@ersatz_sobriquet wrote:
@buyselljack2016 wrote:This is a misconception. One OOS per 197 transactions can knock a small seller out of TRS.
Can you point to how you found this 197 number?
I'm not buyselljack2016, but a TRS is only allowed 0.5% transaction related defects. That's one per 200 transactions. OOS is a transaction defect, so one OOS case can knock a low volume seller out of TRS.
That said, the table below does state that a maximum of three buyers have to be affected before seller status is impacted, so there's that as well.
What a lot of those slimebucket TRS sellers do is just not send the merchandise, then immediately refund when they get the INR from the buyer. Those cases aren't defects, so the slimeballs get off scot-free.
Ebay really needs to crack down on those types of sellers. The only reason there are so many bad buyers is because there are so many bad sellers. Good buyers just leave because of the bad sellers. Bad buyers stay because they know how to milk it.
@southern*sweet*tea wrote:
@ersatz_sobriquet wrote:
@buyselljack2016 wrote:This is a misconception. One OOS per 197 transactions can knock a small seller out of TRS.
Can you point to how you found this 197 number?
I'm not buyselljack2016, but a TRS is only allowed 0.5% transaction related defects. That's one per 200 transactions. OOS is a transaction defect, so one OOS case can knock a low volume seller out of TRS.
That said, the table below does state that a maximum of three buyers have to be affected before seller status is impacted, so there's that as well.
What a lot of those slimebucket TRS sellers do is just not send the merchandise, then immediately refund when they get the INR from the buyer. Those cases aren't defects, so the slimeballs get off scot-free.
Ebay really needs to crack down on those types of sellers. The only reason there are so many bad buyers is because there are so many bad sellers. Good buyers just leave because of the bad sellers. Bad buyers stay because they know how to milk it.
Are you sure bad sellers aren't leaving due to bad buyers? In my experience, there are WAY, WAY more bad buyers than bad sellers.
In nearly 19 years here, I can count the number of bad sellers I've dealt with on one hand... if you can even call them all bad sellers. I've had a couple of the items that initially worked, but were of poor quality, and failed within the warranty period, ergo the return. In fact, I did get a return/refund on those transactions, so I'm not sure I would even label them bad sellers. And I'm talking about things that cannot be really physically broken, like a USB stick... it either works or it doesn't. About 10% of electronic items, if properly made, will fail within the first month of use, even with proper QA, because some electronics parts will test good but later (quickly) fail, and that's just the way it is with component production.
On the other hand, the number of buyers digging for partials, submitting fraudulent returns to avoid return shipping, claiming things don't work when they do when I get them back, buying incorrect parts for their application and lying on a return, claiming things are broken but refusing to return... off the charts! Literally in the hundreds at least. And before anyone goes attacking my personal eBay stats, I don't sell, personally on multiple accounts here, but I have been the "fingers" behind tons of sales on other accounts for private companies I have worked for in the past.
IMHO there are problems on both sides, but the sellers I have had problems with have been sellers who sell Chinesium goods and tend to lie about all kinds of things, like where they are located, and what they are selling. Yes, I agree eBay would so well to address that issue, but I don't even think its the crux of the issue. When you offer buyers a selling environment that doesn't require them to exhibit any responsibility whatsoever in the transaction, you will get buyers that act completely irresponsibly. I think eBay would do very well to tighten the policies where buyers are concerned. Its not that I wish eBay to shoo away buyers, but at the same time, not every buyer is buyer worth having. If some of the buyers on here repeatedly pulled the same garbage in a B&M that they do on here, they would easily be banned from the store without question. I'm not sure, in terms of protecting sellers, why eBay does not feel the same way, but I can certainly understand, in terms of their profit margins, why they are allowing it to continue. Its definitely an unethical way to handle business on behalf of the sellers, though.
Many of the problem buyers that I have had, when you do a little internet research, you can find that my experience is not unique. These people are being allowed to keep bilking sellers. Unfortunately, at this stage of the game, the flaws in eBay processes are well known and there is no shortage of unscrupulous buyers who are willing to take advantage of those flaws.
I've said it over and over on here, and I'll say it again. The buyers need to have skin in the game. There's never going to be a 100% resolution to these problems, but you can probably knock out about 90% of the "fly-by" fraudsters by requiring them to pay at least "something" in every bad transaction. I doubt most of them would continue the bad behavior if there is at least some minimal cost to committing the fraud.
To me, its just like spam e-mail. If every e-mail cost 1 penny to send, how many spammers would continue to spam? Its not that I want to pay a penny, but when it remains completely open and unfettered, you end up with any scammer being able to operate without any financial repercussion. How many spammers do you think would continue if it cost them a penny a piece to send out those million e-mails on any given day? I'm willing to bet that a significant portion of that market would be totally knocked out - they couldn't afford to operate. I think the same principles apply here.
Charge both buyers and sellers *something* to sell here. That right there will probably knock out 90% of the scammers. I've given specifics on how I would structure this many times on threads here in the past, not going to bother repeating it again.
