Accountability: The Evolution of the eBay Feedback System

implogOn 05.07.2008 at 10:22 am Said:

Can you please explain how the 2004 and 2007 ratio of retaliatory feedback numbers (shown on slide 5) was determined?

We used a really simple definition when determining exactly what constituted retaliatory negative feedback. It was strictly a user who received a negative feedback and subsequently left a negative feedback.

Severely flawed research error. The definition of retaliatory feedback” is based on an assumption not a fact.

implogOn 05.07.2008 at 10:27 am Said:

3. eBay will remove negative and neutral Feedback left by members who are suspended or who fail to respond to the Unpaid Item (UPI) Process.3. eBay will remove negative and neutral Feedback left by members who are suspended or who fail to respond to the Unpaid Item (UPI) Process.

What EXACTLY does “fail to respond” mean? This is the still unanswered question I posed to Lorrie Norrington in this blog nearly one month ago.

Laurie BordenOn 05.07.2008 at 10:45 am Said:

“The way we’re going to hold buyers accountable is through private reporting from sellers; through enhancing the tools that we’ve given sellers to help protect them from buyers. We’re going to rely on sellers to let us know when a buyer has violated policy.”

As a seller having dealt with eBay’s dispute resolution system (eBay directly or pay-to-play SquareTrade) I have no confidence in eBay’s ability or willingness to really look into abusive buyers and ‘hold buyers accountable.’

Bottom line is, transparency and fair trade is gone, and sellers must “suck it up”, as the saying goes.

Kevin_TOn 05.07.2008 at 11:14 am Said:

Richard,
Thank you for addressing all of the questions from the other blog post, it is appreciated. Thank you also specifically for addressing my concerns relating to neutral feedback.

If I can carry an additional comment I made in the other thread to a more specific but very hypothetical situation, since there are buyers with the attitude “chill out, it’s only a neutral” (a recent true quote to a seller) :

I previously asked: “As an example should something to the effect of “Brilliant Packing, but Post Office Truck ran over parcel and smashed item” really ruin a sellers reputation when they have been praised for their part in a transaction that was ruined by the post office afterwards? ”

If I understand the concept correctly as explained above (and please correct me if I am wrong), let’s say that the “Brilliant Packing..” neutral is given to an Ebayer who has built up 1055 feedback over 10 years on Ebay but only sells a little currently. If it is one of twenty feedbacks for the last 12 months, and every other feedback they have ever received is positive, does that mean on their auction page that their feedback will read:
Seller: faux-selling-ID( 1055)
Feedback: 95% Positive
Member: since May-22-98

If so, if the seller now wishes to list some good quality items will many buyers be deterred, on the surface believing that 5 transactions per hundred are resulting in negative feedback for this seller?

Will buyers be led to believe that this seller does not qualify for PayPal buyer protection? The current term in the user agreement states that “At least 98% of the sellers eBay feedback is positive” to qualify for Buyer Protection, but that appears to be ALL feedback so this seller should qualify under the current user agreement, unless the user agreement is changed to the last 12 months of feedback (and if it is should such a seller be punished in such a way? ).

Will this seller be punished in the best match search for “brilliant packing…” being a neutral feedback?

Are there other implications for having a 95% positive feedback over the last year?

I realise that I am asking about a very hypothetical and specific set of circumstances, but neutrals, which are not actually critical of the seller, stand to have a serious impact on the small seller if I am reading this correctly.

Regards, Kevin

MechelleOn 05.07.2008 at 11:25 am Said:

Now that is a top notch analysis of what constitutes retaliatory feedback. Please disclose the name of the higher education institution you attended so I can be sure to not waste my money sending my kids to that scab on the higher education system.

um- gee you think there is a slight possibility that the seller went last not out of retaliation, but rather they had not done so first when they most likely would have if they didn’t FEAR their reputation being discredited by a retaliatory negative by the buyer? Newsflash - it is the seller who has more on the line - The seller is at a higher risk in the transaction - not the buyer. Maybe in the general tangible marketplace it is the opposite, however the vendor is also not subject to having defaming accusations labeled in a medium that is forever permanent plastered above their business door.

It is clear that eBay views all of us as intellectually challenged - continuously asserting that we are too daft to recognize that customer service is the foundation of success. However, I again will point out that eBay seems to have the ability to conceptualize the philosophy, but they clearly lack the ability to achieve customer satisfaction for themselves. Every (other than eBay) business understands that if you want to succeed you must gain happy regular customers. Given this reality is it at all reasonable to assume that a seller is more likely to tell their customer to kiss off if a problem arises? The only sellers that would are the sellers who have chosen to implement eBay’s business strategy- not those that are successful and want to continue their success into the longterm future.

The only rational, intelligent, educated perspective would be to acknowledge that it is the buyer 9 times out of 10 who has given a negative feedback as retaliation for an extortive demand the seller did not succumb to. That is the reality- that is why I received a negative from a [edited: see comment policy] buyer- so eBay is saying that if a buyer first leaves me a negative because I wasn’t willing to commit a felony and I leave my feedback last- I am the retaliating party in the transaction? are serious? The only reason - ONLY reason a seller isn’t first to document the transaction as a negative experience is because they will have a damaged reputation due to eBay’s PUBLIC FEEDBACK SYSTEM.

The buyer has nothing to lose- a seller may be able to block a bidder in an auction, but once the purchase is committed and paid by the customer the seller has no choice at all on whether or not to follow through on the transaction- to again AVOID A NEGATIVE FEEDBACK AND/OR A NON-PERFORMING SELLER STRIKE. So a [edited: see comment policy] buyer can run rampant through the marketplace leaving unjustified negative feedback left and right without anything to prevent them from doing so. This is again an example of the difference of the tangible or simply non-eBay transaction and eBay- no shoes! no shirt! no service! Sellers do not have the ability to communicate with a buyer prior to their purchasing- they simply have to wait and see what king of customer they acquired.

Maybe eBay doesn’t mind deviant buyers purchasing from me, but I do, and I have no interest in retaining their repeat business. So, eBay can acquire as many deviant customers as they want to service, but they should not have the right to under-mind my business by allowing the continued presence of deviant members in the marketplace, forcing both a financial and credible loss to my business.

The neg, neut, pos is another prime example of brilliance- do you think that it might be better to do away with the malignant neutral rather than deceive the buyer’s perception of what a neutral is to eBay or at the very least disclose eBay’s bastardization of the term? I cannot view this as anything other than malicious intent by eBay to cause damage to my business and to my person itself.

Richard I am interested in a more in depth disclosure of the reasoning you used to evaluate the credibility of eBay’s new feedback system.

JJHOn 05.07.2008 at 11:28 am Said:

In January we mentioned that we’d block buyers from leaving negative or neutral Feedback for 3 days for sellers “with a track record.” Since January, we’ve made the decision to increase the wait period to 7 days and define “track record” as active PowerSellers who have been on eBay for at least 12 months.

For CRYING OUT LOUD!!!!! Powersellers AGAIN.

What about NON-Powersellers? Does this mean the buyer could leave us a negative IMMEDIATELY? Or does it mean they can do it within 3 days, and only PS get the 7 day protection? This needs immediate clarification. Richard, PLEASE get a clarification on this.

My opinion of this interview is it created MORE questions than it answered. Such as this:

Question: How can I truly block an eBay bidder given that anyone can create a new disposable eBay ID?

Answer: In the case of a bidder circumventing a seller’s blocked bidder list with a new ID, that is against the rules and there has been no change in policy here at all. If that buyer is identified, he/she is suspended from the site.

Non-Committal answer. Sorry. Does anyone see the hole here big enough to fly a 747 through? This is NO assurance. Saying “it’s against the rules” doesn’t stop anyone. It’s like gun control. Criminals will have guns anyway. Get real.

And I’m really getting sick to my stomach about this class distinction of PS vs. non-PS. EVERY user should get these protections.

TheBrewsNewsOn 05.07.2008 at 11:34 am Said:

First, let me say THANK YOU to Richard for attempting to get some questions answered.

Unfortunately I feel even worse after reading Brian’s responses and even more anxious about the future direction of eBay.

