Stuff I read tonight

I applaud eBay for finally realizing they had a big problem. Bad sellers use the mutual rating system to threaten buyers with retaliation should they accurately report a problem with a transaction. Therefore, there isn’t accurate info in the ratings and goes against purpose for ratings. It’s why I stopped using eBay (while I could still hold on to my 100% buyer rating). Only way to maintain a good buyer rating is by NOT describing how incredibly terrible 4 different sellers were (three months to send item, increasing shipping charges 400% above description, not actually owning an item and infuriated at expectation they should actually have an item to be able to sell it, saying “oops it was accidentally destroyed while packing it” when clearly they just didn’t want to sell at low winning bid price.) None of them said I paid in 5 seconds, which should be the only buyer rating — as wanted to see what I would say about them.

Bad sellers don’t do any buyer rating until they find out what buyers are going to say about them. If they don’t like comment, then instant retaliation even if not deserved. Deeply harming trust in seller rating system by regular users. So buyer can’t accurately report (without harming themselves), and seller doesn’t get busted.

Technically the only things a buyer can do wrong are not pay promptly, not pay at all or challenge the accuracy of a description. With widespread requirement of PayPal and ability to make offer to next highest bidder if no pay, already solutions for ethical sellers who can fairly immediately find out if getting paid or not.

Buyers on the other hand are ones at greatest risk on eBay because they pay, and then the wait to see what seller does begins. At least eBay is trying to solve the problem. It’s a good case study for any industry that may look at integrating some type of rating systems in the future.

Reply