Wednesday, May 7th, 2008
Accountability: The Evolution of the eBay Feedback System
Yesterday I sat down with Brian Burke, Director of Global Feedback Policy, to get a full run-down of all the changes being applied to eBay’s Feedback system. During our discussion, I was able to get the rationale and reasoning behind the changes as well as ask some of the questions that had been provided by Ink readers over the past few days.
Before I jump into the overview, interview and presentation, I wanted to give my two cents. The overarching theme coming out of these changes seems to be a trade of transparency for accountability (hence the title of my post). I’ve received a few emails stating that this is very “un-eBay”. However, I get the impression that eBay’s public feedback system was always intended to provide transparency and accountability but that over time, the transparency of the feedback system has taken us away from the accountability goal. So, with these changes, eBay should return to a more healthy balance of the two.
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.
Here is a breakdown of what is being introduced this month:
1. 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.
2. In May, sellers will no longer be able to leave negative or neutral Feedback for buyers.
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.
4. Positive Feedback percentage will be based on the past 12 months of Feedback, rather than lifetime on the site.
5. Restrictions on when Feedback can be left:
- Buyers must wait seven days before leaving negative or neutral Feedback for active PowerSellers who have been registered for at least 12 months.
- Members must leave Feedback within 60 days of the transaction closing (today members have up to 90 days).
6. eBay is removing Mutual Feedback Withdrawal.
This is a global eBay site-wide initiative which will start to roll-out in May, 2008.
5/12 Australia
5/15 UK, Ireland
5/19 US, Canada, Canada.FR
5/20 France, Spain, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Belgium.FR, Belgium.NL
5/21 HongKong, Singapore, India, Malaysia, Phillipines
5/22 Germany, Austria, Switzerland
Additionally, he provided me with the presentation that summarizes the evolution of the feedback system:
Q&A with Brian
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. 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 rather we observed how behavior changed in the marketplace over time. We saw that 4 years ago sellers would do that two times as more frequently than a buyer and today it is eight times more likely.
It’s basically how our members interpret retaliatory negative feedback so we wanted to keep it simple; getting a negative after receiving a negative constitutes retaliatory feedback.
A week or two ago the eBay developer blog announced “We will base the Positive Feedback Percentage on the past 12 months of activity (and will include neutral feedback in the calculation.” Is the above quote still accurate? If so, why are neutrals now going to count as negatives?
The above quote is accurate. As for neutrals, they’re not counted as negatives but they’re going to not count as positives either. When we first introduced the feedback percentage we had, within our feedback system, something that was called NARU neutrals. Basically, what had happened up through 1999, whenever a member got suspended we took any feedback that they had left (whether it was negative, positive or neutral) and we converted it to Neutral. The majority of feedback that was left for users was predominantly positive so we didn’t think it was fair back then to include NARU neutrals in the overall feedback percentage so we chose to count only positives and negatives in calculating the feedback percentage (although ideally we would have liked to track all). Now we’re going to a 12-month window, we no longer have to worry about NARU neutrals unfairly affecting an overall feedback score. So what we can do is make the Positive Feedback Percentage be exactly that. What’s the percentage of positives that a seller has received over all of the feedback they have received? Which is really what sellers should be measured against.
How is eBay going to protect the sellers? How is eBay protecting the sellers from bad buyers? How can I truly block an eBay bidder given that anyone can create a new disposable eBay ID at any time to circumvent my blocked bidder list?
First, what is good for the buyers is ultimately going to be good for the sellers in our Marketplace and we’ve already seen a lot of sellers changing behavior and focusing on what’s most important to the buyers just by the announced changes we’ve made.
When we made this change we understood clearly that we were taking away both a real and a perceived protection. For the seller who had never left a negative – it was just a perceived protection that they had. We needed to make sure there was a balance to the system. The goal behind the changes was not to enable buyers to just leave negatives. Rather it was to go back to the original intent of the feedback system - 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.
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?
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.
I rechecked Feedback criteria today and it seems that the reason eBay couldn’t censor feedback was due to potential legal liability to eBay if they did. How do the shifts in feedback procedures pan out legally? Does the shift in policy constitute censorship?
