Let’s hope it stays that way, Jimbo, but I wouldn’t hold your breath. One of the problems with the current feedback regime is that it asymmetrically penalises small sellers more than large sellers. If you’ve sold a thousand items and one of them goes bad, it has a massively smaller impact (99.9%) on your trading than if you’ve only sold ten (90%). As a consequence of this, the impact of a malicious buyer on a good small seller would be dramatically escalated.

Because bad sellers will already be pushed down the search ranking by virtue of already having a low satisfaction rating, additional negatives will have a marginal effect. It’s the good sellers that are most exposed to damage from malicious negatives. There is anecdotal evidence that intentional bad buyers are already damaging good small sellers. If sellers end up offering partial refunds in order to retain a good reputation, and thereby better sales, it is only a matter of time until negative feedback becomes a deliberate buying strategy by substantial numbers of buyers.

The only defence a seller in this situation has is to get the negative feedback removed using a court order. Consequently, it’s reasonable to predict that: the numbers of sellers suing buyers will escalate, the number of marginal small sellers and new sellers of any scale will decline, and the reputation of Ebay as a safe place to trade amongst honest buyers (of which there are many) will deteriorate rapidly as more lawsuits flow from the current feedback regime. This is a negatively reinforcing downwards spiral, and the longer it is left in place, the larger the size of the sellers affected by it will become. This is not a good selling system and it needs urgent and comprehensive refactoring.

The definition of libel;
If an ‘untrue’ comment or text is written or repeated verbally or is writing in public, it could be deemed as libel.

So as the buyer appears to be stating the truth, as you say I cannot see any libel.

——–

#17

I totally agree with you. Regretfully ebay themselves have done the damage with the new rules on feedback.
Feedback should be a personnal experience of the buying (& selling) experience of an INDIVIGAL SALE, instead it has become a way of having a go at the sellers & opens the way for bribery.
Ebay can sit in their Ivory towers ignoring this problem, but they do so at their perial. This is probaly what they will do though.

Chris, I would’nt think removing this 1 feedback will help this seller much as there is nearly 10 more NEGs + numerous NEUTRALS.

THEY ALL SEEM TO SUGGEST HE HAS A HISTORY OF BADLY DESCRIBED ITEMS!!!!.

Must say though did like the 2nd feedback from another buyer;

FEEDBACK: recieved phone, not as descripted! phone is blacklisted and can’t be used
FEEDBACK RESPONSE: BEWARE FRAUDSTER – BEWARE OF THIS BUYER RETURNED A TIN OF SARDINES INSTEAD OF C902

#380064187574

I seriously believe that ebay have structures in place to keep thier profit margins up. And they encourage buyers to leave bad feedback. They also have a feedback system where 4 is good and 5 is exceptional, but tell the seller if they don’t get 4.6 they’re failing.

I believe they’re deliberately vague to the buyers on the scoring system. If you don’t believe that ebay would use underhand tactics, then I only need to point you to the free postage directive, that they’re pushing, which we all know has nothing to do with getting buyers a good deal and is all to do with raising ebay FVF.

Taking legal action against a buyer for negative feedback received is a pretty bad place to be and doesn’t say anything positive (no pun intended) about the seller. Problem is, this sort of publicity is bad for everyone who sells on eBay, and will only lower buyer confidence.

eBay can’t stop sellers taking this sort of action, so they should consider whether the ‘lowered search’ policy is driving behaviours that could cause more damage to the site than the original problems the policy was designed to address.

Yes, and Elvis is playing the new Wembley this weekend. Anyone want tickets?

If that is true, then he is simply suing over the fact that the comment has “a Negative” attached to it, which he claims has subsequently affected his business. He might have more luck suing eBay (if they weren’t so big and scary ).

If he was called a crook or a scammer, he would have a case for libel, in this instance I think any judge will likely laugh him out of court. I myself have had a non-paying eBay bidder state I was a scammer in retaliation for their negative. That was actually libel, but it was not worth the hassle of suing.

See this ebay topic :

http://forums.ebay.co.uk/thread.jspa?threadID=1100203379&tstart=0&mod=1224840110948

You are the second person I’ve heard of saying there is some upcoming change to feedback in November. The last guy said eBay told him buyers won’t be able to leave negatives for sellers. I don’t believe either.