Washington Post article on eBay feedback changes – what do *you* think?

April 10, 2008

Marketplaces ChannelAdvisor By ChannelAdvisor

Rob Pegoraro has an interesting article out today in the Washington Post about eBay’s upcoming feedback changes.  I spent some time with Rob explaining some of the changes and how they impact eBay from a seller’s perspective.  One part of the conversation that didn’t make the cut was this series of logic:

  1. If you believe that feedback is broken,
  2. And the biggest reason is retal negs/buyer negatives
  3. What other alternatives could eBay have looked at other than removing buyer negs?

Here’s a list I came up with – can reader’s think of any I missed or do you prefer any of these to what eBay ended up with?

  • No feedback at all for buyers, just sellers (amazon and CSEs)
  • Feedback is left 0-X days from the transaction, but held in a ‘limbo’ state to give buyer+seller time to work out any differences and then it’s pushed.  A corollary to this one is to only put feedback in limbo if there’s a negative from buyer or seller in the works.
  • Buyer doesn’t leave seller feedback until seller has left buyer feedback – this sequencing removes retal negs totally.
  • The seller must skype the buyer for at least 10 minutes in order to talk about a potential negative (kidding – but think of the synergies!)
  • Don’t change anything at all, the system was working great

I know there have been lots of complaints about eBay’s choice, but which solution do you think would be better?  I’m kind of partial to bullets two and three, but am curious as to everyone’s thoughts.

Keep in mind, I think eBay won’t change their mind on their course of action, but this is meant to be a ‘what if’ kind of exercise.