eBay Australia announces Safe Payment Initiative

Kevin_TOn 04.23.2008 at 11:41 pm Said:

Mr Rule,
Is there any reason that you have ignored the serious consumer implications of the policy that is being applied to the Australian site specifically?

Your colleague, Sarah Livnat, has spruiked the improvements to PayPal’s Seller Protection for Australian sellers, and linked to the seller protection policy. Section 4.2.4 has serious implications because it potentially applies to ALL transactions after 21st May.

QUOTE: “4.2.4 Limitations on the Seller Protection Policy. The Seller Protection Policy will not apply to a transaction if any of the following apply:

You combine items purchased through separate eBay transactions into a single shipment,” END QUOTE.

If the word eBay was replaced with PayPal in this term, the implication would be very different, but as it stands a seller must ship every item to a multiple buyer individually packed and registered, or waive their rights as a seller. While Ebay is promoting the value of buying on the site, this policy (which applies to Europe and United Kingdom as well) forces serious increases in costs and labour onto the seller, massively increased postage costs onto the buyer, or leaves the seller entirely vulnerable if a claim is made against items that have been shipped together. North American sellers are allowed to send all items paid for in a single PAYPAL transaction together, and according to American Pinks still be eligible for seller protection.

Why has PayPal policy added such an impost to the marketplace? As someone who has always offered multiple shipping discounts (and subsidises much of my postage) this has serious implications for my business and livelihood.

=====

Another serious implication is for unsuspecting sellers of items that are selling large items on the basis of being “Pick-Up-Only”. The new rules require that PayPal MUST be offered as a payment option on pick up only items, whilst other payment options can be offered on these transactions only. Ebay Australia’s “Misleading and Discouraging Payment policy” does not allow the seller to reject a PayPal payment to be made under such a circumstance. Ebay Australia staff have made it very clear that seller protection does NOT apply to pick up only items (so do the seller protection rules on all sites), but that buyer protection DOES apply to pick up only items. This policy combination leaves the seller extremely vulnerable on pick up only items, as they are virtually playing Russian Roulette with their money if they sell anything valuable on the basis of pick-up-only and it is paid with PayPal. A buyer who is gaming the system simply states they have not received the item, and because the seller can not supply proof of shipping the money is reversed to the buyer. This requirement has already hit sellers registered since January 2007 who have been required to offer PayPal on all listings, and has resulted in reversals even where the seller has a receipt signed by the buyer that they have picked up the item.

Why has PayPal ignored such a gaping hole in their policy, and why do they now require that sellers must leave themselves vulnerable in this way when offering items that are sold on a pick up only basis?

Both of these issues have serious implications for a marketplce that is being REQUIRED to use your service.

Kevin Tyerman

MechelleOn 04.24.2008 at 2:33 am Said:

The unfortunate reality for PayPal is that it is owned by eBay and by extension wears the ugly nasty reputation eBay has earned. I guess more than extension, because PayPal is actually eBay’s tool of terror and naturally given the relationship PayPal will get the screams with much greater ferocity by its purpose of the money handler. Nothing will provoke more reaction than tampering with someone’s money, so PayPal will get the hostile phone calls, the nasty emails, and the lawsuits.

I’m not sure what level of intelligence I am willing to bestow upon eBay these days. I have been reading their actions as their having the belief that we are all on the far left of the bell, but my view is beginning to change. PayPal is a substantial contributor to eBay Inc. revenue, but eBay seems to not notice the vulnerability its new policies place PayPal under.

I recognize that the majority of US citizens think that TOSs and contracts are concrete and definite, but some of us no better. Speaking only from things I have read on discussion boards or heard from other eBay/PayPal users there seems to be a myth that because they agreed to the terms of use that is that. Of course that is not that, which is very well pointed out when reading PayPal user agreements with little disclaimers of that clause not applying to this state or that. I was talking with someone a few weeks ago who was actually asking about the PP TOA and those little disclaimers- she wanted to know what those were there for and why it only didn’t apply to those particular locations. I explained to her that someone living in those areas obviously brought it to the laws eye and PayPal had to conform to that state’s law. Of course there are not only state law but also federal law that a lot of these terms are violating but until someone is motivated to look into it or rather question it is just there no harm no foul right?

