to mail a payment). I don't know you. I don't know how you'd use my bank info.

Again, I think the negative feedback was harsh, but at the same time you have to understand where the buyer was coming from.

[Crazy Firebird]

Problem is, back then the ONLY way I could send payment (already had 2 successful Direct Deposit payments) was through Direct Deposit which requires a BSB number (xxx-xxx) to identify the bank of the payee, an account number for the payee and the payee account holder's name, along with the amount for the payment.

And looking at ~HER~ feedback ratings, apart from a single negative feedback in the past six months (as of today) she's got a perfect track record without a single failed transaction apart from the one she gave negative feedback to me for.

[ZeroXMarquis]

There is a reason for the seller not to use Confirmation, and that's the simple fact that it's a personal choice. Unless it was required, there's no reason for a seller to use it. Now I was referring to the physical transaction between the two. It's completed once the buyer receives their item(s). The feedback merely completes the eBay aspect of it all. But once the buyer receives their thing(s), it's their duty to notify the seller. Feedback is apart of this. And it's not the buyers that put themselves on the line, nor is that eBay's logic. If it was their logic, sellers would be required to leave feedback first. The seller is taking a chance once the highest bidder wins their item(s). Listing fees have already been paid by that time, and thus, the seller's money along with their item(s) are both on the line. Once the buyer pays, it's their duty to inform the seller, as well as everyone else that they received the item(s) safely. If their job was over, we would never hear from buyers again.

I never argued the feedback system on eBay wasn't flawed. In fact I'm pointing out what would actually make it better. It's common sense for someone to expect a negative mark if they leave that type of feedback to a user who can still leave feedback themselves.

But there is no reason not to use it. It doesn't come out of the pocket of the seller, so why in the world would they not use it? And sellers don't pay the fees right away (or at least they don't have to) and if they do, and they never receive money for it, they simply let eBay know and get it back. And while it maybe common sense to expect negative feedback if you leave it first, the point is that you shouldn't have to expect it. And you really need to read what eBay is proposing - it is their logic that buyers are supposed to be left feedback first... that's why they're taking a seller's right to leave feedback in the first place. eBay's main point is that the system hasn't changed in somewhat 12 years; 12 years ago Paypal wasn't as forefront, neither was delivery confirmation, or all the other things that protect a seller, so them leaving feedback made sense. Now, not so much, and that's why they're changing it (well, that's what they're telling people).

And again, all of this is moot. I can respect your opinion, but eBay seems to disagree. Lisa's suggestion by far is the best compromise, but I would assume its too late to make such a suggestion to the powers-that-be at eBay.

[flip_dude]

The delivery confirmation is free if you use Click-to-Ship or even Paypal's shipping. Also, but using an online shippign service, you get a slight discount on shipping overseas items. Personally, when sending from the USA, I only use Global Priority and Global EMS as those methods have serial numbers and can be traced.

[A]

Y'know....all this "who comes first, who comes second" wouldn't be an issue if either party didn't know what feedback they received until both of them leave feedback. All you would get is a notice saying that feedback was given on a certain transaction, but not told exactly what kind of feedback. Sim. ple.

Yeah, that would definitely work. But I think that the seller/buyer would still be able to leave a negative if they wanted to. You figure if the buyer contacts the seller, requesting to know where their item was and everything, the seller could assume that buyer would leave a bad mark, especially if the buyer never notifies him that it arrived. And thus, the situation would still end in two negatives. Your method is by far the best, but I guess the flaws will never completely disappear, lol.

But there is no reason not to use it. It doesn't come out of the pocket of the seller, so why in the world would they not use it? And sellers don't pay the fees right away (or at least they don't have to) and if they do, and they never receive money for it, they simply let eBay know and get it back. And while it maybe common sense to expect negative feedback if you leave it first, the point is that you shouldn't have to expect it. And you really need to read what eBay is proposing - it is their logic that buyers are supposed to be left feedback first... that's why they're taking a seller's right to leave feedback in the first place. eBay's main point is that the system hasn't changed in somewhat 12 years; 12 years ago Paypal wasn't as forefront, neither was delivery confirmation, or all the other things that protect a seller, so them leaving feedback made sense. Now, not so much, and that's why they're changing it (well, that's what they're telling people).

