Buying and Selling of feedback


Today I saw the second auction where the seller states something to this effect "if you don't come through with payment on a winning bid, you can give me $xx (or a percentage of the bid) and back out without negative feedback posted. otherwise, negative feedback will be posted.

This seems like extortion to me. Also, aren't the rest of us entitled to know about a deadbeat bidder (via negative feedback)? The posting of negative feedback is the correct recourse for a deadbeat bidder - not a bribe or "fine".

I think this behavior undermines the feedback process. What do the rest of you think?

Just curious.
dozer
Bobgates: touché! I am living a situation like this right now. To add insult to injury, I am being threatened with some kind of legal action if I dare tell it like it is. The whole Feedback thing is well nigh useless for the reasons you indicate. Blackmailers have a field day. Cheats can get friends to post. Cheats can invent an Internet alter ego and post positive feedback to build-up their “reputation”. I have come to the conclusion that anyone who claims to be a private seller but has so many transactions it must almost be full-time occupation or at least a very time intensive side-line is a disaster waiting to happen: that person is bound to buy a dog one day just based on the odds and will likely pawn it off on another member and drape himself in the mantle of positive feedback. More on this later.
A'gon members have more than once expressed their decision to not leave negative feedback on unscrupulous individuals who deserve it, because they have been threatened with false, retaliatory feedback, or they fear that will be the result. I myself decided against leaving negative feedback on sellers who outright lied and sent defective units to me. Why? Because I went through considerable problems & emotional stress in these experiences, and in getting my money back. I simply didn't want to endure the dispute process to accomplish this. Add to this my one experience with the dispute process which was quite frustrating and demeaning. I later found out that the one seller sold defective merchandise to another member here, and he, too, was very hesitant to report it. Add to this that the member has considerable positive feedback, and you feel like you are fighting a losing battle.

I, too, fear that some individuals may have friends that perhaps even sign up on Audiogon just to provide feedback for them. I will look at who left the feedback - if they have lots of feedback, or are a name I frequently see on Audiogon, I feel somewhat more secure. I know that all my dealings are honest, but I have found there are some bad apples out there.
Nice, you had a horrific experience, so you decide not to warn others due to your own fears. Just let the cycle continue. Did you ever consider that if another member had not been selfish and left negative feedback for the bounder then you would've been warned? What a productive member of the community; you should be proud.
Who are you addressing this to? In my case, I have to wait to see what the dealer who will proceed with repairs after Christmas will tell me and, more to the point, what the cost of repairs will be. The other thing I have to look at is the ins and outs of the dispute resolution process, assuming no proper agreement can be reached with the other party. "and don't be talking too soon for the wheel is still in spin..." with all due excuses to Bob Dylan.
[I know the following doesn't respond to the exact question asked, but it's tangentially germane...]

The feedback system as presently implemented, both here and on ebay, is too intrinsically susceptible to pressure and manipulation to be of much use. Negatives will always be underreported, due both to a justified fear of retaliation (I know, it happened to me on ebay) and to the prevailing informal quid pro quo concerning the trading of generic positives.

I have fantasized about a possible technological fix (not that I would have the faintest idea as to whether, or how, it could be practically implemented): It seems to me that if a feedback system could be designed so that neither party (and maybe no one else either) could see one of the feedbacks before the other was posted (in other words, neither party would have to 'go first'), then each feedback could be written more honestly without fear of reprisal. This would also be a somewhat 'followup-proof' system, in that one party would look pretty foolish if they initially posted positive feedback when they were unaware of the other party's complaint, and then went back and followed-up with secondary negative feedback in obvious retaliation. The inconsistency would hang them by their own petard.

As an analogy, think about a properly functioning electoral democracy: You must implement the all-important secret ballot for it to work as intended. My 'double-blind' feedback system idea is the equivalent of the secret ballot. Like I say, I don't really know how or if this could be accomplished, but to me it doesn't seem very far-fetched in concept. Any opinions?