Funny what motivates most people is a threat to their money. I see these new policies being very motivational. I bet there could be money made off of these new policies if they were published under-motivational literature and sold. When enough of the sellers with means have been ripped off by the new rules or there money held for the heck of it to many times or to many at one time- people are going to start eye balling those terms of agreement and then they’re going to start viewing them relative to the law. PayPal is going to be up to its rear in lawsuits by a years time from now in the US alone. If they decide to try out the PayPal only scheme they’ll really be up the creek.

The wire is stripped and frayed already, and eBay has decided to start jumping on it. The tie in scam with eBay/PayPal is pretty clear cut as it is -but we’ll just say that the ability to accept checks or money orders is still keeping the unfair market practice suits at bay. Once those are gone that is it there will be no denying or trying to hide the illegal activity. You cannot create a market that harms the consumer- the idea that paypal is the only safe and affordable method of payment is absurd. All that one would have to do is compare PayPal and Google Check out and a regular merchant account to determine relative safety and cost. I know that PayPal is no safer a payment method than Google, or a regular merchant account, and I also know that PayPal costs more than both. It wouldn’t be costly for someone to pull this data together along with some other PayPal users and haul PayPal into court under a class action lawsuit. PayPal would have to pay damages to every single premier or business account associated with eBay. That will be costly.

So back to my assessment of eBay’s pool of intelligence- I can only see 2 possibilities they are just stupid beyond all imaginings. Or, they are far to arrogant.

Colin RuleOn 04.24.2008 at 11:52 pm Said:

I appreciate the follow ups, all.

Lurch, thanks for sharing the LP case. I’m thinking that maybe I’m misinterpreting the type of transaction that triggered that message. Was it an eBay purchase, or an off-eBay purchase? Also, we don’t cover small differences from the items… our protection programs only cover “significantly” not as described (SNAD) issues, so maybe this language is intended to indicate to the buyer that their complaint did not meet the threshold of “significance” required to merit a refund. I mean, we can all agree that PayPal offers SNAD protection for eBay purchases, right? That’s the contradiction with the statement that the BCP does not pertain to “…the attributes or quality of goods received.”

You also said: “There’s the problem: for so many people, it’s no longer fun, and eBay really has instigated, fostered and contributed to this over the years.”

I agree that this is a huge problem. The internet is driven by users, and if people don’t have fun on eBay and enjoy the site, then they won’t come back. I think the sense around here is that we’ve got to get the marketplace back to healthy, even if it may generate frustration in the short term, and then once it’s healthy again it’ll be fun again. I still think eBay is fun – I can’t wait for eBay Live, I have a ball there every year – but I agree that the tenor on the boards is a lot more critical than it was when I joined.

I am serious about the ombuds idea. I think it’s a great one. I’m going to keep pitching it.

Patricia, I may remember you… New Orleans was a while ago, but I remember most of it. Give me something more to go on than “little old gray haired lady” : )

Sandi said: “I have always considered you the most hinest, straight forward in the ebay/Paypal management… you genuinually always come off as an extrememly fair, reasonable person everytime I read anything you write/speak - you seems to also have just plain common sense” Well, thank you. Compliments will get you everywhere. : )

It is true (I see the raw data) that most of the disputes in our system are honest disagreements between buyers and sellers who participated in the transaction in good faith. The bad guys get all the attention, and we do have to focus relentlessly on getting them, but on a volume basis misunderstandings generate more problems than bad guys.

eBay and PayPal are big companies. I’m sure people picture Richard and me having regular chats with the execs, sharing our perspectives, but that’s not realistic. There are lots of voices in the company, and many different perspectives and priorities. I constantly assert the things I believe, but that doesn’t mean everything I say goes straight to the ears of the decision makers.

