Re: [CR] Now: eBay ratings, Was: Chater-Lea cranks

(Example: Framebuilders:Jack Taylor)

From: <gpvb1@comcast.net>
To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
Subject: Re: [CR] Now: eBay ratings, Was: Chater-Lea cranks
Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 22:50:51 +0000


Chuck is absolutely, 103% correct IMO. (That's 100% with the eBay hype factor factored in...)! My personal eBay minimum FB "comfort threshold" is 99.5 % long-term, but I prefer 98.8 % or more if possible. Anything less than that, and it becomes much riskier to deal with the person. 99 is bad, 98 is atrocious, less than 98 is bordering on obscene (long-term...). I'm not saying you can't ever work with someone with less than your "threshold" rating, as you must evaluate every single negative and neutral that the person has before making your informed decision to bid on any particular item, but it's a matter of risk and trust. eBay is soooooo* about trust - you have to completely trust your transaction partner, so FB is absolutely critical. (BTW, neutrals matter too, as they are often a negative that someone feared retaliation for, so I generally count them as a negative as well). In well over 1000 transactions over a five-year period, I've never had any major problems on eBay, been scammed, or failed to receive any item, from sellers located all over the World. However, you absolutely *must* do your homework properly, up-front. What if we applied 99% to other endeavors as being "good enough?" What if surgeons killed every 100th patient due to an error on their part? What if every 100th car blew up when you tried to start it the first time? In electronics, 99% reliability would put you out of business in short order. There are always "one percenters" in life (those 1% of the population that absolutely must have a hassle in every interaction that they have with another human being, or are dishonest scammers), so it is unreasonable to expect everyone to have a 100% rating. Your assignment on eBay is to suss out those one percenters and avoid them. The trick is, they are hiding amidst 99 times more gems than they represent clunkers. How much risk do you want to undertake? It's all up to you. As buyers on eBay, we have very few tools in our arsenal, but FB is almost always the most important one, no question. Finally, don't forget that most negatives can be removed for twenty bucks, so the ones that remain are even more significant.... Greg Parker Ann Arbor, Michigan *with thanks to "SoCal Chuck...." Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 13:42:37 -0800 (PST) From: Peter Naiman <hetchinspete1@yahoo.com> To: Ken Sanford <kanford@comcast.net>, chuckschmidt@earthlink.net, classicrendezvous <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org> Subject: Re: [CR]Now: eBay ratings Was: Charter-Lea cranks

Ken; I strongly disagree with Chuck as well. I will admit to two prior negatives that were well deserved by myself, but I've incurred a third from a buyer who doesn't seem to have either received my invoices, or emails sent through Ebay. I've also called the Ass--- and got hung up on after trying to reason with him. So in some cases negatives are not deserved. Best regards, Peter Naiman Shorewwod, WI

Go Green Bay Packers !!


--- Ken Sanford wrote:


> Chuck

\r?\n>

\r?\n> I disagree strongly!!!

\r?\n>

\r?\n> 99.2 is better than 99 out of 100 satisfied.

\r?\n>

\r?\n> What if you had made 40-50 trouble-free sales and

\r?\n> them you meet up with an

\r?\n> ass-hole who gives you a bum rating. Or someone who

\r?\n> demands NOS when you

\r?\n> specified good condition!

\r?\n>

\r?\n> Sometimes called 'rating blackmail'

\r?\n>

\r?\n> That, unfortunately is why many reputable sellers

\r?\n> will not give feedback to

\r?\n> buyer before item is delivered and customer is

\r?\n> "satisfied"

\r?\n>

\r?\n> Ken Sanford

\r?\n> Kensington, MD

\r?\n>

\r?\n> ----- Original Message -----

\r?\n> From: "Chuck Schmidt" <chuckschmidt@earthlink.net>

\r?\n> To: "classicrendezvous"

\r?\n> <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>

\r?\n> Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 3:21 PM

\r?\n> Subject: [CR]Now: eBay ratings Was: Charter-Lea

\r?\n> cranks

\r?\n>

\r?\n>

\r?\n> > Peter Naiman wrote:

\r?\n> >>

\r?\n> >> JB: Just thought I'd point out the misinformation

\r?\n> or

\r?\n> >> inconsistancy, but on the other side the seller

\r?\n> in

\r?\n> >> question does have a 99.2% rating om Ebay.

\r?\n> >

\r?\n> >

\r?\n> > A 99.2% rating on eBay is soooooooo not good!!!

\r?\n> Anything more than a

\r?\n> > couple of tenths of a percent below 100% is a bad

\r?\n> thing and a big red

\r?\n> > flag to anyone that is eBay savvy.

\r?\n> >

\r?\n> > The lack of forthrightness this seller has

\r?\n> displayed just goes along

\r?\n> > with his eBay rating; my opinion of course.

\r?\n> >

\r?\n> > Chuck Schmidt

\r?\n> > SoPas, SoSoggy SoCal

\r?\n> >

\r?\n> > .