Friday, May 16th, 2008
Feedback on Feedback to Feedback
All,
Thanks again for your kind words and emails. Sorry for the delay in getting this to you. As promised, I managed to spend time with Brian Burke this week and he tackled a lot of the follow-up questions that came through from the “Accountability” post written last week.
The following follow-up questions and answers are shown in no particular order. The questions, and the prior comments by Brian they refer to, are indented and shaded below. The new answers follow each shaded box.
I realize there were more questions asked but I wanted to get at least some addressed sooner rather than later. Thanks to Brian for taking the time to sit down with me again to discuss questions raised here on Ink.
Cheers,
RBH
Please re-round the circle squared by eBay President Lorrie Norrington on the eBay Announcement Board on March 20, 2008 titled “Update For Sellers”.
Norrington seems to be attempting to address the concerns of sellers who fear a neg from a non paying bidder. She attempts to mitigate the new “neg sellers only” policy by writing:
“What we have determined is that if the buyer does not specifically call out poor seller performance, item condition or transaction problems during the UPI process, eBay will remove the seller’s negative or neutral feedback — retroactively.”
This makes no sense. Sellers do not send items won in auctions before receiving payment. How can a buyer who leaves a neg be justified by claiming a problem with “item condition” for an item never sent, received nor seen? Again, sellers DO NOT send items without first receiving payment.
While Norrington’s “solution” may be boss pleasing “disruptive innovation”, it flat out makes no sense in the real world of selling on eBay.
This policy is designed to address a specific issue raised at the eCommerce Forum in January. Specifically, sellers complained that the current protections for sellers with the UPI process – the buyer must fail to respond completely – was inadequate, since all a buyer had to do was enter a single character or comment that they had no intention of paying, and any negative or neutral FB left by the buyer would remain.
Sellers shouldn’t send items prior to receiving payment. But if a buyer is complaining about the product condition in the UPI process, it’s a good indication that the buyer did pay.
Buyers who respond and respond in a manner that clearly indicates the seller was not at fault, such as “I found another one” or “my spouse is in the hospital so I can’t pay” shouldn’t be negatively impacted by a buyer’s negative Feedback.
However, if the buyer states, “I refuse to pay via Western Union” or “I just sent payment” or “I paid” (NOTE, some sellers file false claims, those caught are suspended) or “I did a charge back because you refused to send me a refund for the damaged product” would result in negative or neutral Feedback remaining.
A buyer who is referencing product condition, not receiving the product, etc. is a very good indicator that the buyer sent money.
We will continue to evaluate this policy.
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.
With millions and millions of transactions happening we have to study behavior over time in order to identify trends and to determine whether or not a specific trend needs addressing. The fact is that 4 years ago, sellers would leave a negative after a buyer had left a negative twice as frequently than a buyer would and today it is eight times as frequently. That is a significant change in behavior and one that needed to be addressed. Again, we examined a lot of alternatives before coming to the conclusion that the feedback system needed to change. We learned 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.
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.
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.
————–
Why does the cooling off period, given it is so short a timeframe, only apply to PS? Why not to those who have been on the site for years? Why not to everyone?
Right now only PowerSellers get the 7-day protection. This has replaced the 3-day block rule introduced back in January. Suspension types and frequencies of suspensions were analyzed and it was determined that PowerSellers were the safest population of users to single out for this protection. If safety issues arise we could restrict this beyond the 12-month, PowerSeller distinction and, conversely, if we see positive results and gain confidence in the 7-day protection model, we could expand to other sellers. I don’t see this happening in the next 6 months though.
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?”
Essentially, we’re trying to balance marketplace safety with seller satisfaction. We want buyers to know immediately about a potentially bad or fraudulent buyer experience to better avoid repeat occurrences.
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?
—————-
What enhancements to which tools?
Sellers will not have direct access to info on whether UPI reports have been made against buyers. However, there is a buyer requirement tool that will allow sellers to block buyers with a UPI track record of 2 or more items. We’ve also introduced a seller reporting hub.
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?”
————
Will the process of reporting a buyer be reviewed by an actual person or a bot? Will we receive canned answers?
Customer support representatives will be reviewing all reports. There will be canned answers associated with general issues raised for the hundreds and hundreds of cases reported. Reports will be handled on a case by case basis and will be deemed arbitrary if there is no mention of dissatisfaction with the seller or an unwillingness to complete the transaction with the seller.
Does this new PowerSeller policy constitute a barrier to entry? And what about seasonal sellers who cannot enjoy PS benefits because they sell for a few months each year (but most definitely qualify PS, they just are not onsite long enough each year to qualify)? And what about new sellers? Do they become targets with no protection? Do you guys not want new sellers?
————
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?
These changes don’t have anything to do with the size of the seller. They are focused on the buying experience. With regard to DSRs and feedback, smaller sellers are actually the folks in a position to take an advantage of the new changes because they already provide a more personalized, attentive service to the individual buyer… helping ensure positive feedback after a transaction is completed.