I will say that I have great faith in John’s ability to do the right thing for the marketplace. He’s an extremely sharp guy, and he knows this marketplace backwards and forwards. I’d urge you to give him a little more credit. He’s had a bumpy ride so far, but I think he’s on the right track, and in a couple years he’ll look like an oracle.

Patricia said: “I have to ask…what in the world are they doing and will they explain it to us BEFORE we all leave???? … They keep saying they want to small sellers but actions speak louder than words and I just cannot see them keeping small sellers at this rate.”

The key is buyer demand. We’ve got to make the site a place where buyers want to spend time and buy. Sellers are definitely customers – we have huge teams devoted to delighting sellers. Sarah just introduced Expanded Seller Protection, which is a huge benefit to sellers that doesn’t impact buyers. But fundamentally, we’ve got to get the buyers to come back to eBay and to love eBay again. All these changes are about achieving that. I know it’s a tough transition for sellers to come up hard against these new higher buyer expectations, but it’s got to happen. Once we get the buyer demand where we want it, your items will get bids out the wazoo.

Small sellers are in eBay’s DNA. It’s why I came here, it’s what made eBay great. The commitment to small sellers is as strong as it always has been. But we’ve got to raise the bar on the buyer experience if eBay is to stay strong, and that may mean some sellers can’t get over it. I don’t mean this as a threat, and I don’t mean to target anyone. But there are some sellers who have provided less than stellar buyer experiences through eBay, and now we’re all paying the price.

Crunchy said: “I have participated in some surveys sent out by eBay and I can testify to the fact that the way they are written are done so where there can only be one possible result.”

Well, I can see how you’d feel that way, because surveys never ask questions like “was your experience awful?” – they always phrase things in the positive. But you can say, “do you agree or disagree with this statement: eBay is doing a good job” and people can say “strongly disagree.” I have seen some surveys that have communicated real anger and dismay as clear as it can be communicated, even though none of the questions were phrased that way.

More Crunchy: “Omidyar was an average joe and he acted like an average joe, which is what made him so appealing to users. The founder of Amazon was an average joe, and is now a powerful executive, yet he still acts and operates as an average joe. eBay’s management team acts exactly like a “management team”.”

Well, in fact, John is a really nice guy. Not pompous at all. In any event, how can you compete with Pierre, who founded the site in his basement? I agree that I like that everyday joe kind of quality in my leaders, but a leader can do the right things and be very competent without having that kind of an image.

I feel the same way: I cringe when I hear marketing-speak. But that said, I understand the need for it. You can’t communicate 1-on-1 with 250 million people. This is a great conversation – frank, honest, no holds barred. But eBay’s too big to have this with everyone. In fact, it’s only 1% of eBay that is even interested in participating in a conversation like this.

I think Misty’s point about respect is very important. I think that sellers feel that they aren’t being treated with respect, and I think that is truly toxic. eBay really does respect sellers, but I don’t think that message is getting across. Let me say it here, then, for emphasis: I HAVE A DEEP AND ABIDING RESPECT FOR ALL OF YOU! There, that’s my pebble in the ocean.

Implog wrote: “Those same buyers now have my and all sellers’ reputations in their hands.”

Yes, that’s the new reality. So we all have to do a better job setting those expectations and delivering experiences that delight them. They may be unreasonable, they may be uninformed, but our success depends on our ability to make them happy. If we do everything right and they’re still not happy, then that means we’re not doing our job well enough.

And on the Rob C. anecdote, I worked for Rob for several years, and I must say the man was fanatically devoted to keeping eBay safe. This is not an easy challenge, and Rob would be the first to admit that he didn’t solve the problem. We have the best minds in the business taking on these bad guys, and it’s a battle every day. At least we got the Indonesian fraudster after 5 days. How long ago was this?

Patricia said: “…the biggest trouble will come as these policies are instituted and sellers actually experience them. I hope you folks have earplugs!”

