Following up on a comment from FF, and because I think there is a discussion to be had about this (or maybe there has been hundreds already ?), I'm opening this topic to gather ideas about the feedback system as it is and see if it could not be enhanced (NOT to point fingers at anyone):
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Freedom Fighter
Well, you guys just keep sucking it up and not giving negative feedback, then people on here can screw everyone around for an eternity. You guys are so darn nice.
|
True. It seems feedback as it is unfortunately does not serve it's purpose very well. But why ? I'm probably guilty of being too nice once or twice myself. The fact is that there is a grey zone about excuses where people can tell you anything and depending on whether or not your a new member, you tend to be softer, especially with long established members. And some people are taking full advantage of that.
For some reasons (wrongfully it seems, and I'm guessing I'm far from being alone in this), I see negative feedback as an extreme mesure that can have direct bearing on members, and since one rarely knows if someone is really going through [trully] rough times, one may very well hestitate and wait
a lot longer than one would in person.
That being said, after about twenty deals or so, I'm seeing a pattern... generally, as soon as someone is giving you an excuse, you know you're in for some back and forth insisting PMs and time wasting investigations. I must clarify that to me, an
excuse is from someone coming up with a reason for NOT delivering (paying or shipping, doesn't matter). I am perfectly happy with someone who tells me "I'll be out of town next week, I'll ship your item when I'm back". This is not an excuse, it is the circumstances of a deal. When someone is taking the time to tell me IN ADVANCE that there will be problems, or is offering some compensation, in short who is clearly demonstrating good will in resolving the matter, that person will NEVER get the bad word from me. But as it is now, people don't even bother replying to questions.
I'm saying all this to question whether or not the system could be enhanced somewhat to make up for this foggy greyish zone of multiple standards about a deal going sweet or sour. IMHO, feedback should [simply] be for an objective evaluation of a deal. Perhaps some rough, non-written but generally accepted rule about feedback should be in order ? Like, say:
- Two weeks after payment without the item (or payment after a deal is set): neutral feedback
- One month after payment without the item: negative feedback
I'm just suggesting as an idea, not a hard rule (maybe the delays should be longer, depending of in-stock items and such). That way everyone would know and understand there are consequences by not sending goods (or paying for them fast after saying you would in the first place), and this tool would attain it's proper goal: to warn people about members with whom deals didn't go so well. Most importantly, I'm guessing this would help reduce the number of people taking advantage of this or simply those who aren't serious about dealing with other persons. It certainly won't prevent the real scam.
Another thing is that contrary to the positive feedback, negative feedback tend to call for more explanation. You can say "Awsome guy to deal with" all right. But can you just say "horrible guy to deal with" ? Of course you can say "ripped me off" or "items received two months later", but sometimes it may call for some more details, no ? So I'm asking: should negative feedback be allowed more words, various sub-choices and stuff or would it make a mess out of all this and lead to abuse ? I don't know, but I feel it's a legitimate question.
After all, feedback is only about evaluating a person's ability to fulfill a deal, not about this person being nice/pretty/good airsoft player/etc. Maybe I'm offbase here. I don't know. What do you guys think about all this ? Do you feel the system is serving it's purpose all right ? If not, why ? and how could it be made better ?
Cheers.
Edit = the usual typos.