? SHOULD SELLERS BE ABLE TO REPLY ?

I'm sorry Dan i actually put a second question in didn't i haha -----what i wanted to find out is should a seller be able to come to the board and reply to feed back someone has left for them ether a good or bad reply --- i can see how it goes on ebay most people wont leave bad feed back because there afraid they will get it right back from the seller even though the buyer has done everything expected of them --- and ebay always stands behind the sellers and lets them get away with giving bad feed back for no reason except that they screwed up and to get back at a buyer for leaving bad feed back

i voted no too. i don't really want to hear from the seller. if the issue is resolved in a positive manner, i have every faith that y'all would post a follow-up regarding that. that's really all i want to know - what was the problem and what was the outcome.

kim

At first glance, I was going to vote yes, because it seems if a seller is getting trashed here, they should at least be able to speak in their own defense. But it seems that whenever that happens, it just ends up in a battle between the seller and the buyer, and that really isn't a very helpful review of that seller. When the seller doesn't show up on this board, what seems to happen is that a buyer will trash a seller, and then other members of this forum will add their own negative or positive experiences with that seller. To me, that is much more helpful review of that seller's overall reputation, and have used the "vendors - good/bad/ugly" section several times to help me evaluate a seller that I don't have previous experience with. So I'll also vote no.

I don't really purchase off ebay - mostly because shipping is always ridiculously high due to the fact that I live in no-flat-rate-box land.... but I find it sad that if you get a bad deal from a vendor, and leave negative feedback - specially if it's for a valid reason like them not sending the item mentioned or that it was not as pictured… and you leave negative feedback for a valid reason, why should the vendor give you negative feedback to hurt your reputation? I find that horrible! If you got the right product and left negative feedback to get a freebie, that's not okay, but if the reason is valid it's just mean to leave a negative to hurt the bidder!

Now in regards to the seller coming to the board to gripe, I agree with Don and that members of this board are honest people, some people have had good experiences & some bad with the same vendor, and that is okay, it does happen sometimes but when vendors come here to gripe about it, it usually turns into a bad thread of mean words… Now if the vendor is a member here, they can explain themselves here, sometimes it turns out okay, sometimes not, but at least they're a member here and they have that right and they're not just trying to join us to do damage control, but most folks here aren't selling mass amounts of their stock, mostly trades and small items - now many members here have a stash of rocks to rival any ebay vendor, but that's another story...

but since I don't ebay, maybe my 0.01739 cents doesn't count

I agree, and for that reason voted YES. I don't think people should be allowed to join and start throwing insults or cause trouble, but they should have the right to defend themselves. We are all grown ups and it should be possible to remain civil and discuss things like this.

I think its a great area to post in if you have a bad experience (or good) but there should always be chance to refute.....politely of course.

Another philosophical question .... I know we have lots of good people here who are genuine and honest, but what is to stop someone registering for the purpose of posting a bad review of someone, by banning the seller from replying we are opening up the possibility of allowing them to be slandered, which if allowed to stand could also open up the possibility of action against the site and forum owner.

I think the sellers should be allowed to answer but the thread should be monitored closely with a view to locking it if things turn nasty.

I think its a good thing to consider but it would be unworkable IMO

So...if I'm reading you right Daniel.. You're not opposed to letting sellers respond on the condition that they refarain from denigrating the person who originally posted and stick only to the facts of the transaction. Is that right? If so... I think it's reasonable and fair...

Dan - You are reading right. Even in our last discussion, I recall saying something like there should be a way for the seller to say something.

It has always been my position that to preserve the willingness of members to share concerns and offer warnings, that there might be some sort of limits on response - not absolute banning of response. The problem has always been how to design a system with limits.

What I want to discourage is folks coming here just to rebut, or bringing someone here to rebut. It will have a chilling effect. I think it is much more effective if other members with positive experiences just contribute that fact. Or, if other members who see that things may have been hasty, pipe up and ask for clarification or give additional input (like about ebay policy, or how things work). It would mean more to me than if the seller suddenly shows up anyway.

This is why I was quick to point out to 58vette in the riverbendlapidary thread that there were circumstances where auctions could be cancelled, and that it might be unfair to conclude it was only because the seller was disappointed with the bids, or that this was something likely to happen again. (In fact, neither supposition turned out to be true.)

This is also why I was disappointed in riverbendlapidary when he went beyond explaining the accident and slammed 58vette for "flaming" him in an inaccurate fashion.

This is why I was so upset when the RhodesCabin thread was removed. I wish Sands had deleted the thread to get rid of all the inappropriate personal stuff, and just put back his original post about the facts of his transaction. Sands never denigrated Dale. It was another member who got into it with dale and made the thread too hot to leave on the board. It seemed very unfair that Sands original alert was thrown out with the rest.


Rose - your point about the potential abuse if someone posts a false warning it technically true. But, I think if we got a warning from some new member, there would be folks to offer their own experience, or at least ask some clarifying questions. I just think we would spot the infrequent and unlikely smear attack.

Also, I think that vendor-members should respect RTH enough to take extra care when responding. Keep it civil, don't counter attack. I think most agree that active members shuld have more latitude to respond. (First, because the complaintaint could have PMed them. Second, because they are a member and we would expect to hear their side.) BUTjust like a store owner should never chew-out a customer (even one who deserves it) in fornt of other customers, the same kind of professionalism should be used here.

Kim - I like that idea, but it also leaves open the possibilities of some really damning reports without other members to temper the negative.

Say I had a somewhat bad experience on ebay and posted a "DON'T EVER DO BUSINESS WITH THIS JERK BECAUSE HE RIPPED ME OFF AND IS A CROOK" type response here. It could have been one transaction out of a thousand and I was just the unlucky one to experience it. There have been quite a few threads where other members have commented in the thread about the vendor and never having problems - in fact really appreciating the vendor.

Take astro-gallery. There are a couple members here who still purchase rock from astro gallery, despite the negative reviews posted. The threads regarding astro gallery all have both negative and positive remarks in them. In those cases, it's a "buyer be aware" rather than "avoid at all costs". If we limited the comments to just the original poster, then you have the possibility of five negative comments on astro gallery and five positive - cluttering up the section.

Also, I think that vendor-members should respect RTH enough to take extra care when responding. Keep it civil, don't counter attack. I think most agree that active members should have more latitude to respond. (First, because the complaintaint could have PMed them. Second, because they are a member and we would expect to hear their side.)


The paragraph above is what I wanted to quote.

How are you going to make a true, sound, evaluation of a vendor by only hearing one side of the story?

I think that EVERY member, vendor or not should have the decency and respect to avoid any foul or abusive language and should have the courtesy to stick to the facts.. I voted yes, maybe if the thread was available for all to see but only the parties involved in the transaction or dispute were allowed to post to that thread, that would stop a lot of judgemental comments from being made by other RTH members that actually weren't invloved in the deal in the first place.

In my opinion, it is usually the comments that follow a dispute on this board that end up creating the ill environment, and most of them are from people that had nothing to do with the dispute in the first place.

Please define "active" to me? My husband is an active member, he reads every new post that is placed on this board, he spends almost as much time on it as I do but because he doesn't participate in the discussions he should have less rights as a member?

If that were the intentions of the moderator, I think that would have been explained in the registration somewhere.
Active members can speak freely, semi-active members can post but only if they are going to say something nice, and the newbies, well they get to use the smilies icons so if your upset, go ahead and post that grouchy face.

Now what is fair about that?

And what about the mentally challenged, like myself? Who can't even figure out how to use the quote option when making a reply?