Trust me, the responses have been coming fast and furious. You guys aren’t staying quiet on this thread! We’re getting very forceful, very clear feedback from the community on all of these initiatives. Don’t worry that we don’t know how people feel about this stuff.

Misty said: “…we are making noise but our noise truly means something and is not just to cloud the facts and issues but to try to address them and resolve them so we can move forward but it is very difficult when our pleas fall on deaf ears and are treated like we know nothing about what is best for our business.”

I know it’s not just noise. I don’t think your pleas are falling on deaf ears. This blog is another forum for us to listen, in addition to eBay Radio, Town Halls, in person meetings, voices, the discussion boards, eBay Live… on and on. And I hope you don’t feel like you’re being treated like you know nothing. I’m speaking straight with you guys because I know your expertise in the marketplace is deep and rich, and it probably exceeds mine by quite a bit.

Kevin_T wrote: “…this policy (which applies to Europe and United Kingdom as well) forces serious increases in costs and labour onto the seller, massively increased postage costs onto the buyer, or leaves the seller entirely vulnerable if a claim is made against items that have been shipped together.”

I think you make a good point, Kevin. I’ll pass that along to Sarah. I think the challenge is that multiple item purchases don’t give us specific information (e.g. shipping cost) for each individual item. But I don’t think we want to force additional postage costs and/or discourage multiple item shipping discounts.

Your other point about local pick up is also an important observation. Let me pass it along to the Safe Payments team – I bet they’ve thought about this, but as I’ve not been working on the AU project, I haven’t thought that much about it. I’ll urge them to respond to your points here.

Mechelle posted: “…wears the ugly nasty reputation eBay has earned…PayPal is actually eBay’s tool of terror…PayPal is going to be up to its rear in lawsuits by a years time from now… The wire is stripped and frayed already, and eBay has decided to start jumping on it. The tie in scam with eBay/PayPal is pretty clear cut…there will be no denying or trying to hide the illegal activity… the idea that paypal is the only safe and affordable method of payment is absurd… It wouldn’t be costly for someone to pull this data together along with some other PayPal users and haul PayPal into court under a class action lawsuit… back to my assessment of eBay’s pool of intelligence- I can only see 2 possibilities they are just stupid beyond all imaginings. Or, they are far to arrogant.”

Well, I don’t know quite how to respond to a post like this. It’s hard to come up with a nice way to disagree when someone is calling you stupid, arrogant, a tool of terror, a scam, illegal, and begging for a class action suit. Suffice to say I totally disagree with you, and it’s clear you can’t see things from the perspective I’m trying to share. All of this is about trying to help the marketplace and help sellers succeed and help buyers to not have bad experiences. No one is forcing you to buy and sell on eBay. I’d love to change your mind, but maybe 100 posts from me wouldn’t be enough to do it.

Keep it coming, guys. Many thanks.

Colin

MistyOn 04.25.2008 at 2:07 am Said:

@ Colin Thank you for returning.

QUOTE “Sellers are definitely customers – we have huge teams devoted to delighting sellers. Sarah just introduced Expanded Seller Protection, which is a huge benefit to sellers that doesn’t impact buyers.”

It is my understanding that this Expanded Seller Protection is available ONLY to Power Sellers yet you claim [Quote] “Small sellers are in eBay’s DNA. It’s why I came here, it’s what made eBay great. The commitment to small sellers is as strong as it always has been.” Really? I don’t see or feel that after these changes to be quite honest.

With all due respect many Smaller Sellers do not want to become high volume Power Sellers and speaking for myself specifically to give you a better example and understanding of what I am saying, being a small seller allows me to give my customers a much better “buyer experience” because I am not bogged down with so many other things requiring my attention that a high volume of listings would take (I am just one person and do not have a crew of employees to do all these other tasks for me). I believe it is the smallness that makes a transaction more personal by being able to have a more one on one relationship with my customers rather than going all automated like many high volume sellers need to do.

