has anyone seen the wreck on ebay?

[djc]

If I knew how to link it I would.  Item # is 360016369551
what do you think?

[JoeArthur]

what do you think?

Have you heard about the recent "improvements" that eBay will be putting into effect starting around 2/20 and forward?

I think you will be seeing a lot of stuff on eBay that sellers will be trying to dump as fast as possible before they become affected by the "improvements".

If you don't know what "improvements" I'm talking about, read this and the next announcement:

http://www2.ebay.com/aw/core/200801.shtml#2008-01-29061132

While it is all given in ebay flowery corpo speak, it could be what eventually kills eBay. Consider the implications of the following "improvement":

Sellers may only leave positive feedback for buyers (at the seller's option).

[loudthud]

Sellers may only leave positive feedback for buyers (at the seller's option).

And this is bad in what way? When I buy something, it's usually paid for within 20 minutes of the end of the auction. At that point, I've earned positive feedback. If the seller withholds feedback, it's only so he can give me negative feedback if I leave negative feedback for him. Is that fair? I've bought many amps, speaker cabs, raw speakers and test equipment on ebay. It doesn't always arrive in good condition. I've even bought something from you Joe, but I don't remember what it was. Many times I can see that the item wasn't packed very well at all. Should the shipping company take the blame? I don't think so. Some people think you can ship an Electrovoice speaker by just tying a garbage bag around it and putting it in a box with styrofoam peanuts. Anyone who is that stupid deserves negative feedback. Do I deserve negative feedback because the seller is an idiot? The only problem I see with the upcoming changes is for sellers who can't (or won't) give a good description or can't pack items properly or ship for a reasonable price. I wish I knew how many times I haven't left feedback or waited 89 days 23 hours 59 minutes and 50 seconds to do so.

[JoeArthur]

Sellers may only leave positive feedback for buyers (at the seller's option).

And this is bad in what way? When I buy something, it's usually paid for within 20 minutes of the end of the auction. At that point, I've earned positive feedback. If the seller withholds feedback, it's only so he can give me negative feedback if I leave negative feedback for him. Is that fair? I've bought many amps, speaker cabs, raw speakers and test equipment on ebay. It doesn't always arrive in good condition. I've even bought something from you Joe, but I don't remember what it was. Many times I can see that the item wasn't packed very well at all. Should the shipping company take the blame? I don't think so. Some people think you can ship an Electrovoice speaker by just tying a garbage bag around it and putting it in a box with styrofoam peanuts. Anyone who is that stupid deserves negative feedback. Do I deserve negative feedback because the seller is an idiot? The only problem I see with the upcoming changes is for sellers who can't (or won't) give a good description or can't pack items properly or ship for a reasonable price. I wish I knew how many times I haven't left feedback or waited 89 days 23 hours 59 minutes and 50 seconds to do so.

I am not disputing that there are problems with sellers.

But problems with sellers does not mean that there are NO problems with buyers.

You may be an exceptional buyer - but that does not mean that every buyer is exceptional.

What if you - as YOU... were only given the choice of saying "yes" or nothing at all, for everything... in all cases?

Would you consider that "freedom of speech"?

Feedback should be based on what both parties think about the transaction. A bias either way, is still a bias. And in any case where there is a predetermined bias - the TRUTH always suffers.

Heck, why not just decide you deserve positive feedback simply because of the way you smile when you push the "buy" button? It would mean as much.

edit: tellme your eBay ID and I can tell you exactly - if anything, you bought from me.

[djc]

feedback should be based on my actions.  the seller should be required to leave feedback when my end of the bargain is fullfilled(payment), not wait until I(buyer) leave feedback and punish me for his stupidity. 
I left a nuetral feedback once, this guy was a total tool.  I lost a lot of money on that transaction.  I fulfilled my end of the bargain, he got my money, I got a broken piece of junk.  he then proceeded to leave me matching feedback and basically said it was my fault that he can't package well.  at that point I'm screwed 2 ways.  money and product.
since then if a deal goes south, albeit slightly, I don't leave feedback.
most of my ebay experience has been very good.  there's just a couple that should be monitored.

[JoeArthur]

feedback should be based on my actions.  the seller should be required to leave feedback when my end of the bargain is fullfilled(payment), not wait until I(buyer) leave feedback and punish me for his stupidity. 
I left a nuetral feedback once, this guy was a total tool.  I lost a lot of money on that transaction.  I fulfilled my end of the bargain, he got my money, I got a broken piece of junk.  he then proceeded to leave me matching feedback and basically said it was my fault that he can't package well.  at that point I'm screwed 2 ways.  money and product.
since then if a deal goes south, albeit slightly, I don't leave feedback.
most of my ebay experience has been very good.  there's just a couple that should be monitored.

If you are willing to accept FULLY that your part (as Buyer) in the bargain is over because you have made payment...

then you have no choice but to accept that my part (as Seller) is FULLY over when I toss your item in the mail.