In the United States only, eBay is given protections as a hosting service for the comments and content that another person puts on our site. As we don’t actually edit the comments or make changes to the comments – there is no difference in how we’re protected. All we’ve changed is how a user is rated in the marketplace. We’ve always had rules in place that allow us to remove negative feedback or positive feedback and the comments – but we won’t go in and edit the comments. Under the US law we can’t do that. To be clear though, we don’t get those same protections outside of the US but we still have a very similar set of rules so even if that law was to go away in the US we probably wouldn’t make changes to the system because we’re trying to design a system that instills trust within the marketplace, not one that is in place because of a US law.
What steps did eBay take to educate the users, both buyers and sellers, during the 3-year period that showed a trend in retaliatory feedback?
Well, the focus on retaliatory negatives didn’t just happen overnight. We examined a number of other alternatives before coming to the conclusion that the feedback system needed to change. 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. All of the alternatives we examined still didn’t address one of the leading reasons why buyers were not comfortable continuing to participate in our marketplace.
There’s been a lot of focus on buyers but what are the changes we’re making to protect sellers?
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.
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.
We’re going to remove all negative and neutral feedback when a member gets suspended.
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). This is a big deal for us because we’ve always felt that we shouldn’t be able to prevent a buyer from leaving a negative feedback but we feel that PowerSellers who have been on the site for 12-months are pretty safe. We’re going to start with that group of sellers so that if a buyer tries to leave a negative or neutral within 7 days of the transaction end, we’re going to provide a link that encourages communication between the buyer and the seller to see if the buyer has given the seller enough time to deliver on the transaction.
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.
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.
When a buyer goes to leave a negative or a neutral – and very single buyer will see this, every single time they leave a negative or neutral – we’re going to ask them three key questions:
1. Have you communicated with the seller?
2. Have you allowed enough time?
3. Have you kept the feedback factual?
The big difference between then and now is that before, buyers saw the above questions but moving forward, they will have to check each question before proceeding. So it is creating a speed bump for buyers in leaving a negative or neutral and we hope that it will educate buyers, the first time they go to leave a negative or a neutral, that it is important to communicate, it is important to allow time for shipping, and that it is important to be factual.
When satisfied buyers attempt to leave DSR ratings of all 5’s they are prompted with the following message: “Are you sure? Remember, the ratings left by you are anonymous and can’t be seen by the seller.”
Why does eBay feel they need to doubt the satisfied buyer’s desire to leave 5-star DSR ratings?
The short answer is we don’t do it just for those with 5. We do it for anyone who is leaving detailed seller ratings. Whether someone intends to leave a 1 or intends to leave a 5, they’re going to get that message. This isn’t about us doubting someone whose desire is to leave a 5. Rather, it was an effort by us last Summer to address an issue we saw arise when we first introduced detailed seller ratings. Our conventional feedback system is a public system that is transparent to the marketplace and we wanted to communicate to the buyers that DSRs were designed to be more anonymous with the ultimate goal to obtain more accurate, honest feedback from buyers.
Since eBay has made such a point that DSRs are anonymous, what faith do we as sellers have that eBay is accurately reporting the ratings that our buyers are actually leaving for us? While still protecting individual’s anonymity, why not provide to me some DSR information of value? For example, what is my DSR rating from international customers versus domestic buyers for each DSR?
To answer the first part of the question… it really is in eBay’s best interest to accurately represent how buyers are reporting on sellers because that will favor those sellers that are performing best which is exactly what we want.
With regard to seller reports and information, I absolutely believe this is an area in which we can dramatically improve. We’re introducing the Seller Dashboard that provides basic information to the seller about their DSRs but we’ve heard from a lot of sellers that they would like to slice and dice that information so we’re working on a separate project right now that will enable them to either create their own reports or for us to provide a much more robust reporting structure that our sellers can take advantage of. All I can say on that is to stay tuned; it’s not something folks are going to see in the next couple of months but it is something we’re working on.
Brian, thanks very much for taking the time to provide answers to Ink readers. It is greatly appreciated and we look forward to having you back on the blog soon.
My pleasure. Anytime.
