About the MM
- Thread starter Madwelsh
- Start date
I've had a 100% failure rate buying stuff on the MM (one transaction). Poxy scammers. Still I took them to court and now they have a CCJ, so let that be a warning to yers scammer folk. I'd say the post count should be higher if anything.
Also - people need to post honest feedback. A few I spoke to said they'd received stuff that wasn't accurately described but decided to give positive feedback so they'd get positive feedback in return. Maybe the rating system needs revising.
Also - people need to post honest feedback. A few I spoke to said they'd received stuff that wasn't accurately described but decided to give positive feedback so they'd get positive feedback in return. Maybe the rating system needs revising.
Yeh that's definitely not good.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Feb 2003
- Posts
- 29,640
- Location
- Chelmsford
I agree with you here. People do seek to protect their own feedback but there's nothing really much we can about this. Nor can we force people to leave feedback. The new rules which were published in May contain some useful guidelines as to how the Trust system is to be used. We would never remove or edit genuine trust, negative or otherwise. The only time we would, is where it's been abused or not used for MM feedback.
Given the amount of trading activity that goes on, disputes are less common than what you might think. Most of those we do get are just people being a little impatient but by and large the MM is as safe as what a it can be for a public forum where people are anonymous.
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Jan 2013
- Posts
- 1,629
- Location
- Worthing, West Sussex
I'm looking forwards to being able to have a look through. Probably won't buy/sell much but still worth trying to eye up a bargain 
I can also understand the rules put in place, I've had 2 idiots trying to scam me on Ebay out of 3 things I've sold. It's very annoying and off putting! Luckily enough I haven't fallen for their tricks.
I can also understand the rules put in place, I've had 2 idiots trying to scam me on Ebay out of 3 things I've sold. It's very annoying and off putting! Luckily enough I haven't fallen for their tricks.
Well it seems to be a trend where the seller will not leave feedback until after the buyer has. The buyer has done everything on their part once the money is paid, so feedback should be left by the seller at that point. Currently, it is not, and the seller holds the buyers trust rating at ransom until they are satisfied their own is good.
That shouldn't be happening.
Associate
- Joined
- 28 Feb 2013
- Posts
- 1,710
- Location
- Leeds
Iv seen this happen loads of times. It realy winds me up.
Seeing it from t he other side of the fence, there's an incredible amount of work which goes on behind the scenes to keep the MM running as smooth as it does. The very nature of what it is means nothing will ever be 100% successful, but we try to put in stringent checks as a way of trying to ensure our users safety. It doesn't always work, but 99% of transactions are safe and secure.
The reason for this in my eyes is the high post count - it's true however that a high post count doesn't make you less of a risk - but what it does do is provides a high enough bar which can't be attained by simple methods (e.g. signing up with a new account...). The idea of it is we try to make it as hard as possible for scammers, but make it attainable enough for our genuine users. In the grand scheme of things, 1000 posts isn't a great deal of posts considering the amount of subforums we have which can be posted in. There's something for every one to contribute on the forums and those that do contribute are opened up to the MM, which is a place to sell specific goods and which can be had for a bargain.
Once you get there just make sure you check the rules out throughly, it's obviously very strict as to protect it's members.
The reason for this in my eyes is the high post count - it's true however that a high post count doesn't make you less of a risk - but what it does do is provides a high enough bar which can't be attained by simple methods (e.g. signing up with a new account...). The idea of it is we try to make it as hard as possible for scammers, but make it attainable enough for our genuine users. In the grand scheme of things, 1000 posts isn't a great deal of posts considering the amount of subforums we have which can be posted in. There's something for every one to contribute on the forums and those that do contribute are opened up to the MM, which is a place to sell specific goods and which can be had for a bargain.
Once you get there just make sure you check the rules out throughly, it's obviously very strict as to protect it's members.
It shouldn't happen, but there's no way we can enforce trust - The very name of it suggests that.
Ebay, Amazon etc doesn't enforce feedback as it doesn't work. Any suggestions in how we can get around this though would be listened too
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Feb 2003
- Posts
- 29,640
- Location
- Chelmsford
You raise a valid point for sure. It's a bit like ransom switch over.. someone has to make first move.. I'm currently owed 3 trust updates. The difference is i have left trust so it doesn't fit into your criteria of ransom but i do see tactical trust updating which isn't fair granted. We did have a rule whereby we forced users to leave feedback but it wasn't popular and was difficult to moderate.
We are always open to suggestions to make the MM safer. Do you have any recommendations or suggestions as to how we can enforce this approach?
It shouldn't happen, but there's no way we can enforce trust - The very name of it suggests that.
Ebay, Amazon etc doesn't enforce feedback as it doesn't work. Any suggestions in how we can get around this though would be listened too
Maybe just don't show feedback until both sides have left it.
1) You give honest positive feedback but other party doesn't get round to doing it - they don't have their feedback showing until they give you some feedback in return.
2) you give negative feedback first - they cant see your negative feedback until they've given feedback themselves, so your feedback will not influence their feedback on you.
1) You give honest positive feedback but other party doesn't get round to doing it - they don't have their feedback showing until they give you some feedback in return.
2) you give negative feedback first - they cant see your negative feedback until they've given feedback themselves, so your feedback will not influence their feedback on you.
Not always a case of ransom though is it.
What if after the sale the buyer does something out of order and if feedback has already been left by the seller it couldn't then be updated.
an example off the top of my head, buyer receives item and damages it, either during fitting, trying to mod or overclocking it too much etc ect. then tries to get the seller to refund them.
It isn't always as one sided as you are making it out to be here.
99% of cases I would imagine aren't a problem however.
Was thinking about this myself actually, don't know how much coding it requires (don't even know how the "trust" system works to be fair) but it would make sense to do it this way and would be much fairer
Was thinking about this myself actually, don't know how much coding it requires (don't even know how the "trust" system works to be fair) but it would make sense to do it this way and would be much fairer
+1
It's a great idea. Trust should be completely confidential between parties, since you're rating your experience with them. Currently even if someone messes me around saying "Can't post today, will try tomorrow" for a week, I still have to leave 'positive' trust, even though I could have bought elsewhere and got the item sooner.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
You don't have to leave positive feedback. You can post whatever you wish as long as it's reasonable.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Jul 2012
- Posts
- 16,166
- Location
- London
Isn't the point of Trust so that other people can check out the feedback that's been left for you on previous transactions?
Making it private and only between you and the person you've dealt with kind of defeats the purpose.
I'm not sure why you think you HAVE to leave positive trust if you didn't have a positive experience.
Making it private and only between you and the person you've dealt with kind of defeats the purpose.
I'm not sure why you think you HAVE to leave positive trust if you didn't have a positive experience.
I can see what's being said though.
Scenario:
You sell me an item. Say, a monitor.
I pay via Paypal within the timeframe specified but you are unabel to get to a post office and send the monitor by the time we agreed.
If I leave feedback stating that you didn't send when you'd said, it is reasonable because it is true. A lot of the time though it might be that people don't want to say this, because then the likelihood is greater that you will then say something bad about my involvement in the process, whether true or not.
The example given was for it to be hidden from everyone until both parties had left trust. Not to be hidden from everyone for all time excpt the individuals involved in the transaction.