So a while back I received neutral feed back from JiggyFly. I sold him a 1st run hat trick (Amazing yoyo btw). When he got the yoyo he was very displeased that it had the tiniest hair line microscope size ano flaws, he made a youtube video about it. He complained that I did not list the marks in the yoyo description. THERE WAS NOTHING ELSE ON THE YOYO. I know what you are thinking, the yoyo had ano flaws, therefore it was not mint. General yo marks their yoyos as B-Grade when there are any flaws that they think make the yoyo non worthy of being A grade, as many of you probably know. The first run hattrick DID NOT HAVE THE B GRADE MARKINGS, making it A GRADE, or mint. Now despite this being an unbeatable argument against him, me being a good salesman, gave him 2 options. Those two options were either, me giving him some money back via PayPal, OR, me issuing him a full refund, and him returning the yoyo in the exact condition that I gave it to him in. He chose some cash back, he got the cash, and he confirmed he did.
AFTER ALL OF THAT HE LEFT NEUTRAL FEED BACK, and IMO very negative sounding neutral feedback.
REMEMBER I GAVE HIM A CHANCE TO RETURN THE YOYO FOR A FULL REFUND.
You sold me a St.Eel that you claimed to be mint too and it came with 2 dings that you tried to “explain” were created during “testing” since it was a proto. And you told me it was a different version than it really was. It took me a while (1 month) to confirm that your story was false (from Frank Orben of ILYY), and I asked for my money back. You refused, asking if I thought you just had $50 lying around.
I think you’re lucky to just get neutral feedback from either one of us since you misrepresent your stuff. And today you’re trying to blame General-Yo for the flaws on this deal. You should just be up front about your items for sale and let the buyer make their decision before making the assumption that the buyer will just deal with your explanation.
Because you’re smart enough to know that saying the word “mint” implies that it’s flawless, which the yoyo was not. Why wouldn’t you just say it had an ano flaw? Its size doesn’t matter. Unless you had no idea it was there, you should have mentioned it. It’s really that simple. Neutral feedback is fine in this case. People will just make sure you send them good pics of the yoyo beforehand. I’m glad you refunded some of his money, but it doesn’t mean the feedback should be removed.
well according to what your saying, General yo sells brand new yoyos that are not mint, because if it is not marked b-grade and has no damage from the user, who bought it, it would be considered mint.
^ I’d say that is still wrong. If the OP was going to describe the throw as mint, he should have described what he knew to be a flaw that was obvious and clearly visible on the yo-yo. That would have avoided the yo-yo going to someone who would be dissatisfied with the flaws. He should have simply advertised that he had a first run Hatrick, that was purchased new with factory ano flaws. He should have shown detailed photos of those flaws. Then, a buyer can make an educated decision, after a PM to Thegeneral, about whether there were inherent flaws in the first run of Hatricks. A seller should not only describe user damage, but also noticeable flaws on the yo-yo that might be perceived as damage. Having an alleged past history of improperly describing throws on the BST does not help matters.
What do you think? You can just PM the GM of any yoyo company and just expect them to know the condition of every yoyo that left the factory? That is completely wrong.
The issue is not that a company sold flawed throws as A grade.
It is that it is elementary courtesy, when you sell something as mint, to let the buyer know about flaws you have acknowledged.
I immediately offered him a full refund or option B. He was still not pleased after that, and there was nothing I could have done after that point to make him happy.
The way I see it, if the seller genuinely offers a full refund with return shipping compensated for a problem out of their power, then that’s a positive feedback for me. While I think Jiggly Fly overreacted over microscopic ano flaws, I mean, INSERT SELLER HERE sold me a Liopleurodon with a bent hub and wobble when he described it as having little vibe, and I did not leave negative, I also think yoyopingus should have described the ano flaws.
I understand where you are coming from. But, while you gave him options after the error, he has already been robbed of the freedom to make an educated decision about engaging in the transaction in the first place. He has to consider cost of his time, mailing the yo-yo back, insuring it, and hoping you will be honest about receiving it in the same condition. He also has to trust that you will refund him after he has done all that. People want to know the facts about the yo-yo in the beginning because that is the basis upon which the feedback will be rendered. Whatever you do to make up for it afterward can be cool…but it will never be enough.
I had a similar circumstance. Seller sold me a “mint Dingo.” I got it with numerous nicks and scratches. I notified him, and he offered me a refund, but I had to make a separate trip to the post office, insure the yo-yo, pay shipping, and I only did all that because he refunded me that instant, before getting the yo-yo back. I lost time, I lost money, I was disappointed and inconvenienced. When all he had to do was describe that yo-yo properly to avoid it all. He gave me a refund, but I did not get my time or money back. Also, I was left with a bad taste of the disappointment. No one likes to lose out of pocket, or be inconvenienced with their time. That is why it is imperative to be descriptive about the item to avoid any inconvenience that might result from a buyer being dissatisfied.
Why should he have to figure out any option after the fact, when he should have been given the best option at the outset, which was to buy a yo-yo with flaws…or not? That’s where folks are coming from on this. The neutral is not so bad, and it seems fair. If you correct this in your descriptions, it will fade into the past.
I think it is a neutral, and honest. It is concise and to the point. He describes the problem, the result, and whether he would deal with you in the future. There was indeed an issue with the description, he got a partial refund, and he would not deal with you again. So, none of it is false information. And, he let other people know that despite the problem, you gave him a partial refund. So, that is not all bad. Someone reading that will know that the description was the issue, so they might ask more direct questions and ask for more photos. But, people will know that in the event something goes wrong, you might be the type of guy to try to make things right…to the extent possible after the fact. Only point here, is to avoid all the “making things right” and describe very accurately at the outset to avoid having to do so on the back end.