Tagged: brian+burke, buyers, detailed+seller+rationgs, dsr, ebay, ebay.com, ecommerce, feedback, Marketplace, online+marketplace, sellers
CrunchyPostingGoodnessOn 05.14.2008 at 11:29 am Said:
Richard, first please let me extend my condolences on your’s and your family’s loss.
Second, here is the breakdown of the points addressed on the feedback issue which I promised earlier.
“However, I get the impression that eBay’s public feedback system was always intended to provide transparency and accountability but that over time, the transparency of the feedback system has taken us away from the accountability goal. So, with these changes, eBay should return to a more healthy balance of the two.”
This statement is a controdiction. First, under the new changes the only party that is held publicly accountable is the seller. All buyers will have 100%, despite any of their wrong doing. Second, their can never be a healthy balance, because only one party (seller) is truly being held accountable, even for things which they didn’t do. This one-sided accountability actually creates an imbalance and not a balance as stated.
I’ll also point out that the additional feedback protections for Power Sellers only appear to be in controdiction to eBay’s once held belief of a level playing field.
“There wasn’t anything that we did to go back and look to see if that negative was justified rather we observed how behavior changed in the marketplace over time. We saw that 4 years ago sellers would do that two times as more frequently than a buyer and today it is eight times more likely.”
This provides definitive proof of eBay’s careless and unprofessional approach to the analysis of data. eBay fails to take into consideration the increase in fraudulent and scamming users over the past 4 years, the increase of non-paying bidder and buyer extortion reports, and eBay’s lack of action to curb any of these situations from occurring in the first place which leaves sellers with no other option but to try and protect each other.
When a business sees an increase in a certain behavior or factor, a responsible business researches all factors which impact such a change, to find out the true reason behind the increase. What eBay has done is the equivalent of sticking a Band-Aid on a small leak in a dam wall. Sure the bandage may stop the apparent leak, but it did not solve the problem. The pressure which created the leak still exists, has not been addressed or fixed, and therefore will ultimately break down the entire dam wall resulting in a devastating and destructive flood.
Richard, don’t you agree that in order to solve a problem one must actually find out what is causing the problem? The problem, as eBay preceives it, is seller’s leaving negatives more often than 4 years ago. The question is why are sellers leaving them more often. Doesn’t that make sense? If the actual cause is the result of an increase in the amount of scamming buyers, then how will not allowing sellers to leave negs solve this?
If eBay really wishes to provide a safe and healthy e-commerce enviroment, then it needs to research the acutal causes, and then make appropriate changes based on these facts instead of their fiction.
“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.”
First, sellers already report Non-Paying Bidders, but eBay simply reverses the strike at the buyer’s request. Second, eBay has never actually researched any issues brought up by the sellers regarding the fraudulent actions of buyers. Read the forums, blogs, and websites providing specific instructions on how to exploit the eBay/PayPal loopholes to see this is in fact the truth. Ebay relies on sellers to tell them when a buyer violates policy, seller reports the violation, and eBay either ignores the report, decides not to act on the report, or acts on the report, but then reverses the action at the buyer’s request. Exactly how does this protect sellers, when the scamming buyer is allowed to continue on with eBay’s blessing?
“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.”
That depends on the reason for the negative. If it was for trying to scam the seller or being a non-paying bidder, then I think it is a good thing that such a “buyer” never returns to the eBay marketplace. Of course eBay has no idea if this is the case, because the choose not to research the situations.
Richard, don’t you agree that it is best for the marketplace that these type of buyers never come back to eBay?
“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.”
I’ve already seen on the forums of eBay’s recent failure to do this. Despite the fact that they loudly claim they are. Who am I to believe, the users who are actually experiencing this, or eBay’s faulty data analysis?
“We’re going to start with that group of sellers so that if a buyer tries to leave a negative or neutral within 7 days of the transaction end, we’re going to provide a link that encourages communication between the buyer and the seller to see if the buyer has given the seller enough time to deliver on the transaction.”
