more eBay thinking
Nov. 13th, 2007 07:01 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
valis2At this point I'm nearly convinced that the "inaccuracy" the buyer was speaking of was actually something else entirely. Upon investigating, I realized that the description for the product in question contained an industry term which is not incredibly common, but still should set off red flags. I didn't define said term--I don't think I ever have. The photo for the product clearly shows what the term means.
I think what happened is that the buyer had no idea what it meant, and didn't realize what it was, exactly, until they received it, and now has no use for it. So I'm being penalized for their failure to get a term defined.
I've tried to think of an analogy. Here's one that pops into my head:
Say you're looking to buy some silver JFK half-dollars. The only year silver JFKs were made was in 1964, so you bid on a JFK from that year. The description says "clad coinage," and you don't know what that means.
You get it home and realize it looks coppery on the edge. A little research and you realize that it's not silver at all, but a modern mix of copper and zinc and worthless materials called "clad coinage." Useless for your purposes, as it's not a silver JFK at all.
You realize that other sellers have explained "clad coinage" in their descriptions, but not this one, so clearly it's the seller's fault for not defining the term.
FAIL.
*grumbles, and goes to edit listings*
I think what happened is that the buyer had no idea what it meant, and didn't realize what it was, exactly, until they received it, and now has no use for it. So I'm being penalized for their failure to get a term defined.
I've tried to think of an analogy. Here's one that pops into my head:
Say you're looking to buy some silver JFK half-dollars. The only year silver JFKs were made was in 1964, so you bid on a JFK from that year. The description says "clad coinage," and you don't know what that means.
You get it home and realize it looks coppery on the edge. A little research and you realize that it's not silver at all, but a modern mix of copper and zinc and worthless materials called "clad coinage." Useless for your purposes, as it's not a silver JFK at all.
You realize that other sellers have explained "clad coinage" in their descriptions, but not this one, so clearly it's the seller's fault for not defining the term.
FAIL.
*grumbles, and goes to edit listings*
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-11-14 02:02 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-11-14 02:15 pm (UTC)On the other hand the line is rather fine. Bidding for an iPod years ago I found lots of people who had advertised an "iPod OVP" which is "Original Packaging" in Germany. Reading the fine print very carefully, it tarnspired that they were selling THE packaging, not an iPod IN the original packaging. Now, that one is cheating, for sure. Then some just don't mention the negative bits of their goods, which is especially bad in used items. And then there is those who just misread what's clearly described.
In the later case I still give positive feedback (because it's my fault, doh). On the first one I reported to ebay, even though I didn't purchase the package, and on the few occasions where the second scenario took place, I simply didn't comment at all and scratched that ebayer off my list. I go very much by feedback. 99.8% positive is good, anything down to 95% is good for half price or less, and anything below that is a risk to take for a item of 10 bucks or 15, and that's it.