Under what circumstances would you leave negative feedback??

[Mr. Foxen]

[quote name='Shockwave' timestamp='1346068658' post='1784743']
Opening up the feedback forum for non transactions/time-wasting will cause slanging matches, poor/non valid reasons for bad feedback
[/quote]

Yeah, that's what I'm after, means I can see who are idiots I don't want to deal with, the whole point of feedback. Restricting it to niceties just gives a false reflection of reality and renders it all a bit pointless.

[Shockwave]

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1346068894' post='1784756']
Yeah, that's what I'm after, means I can see who are idiots I don't want to deal with, the whole point of feedback. Restricting it to niceties just gives a false reflection of reality and renders it all a bit pointless.
[/quote]

You missed the "Increase in moderator intervention part".

Moderators are not paid and subsequently we have always stated that we do not bear any responsibility on deals that may or may not have occurred. Though we do try to help and act as an intermediary as much as we can.

For especially bad behavior, you can report it to us, we have an internal warning system we use. Though we have never banned anyone for time wasting alone, we have banned people who seriously screw over people with transactions and non transactions, especially If we feel they are not benefiting the community.

So to reiterate.

I would rather not implement a system for public feedback of time wasters as it can open up the feedback forums to abuse. However we can deal with them in private which can result in a ban so they would no longer be able to waste your time. If you feel you are getting hard done by in a deal please report it to us. If they have multiple reports against them then we will ban them. That is the best I can offer at the moment.

[flyfisher]

[quote name='Shockwave' timestamp='1346068532' post='1784741']
If either the seller or buyer does not turn up, and money is involved with travel costs that's fine. But if they don't turn up for a genuinely good reason such as a death in the family, or financial emergency It would be unfair to leave bad feedback because of that.
[/quote]

Agreed, but is this really likely to be a problem in practice? Who would leave negative feedback if a buyer (say) didn't turn up but called to explain why with a genuinely good reason. But even if they did, the buyer could reply to the negative feedback explaining the reasons.

[quote name='Shockwave' timestamp='1346068532' post='1784741']
If your meeting up and the item is not described and you incur costs then yes, Bad feedback can be left. However mistakes can be made, dings can be missed in the description by accident, truss rods could be seized without knowing etc maybe the buyer though it was a particular shade of colour but when they saw it in real life it wasn't quite right.
[/quote]

Again, both sides to the story could be posted in the feedback.

[quote name='Shockwave' timestamp='1346068532' post='1784741']
As to haggling, that is an institution. It is why I put "Firm" on all of my prices if I don't want any haggling and remind buyers that I will not haggle at any stage.
[/quote]
Agreed. Nothing wrong with haggling but, to my mind, that's negotiation and not a deal. I can't imagine someone would leave negative feedback because someone was haggling. However, if at some point the negotiation stops and a deal is agreed then I'd say it was very bad form to start haggling again and would be worthy of negative feedback.

[quote name='Shockwave' timestamp='1346068532' post='1784741']
If the seller increases the price etc on meetup (Which I have never heard of happening) or if you have other problems, pm a mod and we will try to solve this in private.
[/quote]
I'm all for sorting out such things in private, but is it really feasible? Almost certainly not at the time you've just driven 50 miles to meet up.

[quote name='Shockwave' timestamp='1346068532' post='1784741']
In very rare occasions we have allowed bad feedback where a transaction has not technically occurred for grave infractions or deals gone sour and that's the best I can give you at the moment.
[/quote]

That's fine. I entirely accept that we have to abide by the rules, whatever they are, but I think it's sometimes helpful to question them in case a different slant can be raised. Having said that, I appreciate you don't want to spend all your time answering a constant stream of such questions so I'm happy with that.

[quote name='Shockwave' timestamp='1346068532' post='1784741']
I will however take this time to remind everyone though that Basschat holds no responsibility for any transactions that have occurred or deals gone sour.
[/quote]

Yep, more than fair enough, though worth the reminder.

[Mr. Foxen]

The moderator intervention part is just editing that reflection of reality, I don't want that to happen. Telling people not to do it to start with or deleting after the fact, either is a fail for what I want. Win for people using the feedback section to decide if they want to deal with someone is not having moderators intervene. If someone wants to be a butthurt crybaby spamming up the sellers thread because a bass wasn't set up the way they like after shipping it, then I want to be able to see that, save me a lot of hassle setting up and shipping a bass.

[Shockwave]

Also imagine a scenario where feedback can be left for non transactions.

