|
 |
| | | Author: | bb53904  | | Posted: | Jul 15, 2016 20:01 | | Subject: | Negative Feedback: What if? | | Viewed: | 340 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| When the first party in the transaction clicks on the little negative feedback
dot, show a list of reasons for leaving negative feedback, including an Other
with the ability to explain in detail.
The list should include reasons that qualify for NPB, NSS, or NRS. The person
should be advised to use those options first.
Hold the feedback in limbo for a short specified time to give the other party
an opportunity to respond in a way that bricklink can see.
If the first party receives no response during the hold time, the feedback can
be posted. The second party should be able to post their own feedback under
the same method, if they can show a reasonable cause for not responding.
In other words, give the two parties the requirement to communicate through bricklink
first, outside of feedback and the Forum!
Thea
Always An Adventure!
I will be away from the Forum for a few hours, and will respond to any comments
when I return.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | Jul 15, 2016 21:42 | | Subject: | Re: Negative Feedback: What if? | | Viewed: | 107 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Thea writes:
| | When the first party in the transaction clicks on the little negative feedback
dot, show a list of reasons for leaving negative feedback, including an Other
with the ability to explain in detail.
The list should include reasons that qualify for NPB, NSS, or NRS. The person
should be advised to use those options first.
Hold the feedback in limbo for a short specified time to give the other party
an opportunity to respond in a way that bricklink can see.
If the first party receives no response during the hold time, the feedback can
be posted. The second party should be able to post their own feedback under
the same method, if they can show a reasonable cause for not responding.
In other words, give the two parties the requirement to communicate through bricklink
first, outside of feedback and the Forum!
|
Interestingly, at BO, buyers are unable to leave negative feedback if they have
not contacted the seller about the order first.
--
Marc.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | bb53904 | | Posted: | Jul 16, 2016 02:08 | | Subject: | Re: Negative Feedback: What if? | | Viewed: | 88 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | In Suggestions, Thea writes:
| | When the first party in the transaction clicks on the little negative feedback
dot, show a list of reasons for leaving negative feedback, including an Other
with the ability to explain in detail.
The list should include reasons that qualify for NPB, NSS, or NRS. The person
should be advised to use those options first.
Hold the feedback in limbo for a short specified time to give the other party
an opportunity to respond in a way that bricklink can see.
If the first party receives no response during the hold time, the feedback can
be posted. The second party should be able to post their own feedback under
the same method, if they can show a reasonable cause for not responding.
In other words, give the two parties the requirement to communicate through bricklink
first, outside of feedback and the Forum!
|
Interestingly, at BO, buyers are unable to leave negative feedback if they have
not contacted the seller about the order first.
--
Marc.
|
I have not made a purchase at BrickOwl, so I was not aware of this requirement
for Buyers. It is always interesting to see how feedback is handled on other
websites.
I was simply trying to come up with a compromise between the "It Ain't Broke
so Don't Fix It" group, and the group that doesn't want Sellers to be
able to leave negative fb for Buyers that have paid.
Thea
Always An Adventure!
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Jul 15, 2016 22:00 | | Subject: | Re: Negative Feedback: What if? | | Viewed: | 119 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| I oppose any suggestion that would delay the ability of members to warn other
members via honest feedback. Prompt feedback minimizes scams and protects both
buyers and sellers. There have been several times - as both a buyer and seller
- where fresh feedback saved me from scams or bad experiences. I don't believe
the relatively rare problem of retaliatory feedback warrants taking away, limiting
or postponing buyer and seller protections.
The feedback system is NOT broke. It needs to drastic fixing. Please calm down
and keep things in perspective.
Thor
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | bb53904 | | Posted: | Jul 16, 2016 01:41 | | Subject: | Re: Negative Feedback: What if? | | Viewed: | 93 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, ToriHada writes:
| | I oppose any suggestion that would delay the ability of members to warn other
members via honest feedback. Prompt feedback minimizes scams and protects both
buyers and sellers. There have been several times - as both a buyer and seller
- where fresh feedback saved me from scams or bad experiences. I don't believe
the relatively rare problem of retaliatory feedback warrants taking away, limiting
or postponing buyer and seller protections.
The feedback system is NOT broke. It needs to drastic fixing. Please calm down
and keep things in perspective.
Thor
|
I did not say the feedback system was broken, nor am I offering "drastic" fixing.
That is your perspective, Thor, of my calmly presented suggestion.
You even said in another thread that you were withholding negative feedback until
you received a reply from a seller. So Thor, you are already practicing my suggestion
in spirit.
My suggestion is meant to present information, and show options that exist in
the current bricklink feedback system, that new members may not be aware of.
About posting timely feedback: There could be an acknowledgement checkbox included
to allow immediate posting instead of a holding period.
I don't know what the current procedure is with regards to receiving a notice
that negative fb has been posted by the first party, but my suggestion would
now propose that
using the acknowledgement checkbox would notify the second party. This is similar
to what you, Thor, have supported in the past with regards to Forum threads including
both parties in the discussion.
Thea
Always An Adventure!