We want all sellers to feel welcome on eBay and the new PowerSeller policy should not be seen as a barrier to entry, rather it should be seen as another incentive to sell more on eBay.
Will anything be done to ensure the 12-month period does not backfire on anyone?
There will inevitably be a small group of folks that are negatively effected by the 12-month window but again, we think that recent performance and activity is a much better indicator of what a buyer can expect to experience than a performance rating from 7-8 years ago.
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.
This is likely a data anomaly – with over 7 billion Feedback we occasionally have these come up. But since the seller is in US, I would ask that they wait until we update the US site next week. If it is still inaccurate, I can have a database engineer look into it – but I bet it’s accurate next week.
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?
Sellers reports of buyers will be reviewed thoroughly. Extortion is very difficult to prove so the more proof a seller can provide, the better off we’ll all be. It will be easier to take action against buyers that have a pattern of behavior rather than a single instance of reported extortion – again because it is very difficult to prove a single instance of extortion.
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?
The window of time in which a buyer could resort to extortion has been shortened. For example, in the past a buyer could wait until 85 days after a transaction to practice extortion. The longer the time period; the longer the opportunity. We’ve reduced that window of opportunity considerably.
If the buyer did not pay, shouldn’t the “burden of proof” be on the buyer to report the reason why he / she did not pay?
Better yet, why not allow “private” reporting by the buyer to let eBay know that there was a good reason that they didn’t pay the seller?
What percentage of buyers actually have a valid reason for nonpayment? How about some eBay “statistics” to give us a better understanding of eBay’s desire to protect this group of eBay buyers who NEED the ability to leave negative feedback for a seller that never received payment.
We need any information regarding potential fraud to be public, and to be public fast. With regard to statistical information, Brian indicated that he would get UPI stats for me to share on the blog.
Tagged: brian+burke, buyers, detailed+seller+rationgs, dsr, ebay, ebay.com, ecommerce, feedback, Marketplace, online+marketplace, sellers
Kathy_the_green_fishOn May 16, 2008 at 1:13 pm Said:
Richard,
[Comment edited: see comment policy]
Does anyone know how eBay works day to day?
What buyers and sellers really want-need to succeed?
Totally transparent buyer and seller pool:
Every user should have one verified ID.
Everyone..Chinese, American, Italian, everyone.
Everyone should have full access to feedback: the good, the bad, and the ugly.
Everyone should have access to the dispute panel:
Full transparency, full story available.
I love to ship internationally, I want a country by country checklist for each item. I do not want a buyer from Italy disappointed that my leather belt cannot be shipped there. It is not their fault.
I also want to sell to South Africa, but cannot without allowing all of Africa…Hello? Ideas?
DSRs are a worthless waist of time. You overspent on something that is redundant and it cannot make me a better seller. It has little use to me as a buyer.
Lower the fees to 2% or 3%…flat across the board.
10 cent listing…no hidden fees
Roll shipping into the total to be fee-d.
Make tons of money on real listings, by real sellers and create a happy safe environment to bring buyers back.
By the way, when I report another email threatening to leave me a negative unless I give the buyer something for free (4 times last month)…all I got was a form email to download the ebay toolbar to save me…
The store rep had a really good laugh over them…real funny.
A PERSON should be on the phone, on the email
and take fraud seriously. Right now eBay is doing a poor to almost criminal job of protecting us from fraud, but thanks for all the mandates making sellers the scapegoat.
[Comment edited: see comment policy]
Thank you for the email invite to voices, I will not be joining you guys anytime soon.
AmberOn May 16, 2008 at 1:19 pm Said:
“Suspension types and frequencies of suspensions were analyzed and it was determined that PowerSellers were the safest population of users to single out for this protection. ”
Suspension types are determined by volume and therefore by ebay. That has nothing whatsoever to do with safety. Higher volume sellers get selling restrictions, lower volume sellers get entire suspensions.
Statistically, lower volume sellers are MORE vulnerable to suspension, therefore you’ll see more suspensions. They are also less able to absorb arbitrary negs, neutrals or low DSRs before hitting the restriction threshold–particularly since a single buyer can file a Paypal dispute, leave 1 star ratings, and a neutral or negative…exaggerating a seller’s poor performance by tripling the damage a single buyer can do!!! Each one counts as a unique buyer in the calculations.
Low volume sellers are also less able to raise their Buyer Dissatisfaction rating to lift restrictions.
Catch-22 and completely unfair.
Sorry, but I’m not buying the ebay math–again.
AmberOn May 16, 2008 at 1:25 pm Said:
“A buyer who is referencing product condition, not receiving the product, etc. is a very good indicator that the buyer sent money.”
Or it could be a savvy buyer using their knowledge of the loopholes to defraud sellers and ruin their reputations.
