|
 |
| | | Author: | cosmicray  | | Posted: | Nov 8, 2021 10:22 | | Subject: | Buyer's Remorse order cancelleations | | Viewed: | 203 times | | Topic: | Terms and Policies | |
|
| On this Help Page ...
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=79
It says ...
| | Buyer no longer wants the items - This is the most common example which BrickLink does not tolerate. Buyer should make sure he or she wants to buy the items before submitting an order, not after. After an order is submitted, the buyer enters into a legally binding contract with the seller to purchase all items in that order.
|
is an Invalid Reason for a buyer to request cancellation.
It also says that ...
| | Buyer no longer wants to purchase items
|
Is a valid reason for a Seller to cancel an order.
The primary reason for the first part very likely has to do with buyers hitting
the buy button before they took the time to read the listing (and especially
the extended description).
That policy was put into effect before IC came into widespread use, and before
the payment services began retaining the payment fees (and costing the seller
for doing a refund). Other than negative feedback, there is no penalty towards
buyers who violate the Invalid Reason on their side.
Have we arrived at the point where buyers need to be reminded why they should
not place orders they will ask to cancel the morning after ?
My thoughts (partially formed) is for something like a BRC (Buyers Remorse Cancellation)
procedure. That would give the seller feedback coverage, and would remind the
buyer that they get a limited number of strikes before they lose their buying
privileges. Currently, other than the prohibition in the Help Center, there is
no penalty for bailing on an order (and many sellers are reluctant to leave feedback
because of retaliation).
There is the additional consideration in this entire issue, that implementing
a split authorize/capture on the payments will lessen the burden on the seller.
But it will not change buyer behavior.
Nita Rae
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | legoman77 | | Posted: | Nov 8, 2021 14:34 | | Subject: | Re: Buyer's Remorse order cancelleations | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Terms and Policies | |
|
| In Terms and Policies, cosmicray writes:
| |
Is a valid reason for a Seller to cancel an order.
|
I think if the seller dies that would be a good reason.
John P
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | cosmicray | | Posted: | Nov 8, 2021 14:45 | | Subject: | Re: Buyer's Remorse order cancelleations | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Terms and Policies | |
|
| In Terms and Policies, legoman77 writes:
| | In Terms and Policies, cosmicray writes:
| |
Is a valid reason for a Seller to cancel an order.
|
I think if the seller dies that would be a good reason.
John P
|
If BL is available via the dark-web, I agree.
Nita Rae
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | brickerking | | Posted: | Nov 8, 2021 14:54 | | Subject: | Re: Buyer's Remorse order cancelleations | | Viewed: | 65 times | | Topic: | Terms and Policies | |
|
| In Terms and Policies, cosmicray writes:
| | My thoughts (partially formed) is for something like a BRC (Buyers Remorse Cancellation)
procedure. That would give the seller...
|
You lost me at "give the seller". I believe BL only makes changes based on what
they can give the buyer. I could be wrong. 
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | cosmicray | | Posted: | Nov 8, 2021 19:28 | | Subject: | Re: Buyer's Remorse order cancelleations | | Viewed: | 66 times | | Topic: | Terms and Policies | |
|
| In Terms and Policies, gogogovro writes:
| | In Terms and Policies, cosmicray writes:
| | My thoughts (partially formed) is for something like a BRC (Buyers Remorse Cancellation)
procedure. That would give the seller...
|
You lost me at "give the seller". I believe BL only makes changes based on what
they can give the buyer. I could be wrong.
|
When a seller goes thru the NPB procedure, they (the seller) gets coverage against
a negative FB left by the buyer. I'm suggesting a similar coverage when the
buyer requests to walk away from a valid order (that they never should have initiated
in the first place).
Nita Rae
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Nov 9, 2021 04:08 | | Subject: | Re: Buyer's Remorse order cancelleations | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Terms and Policies | |
|
| In Terms and Policies, cosmicray writes:
| | In Terms and Policies, gogogovro writes:
| | In Terms and Policies, cosmicray writes:
| | My thoughts (partially formed) is for something like a BRC (Buyers Remorse Cancellation)
procedure. That would give the seller...
|
You lost me at "give the seller". I believe BL only makes changes based on what
they can give the buyer. I could be wrong.
|
When a seller goes thru the NPB procedure, they (the seller) gets coverage against
a negative FB left by the buyer. I'm suggesting a similar coverage when the
buyer requests to walk away from a valid order (that they never should have initiated
in the first place).