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | QCBricks | | Posted: | Jul 15, 2016 23:02 | | Subject: | Re: Negative Feedback: What if? | | Viewed: | 91 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| R-
I think that forcing contact through BL would be a good thing...a bit of a pain,
but still probably worth it. I actually would have suggested it in my one post
about the feedback, but it seems like something that would be a total non-starter
here. I think there is huge upside in such a process, but I think it gets a
bit dicey once BL is on the hook for sorting through such communication to see
who it was that didn't follow through/lied/whatever.
There is an idea here, but I think it will be a tough sell on BL.
Voted Yes.
Scott
In Suggestions, Thea writes:
| | When the first party in the transaction clicks on the little negative feedback
dot, show a list of reasons for leaving negative feedback, including an Other
with the ability to explain in detail.
The list should include reasons that qualify for NPB, NSS, or NRS. The person
should be advised to use those options first.
Hold the feedback in limbo for a short specified time to give the other party
an opportunity to respond in a way that bricklink can see.
If the first party receives no response during the hold time, the feedback can
be posted. The second party should be able to post their own feedback under
the same method, if they can show a reasonable cause for not responding.
In other words, give the two parties the requirement to communicate through bricklink
first, outside of feedback and the Forum!
Thea
Always An Adventure!
I will be away from the Forum for a few hours, and will respond to any comments
when I return.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Made_In_Bricks | | Posted: | Jul 15, 2016 23:12 | | Subject: | Re: Negative Feedback: What if? | | Viewed: | 84 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| No, I posted some of the auto negative behaviors and insulting me, using profanity
and asking me to break the law are all reasons for auto negatives, I think people
should be warned about these activities on this site.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | calebfishn | | Posted: | Jul 15, 2016 23:58 | | Subject: | Re: Negative Feedback: What if? | | Viewed: | 85 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| No. the feedback system does not need fixing. Automatic processes cannot adjust
human behaviour.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | TheBrickGuys | | Posted: | Jul 16, 2016 13:37 | | Subject: | Re: Negative Feedback: What if? | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Thea writes:
| | When the first party in the transaction clicks on the little negative feedback
dot, show a list of reasons for leaving negative feedback, including an Other
with the ability to explain in detail.
The list should include reasons that qualify for NPB, NSS, or NRS. The person
should be advised to use those options first.
Hold the feedback in limbo for a short specified time to give the other party
an opportunity to respond in a way that bricklink can see.
If the first party receives no response during the hold time, the feedback can
be posted. The second party should be able to post their own feedback under
the same method, if they can show a reasonable cause for not responding.
In other words, give the two parties the requirement to communicate through bricklink
first, outside of feedback and the Forum!
Thea
Always An Adventure!
|
I think this is the best, well thought out, idea on how to improve the FB system.
Thor made a good point though (in his normal way of non constructiveness on steroids)
about scam scum so I would say that with one adjustment this would be a great
thing for BL to implement. The adjustment I propose would be that anyone buying
from a seller with 20 or less selling FB can leave FB at any time.
Jim.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | bb53904 | | Posted: | Jul 20, 2016 02:25 | | Subject: | Re: NEGATIVE FEEDBACK WHAT IF Amended | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| There have been several comments that are worthy of re-wording this suggestion.
In Suggestions, Thea writes:
| | When the first party in the transaction clicks on the little negative feedback
dot, show a list of reasons for leaving negative feedback.
|
This is one of the main statements on the Post Feedback page.
"Please try to resolve any disputes before posting a complaint."
All too often this is overlooked by upset new members. Even if they read it,
they may not understand that certain "complaints" do not "automatically" equal
negative feedback, or that there may be other options for the way the transaction
was handled by the other party.
Many times it is difficult to find specific information about what to do if you
are not happy with the transaction. This could be accomplished by a pop-up window
with a list and an acknowledgement checkbox.
The list should include reasons that qualify for NPB, NSS, or NRS.
The person should be advised to use those options first, if appropriate, to protect
themselves from any retaliatory feedback.
The time needed to read a pop-up list might be just enough to make the person
reconsider, or choose to contact the other party first. A pop-up would not interfere
with feedback that, in the words of the opposition to my original suggestion,
"equals auto negative" or "needs to be posted in a timely manner".
It needs to be a requirement that the member acknowledges they have read the
reasons for using negative feedback, before being allowed to continue with posting
it. Using the acknowledgement "I have read the list and still want to continue"
checkbox would generate an auto message, with a comment box to allow including
any relevant information, that would be sent to both parties.
The comment box should have a message "These comments must adhere to the rules
for Forum posting." This is meant to provide another small time-out to reconsider
solving it in private.
There would be a record in bricklink, but no need for admin time to be used at
this point. Under this suggestion, the person receiving a negative, would use
the same methods/reasons currently in place to ask for it's removal. The
recipient would also have documentation to use in asking for advice from Forum
members.
I am not proposing any changes to the actual feedback system, just trying to
reduce the he said/she said Forum posts. And include "Count to 10" as short
time-outs to comply with the "try to resolve it first before leaving negative
feedback".
| | Thea
Always An Adventure!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA, Texas
Canada, Ontario