And again, all of this is moot. I can respect your opinion, but eBay seems to disagree. Lisa's suggestion by far is the best compromise, but I would assume its too late to make such a suggestion to the powers-that-be at eBay.

Don't ask me why certain people wouldn't use it, it's up to them. If it's just an option, not every seller will use it. And although the seller fees aren't paid right there and then, the seller is still being charged. If they get screwed, they will lose money, that was the point of bringing that up. Expecting something bad from someone you've done something bad to has been apart of humanity since the very beginning. Unless you know the person completely, and are assured they wouldn't retaliate (not just feedback wise, anything in life), it's only natural to fear that outcome. Not knowing the situation would also negate that fear, but only because the person wouldn't be aware of anything. Now, I have read what eBay's plans are, so don't use that as an excuse. They're not saying that the buyer should be left feedback first. In fact, the only thing they're saying is that the seller's feedback for the buyer isn't important. The fact of the matter is that the seller puts themselves on the line first, and therefore, their stance in judging their buyer should be just as important as the buyer judging the seller. And really, the buyer should be required to start the feedback process so the seller is assured the transaction was completed. But eBay thinks otherwise, oh well. Just don't continue repeating yourself by saying this discussion is moot because if it was, you wouldn't be replying so frantically.

[ZeroXMarquis]

It is moot - like most of the arguments we keep on having. But alas A, if you honestly want to believe what you believe, by all means.

I'm not going to keep dancing this endless waltz with you, but I want to leave you with this:
1. Never use cliches like "since the beginning of man"
2. Don't cut off your nose to spite your face. Trying to use "it's only natural to assume that if you leave negative feedback, you'll get it in return" hurt your argument more than it helped it.
3. Don't assume.

But yeah, it is what it is. You have your opinion, I have mine, Lisa's seems like the best compromise, and eBay's doing what they're doing. Now let's hear from some others...

[Lisa J]

Yeah, that would definitely work. But I think that the seller/buyer would still be able to leave a negative if they wanted to. You figure if the buyer contacts the seller, requesting to know where their item was and everything, the seller could assume that buyer would leave a bad mark, especially if the buyer never notifies him that it arrived. And thus, the situation would still end in two negatives. Your method is by far the best, but I guess the flaws will never completely disappear, lol.

Huh? The way that the seller would know that the item arrived has been the same way for ages: to leave feedback. So if each party is notified that some kind of feedback was left (not told what kind), then people can stay honest.

Of course there are going to be douches who nag for feedback, but that happens even with the system now. If most people would just keep open communication with each other, then you wouldn't have so much retaliation crap.

[A]

Huh? The way that the seller would know that the item arrived has been the same way for ages: to leave feedback. So if each party is notified that some kind of feedback was left (not told what kind), then people can stay honest.

Of course there are going to be douches who nag for feedback, but that happens even with the system now. If most people would just keep open communication with each other, then you wouldn't have so much retaliation crap.

Yeah, exactly. I think talking to the other person is always a plus, and it gains their trust if you start right from the beginning. But I was referring to those who tell the seller via a message through eBay that they received their stuff. I usually do that myself, and leave feedback shortly after. Sometimes when I'm the buyer, and I let the seller know the items arrived, they beat me to the feedback. But if a buyer would send a message complaining about not receiving their items, or something of the like, the seller might already expect a negative mark, and leave one himself (even if he didn't really know what the buyer was leaving). Compared to what we have now though, your method would still be the best.

[Artimid]

I agree that the seller shouldn't really get to leave feedback, mainly because I have a negative on my account because I paid someone, and they refused to acknowledge the auction ever happened, thus keeping my money. Left a negative feedback for him, fought with ebay to get my money back through whatever process they had... called the guys MOTHER (when ebay gave phone numbers) and not only did I get nothing but an angry wallet biting my butt in annoyance, I also got a negative feedback. Ruined my 5-6 year record of perfects. >_<

In fact, I think sellers should get nothing to say unless it was preapproved by ebay. They send it in, the system sends an email saying "Buyer is leaving this feedback, do you wish to dispute it?" and then only if you say no does it get added on. >_< I ran into way to many jerks on ebay. Bleh, left a bad taste in my mouth.

