Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (
More info?)
> shower_urinator <shower_urinator@lycos.com> wrote:
> I agree the buyer could inform the seller in many ways,
> but these ways circumvent the ebay process.
Not really. Feedback is "optional" (eBay's term for it).
It is therefore not part of any required process. Some
buyers simply see eBay as a place to buy stuff, and
entirely blow off feedback (as well as any communication
beyond making payment).
eBay has no policy, or even suggestion, on who posts 1st.
If they did, netnews discussions like these would be
dramatically less common
> ... but the participant chooses a method
> outside ebay, then I become skeptical.
Email communication between buyer and seller is part of
the process. Although a sale can close with no emails,
it's not uncommon for a transaction to include several.
>> Let the seller post FB first.
> I still don't understand.
The bottom line is the bottom line. To the extent that
buyers care about the issue, the majority of them want
the seller to post FB first. If you have a buyer-1st
policy, you may get fewer bids and lower closes.
As a seller, my policy is: seller-1st-after-acceptance.
It's published on my About-Me page.
As a buyer, I usually no-bid when I see auctions where
the seller has a posted or stealth buyer-1st policy.
Why? Because it all too often means that the FB profile
is distorted. There are probably a lot more unhappy
buyers than the Neg count and FB % indicate.
How many other buyers share my attitude?
That's the question every seller must ask & answer.
> The buyer sent the money and the seller received the
> money, then the seller sent the merchandise and the buyer
> received the merchandise.
Not done yet. Normally the seller already knows that
delivery occured, because they had tracking on the parcel.
But you've left out the important issue of "acceptance".
The buyer needs to confirm that the item is undamaged,
at least as-advertised, and give some indication of
satisfaction. If there are issues, they need to be resolved
before anyone posts FB.
Not: post FB upon payment.
Not: post FB upon delivery.
Rather: post FB upon acceptance.
If I never get an acceptance report, I never post FB
to the buyer. Some never do report it. I don't pester
them about it.
If acceptance takes the form of +FB from the buyer,
no problem. It happens.
> At this point the seller is supposed to notify the
> whole ebay community that this transaction was positive?
Only if you have high confidence that it was positive.
"Acceptance" creates high confidence.
Sure, the buyer can report acceptance and then go wierd
on you later, but that's unlikely. If you are going to
worry about corner cases like that, no one would ever
post FB.
> Furthermore, the buyer could behave unethically after
> receiving the merchandise.
Yes, but if they've reported acceptance, that risk is
substantially reduced.
> By leaving positive feedback after the buyer notifies
> you, there is no way to leave negative feedback about
> unethical behavior that can occur afterwards.
If I get an acceptance report, that's a risk I'm willing
to take.
The risk I'm not willing to take is driving off bidders
who detect that I hostage FB.
Every seller (and buyer) needs a policy on this. And
they need to think about it, run the scenarios, and
even talk to other users. Look to your consequences.
Act accordingly.
--
Regards, Bob Niland mailto:name@ispname.tld
http
/www.access-one.com/rjn email4rjn AT yahoo DOT com
NOT speaking for any employer, client or Internet Service Provider.
Facebook
Twitter