On top of this I sell antiques and collectibles this is not something that is mass produced and can be purchased in bulk for resale it takes time and effort to acquire these items. I would much rather be spending my time obtaining and listing these highly sought after quality items that WILL sell and for a nice price (which not only benefits myself but also eBay) than I would spending my time listing high volumes of mass produced (junk) items that will NOT sell 99.9% of the time. If I sell enough to make Power Seller status (which I have done) great but being a high volume Power Seller is not my top priority, being a great seller to my customer IS! With my low volume it will only take one or two NPB bad buyers to ruin me and my selling privilege will be suspended from what I understand and right now buyers are out for revenge and I will not expose my business and reputation to that hostility.

I do want you to know that I do appreciate your taking the time to allow me to express my opinions it means a great deal to finally in over 10 years have some kind of real communication and feel that I am being heard by someone, Thank you. I hope we continue to see much more of this in the future as communication is extremely important to all of us…. Please delight me I would very much like to experience that.

MistyOn 04.25.2008 at 3:41 am Said:

@ Colin

QUOTE “But fundamentally, we’ve got to get the buyers to come back to eBay and to love eBay again. All these changes are about achieving that. I know it’s a tough transition for sellers to come up hard against these new higher buyer expectations, but it’s got to happen. Once we get the buyer demand where we want it, your items will get bids out the wazoo.”

Sellers are also buyers and some are even some of our best buyers they are here every day. How does eBay intend and expect us to as you say “love eBay again” being disrespected the way we have been by eBay? How many of the total buyers are in reality a buying ID of a seller? Just a thought for you to think about.

implogOn 04.25.2008 at 6:09 am Said:

@ Colin

Welcome back. I was with you buddy until you wrote what is copied below in response to my post showing two cases of scamming lying buyers stealing from eBay sellers:

“Yes, that’s the new reality. So we all have to do a better job setting those expectations and delivering experiences that delight them. They may be unreasonable, they may be uninformed, but our success depends on our ability to make them happy. If we do everything right and they’re still not happy, then that means we’re not doing our job well enough.”

With all due respect, I see it differently.

Ebay’s surrender of control of our online selling reputation and success to criminals and sociopaths says NOTHING about how well we are doing our jobs. It says that eBay’s feedback solution is flawed.

No matter how much lipstick you smear on this pig it ain’t gonna look any prettier — regardless of whether you try in 1,000 posts or post into infinity.

You wrote:

“And on the Rob C. anecdote, I worked for Rob for several years, and I must say the man was fanatically devoted to keeping eBay safe. This is not an easy challenge, and Rob would be the first to admit that he didn’t solve the problem. We have the best minds in the business taking on these bad guys, and it’s a battle every day. At least we got the Indonesian fraudster after 5 days. How long ago was this?”

Th incident with the 5 day “excellent buying experience” shopping spree by the Indonesian buying with a stolen credit card happened about 7 or 8 years ago.

I’m not sure I would be too self congartulatory about getting the fraudster in 5 days. I found that (and still do) to be an abysmal response. I shouldn’t complain though. Look at the multi week “excellent buying experiences” had by eBay buyers LAPICOBETTY and jim_tien both now, FINALLY NARU (and both now probably back with a new buyer ID, looking for more delight.)

I reported the eBay the fraudster’s user ID and the name and phone number of the owner of the compromised credit card in South Carolina to eBay online. When nothing was done, when the fraudster continued to steal from sellers, I got a phone number for eBay and ended up in legal where I spoke with Rob several times.

Rob did seem like a nice guy and then, are you in your Aeron, something shocking happened

***SHOCKING***

Rob acknowledged and apologized for eBay’s mismanagement.

I would submit he would be let go today for such a thing. Not for letting a criminal run loose on eBay for 5 days stealing from sellers with a stolen credit card but for admitting an error and for apologizing.

There seems to be no way to say I/we screwed up in Disruptionese.

implogOn 04.25.2008 at 6:45 am Said:

A little more on the “safer” eBay and how “Trust and Safety” leap into action when a scam is reported.