Nita Rae
|
If things are changed so that there is a way of punishing the buyer if they initiate
a cancellation, then buyers will do their best to avoid using it. If a buyer
places an IC order (and obviously pays) and then decides that they want to cancel,
then they could ask to cancel but if they know they are going to get negative
feedback because of it, or a strike for doing it, then they will do their best
to get the seller to initiate the cancellation instead. So expect:
Hi seller, I no longer want this order. Can you cancel it. If you do not, I will
refuse the package (under my legal rights) and it will be returned to you. So
either cancel it now, or you can pay to post it and have it returned to you in
a few weeks. You can then refund the full amount to me once it is returned. You
will have your inventory tied up all that time, and you will pay for the postage
costs. Or just cancel it now.
What wins out, the principle of the matter or the least troublesome route?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | cosmicray | | Posted: | Nov 9, 2021 07:33 | | Subject: | Re: Buyer's Remorse order cancelleations | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Terms and Policies | |
|
| In Terms and Policies, yorbrick writes:
| | In Terms and Policies, cosmicray writes:
| | In Terms and Policies, gogogovro writes:
| | In Terms and Policies, cosmicray writes:
| | My thoughts (partially formed) is for something like a BRC (Buyers Remorse Cancellation)
procedure. That would give the seller...
|
You lost me at "give the seller". I believe BL only makes changes based on what
they can give the buyer. I could be wrong.
|
When a seller goes thru the NPB procedure, they (the seller) gets coverage against
a negative FB left by the buyer. I'm suggesting a similar coverage when the
buyer requests to walk away from a valid order (that they never should have initiated
in the first place).
Nita Rae
|
If things are changed so that there is a way of punishing the buyer if they initiate
a cancellation, then buyers will do their best to avoid using it. If a buyer
places an IC order (and obviously pays) and then decides that they want to cancel,
then they could ask to cancel but if they know they are going to get negative
feedback because of it, or a strike for doing it, then they will do their best
to get the seller to initiate the cancellation instead. So expect:
Hi seller, I no longer want this order. Can you cancel it. If you do not, I will
refuse the package (under my legal rights) and it will be returned to you. So
either cancel it now, or you can pay to post it and have it returned to you in
a few weeks. You can then refund the full amount to me once it is returned. You
will have your inventory tied up all that time, and you will pay for the postage
costs. Or just cancel it now.
What wins out, the principle of the matter or the least troublesome route?
|
What wins out is the process that results in buyers wanting to do that little
or never.
The problem, as I tried to explain, goes beyond merely canceling the order ...
canceling those order goes against the BL ToS and (as of a year ago) costs sellers
real money. The buyer gets off with no loss of money, and nothing to suggest
they not do that again.
Then we get into the entire issue of feedback.
Nita Rae
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Nov 9, 2021 07:58 | | Subject: | Re: Buyer's Remorse order cancelleations | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Terms and Policies | |
|
| In Terms and Policies, cosmicray writes:
| | In Terms and Policies, yorbrick writes:
| | In Terms and Policies, cosmicray writes:
| | In Terms and Policies, gogogovro writes:
| | In Terms and Policies, cosmicray writes:
| | My thoughts (partially formed) is for something like a BRC (Buyers Remorse Cancellation)
procedure. That would give the seller...
|
You lost me at "give the seller". I believe BL only makes changes based on what
they can give the buyer. I could be wrong.
|
When a seller goes thru the NPB procedure, they (the seller) gets coverage against
a negative FB left by the buyer. I'm suggesting a similar coverage when the
buyer requests to walk away from a valid order (that they never should have initiated
in the first place).
Nita Rae
|
If things are changed so that there is a way of punishing the buyer if they initiate
a cancellation, then buyers will do their best to avoid using it. If a buyer
places an IC order (and obviously pays) and then decides that they want to cancel,
then they could ask to cancel but if they know they are going to get negative
feedback because of it, or a strike for doing it, then they will do their best
to get the seller to initiate the cancellation instead. So expect:
Hi seller, I no longer want this order. Can you cancel it. If you do not, I will
refuse the package (under my legal rights) and it will be returned to you. So
either cancel it now, or you can pay to post it and have it returned to you in
a few weeks. You can then refund the full amount to me once it is returned. You
will have your inventory tied up all that time, and you will pay for the postage
costs. Or just cancel it now.
