Washington Post article on eBay feedback changes - what do *you* think?

Rob Pegoraro has an interesting article out today in the Washington Post about eBay's upcoming feedback changes.  I spent some time with Rob explaining some of the changes and how they impact eBay from a seller's perspective.  One part of the conversation that didn't make the cut was this series of logic:

1. If you believe that feedback is broken,
2. And the biggest reason is retal negs/buyer negatives
3. What other alternatives could eBay have looked at other than removing buyer negs?

Here's a list I came up with - can reader's think of any I missed or do you prefer any of these to what eBay ended up with?

• No feedback at all for buyers, just sellers (amazon and CSEs)
• Feedback is left 0-X days from the transaction, but held in a 'limbo' state to give buyer+seller time to work out any differences and then it's pushed.  A corollary to this one is to only put feedback in limbo if there's a negative from buyer or seller in the works.
• Buyer doesn't leave seller feedback until seller has left buyer feedback - this sequencing removes retal negs totally.
• The seller must skype the buyer for at least 10 minutes in order to talk about a potential negative (kidding - but think of the synergies!)
• Don't change anything at all, the system was working great

I know there have been lots of complaints about eBay's choice, but which solution do you think would be better?  I'm kind of partial to bullets two and three, but am curious as to everyone's thoughts.

Keep in mind, I think eBay won't change their mind on their course of action, but this is meant to be a 'what if' kind of exercise.

Comments

[Jay Jurado]

When a Company like eBay arbitrarily decides to take the constitutional rights,
of expressing the opinion of their constituents
they are violating the very base of the US Constitution.
We need to have the freedom to express our opinions; we have the legal right to
defend ourselves; The new feedback policy violates the fundamental freedom
given to us to express ourselves, when only one individual has the unilateral right
to leave negative feedback, the seller is no longer entitled to voice that opinion,
in a clear violation of our constitutional rights to free speech
or the right to express ourselves.

eBay not only is increasing the fees by 67%
PayPal -an eBay Company- will also Freeze our accounts!

We need to remain eBay that we are in the United States
and not in Countries like North Korea, Iran, and others
where the freedom to give and take your opinion
is silenced by the dictatorship of the individuals running those countries.

We have no protection and I feel vulnerable,
eBay is denying us of our constitutional rights.

[Mike]

EBay's modification to their feedback system is probably permissible under the User Agreement. It's not morally fair to Sellers, but there is little they can do about it. The reason eBay can do this (without everyone just leaving) is that they have a monopoly. They either crush or buy out every company which tries to compete with them. There has already been a class action case filed by several large law firms, and they are currently accepting applicants:

http://www.hagens-berman.com/eBay_classaction.htm

Within the current feedback changes, only one thing (legally speaking) emerges as being fraudulent. Buyer feedback displayed on eBay's website is now being intentionally inflated because Sellers can ONLY leave POSITIVE feedback for Buyers. I would expect the Federal trade Commission to act upon the matter very soon.

If you purport to "rate" something and encourage the public to rely upon that rating for commercial purposes, then your method of rating must be honest. EBay has created a feedback rating system which deliberately 'rates' Buyers with Positive-only feedback. It is reasonable -- even compulsory -- to assume that not every transaction with every Buyer is a "100% Positive" experience. Such a practice is therefore illegal per se as a deceptive business practice and requires no further showing of proof. A court would simply rule the practice illegal "on its face" without hearing testimony concerning eBay's reasons for doing it.

These ill-considered changes will also negatively affect Buyers, although they do not currently realize it. Because of the nature of eBay, a Buyer with prosthetically enhanced feedback today can easily become a falsely documented Seller tomorrow. Crooks will rejoice at the prospect of building 100% POSITIVE feedback as a bad-check-writing Buyer, and then turn around and use that same 100% rating to sell expensive items they never intend to ship!

[Rick]

I have been an avid seller 7000+ positives and I don't understand the change. I have patiently educated so many newbie ebay users. I have received negatives for UPS taking 7 days to get all the way across the country. I have gotten negatives for processing an order that was paid on Friday night on Tuesday. Many Newgies do not understand.

Let the newbies free with the negatives and the sellers don't have a chance. It will be interesting to watch. The foundation of the whole eBay system has been the integrity of the feedback system. I believe the abuse will be massive. Negatives with no recourse for newbies? It is obvious that the people in charge at eBay have no clue what is holding their money making machine together.

Rick

[Ed]

Scot

There are serious legal implications in each of your bullet points that I am sure eBay have considered.

Bullet 1 - No feedback at all by sellers. This comes under the US constitution relating to "Right to Reply" in the "Freedom of Speech" arena - something eBay (and TameBay) have been severely abusing lately - forum moderation activity and banning posters is at an all time high on both sites. By making Feeback completely one sided, eBay would become legally liable for all feedback publicly displayed on their site.

Bullet 2 - The 2nd part of the suggestion is the most practicable and sensible on the list - it would after all be just a few lines of code (and some guidance text) to force users into communicating via eBay messaging (loggable in the eBay system). Or a specific communication log, mirroring the UPI dispute console, could be created. But it's too sensible for current eBay management to entertain.

Bullet 3 - would require the implementation of human intervention to prevent abuse by buyers, although it could lead to pre-emptive (rather than retaliatory) negging by buyers if they spot a buyer has a few red or grey marks on their record already.

Bullet 4 - don't put ideas into the heads of muppets - thought you already realised that Scot? Exactly such a flippant comment led to the new International Visibility Fee.

Bullet 5 - It was working great until Mutual Withdrawal introduced the opportunity for abuse, so why not just remove MFW again?

A further issue as pointed out on another blog is the type of people using eBay nowadays. The early adopters were tech savvy IT types and business professionals who understood what they were doing, and the implications of things like feedback.

For around 5 years now, everyone and their uncle have been jumping on the site without the slightest clue as to how to use it, and no intent of learning how to do so. In particular, the deviantly behaved have been using it as a playground for a couple of years now - non-paying bidders, forum trolls, malicious sellers (like the Brit guy who put his wife up for auction because he thought she was having an affair) - these are the people eBay should be hounding, not the professional sellers and honest buyers.

If anyone sees a listing for "a plot" could they report it as stolen please - it probably belongs to eBay management.

Ed

[Jon]

As a seller, I believe the feedback change is needed. Currently, sellers selling worthless wholesale lists have 99% feedback. Doesn't that seem suspicious to anyone?

However, I do get annoyed with non-paying bidders(what a waste of time!) and bidders that like to return things. Hence, I have created Rottenbidders.com to help sellers to avoid transactions with such buyers. This is a site where you can share your bidder blacklist with other sellers. Since we can no longer leave negative feedback, I think the best way to combat the bad bidder problem is to avoid them.

Please take a look and let me know what you think!

Cheers Jon

[Fruity]

oh I think ebay is gonna do something like what squaretrade was doing for mediation service. that way ebay gets more share of wallet. Pay them to investigate star ratings at $25 a pop. They'll make mucho grande with that nifty stick em up

[EBAY REFUGEE!!]

"Sue @ TameBay" you actually think a 1 sided feedback system is a GOOD idea? Man, you are blind. Oh I see, you are one of those ebay cheerleaders that attended the 2007 live event. That says a lot about you. By the way, there are almost 100 LESS vendors this year than there were last year! That says everything!

Now get back to your cheerleader outfit! I am sure you can't wait to vote Republican AGAIN this year!

[Sue @ TameBay]

I asked Brian Burke @ Live last year whether they were considering blind feedback (your #2) and he said it was being considered. I think the solution they've implemented is probably better: my hunch would be under blind feedback, there'd be more people negging their business partner "just in case".