just as someone with one or two negatives on his feedback is almost never
automatically worse than someone with no negatives. There simply isn't an
automatic correllation.
Larry
frankrad4@xxxxxxxx wrote:
> I was hesitant to name any names because of this, but I decided to put on
> the mud goggles and let it fly. :-0 The reason I went ahead was to see if
> anyone else had good or bad experiences with the seller. The purpose is
> not to throw mud at the guy but to see if there is a pattern. I don't
> expect anyone to draw conclusions based on one transaction but if there
> is a history of bad deals it would be useful to know. I invited anyone
> with something positive to say to post as well. I am being as diplomatic
> as I can be here considering it is my money on the line.
> Since I am still trying to salvage this deal it is not even in my
> best interest to post anything about it but thought it could be helpful.
> I am on another mailing list that deals with a marque of antique cars
> that are not that popular, (another hobby I can't really afford) and our
> sources of parts and vendors is limited (sound familiar?) On this list we
> openly share information and it has helped many list members avoid being
> taken advantage of. The people who deal honestly have nothing to hide and
> the good vendors are rewarded with an increase in business.
>
> Frank
>
> On Thu, 28 Dec 2000 10:27:20 -0800 Kelton Rhoads <krho@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> writes:
> > >><< It was advertised as LN but it is more like EX cosmetically with
> > a
> > >>bad meter . . . I also bought the f280 flash from same seller that
> > was
> > >>advertised as LN but is more like Bargain >>
> > >
> > >Sorry to hear about your grade inflation problems. You ought to
> > post the
> > >name of that seller here.
> >
> > I agree, but Frank should be prepared for mail from a handful of
> > list
> > members urging him not to reveal the name. Several weeks back I
> > aired the
> > name of a seller giving me problems and got some negative off-list
> > feedback from a few list members for it. I felt I was taking on
> > personal
> > risk for the benefit of the list (giving advance warning to other
> > potential purchasers), but that got spun by a few people as my
> > jumping to
> > conclusions and damaging an innocent seller's record. Posting the
> > names
> > of deadbeat sellers is the right thing to do, but be prepared for a
> > reaction from a small minority of list members if it isn't done
> > right.
> > And that was where I think I went wrong weeks ago, because, given
> > the
> > nature of e-communications, I've learned you can't summarize and
> > condense
> > as you might if you were talking to your neighbor. If you simply
> > say,
> > "Beware of so-and-so," your communication may be interpreted as
> > unjust, a
> > "judgment without a trial." I had summarized, because I didn't feel
> > like
> > airing all the dirty laundry. That was a mistake. (In fact, eBay
> > also
> > discourages summaries, and encourages negative feedback to be based
> > strictly on the facts). In the future, when I issue a seller
> > warning,
> > I'll provide detail so people can make up their own minds. And, I'll
> > skip
> > the judgment calls altogether. I've come to believe that, although
> > shared
> > summary judgments are efficient and useful in many instances, they
> > are
> > not well-suited to virtual communities. In any case, the rules of
> > politics still apply: "You can't throw mud without getting hit by
> > mud
> > yourself." (Which is why I think the feedback on eBay is such a
> > crock--why give negative feedback when it will only damage your own
> > record in a tit-for-tat retaliation? What's to stop a person with a
> > lot
> > of negative feedback from re-emerging under a different name? If you
> > are
> > honest with your side of the story, what constrains your antagonist
> > to be
> > honest as well? Do we really believe that everybody is equally
> > honest?)
> > OK, I'm starting to go seriously OT here, but let me take a moment
> > and
> > issue a GOOD seller notice. There's a guy on eBay named James
> > Timmons
> > (jktphd) who is an outstanding, honest seller of OM equipment. I
> > purchased several items from him, most recently a 28/2 for $230 and
> > it
> > arrived in better-than-described, near-mint condition (REALLY
> > near-mint,
> > not pseudo near-mint, with apologies to those of you who don't think
> >
> > "mint" should be used as a descriptor). He also threw in free
> > shipping
> > and a free micro-fiber cloth. I say "What a guy," but draw your
> > *own*
> > conclusion from these facts. (And what a lens! Now I can see what
> > y'all
> > have been raving about.)
> >
> > < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> > < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> > < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
> >
>
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|