I never liked how eBay handled feedback and yesterday proves to me that it’s broken. For the second time I’ve received negative feedback because I either left neutral or negative feedback for a seller.
Both instances the seller did not properly list their items; one listed the item “untested” but hadn’t mentioned “untested” did not mean the warranty seal was broken and that he tried to fix it.
I just don’t get how a buyer (me) can pay through paypal, try to reason with the seller because of an imporper listing, give appropriate feedback and then be penalized as retaliation. It just goes to show that the person getting screwed for a purchase on eBay can also get screwed because of the feedback system. Isn’t it supposed to be the oppisite?
So without just ranting I have a solution:
Make all feedback hidden until both parties leave feedback.
It seems to me a perfect solution. Not only will the feedback system loose the retaliative responses through this new process but it will be more honest and buyers and sellers will receive more feedback because it’s not a one-way street anymore.
I could double my ratings if every one of my buyers and sellers left feedback. Larger sellers are notorious for not issuing feedback and it sucks.
I mentioned honesty because people wouldn’t post positive feedback just to receive positive feedback in return. I’ve done this before; instead of fighting the issue I settled for the purchase and left good feedback without even complaining to the seller.
eBay, please fix this. It’s been long enough and with all of your recent issues you need to do something for the sellers and buyers of your app. Otherwise I’m afraid to say you’re just going to continue down that road of stagnation.
Barack Obama : : Change We Can Believe In | Sam Graham-Felsen’s Blog: A hundred versus a million
Dan –
News broke yesterday that a few wealthy Clinton supporters are gearing up for a massive spending campaign to boost her chances in the big upcoming contests in Texas and Ohio on March 4th.
The so-called “American Leadership Project” will take unlimited contributions … Read More »
February 21
If this is true I’d have to say HD-DVD will never be in my house, unless it’s somehow free.
In what can only be classified as yet another crushing blow to the embattled HD DVD camp, rent-by-mail giant Netflix has just announced its intention to only stock Blu-ray titles in the future. Netflix justified its decision by pointing out the fact that most Hollywood studios seem to be converging solely around the Sony-backed format — a fact that’s all too familiar to Toshiba and friends. With both Blockbuster and now the ‘Flix having eschewed HD DVD for BD, it’s gonna get harder and harder to even find a place to rent those former discs in the first place, let alone one that has a decent selection.#
I may not even go Blue-Ray if the soon to be HD rentals on the AppleTV produce good HD quality.
I’m glad someone said it, I’m just surprised it was Google.
The openness of the Internet is what made Google — and Yahoo! — possible. A good idea that users find useful spreads quickly. Businesses can be created around the idea. Users benefit from constant innovation. It’s what makes the Internet such an exciting place.So Microsoft’s hostile bid for Yahoo! raises troubling questions. This is about more than simply a financial transaction, one company taking over another. It’s about preserving the underlying principles of the Internet: openness and innovation.
Could Microsoft now attempt to exert the same sort of inappropriate and illegal influence over the Internet that it did with the PC? While the Internet rewards competitive innovation, Microsoft has frequently sought to establish proprietary monopolies — and then leverage its dominance into new, adjacent markets.
Could the acquisition of Yahoo! allow Microsoft — despite its legacy of serious legal and regulatory offenses — to extend unfair practices from browsers and operating systems to the Internet? In addition, Microsoft plus Yahoo! equals an overwhelming share of instant messaging and web email accounts. And between them, the two companies operate the two most heavily trafficked portals on the Internet. Could a combination of the two take advantage of a PC software monopoly to unfairly limit the ability of consumers to freely access competitors’ email, IM, and web-based services? Policymakers around the world need to ask these questions — and consumers deserve satisfying answers.
This hostile bid was announced on Friday, so there is plenty of time for these questions to be thoroughly addressed. We take Internet openness, choice and innovation seriously. They are the core of our culture. We believe that the interests of Internet users come first — and should come first — as the merits of this proposed acquisition are examined and alternatives explored.
But if Hillary Clinton is nominated, this momentum will likely crumble. The young women and men who’ve been flooding the Democratic primaries and caucuses will feel betrayed by a candidate who’s just finished doing her best to destroy the person they’ve invested their hopes in. And as a result, they may simply stay home. It’s not just that Hillary is running against Obama. That would be fine. It’s that she and Bill and their surrogates have relentlessly assaulted Obama’s character, in a scorched-earth style worthy of Karl Rove. I’ve devoted an entire article to documenting just a fraction of these instances: her lying about his record (and her on) on critical Iraq and Iran votes, and his votes on abortion choice; her unleashing surrogates like civil rights activist turned WalMart pitchman Andy Young to explain how Obama really wasn’t black enough or Black Entertainment Television CEO Robert Johnson (a virulently anti-union corporate head who’s backed Bush on issues like the estate tax and privatizing Social Security) to refer to Obama’s youthful cocaine use, with Clinton standing next to him at a South Carolina rally. When Hillary says Obama has no right to build up “false hopes,” and Bill calls Obama’s vision of history “a fairy tale,” how can Obama’s young supporters not feel attacked in their own hope and dreams? Had Clinton run a less-harsh campaign, like that of John Edwards, she might expect to inherit Obama’s passionate young voters–and volunteers. But given the virulence of her attacks, I just can’t see them suddenly turning on a dime and enthusiastically supporting her.
