Ebay should give sellers option to approve buyers

[grapplingmonkey]

How nice would it be to have the right to approve buyers, lets say your selling expensive items you can add to listing that buyer must be approved. Someone wants to buy it we then have the right to approve the buyer? Ebay could take it one step further and give us info on buyer how many returns, how many patial refunds, length of time on ebay, purchase history ect. I get why ebay needs to protect buyers but us as sellers are left in the dark.  I cant think of any good reason to keep us in the dark about potential buyers history.  I would be willing to sell more expensive stuff if I had this option

[chrysylys]

I would also like to see:

B/Os responded to vs. abandoned/allowed to expire without response.

It wouldn't need to show accepted or countered however.

[grapplingmonkey]

If you blocked first time buyers that would be bad buisness and other sellers would reap the reward of that mistake , they could even put min threashold on buyer approval say 500 or more.

But if I want to sell a 5000 watch i deffinalty want stats and abblity to pre approve buyer. As it stand now I can do local pick up like the auction house do on ebay. or ask a high price and take offers so i can somewhat vet buyers. I bet there would be alot of money in it for ebay, I sell thru different avenues now sometime at 40% discount to what i could sell it on ebay because of risk reward. Theres alot of money on the table for stuff not listed on ebay because of risk to sellers. Ebay is not in the blind to buyers so why not share that info with us

---

@18704d wrote:

"... length of time on ebay, purchase history ect..."

----------------

That would allow sellers to block or deny new buyers, and new customers are the lifeblood of any business, so don't expect that ever to happen.

And why do you need to know purchase history?

I'd say there is zero chance that would ever be disclosed here, nor should it.

?

Lynn

---

[18704d]

"But if I want to sell a 5000 watch i deffinalty want stats and abblity to pre approve buyer."

------------

But you're not safe if eBay would allow that.

Paypal allows it's own 180 days of buyer protection, too.

So...

does that mean Paypal should also disclose such buyer information, to eBay sellers, too?

Lynn

[18704d]

BTW,

banks also offer chargeback protections too, separate from eBay and Paypal.

Pretty soon we're running afoul of consumer protection laws, trying to weed out 'bad' buyers.

Lynn

[chrysylys]

I also believe that sending an ASQ or submitting a B/O should initiate a transaction as far as leaving FB, even if there was no 'sale'.

Browsers should be able to see via FB if sellers are responding to those things or not.

[grapplingmonkey]

As a seller i have made mistakes and rightfully have refunded to the buyer, so i get what your saying.  But on expensive items i would like the right to error on the side of being safe. If im overly cautious its me who loses out on the sell. Buyer could buy from some else

---

@chiaretta wrote:

Do you really think you can objectively, rather than subjectively, determine who is really right and who's wrong in a claim?

What criteria would you apply and are they really good for each and every case?

---

[grapplingmonkey]

Thats true, That would be one of the risks , but i think we would see some signs from ebay if buyers were circumventing ebay buyer stats .

---

@18704d wrote:

"But if I want to sell a 5000 watch i deffinalty want stats and abblity to pre approve buyer."

------------

But you're not safe if eBay would allow that.

Paypal allows it's own 180 days of buyer protection, too.

So...

does that mean Paypal should also disclose such buyer information, to eBay sellers, too?

Lynn

---

[sockmonkeydave]

@chrysylys

---

@chrysylys wrote:
I would also like to see:

B/Os responded to vs. abandoned/allowed to expire without response.

It wouldn't need to show accepted or countered however.

---

That would tell you nothing, of any real use.

I had a part listed for 100 bucks, I get an offer for 4 bucks.

And the jerk said in his "offer"  HA HA, you will never sell for your price.

Competitors who make stupid low ball offers.

I don't even respond to these, so you would see that I ignore some offers.

If it's a long weekend and I am going camping, I won' have access, 

so an offer would time out before I ever saw it.

same with questions ask and answer ratio.

Say I get a question, and before I can respond, they write back and say,

Never mind, I was on my cell, and did not read the listing.

We know people don't read, and ask for info that is in the listing.

These are things that would make me think of not selling.

[sockmonkeydave]

@chrysylys

---

@chrysylys wrote:
I also believe that sending an ASQ or submitting a B/O should initiate a transaction as far as leaving FB, even if there was no 'sale'.

Browsers should be able to see via FB if sellers are responding to those things or not.

---

That would be the end of my selling days, 

That would allow competitors to bombard you with low balls,

And then slam you in FB, for a non sale, no thanks.

[*eponymous*]

Define "expensive".

Uh huh...now ask me for mine...

Buyers are the scarece resource, not sellers.  lol  Buyers can spend their money anywhere they choose.  Most sellers beg for a buyer to look at their wares!

And here's an fyi - High street sellers don't have the problems that affect the majority of the posters on the boards.  There's a reason for that ^

[vintage_sterling_spoon_rings]

---

@grapplingmonkey wrote:

How nice would it be to have the right to approve buyers...

---

Maybe you can't 'approve buyers' but you can set basic 'Buyer requiements' in any / all of your listings...

[startmark]

Poor idea-- simply declining a b/o would open the seller for negative feedback from a spiteful buyer. The feedback extortion would sky rocket. The best offer would become a thing of the past because sellers wouls stop using it. Also the policy would have to be changed which would make it complicated. What if a buyer made the offer in say the last 30 minutes before auction ends and the guy is at work? Well, he would not have a chance to respond and that would show negatively on his account according to your recommendations. Wanting to put more responsibilities on sellers would only drive more sellers from ebay. If buyers properly used the tools in place now they have everything they need to make good decisions. Most buyers are price driven and not reputation driven. But a sellers reputation is available already without adding some more data that will not be used except to eliminate more sellers from ebay. Good sellers aren't cheap and cheap sellers aren't good.

[slati_2013]

That extra step of having to wait will make most buyers avoid your items and move on to something they can buy without waiting to be approved. I have "Best Offer" on many of my items and most buyers just use the BIN.

[coolections]

IMO there are probably less than 5% of returns are from bad buyers. You would be doing background checks on 95% of good customers that received bad item/service from a seller. You think Ebay is slow selling now, if you got your way there would be very few buyers left because most would never agree to letting Ebay give out buyer's information.

[grapplingmonkey]

Id say items over 2500.00