[geino_alex]

I do more buying than selling on ebay, and what bugs me the most are the sellers whose feedback is in the 1000s and they can not be bothered with leaving feedback for people that have purchased from them.

As mentioned earlier in this forum it has become standard practice for sellers to hold feedback until after the buyer has gotten their merchandise. I can accept that, so any problems can be resolved without the venom getting sprayed back and forth.

I would leave feedback after I get the itme I purchased. After a week if I still do not have feedback I would email them with a simple message "item recieved, positive feedback left, please do the same." I would continue this every week or so. So far a few inconsiderate sellers have ignored my requests for feedback. At least one seller sent me an email to "quit bugging him, he has been very busy and will get to it when he had time." The funny part was his feedback was shorter than his email. It was either "A++" or "thanks".

[Professor Smooth]

I think it's very poorly thought out. The transaction does not end until both parties are satisfied with the outcome. If I ship off an item and the buyer is not happy, I want to have the ability to correct the problem. Either by offering a full/partial refund or by replacing the item. When the buyer believes the transaction is completed, then it's completed.

This new system will allow for extortion and fraud on the part of Ebay buyers. I'm not looking forward to a buyer's email saying, "I got what you sent, but if you don't refund half of my payment, I'm leaving you a negative." Even worse, the buyer saying, "Refund me X% or I'm doing a credit card charge back" I've worked my ass off to maintain my 100 percent positive feedback score. It's what makes legit buyers feel secure when buying hard to come by Sentai merch from me.

[me=sentai]

http://pages.ebay.com/services/forum/changes.html
http://pages.ebay.com/services/forum/new.html

[Garo]

What a pile of bullshit the new feedback is. In the last fortnight ive had 2 none-paying none contacting ebayers and i can either "leave feedback later" or leave a positive to warn other ebayers.

I also got a neutral feedback over 6 months ago but it didnt affect my 100% and now out of nowhere i have 99.3% feedback :mad:

[The_Emperor]

As someone who only buys on eBay, I personally like the new system. My feedback shot up about 20 points since they calculated in repeat transactions from certain sellers.

I had been considering selling on eBay before to get rid of clutter at a fast pace (since selling on forums isn't exactly the fastest way to make room)... but after the introduction of this new system, I'll never take my stuff to sell on eBay anymore.

[carbonblue]

The new system is badly skewed against sellers unfortunately; you can't even leave neutral feedback, what a load of crap that is. It's not even a feedback system anymore since you can only leave one kind of feedback response as it is.

[Juri]

This is crazy because according to ebay it's just the sellers who cause the problem. Instead what I think they should do is have a stronger system regarding negative feed back.

Meaning they could have some kind of online form to fill out when negative feed back is concerned. This form asks of the person to explain their purpose for giving negative feedback. Then the eBay staff then looks at the Seller and buyers feed back history to come to a concluding decision.

If the person is known for causing similar mishaps the staff would know due to the feed back received. Plus not only would this protect the buyer/sellers involved with that user, but it helps with eBay taking away these user's privileges of using their services.

I know it seems like alot of work, but I think some like this or similar should be in place as far as negative feed back is concerned. It's not fair that the honest buyer or seller has to be taken down with the bad party that they were dealing with.

Giving negative feedback shouldn't be as easy as a click of a button, there are the honest people who give negative feed back based on their unfortunate experience while there are others who give negative feed back just for fun or revenge. To protect the honest bunch and prevent the dishonest bunch there should be some strong system set on eBay.

Not just disallowing sellers to leave feed back, because there are buyers who are just as bad out there.

[carbonblue]

This is just the tip of the iceberg it seems; apparently, eBay is also toying with the idea of no longer allowing paper forms of payments (such as money orders) as allowed methods of payments.

[Outatime]

This is just the tip of the iceberg it seems; apparently, eBay is also toying with the idea of no longer allowing paper forms of payments (such as money orders) as allowed methods of payments.

