3 ms·

There is no perfect system that protects buyers and sellers. Change the rules and buyers will be complaining. The reason it is skewed towards buyers is: 1) who

by tus88 7y ago

There is no perfect system that protects buyers and sellers. Change the rules and buyers will be complaining. The reason it is skewed towards buyers is: 1) who in there right mind would buy something online where there is no protection (sellers aren't the same as they have to sell somewhere to make a living). 2) most buyers are honest who just want their item. Profiting from fraud as a buyer is a lot more work as they need to resell the item to gain currency, which is risky (both from exposing themselves to stolen item investigations as well as being a victim of fraud themselves as a seller). 3) imagine if sellers could just ship rocks to buyers instead of cameras without consequence. Every scammer and his dog would be in on the gig without 5 seconds. (1) becomes even more bleak. The general view is sellers need to take fraud into their overall operating expense budget, just like department stored do with shoplifting.

freepor 7y ago
A seller can absorb fraud when they’re doing hundreds or thousands of transactions. If each person is doing one transaction the people hit will have life altering consequences for some items.
- Paul-ish 7y ago
  I wonder if seller insurance is viable. Pay $50 for an item, company does a background check on the seller and maybe does escrow.
  - dannyw 7y ago
    I sell on eBay, but I cancel purchases from buyers with dodgy reputations. If someone has been an eBay buyer since 2006 wih 240 positive buyer feedback and 0 negative; they're probably not going to defraud me.
    - Nextgrid 7y ago
      When I tried to sell something on eBay I had plenty of scam messages from old, reputable-looking accounts. The accounts were presumably compromised. Worse, eBay sent warning messages claiming that the accounts were suspected of being compromised, so the scum company knows it and still doesn’t block the accounts.
briandear 7y ago
> The general view is sellers need to take fraud into their overall operating expense budget, just like department stored do with shoplifting. How’s that work when selling a single item?
- leetcrew 7y ago
  obviously not well, but a one-off sale is a relatively uncommon transaction, so it doesn't get optimized for.
- tus88 7y ago
  Well it becomes very difficult. Allowing sellers to cancel purchases from buyers without a strong and long history of positive feedback is a start - I believe eBay technically allows this. But naturally sellers are then cutting down their potential buyer pool - it's a dilemma they need to deal with. Of course one easy way to do this is cut out the entire online buyer pool altogether and sell your camera at a pawn shop - near-zero chance of fraud there. Why don't sellers just do this? Because they want more money than the pawn shop is willing to offer, so they take the risk of selling online. It's always important to remember what we are actually buying and selling a lot of the time is risk - the value of the item is often just a fraction of the overall purchase amount.
- sjg007 7y ago
  Don't sell single items online that you can't take a loss on is the basic answer. For the OP I wonder if there is a tax deduction that they can take.. maybe you have to be a company though. My favorite Amazon "scam" examples are products ordered from Amazon that drop ship from Walmart. I call it a scam but some people would say it's a service...
bcrosby95 7y ago
> 1) who in there right mind would buy something online where there is no protection (sellers aren't the same as they have to sell somewhere to make a living). Buyers also generally have to buy somewhere, especially for necessities. The difference is that finding a place to buy is easier than finding a place to sell. > 2) most buyers are honest who just want their item. Profiting from fraud as a buyer is a lot more work as they need to resell the item to gain currency, which is risky (both from exposing themselves to stolen item investigations as well as being a victim of fraud themselves as a seller). You don't have to just resell to profit. Just buy stuff you want anyways then complain. > 3) imagine if sellers could just ship rocks to buyers instead of cameras without consequence. Every scammer and his dog would be in on the gig without 5 seconds. (1) becomes even more bleak. The current system works because there are many buyers and few sellers. Most people are honest. And everyone buys things. But most people don't sell things. Skewing in favor of the buyer makes it so the few sellers aren't overrun by fraudsters. If even 10% of the dishonest people in the world were actively selling stuff on Amazon, it would probably be a huge problem.
- tus88 7y ago
  > Buyers also generally have to buy somewhere, especially for necessities. Much of what gets sold online is discretionary purchases, not necessities. Like cameras. And necessities are cheap and readily available down the road - why wait for toothpaste to ship online when you can buy a tube on your way home from work? > You don't have to just resell to profit. Just buy stuff you want anyways then complain. Well you really do, if your goal is to acquire currency. Having a garage full of stolen items is a liability, not profit. > The current system works because there are many buyers and few sellers. It works because buyers are willing (and able) to spend money. It's the only ingredient necessary for a market. Demand will always create supply one way or another. > Most people are honest. There is little evidence of this outside of Japan. Drop $50 in a carpark and see how many people return it to the store. > Skewing in favor of the buyer makes it so the few sellers aren't overrun by fraudsters. I am not sure what this means. Skewing in favor of buyers creates conditions where there are buyers in the first place, allowing for the market to exist. I suspect the reason sellers aren't swamped by fraudsters is as I said in a different comment - profiting from fraud as a buyer is difficult, dangerous, and requires a lot of effort and work. Most buyers just want their items. ALL sellers want to make money, and a fair percentage are happy to ship sub-quality garbage for over-inflated prices (a kind of fraud in itself?).

by tus88 7y ago

freepor 7y ago

A seller can absorb fraud when they’re doing hundreds or thousands of transactions. If each person is doing one transaction the people hit will have life altering consequences for some items.