[i]"M1 hates M2 for an unspecified reason. He posts in the feedback thread claiming that a deal fell through (Even though M2 wasn't selling or buying anything in the first place). Moderators and members have no proof that a deal had occurred or not. M1 could be just making something up just to make M2 seem like a bad seller/buyer. Yet the feedback still stands because we allow feedback for non transactions."[/i]

Yes M2 can reply to the feedback stating it is not true. But it is still a black mark on an otherwise clean record and that is not fair on M2.

[Mr. Foxen]

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1346069635' post='1784768']
Agreed. Nothing wrong with haggling but, to my mind, that's negotiation and not a deal. I can't imagine someone would leave negative feedback because someone was haggling. However, if at some point the negotiation stops and a deal is agreed then I'd say it was very bad form to start haggling again and would be worthy of negative feedback.
[/quote]

I PM block anyone who makes stupid lowballs, which sort of sorts that, but turns out PM blocking doesn't work like I thought it did.

[Shockwave]

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1346069823' post='1784772']
I PM block anyone who makes stupid lowballs, which sort of sorts that, but turns out PM blocking doesn't work like I thought it did.
[/quote]

That is a forum software issue like we mentioned to you before, there is nothing we can do about it.

[Mr. Foxen]

[quote name='Shockwave' timestamp='1346069747' post='1784771']
Also imagine a scenario where feedback can be left for non transactions.

"M1 hates M2 for an unspecified reason. He posts in the feedback thread claiming that a deal fell through (Even though M2 wasn't selling or buying anything in the first place). Moderators and members have no proof that a deal had occurred or not. M1 could be just making something up just to make M2 seem like a bad seller/buyer. Yet the feedback still stands because we allow feedback for non transactions."
[/quote]

Do you allow feedback for transactions outside of BC? because transactions within BC have got evidence of their existence. guess the only thing that wouldn't be on bc would be affiliate discounts, and that really isn't much to do with BC, you are just ragging on a business after getting a discount.

[Shockwave]

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1346070074' post='1784778']
Do you allow feedback for transactions outside of BC? because transactions within BC have got evidence of their existence. guess the only thing that wouldn't be on bc would be affiliate discounts, and that really isn't much to do with BC, you are just ragging on a business after getting a discount.
[/quote]

We have banned people in the past for doing bad deals on other sites and we had proof of it occurring but this has been sortedin PMs as it is a very rare occurrence. Some new members have posted in off topic about a bad deal done with a BC member outside of BC, however we have always deleted them and asked them to PM us about it because we don't know if it is true or false statement. If it turns out to be a true then we question the BC member and possibly ban them if we have reasonable proof.

Transactions can occur on BC between BC members without an advert being put up. Even if there was a classified ad, M1 could just claim that a deal had been agreed on, but M2 pulled out. M1 leaves bad feedback, even though there was no actual contact in the first place.

We don't allow "Public" Feedback from deals done on other sites. However we will take it into account privately and possibly ban there account so our members dont have to deal with them.

Opening up public feedback for time wasters and non transactions opens up the ability for users to abuse that system.

[simon1964]

[quote name='Shockwave' timestamp='1346017445' post='1784242']
Feedback is mostly for if a item was not as described, not delivered, late in being shipped or bad attitude of seller/buyer.
[/quote]

With the exception of non-delivery, these are surely all more subjective (and therefore more likely to lead to disputes as to whether negative feedback is justified) than someone backing out of a transaction?

Edited August 27, 2012 by simon1964

[Mr. Foxen]

Seems like the intention is, that if someone is doing the timewaster thing, pm a mod about it, and if it happens loads, then the mods will deal with it without publicity. The feedback section is just there to give a utopian view of the trade section.

[Shockwave]

[quote name='simon1964' timestamp='1346070485' post='1784789']
With the exception of non-delivery, these are surely all more subjective (and therefore more likely to lead to disputes as to whether negative feedback is justified) than someone backing out of a transaction?
[/quote]

Which we deal with already and 99% in private with PMs. However considering practically every advert has time wasters, the sheer weight of complaints and bad feedback towards time wasters would create way more work and disputes.

Time wasting happens everyday, it's why people just accept it as part and parcel of advertising in classified sections. I am on the receiving on end of as much time wasting as anybody else. I can deal with it.

Members are asking us for a solution, but I don't think we can provide one that is fair for everyone. Its a problem without a true 100% fair solution.

[b]I would rather have to deal with time wasters, then see good honest members being left bad feedback because of a simple mistake, misunderstanding or bad accident.[/b]

[pantherairsoft]

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1346069635' post='1784768']
Agreed, but is this really likely to be a problem in practice? Who would leave negative feedback if a buyer (say) didn't turn up but called to explain why with a genuinely good reason. But even if they did, the buyer could reply to the negative feedback explaining the reasons.