Works for me. As a seller I HATE paper payments. In fact, I have it set up so that I only accept paypal. It's so irritating when people send money in the mail and there's zero sort of tracking on the envelope, then they accuse you of STEALING from them, only to have their letter bounce back to them as they sent it to the wrong address.

The new system sucks in my opinion. I just had this German buyer, doesn't speak a lick of English, buy two sets of dino gems off of me. I shipped out his gems, gave him a customs number and, as far as I'm concerned, that concludes MY end of the transaction. I made his items, I shipped his items, it was up to the postal system to get it to him. It ended up taking nearly 3 weeks to get there, and he sent me emails almost every single day asking, in insanely broken English mind you, where his package was. He wouldn't leave feedback until the items got to him, which makes sense, but he was being a complete douchebag until the items got to him. Had I been able to, I would have left him neutral feedback. Sure he paid, but he was a pain in my ass every day for almost a month. That's not what I'd call a "positive" transaction.

[Juri]

Works for me. As a seller I HATE paper payments. In fact, I have it set up so that I only accept paypal. It's so irritating when people send money in the mail and there's zero sort of tracking on the envelope, then they accuse you of STEALING from them, only to have their letter bounce back to them as they sent it to the wrong address.

The new system sucks in my opinion. I just had this German buyer, doesn't speak a lick of English, buy two sets of dino gems off of me. I shipped out his gems, gave him a customs number and, as far as I'm concerned, that concludes MY end of the transaction. I made his items, I shipped his items, it was up to the postal system to get it to him. It ended up taking nearly 3 weeks to get there, and he sent me emails almost every single day asking, in insanely broken English mind you, where his package was. He wouldn't leave feedback until the items got to him, which makes sense, but he was being a complete douchebag until the items got to him. Had I been able to, I would have left him neutral feedback. Sure he paid, but he was a pain in my ass every day for almost a month. That's not what I'd call a "positive" transaction.

damn that is shit, they already put that "sellers can't leave any feed back" system into place:mad:?

sorry to hear that :(. I don't sell on ebay but from talking to alot of people I know alot of corrupt people who buy from ebay and abuse the system.

[pr_legends2005]

That's so not fair for ebay sellers such as myself. So what are they trying to do? Retaliation is not an option for us anymore when asshole buyers leave negative feedback for no particular reason?? eBay should elevate the policy for buyers leaving feedback too! One in particular could be not leaving a negative feedback UNLESS approved by them through thorough research! Just like paypal conducting investigation to refund money for sending items not as described or so. I find that very discriminating! I declare war!!!

[Garo]

Ive relisted one of my items 3 times. The same item that was won twice and had none paying buyers. Since i made my last post i got another 0 feedbacker on the item that the people didnt pay on. I bet i know where this is going >_>

[Jerry]

This is just the tip of the iceberg it seems; apparently, eBay is also toying with the idea of no longer allowing paper forms of payments (such as money orders) as allowed methods of payments.
That is absolutely ridiculous. Once that happens, my eBay activity is going to decrease significantly. It's not that I have a problem with it so much as a buyer, but as a seller I absolutely hate it.

Why? I was forced by Paypal to upgrade to a Premier membership for whatever reason, and I couldn't just reject the payment to avoid upgrading. Now, I get hit with fees from both eBay and Paypal. It makes it such a pain to sell that it almost isn't worth it to begin with. If they eliminate paper payments, then that will give me zero incentive to sell on eBay at all.

I've also noticed that within the past week or so I've had to constantly email and remind people just to leave feedback to begin with. It's like they don't see a point to it anymore.

[The_Emperor]

Sorry to bump...

Are these new rules already in place yet? I ask because I just bought and paid for something a few days ago. I've completed my part as a buyer but I haven't received positive feedback yet. :confused:

I got the eBay messages informing me of the feedback changes... but have yet to see it in action.

Shouldn't the feedback be left right after I've done my obligations? It's been about 2 days or so already.

I even had to email the seller and ask if the stuff was shipped yet... rather than just seeing the positive feedback left and, therefore, knowing that it's been done.

