Quick question about a GunBroker purchase

[dogtown tom]

Ah ... you don't know. If your account was cancelled or if the unethical seller's account was cancelled then there's no reason to retain feedback for transactions involving either account. This is a missing piece of your story. If Gunbroker is deleting negative feedback, or if they're allowing users to delete negative feedback, how is it I'm able to read negative feedback? I still stand by comment.

You'll stand alone because you are flat out wrong. GunBroker most certainly does remove negative feedback and does it all the time. I've had guys leave me a negative feedback because THEIR DEALER, the FFL the buyer chose, caused a problem. GB removed that negative feedback completely a week after I complained.

And my account is active.

 

[cjwils]

I don't know about GB removing negative feedback, but here is what happened to me. A few years ago I bought an antique from a seller with many, many A+ ratings. He advertised this antique as having a "minty action." I don't know about you, but I assumed that "minty action" meant the gun functioned perfectly, in spite of being made back in the 1800s. After I got it, I discovered that the action failed about one-third of the time. (To be more specific, the action of this Remington Zigzag did not rotate in those failures.) That certainly didn't seem like a minty action to me. I contacted the seller and asked him to take the gun back and give me a refund; but he refused. I contacted the seller again and offered to negotiate a reduced price, because the gun did not have a minty action as advertised. He refused. Then I went on GB and gave him a D rating. I didn't give him an F because the gun looked good, and that is a significant part of the value of an antique. In GB I carefully explained why I gave him a D. Then he went on GB and changed the A+ he had previously given me to a D. I think he did that just out of spite. So maybe you should wonder if you will get a bad rating if you tell the truth about a bad seller.

Here is an addition a few minutes after the paragraph above. This pertains to the discussion of GB removing negative ratings. At one point in my exchanges with the seller, he sent me a huffy, puffy email in which he said he would get GB to remove the D rating I had given him; but that did not happen. I don't know if GB refused his request or if he simply did not follow through.

 

[wiscoaster]

....GB removed that negative feedback completely a week after I complained.....

Ah ... GB removed a negative feedback resulting from the action of a third party after your complaint?
That's a totally different circumstance than GB deleting negative feedbacks as a matter of routine policy which is what is being insinuated in this thread and which I still maintain is not correct. Of course there may be policy exceptions given justifying circumstances, which I believe fit the instances mentioned here. But one disgruntled user painting a broad brush of a dishonest platform is not at all justified. I can't speak as a seller, but I do know as an active and experienced buyer that there is no mechanism provided for me to delete feedbacks submitted about me, and I don't see how such a mechanism would be available to sellers either, or else there would simply be no negative feedbacks to read at all. So I still have to disagree with the assertion that "GunBroker most certainly does remove negative feedback and does it all the time" because it just doesn't stand up to facts or logic and isn't supported by the singular examples cited.

 

[wiscoaster]

... You are obviously a GB fan boy....

Of course I am, but with 40+ transactions and zero problems, my experience is 100%, and I'm going to be a fan of anything 100%. I'm sorry you had a bad experience, but if you happened to crack open one egg and find it's rotten, it would be pretty silly to swear off eggs for life, not to mention advising the rest of the world to do so as well.

 

[vintovka]

Seems slow shipping is the norm now. Even USPS regular mail is very slow of late around here. Stuff like priority mail and other means of sending mail is becoming more and more very erratic. Extreme Patience is advised.

IMHO With all the new net taxes online orders will be real mess and pushing patience of both buyers and sellers to max. I know of one big seller who reacts to negative feedback by filing complaints for those with those paing by CC with credit companies like Experian. I find it nasty. to obscene, but is happening as we found out. While unfounded such negative reports are very hard to set straight and often the info you need to supply to fight the complaint places you at greater risk. If buying from places like GB remember you provided a CC# when you signed up.

 

[Waveski]

If buying from places like GB remember you provided a CC# when you signed up.

You maybe , but I never did that.

Getting back to the OP , I'm in the Much Ado About Nothing camp.
And speaking of OP and original topic , it seems pretty well covered. Some people flat out dislike GunBroker. Point taken.

 

[dogtown tom]

Ah ... GB removed a negative feedback resulting from the action of a third party after your complaint?

Yes, thats what I wrote.

That's a totally different circumstance than GB deleting negative feedbacks as a matter of routine policy which is what is being insinuated in this thread and which I still maintain is not correct.