Again, both sides to the story could be posted in the feedback.
[/quote]

This is the main problem.

It's always been a BC policy to say that if you have an issue with another member it should be dealt with by PM and not voiced as public argument. This tends to end with both people setting their differences, or a moderator being notified of X, Y or Z. I would hope the same is true after transactions and if someone wasted your time you'd find out why in private. If you were unhappy with the response posting negative feedback is not going to help as you already know their side of the 'argument' and disagreed with it enough to leave negative feedback!

If a situation was enough for most people to feel negative feedback needs to be left it means they had a bad experience and both sides presenting their sides of the story on a public forum will result in nothing but an argument. Neither side will see the others point of view and the feedback forum will become a bigger battleground than Off Topic!

As a public discussion forum that does not have advanced software or a workforce to police a set system (lke eBay for example) the current process has to be subject to some specific rules and this is one that so has has shown that if it is not adhered to more problems occur (as it's been mentioned feedback in the past over non-transactions etc. has resulted in serious fall outs).

[skankdelvar]

Basschat offers a classified sales section and a feedback section to log successful or - in a minority of instances - unsuccessful transactions. In the event that something goes wrong, unpaid moderators will intervene to help if they can.

If an unsuccessful sale takes place [i]off [/i]BC but involving a member, a mod will try to help out if they can. All of these services are offered free of charge by volunteers.

The nature of this service delivery is open to discussion, as it has been for the last few pages and some useful points have been identified.

Nevertheless, [i]some[/i] people appear to be demanding the further comfort and convenience of being able to identify extra-transactional 'timewasters', despite the clearly explained - and to me entirely obvious - implementational problems this would cause and the extra work this would entail for the mods.

It all strikes me as excluding consideration of the work that the mods would have to put in. I may be wrong but I don't recall anyone thanking Shockwave for the work he already does.

H'mm.

[color=#ffffff].[/color]

Edited August 27, 2012 by skankdelvar

[Mr. Foxen]

[quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1346072024' post='1784831']
Basschat offers a classified sales section and a feedback section to log successful or - in a minority of instances - unsuccessful transactions.
[/quote]

Think the point here is you can't log an unsuccessful transaction, can only log it if completed, a unsuccessful transaction that remained uncompleted can't have feedback left, which is the bit winding people up, failure to complete on a deal is the opening of the thread.

[Gust0o]

Way back in the mists of time, the Feedback section was conceived of as a rather rough-and-ready solution to the desire of forum members to feedback on the transactions they had taken part in.

Roughly, it was intended to offer an equivalency with the model we're all most familiar with - the Ebay mode. That, [i]where a transaction had occured[/i], you would be able to comment on the nature of that transaction. I said rough-and-ready, as some bits we're missing - we couldn't allow ratings, or produce MI, in trying to work the feedback system within forum software. It was all based on verbatim feedback.

It did have one advantage, which may now be a source of complaint - in that it required a transaction to have taken place. That was the ultimate arbiter, as with Ebay, that the feedback was credibe, targeted, and based on a real transaction.

In a world of subjective opinion, this did at least ground the feedback section in some form of reality. It gave it some [i]context[/i]. It helped avoid some of the more subjective measures - I mean, what is [i]timewasting[/i]? Is it the same for you, as it is for me? It avoided those subjective areas of discussion, by asking people to focus on an actual transaction.

This model will does not work so well for the nuances. [i]For the people trying to run a business, like Mr Foxen, the forum software won't support everything they might want from their shop front.[/i]

To get around it, we'd need to consider additional rules - on what topics might be covered by feedback outside of an actual completed transaction, and how to prevent such comments turning into a discussion; and [i]committing both forum members and affiliates to those rules[/i], perhaps in the form of things like SLAs. So we can have an objective measure of timewasting or uncompleted transactions, and other such complaints from sellers; but also objective standards around those users selling, including those looking to run business via the forum.

That's a very expansive option, and I'm not sure how palatable that would be to all parties. But it might be the only solution, in the face of the limitations of using discussion forum software to operate shopfronts - and open up genuine two-way feedback.

I think, in any case, that the feedback being left by members in this thread should be collated and borne in mind as the forum develops - so that the site owners can see what issues drive people and some of the outcomes members are hoping for, as they decide how to progress the site.

[skankdelvar]

I mean, let's call this for what it is. Some people get wound up dealing with timewasters and rather than suck it up like anyone else, they'd like the BC team to do even more than they [i]already[/i] do and offer something that similar sales platforms do not.