You're not willing to do the latter because you only want me to "pretend" that your part is over because you have paid. It's not over because you retain the ability to hold me accountable if the item does not arrive safely.  And by retaining the ability to make that decision when your item arrives, you admit (whether you intend to or not) that your real part in the transaction is not over at payment time.

I have no problem leaving feedback first as a buyer. I guess I've been pretty lucky but if I did have some problem I would first attempt to work it out with the seller. I say that because there really are some buyers that immediately leave neg or neutral feedback without providing the seller a chance at resolution. That's a guilty verdict with execution even if you're later proven innocent.

When I started selling, at first I left positive buyer feedback as soon as I had the item shipped. I stopped that practice when a buyer demanded a complete refund and to keep the item he won - all under the threat of providing me negative feedback. I refused of course (I will not be extorted) and told him to neg away. Fortunately he didn't and I never heard from him again - maybe because he holds the honor of being the first entry in my BBL.

Oh well, doesn't really matter now...

[djc]

you retain the ability to hold me accountable if the item does not arrive safely. 

good point. 
I guess there is no answer that will make everyone happy.  ebay's decision will make me as buyer happy but will probably piss off many sellers.
bottom line is make good transactions and live up to a standard or moral code that makes my reputation more important to me than a sale.
that unfortunately, gets abused in a capitalistic society.

[JoeArthur]

you retain the ability to hold me accountable if the item does not arrive safely. 

good point. 
I guess there is no answer that will make everyone happy.  ebay's decision will make me as buyer happy but will probably piss off many sellers.
bottom line is make good transactions and live up to a standard or moral code that makes my reputation more important to me than a sale.
that unfortunately, gets abused in a capitalistic society.

<sigh>

If you knew what capitalism really was, there is no way you would mistake our society for being capitalistic.

Capitalism is not based on greed as most people believe.

It requires open competition in a free market. Our society has neither.

Capitalism would never support the profit protection our oil industry enjoys. And we would not be in Iraq now... if we were indeed capitalistic.

[loudthud]

Joe makes some good points. One thing he didn't mention is the whole chargeback scheme people run through PayPal. Anyone running that needs negative feedback in spades. I think ebay feels that the way to hold a buyer accountable if the item goes unpaid is the unpaid item report or whatever it's called. I'm not familiar with that because I've never sold anything. And certainly as a seller, you need to retain "proof of shipping" incase a dispute arrises. I've been through that a couple of times with PayPal.

[JoeArthur]

Joe makes some good points. One thing he didn't mention is the whole chargeback scheme people run through PayPal. Anyone running that needs negative feedback in spades. I think ebay feels that the way to hold a buyer accountable if the item goes unpaid is the unpaid item report or whatever it's called. I'm not familiar with that because I've never sold anything. And certainly as a seller, you need to retain "proof of shipping" incase a dispute arrises. I've been through that a couple of times with PayPal.

Yeah, there are all sorts of scams - on both seller and buyer sides.

The scam I hate the most is the one that eBay is pulling.

Consider this:

eBay says the the buyers are their customers and all of these changes are to protect their customers. After all, the only ones that will get screwed are the sellers.

But the only REAL customers that eBay has are the sellers - not the buyers. Not one buyer in the history of eBay has ever sent a cent to eBay.

Can you really call someone that doesn't give you money a customer?

Sellers send money to eBay, the buyers do not send any money to eBay.

The buyers are the customers of the sellers, not eBay.

Think about it.

eBay survived the dot-com bubble not because of their efforts, but solely due to the efforts of their sellers.

Now everytime they have to show an increase to their stockholders, they put the screws to the sellers using the buyers as a shield, pitting one against the other.

The funny thing is that all of this is presented to the buyers as being in "their best interest".

Silly buyers - eBay is number one, not you.

[Isaac]

If you knew what capitalism really was, there is no way you would mistake our society for being capitalistic.

Capitalism is not based on greed as most people believe.

It requires open competition in a free market. Our society has neither.

Capitalism would never support the profit protection our oil industry enjoys. And we would not be in Iraq now... if we were indeed capitalistic.

What do you suggest instead? Perhaps the merging of corporation and state, as in fascism?

[JoeArthur]

What do you suggest instead? Perhaps the merging of corporation and state, as in fascism?

 

Hardly an appropriate recommendation for a laisser-faire capitalist like me!! 

[djc]

Capitalism would never support the profit protection our oil industry enjoys. And we would not be in Iraq now... if we were indeed capitalistic.

again...good point and you are right.  I was refering to greed.  by mistake those have become synonomous, in many cases are synonomous

[Isaac]

What do you suggest instead? Perhaps the merging of corporation and state, as in fascism?

 

Hardly an appropriate recommendation for a laisser-faire capitalist like me!! 

I wasn't clear. I wasn't asking what you would suggest in capitalism's place. Rather, I wa asking what you think we have now, if not capitalism.