For the first time, I'm running into something on EBay that has me concerned (beyond the obvious worries about fraud, I mean). I have, today, received two emails from transactions I've just completed where the sellers both responded that they wanted feedback from me before they would give me feedback.
Now, since they are sellers, this means that they have received full payment already. There is no debate about my side of the transaction. If they hadn't been happy with the money they received they wouldn't have sent the item.
But it seems like there is a new trend toward a "quid pro quo". To a certain extent that has existed for a while since positive feedback is almost always met with positive feedback.
But in one case, the camera I just purchased had extensive acid residue (exploding batteries) in the battery compartment. After a good half hour of cleaning I managed to get the camera to work. I was debating between a positive and a neutral until I got his response: that because of previous feedback issues he wouldn't leave feedback for me until he received my feedback. He justified this because he has received a couple of negative feedbacks before (though admittedly out of nearly a thousand transactions).
I think the system is breaking down.. if you cannot trust people to leave honest feedback, what is the point of the system.
Now I have to debate on whether to leave him any feedback at all (again, the best I can offer is a neutral) 'cause if I do, I risk getting neutral or negative feedback from him. Which, of course, is the point of his quid pro quo.
That just sucks.
Posted by artandscience at November 23, 2004 10:44 AM | TrackBack