On june 6th, yang boyu, a journalist in china, reported that friends who regularly buy goods on the internet may look at the value of the commodity when they select it, and that after receiving the goods, they will give a good or bad assessment based on their experience. But perhaps many people do not know that the positive ratings given by buyers are now the threshold set by traders。
Recent media reports have shown that many buyers of treasures have responded that they are unable to pay their bills because they do not have a favourable rating on their accounts. It is understood that a number of treasure shop shops have similar facilities to prevent malice. Is it self-protection that the seller sets the rating threshold
The treasure hunters themselves through third-party software blockers
The purchaser of the treasure shows the "seller changes the price in real time at the time of payment, please write down later" and then the transaction is automatically closed. After consulting with treasure hunters, it was learned that the buyer was unable to place a bill because the rating was below 95 per cent. This threshold means that as long as one out of 20 units is a bad or a bad rating, it cannot be placed in a shop with the same rules。
There are not a few buyers with the same experience, and a search by journalists on twitter found that a large number of consumers have recently been rejected for low ratings and that some vendors have set a threshold of 98 per cent。
Ms. Zhou indicated that the transaction was directly closed and could not be paid at the time of the next order. She was told by the client that `because the rating was below 95 per cent, the order was not given. `she learned later that many of the larger shops on the treasure hunts do so。
In the face of such a provision, the response from the valet service is that the merchants set it up on their own and not related to the platform. Miss chow said, "bob hunt has confirmed to us that the platform does not provide such a function. This is done by some vendors through third-party software. However, there does not seem to be any intention to take measures to avoid or to put an end to such behaviour, as the sale is free and the treasure cannot be bought or sold by force. The treasure hunter just told us that if this happens, he can file a complaint against the shop.”
With such a good rating threshold set for businesses, yesterday afternoon journalists called a call for a valet service, which was not a consumer's reason and could help coordinate or suggest that buyers switch to others。
Owner: no irregularities
Ms. Liu (alias) who opened a shop on the treasure shop said that, in fact, consumers could not see their own rating, but sellers could see it backstage. In order to prevent malice from occurring, a number of vendors currently have such restrictions on buyers. “the interception of good ratings on the treasure hunt is widespread, as small and medium sellers are now more competitive, and there is a vicious search between peers for people who specialize in poor ratings of their competition stores and influence the ratings and rankings of their opponents.”
Ms. Liu explained that such a good rate of interception was not self-contained on a treasure shop, but was achieved through the installation of a third-party plugin. It can set up a stop for buyers with ratings below what level。
In this case, although complaints can be made, there is no violation, since the buyer is allowed to shut down the buyer's order on its own。
Ms. Liu stated that the plaguing platform now offers a rather large amount of space to treasure hunters, because small and medium-sized treasure hunters are not very well developed, and that if this were to happen, a complaint would certainly win. However, in the treasure-hunting regulations, the seller can voluntarily close the buyer's order, and it is not illegal if he does not want to sell him。
The view was expressed that, if a good rating were to be the purchase threshold, indirect inducements to the buyer would be favourable, and a false rating would render the evaluation system illusory. According to the electrician expert, lu zhenwang, the main reason for limiting buyers ' purchases through good ratings was to prevent malice. “there is a risk of losing users and orders, and of making their evaluations relatively normal, and you are certainly willing to do so. The risk of harming the system for competitors or peer reviewers could be eliminated。
According to lu zhenwang, the vendor's behaviour was not irregular because of the open evaluation system. For the time being, this is not explicitly stated. For platform management, using this plugin platform is not restricted to it, but rather opens up the evaluation system, open to every good user in every vendor, or closed? The positive ratings of all people have become non-transparent and the legal definition of this is unclear. There is something gray here, and some people used to harass users with the “call to death” software, including the platform itself, which requires governance for businesses with poor ratings that harass users。
Lawyers: distinction between buyers and consumers
According to zhao, the legal adviser to the china internet association's credit evaluation centre, the seller's behaviour is discriminatory and even discriminatory towards consumers: “a different strategy for consumers under the same conditions, simply because a buyer's rating rate is less than 95 per cent, does not accept the order, which is not justified, unless it can be shown that a buyer's malice assessment was used for extortion, and in this case he may be prohibited from doing so. In the case of ordinary buyers, however, there is no legal basis for the practice if he does not commit other offences and cannot be ordered simply because the rating is below 95 per cent.”
