eBay should authenticate returns, just like they authenticate sneakers!

[machofalltrades]

I'm not really complaining, but I just thought a good practice would be that eBay should authenticate that returns are true, just as they do to sneakers. I see here (and just was a part of) someone trying to scam me by sending me a roll of halloween tape rather than the $200 CPU I sold him that he falsely accused of it not working just to scam me. I think this is a good idea, they could even charge a fee for it, since it obviously takes man-power and money to inspect and repackage them.

[luckythewinner]

---

@machofalltrades wrote:

I see here (and just was a part of) someone trying to scam me by sending me a roll of halloween tape rather than the $200 CPU I sold him that he falsely accused of it not working just to scam me.  I think this is a good idea, they could even charge a fee for it, since it obviously takes man-power and money to inspect and repackage them.

---

If eBay did that, the buyer would simply claim that you sent a roll of Halloween tape instead of a CPU. 

So that way instead of just being scammed, you would be getting scammed AND paying an authentication fee too! 🙂

[southern*sweet*tea]

Somehow I don't think buyers would be happy waiting weeks and weeks for their returns to be verified before they get a refund.

You can't run a successful business by trying to avoid the scammers, you have to cater to the good buyers so they'll come back.

[rugerskick]

If you only spent more time trying to figure out something to help the seller instead of telling him to lie back and take getting screwed, you could be a real benefit to people here.

How about actually thinking up a solution that could work, then, instead of just saying why you think something won't work?  

[rugerskick]

Fine.  Suggest what you consider a working solution for the problem then.

[downunder-61]

---

@rugerskick wrote:

Fine.  Suggest what you consider a working solution for the problem then.

---

What would be the point, no body here can change eBay policy, this comment is superflous and strange you can not come up with a workable solution considering you are so derisive of others.

[stainlessenginecovers]

If there was an 'authenticator' for returns;

Who's to say it was working when you sent it?

Who's to say what you sent and that 'thingy' that the buyer sends to the authenticator is the same item?

Before you ask- there will never be a fix for dishonesty. 

If a buyer has a problem, 1 of 3 things happen.

a.) Seller takes care of buyer. Buyer pays their $. Seller has buyers $. Buyer is not happy. Seller gives buyer their $ back and buyer returns item. It will never get better than this. 

b.) Seller is a liar and sent a pos and deserves to get the item (or any item) returned and buyer gets 100%

c.) Buyer is a liar and is returning a pos so they can get the real item for free

there will never be an 'escrow' for returns

Note; TRS can deduct up to 50% if the item returned is in 'less than' condition. 

[luckythewinner]

---

@rugerskick wrote:

If you only spent more time trying to figure out something to help the seller instead of telling him to lie back and take getting screwed, you could be a real benefit to people here.

How about actually thinking up a solution that could work, then, instead of just saying why you think something won't work?  

---

People have been trying for 20 years to come up with a magic solution that will allow eBay to make the correct decision about every return without having firsthand knowledge of what was sent and what was returned. 

I cannot come up with a solution that could work, because IMHO such a solution simply  does not exist.

IMHO is perfectly valid to demonstrate how  a flawed proposal would be easily circumvented by just  slight  a change in tactics by these unscrupulous buyers. 

[blingfling123]

And how much would you be willing to pay for this service?
How about the label costs to and from the authenticator? You willing to pay for that as well?
How long would you be willing to wait for the outcome as a buyer? 
At what price point should it be done?

I feel for you with your issue but regardless of selling online or in a brick and mortar store, there are risks associated. If you are uncomfortable with these risks, perhaps you should sell locally for cash to minimize your risk. 

At some point you are going to have to let this go. File the fraud reports as suggested before and move on, or it is going to eat you up. 

[rugerskick]

Asking someone for a working solution instead of why something wont work, is not derisive.  Only people who can criticize others, but can't come up with working solutions, would feel this way.

[pburn]

---

@rugerskick wrote:

Only people who can criticize others, but can't come up with working solutions, would feel this way.

---

I'm not sure where you came up with that one. Was it something Confucius said? No wait--it was Freud, wasn't it?

I'd be interested in your suggestion for the OP rather than post after post of attacking other members' replies. So far, that's all you've contributed. 

So--Pot? Meet Kettle.

[pburn]

---

@machofalltrades wrote:

. . . they could even charge a fee for it, since it obviously takes man-power and money to inspect and repackage them.

---

How much of a fee increase would you be willing to accept in order for eBay to implement your program? 

[onlinecentral]

The buyers side would require an arrival authentication and a second return authentication.
The seller side would require a third return arrival authentication.
Then shipping expense from the authenticator to the buyer and seller. Otherwise, commuting expense.

Maybe the USPS, UPS or FedEx worker at the retail counter could perform the inspections for a fee. A third party authentication company. Perhaps send the item to the future eBay Vault. The buyer bringing the equipment, a computer to test the CPU in this example, installing and testing on site, I don't know about that.

There is a higher price point where such a program would make sense. Those buyers and sellers should pay for the service. I would not want any of my seller fees diverted to a program that would not benefit me.

Sellers need to do a risk assessment and recognize it is best to sell some items locally for cash.

[simba6]

The problem with that is they would first have to see what was sent. So, the item would first have to go to them. They look it over and document it. Then when they get it back for a return, compare it to what they recorded the first time?   That would cost a lot and there would have to be experts to look over and document each item.  Let's not forget the items they would be lost, damaged or mixed up in the process.

Just not workable without serious added expense and delivery delays.

[stephenmorgan]

---

@simba6 wrote:

The problem with that is they would first have to see what was sent. So, the item would first have to go to them. They look it over and document it. Then when they get it back for a return, compare it to what they recorded the first time?   That would cost a lot and there would have to be experts to look over and document each item.  Let's not forget the items they would be lost, damaged or mixed up in the process.

Just not workable without serious added expense and delivery delays.

---

That sounds somewhat familiar with what is done with watches, shoes and handbags.