Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies Author: | infinibrix | Posted: | Jun 24, 2020 17:04 | Subject: | Re: Changing rules of feedback | Viewed: | 34 times | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
| In Suggestions, infinibrix writes:
| In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
|
problem is it is not just bad buyers but bad sellers, my suggestion here was
made because of a seller who left retaliatory feedback for a deserved negative
they had received from a buyer.
|
But that’s just my point with the ebays feedback system Sellers can’t leave negative
feedback for buyers which means they can’t leave retaliatory feedback in any
shape or form! Meaning the buyer is able to give their honest opinion without
fear of retaliatory feedback!
It’s a change I’ve been calling for some time:-
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1168664
I feel its only important that we understand how a seller performs(Feedback wise!)
because it goes without saying that there will always be a few difficult customers
and its how sellers deal with those tricky customers that’s important and for
those customers that are impossibly unreasonable they can be reported and dealt
with by Bricklink!
|
While I do agree such a system would be useful it could also have drawbacks too.
|
Well every system has drawbacks but presumably the current system has big enough
drawbacks for you to warrant posting your concerns in the first place? Hopefully
any drawbacks you associate with the ebay system will be outweighed with what
you are already experiencing right now with the current system?
|
|
Author: | SylvainLS | Posted: | Jun 24, 2020 16:57 | Subject: | Re: Changing rules of feedback | Viewed: | 33 times | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
| […]
ShakeyShuffle was a character.
|
But that doesn’t prevent a member using “ShackyShuffle” (with or without the
‘e’) for their ID here.
Are you Ricky Stratton from Silver Spoons?
|
Author: | StormChaser | Posted: | Jun 24, 2020 16:55 | Subject: | Re: Change Notification: Parts 4623 and 88072 | Viewed: | 56 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| All four changes are planned to occur between the hours of 8 AM and 4 PM CST
on July 8th, 2020.
|
The date listed above is a typographical error.
It should read July 18th, 2020.
|
|
Author: | Rick_S. | Posted: | Jun 24, 2020 16:35 | Subject: | Re: Changing rules of feedback | Viewed: | 37 times | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, SylvainLS writes:
| In Suggestions, tEoS writes:
| Was ShackyShuffle also HoL? I recall them having similar issues.
|
I don’t remember that name.
And, of course, the forum history has been long purged.
Not long ago, HouseOfLogos was still listed as a member (I’m not sure if they
were still registred but their name was searchable: I did search because I never
remember if it was Logo or Logos).
But now these members must have become BLUSERs: can’t buy, can’t sell, no reasons
to log in to accept the new ToS.
“Dust: this is carpet; carpet, this is dust. You’ll spend a long time together.”
|
ShakeyShuffle was a character.
|
|
Author: | Rick_S. | Posted: | Jun 24, 2020 16:34 | Subject: | Re: Changing rules of feedback | Viewed: | 29 times | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, infinibrix writes:
| In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
|
problem is it is not just bad buyers but bad sellers, my suggestion here was
made because of a seller who left retaliatory feedback for a deserved negative
they had received from a buyer.
|
But that’s just my point with the ebays feedback system Sellers can’t leave negative
feedback for buyers which means they can’t leave retaliatory feedback in any
shape or form! Meaning the buyer is able to give their honest opinion without
fear of retaliatory feedback!
It’s a change I’ve been calling for some time:-
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1168664
I feel its only important that we understand how a seller performs(Feedback wise!)
because it goes without saying that there will always be a few difficult customers
and its how sellers deal with those tricky customers that’s important and for
those customers that are impossibly unreasonable they can be reported and dealt
with by Bricklink!
|
While I do agree such a system would be useful it could also have drawbacks too.
|
|
Author: | Rick_S. | Posted: | Jun 24, 2020 16:31 | Subject: | Re: Changing rules of feedback | Viewed: | 35 times | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, tEoS writes:
| Buyer left neutral feedback = error in what you wrote
| Actually there is no error, the synopsis is based on available data. but that
is just one incident it still brings up the issue that retaliatory feedback cannot
be removed and in that, it can cause more issues down the road. and it also prevents
buyers from leaving honest feedback in fear they will receive retaliatory feedback
in response.
|
|
Wrong again: it was negative, you notice the negative feedback they left for
Sludgemonster?
https://www.bricklink.com/feedback.asp?fdbType=2&p=mjsheller
and it seems this seller is pretty notorious in not being a great seller and
leaving retaliatory feedback too.
|
|
Author: | SylvainLS | Posted: | Jun 24, 2020 16:15 | Subject: | Re: Changing rules of feedback | Viewed: | 34 times | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, tEoS writes:
| Was ShackyShuffle also HoL? I recall them having similar issues.
|
I don’t remember that name.
