| Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | tEoS  | | Posted: | Jun 24, 2020 14:51 | | Subject: | Re: Changing rules of feedback | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| Voted no. I don't believe this is the solution to the problem.
The problem, as I see it, is two-fold (or maybe more) and is related to human
behavior:
1) The desire to be viewed as perfect. Further derived from one's careful
approach to their online persona (ie: through Facebook, etc. where you only see
one's "good" side or positive achievements).
2) Inability to view one's mistakes as an opportunity to learn and grow.
Blames others for their own shortcomings. Ties into ego, above.
Of course, I think these are experienced in varying degrees by at least most
individuals. The more extreme of which behave in aggressive selling practices.
|
 |
| Author: | Rick_S. | | Posted: | Jun 24, 2020 14:28 | | Subject: | Re: Changing rules of feedback | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | In Suggestions, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Suggestions, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | […]
Part of the problem is buyers keep buying from sellers with relatively poor feedback,
suggesting (some) buyers don't care.
|
I think it’s more a “it won’t happen to me” attitude.
Remember HouseOfLogo (and what a real mess it was).
|
Yes, and it was a huge ordeal to get that store shut down. I have often thought
of establishing some kind of disciplinary board to handle these high profile
cases. But regardless of the mechanism, honest data from users would be a big
help.
|
If you want honest feedback from buyers, then remove feedback for buyers. That
way, they don't have anything to lose by being honest (not that a buyer's
feedback matters anyway). Buyers getting only positives like at ebay is pointless.
You might as well just use the buyer order count instead, it amounts to the same
thing and saves a seller the time of leaving positive feedback.
It would be nice though to have a buyer score based not on the feedback they
received, but the feedback they left. If a buyer continuously leaves negatives
or neutrals as they feel they have the power to do so with no comeback, then
they are the problem. It should not be anonymous either. If they leave a seller
a negative (or multiple negatives), then the seller should have the right to
ban them from continuing to purchase and continue to leave poor feedback. If
a buyer has a problem with say 1 in every 20 orders, then leaving negative feedback
on that scale is fine. However, if they claim they have negative experiences
in 1 in every 2 orders then I imagine they will get added to many stoplists and
should probably be banned themselves.
I think you have to be careful though, giving lots of power to buyers might actually
reduce standards. If a buyer says they have a problem and is probably going to
leave negative feedback anyway no matter what the seller does, then the seller
has no incentive to put things right. And in a similar way, if negatives become
more common and there is some threshold set then there is less of an incentive
to maintain an excellent record when good enough is still enough to keep selling.
I think there is a better way for you to maintain standards than through feedback
though and that is through NSS claims. Not completed ones, but claims. For example,
if a seller continually fails to deliver but refunds when caught and does this
time and time again, why are they allowed to continue getting away with it? Just
refunding when they get a complaint does not mean they are a good seller.
You could always have another box for buyers to fill in when leaving feedback
- asking did you get everything in your order in the stated condition. If a seller
gets below a certain percentage for those, they should be warned. If they continue
to get very low ratings, then they should be banned. Of course, it should only
count if a buyer fills in this information for all of their orders.
|
I'd disagree with that assumption, since right now the only negative feedback
I have is as a buyer and I did deserve it I failed in my obligation to the seller.
and as to feedback I have left as both a buyer and seller, they were deserved.
in fact in one case where I was the buyer my feedback along with others helped
to inform the public the seller was a serious problem and even then it took awhile
to get rid of them. https://www.bricklink.com/feedback.asp?viewType=&u=lego_police2
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Jun 24, 2020 14:11 | | Subject: | Re: Changing rules of feedback | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Suggestions, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | […]
Part of the problem is buyers keep buying from sellers with relatively poor feedback,
suggesting (some) buyers don't care.
|
I think it’s more a “it won’t happen to me” attitude.
Remember HouseOfLogo (and what a real mess it was).
|
Yes, and it was a huge ordeal to get that store shut down. I have often thought
of establishing some kind of disciplinary board to handle these high profile
cases. But regardless of the mechanism, honest data from users would be a big
help.
|
If you want honest feedback from buyers, then remove feedback for buyers. That
way, they don't have anything to lose by being honest (not that a buyer's
feedback matters anyway). Buyers getting only positives like at ebay is pointless.
You might as well just use the buyer order count instead, it amounts to the same
thing and saves a seller the time of leaving positive feedback.
It would be nice though to have a buyer score based not on the feedback they
received, but the feedback they left. If a buyer continuously leaves negatives
or neutrals as they feel they have the power to do so with no comeback, then
they are the problem. It should not be anonymous either. If they leave a seller
a negative (or multiple negatives), then the seller should have the right to
ban them from continuing to purchase and continue to leave poor feedback. If
a buyer has a problem with say 1 in every 20 orders, then leaving negative feedback
on that scale is fine. However, if they claim they have negative experiences
in 1 in every 2 orders then I imagine they will get added to many stoplists and
should probably be banned themselves.
I think you have to be careful though, giving lots of power to buyers might actually
reduce standards. If a buyer says they have a problem and is probably going to
leave negative feedback anyway no matter what the seller does, then the seller
has no incentive to put things right. And in a similar way, if negatives become
more common and there is some threshold set then there is less of an incentive
to maintain an excellent record when good enough is still enough to keep selling.
I think there is a better way for you to maintain standards than through feedback
though and that is through NSS claims. Not completed ones, but claims. For example,
if a seller continually fails to deliver but refunds when caught and does this
time and time again, why are they allowed to continue getting away with it? Just
refunding when they get a complaint does not mean they are a good seller.
You could always have another box for buyers to fill in when leaving feedback
- asking did you get everything in your order in the stated condition. If a seller
gets below a certain percentage for those, they should be warned. If they continue
to get very low ratings, then they should be banned. Of course, it should only
count if a buyer fills in this information for all of their orders.
|
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jun 24, 2020 12:28 | | Subject: | Re: Changing rules of feedback | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | […]
Part of the problem is buyers keep buying from sellers with relatively poor feedback,
suggesting (some) buyers don't care.
|
I think it’s more a “it won’t happen to me” attitude.
Remember HouseOfLogo (and what a real mess it was).
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
|
USA, Michigan
United Kingdom, England
France, Nouvelle-Aquitaine