[Jerry]

Yes, they're in place. A seller can only leave positive feedback now.

[ZeroXMarquis]

It is quite stupid the way they changed it...

I'm still for the change (not so much as before, however), but if a seller can't leave anything but positive (or omit) then why not just go the nine and make it automatic?

As well, how does a neutral now negatively effect one's score? Might as well just have positives and negatives. Even worse, if the new system is designed to prevent sellers from leaving retaliatory feedback, how does a neutral point that I got 5 months ago, from a seller, now bring down my overall score?

[ZeroXMarquis]

Okay, ebay has lost their damn mind. Everyone should read up on some of their announced changes - my favourite of which is that if you're selling in Canada and shipping to the US, you have to adhere to the new maximum shipping charges, which they admit will be at the cost to the seller. Their reasoning is that the increase in sales that it'll bring, and the conversion in money (for the record, Paypal has THE WORST currency exchange) will make up the difference.

No money orders or cheques?

Bullshit.

I am now officially never selling on ebay.com again - and when ebay.ca makes the jump, I'm done with them as well. It truly is a buyer's market now.

[Blue Dolphin]

I use to sale on eBay a lot in the past few years, stopped and start again with a new account. I don't really care for their recent changes. I find it to be stupid that a seller can't leave a negative if the buyer fails to pay or something. When you leave feedback, the page says eBay wants the seller to post HONEST FEEDBACK and that it will HELP OTHERS when it comes to dealing with that buyer. YET YOU CAN'T LEAVE A NEGATIVE? ONLY A POSITIVE OR NOTHING. How the hell is that "honest feedback"? And how the hell does it help a future dealer with that person if you can't leave an HONEST NEGATIVE?

Though, I only accept PayPal for my auctions, I know a lot of people don't even accept PayPal only checks and money orders - and a lot can't even pay with PayPal. It's just their way of getting even more money since they draw interest on every penny everyone has in their PayPal account. That's why I've always withdrew my money as soon as I get it.

[A]

Bullshit.

A different story here, but amen to that. Basically, I sold a set of figures to this guy in Germany. I shipped it via Priority International, printed the label from PayPal, everything you'd expect out of a secure shipment. A few weeks go by, and the tracking says that the package arrived in German customs. To make matters worse, the buyer doesn't speak a word of English. He starts messaging me (in German), asking for his package, and saying that if I don't refund his money, he will leave negative feedback. According to eBay policy, this is feedback extortion. I contact Live Help, and they tell me to contact eBay via e-mail. I do so, providing the messages sent from the buyer. The "wait time" for a response is listed as 48-72 hours, yet I have to wait a full week before I hear anything from them. They conclude that no extortion took place, yet the buyer was STILL messaging me about his money. He ends up leaving the negative, and I can't do anything about it. So I try to take a different approach on the situation by telling the buyer I'll refund his money if he contacts eBay himself, and tells them he would like the mark he left for me to be removed, and that the situation was resolved. I get a couple of replies saying he will, but then I don't hear from him at all. And I know he's been online since he has new purchases. I guess he decided to ignore me. But come to find out, eBay also took out the ability to mutually withdraw feedback, so even if the buyer/seller contact eBay, they won't remove the marks. What really sucks is that the tracking was finally updated, and it said the package arrived to his address. So now I'm stuck with the mark. All I could do was reply to it, which I did. But I must say, the one thing I do like is that now, feedback is only counted for the past 12 months, meaning a year from now, my feedback profile will be 100% again. I think I've pretty much given up on selling on eBay though. There's too much loopholes for sellers now, and it's just unfair. Some may say that international transactions are too risky, but this is really the first problem I've had in dealing with other countries. In fact, I had completed a transaction with another buyer in Germany just days before this happened. So yeah, bullshit.

[A]

An update coming in October of this year. eBay messaged me back with this new information after addressing my concern about the new changes. Unlike the majority, I kind of like this one. The buyer may still have the power, but if there's a real problem, it can be handled and settled by both parties with the feedback not being a major concern. There's also a limit on the amount of requests to edit, so as to rid the possibility of a seller using that to his/her advantage.

