[drcy]

First of all, there are one thousand avenues and arguments to this topic, and I don't take the facebook feedback system seriously-- it obviously dubious in anyways. Trying to find a simple, correct answer that everyone agrees with to a messed up and stupid system is impossible. That the seller can give feedback but it can only be positive says how stupid is the feedback system. And that the lowest possible feedback a buyer can have is 100 percent is pure satire-- as in "What's the point?" The feedback system has always been messed up and comical in one way or the other over the years.

But, in defense of a seller who gives feedback second, the seller can't give negative feedback. It's not possible for him to retaliate with feedback. So for him to say, because of that, he will give it second isn't unreasonable. A problem for sellers, that buyers may not realize, it that the really and monetarily can be damaged by negatives. If a crabby buyer leaves an unwarranted negative or even neutral-- or even a positive with less than stellar star ratings-- the buyer can be charged a higher selling rate by eBay. That's why sellers, who have no almost no power over feedback, can be anal about feedback. I don't agree with a seller deciding to give feedback second only (I think it's good policy to be gracious with customers. Being a curt cashier doesn't attract customers), but I see the reasoning for it. It's a messed up system, and it's usually the seller who gets the short end of the stick in it.

I would say "It's an idiotic system, so just forget about it." Many sellers would respond that they one hundred percent agree it's an idiotic system and they'd love to forget about it, but the problem is their revenues are tied to it. They'd say buyers can just forget about it, because their feedbacks will always be 100 percent.