About the Author

author photo

Adam Trachtenberg is the Director of the LinkedIn Developer Network, where he oversees developer relations and marketing for the LinkedIn Platform. Before LinkedIn, Adam worked at eBay in platform product management and marketing. Even earlier, he co-founded Student.Com and TVGrid.com. Adam is the author of PHP Cookbook and Upgrading to PHP 5. He lives in San Francisco.

See All Posts by This Author

Another eBay Blog

Lots of new eBay blogs popping up in the past few months. I just discovered “Tsunami Alert in the Great Salt Lake“, written by Cindy Purvance, my favorite person in eBay customer support. Go Cindy!

There Are 4 Responses So Far. »

  1. Thanks, Adam. You’re my favorite manager of technical evangelism at eBay! :)

  2. Hey Adam, when you send us to an “eBay blog,” could you perhaps verify that it has any posts ABOUT EBAY?? If Cindy wants to go on about her politics, fine. Just don’t misrepresent a Kos wannabee as someone with even a wisp of eBay specific information.

    Came here via a search for eBay blogs, which explains why I might be a touch cranky about wasting my time.

  3. Nice find but it didnt actually seem to have any blog posts about eBay. I guess its a ebay blog because she works at ebay.

  4. Something needs to be done. Trying to rally support – though I wonder if it will matter. Ebay has become virtually unresponsive – They’re outgrowing their ability to provide customer service. Anyway, to my point…

    Ebay’s feedback system is sound in theory, but in practice contains one tragic flaw:

    It does nothing to protect sellers from non-paying bidders, nor does it protect paying bidders from non-performing sellers.

    Negative feedback by the compliant party – in either case – is subject to unfounded, retaliatory feedback by the offender. This pervasive problem with the Feedback Forum has an easy fix.

    Ebay’s current policy states that (in most cases) they won’t remove feedback because it states members opinions. And yet, sellers and buyers in a given auction are able to report their non-performing counterparts to site administrators, who in turn may issue a non-paying bidder or non-performing seller strike against the deliquent party. Does not the resultant investigation bridge the gap between opinion and fact? If ebay itself determines a party was delinquent in carrying out the contractual obligation established through the auction process, it is no longer an opinion that a buyer did not pay, or that a seller did not ship, but rather it has been established as fact.

    So here’s an easy way not only to make feedback fair and to protect those who meet their obligations, but also to encourage buyers and sellers to meet said obligations to complete their transactions:

    If a non-paying bidder or non-performing seller strike is issued, the delinquent party forfeits his/her right to leave feedback for the transaction. After all, they did not transact!

    I just had my long-held, hard-worked for 100% feedback sullied by a guy who blatantly tried to steal from me by accepting my money and then claiming a $200 item had shipped (with no delivery confirmation). Only when I got the post office involved and filed a paypal claim did he stop communicating and refund my money. All verified through e-mails I collected, filed, and provided to Trust and Safety. And I paid for the auction within seconds of its close. Why should such a person be able to defile my good name when I alert other members to his nefarious practices? Why should I not be able to alert others in such a case without fear of reprisal? Why should a non-paying bidder be able to retaliate if I leave him/her negative feedback? Your thoughts?