Accountability: The Evolution of the eBay Feedback System

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.