02-05-2006, 06:00 AM
[quote author=bargainbloodhound link=topic=2488.msg8870#msg8870 date=1139116339]
Maybe, maybe not (that's my way of saying I'm clueless about the manufacturer's photo usage policy
).
I wouldn't have posted what she did without proof. If its a case of a seller with hundreds of INR/SNAD complaints (and 2900 mutual withdrawals) then I will speak out, but in this case I wouldn't. I looked at that seller and thought she had an excellent record (i.e. her buyers seemed happy).
I will disagree with you though on this statement, "I would assume that they checked all aspects of the featured member's business before they included her in one of their publications." , because in the past eBay has made some huge errors in its seller selections for its publications/awards. Last year they picked a NARU'd seller for 'seller of the month' in India, and then of course there are sellers like "Poster Boy" etc who provide terrible customer service/lots of INR complaints who get picked...and then there were the "Best of Stores" finalists with a ton of policy violations in their stores, or the sellers featured in their Holiday Catalog 2 years ago who also had many policy violations.
[/quote]
I posted that and used the word assume so you could jump right on in and post all those things above
. I figured you would be right on it like flies on shit. You always have the eBay history factoids down better than anyone. And I meant the statement to be absurd as a parallel to the OP's absurd conclusion.
Rob
abbeyscarolinas Wrote:And she is probably right about the seller in question,
Maybe, maybe not (that's my way of saying I'm clueless about the manufacturer's photo usage policy
).
I wouldn't have posted what she did without proof. If its a case of a seller with hundreds of INR/SNAD complaints (and 2900 mutual withdrawals) then I will speak out, but in this case I wouldn't. I looked at that seller and thought she had an excellent record (i.e. her buyers seemed happy).
I will disagree with you though on this statement, "I would assume that they checked all aspects of the featured member's business before they included her in one of their publications." , because in the past eBay has made some huge errors in its seller selections for its publications/awards. Last year they picked a NARU'd seller for 'seller of the month' in India, and then of course there are sellers like "Poster Boy" etc who provide terrible customer service/lots of INR complaints who get picked...and then there were the "Best of Stores" finalists with a ton of policy violations in their stores, or the sellers featured in their Holiday Catalog 2 years ago who also had many policy violations.
[/quote]
I posted that and used the word assume so you could jump right on in and post all those things above
. I figured you would be right on it like flies on shit. You always have the eBay history factoids down better than anyone. And I meant the statement to be absurd as a parallel to the OP's absurd conclusion.Rob