What wins out, the principle of the matter or the least troublesome route?
|
What wins out is the process that results in buyers wanting to do that little
or never.
The problem, as I tried to explain, goes beyond merely canceling the order ...
canceling those order goes against the BL ToS and (as of a year ago) costs sellers
real money. The buyer gets off with no loss of money, and nothing to suggest
they not do that again.
Then we get into the entire issue of feedback.
|
Yeah, I agree the real kick in the teeth is the payment of paypal fees on an
order that is cancelled. As you noted, the two step payment procedure would be
much better here. Pre-auth at the time of placing the IC order then payment collection
at the time the seller marks the order packed or dispatched.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Nov 9, 2021 03:30 | | Subject: | Re: Buyer's Remorse order cancelleations | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Terms and Policies | |
|
| In Terms and Policies, cosmicray writes:
| | On this Help Page ...
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=79
It says ...
| | Buyer no longer wants the items - This is the most common example which BrickLink does not tolerate. Buyer should make sure he or she wants to buy the items before submitting an order, not after. After an order is submitted, the buyer enters into a legally binding contract with the seller to purchase all items in that order.
|
is an Invalid Reason for a buyer to request cancellation.
It also says that ...
| | Buyer no longer wants to purchase items
|
Is a valid reason for a Seller to cancel an order.
The primary reason for the first part very likely has to do with buyers hitting
the buy button before they took the time to read the listing (and especially
the extended description).
That policy was put into effect before IC came into widespread use, and before
the payment services began retaining the payment fees (and costing the seller
for doing a refund). Other than negative feedback, there is no penalty towards
buyers who violate the Invalid Reason on their side.
Have we arrived at the point where buyers need to be reminded why they should
not place orders they will ask to cancel the morning after ?
My thoughts (partially formed) is for something like a BRC (Buyers Remorse Cancellation)
procedure. That would give the seller feedback coverage, and would remind the
buyer that they get a limited number of strikes before they lose their buying
privileges. Currently, other than the prohibition in the Help Center, there is
no penalty for bailing on an order (and many sellers are reluctant to leave feedback
because of retaliation).
There is the additional consideration in this entire issue, that implementing
a split authorize/capture on the payments will lessen the burden on the seller.
But it will not change buyer behavior.
Nita Rae
|
Yeah, I agree we need something better than the feedback system. It works a little
bit like this on BrickOwl; non-payments get marked on the buyer's account.
I think that's great (however, the adminstration doesn't do much with
it in terms of how many strikes you get. But they could).
As for the legal aspect: The whole paragraph about "legally binding contract"
is utter gibberish and Bricklink is aware of that - but as with many issues,
they simply do not care. They never change anything as long as there's no
institution outside of them pressuring them to change. On the one hand, Bricklink
explicitly asks/forces sellers to respect consumer rights (which for EU, UK and
to the best of my knowledge US consumers means the right to cancel or return
a purchase for a full refund), on the other hand they add a silly illegal paragraph
like that, making themselves the biggest rule breaker.
However, sellers have every right not liking the fact that a buyer used their
right. After all, this is not a webshop for board games, we're sorting thousands
of tiny products into an almost custom-made purchase for the buyer. So flagging
non-payments is very relevant. Rather than the convoluted negative feedback tool,
which can mean anything from "you didn't pay" to "you were rude" to "I'm
taking revenge on you" to "you didn't read my terms that include illegal
clauses", it would be much more informative if we could simply see how often
a buyer placed an order and then canceled.
Alongside other statistics, such as how often a buyer has claimed that an order
did not arrive. It's a similar situation. Actually it's pretty crazy
that we don't have access to that number. Right now, a scammer will get the
benefit of the doubt every single time. They could claim 1000 orders did not
arrive and nobody would even know. They may even get positive feedback for those
transactions for their "good communication" and a thousand sorries. Again, BrickOwl
has this statistic.
In short, the feedback system is flawed as we all now, and we really need statistics
to understand our buyers track records a little bit better. How often do we see
topics along the lines of "I have a buyer that does so and so, would you trust
it?" and we all go and speculate whether it's a good guy or a bad guy sharing
some anecdotal experiences. The great thing about all being connected to one
platform is that we should have a wealth of statistics. But since Bricklink never
improves until it is forced to, none of that is being put to use...