“will be deemed arbitrary if there is no mention of dissatisfaction with the seller or an unwillingness to complete the transaction with the seller.”
What about when the buyer pays AFTER the UPI closes (after responding so their feedback will stick)? We are told in the UID console that we are released from all obligations regarding the items where strikes are left for buyers. Are we still vulnerable to negs if we relist the item and sell to someone else in this circumstance?
AmberOn May 16, 2008 at 1:27 pm Said:
“There will inevitably be a small group of folks that are negatively effected by the 12-month window ”
Read: the majority of the smaller sellers
“However, if the buyer states, “I refuse to pay via Western Union” or “I just sent payment” or “I paid”
So…no effort will be expended in making sure those buyers really DID pay?
AmberOn May 16, 2008 at 1:30 pm Said:
“Extortion is very difficult to prove ”
No, it isn’t. How about allowing ALL communication, not just that sent through My Messages, to be admitted as “evidence” in these cases?
99.9% (an estimate, but I’m betting pretty accurate) of extorting communication is conducted off-ebay directly through email.
AmberOn May 16, 2008 at 1:36 pm Said:
“We want all sellers to feel welcome on eBay and the new PowerSeller policy should not be seen as a barrier to entry, rather it should be seen as another incentive to sell more on eBay.”
No, you don’t want all sellers to feel welcome on eBay. You want all sellers to be Powersellers. That statement above shows that quite clearly.
“We learned 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.”
HOW did you “learn” this information? I’m betting online surveys, which are notoriously inaccurate. They are not in even the most lenient way considered to be scientific. The sample is skewed because the majority of users don’t respond. AND, I’m sure the language used was so biased that they couldn’t help but respond the way you wanted them to.
I’ve spoken to many friends who are buyers ONLY. Of the few who received retaliatory feedback, NONE ceased buying here because of it.
They left because the prices were too high, the search too clunky, the shipping too lengthy or too expensive. Not ONE of them referenced feedback in any way.
implogOn May 16, 2008 at 1:45 pm Said:
“Sellers shouldn’t send items prior to receiving payment. But if a buyer is complaining about the product condition in the UPI process, it’s a good indication that the buyer did pay.”
No it’s not a good indication a buyer has paid. This is yet another faulty assumption upon which eBay is basing a yet another potentially disastrous policy. It is just as likely a good indication that the non-paying buyer is gaming the system.
How long do you think it took/will take for the legions of scamming buyers to learn that they simply have to respond to an UID with a statement of “item condition”?
Read your own Trust & Safety Discussion board to learn more about the non-paying buyer bag of tricks.
Patricia1On May 16, 2008 at 1:54 pm Said:
Richard – please pass this on to ebay so there could be no mistake. Not ALL sellers will become powersellers – yet they are honest, hardworking sellers. No…they do not feel welcome on your site and with every quirky new policy their listings fall! I can’t see HOW you can all think they feel welcome when you’ve done everything short of hammering them on the head! I’ll tell you what your lopsided policies are doing – they are driving small sellers off your site. I’m a perfect example. I not only list the bulk of my items on other onlines sites now…I also market my buyers in any way I can so that they’ll follow me! Its a double-edged sword and you have to figure out if the loss of small sellers and some of their buyers is equal to your plan at trying to force sellers into becoming powersellers. I really can’t see where you can cover the loss. Its only just starting but next week when sellers actually begin to experience these policies I believe you’re going to see a slow but definite downward decline in listings. Get your special listings gimmicks ready!
implogOn May 16, 2008 at 2:02 pm Said:
The fact is that 4 years ago, sellers would leave a negative after a buyer had left a negative twice as frequently than a buyer would and today it is eight times as frequently. That is a significant change in behavior and one that needed to be addressed.
This still fails to prove that the negative feedback left was “retaliatory”. You can assume that but can not prove it.
You have not shown that the second feedback was unjustified due to real or perceived problems with the transaction. Ebay’s “Mutual Feedback Withdrawal” policy may have had more to do with the negatives than any retaliatory action.
eBay can be a tough room, at times crawling with thieves, both buyers and sellers. Past reporting accomplished little.
EBay has failed at policing their “venue” and now punishes and makes vulnerable all sellers based on a faulty assumption that ALL returned negatives were “retaliatory”.
Patricia1On May 16, 2008 at 2:04 pm Said:
One more thing….I hope ebay is prepared for the enemies and bad feelings it is racking up on a daily basis. Yeah – all under the guise of protecting buyers. Yet even buyers now know to look for your silver lining in any disruptive policy you make. Even buyers are realizing more and more that nothing is being done by ebay for the good of buyers or sellers but only to enhance its own revenue. I think if you poll your buyers you will get an entirely different feeling about how the MAJORITY of them feel…. AND just how they feel about ebay! It may come as a rude shock….but so be it.
