Accountability: The Evolution of the eBay Feedback System

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.