Ebay Feedback Complaint

Putting myself in this situation I would have politely refused the offer for insurance for your stated reasons and let it go. I would not have given any feedback.

Feedback does have value to sellers, but it's not in the overall feedback rating, but in the DSR's. To obtain ebay discounts for selling, a seller must reach a minimum DSR threshhold. When you rate a seller a 1 or 2 in the four categories below the comments (not as described, communications, shipping time, shipping cost) it hits them in the pocketbook. If the item was offered with free shipping, no rating is available in that block.

When folks as me about leaving neg/neutral feedback these days I encourage them to "wait a day" before committing.

i agree with fred and wheatguy, and i'll add this:

your neutral post wasn't inaccurate, but you need to realize that sellers on ebay often have a VERY thin margin of profit. if they're asking for buyer to pay insurance there's a reason. all you had to say was something like, "no thanks, but if the coin gets lost in the mail i'll expect a full refund."

I agree with this, as a buyer if I'm looking at something I want information like that and a neutral makes sure it appears in a visible fashion.

It's not that I don't see the sellers side of it, I'm saying my feedback would be about my experience and if the transaction leaves me feeling crappy in anyway then feedback needs to reflect that.

I have to agree, a neutral is a negative in my book.

I do not understand why the neutral feedback exists since it is seen as a negative. It is like those that abstain from voting in a meeting. All that matters in the end is what percentage said "yes" or "positive" out of the total number.

Isn't that the same thing as giving the two options? That ebay rule doesn't really help anything, it's just a way for ebay to simplify things for the buyer. (As if they haven't enough already). What moral or ethical dilemma did the seller raise by asking you a simple question? I simply would have just said either option and left it at that. It isn't worth it to raise up a big issue for every single item someone buys and making a big deal out of it. It's difficult to decide which items get insurance or not and asking the buyer simplifies that, and to me the buyers' that overreact over simple issues are the ones that frustrate me the most and eventually end up on the BBL of many sellers.




I completely agree and I still see no justification for the neutral. Not all sellers sell for the fun of it or as a bit of extra income, some do it to feed their family and pay for living costs, etc.

Agree the auction price and stated shipping cost should be final. If the seller tries to increase the cost in any way after that transaction is completed, that is unethical and deserves strong negative feedback regardless of whether it is "optional". The last thing I want to deal with as a buyer is some CLOWN asking me for more money than the final stated auction price.

I think the point some of you are missing is that it is the seller's responsibilty to insure the coin..by offering insurance, he is implying otherwise.The more I think about, I agree with fenton that a negative was really what the seller deserved for playing a con game.

It absolutely is a con game. Offering insurance is not allowed on ebay as it shouldn't be. The seller is bound by the FTC mail order rule to get the item to the buyer. Insurance is the seller's option, not the buyer. This seller knows this, that's why it's not in the listing. He hits buyer's with it afterwards to try and con them into paying for something that isn't their responsibility. I might have negged him once he got argumentative, neutral at the very least.