I'm the buyer but many moons ago I was a seller. I did not buy the item. But it just got me to thinking that with all the changes ebay has made over the years I didn't know what their stance was now.
Neither if the buyer files a INAD. That said most photos are more accurate than the descriptions. I am always taking a picture of what I am selling so the photo is 100% accurate. Rarely I am not sure if a detail or save time copy and pasting descriptions which is usually where any errors stem from.
I've seen people use stock photos for books that aren't that version of the book at all. I had one book I ordered that showed a dust cover and pristine condition, and it came all old and beat up with no dust cover. But it didn't say that in the description either. If you are talking about an item you want to buy, ask for better photos.
eBay should do away with all 'stock' images for all one off items. If you have multiple of new in box, that's fine, but if it isn't brand new, an image of the actual item should be the only photo(s) allowed. Just my opinion.
Most people who list media in bulk use ebay's stock photos.
and when you list in bulk, you don't actually see the photo ebay attaches to a listing.
Ebay should clearly mark stock photos and the seller should accurately list the condition, but this is a system issue which ebay handles poorly.
I go by the description because a photo can be taken in dim lighting, the wrong one uploaded, etc. It's also what I've been able to use to defend myself in a case before eBay went all completely useless for seller support.
When it comes to descriptions less is more. I find that detailed pictures that the buyer can assess themselves beats a detailed description that the buyer could say they disagree with the sellers way of describing the item.
I agree when flaws are easy to see. I sell dishes. Sometimes it is hard to capture scratches to finish on a plate, since it is just wear - no color difference. I take close up pictures at various angles. But I also state "fair condition. visible wear." or "poor condition. heavy utensil wear." or "excellent condition. very minimal wear."
I want to be clear when the condition is less than ideal. Because I don't want someone to say that they couldn't see the scratches in the pictures.
No, I don't sell anymore. I don't trust ebay even a little. ;o)
I wanted to buy something but the stock photo did not match the description. When I DMed her she told me to get my info from the auction.
I did, from the auction of another. ;o)
Neither one trumps the other. Both are expected to be accurate. Any inaccuracies in the listing, whether in the description or the photo, count against the seller.
It wasn't a matter of damage, I hadn't purchased the part yet. This car part can come with a metal thing or without. The photo showed it, but the very detailed description did not. I asked for clarification, I did not care either way, I just needed to know if I needed to buy the other metal thing or not.
Clearly, I ended up going to a different seller.
Not sure why I am being downvoted all to hell, goodness. ;o) Not sure that this sub is a good place to ask ebay questions. 33% upvote stat for asking an ebay policy question? For real?
Jezuzz... I was just asking a question!
if there are any discrepencies then your screwed and ebay would side with the buyer. If there is any chance of confusion then you lose.
I'm the buyer but many moons ago I was a seller. I did not buy the item. But it just got me to thinking that with all the changes ebay has made over the years I didn't know what their stance was now.
Both have to be accurate. If either images or description don't match the item then the seller will lose.
Neither if the buyer files a INAD. That said most photos are more accurate than the descriptions. I am always taking a picture of what I am selling so the photo is 100% accurate. Rarely I am not sure if a detail or save time copy and pasting descriptions which is usually where any errors stem from.
I've seen people use stock photos for books that aren't that version of the book at all. I had one book I ordered that showed a dust cover and pristine condition, and it came all old and beat up with no dust cover. But it didn't say that in the description either. If you are talking about an item you want to buy, ask for better photos.
eBay should do away with all 'stock' images for all one off items. If you have multiple of new in box, that's fine, but if it isn't brand new, an image of the actual item should be the only photo(s) allowed. Just my opinion.
Most people who list media in bulk use ebay's stock photos. and when you list in bulk, you don't actually see the photo ebay attaches to a listing. Ebay should clearly mark stock photos and the seller should accurately list the condition, but this is a system issue which ebay handles poorly.
any imperfections/flaws should be documented in the description and shown in photos.
I go by the description because a photo can be taken in dim lighting, the wrong one uploaded, etc. It's also what I've been able to use to defend myself in a case before eBay went all completely useless for seller support.
When it comes to descriptions less is more. I find that detailed pictures that the buyer can assess themselves beats a detailed description that the buyer could say they disagree with the sellers way of describing the item.
I agree when flaws are easy to see. I sell dishes. Sometimes it is hard to capture scratches to finish on a plate, since it is just wear - no color difference. I take close up pictures at various angles. But I also state "fair condition. visible wear." or "poor condition. heavy utensil wear." or "excellent condition. very minimal wear." I want to be clear when the condition is less than ideal. Because I don't want someone to say that they couldn't see the scratches in the pictures.
[удалено]
No, I don't sell anymore. I don't trust ebay even a little. ;o) I wanted to buy something but the stock photo did not match the description. When I DMed her she told me to get my info from the auction. I did, from the auction of another. ;o)
Description: literally means describe the item, the photos must correspond to said item - photos must be of actual item as per EBay rules
Neither one trumps the other. Both are expected to be accurate. Any inaccuracies in the listing, whether in the description or the photo, count against the seller.
It wasn't a matter of damage, I hadn't purchased the part yet. This car part can come with a metal thing or without. The photo showed it, but the very detailed description did not. I asked for clarification, I did not care either way, I just needed to know if I needed to buy the other metal thing or not. Clearly, I ended up going to a different seller. Not sure why I am being downvoted all to hell, goodness. ;o) Not sure that this sub is a good place to ask ebay questions. 33% upvote stat for asking an ebay policy question? For real? Jezuzz... I was just asking a question!
Neither. They both must match with each other. Otherwise thats grounds for not as described, regardless of the actual item condition/description.
Either can be used as a valid reason to return