“The software being used to manipulate eBay’s system is able to bypass captcha and IP tracking security features on eBay. The eBay Pulse monopoly by these three users has been an extremely hot topic among the eBay community for months. With no answer from eBay on this situation it appears an eBay member took it upon himself to expose this scam.”

http://forums.ebay.com/db2/thread.jspa?threadID=2000557967&tstart=0&mod=1209126841164

The person who exposed this new scam and breach of eBay site security wrote the text copied below.

“I released this information because I am feed up with eBay sitting back and doing nothing. If I was able to figure out what was going on and get my hands on this software why the hell can’t eBay or maybe they have already!”

CrunchyPostingGoodnessOn 04.25.2008 at 12:45 pm Said:

@ Colin

“Well, I can see how you’d feel that way, because surveys never ask questions like “was your experience awful?” – they always phrase things in the positive.”

That isn’t what I meant. For instance, one question in a survey asked, “Have you ever had a bad experience on eBay?” Honestly, what do you think the answer will be? Why not ask if the bad experience was the result of eBay or the seller? Why not ask the user to provide an actual experience that you can research for validation? Why not determine if the person taking the survey may have done something, within their control, which made the experience negative (threatening seller to mark customs form as “gift”, leaving a neg before contacting the seller first, performing a charge back and keeping the item - Brews gave an example of this earlier, etc.)?

It isn’t whether it is phrased as “positive” or “negative”. It is the open-ended questions, which can have many different reason for the result, which eBay assumes the answer “Yes”, must mean X. Even thought the question, “was X the reason for the bad experience?”, was never asked.

In the most recent survey I took, before they instituted the DSRs, it was very clear that the questions where asked in such a way that would guarantee the results would show that sellers are leaving retaliatory negs. First of all, the definition of retaliatory that eBay is using is incorrect. eBay believes that just because the feedback was left last, then it must have been done out of retaliation. That simply isn’t true. Is it retaliatory when a seller leaves a buyer a neg, when the buyer performs a charge back, even after receiving the item and never sending it back? Is it retaliation for a seller to leave a neg feedback for a buyer, when the buyer failed to try and communicate a problem before leaving neg feedback? Is it retaliatory for a seller to leave a negative for a buyer, when that buyer leaves them a neg for refusing to mark a customs form as “gift”?

When does eBay draw the line between fair negative feedback and retaliatory negative feedback, simply by who left it last? What if a seller leaves a positive feedback for a buyer, but receives a negative back from the buyer? Does eBay consider the feedback the buyer left retaliatory, or simply “their fair opinion”? Why is what is good for the goose is not good for the gander?

Not to mention the fact that feedback is meant to be each person’s opinion of the transaction, so why is it no longer valid that a seller can have a bad experience with a buyer? Why in the world would eBay want to keep those type of buyers? Do you know the reasons why Amazon does not have this problem, even though Amazon sellers do not generally leave feedback for buyers? It is because they have design their site to be unattractive to these type of buyers - the very ones that eBay is catering to and is trying to keep, despite the damage they do to sellers. Amazon kicks off those types of users, and they do not allow them to create another id to attempt their scamming ways again.

“Well, in fact, John is a really nice guy. Not pompous at all. In any event, how can you compete with Pierre, who founded the site in his basement? I agree that I like that everyday joe kind of quality in my leaders, but a leader can do the right things and be very competent without having that kind of an image.”

To you John appears to be a really nice guy, but to the users he does not. Considering it is the users that need to have faith in eBay, and John is the current “face” for it, then it would do well to take the users impression into higher consideration than those who interact with John on a daily basis. If he is a nice person, then he needs to show that side to the users. What pretty much everyone is telling you is that is not the users’ impression of him. That needs to change and only John can do that.