The new process for allowing Feedback revisions will be available near
the end of October, 2008.

With this new process, buyers will be able to revise Feedback left if
they made a mistake or if the seller rectified an issue in a timely
manner. The current plan will require the seller to submit a request to
the buyer to revise the rating, comment or Detailed Seller Ratings.

At the same time, we will continue to encourage sellers to provide a
great buyer experience from the start of every transaction, by limiting
the number of times a seller can request a revision. Currently, we have
no further information regarding the details of any potential limits,
but will share them as we prepare to launch the process in the coming
months.

I understand your frustration regarding this matter and apologize for
the inconvenience it caused you.

Sincerely,
Leo

eBay Customer Support

[Cyrax9]

Okay, let me start off by saying that I'm quite fond of the new system, although I think that Lisa J's idea would probably be the best compromise if eBay could pull it off.

What people don't get is that eBay feedback was originally supposed to be a way for buyers and sellers to "rate" each other in an era where buyers and sellers frequently communicated by e-mail, and eBay checkout didn't exist; the idea that people would be running businesses around eBay was unthinkable, and eBay's old feedback system made sense when it was originally created roughly ten years ago. What's more, the idea of "retaliatory feedback" was unthinkable--feedback was supposed to be an "honor system" of sorts to promote an improved relationship between the buyer and the seller. However, overtime eBay's system became ridiculously outdated and easily exploited.

When Amazon.com opened up their second-hand section, they looked at the concept of eBay's feedback system and decided to improve upon it by treating each individual seller as an individual "store," which could be ranked via feedback; in other words, Amazon's system created a sort of "Better Business Bureau" for their marketplace that sellers could use in a world of automated checkout and virtually no contact with the seller unless there was a problem.

Now that eBay has finally overhauled the feedback system, they've essentially "improved" on Amazon's "improvement" to their system. Buyers can only receive positive feedback, and borrowing another page from Amazon, sellers can not only receive postive/neutral/negative feedback, but people can also check their detailed ratings to see if buyers think that they charge too much, or take to long to ship.

I'm pretty sure most people here didn't read the WHOLE policy change, which really doesn't make this "favor the buyers" over the sellers.

First off, by favoring sellers with the new feedback system, retaliatory feedback is impossible, the buyer will get his/her positive feedback one way or another, and the seller will get accurate feedback from the buyer.

Second, there's no arguement that buyer's can play the system too, but sellers are far more likely to leave retaliatory feedback. whereas buyers are less likely to do so. What's more, the penalties for non-paying bidders are also much harsher now and effectively give the seller an upper hand over the buyers--the only form of "defense" from fraudulent non-paying bidder reports that buyers have is the ability to pummel sellers who would file said reports with negative feedback. In essence, both sides have been given a "tool" to ensure that the other holds up their end of the bargain.

As both a buyer and a seller on eBay, I can understand where both sides are coming from.

From a buyer's perspective: I bought a manual for my Arcade machine last year, which the seller advertised as an original item. When I got the manual in the mail, I essentially had a (well-bound) photocopied reprint of the arcade machine manual. Now in truth, I didn't really care, because I basically needed a diagram I couldn't find online, but if I was a person collecting original arcade machine manuals, I'd be pissed off with the "bait and switch" that I was subjected too. I really wanted to leave the seller neutral or negative feedback, because I wasn't satisfied with the transaction, and false advertising is illegal. What's more, the seller seemed to be big on retaliatory feedback, and I didn't want to send back the manual and pay shipping twice, which is what would've happened. What's more, had I left a VALID neutral feedback, this jerk would've left me a negative and ruined my 100% positive, and to me it wasn't worth it. With the new feedback system I don't have to worry about this--if someone screws me over they're going to get a neutral or a negative feedback rating if I can't resolve the problem with them, or in the case of a seller like this, I'd just give them a terrible rating for the item description and a "positive" for everything else using the detailed feedback since I was satisfied with the transaction overall. I bought an item with absurd shipping charges from another seller, and while my overall feedback was positive, I left a slightly lower than perfect score under the portion of the detailed feedback's rating for shipping charges. There's no reason to leave a negative or a neutral here, and I was mostly satisfied with the transaction, but dissatisfied with the shipping charges.