TonyOn May 16, 2008 at 2:22 pm Said:
The changes have hit the UK and it’s not a pretty sight. The hub for sellers should have been in place before the changes arrived. There is real anger over what is happening.
Less than 24 hours after the change sellers are reporting they’re being blackmailed, and being advised a sellers hub will be here by the end of the month, why isn’t it here already? This quite frankly beggars belief.
Less than 24 hours after the changes sellers are reporting negs and neutrals that they feel are unjutified and believe were left, just because buyers now can.
Whereas I acknowledge the 8:1 ration of retaliatory negs was bad and needed addressing, it doesn’t make sense to have created such a one sided playing field. Please think of your sellers when you make future decisions.
If you would read the Australian and UK message boards you could give yourselves an idea of the level of bad feeling that will hit North America on Monday. Alternatively, delay the changes in North America until you have a solution that is less likely to cause unrest.
Patricia1On May 16, 2008 at 2:48 pm Said:
“Less than 24 hours after the changes sellers are reporting negs and neutrals that they feel are unjutified and believe were left, just because buyers now can.”
They’ve been bragging about doing just that in the US on ebay’s own Feedback Discussion Board….if they’re reading it they certainly aren’t comprehending it or else they just do not care! I’m letting my few listings just run out then will sit back and watch.
JJHOn May 16, 2008 at 4:51 pm Said:
I posted this in a different thread earlier today, it was before this thread appeared. I think it’s MORE relevant here:
Here is something very interesting that I found on the eBay AU site. It was on a page about the feedback changes, under a subtitle “Ensuring Seller Protection”. I have BOLDED the item I find the most interesting. Any comments?
Will sellers still have access to Buyer Requirements to manage their buyers?
Yes. In addition to the current Buyer Requirements, we are enhancing the Unpaid Item buyer requirement and adding new buyer requirements that will enable sellers to block buyers with multiple policy violations from bidding/ or buying their items.
The buyer requirements tool enables sellers to prevent or limit the buyers from bidding or buying their items if certain criteria have not been met. The criteria are:
* Buyer does not have a PayPal account
* Buyer has a recent Unpaid Item strike (new)
* Buyer is registered in a country where seller doesn’t ship to
* Buyer has a recent eBay policy violations (new)
* Buyer who may have bid on several of my items and not paid for them
* Buyer who is not ID Verified (new – but not available on all eBay sites)
===
OK, so is there a BUYER VERIFICATION plan in the works? If so, that’s VERY good news. More info please.
===
Richard, thank you for posing my question about the 7 day “cooling off” period on negative feedback for powersellers ONLY.
To say I am NOT happy with the reply from Brian is an understatement. To sit there [you, Brian] and gloat that some Powerseller is MORE reliable than me because he’s been here a year and is considered to have a better “track record” than me is a JOKE of epic proportions. It is quite obvious my 10 year record, 100% feedback, 4.8 DSRs, and once being a powerseller really does mean nothing. Small sellers welcome? Ha, I could utter some fine words here, but I’d just see “[Comment edited: see comment policy]” instead.
TheBrewsNewsOn May 16, 2008 at 6:09 pm Said:
Richard,
I appreciate you taking the time to ask the follow-up questions and to write up the answers for us to read.
I must say, though, that the whole issue of feedback is really starting to wear me out. I am much more concerned about things like Best Match and issues that affect me monetarily, such as fraudulent and scamming buyers… but I can understand eBay’s reluctance to publicly admit they have any problem buyers on their site.
I do, however, have a few follow-up questions to the responses to the follow-up questions (try saying that 3 times)
**************
1. Non-paying bidders allowed to leave negatives
I appreciate the explanation. I don’t necessarily agree that is the correct way to handle nonpaying bidders but at least I can follow the logic.
My follow-up question is: If my auctions are PayPal only then it is very clear whether the buyer has paid or not so what systems will be put in place to ensure that I will not receive negative feedback from someone who requests after-the-fact to change the terms of the auction and pay me with a different payment method. eBay states that nonpaying bidders are reduced significantly when auctions are paypal only; so if I take the extra step to make my auctions paypal required, will eBay protect me from negatives from nonpaying bidders who ask me to change my terms after the fact? The new proposed system would allow a nonpaying bidder to state something like “I wanted to send my money order but seller would not provide their address” or they could even falsely state “I paid.” Given that eBay insists on allowing nonpaying bidders to leave negative feedback and put the burden on me to prove my innocence, what can I expect for auctions I have listed as paypal required? Regardless of what the buyer states, there is absolute proof whether or not the buyer has paid with paypal so what purpose would be served to make me vulnerable to negative feedback when I can absolutely prove my “innocence” with certainty.?
I would think that eBay would want to “reward” sellers who use PayPal Required by giving them some protection against nonpaying bidders who leave unfounded negative feedback.