As to competing with Pierre’s average joe image, you seem to be doing quite well at it. Do you not see how much the posters on this blog appreciate your involvement and response to those concerns? Do you not see how you have created a personal image on this blog, even thought it is all being done by internet postings? That is how one competes and creates the average joe image of Pierre - that person acts like an average joe - not a corporate manager.

eBay designed itself as an emotional, community environment, therefore its leaders can not help create trust with those users unless the leader portrays the image of the average joe. If eBay always acted like a big corporation and did not portray itself as a community, then yes, a corporate leader image would work just fine. However, that is not the route eBay decided to take, unlike Amazon, which is exactly why is can not expect that such a leader would be welcomed or trusted by the eBay users. eBay created, allowed, and encouraged a “community environment”, so it can not expect its users to be satisfied with less than that now.

“So we all have to do a better job setting those expectations and delivering experiences that delight them. They may be unreasonable, they may be uninformed, but our success depends on our ability to make them happy.”

Then eBay needs to do a better job of setting realistic expectations. I do not have the type of high maintenence buyers on my other selling venue that eBay attracts. Why do you think that is? I can sell my items for more money there than I ever could get from eBay buyers. Why do you think that is, too?

Perhaps it is because that site sets realistic expectations for both buyers and sellers. Perhaps it is also because that site has sought solely professional sellers, as opposed to the casual seller, so that such high expectations are realistic for the sellers on its site.

eBay was designed for and built up by average joe, casual sellers. It set the buyer expectations to that level. Now it says it wants to keep the casual sellers, but expects them to perform as professional sellers? How in the world is that realistic? Only two things can happen. One, eBay becomes an enviroment that only professional sellers will be able to compete on, but with more high maintenence buyers, and in the process will lose of the current “specialness of unique items” in the e-commerce marketplace. Two, eBay will develope an even worse reputation as casual sellers attempt to compete, but are unable to satisfy unrealistic buyer expectations, which will just lead to more negative buyer experiences.

Why doesn’t eBay simply create different levels of seller performances (selling tiers), based solely on ability (not sales volume or dollar amount), and then let buyers determine which they care to deal with? Those buyers seeking a more “retail like experience” can seek out these type of sellers, and of course have to pay more for the item to enjoy this experience. Those looking for a more personal, casual buying experience can seek out smaller sellers. However, along with these different tiers should come different fees, different ratings (without punishments), and set different buyer expectations. Right now, with the DSRs, eBay is comparing apples (casual sellers) to oranges (professional sellers), instead of apples to apples and oranges to oranges.

By the way, despite some of the anger and frustration that you are witnessing on this blog, it is not because posters are not listening or taking into consideration what you are posting. If I really believed that posting here would serve no use, other than venting, I wouldn’t waste my time writing here at all. Just like we need to take into consideration that any eBay employees posting here, will of course try to defend and stick up for their employer (it’s only natural), posters will let eBay representatives know when that image is not being conveyed by specific eBay reps. Only those specific eBay reps can change that opinion. Vouching for that personality will not make the difference.

Patricia 1On 04.25.2008 at 1:26 pm Said:

“Patricia, I may remember you… New Orleans was a while ago, but I remember most of it. Give me something more to go on than “little old gray haired lady” : )”

I posted a link to our picture - that should jog your memory. I remember you from before that time when you used to post in the Ebay Cafe. I don’t post there anymore so don’t know if you still go by there. I’m always on the A&A board now and in the groups. I’ve always thought of you as genuinely concerned and fair so I’m happy to see you posting here.

MistyOn 04.25.2008 at 7:00 pm Said:

@ Colin

I understand that eBay needs to weed out those who do not know what they are doing but find a better way than punishing all of us.

DaveyOn 04.25.2008 at 9:19 pm Said:

Hey Colin,

Thanks for stopping by. I have to agree with most of what my fellow sellers (and we’re buyers too) have posted in response to you previously.

Since I’ve never conversed with you in other forums, I’m a 1/2 powerseller, 2300+ sales, 100 % FB, 4.9,4.9,4.9,4.6 (the last would hint that I sell quite a bit cross-border, of course). I sell a fairly inexpensive specialty widget at the lowest price anywhere on the net, which is a draw to a specific community that has deep pockets for other things. I’m a seller that I figured eBay would value. The recent policy changes have led me to start to try out other venues, and if they pan out, I will leave nothing but a vestige at eBay. My complaints are very similar to most other posters on the ink blog.

