Re: Ebay Buying (was ok, who got it?)

2005-01-09 Thread Luigi de Guzman
On Saturday 08 January 2005 15:46, Graywolf wrote: Very true, and not all positives are equal either. If you think of it 95% of transactions should be rated as neutral. Nothing great, but nothing bad about them either. As it is all they mean at the best is Positive=they didn't rip me off, and

Ebay Buying (was ok, who got it?)

2005-01-08 Thread Graywolf
I suspect that most of the problems come from deals where the folks on both sides are pretty ignorant about what they are doing. For instance I saw an ad for a Six-16 Kodak Monitor where the seller said film for it was readily available on the interent. Well there does seem to be one place

RE: Ebay Buying (was ok, who got it?)

2005-01-08 Thread Don Sanderson
, 2005 9:22 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Ebay Buying (was ok, who got it?) SNIP However contrary to the popular opinion here I have had no low item seller try to beat me deliberately, but have had several problems with those platinum seller types. Funny thing is when you

RE: Ebay Buying (was ok, who got it?)

2005-01-08 Thread J. C. O'Connell
PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 10:48 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Ebay Buying (was ok, who got it?) I agree with this 100%, I've only been burned on deals from new eBayers when it was simply a matter of them not knowing the product, or eBay, well enough to represent the item

Re: Ebay Buying (was ok, who got it?)

2005-01-08 Thread Ann Sanfedele
Graywolf wrote: Knowledgable types ignor all those words that are suposed to create a buying frenzy such as Vintage, Rare, and Bargain. I'd remove VINTAGE from that group -- it just means (or should) (1) it is old and seller isn't sure of precise dates or .. (2) ebay has not seen fit to

Re: Ebay Buying (was ok, who got it?)

2005-01-08 Thread William Robb
- Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: Ebay Buying (was ok, who got it?) you think the absolute number of negative feedbacks is better stat than the percentage for determining the trustworthyness of a seller? I don't get it. The batting average percentage is a much more

Re: Ebay Buying (was ok, who got it?)

2005-01-08 Thread Eactivist
In a message dated 1/8/2005 10:31:56 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think the batting average, over time, is probably a better indicator, but for a new seller, one bad buyer can sink him. Imagine if you luck out and sell to an asshole on your second or third transaction.

Re: Ebay Buying (was ok, who got it?)

2005-01-08 Thread Eactivist
In a message dated 1/8/2005 10:26:24 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'd remove VINTAGE from that group -- it just means (or should) (1) it is old and seller isn't sure of precise dates or .. (2) ebay has not seen fit to supply date breakdowns in some categories that

Re: Ebay Buying (was ok, who got it?)

2005-01-08 Thread Peter J. Alling
I believed in that method on a transaction once. Seller had lots of feed back only a handful of negative, most from newbies, most no longer registered. So I bid, the item was misidentified, I was promised a refund, I sent back the item and never got the refund. (The seller started collecting

Re: Ebay Buying (was ok, who got it?)

2005-01-08 Thread ernreed2
Quoting Ann Sanfedele [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Graywolf wrote: Knowledgable types ignor all those words that are suposed to create a buying frenzy such as Vintage, Rare, and Bargain. I'd remove VINTAGE from that group -- it just means (or should) (1) it is old and seller isn't sure of

Re: Ebay Buying (was ok, who got it?)

2005-01-08 Thread Graywolf
Except 1. should be Vintage = Valuable which is how it is mostly used. Just like the term Antique has meant Expensive Junk for decades now. Both terms have more exact meanings, but they are used incorrectly so much that the precise meanings have been forgotten by most people. graywolf

Re: Ebay Buying (was ok, who got it?)

2005-01-08 Thread Graywolf
Very true, and not all positives are equal either. If you think of it 95% of transactions should be rated as neutral. Nothing great, but nothing bad about them either. As it is all they mean at the best is Positive=they didn't rip me off, and negatie=they did rip me off. There is truely no way

Re: Ebay Buying (was ok, who got it?)

2005-01-08 Thread Graywolf
LOL! That is the most likely meaning. Especially if you add ...to resell having no personal interest in something like this at all. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (3) seller bought it used? -- No

Re: Ebay Buying (was ok, who got it?)

2005-01-08 Thread mike wilson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 1/8/2005 10:26:24 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'd remove VINTAGE from that group -- it just means (or should) (1) it is old and seller isn't sure of precise dates or .. (2) ebay has not seen fit to supply date breakdowns in

Re: Ebay Buying (was ok, who got it?)

2005-01-08 Thread Mark Roberts
Graywolf wrote: Knowledgable types ignor all those words that are suposed to create a buying frenzy such as Vintage, Rare, and Bargain. You missed the biggest stay away flags of all: minty and L@@K! I also refuse to bid on anything described as a lense on principle alone! ;-) -- Mark Roberts