Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 117

Thread: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

  1. #21
    Luc Benac lbenac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Burnaby BC Canada
    Posts
    642

    Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

    Quote Originally Posted by Corran View Post
    Personally I have purchased from many people with 0 posts on the site (new members) and I was fortunate as a seller when I first started here to have many buyers for a bunch of medium-format gear I was selling to trust me. I know many folks have a grievance with Paypal for one reason or another but for the most part it is a good enough way to protect both parties. There are always exceptions and people will surely tell all these anecdotal stories but for the most part it's fine. I think out of probably over 500 transactions I've had 2 issues (curiously both times as a buyer, despite the claim that Paypal always screws the sellers).
    I personnaly had a not so ggod experience as a Seller with PayPal/eBay but granted it was one out of many. Since then I tend to disagree like many as you are pointing out :-) but that is why we have a Democracy so that we can agree to somewhat disagree sometime.
    I would rather use the forum as a reference mechanism for selling decision.

    Cheers,

    Luc
    Field # ShenHao XPO45 - Monorail # Sinar F2
    6x6 # Minolta 1965 Autocord, 6x9 # Kodak 1946 Medalist II



    http://www.lucbenacphoto.com/

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    3,847

    Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

    Quote Originally Posted by John NYC View Post
    The whole "Joe is a good seller" can also just as easily be a load of bull. I have bought some stuff here from endorsed "good sellers" that is not at all as described.

    Either allow all comments or no comments would be my vote. And if the latter, put in a rating system for post sale thumbs up or down.
    +1, but not because of any bad experience - all of my limited buying + selling here has been good experiences. All or nothing is just plain fair.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    9,344

    Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

    I just went to GetDPI and saw that Ark8012 was trying to scam-sell some Leica and left a nice negative feedback that was satisfying! But then Cindy Flood threatened to ban me so I have to weigh my next assault carefully to achieve maximum negativity.

    But I'm coming around to advocating negative posts, it's a lot of fun and entertaining! Anything to cause drama and liven things up ;-p

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    3,144

    Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Petronio View Post
    I just went to GetDPI and saw that Ark8012 was trying to scam-sell some Leica and left a nice negative feedback that was satisfying! But then Cindy Flood threatened to ban me so I have to weigh my next assault carefully to achieve maximum negativity.

    But I'm coming around to advocating negative posts, it's a lot of fun and entertaining! Anything to cause drama and liven things up ;-p
    You need to become a moderator. Then you can edit others' posts, start flamewars, and ban the culprits. Drama galore.
    One man's Mede is another man's Persian.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    north of the 49th
    Posts
    520

    Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

    I would never use the Gift option when using Paypal if you're buying gear as you would be SOL if the deal went south. Pay the percentage, which is pretty well the same as gifting. Of course, sellers should just factor in the Paypal cut into their price to begin with so it's plain and simple.

    Imo, in general, decent sellers shouldn't even be asking buyers to mark payment as Gift. But that's just me.
    where we're going, we don't need roads. just a Giesler, 9.9 horses, wide open Shield waters and I'm outta here

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    GA, USA
    Posts
    1,836

    Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

    I didn't know "Gift" payments were such a hot-button issue 'round these parts till a thread about it in the Lounge. When I first sold a bunch of gear about half the people payed me as a gift (without me asking). So I just assumed that was standard or something here. If I ask for that it's usually because someone asked for a price break. I have offered the same to other sellers. I know Paypal takes a 3% cut so that is usually part of the costs involved at the listed price, not at a low-ball offer, so it's kind of a meet-in-the-middle deal (Lower the price 10% but pay as gift eliminates fees).

    I don't really know why people balk at a gift payment but there are plenty of sellers who require check or money order. That's essentially the same thing (you have no recourse). Some people say it's the "ethics" of it but I think they just want a method of getting their money back in the event of a problem.
    Bryan
    My blog about shooting film in south GA:
    valdostafilm.blogspot.com

  7. #27

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    north of the 49th
    Posts
    520

    Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

    Nope, from the odd time I used it, the fees are passed onto the buyer who chooses the gift option. This presumes they're not paying from a PP balance. People think they're getting around the fees but it's the seller who doesn't pay (again, depends on where the money is coming from in your account). While one may get a price break from the seller for using Gift, it isn't worth it imo unless you're dealing with seller you have great experiences with. One should go to the Paypal site and look it over to be clear on how Gift works and what it costs if at all.

    Basically pay with Paypal Gift and you're rolling the dice afaic.
    where we're going, we don't need roads. just a Giesler, 9.9 horses, wide open Shield waters and I'm outta here

  8. #28
    Luc Benac lbenac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Burnaby BC Canada
    Posts
    642

    Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

    Quote Originally Posted by Fred L View Post
    Basically pay with Paypal Gift and you're rolling the dice afaic.
    Yes but as a seller - get paid with normal payPal and you are rolling the dice with fraudulent claim, different item returned or buyer remorse....Regretfully there is no happy medium which is where the feedback in the forum becomes critical.

    Cheers,

    Luc
    Field # ShenHao XPO45 - Monorail # Sinar F2
    6x6 # Minolta 1965 Autocord, 6x9 # Kodak 1946 Medalist II



    http://www.lucbenacphoto.com/

  9. #29

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    north of the 49th
    Posts
    520

    Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

    yup. as long as it's on point.
    where we're going, we don't need roads. just a Giesler, 9.9 horses, wide open Shield waters and I'm outta here

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    4,825

    Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Petronio View Post
    But I'm coming around to advocating negative posts, it's a lot of fun and entertaining! Anything to cause drama and liven things up ;-p
    Frank, I'm sort of with you, but you left out protecting the innocent.

    I just posted a very negative reply to a for sale listing on APUG.

    The seller went beyond the limits of normal puffery ("One of Nikkor’s sharpest lense."). An example of the lens in question was tested by Modern Photography, Bjorn Roslett has published an evaluation, and I've had two (the first was stolen, the second was a replacement bought with the insurance money). We all agree. Ok and useful lens, closer to the bottom than to the top of the Nikkor barrel.

    I sent the guy a nice (honest! polite, soft spoken, ...) PM suggesting he tone the language down and explaining why. He replied to the effect that he liked his and that bad ones make it through QC. One, yes, four no, so I posted the references with best resolution and contrast from MP on APUG.

    Screw 'im.

Similar Threads

  1. Bruce Barnbaum’s claim — 20 months later
    By Heroique in forum On Photography
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 4-Nov-2009, 11:06
  2. What's in the box? Another Efke victim...
    By muskedear in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 2-May-2007, 15:10
  3. The one third into the scene rule
    By Leonard Evens in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 27-Jul-2006, 06:52
  4. Another victim - AGFA in Chapter 11
    By Juergen Sattler in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 29-May-2005, 03:11

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •