Pipswich wrote:What difference does it make that it was still a good deal?She did not ship what she described and illustrated.People use stock photos all the time, I have absolutely no issue with that if the item is in the condition described and what is sold is actually the item photographed. This stuff is mass produced, if it saves a seller 5 minutes so they can post more d&d for us to buy... more power to them.However, she provided a stock photo of the WRONG book.She did not apologize for her error/mistake.She was rude about it.Ebay is a matter of trust. She can't be trusted. Buying from stock photos should not mean the seller can send us anything with the same title. That's a pig in a poke. Especially, if they are using the valuable first print photos for the listings.[/i]
They were a great buy anyway. Clean and nice inside, etc. However, she appears to have been comfortable using three stock photos... all of the wrong printing. In addition, she is comfortable using stock photos and not noting the splattering on the cover of one of them, which you can see in my photo. In addition, she is not sorry for here error and did not learn from it. Instead, she responded rudely and is sorry that I am disappointed? She indicated no awareness that she had done nothing wrong.\ She left several auctions running that likely have similar issues. This leads me to believe she Without remorse. Will use the wrong photos again. Will not note condition issues that should be noted. These add up to shady to me.
napoleonsdad wrote:I don't know that I would go as far as saying shady. Lazy--yes, ignorant--yes, doesn't care--probably not. Shady, it seems to me, should be reserved for those who are intentionally trying to deceive the buyer. This seller probably wouldn't know a 1st print from a 50th print, nor does she even care.
Pipswich wrote:What difference does it make that it was still a good deal?She did not ship what she described and illustrated.[/i]
FormCritic wrote:So you didn't ask her to make it right? You didn't ask for a refund, a partial refund or credit on another item or some other way of fixing the problem?Presumably, you contacted her again and explained again what you were mad about and pointed out that your main goal was just to insure that she wouldn't post the wrong photos again in the future. You did that, didn't you?
TheMilford wrote:Guys,Stop nitpicking this... the seller is lazy and ignorant. THAT'S SHADY!Regardless of the positive aspect of the items being under-priced... which is irrelevant. Her conduct should not be rewarded.
Pipswich wrote:She did not ship what she described and illustrated.
deimos3428 wrote:but it's really meant for people that intentionally screw people over..