Before making comments about Brian’s responses,
I wanted to give some statistics about my 3 eBay seller accounts:

As of May 7, 2008 noontime: 12-Month Statistics

Total positives received (12 mo) - 8,302
Total negatives received (12 mo)- 3

All 3 negatives were received on one of the selling IDs only and they were from:
1 Negative from a NARU eBayer (no longer a registered user)
1 Negative from an eBayer who did not pay
1 Negative from a competitor who sells the exact same product

I didn’t leave negative feedback for the dozens of eBay buyers that I really wanted to (you know.. those buyers that chargeback and keep the product among other things). Why not? It is because it is the eBay seller who is the one who is the target of retaliatory negative feedback. We are the ones whose reputation is damaged by the negative feedback. I assure you that if I had left negative feedback for those unscrupulous buyers that they would have undoubtedly left negative feedback for me. So, the ratio of “retaliatory” negative feedback from buyers to sellers cannot be accurately measured because sellers have a disincentive to leave negative feedback first. Of course sellers leave their TRUE rating of the transaction (negative) for an unscrupulous buyer who leaves negative feedback first. That is not retaliatory negative feedback from a seller but rather the seller now has nothing to “lose” by giving an honest rating of the transaction.

**************************
QUOTE: “First, what is good for the [eBay] buyers is ultimately going to be good for the sellers in our Marketplace …”

I must respectfully disagree. It is good for the eBay buyer to receive FREE merchandise from the eBay seller as a result of chargebacks where the buyer keeps the product. Yep, good for the buyer. How about the eBay seller? Not so much.

In 2006, I lost $4300+ as a result of fraudulent eBay transactions. Lots of happy eBay buyers… not so happy eBay seller.

I will agree that what is ultimately good for the buyers in MOST marketplaces (like Amazon) is ultimately going to be good for the seller. However, on eBay where there is an “open” system and the buyers are not policed then what is good for the buyer is not necessarily good for the seller.

************************
QUOTE: “Why is my blocked bidder list no longer alphabetized and why are some seller’s blocked bidder lists disappearing all together? How can I truly block an eBay bidder given that anyone can create a new disposable eBay ID?

[Brian's Response]: We haven’t made any changes to the blocked bidder list system so I’m not sure why someone would be experiencing that. I’ll have to look into that further. I haven’t heard about blocked bidder lists disappearing all together so if you could get me an example I will get that to the product team to find out why that is happening. In the case of a bidder circumventing a seller’s blocked bidder list with a new ID, that is against the rules and there has been no change in policy here at all. If that buyer is identified, he/she is suspended from the site.”

>>>Please do “look into it further” since you have to rely on us sellers to keep you informed about your own systems since nobody in eBay management has ever sold on eBay and thus would not know when anything changes. For others besides myself who are experiencing the problem, check your OWN message boards (see Seller Central board, Feedback board, and Powerseller board for other sellers who are also experiencing the same issue). Not only are the lists not alphabetized now but eBay IDs are disappearing a few at a time.

>>>From my own personal experience, blocked bidder lists most often “disappear” completely if you use the back arrow button. Sometimes an eBay user receives an “error message” when attempting to enter a new ID and so they attempt to use the back arrow key to fix the problem. When entering a new blocked bidder do NOT ever under any circumstance use the back arrow key to go back to the blocked bidder list because the result is almost always that the blocked bidder list disappears. There may be other scenarios where the list disappears.

>>”… that is against the rules…. If that buyer is identified, he/she is suspended from the site.”

Please tell me you meant that as a joke. I can provide SPECIFIC examples where the buyer was not suspended. I do not know of even one eBay seller who believes for a minute that reports of violation are even read by eBay much less acted upon.

*************************************

“In order to cut down on potential extortion situations we’re reducing the number of days someone can leave feedback from 90 to 60 days.”

>>That is the BEST you can do to reduce potential extortion?

“…to make sure that both buyers AND sellers are held accountable for their actions in the marketplace. We’re going to hold sellers accountable through a public reputation system, leveraging our buyers. The way we’re going to hold buyers accountable is through private reporting from sellers; through enhancing the tools that we’ve given sellers to help protect them from buyers. We’re going to rely on sellers to let us know when a buyer has violated policy.”

>>Please tell me more about this “private” reporting system. I have heard no details and it is May already. When is this new “private” reporting system going to be put in place? And given that the current “self-reporting” system eBay employs is a total failure I am not sure how the new “private” reporting system will actually work. But as an eBay seller, I am “awaiting further instruction”. In the meantime, I’m sure you won’t mind if I am not holding my breath in anticipation.

************************************
The definition and measurement (if you could call it that) of retaliatory negative feedback by eBay management is so completely outrageous from an eBay seller’s perspective.

QUOTE: “We used a really simple definition when determining exactly what constituted retaliatory negative feedback. It was strictly a user who received a negative feedback and subsequently left a negative feedback.”

I have a simple equation to match your simple definition:

Garbage in = Garbage out

Patricia1On 05.07.2008 at 11:45 am Said:

“- Buyers must wait seven days before leaving negative or neutral Feedback for active PowerSellers who have been registered for at least 12 months.”

I just hope all this powerseller coddling falls flat on its face! I was on the site actively selling before there WAS such a thing as a powerseller. Ebay shows its disdain for small sellers more and more each day. All I can say is don’t ever expect them to trust you again. They’ll all leave at the drop of a hat when something viable turns up (and I see one contender that just recently launched) and those small sellers will never look back.

LurchOn 05.07.2008 at 12:08 pm Said:

“We’re going to prevent negatives and neutrals being left for PowerSellers that have been on the site for more than 12 months (within 7 days of the transaction end). we feel that PowerSellers who have been on the site for 12-months are pretty safe.”

Right. And I’m not. Thanks. I’ve been on the site for **13 years.** I’m not as safe as someone who’s been on the site 12 months — because I’m not a PS. Got the message. Loud and clear.

“As for neutrals, they’re not counted as negatives but they’re going to not count as positives either.”

Yes, but aren’t they partly counted as negatives in determining seller performance? Or will this change, since previously, the assumption was that buyers were leaving neutrals when they really wanted to leave a neg, but feared retaliation.

“The way we’re going to hold buyers accountable is through private reporting from sellers; through enhancing the tools that we’ve given sellers to help protect them from buyers.”

What enhancements? Here’s the thing — the only thing that I’ve ever found helpful on feedback left for buyers is utilizing their feedback received when someone is slow in paying (ie, I’m not sure if they will follow through). If they have negs for non-payment, I’ll file a UPI a bit faster. If they don’t, I give them a lot more time/leeway. Will sellers have access to info on whether UPI reports have been made against buyers?

“The one thing we learned was that when a buyer gets a negative feedback in the eBay marketplace, they discontinue participating in the marketplace and it’s not healthy for anyone.”

One thing *I* noticed yesterday is that many buyers who have left a neg for buy.com *seem* to not be participating in the marketplace since leaving that neg for buy.com. Some will purchase the item they were trying to get from buy.com from a different seller, since buy.com wouldn’t ship it, but other than that, many seem to leave after dealing with buy.com. That’s your new partner. The shining example of a better buyer experience.

Here are a couple of examples of neg feedback I’ve left - and I haven’t left much over all of this time:

1 contact, but no payment from this bidder. First feedback is a neg. (buyer did not return, which was a good thing);

No contact and no payment. Don’t know what happened… (buyer did not return, which was a good thing).

I can tell you there was one instance where I didn’t leave a neg out of fear of buyer retaliation, but only one occasion of that.

SandiOn 05.07.2008 at 12:20 pm Said:

Ok, so the answers to my questions regarding the actual specifics to what EBAY IS GOING TO DO to protect sellers is basically, business as usual - nothing.

Sorry Richard, but you did not tell us anything new, more of the same. You even confirmed all the flaws in ebay’s thinking for us.

So much for ebay adopting the transparency theme for real. Sorry, but even this blog is nothing but a public relations tool to push the company theme.

JJHOn 05.07.2008 at 12:54 pm Said:

I have to agree with TheBrewsNews 100%. I have NEVER left a negative comment. In my 10 years of selling I could have left DOZENS on the buyers who never paid me, took 8 weeks to pay, were unreasonable to deal with, and so on.

Why did I not leave a negative? The answer is obvious, because I’d get a retaliatory negative RIGHT BACK AT ME by the buyer. Then whose reputation is damaged? Mine AS A SELLER of course. So I let it go. I looked the other way. OK, maybe that was wrong, I was a coward, but I wasn’t about to have my hard work damaged by an idiot.

So how could I leave a true feedback on an individual if I knew my reputation was going to be unfairly damaged? I couldn’t.

So don’t tell me the feedback system is “broken” now or is “unbalanced”, because it NEVER worked the way it was supposed to at all.

MechelleOn 05.07.2008 at 1:18 pm Said:

I just came back to comment on the 7 days no neg period for Powersellers, but I see that BS has already been called out.