Why only Power Sellers? I’ve seen more complaints about Power sellers than smaller ones, they simply have more volume to buffer the effects of the negs and dinged stars. Ebay should provide the same protections to all sellers. If eBay wishes to provide certain price perks for Power Sellers, fine, but basic protections and services should be available to ALL sellers on eBay. Does eBay believe that smaller sellers are not a risk for the type of buyer this “protection” is meant to address?
“When a buyer goes to leave a negative or a neutral – and very single buyer will see this, every single time they leave a negative or neutral – we’re going to ask them three key questions:”
Great! Does eBay plan on forwarding this information onto the seller?
“it really is in eBay’s best interest to accurately represent how buyers are reporting on sellers because that will favor those sellers that are performing best which is exactly what we want.”
Not really. That should read, “It really is in eBay’s best interest to misrepresent how buyers are reporting on sellers because that will allow us to favor those sellers which we feel are performing the best in accordance with our ultimate high-volume sellers only goal for the marketplace.”. eBay has proven that they are incapable of accurately interpreting and reporting data. It has also proven that it will twist the data to prove their preconceived notions of what eBay should be.
CrunchyPostingGoodnessOn 05.14.2008 at 11:59 am Said:
@ Richard
One more thing, you stated earlier, “sorry - to clarify, I wasn’t referring to personal attacks against me. I was talking more about accusations toward my colleagues and folks behind the scenes.”
What you need to understand is that you just came into eBay, while many of us have been dealing with the eBay enviroment and interactions (whether direct or indirect) with your colleagues and folks behind the scenes for years. That is the basis for what you term as “accusations”. If the accusations being made are true, then how is that a bad thing?
I’m sure that when you sit down at lunch or for coffee with those individuals at eBay, they appear to be the nicest and most sincere people. I also have no doubt that several of them genuinely believe what is being done is for the best. However, that doesn’t necessarily make their “beliefs” true. It doesn’t mean that what they are doing will work. It doesn’t make them right and infallible.
A person can be very sincere and nice, but a total incompetent when it comes to their job and proposed ideas for change. It is the job abilities, or lack of abilities, of your colleagues that is being called into question, and rightfully so.
As a business owner I can have an employee that is very sweet and nice. That person may be the most pleasent person I ever met, but if they continue to make errors in their work, which creates my customers to be become upset, should I defend that employee simply because I like their personality? No, of course not. As a business owner, I must put my personal feelings aside and face the reality that while this employee is a nice person, they are a liability to my business and I can not afford to keep him/her on.
If you are going to present yourself as an independent, third party, devoid of blind allegiance to either side, then you’ll need to make that distinction too. You must understand that while you have had only pleasant impressions of eBay and their employees within the brief time you have been involved, the majority of us have had steadily increasing unpleasant experiences over years. These are valid accusations which are being brought to your attention, which you should research, personal feelings aside.
implogOn 05.14.2008 at 2:00 pm Said:
@crunchy
You wrote
“First, sellers already report Non-Paying Bidders, but eBay simply reverses the strike at the buyer’s request.”
The latest of the uncountable Forum threads on this despicable eBay policy can be seen in the text copied below. Link to full thread follows.
“In the past few weeks, I’ve given eight non-payment strikes after closing Unpaid Item Disputes. eBay removed seven of the eight strikes, presumably at the request of the “buyers.” (I suppose the other person doesn’t know to ask for removal–or just hasn’t asked yet.) Contrary to eBay’s repeated claims, it doesn’t look like it’s going to be very easy to get non-payers tossed off the site.
File a UID, maybe get a negative for your trouble. Close the UID giving the “buyer” a strike, eBay removes the strike to keep the bidder happy; bidder gives negative to seller for being so unreasonable as to actually expect payment; and the only feedback the seller can leave for the “buyer” is a positive.
Maybe “eBayesque” should replace “Kafkaesque.”
http://forums.ebay.com/db2/thread.jspa?threadID=2000567682&tstart=0&mod=1210797814843
JJHOn 05.14.2008 at 3:40 pm Said:
This is copied from the AuctionBytes blog. This is the kind of stuff that worries me about the new feedback policy, because there WILL be people who do this “just because they can”. What kind of protection are we going to have against these idiots, and you KNOW these idiots are OUT THERE. What kind of logic was applied when you [eBay] came up with these plans? What kind of “Accountability” is there against vandals?