One question, before some comments. Why does Paypal allow INR claims for cross-border shipments well before a reasonable shipment time has elapsed?? There should be an enforced limit for these claims, as some scammers can have their INR refund in-hand before their package could reasonably be expected to arrive.

I will echo what has been said about giving all sellers cross-border expanded SPP.

I like what you had to say about treating customers according to their reputation and history with Paypal, which is what any other business would do if they wanted to retain valued customers. Paypal has failed me royally in this way, and I know many other sellers and buyers too. If I weren’t hooked into Paypal to serve my customers, I would have left a long time ago. People are used to their reputations meaning something in a relationship of any sort. Paypal and eBay have ignored this principle, and are continuing to ignore it (the seller feedback change is largely alienating the seller base for this very reason–our hard-earned reputations are not being reasonably protected and respected).

Colin, something you can relay to John when you see him next, is that to continue to speak what we call Disruptionese, earns him disrespect from the seller community. Also, he needs to speak to us straight, and not use phrases like “fees adjusted” when we all know it is “fees uniformly and stiffly raised.” This smacks of spin that we see right though, and causes us to look under rocks to find other surprises even if there are none.

Oh, when you are walking through Paypal’s facility, conveniently trip over and pull out the power cord to the Respos-O-Matic Paypal Customer Service Randomizing Response Bot computer. That would make you a hero to all of us. Or if the responders are humans, feed them less coffee so they don’t hit too many boilerplate buttons with nervous fingers. I’ve gotten some of the most inapplicable boilerplate responses to bug reports or questions, as have most users.

SandiOn 05.02.2008 at 3:13 pm Said:

I wasn’t sure where to ask this, but since Colin was on this topic…

I paid for an item yesterday, a non-ebay item, and the email from paypal had something I had never seen:

“RIGHT TO REFUND
You, the customer, are entitled to a refund of the money to be transmitted as a result of this agreement if PayPal does not forward the money received from you within 10 days of the date of its receipt, or does not give instructions committing an equivalent amount of money to the person designated by you within 10 days of the date of the receipt of the funds from you unless otherwise instructed by you.

If your instructions as to when the money shall be forwarded or transmitted are not complied with, and the money has not yet been forwarded or transmitted, you have a right to a refund of your money.

If you want a refund, you must mail or deliver your written request to PayPal at P.O. Box 45950, Omaha, NE 68145-0950. If you do not receive your refund, you may be entitled to your money back plus a penalty of up to $1,000.00 USD and attorney’s fees pursuant to Section 1810.5 of the California Financial Code.”

Doesn’t that literally sc*ew a seller if Paypal holds the funds 21 days?

Patricia1On 05.02.2008 at 3:38 pm Said:

Yeah - sounds like the 21 day hold. Do they really really expect sellers to just blindly send the item and wait 21 days for payment? So, we need to obtain the widget, photograph it, write the listing, pay the listing fee, pay the FVF fee, handle the customer invoicing, pay the Paypal fee, pack the item, mail the item and then sit back and HOPE we get paid? LOL

SandiOn 05.02.2008 at 3:43 pm Said:

@Patricia - the critical part is if Paypal does not forward the money in 10 days, the buyer is automatically eligible for a refund.

It sounds like paypal got taken to court and the end result is paypal holds money for longer than 10 days, buyer can get refund no matter what.

I was hoping I was wrong, why I asked for clarification - because if that’s the case, there is literally no way in the world anyone from ebay/paypal can state they protect sellers.

Patricia1On 05.02.2008 at 4:29 pm Said:

Well….I’m certainly not going to send anything out of here that isn’t paid for with the money in my account. I see the legislators are changing and tightening restrictions on what credit card companies and banks can do - wonder if any of that will affect Paypal and the way it operates.