I am a powerseller, but nothing big, but I know that eBay seems to be throwing us all the good stuff, but I am just as much outraged by these decisions as those who are not “powersellers”. Anyone paying fees on this site should be both subject to the same penalties and benefits. There is not tiered pricing on eBay, to charge the same fees yet provide a lesser service is both unethical and as far as I’m concerned theft. You are capitalizing on a failure to provide services for every equally paying eBay member, and that is BS-

This inequitable service for fees paid is also an issue with “best match”- the best match algorithm is clearly designed for eBay market manipulation and has no regard for the buyer experience. There are sellers with 6 feedback days ahead of long time sellers who have demonstrated credibility- clearly one is much more reliable than the other yet you charge the same but force a lesser service for the reliable seller. You have massive counts of KNOWN fraudulent product listings days ahead of trusted community sellers whose listings will end in hours- yet are 16, 20, 25 pages deep in the search results. Due to the low selling price yet higher sell through rate of these counterfeit products eBay has clearly decided to put the buyer experience on the back burner to make their numbers look better, and to make more money.

The freaking directly competing ads- we pay for the space on the auction floor- and it is a substantial cost- now with best match our listings may never see the light of day, and to add to the assault you are loading the auction pages with directly competing ads from shopping.com that have a presence on every freaking page. Again an example of eBay’s deplorable business and character ethics.

IT IS WRONG TO TAKE MONEY FOR SERVICES AND NOT HOLD UP YOUR END OF THE CONTRACT BOTH ETHICALLY AND LEGALLY- EITHER PROVIDE EQUAL SERVICE ON THE NEW “BENEFITS THAT ONLY “POWERSELLERS” ARE DEEMED WORTHY OR DON’T DO IT AT ALL.

[Comment edited: see comment policy]. IS THAT YOUR PLAN GET THE “NON-POWERSELLERS” TO RESENT THE “POWERSELLERS” SO YOU CAN BREAK ANY UNITY THAT GOES AGAINST YOU?

I agree Sandi- there is no real substance on this blog coming from anyone employed by eBay- just peddling the the BS

DagnyOn 05.07.2008 at 1:32 pm Said:

EBay is accepting the unverified opinion of buyers a fact, seller’s loose status based on the unverified feedback and DSR”s that buyers leave. Will eBay accept the reports of extortion and buyer bad behavior from sellers as fact without verifying those reports? Or will they only count against the buyer after being reviewed? A public system of accountability for sellers with no review of the facts and private backdoor accountability systems for buyers with a review of facts is not an equal and just system. So ask Brian if seller reports about buyers will be reviewed. Will sellers need to provide proof of extortion?

Brian indicates seller should report buyers, but sellers run the risk of negative feedback just for making those reports. Many sellers do not hold a buyer accountable for non payment as it is now for fear of negative feedback. So eBay thinks it’s OK for seller to fear retaliation from buyers for making reports? EBay tells us that DSR’s are anonymous and reports are anonymous but it does not take a rocket scientist for buyers and sellers to figure out who did what.

Brian did not answer the question about multiple ID’s. If eBay does not stop suspended members from creating new ID’s reporting and blocking is of little help to the community.

LurchOn 05.07.2008 at 1:40 pm Said:

I can’t speak for Patricia here, but in my case, the only thing that I previously missed was the 7 day cooling off period for PowerSellers - I had previously seen the 3 day period for those with a “track record.” Of course that ends up meaning PS. Frankly 7 days is far too short imo. And given that it is too short, so is only meant to avoid negs being left by people with an itchy trigger finger, why is there the necessity for even a proven track record of any kind? The only kind of situation I can think of where it would apply to leave a neg/neutral within that timeframe would be if the seller stated they wouldn’t be shipping the item right off the bat. I see that buy.com (ahem, a PS and partner of eBay’s) has a history of doing this, but I can’t think of any other reason why there shouldn’t be this minimal cooling off period for all. I’m open to hearing other examples of when a neg/neut might be left within 7 days of auction close, however. Anyone (Richard?) have any? Honestly, it’s highly likely I’m not thinking of some right now.

“This shooting the messenger stuff isn’t going to get us anywhere.”

Even you stated above: “NOTE: I’ve just checked out the AB post about the changes and in retrospect, I am definitely toeing the company line on this one.”

There’s also a number of items which could have used follow-up questions, which might have been part of the reasoning for the statement by Patricia. For instance:

a) Why does the cooling off period, given it is so short of a timeframe, only apply to PS? Why not to those who have been on the site for years? Why not to everyone?

b) “In order to encourage repeat transactions and reward good service, eBay will provide credit for similar repeat transactions going back to when the system was introduced in 1996.” What good does this do if only the last 12 months are factored?

c) Will anything be done to ensure the 12-month period does not backfire on anyone (see Kevin_T’s post - I was going to mention this, but he already did)?

d)”In order to cut down on potential extortion situations we’re reducing the number of days someone can leave feedback from 90 to 60 days.” *How* does this cut down on potential extortion situations?

e) “we’re going to take a look at what buyers are saying in the UPI console and remove it if it is arbitrary.” Who is going to be doing this? What will be the guidelines as to what is “arbitrary?”

f) “The way we’re going to hold buyers accountable is through private reporting from sellers; through enhancing the tools that we’ve given sellers to help protect them from buyers.” What enhancements to which tools?

g) “We used a really simple definition when determining exactly what constituted retaliatory negative feedback. It was strictly a user who received a negative feedback and subsequently left a negative feedback. That second negative feedback was counted as being retaliatory. There wasn’t anything that we did to go back and look to see if that negative was justified.”

Why was this not looked at more scientifically?

Additionally, there could have been questions relating to eBay’s recommendations when NPS suspensions began to do anything and everything to get a mutual withdrawl of past negs in order to improve the suspended seller’s feedback percentage. Which may well have led to a higher than normal retaliatory neg percentage. It may not. I don’t know. But it seems very possible. And that would have been at eBay’s urging. Was this in any way ever investigated?

The answers to these, and other clarifying follow-ups might have brought some new info here. For the most part, there’s not a whole lot covered here that is not in the announcement. And I’m second-guessing, but possibly the reason for Patricia’s statement.

LurchOn 05.07.2008 at 1:41 pm Said:

Oh - sorry - not Patricia - Sandi. Ahhh.

MistyOn 05.07.2008 at 1:43 pm Said:

eBay needs to reevaluate and look at past records as to who was factually leaving retaliatory it is not a matter of who goes first or last.

Sellers are the ones in fear of retaliation because it will harm our business, buyers have nothing to lose from it and only gain from it.

This carp about Power sellers has to stop, I have been a PS and could be again if I wanted to but I chose not to overload my obligations by biting off more than I can handle so I can in turn give the best customer service possible to my customers by limiting how many transactions I have going at one time.

The reporting system is a failure eBay has clearly stated they don’t look at the circumstances involved in each incident and state that they will continue doing it as they always have in the past. NOTHING here is an improvement it’s just more of the same.

Tying sellers hands behind their backs… That’s some improvement - NOT! I will not be listing or selling anything on eBay under these conditions.

Thank you Richard I know your trying but keep hitting the same brick wall we do.

SharonOn 05.07.2008 at 2:12 pm Said:

“It was strictly a user who received a negative feedback and subsequently left a negative feedback”.

Very flawed research Richard. Due to the failure of Ebay to protect sellers by enforcing buyer accountability,sure, you would see sellers leaving more negative feedback. Buyers are leaving feedback for ridiculous reasons. Buyers have nothing to lose by leaving negative feedback.

Ebay has never cared what we sellers have to endure from buyers. Non paying bidders have increased dramatically in the last few years, which could be made better, but is ignored by Ebay. Buyers have learned how to play the system and to scam sellers. Ebay has done nothing to prevent this.

And another reason that you would see an increase in sellers leaving negative feedback is retaliation. Many volume sellers have long used leaving negative feedback for a buyer and then asking for mutual withdrawal. This was permitted by Ebay for way too long. Now everyone is punished because Ebay permitted this behavior. When I see 99.5% but 4329 negatives that is a bad seller, I don’t care how much the percentage is. These are your bad sellers, the ones you are working so hard to retain.

Richard, this blog seemed a good idea but I do believe all we are going to hear is Ebay speak. Ebay has it’s own agenda and I do not believe that the small seller will have any place on the New Ebay. Every change seems calculated to make it harder to do business on Ebay.

Richard, do you see a place for the small time seller on ebay in the future? I would love to stay but I am being pushed away with every calculated change and it seems many others are also? Is this what Ebay is counting on?

SandiOn 05.07.2008 at 2:25 pm Said:

@Richard:

That particular issue has been brought up on YOUR blog numerous times by numerous people and we still do not understand the logic of Lorrie’s statement - other than it leaves ebay the loophole it needs when they do nothing.