****************
2. Definition of retaliatory negative feedback
At this point, the definition of retaliatory negative feedback is a moot point. eBay has made their decisions based on what I believe is faulty information but then we can agree to disagree.
****************
3. Negative feedback delay of 7 days
I am still unclear as to how this will provide any real protection to me as a seller or how this will provide a better buyer experience. A person who wants to leave negative will do so after 1 day, 7 days, or 17 days.
******************
4. Feedback extortion
According to the definition on the eBay website, Feedback Extortion is defined as “Buyers are not allowed to threaten sellers with negative Feedback, neutral Feedback or low Detailed Seller Ratings in order to obtain goods or services not included in the original listing.”
Follow-up question: Please elaborate as to how discontinuing the Mutual Feedback Withdrawal will protect sellers from Feedback extortion and specifically how shortening the amount of time for leaving feedback from 90 to 60 days will help to prevent feedback extortion.
The definition from eBay itself includes the word “threaten” and I agree completely. Feedback extortion occurs BEFORE buyers leave negative feedback NOT after. It seems the benefits of Mutual Feedback Withdrawal then would greatly outweigh any unexplained protections that might be afforded the seller by discontinuing the Mutual Feedback Withdrawal process.
Why is Mutual Feedback Withdrawal important to improving the buyer experience? Suppose you have a buyer who leaves negative feedback:
>>out of anger (perhaps he/she is having a bad day already and is frustrated to receive a broken item),
>>out of ignorance (new seller who does not fully understand the rating system),
>>or as a mistake (it is too easy to leave feedback for the person at the top of the list rather than choosing the right seller).
Once a seller receives a negative feedback, how are they motivated to correct any real or perceived problems if they cannot get the feedback withdrawn? There is absolutely no incentive from eBay for sellers to “do the right thing” and provide a good buyer experience for the buyer who leaves negative feedback.
***************
5. Seller Reporting Hub
If a seller reporting hub has been introduced, that is news to me!
How about sharing some information with those of us who have not yet been formally “introduced”.
Patricia1On May 16, 2008 at 6:11 pm Said:
“Sellers shouldn’t send items prior to receiving payment. But if a buyer is complaining about the product condition in the UPI process, it’s a good indication that the buyer did pay.”
You know…it really scares me to see their thoughts in black and white. I think most sellers will NOT be sending out items that aren’t paid for. I know I never send anything out of here unless the money is in my account. They can suspend me – they can neg me – but the product stays here until paid. I can always sell it elsewhere. Ebay pushes way to hard for the kind of shoddy service we’re getting in return these days…then wonders why page views and listings are down! ….still waiting for all those buyers our enhanced operation is supposed to produce!
dimesOn May 16, 2008 at 9:08 pm Said:
Wow. The more I read about this new feedback policy the more clearly it is revealed as a disaster in the making.
What a shame that the one constant about the eBay site that has been uniformly praised over the years – its feedback system – has now been so thoroughly degraded.
Future B School case studies will be pointing at the dismantling of the feedback system as a key component in bringing about the end of eBay, and debating why Donahue did not learn from AOL’s example.
Kevin_TOn May 16, 2008 at 10:37 pm Said:
I will ask again:
How is Ebay’s experience showing that long established low volume sellers are presenting increased risks to buyers, that Ebay are not comfortable with?
CrunchyPostingGoodnessOn May 16, 2008 at 11:31 pm Said:
“A buyer who is referencing product condition, not receiving the product, etc. is a very good indicator that the buyer sent money.”
No offense, but that makes absolutely no sense. If a buyer received an item, but did not like the item condition received the buyer would file a “Not Significantly As Described (SNAD)” dispute. If a buyer never received an item, then they would file an “Item Not Received Dispute (INR)”.
The only reason a seller would file an “Unpaid Item Dispute (UPI)”, is if the buyer did NOT pay. If the buyer paid, then they could simply provide the PayPal transaction number as proof. If the buyer didn’t pay because the seller did something wrong, then the buyer would have filed a “Non-Performing Seller” (NPS) complaint.
eBay should be trying to match up complaints filed against the parties and the item# to see the entire scenario. Furthermore it is just as easy for a buyer to lie and issue a false response to the UPI, as was implied that a seller could file a false claim.
“That is a significant change in behavior and one that needed to be addressed. “
I agree completely, however for eBay to properly address the behavior they need to understand WHY the change occurred. They are assuming what caused the change, but their assumption is based on absolutely NO facts.
The theory that the change in behavior was caused by the ever increasing amount of scamming, fraudulent, and non-paying bidders on eBay over the past 4 years is equally, in not more so, plausible that eBay’s assumption.
Simply taking away the ability to leave neg feedback does NOT fix the problem. The increase in sellers leaving negative is the effect to something wrong within the eBay enviroment – mainly bad buyers. Increased negs is the EFFECT, but what is the CAUSE? The CAUSE is what needs to be researched, addressed, and fixed by eBay.
