LARon
Distinguished Member
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2006
- Messages
- 1,024
- Reaction score
- 2
The recent thread on ebay seller Nitr-o reminded me of one of his practices that I think is bad for ebay, namely, conditioning the giving of positive feedback on him first receiving same. In other words, he, as seller, conditions his review of a buyer's performance upon the buyer being the first to leave (positive) feedback on him. I consider this extortion, for two reasons.
First, I believe that feedback should be left in the order of performance. Since the buyer must pay before receiving the merchandise, his performance should be rated first, not after he has received the merchandise. Second, once having paid, the buyer is at risk: the risk of non-performance or poor product quality from the seller. Why, then, should the buyer -- who has made prompt payment -- have his reputation as a timely payer suspended and conditioned upon the performance of the seller (who could be passing off shoddy merchandise or not delivering on time)?
I note that this Nitr-o fellow cites the number of positive feedbacks he's received. If that record has essentially been "bought" by forcing honest buyers to first leave positive feedback on him, what value does it really have, and how objective is it?
First, I believe that feedback should be left in the order of performance. Since the buyer must pay before receiving the merchandise, his performance should be rated first, not after he has received the merchandise. Second, once having paid, the buyer is at risk: the risk of non-performance or poor product quality from the seller. Why, then, should the buyer -- who has made prompt payment -- have his reputation as a timely payer suspended and conditioned upon the performance of the seller (who could be passing off shoddy merchandise or not delivering on time)?
I note that this Nitr-o fellow cites the number of positive feedbacks he's received. If that record has essentially been "bought" by forcing honest buyers to first leave positive feedback on him, what value does it really have, and how objective is it?