How many different circumstances do you want?
On the dealer forum there are numerous stories of GB removing unwarranted feedback.
GunBroker ROUTINELY removes or changes retaliatory feedback.

Of course there may be policy exceptions given justifying circumstances, which I believe fit the instances mentioned here. But one disgruntled user painting a broad brush of a dishonest platform is not at all justified.

One disgruntled user?
Try thousands.
Try to get GB to fix a problem with your dealer listing.
Try to contact someone at GB by phone or email.

It is the single worst customer service system in the firearms industry.

I can't speak as a seller,

I can. I can also speak as a buyer.

but I do know as an active and experienced buyer that there is no mechanism provided for me to delete feedbacks submitted about me, and I don't see how such a mechanism would be available to sellers either, or else there would simply be no negative feedbacks to read at all.

Of course there is a mechanism, you just have to look for it.
Right here: https://support.gunbroker.com/hc/en-us/requests/new scroll to "feedback".

So I still have to disagree with the assertion that "GunBroker most certainly does remove negative feedback and does it all the time" because it just doesn't stand up to facts or logic and isn't supported by the singular examples cited.

Singular? Do a recount. GB completely removed a negative feedback for me and changed another from F to a C because it was retaliatory.

 

[vintovka]

You maybe , but I never did that.

Getting back to the OP , I'm in the Much Ado About Nothing camp.
And speaking of OP and original topic , it seems pretty well covered. Some people flat out dislike GunBroker. Point taken.

Think you may be right about GB and CC's. Been on there for decades and must have forgotten in my old age. Might be why they they have so many NPBs. Especially since last November.

 

[Waveski]

Some people flat out dislike GunBroker. Point taken.

Boy oh boy , it sure is nice that the OP's situation is resolved.

 

[wiscoaster]

...It is the single worst customer service system in the firearms industry...

I think that the main complaint is from people expecting Gunbroker to be what it is not.

If you're looking for a platform on which to post a listing and to host an auction, that's all that it is.

If you're looking for an intermediary between buyer and seller, that it is not.

If you're looking for vetting of buyer and seller, that it is not.

If you're looking for transactional dispute moderation, that it is not.

If you're looking for buyer or seller scam detection, that it is not.

If you're looking for fail to pay or fail to deliver protection, that it is not, either.

I don't expect any more from Gunbroker than what it is, and that's why I'm satisfied with it.

 

[wiscoaster]

On the dealer forum there are numerous stories of GB removing unwarranted feedback.
GunBroker ROUTINELY removes or changes retaliatory feedback.

Your link above just brings up a submission form. So, in other words you're still bringing up examples of feedback that should be removed, and is removed on request, because it's not genuine or there were other mitigating circumstances rendering it not representative of the transaction. There is no policy of routinely removing feedback just because it's negative. As has been my position from my first post in this thread on this particular issue.

 

[dogtown tom]

Your link above just brings up a submission form. So, in other words you're still bringing up examples of feedback that should be removed, and is removed on request, because it's not genuine or there were other mitigating circumstances rendering it not representative of the transaction. There is no policy of routinely removing feedback just because it's negative. As has been my position from my first post in this thread.

What part of "you have to ask" do you not understand?
GB WILL, and does remove or alter feedback when requested. Its requested often enough that its routine.

 

[dogtown tom]

I think that the main complaint is from people expecting Gunbroker to be what it is not.

If you're looking for a platform on which to post a listing and to host an auction, that's all that it is.

If you're looking for an intermediary between buyer and seller, that it is not.

If you're looking for vetting of buyer and seller, that it is not.

If you're looking for transactional dispute moderation, that it is not.

If you're looking for buyer or seller scam detection, that it is not.

If you're looking for fail to pay or fail to deliver protection, that it is not, either.

I don't expect any more from Gunbroker than what it is, and that's why I'm satisfied with it.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with customer service.

 

[wiscoaster]

.... Its requested often enough that its routine.

Oh, for crying out loud, we're going to debate semantics?!?!

 

[Waveski]

I think that the main complaint is from people expecting Gunbroker to be what it is not.

If you're looking for a platform on which to post a listing and to host an auction, that's all that it is.

If you're looking for an intermediary between buyer and seller, that it is not.

Summed up nicely.
Using GunBroker is NOT mandatory. I don't know why some people don't get that.
Also , I don't know why the curtain hasn't dropped on this one yet.