2. The list of seller protections you outlined for the most part deals specifically to powersellers, again we keep hearing how ebay wants small sellers, yet they are not getting the same protections. And seriously, I doubt even powersellers are feeling warm and fuzzy.

4. Positive Feedback percentage will be based on the past 12 months of Feedback, rather than lifetime on the site.

That actually is not to a seller’s advantage. Removing negativess from no longer registered will help some, but not counting the entire historical feedback can and will damage many sellers, especially small sellers.

In order to cut down on potential extortion situations we’re reducing the number of days someone can leave feedback from 90 to 60 days.

Ok, now that I am done laughing, extortion usually happens within the week the buyer receives the item.

In the future, if a buyer responds in a manner that doesn’t fault the seller, we’re going to take a look at what buyers are saying in the UPI console and remove it if it is arbitrary.

That is scary to every seller, ebay has a proven track record of using bots, they have laid off employees, exactly how many employees will be really reading these disputes? As of now, there is no human interaction on unpaid item disputes, it is 100% automated.

How can a buyer who has not paid have any valid complaint regarding seller performance, etc as stated by Lorrie on numerous occassions? This blog states 30% of non-paying bidders do respond. That is leaving 30% of sellers vulnerable.

In the case of a bidder circumventing a seller’s blocked bidder list with a new ID, that is against the rules and there has been no change in policy here at all. If that buyer is identified, he/she is suspended from the site.

Ok, ebay is simply ignoring the reality on this one. As along as ebay does not have a user verification process, we all know this happens.

6. eBay is removing Mutual Feedback Withdrawal.

I know I asked how ebay was going to deal with mistaken negatives. No answer. Since ebay apparently does not read their own answer center and discussion boards, let me help you out:

I accidentally chose negative when I meant positive. My remarks were very positive and I didn’t even realize I chose negative until the seller asked me about it. Now I feel horrible….how can I change it? I don’t want to mess up his/her ratings when it was such a great transaction.

I lift feedback by mistake in negative for a sealer, haw can I change it ?

How can I remove negative feedback that I gave to my supplier by mistake?

I could go on, but you get the idea. And please do not tell us the system works like stated - again, if you don’t believe it, read your own user boards and hear of all the problems user experience with glitches.

But worse, they do not do anything to really protect sellers from the bad buyers who ARE buying in ebay.

US=registered ebay users - which includes myself. Or has ebay reverted to a closed community? US=those who take the time to read your blog in hopes that ebay’s promise this would be a place where “transparency” would occur.

please point out where I confirmed flaws in eBay’s thinking of you specifically.

I actually said:

You even confirmed all the flaws in ebay’s thinking for us.”

And using my correct statement, you confirmed ebay did not do valid research before making changes, and they have no valid tools in place to protect sellers.

This shooting the messenger stuff isn’t going to get us anywhere.

Sorry I believe the press release on this blog. I forgot the ebay owns it slant. I do understand you are an employee of ebay, I am not faulting you, but the system.

The A/Q other than confirming ebay did not really research if feedback was retalitory or not, it simply is a reprint of things they have already published.

Other than that one thing (oh and dates for changes outside the US), this is nothing more than the standard press release.

How is member reporting anything new? We all knew it was going to be based on seller “reporting”. The real question is how many additional employees has ebay committed to the reporting process, what guidelines are being used. And when answering that, knowing the recent layoffs were publized.

As I already said, we are talking about a system that previously had NO HUMAN interaction, it is an automated function. How is that changing to protect sellers?

And still would really love to know exactly how a non-paying bidder could have a valid “seller non-performance complaint” when they haven’t paid - therefore have nothing to base non-performance, SNAD, etc.

ebay has a proven track record of lack of action when it comes to reporting.

Sorry you took my post personally, I did not say antyhing different than any other post before me.

Patricia1On 05.07.2008 at 2:44 pm Said:

Sorry Richard - it don’t compute!!!!!

“One is basing the feedback system on a 12-month window rather than a lifetime window. For example, in the past, a seller’s feedback score has been negatively impacted by a negative left 7 years ago even though it doesn’t necessarily accurately reflect the seller’s participation in the marketplace today. So they’ll no longer be dragged down by old feedback and it’s more relative information for the buyer.”

[Comment edited: see comment policy] THAT is ONLY HELPING THE BAD SELLERS! Sellers like me with 10 years worth of 100 percent feedback WILL be harmed if a negative is based against only 12 months of our feedback record!!!!!! Do you really really think we were born yesterday???

“Second, if the buyer receives an Unpaid Item Strike and fails to respond (and that occurs more than 70% of the time today) we’re now going to remove the rating and the comment (in the past we just removed the rating). In the future, if a buyer responds in a manner that doesn’t fault the seller, we’re going to take a look at what buyers are saying in the UPI console and remove it if it is arbitrary.”

The will oust a buyer only after that buyer shows a “pattern” how many good sellers will fall in the meantime!!!!! Who died and left buyers as the ultimate last word of truth??? (and still ignoring the fact that sellers are also buyers)

[Comment edited: see comment policy]

Now, I have to go for a walk to cool off!

AmberOn 05.07.2008 at 2:47 pm Said:

“For CRYING OUT LOUD!!!!! Powersellers AGAIN.”

Yep. Anyone surprised? Nope. Powersellers make more $ for ebay. It’s not about trust and “track record” it’s about the $. I’ve been here 5 years, have a 40-50% repeat buyer base, have 100% feedback and over 3500 total feedbacks left. But, because I’m not a powerseller, I’m don’t have a track record.

The truth is that lower volume sellers are the ones needing that extra protection–not the high volume ones.

So glad I’m steadily moving my inventory elsewhere. Anyone else think eBay really wants to keep the Non-powersellers? Honestly? Didn’t think so.

And Richard, I do feel sorry for you. You don’t understand how much of what Brian said isn’t true.

For example:
Removing Mutual Feedback withdrawal does nothing to help sellers. If anything, it hurts them.

It’s not true that Mutual Feedback Withdrawal opens up extortion. We’re already subject to that–buyer’s threaten us with that BEFORE they leave feedback, not after.

It takes away the tools to retract those negatives and neutrals left by uninformed buyers. Those who make a mistake on the feedback or have had any issues resolved will no longer be able to correct feedback left–even if the rating no longer applies.

So, in essence, the sellers are even more at the mercy of buyers than before. Not only can we not leave “retaliatory” feedback, we can’t have unjust or incorrect feedback removed either.

This is just one more pro-buyer move being sold as pro-seller. Ebay must think that sellers are stupid– anyone with an ounce of common sense and experience in the marketplace will not only see right through that, they’ll be insulted as well.

AmberOn 05.07.2008 at 2:50 pm Said:

Since I don’t want to be all negative, all of the time, I do want to say thanks to Brian for this:

“For Cross Border Trade we’re going to include messaging in the leave feedback flow to remind the buyer that it was a CBT transaction.”

While I transition off of ebay, I will probably get a few DSR lifts from this reminder. 75% of my business is now international.

AmberOn 05.07.2008 at 2:57 pm Said:

Okay, back to combing through that interview and correcting the–er–misstatements there.

12 month percentage aka “feedback recency” does not help low volume sellers. (Noticing a theme here?)

Changes to the feedback page, where the lifetime total negatives, neutrals, and positives are displayed right at the top, make old neutrals/negatives far more visible than they used to be.

In addition, sellers who have spent years on ebay building their reputation have no “cushion” to help them overcome the devastation of a negative rating. Someone who sells a few items/month but has been selling for YEARS no longer has the full strength of their reputation to build on. It’s the last year only. So, you’re basically telling sellers that anything they’ve done in the past means nothing to ebay. Less than nothing, actually, and that’s sad.

SandiOn 05.07.2008 at 3:08 pm Said:

Please excuse my paragraph misalignment, I made the mistake of trying to talk on phone and typing, not a multitasking skillset I possess.

But the thoughts are understandable.

JJHOn 05.07.2008 at 3:10 pm Said:

Richard, this question requires a direct response:

“Positive Feedback percentage will be based on the past 12 months of Feedback, rather than lifetime on the site.”

Question: Will my 3000+ comments that span back 10 years still be viewable/accessible, or will the all disappear and only a rolling list of the past 12 months show?

There is a BIG difference on basing the percentage on the past 12 months, and actually wiping out anything older than 12 months. There is no clarification. Can you get one?