What's more, I believe buyer's should leave feedback first not only to show that they received an item, but to ensure that the transaction went smoothly. If I'm not happy with something, I don't want to leave pre-mature positive feedback.

From a seller's perspective: I try to be accommodating to all of my customers. I do my best to check for flaws, and to note them in the item description, for example if a sealed item has dead batteries, this is something I'll put in the item description, and if it turns out that the item is defective and not the batteries, I'll do my best to A) replace it, or B) refund it if the buyer doesn't want a replacement. I had one "Dead battery" item and no "dead item" sales, and the person who bought the item was very understanding, read the description, and left me positive feedback.

I keep delivery confirmation "optional" because I have to pay for confirmation slips (I'm not equipped to use Print-and-Ship,) and I know some people don't care about them, but for those that do, I add the cost into your shipping charge. What's more, as an incentive for people to use delivery confirmation, I only guarantee that the item will arrive if delivery confirmation is included. What's more, when I sell something, I won't leave feedback until the buyer does. By leaving me positive feedback, I know that the buyer has successfully received the item that I sent, and is happy with it, and then I can subsequently leave the buyer positive feedback to increase their score. If I get a negative or a neutral feedback, that means that something's wrong, and I need to fix it.

If a buyer is leaving negative feedback for the hell of it, and being uncooperative and rude, I'll keep a paper trail, so that if eBay's dispute console doesn't solve the problem, I'll be able to mount a libel case against the fraudulent buyer, and while I've never had to do this--trust me, I know enough lawyers to assemble a legal team (three or more in my book,) that would leave potentially fraudulent buyers wishing that they never knew about me. What's more, eBay's new policies for fraudulent buyers are extremely punitive, and I would be just as tough on buyers who don't pay as I would on sellers who engage in false advertising or don't ship an item.

Also as a seller, I want to make sure my customers are happy, and the new detailed feedback lets me do that. By seeing where buyers are unhappy, I can try to improve on potential problem areas and to allow for smoother transactions. Likewise I'd expect sellers to look at the detailed feedback I leave them as a buyer so that they can improve their business as well.

Sellers have other tools besides feedback now to combat problematic buyers, and buyers now control feedback, which makes a lot of sense to me. I like the new changes to the eBay system because I feel that I can be more honest, and the detailed feedback really let's me be honest with a seller. For the most part, my transactions as a buyer and a seller have gone just fine, but on the off chance that someone tries to screw me over, either by pulling a "bait and switch" as a seller, or bidding on something and not paying for it as a buyer, I now have a much better way to handle them if I need to, although in truth, I hope that I never do.

I recently bought something from an Amazon seller with 90% feedback, and the biggest complaint was that they kept shipping incorrect items. Well it turns out that the same thing happened to me. It took one phone call to the store selling over Amazon, and I was able to return the item and get my money back--they apologized and that was that, problem solved. With eBay, you can't call up a seller and resolve a dispute, this is why buyer's need feedback power and sellers need to have more punitive actions to take against non-paying bidders.

On a final note: When I buy from someone, I try to treat them exactly as I'd want a seller to treat me. I leave feedback first to let the seller know I've received an item, I pay as quickly as possible (PayPal makes this almost instantaneous,) and I've yet to leave anything other than positive feedback, because I've had good sellers with the exception of one as noted above. When I sell to someone else, I treat them the same way I want to be treated as a buyer, and try to avoid negative feedback at all costs, and I agree with Juri on the process for leavng negative feedback. It shouldn't be a simple as pressing a button. Too many people are "trigger-happy" and don't bother to try and resolve disputes before resorting to negative feedback.

As far as the whole issue regarding Checks, there's a simple reason eBay wants to do away with it--people were getting ripped off royally by buyers who were bouncing checks, so sellers should be happy about this. Money Orders aren't traceable, so they're also a liability. PayPal is traceable, but I believe I should be able to use my actual credit/debit card as well, or a similar electronic banking system the way I do with other "e-tailers" in place of checks/MOs. If anything, the removal of checks/MOs would only hurt buyers who would be forced to use PayPal or a similar service.