And, of course, the forum history has been long purged.
Not long ago, HouseOfLogos was still listed as a member (I’m not sure if they
were still registred but their name was searchable: I did search because I never
remember if it was Logo or Logos).
But now these members must have become BLUSERs: can’t buy, can’t sell, no reasons
to log in to accept the new ToS.
“Dust: this is carpet; carpet, this is dust. You’ll spend a long time together.”
|
|
Author: | StormChaser | Posted: | Jun 24, 2020 16:10 | Subject: | Re: Change Notification: Parts 4623 and 88072 | Viewed: | 41 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| I don't understand why there is a 2 week waiting period.
|
This is to give members time to prepare for and potentially object to any of
the planned changes.
|
|
Author: | infinibrix | Posted: | Jun 24, 2020 16:07 | Subject: | Re: Changing rules of feedback | Viewed: | 32 times | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, Rick_S. writes:
|
problem is it is not just bad buyers but bad sellers, my suggestion here was
made because of a seller who left retaliatory feedback for a deserved negative
they had received from a buyer.
|
But that’s just my point with the ebays feedback system Sellers can’t leave negative
feedback for buyers which means they can’t leave retaliatory feedback in any
shape or form! Meaning the buyer is able to give their honest opinion without
fear of retaliatory feedback!
It’s a change I’ve been calling for some time:-
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1168664
I feel its only important that we understand how a seller performs(Feedback wise!)
because it goes without saying that there will always be a few difficult customers
and its how sellers deal with those tricky customers that’s important and for
those customers that are impossibly unreasonable they can be reported and dealt
with by Bricklink!
|
|
Author: | tEoS | Posted: | Jun 24, 2020 16:06 | Subject: | Re: Changing rules of feedback | Viewed: | 29 times | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| Buyer left neutral feedback = error in what you wrote
| Actually there is no error, the synopsis is based on available data. but that
is just one incident it still brings up the issue that retaliatory feedback cannot
be removed and in that, it can cause more issues down the road. and it also prevents
buyers from leaving honest feedback in fear they will receive retaliatory feedback
in response.
|
|
|
Author: | Rick_S. | Posted: | Jun 24, 2020 16:03 | Subject: | Re: Changing rules of feedback | Viewed: | 31 times | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, tEoS writes:
| Get your facts straight. You even have an error in the incident.
You come back to the forum after all these years and pretend like no one is aware
of what is going on. I read the suggestion and do not see its merits.
The problem is not retaliatory feedback, it is with certain members.
| didn't read the suggestion did ya? the suggestion is to have the opportunity
to have what is known as retaliatory feedback removed, this was brought about
because of an incident that happened which went like this:
|
|
Actually there is no error, the synopsis is based on available data. but that
is just one incident it still brings up the issue that retaliatory feedback cannot
be removed and in that, it can cause more issues down the road. and it also prevents
buyers from leaving honest feedback in fear they will receive retaliatory feedback
in response.
|
|
Author: | tEoS | Posted: | Jun 24, 2020 15:54 | Subject: | Re: Changing rules of feedback | Viewed: | 25 times | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| Was ShackyShuffle also HoL? I recall them having similar issues.
| From what I got from the forum at that time, there were many awful delays, lots
of (tardy) refunds (so no NSS), etc.
And part of the problem was that there also were many people having no problems,
defending them and using them again.
“It didn’t happen to me, therefore it will never happen to me (because I’m special).”
Or worse: “It didn’t happen to me, therefore it didn’t happen to anyone (they
are just impatient sourpusses).”