And I still want clarification on my question from above:

What about NON-Powersellers? Does this mean the buyer could leave us a negative IMMEDIATELY? Or does it mean they can do it within 3 days, and only PS get the 7 day protection? This needs immediate clarification. Richard, PLEASE get a clarification on this.

implogOn 05.07.2008 at 3:12 pm Said:

A measure of the panic among sellers concerning the one way neg policy is shown on a thread on the Power Sellers discussion board. Some Power Sellers are removing the PS icon from their auctions. They fear that negging Power Sellers with impunity will become an eBay blood sport after the feedback “enhancement” to create an “excellent buyer experience”.

SharonOn 05.07.2008 at 3:17 pm Said:

@And later this month…

In addition to expanding the 3-day block to 7 days, we are introducing a new Buyer Requirement that will allow sellers to block buyers who have been reported by other sellers for eBay buying policy violations (such as Feedback abuse, or email threats).

We’re expanding the scope of the existing Buyer Requirement for unpaid items, so that it supports more comprehensive blocking of buyers who have a history of non-payment.

We’ve improved the process that sellers use to report buyers for policy violations. ”

Richard, questions please?

As to the first paragraph, how will sellers block buyers who have been reported for violations when all buyer feedback will be positive? How will this info be shown to sellers?

As to the second paragraph, again, how will sellers be able to block a buyer because of history of non-payment when all buyer feedback will be positive? Will this somehow show in their buyer history?

As to the third paragraph, will the process of reporting a buyer be reviewed by an actual person or a bot? Will we receive canned answers?

Thanks!

AmberOn 05.07.2008 at 3:56 pm Said:

“What about NON-Powersellers? Does this mean the buyer could leave us a negative IMMEDIATELY? ”

That’s exactly what that means…you can wait for clarification, but that’s what the announcement says. They changed their minds from 3 days to 7 days and are using PS status as their criteria of “track record.”

So, if you don’t have a track record (aka PS status), you have NO protection and NO delay for your buyers’ ability to leave a neg.

Please see the announcement:
http://www2.ebay.com/aw/core/200805070903402.html

“In January we mentioned that we’d block buyers from leaving negative or neutral Feedback for 3 days for sellers “with a track record.” Since January, we’ve made the decision to increase the wait period to 7 days and define “track record” as active PowerSellers who have been on eBay for at least 12 months.
We studied the factors that increased risk to buyers the most and found there are three: a) a seller’s Positive Feedback percentage and DSRs, b) the volume of a seller’s Feedback – both in total and on an ongoing basis and c) length of time a seller has been on site.

We selected PowerSellers who have been on eBay at least 12 months in order to minimize risk to buyers, because:

a. PowerSellers have to meet quality thresholds for both conventional Feedback and, starting in July, for Detailed Seller Ratings

b. PowerSellers have to meet volume requirements – both in total and on an ongoing basis

c. One year on-site proved to be an important predictor of lower risk
All three factors prove important to predicting the risk to buyers – removing any one of them would increase risk to a level we are not currently comfortable with at this time. ”

Richard, while you’re at it, can you please get an explanation as to how a waiting period adversely affects buyers anyway? Sellers have to give buyers 7 days to pay before they can file a UID. Why not give ALL sellers the same 7 day “benefit of the doubt?”

LurchOn 05.07.2008 at 4:01 pm Said:

Yeah - I’d like to know, too, if all feedback prior to 12 months will be removed. I like having the old f/b from 1996 - about a year before I even bothered to start leaving it myself (and before registration existed — or at least was required).

Which leads me to - for the record, I’m actually in favor of more drastic changes to feedback, although well thought out, well implmented changes with plenty of planning and input involved. From the start, I saw potential problems with feedback. One of those was fixed early on (making it transaction based), the rest were ignored. And danged if many of the things I foresaw didn’t come true over time.

I recall posting some of these to one of the early eBay boards (I want to say it was DNF, but not sure that existed when feedback came in? I think it did, but am not positive), and reaction was kind of “ah pshaw - it’ll be fine.” I only started to leave feedback when it seemed to be becoming VERY important to people (sometime in mid 97 or so).

Patricia1On 05.07.2008 at 4:11 pm Said:

Its quite evident to me they intend to get rid of small sellers by attrition alone. This way they feel they’re not quilty for pulling the rug out from under us. The fact that they are coddling and benefiting powersellers while small sellers get nothing - even the small sellers with sparkling reputations bear this out. I think its a disgusting way to run a business…! I remember my boss saying once…if you aim to fire a person that person deserves for you to do it eyeball to eyeball. I guess ebay doesn’t have the guts to do it that way…they’ll let small sellers phase out naturally while they beef up their large volume sellers and retailers. This way they don’t lose one precious thin dime! Do they think we can’t figure this out?

CrunchyPostingGoodnessOn 05.07.2008 at 4:49 pm Said:

Richard,

I will provide a more detailed response to this topic tomorrow, but I just wanted to take this opportunity to thank you for finally getting an answer from eBay as to how they determined what constitutes “retaliatory feedback”.

I thank you for providing proof that my initial suspicion that eBay did absolutely nothing to validate that the information they received was reliable, accurate, or fair. Also, for providing proof that eBay already has a preconceived notion of what they think is the case and initiate damaging chances in policies without any knowledge of why the change in behavior occurred.

I am confident now that none of the eBay employees who so-called “analyzed” this data would ever pass a statistical analysis college course. I am also comforted by the knowledge that my original assessment of eBay’s unwillingness to compare increases in their site traffic, low buyer quality, and reports of fraud, scams, and non-paying bidders, all of which would have had this impact on sellers increasingly leaving negative feedback, was correct.

eBay’s responses to this only serve to validate my initial concerns regarding eBay’s incompetence and unwillingness to make legitimate improvements to their site to instill a sense of trust and reliability on the part of paying users.

SandiOn 05.07.2008 at 4:54 pm Said:

Richard, here are the questions I have asked on at least 2 different occassions regarding ebay’s statements regarding the changes:

Richard, I asked some questions that relate directly to the upcoming feedback changes last week. While it was nice you got some answers, the feedback issue is truly critical to sellers. Given most of us think ebay management has really lost touch with the environment of ebay, can you please get some answers so sellers can make educated decisions as it relates to the feedback changes?

New Note: - why is this so vague and secretive? Most corporations have written guidelinres regarding policy and policy changes, implementation of said new policies, The put systems into place to stop abuse of new policies.

I don’t understand why explaining specifics regarding this is so hard to get? Simply telling sellers to “report” does not qualify as an answer.

A little history on it to help you understand, take the non-paying buyer, there is NO SET number of how many strikes that gets a buyer booted, the ebay line is something like “If a buyer gets too many in a short amount of time they will be suspended.

As a seller 2 is too many for me. It’s too easy to abuse a system that does not have clear guidelines.

3. if buyer responds but doesn’t specifically call out seller performance, item condition or transaction problems.

Again, how many employees will now be now reviewing ALL UPI disputes, we all know it was an automated system previously, again, can you provide us with the guideline written for employees are responsible for making these decisions.

New Note: This question has been asked by many on this board, not just me. I actually think this is the number one most asked question on your blog, although I did not go back and count the number of times it has been asked. Yet, it still remains unanswered.

When a corporation states something so out there, typically they have a press machine that corrects obvious silliness.

We know ebay has such a press machine as illustrated by the shopping.com listing fiasco (apparently they have multiple machines as we got multiple replies to why/how that happen).

If there really are such instances, why is it so hard to simply state the rationale for making such a statement?

Aren’t you concerned about those 30%? Hasn’t it occurred to ebay they have opened the door for more buyers responding with bogus responses to unpaid disputes by this very policy?

I guess I am naive, I just don’t understand how ebay does not get they are an equal opportunity venue. After all ebay is made up from the general population, I find it highly unlikely all the bad people in the world said, “hey I will be a seller”. I honestly believe the bad ended up on both sides. Why doesn’t ebay get this?

And isn’t the greater pity we now think in terms of “sides”. So much for community.

In this mad quest to “appear” to be safer for buyers, ebay is telling every scam buyer out there it is open season on sellers.

Look forward to your answers. Thanks Richard!

I’m sorry, but your interview really did not shed much new light, maybe you missed the press releases/annoucements ebay was posting back in Jan and Feb so you did not realize you were simply being given this was covered ground, the same ol’, same ‘ol. I will be more than happy to provide you with the links that this interview simply rehashes without any more substance than before.

spinach.chinOn 05.07.2008 at 5:14 pm Said:

It was strictly a user who received a negative feedback and subsequently left a negative feedback. That second negative feedback was counted as being retaliatory.

Brian, that’s a crack research team you have there. I would laugh at the simplistic attitude that this issue was addressed with. However, the sad truth is, everyone knew that this was most likely the case.