And because there is a publically visible channel of dialogue that is unavailable on - say - ebay, they are using that to 'make a case' or 'have a debate' or 'state their opinion'. And yet, despite a perfectly reasonable explanation, they're still banging on. Because it's not really a debate, it's a whinge.

Until BC changes its policy on this issue, those who feel deprived because they can't freely slag someone off for being a timewaster should simply use another website to hawk their goods. Let us know how that goes.

All this thread tells me is that some of these whingers should man up and grow a pair rather than expect someone else to sort their lives out for them.

[color=#ffffff].[/color]

Edited August 27, 2012 by skankdelvar

[Mr. Foxen]

[quote name='Gust0o' timestamp='1346073194' post='1784848']
This model will does not work so well for the nuances. [i]For the people trying to run a business, like Mr Foxen, the forum software won't support everything they might want from their shop front.[/i]
[/quote]

I don't really run my business like a business, especially not via BC, anything not in the affiliates bit isn't business, its personal stuff, except maybe the wanted section. In fact, its more that I run my hobby like a business, since my actual business has nothing to do with BC or bass at all. My aim is to deal as exclusively as possible and pick and choose who I bother with, which isn't really business practice and entirely to do with my personal preference of who I want to bother with. I charge people extra because their band sucks, and talk people out of buying my things that won't suit what they want to do. In order to make such choices, I need the information, which is the value of the feedback thread, restricting information doesn't help me at all. And its definitely not the shop front that is at issue otherwise, that's back end stuff.

If a transaction doesn't complete, because one party say, doesn't actually send the goods, that is something I'm going to want to know about.

[Shockwave]

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1346074236' post='1784859']


If a transaction doesn't complete, because one party say, doesn't actually send the goods, that is something I'm going to want to know about.
[/quote]

If someone has paid money for something, that counts as a transaction. So if the goods didn't arrive then bad feedback can be left.

[Gust0o]

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1346074236' post='1784859']
I don't really run my business like a business, especially not via BC, anything not in the affiliates bit isn't business, its personal stuff, except maybe the wanted section. In fact, its more that I run my hobby like a business, since my actual business has nothing to do with BC or bass at all. My aim is to deal as exclusively as possible and pick and choose who I bother with, which isn't really business practice and entirely to do with my personal preference of who I want to bother with. I charge people extra because their band sucks, and talk people out of buying my things that won't suit what they want to do. In order to make such choices, I need the information, which is the value of the feedback thread, restricting information doesn't help me at all. And its definitely not the shop front that is at issue otherwise, that's back end stuff.

If a transaction doesn't complete, because one party say, doesn't actually send the goods, that is something I'm going to want to know about.
[/quote]

The value of the feedback thread, as originally conceived, was in allowing users to comment on [i]completed[/i] transactions, for better or worse.

As I alluded to above, you'd need something very different to make your model work - and, again, your model is very different from the average user. If we were in my office, suited and booted and having this as a business conversation, my initial challenge to the above would be: [i]well, are you asking me for a genuine improvement for all users, or are you asking me to enable your business model?[/i]

Very tough challenge, that.

But, assuming it could work and BC went with your suggestion - do you have any thoughts about how it might work? I talked about SLAs, as we'd need some objective standard; and the feedback would need to work two-ways, and in all instances. You're talking about being able to deal exclusively and charge more if peoples' bands suck - would you be prepared for a model where people could post their responses to that?

Obviously, I'm not committing to anything, it's beyond my gift for the site - and the more senior mods have had their comment on the existing rules - but it would be good to know more of your ideas to ensure I'm getting the most of the feedback. Maybe drop me a note via PM.

[flyfisher]

[quote name='pantherairsoft' timestamp='1346071251' post='1784816']
It's always been a BC policy to say that if you have an issue with another member it should be dealt with by PM and not voiced as public argument. This tends to end with both people setting their differences, or a moderator being notified of X, Y or Z. I would hope the same is true after transactions and if someone wasted your time you'd find out why in private. If you were unhappy with the response posting negative feedback is not going to help as you already know their side of the 'argument' and disagreed with it enough to leave negative feedback!

If a situation was enough for most people to feel negative feedback needs to be left it means they had a bad experience and both sides presenting their sides of the story on a public forum will result in nothing but an argument. Neither side will see the others point of view and the feedback forum will become a bigger battleground than Off Topic!
[/quote]

I entirely agree that PMs (and any other private means available) should be used to try to resolve any marketplace issues. Definitely something to be encouraged.