The relationship between cause and effect is something most of us learned in grade school. I’m not sure how a person in a position of management is unable to understand this simple concept.
“We learned 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.”
So if the buyer received a neg because they tried to scam the seller, extort the seller, or not pay for an item they bid on, and because of that neg that particular buyer never comes back to eBay, that is a bad thing?
How? Perhaps eBay’s definition of a “buyer” is just as loose as their definition of “retaliatory”? eBay must believe that a person still qualifies as a “buyer” if they bid or win an item, but DIDN’T pay or they try and performed a charge back. Funny. I do not define those type of users as buyers. I define them as thieves and scammers.
“Suspension types and frequencies of suspensions were analyzed and it was determined that PowerSellers were the safest population of users to single out for this protection.”
Wait, I thought the 7 day period extension was meant to be as a protection for sellers AGAINST trigger happy buyers. Ebay doesn’t believe that small sellers are prey to these trigger happy buyers too? If it is meant to serve as a PROTECTION, then why not protect ALL sellers?
“We want buyers to know immediately about a potentially bad or fraudulent buyer experience to better avoid repeat occurrences.”
However, eBay feels no need for SELLERS to know immediately about a potentially bad or fraudulent BUYER, in order to better avoid repeat bad experiences for other sellers?
“However, there is a buyer requirement tool that will allow sellers to block buyers with a UPI track record of 2 or more items. “
Ahh. There is my answer. eBay will allow at least 2 bad selling experiences for sellers dealing with a scamming, fraudulent buyer before taking action to protect the selling community. Well more like 3 or 4, if you take into consideration the strikes eBay reverses at the buyer’s request.
“Reports will be handled on a case by case basis and will be deemed arbitrary if there is no mention of dissatisfaction with the seller or an unwillingness to complete the transaction with the seller.”
So basically more of eBay’s flawed interpretation of the situations presented. Given the experiences I have had with eBay and PayPal, I can only imagine how closely these individual cases will be reviewed. It has been my experiences that I have had to push any issue I’ve had with at least 3 different representatives, 3 different times, ultimately ending up with a supervisor, who finally reviews and understands the issue I had presented to the 3 representatives prior. Considering eBay is planning to make the one representatives review final, without appeal, I can imagine just how many just complaints will be discarded into canned responses.
“These changes don’t have anything to do with the size of the seller.”
Isn’t sales volume one of the qualifications for Power Seller status? If so, and the additional protections only apply to Power Sellers, then yes, the protections have EVERYTHING to do with the size of the seller.
“It will be easier to take action against buyers that have a pattern of behavior rather than a single instance of reported extortion – again because it is very difficult to prove a single instance of extortion.”
Yet one unsupported, unreviewed, unsubstantiated, neg can take a small seller down to suspension status, PayPal held funds, and low listing visibility. Somehow just one report of a negative experience with a seller is enough for eBay to punish the seller, but not sufficient enough when it comes to punishing a buyer. Guess it really is that easy to prove after all, Brian.
“We need any information regarding potential fraud to be public, and to be public fast.”
Yet the most effective information tool to do this, namely the seller’s ability to leave negative feedback, was removed from the system? I guarantee you that a seller leaving a neg for a buyer is the most public and fastest method to inform the eBay community about a user’s potential for fraud.
———
Richard, thank you for taking the time to get the answers for many of the questions asked. I really appreciate your time and effort. Unfortunately nothing stated by Brian helped to ease my concerns about eBay incompetence and totally naive understanding of the real eBay marketplace and selling experience. In fact, it really only served to confirm my suspicions that eBay is changing for the worse, and is most definitely not a reliable or safe selling venue. Which I suppose is a good thing that I can learn this lesson by reading the eBay mentality here, rather than subject my business to the destructive selling enviroment they are determined to create. Albeit unintentionally, but destructive non the less.
DaveyOn May 16, 2008 at 11:57 pm Said:
Points to Richard for at least getting our questions answered.
Brian, eBay has totally missed the boat that you fail to educate buyers that feedback is not a tool used to communicate problems with a transaction before the seller has a chance to find out and rectify them. There should have been some coling off period or communication required before being able to leave a neg. The 3 or 7 day cooling period would have done at least something in that direction. Again, though reputable small sellers get the shaft…
The quote of the day, though, is definitely the one below:
“These changes don’t have anything to do with the size of the seller. They are focused on the buying experience. With regard to DSRs and feedback, smaller sellers are actually the folks in a position to take an advantage of the new changes because they already provide a more personalized, attentive service to the individual buyer… helping ensure positive feedback after a transaction is completed.”
All I can say after reading this, is–WHAT???????
Could this also be paraphrased as, “Smaller sellers should not need 7 day feedback protection as much as powersellers as they are more likely to produce satisfied buyers than powersellers anyway?” That logic makes me dizzy.