Richard, I just wanted to thank you for your work here in exposing eBay for the Mickey Mouse operation that it really is.

SandiOn 05.07.2008 at 5:16 pm Said:

I thank you for providing proof that my initial suspicion that eBay did absolutely nothing to validate that the information they received was reliable, accurate, or fair. Also, for providing proof that eBay already has a preconceived notion of what they think is the case and initiate damaging chances in policies without any knowledge of why the change in behavior occurred.

I stand corrected, this interview was the first public acknowledgement that ebay implemented all these changes on whim vs hard accurate data.

Patricia1On 05.07.2008 at 5:17 pm Said:

Its not safer for buyers…it will NEVER be safer for buyers because Ebay is not really ousting bad sellers - they are pretending they care but do they? I think not. They are protecting their own backsides by hammering sellers…BUT at the same time being ever so careful to protect their high volume sellers (some of which are bad and should have been ousted). Bottom line is…ebay doesn’t care one whit about buyers/sellers - its their own bottom line revenue they care about and they want to hold onto it and not have to invest it in sweat-equity to police and clean up their site. All these fancy rules and regulations are only window dressing to give the appearance they are doing something good for the buyer. Thank goodness word of mouth is as powerful as it is. Ebay will have a hard hard time luring those buyers they want! None of this silliness will bring in ONE NEW BUYER!

Doctor-DealsOn 05.07.2008 at 5:32 pm Said:

I have been selling on eBay for 9 years now and I am very concerned about how upcoming changes to the feedback system are going to affect the “Seller Experience”. A few years ago eBay put in place a “Required” on the record communication process with very specific time lines when a seller was having an issue with getting a buyer to pay for an item. I think this was an excellent change, it set specific standards and created an effective communication channel to resolve the issue. This system protects the buyer from any negative action on their account, a UPI strike, until they have had adequate time and opportunity to address the issue with the seller. We found that our UPI rate improved after this change because really, we are far more concerned with getting paid than giving buyers UPI strikes or negative feedback

Similarly I have been requesting eBay Management from Rob Chesnut & Matt Halprin right on through to Brian Burke for several years now to add a similar required on the record communication process be added to the feedback system before anyone can post a non-positive feedback for another user so as to give both parties a chance to resolve the issue prior to taking negative action against the other users account. We can all agree that “Communication” will resolve most issues and this type of on the record tool should work well. For us as high volume sellers with over 14,000 positive feedbacks and only 10 complaints we have found that “Communication” is the key to resolving customer issues, real or perceived, because in real life that is what the customer want, their issue taken care of. Unfortunately, since the “Anonymous” DSR change last May 72% of the non-positive feedback we have received, (Negs & Neutrals), have been from users that never communicated their issues to us prior to leaving feedback. We have had many of these Negs removed afterwards, but that is a backwards use of the system. The system needs to be designed to function with “communication” as the FIRST action and FB as the last. With the removal of the MFW system there will no longer be any mechanism what so ever to undo a hasty bad FB from a buyer making it all that much more important to have a “communication” tool built into the FB system.

I have heard Rob, Matt and Brian all speak of having a goal of “More Negative Feedback” on eBay as a method for differentiating good sellers from poor sellers. And you know what, I agree in a way that the concept can work if implemented properly. Unfortunately, the direction eBay is going is more negative feedback for EVERYONE instead of only those sellers that really deserve it. And yes, poor sellers will get more negatives than good sellers. But why does eBay have a goal for good sellers to get more negative feedback instead of putting tools in place like required communication that would help good sellers produce more “Great Buying Experiences” that we all want them to have. EBay is only doing half the job here by allowing buyers to throw out free flowing negative feedback without any responsibility or real accountability what so ever on the buyers part to actually work towards resolving issues when they arise. Sure there is a little communication “check box” on the interstitial page, but buyers will just click through that as they have always hit the “continue” button in the past when ignoring the same instructions for communication on the old interstitial page.

It is time for required on the record communication in the feedback system before the hard earned reputations of millions of good sellers are devastated by this upcoming change to the FB system that is going to be Rob Chesnut’s legacy of “More Negative Feedback” for everyone including eBay’s best sellers. “More Negative Feedback” for good sellers will NOT build buyer trust in the eBay marketplace, it is only going to give the perception that the eBay marketplace is quickly deteriorating as everyone’s reputations suffer. The selling community deserves better….the marketplace deserves better.

Thanks,

DD

PS: And please, none of Matt and Brian’s fears that requiring buyers to communicate with sellers will somehow create bad buying experiences. Communication does NOT create bad buying experiences, BAD SELLERS create bad buying experiences. Get rid of them instead of fearing tools that will create more “Great Buying Experiences” through communication with your vast majority of good sellers.

MatchboxcarguyOn 05.07.2008 at 6:29 pm Said:

Feedback. You remember. The brilliant idea Pierre had when starting auction web, (Now eBay) - way back when.

It was a system where we could rate our trading partners and they could rate us. It was simple in the beginning. You could leave feedback for anyone. You didn’t even have to buy from them or sell to them. A little later on it became transactional.

The comments built a trust between members - (read cu$tomer$.) Feedback was permanent.You couldn’t change or remove it. Unless you cussed or mentioned an investigation & a few other things no one I know ever did. This new feedback thing was an amazing concept. It made the average Joe or Mary selling stuff from their garage, home or trailer look like a respectable large merchant. (Think L.L. Bean.) People would talk to other eBayer’s in line at the post office. What’s your feedback? 216! Wow, mines only 84… We would “log on” each day to see if our feedback number changed overnight. It was a source of pride. Feedback - who would’ve thought?

Feedback became the backbone this new web phenomenon was built on. And eBay grew by leaps & bounds.

The feedback system was viewed by some as flawed. Well after all, nothing is perfect. But Pierre’s feedback system was very, very close. Brilliant in concept , execution & yes, even consequence. Yes, you could leave a negative or a neutral for someone - before trying to work the problem out. They could neg or neuter you back though. And both of you kept that red or gray mark back then. If selling - it could affect your business. When buying, sellers might cancel your bid - if they thought you were a troublemaker. Well, no one much liked those things to happen to them, so people worked their problems out like adults & not too many bad feedback were left.

There was peace in the community. And after awhile, even the skeptics viewed feedback as sacred….

Then, a couple of years ago, the tinkerers that Pierre hired to run eBay decided they would tinker with the feedback system. They thought they were smarter than Pierre, I guess. No one really knows what brought on this idea to change the feedback system. It could have been some overcooked Eggs Benedict at an executive brunch, or perhaps something in the air conditioning system. At any rate they decided change was needed. Change is always good - right? Besides, things were different now. Or were they?

They let a new company called Square Trade remove feedback in certain cases. Of course there was a fee. They tell me eBay didn’t get a commission from Square Trade. I suppose that is true…

About the same time eBay instituted a program called “Mutual feedback withdrawal.” Some say this was initiated at the request of larger sellers to give them a means of getting rid of bad feedback, without paying a fee to Square Trade. I really don’t know….

What happened next isn’t hard to fathom, knowing human nature. Negative feedback soon started being exchanged in record numbers. Sellers, especially some larger ones - became a little bit more difficult to deal with. Customer service? What’s that? Hey, if someone negged you you just negged them back. After all, you could get a mutual withdrawal. Many sellers had hundreds of mutual withdrawals. They played this great new feature like a well oiled trombone….And no one at eBay regulated this process - or limited the numbers.

Soon buyers began to complain about this unfair treatment. Some left eBay and never came back. Management seeing all of this, decided the feedback system needed a little more tweaking. And that brought us to where we are today. More tinkering to try and fix what THEY broke.

You know what I think? It won’t work. Sometimes, you need to get back to basics. Sometimes, the simplest ideas are the best.

The Genie however, is out of the bottle, the sacred trust is broken.

Can it be put back, before it’s too late?

I really don’t know. A smart person would try …..

LurchOn 05.07.2008 at 6:30 pm Said:

DD - while I hear what you are saying, this wouldn’t be very effective universally — sometimes communication has already happened, so requiring the buyer to go through this process would only help where the buyer is using less than positive feedback as an initial communication tool. It wouldn’t help anyone in cases with sellers such as buy, who seem to have a pattern of letting buyers know they won’t be shipping what the buyer has won. What more communication could the buyer engage in at that point? And even beyond that, yes, the buyer does often communicate with the seller prior to leaving less than positive feedback. So forcing them to again communicate would not be well embraced by those individuals.

Similarly, it should have been fairly easy to identify instances in a large, random test sampling where the buyer had used less than positive feedback as the primary communication tool, wherein the seller then leaves negative feedback because up until that point, the transaction had been positive to them, but suddenly turned into a negative experience for the seller (is that retaliatory?).

