Brooks Moses wrote:
Enoch Root wrote:

But now, do I take one for the team and leave bad feedback? 'Cause it's
still a good deal. I made a huge error not checking this guy's feedback
before bidding and now I notice it is awful, he doesn't give feedback
unless the seller gives it first, and he's retaliatory. I can be
assured of getting bad feedback, but I'm also reasonably sure no one
would take it seriously. His bad feedback would have kept me from
bidding... had I looked. Maybe that's why it was so cheap?


If he's got bad feedback already, is adding another going to help much?

(I dunno; it might.)

It does, near as I can tell: it generates more willingness in
subsequent buyers to give negative feedback.

It also gives prospectives a chance to see how he behaves.

My opinion is this: don't give anything other than a positive without
giving the seller an opportunity to make it right. If he's rude, that
at least adds to your sense of him deserving a less-than-positive feedback.

Yep, agree with that.

Also, I'll note that the option of leaving a positive feedback but
commenting on the problems really doesn't help, in my opinion -- I look
at the numbers, and if they're less than stellar, I look at what the
negatives and neutrals say. If the seller has more than a dozen
feedbacks, it's just not worth reading the positives. I think that just
not leaving feedback would be a better statement.

Doesn't help you, but others do scan the positives especially when
feedback is marginal.

And in my case, at least, not leaving feedback just means he hasn't.
Anyway (and more importantly) not leaving feedback is the least
information, and defeats the feedback system.

Perfect information is the best conditions for capitalism, or so they say.

er
--
email not valid