Paul-ish 7y ago
I wonder if seller insurance is viable. Pay $50 for an item, company does a background check on the seller and maybe does escrow.
- dannyw 7y ago
  I sell on eBay, but I cancel purchases from buyers with dodgy reputations. If someone has been an eBay buyer since 2006 wih 240 positive buyer feedback and 0 negative; they're probably not going to defraud me.
  - Nextgrid 7y ago
    When I tried to sell something on eBay I had plenty of scam messages from old, reputable-looking accounts. The accounts were presumably compromised. Worse, eBay sent warning messages claiming that the accounts were suspected of being compromised, so the scum company knows it and still doesn’t block the accounts.

briandear 7y ago

> The general view is sellers need to take fraud into their overall operating expense budget, just like department stored do with shoplifting. How’s that work when selling a single item?

leetcrew 7y ago
obviously not well, but a one-off sale is a relatively uncommon transaction, so it doesn't get optimized for.
tus88 7y ago
Well it becomes very difficult. Allowing sellers to cancel purchases from buyers without a strong and long history of positive feedback is a start - I believe eBay technically allows this. But naturally sellers are then cutting down their potential buyer pool - it's a dilemma they need to deal with. Of course one easy way to do this is cut out the entire online buyer pool altogether and sell your camera at a pawn shop - near-zero chance of fraud there. Why don't sellers just do this? Because they want more money than the pawn shop is willing to offer, so they take the risk of selling online. It's always important to remember what we are actually buying and selling a lot of the time is risk - the value of the item is often just a fraction of the overall purchase amount.
sjg007 7y ago
Don't sell single items online that you can't take a loss on is the basic answer. For the OP I wonder if there is a tax deduction that they can take.. maybe you have to be a company though. My favorite Amazon "scam" examples are products ordered from Amazon that drop ship from Walmart. I call it a scam but some people would say it's a service...

bcrosby95 7y ago

> 1) who in there right mind would buy something online where there is no protection (sellers aren't the same as they have to sell somewhere to make a living). Buyers also generally have to buy somewhere, especially for necessities. The difference is that finding a place to buy is easier than finding a place to sell. > 2) most buyers are honest who just want their item. Profiting from fraud as a buyer is a lot more work as they need to resell the item to gain currency, which is risky (both from exposing themselves to stolen item investigations as well as being a victim of fraud themselves as a seller). You don't have to just resell to profit. Just buy stuff you want anyways then complain. > 3) imagine if sellers could just ship rocks to buyers instead of cameras without consequence. Every scammer and his dog would be in on the gig without 5 seconds. (1) becomes even more bleak. The current system works because there are many buyers and few sellers. Most people are honest. And everyone buys things. But most people don't sell things. Skewing in favor of the buyer makes it so the few sellers aren't overrun by fraudsters. If even 10% of the dishonest people in the world were actively selling stuff on Amazon, it would probably be a huge problem.

tus88 7y ago
> Buyers also generally have to buy somewhere, especially for necessities. Much of what gets sold online is discretionary purchases, not necessities. Like cameras. And necessities are cheap and readily available down the road - why wait for toothpaste to ship online when you can buy a tube on your way home from work? > You don't have to just resell to profit. Just buy stuff you want anyways then complain. Well you really do, if your goal is to acquire currency. Having a garage full of stolen items is a liability, not profit. > The current system works because there are many buyers and few sellers. It works because buyers are willing (and able) to spend money. It's the only ingredient necessary for a market. Demand will always create supply one way or another. > Most people are honest. There is little evidence of this outside of Japan. Drop $50 in a carpark and see how many people return it to the store. > Skewing in favor of the buyer makes it so the few sellers aren't overrun by fraudsters. I am not sure what this means. Skewing in favor of buyers creates conditions where there are buyers in the first place, allowing for the market to exist. I suspect the reason sellers aren't swamped by fraudsters is as I said in a different comment - profiting from fraud as a buyer is difficult, dangerous, and requires a lot of effort and work. Most buyers just want their items. ALL sellers want to make money, and a fair percentage are happy to ship sub-quality garbage for over-inflated prices (a kind of fraud in itself?).