Thanks eBay, thanks for nothing. READ:
eBay Sellers React to New Feedback Changes
by: Victorious Buyer
Wed May 14 2008 16:45:50
NEG Victoriously is my motto. No free shipping ? —> Neutral. Unpaid item report ? —- Negative. Okay block me from now on. I’ll still get over on you and there isn’t a damn thing you can do about it. So how’s them apples. My mother always said, “every dog has his day.” And now is the payback for shoddy customer service.
and
by: Man Wit da Plan
Wed May 14 2008 18:33:03
NEG Victoriously is my motto 2
Bringing down eBay one seller at a time!! Whoo hoo!
Liv’n by example….Ebay doesn’t protect the seller why should I?
SandiOn 05.14.2008 at 4:06 pm Said:
“First, sellers already report Non-Paying Bidders, but eBay simply reverses the strike at the buyer’s request.”
The latest of the uncountable Forum threads on this despicable eBay policy can be seen in the text copied below. Link to full thread follows.
Non-paying buyers are ebay’;s best friend, they are a revenue generator that it is estimated ebay has made 100 million off of so far.
Of all sales, 6% file UID, while ebay will credit the FVF, they only credit the listing fees IF it sells the second time - 50% sell through rate means 50% of the time ebay gets multiple listings fees because of non-paying buyers.
Then there are the sellers who don’t file a dispute either because they don’t know, or they do not want to tie up their item for 2+ weeks. It is estimated conservatively actually 10% of all transactions end up with the buyer NOT paying - all those transactions not reported mean ebay gets to keep not only listing fees but the FVF.
There is no financial reason for ebay to “punish” non-paying buyers - which probably explains why the number of strikes it takes to get a buyer booted is an undisclosed and ever-changing number.
When ebay actually deals honestly and openly with non-paying buyers they think about whispering they protect sellers. Almost everything ebay does protects this ebay market(non-payers), from strikes, disputes to feedback.
MechelleOn 05.14.2008 at 6:09 pm Said:
I am curious- with all the use through PayPal USPS Click in Ship why PayPal can’t negotiate a fee reduction considering the massive number of packages we ship - and are essentially forced to use PayPal shipping otherwise no “seller protection”. Of course UPS too
You know I bet they do get a reduction and eBay/PayPal collects full postage from us pays the carrier the discounted price and then pockets the difference. Yeah, more of us that use PayPal shipping the more money they make.
I’m going to investigate the PayPal/shipping carrier relationship.
MechelleOn 05.14.2008 at 9:22 pm Said:
No- I figured it out- first 70+% of sellers from eBay use usps- that is quite a money maker. So really USPS benefits from eBay customers more than we do from them. Then it hit me that eBay created a more official relationship with USPS- eBay essentially routes the sellers into using USPS, and in return eBay gets free advertising by having its logo placed on the “eBay/USPS” boxes. Well, I guess it isn’t free advertising they are free loading off of our customers postage cost- so it’s costing the buyer really.
I hadn’t thought of that before, because I don’t order my boxes through ebay/usps- I go directly to usps.com so my boxes don’t have eBay on them, however my labels do because I use paypal shipping. I need to figure out how to get ebay/paypal off the labels. I’m not interested in spreading the eBay/PayPal brand.
I did write usps a letter expressing my feelings of their taking advantage of our (mine and USPS)relationship.
It definitely highlights the character of eBay when it is so easily interpreted that every single thing is devious.
SandiOn 05.14.2008 at 10:03 pm Said:
I need to figure out how to get ebay/paypal off the labels. I’m not interested in spreading the eBay/PayPal brand.
First I order my boxes dirct from USPS as well, you get them faster, plus you are not giving ebay advertising.
I have a paypal debit card that I use with my USPS account to purchase postage for purchases paid for with Paypal.