It took months for the admins to smooth them out.
|
|
|
Author: | SylvainLS | Posted: | Jun 24, 2020 15:49 | Subject: | Re: Changing rules of feedback | Viewed: | 26 times | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, Tracyd writes:
| […]
| I think it’s more a “it won’t happen to me” attitude.
Remember HouseOfLogo (and what a real mess it was).
|
Whatever happened with them was in my dark time. Before their meltdown I had
5 successful orders with them with no problems.
|
From what I got from the forum at that time, there were many awful delays, lots
of (tardy) refunds (so no NSS), etc.
And part of the problem was that there also were many people having no problems,
defending them and using them again.
“It didn’t happen to me, therefore it will never happen to me (because I’m special).”
Or worse: “It didn’t happen to me, therefore it didn’t happen to anyone (they
are just impatient sourpusses).”
It took months for the admins to smooth them out.
|
|
Author: | tEoS | Posted: | Jun 24, 2020 15:48 | Subject: | Re: Changing rules of feedback | Viewed: | 39 times | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| Get your facts straight. You even have an error in the incident.
You come back to the forum after all these years and pretend like no one is aware
of what is going on. I read the suggestion and do not see its merits.
The problem is not retaliatory feedback, it is with certain members.
| didn't read the suggestion did ya? the suggestion is to have the opportunity
to have what is known as retaliatory feedback removed, this was brought about
because of an incident that happened which went like this:
|
|
|
Author: | Tracyd | Posted: | Jun 24, 2020 15:34 | Subject: | Re: Changing rules of feedback | Viewed: | 34 times | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| 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).
|
Whatever happened with them was in my dark time. Before their meltdown I had
5 successful orders with them with no problems.
|
|
Author: | Rick_S. | Posted: | Jun 24, 2020 15:03 | Subject: | Re: Changing rules of feedback | Viewed: | 44 times | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, tEoS writes:
| 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.
|
didn't read the suggestion did ya? the suggestion is to have the opportunity
to have what is known as retaliatory feedback removed, this was brought about
because of an incident that happened which went like this:
Buyer buys items from seller
Seller ships items, but then discovers he "forgot" 3 .07 cent tires
Seller decides to refund the .21 cents without contacting buyer and getting their
input
Buyer is miffed and rightly so and leaves negative feedback
Seller turns around and leaves negative feedback for the buyer even though the
buyer did nothing wrong
Buyer is unable to have feedback removed because of the current rules
Buyer goes with only option to remove feedback and that is to file an NSS
The NSS will get dropped since the buyer was refunded but not at his request.
As it goes do you feel it is justified for said buyer to have said negative feedback
even though they did nothing wrong to deserve it? do you believe it is ok for
anyone to leave retaliatory feedback because they got a deserved negative?
|
|
Author: | axaday | Posted: | Jun 24, 2020 14:52 | Subject: | Re: Change Notification: Parts 4623 and 88072 | Viewed: | 42 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| NOTIFICATION OF CHANGES TO PARTS 4623 AND 88072
[P=88072]
Members have recently identified two problems with these part variant entries:
1. The additional notes need to be updated.
2. Part 4623 comes in both 5 MM and 6 MM horizontal arm length versions.
A member has submitted a request for us to take action.
What changes will happen?
1. The title of Part 4623 currently in parentheses will be changed to
read "Undetermined Arm Length," but the part will not immediately be marked for
deletion.
2. A new catalog entry will be created with the part number 4623a and
the title "Plate, Modified 1 x 2 with Arm Up (Horizontal Arm Length 6mm)."
3. Part 88072 has 4623b as an alternate item number. The primary number
(88072) and alternate item number (4623b) will be switched for this part.
4. The additional notes for all three entries will be updated for brevity
and ease of comprehension.
When will these changes occur?
All four changes are planned to occur between the hours of 8 AM and 4 PM CST
on July 8th, 2020.
Why are these changes necessary?
The changes are necessary because Part 4623 comes in both 5 MM and 6 MM horizontal
arm lengths. The catalog does not currently recognize this fact and some inventories
include incorrect part variants.
How will these changes affect BrickLink members?
