[NickM]

There is no other explanation for getting rid of buyer reputation and providing no protection to sellers.

I disagree. Back in the old days when I used to use eBay before they removed buyer feedback, it was considered unwise to ever leave a seller negative feedback because they might turn around and leave you negative feedback in retaliation. By removing buyer feedback, it allows buyers to leave unbiased seller feedback without fear of retribution.

One could argue that seller feedback is much more important than buyer feedback because the buyer has to pay first and then trust that the seller will ship them the item as described in a timely fashion. Ideally, the worst thing a buyer should be able to do is not pay, in which case the seller just has to start over and re-list the item in a new auction. It seems like the problem here isn't a lack of buyer feedback so much as a lack of due process for chargebacks, which ends up enabling fraud.

[gambiting]

I completely disagree. I use Allegro.pl(which is like Ebay,but actually was first to the market in Poland and is absolutely HUGE there, Ebay tries to establish itself in there but is without any chances), and both parties can leave feedback - and I have over 7500 reputation, both for selling and buying, and I have left more than a few negative feedbacks for a seller, only one of which resulted in a counter-negative feedback - and it was removed within a few days after I complained to customer service. Oh,and for the payment methods - they work with every single bank in Poland, accepting quick, instantaneous bank transfers directly from your account, no credit card needed,no need for shitty PayPal - but if you want to they will happily accept any credit card. Or as a seller they keep your money in your Allegro account, and pay it out to your bank account daily - without any additional fees. I have personally had so many problems with PayPal that I hate that company wholeheartedly.

[jwr]

Allegro.pl is a good example of how you can get auctions right. I think they watched eBay closely and drew conclusions — they place a HUGE emphasis on fighting fraud.

As a result, it works extremely well. I have >150 transactions, both as a buyer and as a seller, with not a single problem. Oh sure, there is fraud, but it's marginal, and crazy stories like the OP's are unheard of.

This is why eBay, in spite of many efforts, is still pretty much nonexistent in Poland, while Allegro's traffic is booming.

[macspoofing]

What way are they handling fraud?

[gambiting]

Well for start, buyer needs to send the item back.

[incompatible]

What stops the buyer sending back an empty box?

[flyinRyan]

I would imagine the buyer doesn't get to charge back until the seller has the item again?

[repiret]

I always thought the right solution to this problem was to wait for both parties to submit feedback before revealing the feedback.

[sp332]

A bad seller (or buyer) could avoid negative feedback just by never leaving feedback, meaning the buyer (or seller) would never be able to publish theirs.

[gacba]

oDesk gets around this by having a time limit on when feedback can be left. If one party fails to enter feedback, then it posts the other's feedback anyway.

Parties can lobby to have the other person change the feedback, but only if they lobbied party wants to. Seems like a workable system to me and allows each to be honest without consequences like eBay's original system.

[STRML]

That's genius. eBay could really learn from that. Removing buyer feedback entirely is a really big hammer.

[kamkazemoose]

Then you place a time limit on submitting feedback. Say you have 1 week-1 month. Still not perfect since it sounds like in the posted scam he didn't find out for over a month, but it might help in many cases.

E: Also just had another idea. You could have a way to edit your feedback after the original deadline in case of fraud. If you open up a dispute like the one posted then Ebay could review the edit's on a case-by-case basis.

[dopkew]

Online sites like eBay, always want to reduce their personnel costs. Dispute resolution should be a last ditch effort that exists to identify loopholes in a system that should ideally NEVER need dispute resolution.

[GFischer]

They need to balance that cost reduction with lost revenues from the perceived worse service.

[erickhill]

Interesting idea, but it still wouldn't have helped in the case of the post-transaction chargeback, as described in the article. The scammer would likely still get a positive review (because the seller had been paid) only to discover the scam weeks after the fact.

[Tyrannosaurs]

If you made public details of things like chargebacks and other conflicts after the event that might help.

[steve8918]

This agrees with my entire point, which is that eBay has shifted towards a buyer-oriented site. They offer asymmetric protection for buyers over sellers. Buyers know more about the sellers than sellers know about buyers, making it much more buyer-friendly and more risky for sellers.

[ed209]

If the reason is that you might get negative feedback in return, why not make both parties submit feedback blind and only publish the feedback once both parties have submitted it? (and make it not editable)

[Tyrannosaurs]

I really like this idea.

The other thing I'd add is that basic information about conflicts should be made public on someone's record, along with a high level outcome (and possibly additional comments from the parties involved) so these things can be part of someone's decision making process.