Going direct offers you multiple advantages, first you have longer to void the label - 30 days. Add the postage comes up a little less because I use my Paypal debit card as a credit card when I check out at the USPS, so Paypal gives me 1% back for using their card. I don’t know why, but that always puts a smile on my face:-)
Granted USPS shows the postage (I suspect paypal will shortly as well) - but it was original artwork that I shipped and buyers understood the packing involved, I had a 4.8 in DSRs for that account when I quit selling.
I had one buyer asked why the postage was 1.83 less than she paid and asked for a refund of that amount, I explained the 1.83 was handling and covered the peanuts, bubblewrap and box (it was oversized, the box cost me 4.50). I really did not care if she dinged me or not, my handling never covered the cost of shipping materials.
Patricia1On 05.14.2008 at 10:58 pm Said:
“It definitely highlights the character of eBay when it is so easily interpreted that every single thing is devious.”
A bad reputation is the hardest thing to get rid of - theirs will follow them around for a long time. You know, I still won’t give to United Way because they had a scandal way back in the late 1980’s where they were spending donations on posh offices and big luxuries. I still don’t trust them and that was over 20 years ago!
MechelleOn 05.14.2008 at 11:17 pm Said:
I use my paypal debit/credit card on usps- when I print international and products sold off eBay. I have it on my Google Checkout- and it always makes me smile when I’m buying “large inventory orders for me”, because I could have used paypal, but I chose the CHEAPER method. I use the paypal shipping and will continue because I can’t afford a typo in an address- not to mention the added time in inputting all of the addresses.
It doesn’t matter to me if postage cost is displayed- it actually ticks me off that hidden postage is the default in paypal, so I have to remember to check the display postage box every time- usually no problem but sometimes I’m in a rush. I don’t charge one cent over the cost of postage (no handling no packaging) postage only and still my lifetime shipping fee star is 4.7- bounces between 4.7 and 4.9 on the 30 day. I even highlight the postage cost on the package with the classic yellow highlighter. Even more infuriating is the number of times I actually pay additional postage and still they are not satisfied.
I don’t know of any retailer that will please the expectations that the eBay community has in their eBay shopping experience.
Kevin_TOn 05.15.2008 at 8:42 am Said:
QUOTE: “The above quote is accurate. As for neutrals, they’re not counted as negatives but they’re going to not count as positives either. When we first introduced the feedback percentage we had, within our feedback system, something that was called NARU neutrals. Basically, what had happened up through 1999, whenever a member got suspended we took any feedback that they had left (whether it was negative, positive or neutral) and we converted it to Neutral. The majority of feedback that was left for users was predominantly positive so we didn’t think it was fair back then to include NARU neutrals in the overall feedback percentage so we chose to count only positives and negatives in calculating the feedback percentage (although ideally we would have liked to track all). ” END QUOTE.
A couple of months ago I received an email saying that a positive feedback had been removed because a buyer had been NARU’d after a relatively short time on Ebay.
On the Australian site my feedback now reads 99.9% for the last 12 months in spite of the fact that I have not received a neutral or neg for about 8 years, and I have been on a full 100% for about 6 or 7 years. I have never entered into mutually withdrawn feedback.
Please ask Mr Burke whether feedback that has been completely removed by Ebay is being counted as “non positive” feedback. If not, can you please ask him to review my feedback and clarify why it is calculated at 99.9% for the last 12 months on the Australian site. I am not asking for any adjustment to my feedback, only a clarification (you know, accountability) - I can supply a friends user ID with no neutrals or neg’s in the last 12 months and 4.9 dsr’s that currently rates at 99.5% if he would like to review that as well.
Kevin
AmberOn 05.15.2008 at 11:45 am Said:
“I need to figure out how to get ebay/paypal off the labels. I’m not interested in spreading the eBay/PayPal brand.”
Use scissors. Works everytime. The PO doesn’t care as long as the barcodes (1 for DC, 1 for postage) are present. 
As for USPS giving people a break, they ARE starting to negotiate bulk mail pricing etc more than they used to. Business rates are now seperate from retail on the calculator etc.
I don’t use click n ship because I had them quadruple charge me for a package once due to some kind of glitch. Took me 3 weeks of fighting with them to refund.
We close the comments for posts after 30 days. If you would still like to comment on this post, please use our contact form.
177 Responses on this post. Click to add yours.