[ZeroXMarquis]

I agree with the feedback system change to an extent. What I disagree with is the maximum shipping charges they're applying, even when shipping internationally to the States. It may cost you guys to send something 3 bucks to each other, but it'll run me at least 7 to ship the same item - I'm out 4 bucks.

As for checks, the only reason why eBay is going Paypal only is because they own Paypal, and they make money on each transaction twice this way, as well as collect interest on any money held in Paypal. In some places worldwide, forcing such transactions is illegal.

For all these reasons, I'm not going to sell anything on ebay.com after their proposed date of change.

[The_Emperor]

they make money on each transaction twice this way, as well as collect interest on any money held in Paypal.

They do? Is this only the Premier account? I have the basic account and no money gets taken out unless I send payments for my stuff. :confused:

[Skiks]

They do? Is this only the Premier account? I have the basic account and no money gets taken out unless I send payments for my stuff. :confused:
Banks basically do the same thing. Even with my free student account I know they earn money with it somehow. Same applies for Paypal.

[The_Emperor]

But no money is even subtracted from my account. It's always the amount that it should be.
Same with my bank. They only make f-ing annoying phone calls asking if I'd like death insurance so they got an excuse to take $10-15 out of my account every month. :P

[Skiks]

But no money is even subtracted from my account. It's always the amount that it should be.
Same with my bank. They only make f-ing annoying phone calls asking if I'd like death insurance so they got an excuse to take $10-15 out of my account every month. :P
Well they don't have to subtract anything. It's already in their hands so they use it however they want. But you of course have the right to ask for the same amount thats in your bank account at anytime. This is why some banks go out of business when a load of people ask for money at the same time. They don't have all that money on hand.

[Blue Dolphin]

I know if you have a Primer account they do. If a buyer pays with by credit card, PayPal takes out a "fee" for allowing you to accept their type of payment, and eBay get's paid twice - lising free and final sale fee - so really, they're getting paid 3 times. Forcing everyone to use PayPal, is going to do 1 of 2 things. Force people to upgrade their life by getting a bank and PayPal account, or stop using eBay all together.

[The_Emperor]

Well they don't have to subtract anything. It's already in their hands so they use it however they want. But you of course have the right to ask for the same amount thats in your bank account at anytime. This is why some banks go out of business when a load of people ask for money at the same time. They don't have all that money on hand.

I see. So they could basically just take the money I put in them and invest in other places to make more for themselves. In the end, I still have the same amount but they have even more than before. Somehow, the way it was put, I thought I somehow lose something so they can make money.

And I'm supposed to know this stuff since I'm majoring in this stuff. :shame:
Perhaps my 4-month long summer vacation has drained me dry of everything I learned seeing I haven't even touched a single book during this time. :005:

[A]

But no money is even subtracted from my account. It's always the amount that it should be.
Same with my bank. They only make f-ing annoying phone calls asking if I'd like death insurance so they got an excuse to take $10-15 out of my account every month. :P

He didn't mean it that way. eBay makes a profit off of each transaction through the fees. We don't really feel the deduction since it's automatically taken from the payment when it's sent/received.

[The_Emperor]

He didn't mean it that way. eBay makes a profit off of each transaction through the fees. We don't really feel the deduction since it's automatically taken from the payment when it's sent/received.

Yeah, I know about that. I was originally thinking as to how they made money when the money is just sitting there.

I can feel the full force of the deduction when I receive payments via credit cards when I specifically say "no credit/debit" but the buyer has no other source of funding. :shame:

I have a basic personal account (and refuse to upgrade) and they don't seem to have fees this way... only when I have no choice but to receive payment thru paypal via credit/debit. And the terrible exchange rate, I suppose it's also their doing to make money...

[JP]

For all these reasons, I'm not going to sell anything on ebay.com after their proposed date of change.

My thoughts exactly. Thats why I always put items up on here first, because if I can skip the fees and BS of ebay I will. IMO its becoming a very small seller-unfriendly site, and I would rather not hassle with them anymore.