Additionally, it should be relatively easy to identify cases wherein a buyer was in fact a NPB who left negative feedback and the seller, for whatever reason, wasn’t going to initally leave feedback, left a neg in return because at that point, what do they have to lose?

And even more.

Some (heck ANY) kind of every cursory glance at these and other issues may well have shed light on a number of problems lurking within the feedback system, and potentially at the core of the way that people are now using eBay which could have provided valuable clues and information re. additional issues which need to be addressed by management, rather than this simplistic view of “any negs left after a neg is left for them are simply retaliatory, so we’ll fix it this way… and all will be peachy keen again!”

The entire feedback system needed to be rebuilt *from scratch* from the beginning, and if not then, than certainly years ago (and yes, I mean well prior to 2004). No one wanted to listen though… even as things began to play out the way I initially (essentially) saw them playing out. Rather than using this data as a tool to possibly identify a number of issues, eBay just didn’t even bother.

LurchOn 05.07.2008 at 6:35 pm Said:

Oh yeah - speaking of buy - since apparently older comments don’t seem to really get monitored too much after a new entry is made - any thoughts on your new partner’s TOS and return policy, issues of which were brought up in the comments to the buy partnership entry? Are eBay and PayPal cool with all of what they have in there, both from the perspective of them bringing the “better buyer experience” and just in general? Particularly (but certainly not limited to) their reserving the right to be a NPS?

Patricia1On 05.07.2008 at 6:57 pm Said:

@ Doctor-Deals

“It is time for required on the record communication in the feedback system before the hard earned reputations of millions of good sellers are devastated by this upcoming change to the FB system that is going to be Rob Chesnut’s legacy of “More Negative Feedback” for everyone including eBay’s best sellers. “More Negative Feedback” for good sellers will NOT build buyer trust in the eBay marketplace, it is only going to give the perception that the eBay marketplace is quickly deteriorating as everyone’s reputations suffer. The selling community deserves better….the marketplace deserves better.”

I agree with your post whole-heartedly but I’m afraid it make far too much GOOD BUSINESS SENSE - ebay won’t even hear it! Which leads me to believe they have an ulterior motive for seeing to it that ALL sellers get negatives!

SandiOn 05.07.2008 at 8:03 pm Said:

jjh: The answer will be it only applies to powersellers, that the underlings have zero day protection.

They have revised what qualifies as a “track record” to mean powersellers only.

Richard, I have another question based on Brian Burke’s statement on the announcement board where he covered all of your questions, but had additional detail. (Was this interview timed to come out the same day as his post on the annoucements?)

Over there he states:

We’re expanding the scope of the existing Buyer Requirement for unpaid items, so that it supports more comprehensive blocking of buyers who have a history of non-payment.

My question focuses on the statement more comprehensive blocking of buyers who have a history of non-payment.

Why are buyers with a history of non-payment still members?

Doesn’t that knida miss the mark on “protecting sellers” - granted it’s great for the buying experience and ebay’s bottom line.

And exactly when are the “tools” for sellers to report abuse from buyers going to be available, I just looked and under contact ebay >> report unfair feedback, you get this:

What to do about unfair Feedback

By adding a polite and honest response you enable other members to judge the situation themselves.

This is the same as always, but there is no FAQ, link, etc to provide sellers what they are suppose to do. The link for “Feedback Changes 2008″ gives a general overview, again no critical information.

Broken eBayOn 05.07.2008 at 8:14 pm Said:

Why is it eBay continues to operate a broken feedback system? eBay’s feedback system does not work anymore.

First, eBay treats buyer feedback and seller feedback as equal–they are not. Seller feedback clearly is much more important than buyer feedback. There’s not much a buyer has to do to get positive feedback, but as evidenced by the new detailed seller ratings, sellers have to perform and do more than buyers.

Second, having to post a comment for every transaction is cumbersome and not helpful. Why should buyers have to sign in to eBay, find the transaction, select positive, neutral, or negative, and write a comment for every transaction? Who does this when shopping elsewhere? Same goes for sellers–it’s too time consuming to leave feedback for every transaction. In addition, who reads the comments, especially ones that are 5 years, 10 years, etc. old. With too many pages of feedback, the comments become useless because they are not read.

All eBay has done over the years to its feedback system is add enhancements. It’s like putting lipstick on a pig. Feedback needs to be redesigned, and the latest “enhancements” do nothing to improve the experience on eBay. A new feedback system must be implemented so that it provides buyers and sellers with key information about members on one page (or screen). Today, we have pages and pages of feedback with useless information like feedback score and item numbers that are years old.

Feedback should move away from a comment-based system to a ratings system of key buyer and seller components. For example, each eBay member should have a buyer feedback page that displays more useful statistics like number of lifetime purchases, number of feedback transactions given, number of non-paying bidder complaints, and other adverse actions. What do we want to see in buyers? Those criteria should be rated as “yes” or “no” by the seller. We don’t need to see comments about every transaction. The current detailed seller ratings is an example, but it should be simplified (meaning get rid of the 5-star system and use simply “yes” or “no”).

I am rather surprised at eBay for the lack of real, meaningful change in the feedback system. Until there is a substantial redesign of feedback instead of the applications of lipstick to the current system, I will not have any confidence in eBay.

sono_italianaOn 05.07.2008 at 8:48 pm Said:

On my selling ID I have a feedback score of 846, 100 percent, DSRs 4.9/4.9/4.9/4.8, selling since 2003, one of your basic reputable “small” sellers.

I have no complaint about fee sales and discounts and other incentives for Powersellers. Of course, eBay needs to provide incentives for its bigger producers.

But I’m really irritated that, in the estimation of eBay management, I have not earned even the consideration of delayed negative feedback. It would cost you nothing to extend this benefit to me and others like me, who have a good record.

I don’t think my buyers are suddenly going to start negging me, of course. I bend over backwards to provide them excellent service and will continue doing so.

But I think eBay has seriously — and NEEDLESSLY — undervalued its longtime, lower-volume but solid sellers.

Kevin_TOn 05.07.2008 at 9:21 pm Said:

I have another query relating to the explanations on the Announcement Board post (and thank you for tying in that link, Richard, it does give an additional perspective in this case).

In relation to sellers with a “proven track record”, Power Sellers were selected because:

QUOTE:We selected PowerSellers who have been on eBay at least 12 months in order to minimize risk to buyers, because:

a. PowerSellers have to meet quality thresholds for both conventional Feedback and, starting in July, for Detailed Seller Ratings

b. PowerSellers have to meet volume requirements – both in total and on an ongoing basis

c. One year on-site proved to be an important predictor of lower risk
All three factors prove important to predicting the risk to buyers – removing any one of them would increase risk to a level we are not currently comfortable with at this time. END QUOTE

=========
With long established sellers, who meet the “quality thresholds” even though they don’t “have to”, how do their lower volume of sales present additional risk?

My own experience is that long established lower volume sellers tend to take the time to be more personal, communicate better, and make sure there are no problems with any transaction they handle. There are undoubtedly exceptions, but I am sure there are exceptions among the power sellers who still meet the criteria as well.

How is Ebay’s experience showing that long established low volume sellers are presenting increased risks to buyers, that Ebay are not comfortable with?

Kevin

Patricia1On 05.07.2008 at 10:32 pm Said:

There are plenty of long time good honest sellers that are being pushed aside here and outright insulted! My 10 year 100 percent feedback with over 50 percent repeat buyers isn’t enough? There are tons of sellers just like me and we are not occasional sellers - we are constant sellers. Until recently, I had an ebay store and kept over 50 items running every single day. You put that up against a powerseller who has been “good” for 12 months? Then you wonder why sellers are outraged? Is this how ebay intends to clean up its site - byt throwing out both good and bad small sellers? The whole thing is pretty much a joke…in all sincerity - a sick sick joke! To be blunt, I’m praying it backfires because, frankly, this kind of a business model doesn’t deserve success!

The ColonelOn 05.07.2008 at 10:48 pm Said:

What did ebay expect would happen when they put in place a system that rates the seller and buyer in the words of the counter-party?

It was doomed to be either adversarial and antagonistic or cooperative from the get go.

Negs from either party, lead to very harsh words. Harsh words right out in the open, true or false, for anyone to read and draw inferences from. That looks bad for business. Even worse, they are based on opinions and are not verifiable.

Postives are just a mutual ego stroke. Circle jerkers. How much confidence do you honestly have in a seller with 35,000 transactions and 100% pos feedback? How many positives were in fact “extorted”?