How can a business treat its customers so badly as eBay has recently, and remain viable? Good luck becoming ebay.buy.com
This exchange only helps me understand the void of understanding between eBay management and their marketplace, and what really leads to a good buyer experience. And, as a current small seller who is able to produce excellent buyer experience much more readily than a high-volume powerseller (and thus should be valued by eBay with more than cheap words), this exchange assures me that my decision not to expand the breadth of my business on this venue last fall was a wise one. I will be building my future business elsewhere and only keeping a vestige here to attract customers to my other venues.
HenriettaOn May 17, 2008 at 12:01 am Said:
I thought I was ‘over’ eBay. I have moved on. I list on two alternative venues having auditioned several more. I have been building my website customer base for two years. I have always had low blood pressure.
Reading this post, (please do not believe in any way I am shooting the messenger) I could actually feel my blood pressure rising.
I find it completely unbelievable that a person at the VP level in a mega-giant corporation could speak such utter drivel and moreover believe it. About a month ago I complimented Brian Burke (my maiden name BTW) on his handling of a very difficult workshop, now I would like to compliment him on his honesty on the feedback methodology.
This is e-commerce at third grade level.
The ‘perceived value’ of this blog to me is priceless.
Thank you for opening a window into the corporate mindset.
Amazing.
David WombacherOn May 17, 2008 at 12:06 am Said:
I don’t think no negatives for buyers is a good idea at all. I especially don’t like the added no more mutual withdraw UNLESS there is the ability for a buyer to EDIT the feedback comments they leave for a seller. I work hard to resolve all issues with buyers. Even if they leave me a negative with zero contact first I TAKE THE INITIATE to contact them to resolve the situation to their satisfaction. Just this week I was able to successfully do this with two international buyers and the FB comments withdrawn.
Thank you,
David Wombacher The Camera Hunter thecamerahunter camerahunter
spinach.chinOn May 17, 2008 at 12:20 am Said:
They’ve been bragging about doing just that in the US on ebay’s own Feedback Discussion Board….if they’re reading it they certainly aren’t comprehending it or else they just do not care! I’m letting my few listings just run out then will sit back and watch.
Make no mistake – ebay knew fully well the fallout that would occur. The drop in listings was predicted by Donahoe – that’s a documented fact. You can bet that they knew the issues that would arise as a result of the changes. It was also made clear that sellers should get used to not having 100% positive feedback anymore. On Amazon, feedback in the mid to low 90% range of positive feedback is considered decent. 96% and above is exemplary. 100% feedback only happens when you’re brand new to Amazon.
eBay may be heartless, but they’re not stupid. eBay is shooting for Amazon-type respectability, and the only way that’s going to happen is if buyer satisfaction indicators (i.e. seller feedback) falls to more realistic numbers. All of this, while perfectly valid concern, is falling on deaf ears. They’re going to ride this out and hope for the best, and it’s only going to get worse from here on out.
ChrisOn May 17, 2008 at 4:05 am Said:
I am surprised nobody has yet brought up the subject of neutrals, but that may be due to the different ways things are implemented in the UK and US. In the UK we have just had neutrals treated as negatives for Feedback Percentages. I would like to ask the following questions:-
1) Could someone at eBay look in a dictionary and explain how the definition of that word allows it to be treated the same as a negative?
2) I know the argument ‘it’s not a positive so they can’t be included in percentages’. But, surely if they are used to devalue percentages it should be in a much lesser way than a negative. Perhaps a third?
3) Why was the decision taken, but not announced, to apply the change retrospectively? This has caused widespread decreases of percentages, which looks bad to buyers who see levels dropping almost before their eyes, and is extremely unfair on the sellers who have been misled for so long that neutrals did not affect percentages.
4) Why is it considered necessary to have 2 methods of penalising a seller but only 1 of giving credit, especially now buyers can only receive credits. Isn’t it time the neutral was scapped altogether?
Powersellers are in danger of losing that status and small and new sellers are in danger of being suspended and banned.
Incidentally the new search seems to be acting a little strangely. I did a search for a Konica Minolta Camera this morning but the top item on page 1 was a Fuji camera!
Sorry this is rather disjointed but everything seems to have happened at once.
ScottOn May 17, 2008 at 4:51 am Said:
Ebay closes accounts daily with ambiguous or no reason. It takes a lot of work and proof to get back on and get back to business, if you can get back to your home business. It is very easy to violate an eBay listing policy \ guideline without knowing it, the first you will learn about it is when you receive an email from eBay or when you notice all of your auctions are gone, a sinking feeling you will never forget. There is a site that has the phone numbers for eBay and paypal as well as information on how to get back on ebay http://www.suspended-from-ebay.com
TheBrewsNewsOn May 17, 2008 at 5:40 am Said:
One further comment regarding feedback ….