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | cosmicray | | Posted: | Nov 9, 2021 07:42 | | Subject: | Re: Buyer's Remorse order cancelleations | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Terms and Policies | |
|
| In Terms and Policies, Teup writes:
| | In Terms and Policies, cosmicray writes:
| | On this Help Page ...
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=79
It says ...
| | Buyer no longer wants the items - This is the most common example which BrickLink does not tolerate. Buyer should make sure he or she wants to buy the items before submitting an order, not after. After an order is submitted, the buyer enters into a legally binding contract with the seller to purchase all items in that order.
|
is an Invalid Reason for a buyer to request cancellation.
It also says that ...
| | Buyer no longer wants to purchase items
|
Is a valid reason for a Seller to cancel an order.
The primary reason for the first part very likely has to do with buyers hitting
the buy button before they took the time to read the listing (and especially
the extended description).
That policy was put into effect before IC came into widespread use, and before
the payment services began retaining the payment fees (and costing the seller
for doing a refund). Other than negative feedback, there is no penalty towards
buyers who violate the Invalid Reason on their side.
Have we arrived at the point where buyers need to be reminded why they should
not place orders they will ask to cancel the morning after ?
My thoughts (partially formed) is for something like a BRC (Buyers Remorse Cancellation)
procedure. That would give the seller feedback coverage, and would remind the
buyer that they get a limited number of strikes before they lose their buying
privileges. Currently, other than the prohibition in the Help Center, there is
no penalty for bailing on an order (and many sellers are reluctant to leave feedback
because of retaliation).
There is the additional consideration in this entire issue, that implementing
a split authorize/capture on the payments will lessen the burden on the seller.
But it will not change buyer behavior.
Nita Rae
|
Yeah, I agree we need something better than the feedback system. It works a little
bit like this on BrickOwl; non-payments get marked on the buyer's account.
I think that's great (however, the adminstration doesn't do much with
it in terms of how many strikes you get. But they could).
As for the legal aspect: The whole paragraph about "legally binding contract"
is utter gibberish and Bricklink is aware of that - but as with many issues,
they simply do not care. They never change anything as long as there's no
institution outside of them pressuring them to change. On the one hand, Bricklink
explicitly asks/forces sellers to respect consumer rights (which for EU, UK and
to the best of my knowledge US consumers means the right to cancel or return
a purchase for a full refund), on the other hand they add a silly illegal paragraph
like that, making themselves the biggest rule breaker.
|
Then we solve that problem, by removing the monetary penalty on the sellers ...
implement the two-step (authorize then capture) that I suggested not long ago.
30-cents (which is the cost for the authorize, without capture), I can live with.
It's the multi-dollar fees being lost on the refund that I cannot.
| | However, sellers have every right not liking the fact that a buyer used their
right. After all, this is not a webshop for board games, we're sorting thousands
of tiny products into an almost custom-made purchase for the buyer. So flagging
non-payments is very relevant. Rather than the convoluted negative feedback tool,
which can mean anything from "you didn't pay" to "you were rude" to "I'm
taking revenge on you" to "you didn't read my terms that include illegal
clauses", it would be much more informative if we could simply see how often
a buyer placed an order and then canceled.
|
| | Alongside other statistics, such as how often a buyer has claimed that an order
did not arrive. It's a similar situation. Actually it's pretty crazy
that we don't have access to that number. Right now, a scammer will get the
benefit of the doubt every single time. They could claim 1000 orders did not
arrive and nobody would even know. They may even get positive feedback for those
transactions for their "good communication" and a thousand sorries. Again, BrickOwl
has this statistic.
In short, the feedback system is flawed as we all now, and we really need statistics
to understand our buyers track records a little bit better. How often do we see
topics along the lines of "I have a buyer that does so and so, would you trust
it?" and we all go and speculate whether it's a good guy or a bad guy sharing
some anecdotal experiences. The great thing about all being connected to one
platform is that we should have a wealth of statistics. But since Bricklink never
improves until it is forced to, none of that is being put to use...
|
My instinctive response is that any order canceled by mutual consent should
be exempt from any feedback (in either direction). That would clear the deck,
and allow both sides to back off and stand still. Feedback should be reserved
for real orders that had real results, not for make believe orders, that got
tossed in the recycle bin.
Nita Rae
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA, Florida
Canada, Alberta
United Kingdom, England
Netherlands, Utrecht