I also agree that negative feedback is unlikely to help sort out anything that can't be sorted out privately - but I've never thought of negative feedback as being anything to do with dispute resolution. Indeed, negative feedback should be a last resort when a resolution is not possible, in which case it's for the benefit of other BCers, not the ones with the dispute.

[Shockwave]

[quote name='Shockwave' timestamp='1346070992' post='1784807']
[b]I would rather have to deal with time wasters, then see good honest members being left bad feedback because of a simple mistake, misunderstanding or bad accident.[/b]
[/quote]

Alternatively to the people who want Non transactional feedback I ask...
[b]Is it worth the cost to [/b][b]screw all those good honest members who are left bad feedback because of a simple mistake, misunderstanding, bad accident and screw the moderators who have to deal with fallout back and forth argument, just so you can [/b][b]have the convenience of not having to deal with 2nd+ occurrence time wasters? [/b](This on the assumption you actually read the feedback thread in the first place)

Remember, nothings going to stop people from Time wasting the first time. So you'll still get time wasters even if we allowed non transaction feedback.

[Mr. Foxen]

Its only screwing people if a bad feedback actually puts off legitimate people from dealing with receiver of said feedback. As it stands, you have to do something horribly wrong to get a feedback that is anything but positive, so the strength of a bad feedback is high. If it were open, then its a bunch of information from which to make a decision on your own personal dealings, rather than having moderators dictate what information is available.

[quote name='Gust0o' timestamp='1346075148' post='1784870']
As I alluded to above, you'd need something very different to make your model work - and, again, your model is very different from the average user. If we were in my office, suited and booted and having this as a business conversation, my initial challenge to the above would be: [i]well, are you asking me for a genuine improvement for all users, or are you asking me to enable your business model?[/i]
[/quote]

If you want to call it a business, and you can't fit in with my business model, you don't get my business, and if it is a business, I'm not out to do favours for anyone else's, unless they are my associates. It isn't for anyone else to dictate who I choose to deal with at any level, especially not with personal non-business dealings that are what I do via BC. The only relevant thing is the ability to block PMs, that's totally annoying and basically the reason I don't do much by way of listing spares and parts on BC any more, and go straight to ebay, where I can block people at will, and pay for that convenience, and generally not have to deal with lowballs. This is about the feedback section is a forum for information, and restricting said information only serves to undermine the validity of the information that is there. I've not really had any bad transactions, but I generally rely on my intuition on if someone is worth dealing with rather than the feedback section.

[icastle]

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1346076903' post='1784902']
As it stands, you have to do something horribly wrong to get a feedback that is anything but positive, so the strength of a bad feedback is high. If it were open, then its a bunch of information from which to make a decision on your own personal dealings, rather than having moderators dictate what information is available.
[/quote]

I've not done a stint in the 'For Sale' areas yet, but I can see a difficult balance having to be maintained given that it's actually an individual standing there being judged rather than someone with a different opinion you are talking to in an OT thread.
My own feeling is that if a transaction hasn't gone smoothly, posting derogatory comments about the seller is just going to burn any bridges that exist for mediation and throw away what slim chance there is of getting a successful resolution.
I think, so far, that I have only seen two reports, amongst the floods that appear in the BC moderation queue, regarding possible bad transactions.
One of those is actively being investigated by a mod and the other was from someone who posts here infrequently complaining about a transaction he did with a non BC member, based in a different country and on a site other than BC.

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1346076903' post='1784902']
The only relevant thing is the ability to block PMs, that's totally annoying and basically the reason I don't do much by way of listing spares and parts on BC any more, and go straight to ebay, where I can block people at will, and pay for that convenience, and generally not have to deal with lowballs.
[/quote]
I agree that's annoying and very surprising, but this is an OTS software package and not something that we have had written especially for us.
There's a limit to how much 'under the bonnet tinkering' that can be done, so we're kinda reliant on the guys at IP Board to sort this problem out in a future release of their software.

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1346076903' post='1784902']
This is about the feedback section is a forum for information, and restricting said information only serves to undermine the validity of the information that is there. I've not really had any bad transactions, but I generally rely on my intuition on if someone is worth dealing with rather than the feedback section.
[/quote]

Looking at the mistakes that professional information holding companies make on an almost daily basis, intuition is definately a valuable asset.

Taking that into account, how well do you reckon a bunch of unpaid mods on a free bass discussion forum are going to fare in comparison?
Crikey - I wouldn't trust me!

[gjones]

In situations like that you have to be assertive and give a cutoff point, after which you can't hold the item any longer (especially if somebody else wishes to buy it). If you make that a personal rule, in future you won't have to consider giving anybody negative feedback about timewasting.

Edited August 27, 2012 by gjones