So now you take a flawed system which produces very dirty data and what do you do with it?? Make decisions based on it? Rubbish. Garbage in garbage out.

Faith in the old feedback system is at a dismal low.

After the 19th, feedback will be even more meaningless.

Postives from sellers will become nothing more than advertising statements “ABC Media thanks you for buying one of our quality widgets”.

Negatives from buyers will probably result in being added to one of the off site blacklists. Blocking and banning will run rampant.

The whole thing is rather sad.

Too bad no one thought about verifiable metrics for a rating system. NPB’s. INR’r SNAD’s (which i would have just renamed RETURNS as the SNAD name alone creates adversarial issues), average time to ship, average time to pay, etc etc. Real verifiable, measurable numbers that do not create insane escalation.

Let ratings be based on fact, not opinion.

So who is ultimately to blame for what is going on?

eBay because rather than admitting the shortcomings of the system, they just decided to blame the sellers.

Rather than revert back to the old feedback sytem, or rather than tearing the whole thing down and starting from scratch, they are just going to continually tweak a flawed system with endless patches.

Garbage went in, so no matter what you do now, garbage will only come out.

Scrap the feedback system entirely and put in place something which gives all buyers and sellers an ACCURATE REPRESENTATION of the market place and their trading partners.

To do anything less is just wrong.

MistyOn 05.07.2008 at 11:02 pm Said:

http://pages.ebay.com/services/forum/new.html

Just found this on the upcoming changes to feedback page.
?

MistyOn 05.07.2008 at 11:03 pm Said:

Go figure now it shows up

MistyOn 05.07.2008 at 11:08 pm Said:

@Richard

Why did I just get a pop up asking for my eBay ID and password in attempting to post? I asked this question in my 2nd post that has the (?) but my question did not appear with it.

china714On 05.08.2008 at 12:07 am Said:

Hello Richard, I wanted to say thank you for trying to answer some tough questions, no one wants to shoot the messenger, “We” the posters you see here are very disturbed by ebays changes and have a difficult time seeing them “productive in any form” You see Richard, We are sellers and buyers for years here on ebay, and this outlet is the first of its kind, unfortunately, when ebay has added insult to injury for so long by not taking into account how we see these changes Prior to releasing them, You get people with true concerns for Their business on ebay.
I actually heard somewhere that ebay feels “We owe ebay because they are bringing us the buyers” they have made so many public one sided judgmental statements or comments just picking us all apart, whether it be powersellers, and the new seller, or the good sellers and bad sellers, or the buyers who are at risk of retaliatory feedback, and the list goes on, they have segregated their own site, what business does that?
you see the boards ebay? they are congested with powersellers, new sellers, new buyers, old buyers, all arguing the systems you are putting into place. its really sad.
I have 30 years experience in custom relations work, I have seen irate buyers, “the customer is always right” No just a myth, out of 100’s of wonderful buyers you get a couple that may be difficult to please or just downright don’t want to be pleased, but rather to vent on someone, or get a better deal, ect..these customers in a store setting you take to the side to work it out if possible if not they leave, and like Carries on. Being we are internet sellers a Feedback system is good, but why did it have to be complicated?
I have been a seller and buyer now for 5 years, sold over 3000 items, bought quite abit too, Do you think I needed your help with feedback? I was well able to carry myself, I had a couple negs, gave a couple of neg, part of business, but each buyer or seller could see it out in the open, and judge who was in the wrong or right.
the problems started when ebay went public and had stock holders, they have to keep the buyers coming back, but also have new buyers, Ill tell you a good way to do that…go back to what works, as soon as you tell a buyer in a bubble when they go to leave a dsr score, that “your feedback wont be seen” you could be honest” you are creating mistrust immediately. thats sneaky and damaging to your site, get rid of bad sellers, I had to report someone for excessive handling over 50 times before they were canned, selling a fake bracelet with a handling fee of 250.00, and yes 250.00 do you not think that 8 of the buyers that received that bracelet felt cheated? well they did, but their was no help for them, the buyer should be able to get out of an auction when it should never have been allowed on ebay in the first place. thus why I personally have no faith in your systems.

The ColonelOn 05.08.2008 at 12:28 am Said:

Here is a post on the eBay Feedback Discussion Board that sounds reasonable assuming there is some sort of a returns policy instituted by ebay.

I never post in forums but this is a matter of saving peoples years of hard work on Ebay from being destroyed. Sellers are not happy and for very good reason. They have been bound and gagged from protecting themselves. Blinded with no visible access to DSRs, Gagged without the ability to show the community their side of a story to alert other sellers of a bad buyer and left at the mercy of Ebay that to the present day shows no support of the seller’s terms and conditions when a buyer doesn’t abide by them.

Here are the problems…
1. The buyer needs protection against unfair retaliatory negatives from a seller.
2. The seller needs protection from the same.
3. Ebay is deathly afraid of loosing buyers which they feel is ruining they’re bottom line.
4. The community needs a fair feedback system to rate both sellers AND buyers or else what the hell good is it?
5. The seller is tired of having their own seller terms and conditions ignored or overlooked.
6. The system with the new changes the way it is now is VERY unfair and quite impractical.

OK, there we are! Now, I have the solution to these problems. And like all beautiful things, it is very, very simple!
A. Policy change with a seller not able to give a buyer a negative remains.
B. Ebay needs to COMMIT to standing behind a seller’s TERMS and CONDITIONS.
C. Buyer’s are REQUIRED to read the seller’s T & C or they are considered to have broken Ebay policy if they don’t. There are several ways Ebay can set this up.
Option 1. Require the buyer to go through a link that forces them to see the seller’s T & C.
Option 2. Seller is required to have T & C on the page that the buyer makes the purchase from.
In either case, Ebay needs to simply enforce these seller’s terms & conditions if a dispute arises. Currently even though this policy already exists, Ebay has NOT enforced it! This is a problem in itself that needs correcting by Ebay.
D. A seller’s T & C must be limited to a certain number of characters, about 3,000, in order to enable the seller to list all the information needed to protect themselves, but not an unlimited amount creating an unreasonable requirement for the buyer to read.
E. The seller’s T & C MUST meet Ebay policies or it will not be submisible in a dispute.
F. The buyer alone has the right to leave a negative feedback but NOW will be bound by the idea that if what they are complaining about is in contradiction of a seller’s T & C, and the seller reports this to Ebay, Ebay has the right to revert, not just remove, that negative BACK to the buyer’s account.

How does the new policy stop the bleeding? Let me explain…

First let me say that Ebay sets rules for the community to follow, seller and buyer alike! It is unfair for either side to take the responsibility for the other. In other words, a buyer should be held just as accountable to read BUYER regulations on this site as a seller is bound by the SELLER regulations. EVERYONE should be held responsible when they break the site’s polices. Buyers should not be immune to following a seller’s terms and conditions if they are set within Ebay policy. The seller will NEVER be happy if this continues! Everyone needs to understand that a seller, especially one with all the serious responsibilities of running a business, has their own ideas on how they want to run their own business. And while a buyer may not always agree to the seller’s T & C, it is up to the buyer to steer clear of that seller’s items if they don’t. It is just plain stupid to hold a seller responsible for a buyer’s complaint when the seller CLEARLY stipulated what his or her terms and conditions were before the buyer ever made the purchase!

I would like to address Ebay’s biggest concern, loosing buyers because of a bad buying experience. If a buyer holds up his or her end of the transaction by READING seller guidelines, then that buyer has NOTHING to be upset or worried about. Any buyer that tries to undermine the seller’s T & C is a buyer that the Ebay community doesn’t want or need! The policy makers at Ebay need to recognize this! And the selling community needs to be able to see if any given buyer has a history of negative issues. NEVER penalizing a buyer is just plain ridiculous! EVERYONE can see this. With the way MY idea works, the buyer’s will wind up policing themselves with the understanding that they will have a falsely handed out negative given RIGHT back to them if they have broken a seller’s Terms and conditions. How great is that?! Ebay would only be required to investigate the user’s complaint & verify that the seller’s T & C were followed to see who is at fault and hand down their decision. With my policy idea in place, I suspect that once the buyers know the consequence for giving a false negative to a seller, that they will think twice before doing so. At the same time, Ebay gets back the confidence and trust from it’s reputable sellers that will feel good about knowing that their own seller terms and conditions will not be ignored! And by keeping the NO NEGATIVE policy in place, the buyer NEVER needs to worry about a retaliatory negative to their account! Have I missed anything? You tell me. And if you agree with this new policy idea, then PLEASE start promoting it so that Ebay’s policy makers ACT on it!

This is still in my opinion another bandaid, but it appears to be workable.

Any comments?