Subject:
|
Re: So what would you do?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.market.theory
|
Date:
|
Mon, 23 Oct 2000 10:10:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
708 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.market.theory, Christopher Lindsey writes:
> Part of the reason that I was more generous
> than usual was to protect my feedback rating; the seller was waiting
> to see what I posted before giving me any feedback.
And that, IMHO, is why eBay feedback has degenerated to be basically
worthless... You're held hostage to your own good name if you don't post
something good first. As far as I am concerned the seller should post first
anyway since the seller's end of the deal (from a feedback perspective) is
completed once the money was received and the goods sent.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: So what would you do?
|
| (...) I'm not sure how a better system could be created. What we can work to do is create a better system within the constraints. I basically always give positive feedback if I get the goods. I have only ever been stiffed once, and really have not (...) (24 years ago, 23-Oct-00, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: So what would you do?
|
| (...) This happened to me recently. Although it was a hassle, I realize that mistakes do happen, and if the seller is willing to right their wrongs then it's worth giving them positive feedback. Anybody can sell you stuff, but someone who admits (...) (24 years ago, 23-Oct-00, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
11 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