Sellers should move their for-sale listings from the undetermined entry to either
4623a or 4623b as soon as reasonably possible after the July 8th changes. Members
who object to one or more changes should immediately provide input with clear
reasons for their objections.
|
I don't understand why there is a 2 week waiting period.
|
|
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: | Stuart9 | Posted: | Jun 24, 2020 14:44 | Subject: | Re: Change Notification: Parts 4623 and 88072 | Viewed: | 39 times | Topic: | Catalog | |
| Thanks, changes and dates noted.
In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| NOTIFICATION OF CHANGES TO PARTS 4623 AND 88072
[P=88072]
Members have recently identified two problems with these part variant entries:
1. The additional notes need to be updated.
2. Part 4623 comes in both 5 MM and 6 MM horizontal arm length versions.
A member has submitted a request for us to take action.
What changes will happen?
1. The title of Part 4623 currently in parentheses will be changed to
read "Undetermined Arm Length," but the part will not immediately be marked for
deletion.
2. A new catalog entry will be created with the part number 4623a and
the title "Plate, Modified 1 x 2 with Arm Up (Horizontal Arm Length 6mm)."
3. Part 88072 has 4623b as an alternate item number. The primary number
(88072) and alternate item number (4623b) will be switched for this part.
4. The additional notes for all three entries will be updated for brevity
and ease of comprehension.
When will these changes occur?
All four changes are planned to occur between the hours of 8 AM and 4 PM CST
on July 8th, 2020.
Why are these changes necessary?
The changes are necessary because Part 4623 comes in both 5 MM and 6 MM horizontal
arm lengths. The catalog does not currently recognize this fact and some inventories
include incorrect part variants.
How will these changes affect BrickLink members?
Sellers should move their for-sale listings from the undetermined entry to either
4623a or 4623b as soon as reasonably possible after the July 8th changes. Members
who object to one or more changes should immediately provide input with clear
reasons for their objections.
|
|
|
Author: | StormChaser | Posted: | Jun 24, 2020 14:30 | Subject: | Change Notification: Parts 4623 and 88072 | Viewed: | 138 times | Topic: | Catalog | Status: | Open | |
| NOTIFICATION OF CHANGES TO PARTS 4623 AND 88072
[P=88072]
Members have recently identified two problems with these part variant entries:
1. The additional notes need to be updated.
2. Part 4623 comes in both 5 MM and 6 MM horizontal arm length versions.
A member has submitted a request for us to take action.
What changes will happen?
1. The title of Part 4623 currently in parentheses will be changed to
read "Undetermined Arm Length," but the part will not immediately be marked for
deletion.
2. A new catalog entry will be created with the part number 4623a and
the title "Plate, Modified 1 x 2 with Arm Up (Horizontal Arm Length 6mm)."
3. Part 88072 has 4623b as an alternate item number. The primary number
(88072) and alternate item number (4623b) will be switched for this part.
4. The additional notes for all three entries will be updated for brevity
and ease of comprehension.
When will these changes occur?
All four changes are planned to occur between the hours of 8 AM and 4 PM CST
on July 8th, 2020.
Why are these changes necessary?
The changes are necessary because Part 4623 comes in both 5 MM and 6 MM horizontal
arm lengths. The catalog does not currently recognize this fact and some inventories
include incorrect part variants.
How will these changes affect BrickLink members?
Sellers should move their for-sale listings from the undetermined entry to either
4623a or 4623b as soon as reasonably possible after the July 8th changes. Members
who object to one or more changes should immediately provide input with clear
reasons for their objections.
|
|
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: | Turez | Posted: | Jun 24, 2020 14:23 | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 60265-1 | Viewed: | 27 times | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | Status: | Open | |
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Change 1 Part Lime {87989 Minifigure, Utensil Syringe to 53020 Minifigure, Utensil Syringe with 2 Hollows}
* Change 1 Part Lime {87989 Minifigure, Utensil Syringe to 53020 Minifigure, Utensil Syringe with 2 Hollows} (Extra)
Comments from Submitter:
Marek just told me that this new syringe type got its own catalog entry today - and I have the new type 53020 in my copy of set 60265 which was used to create the inventory.
|
|
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: | Admin_Russell | Posted: | Jun 24, 2020 13:20 | Subject: | Re: Changing rules of feedback | Viewed: | 76 times | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| 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.
|
|
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
|