Colin’s blog about “Judge Judy” with a picture of Griff in robes and a wig is, in my opinion, rather tasteless and disrespectful (disrespectful to those of us in the community whose livelihoods are being effected by all the recent changes — both announced and unannounced).
I’m sure that eBay management is having a good laugh over the feedback issue right now… kinda like watching rats trying to jump from a sinking ship into a lifeboat …. but it is a very serious issue for many eBay buyers and sellers.
Perhaps a month or two from now I would have found the blog post humorous but timing is everything.
It is more than obvious to everyone that eBay has no respect for its sellers but could you at least not make fun of us outright? It is already embarrassing enough to admit to people that we sell on eBay and to have you publicly ridicule us and make fun of our circumstances (that you created) is just a little too much.
implogOn May 17, 2008 at 6:24 am Said:
I think the youtube video titled ” Ebay Spokesman Griff on ebay Strike Boycott Feedback ” shows what kind of “justice” would result.
(Is that President Norrington in the background taking notes?)
JJHOn May 17, 2008 at 7:15 am Said:
It’s interesting how the answers to the questions seem so “without substance” and are more of a brush off than anything else. You aren’t supposed to answer questions that raise 10X more questions. It’s apparent these executives have little time for us, they are just so busy making up new insane policies, and this is no fault directed at Richard. He went and got answers, and that’s really appreciated. It’s just the answers stink or make no sense. That’s not his fault.
I’m really starting to see the flawed thinking in all of this now. Especially when a user reply like this: “Increased negs is the EFFECT, but what is the CAUSE? The CAUSE is what needs to be researched, addressed, and fixed by eBay.” is asked. It’s a great counterpoint, and points to the flawed model eBay used to come up with their 8X theory. Can we get a reply to this?
Also, I posted something last night I saw on the AU site, and I would like an answer to this question, Is eBay planning to VERIFY buyers?
Quote, from AU site:
The buyer requirements tool enables sellers to prevent or limit the buyers from bidding or buying their items if certain criteria have not been met. The criteria are:
[other requirements removed]
* Buyer who is not ID Verified (new – but not available on all eBay sites)
OK, “New” but not available on other sites. OK, WHICH SITES will be getting this? AU? UK? US? Elsewhere?
SandiOn May 17, 2008 at 7:48 am Said:
It’s interesting how the answers to the questions seem so “without substance” and are more of a brush off than anything else.
That is why I asked for specifics. Unforunately specifics were not given.
I know, there is no surprise in fact, but being an eternal optimist, I had hopes.
Oh well, at least ebay is consistent with their own communication and transparency.
dimesOn May 17, 2008 at 8:06 am Said:
I think the buyer verification refers to the poor Australian customers eBay is trying to force into getting paypal accounts.
Becoming “verified” would mean surrendering their bank account information to paypal, which of course buyers have no reason to do.
AmberOn May 17, 2008 at 8:23 am Said:
Certain buyers, not just newbies, are being asked to register a CC with ebay to confirm their identities. On the .com site, btw.
Instead of registering it, they simply stopped buying. Bet that was a large reason for the crash in the STR for many people last month.
implogOn May 17, 2008 at 10:35 am Said:
@ TheBrewsNews
You wrote:
“If a seller reporting hub has been introduced, that is news to me!
How about sharing some information with those of us who have not yet been formally “introduced”.”
Richard – Could you find out where EXACTLY this “Seller’s Hub” is located? Could you do it really quickly? Like before the 19th?
Thanks.
JJHOn May 17, 2008 at 12:09 pm Said:
@Implog, you’ll have access to the “Seller’s Hub” on the 19th. The 19th of November.
I think it’s similar to the way the USPS came out with the large flat rate box, and gave everyone months of notice it was coming and when and how much. eBay implemented it in time so you can show it’s cost on your listing, but you can’t print the postage label through Paypal until the Summer. I figure it’ll be the same thing with the Seller’s “Hub”.
Wouldn’t it be nice to be surprised, and find it active Monday!
Broken eBayOn May 17, 2008 at 12:12 pm Said:
“Feedback on Feedback to Feedback.” Enough is enough. Just reading this post gives me a headache. Feedback has become too complicated, frustrating, and generally not helpful.
Question to Richard Brewer-Hay and all of eBay: why can’t there be a simpler feedback system that isn’t so emotional and annoying?
I give up on eBay.
horsemamaOn May 17, 2008 at 12:39 pm Said:
“We want all sellers to feel welcome on eBay and the new PowerSeller policy should not be seen as a barrier to entry, rather it should be seen as another incentive to sell more on eBay.”
eBay is turning itself inside out to ensure that NO seller feels “welcome” on eBay. Stop pretending anyone believes this claptrap. We’re not idiots.
As usual, even when eBay has “data” and “statistics” it completely misses the point. Retaliatory feedback has gone up. Well, it SHOULD go up, because as the number of buyers went up, the proportion of un-knowledgeable buyers went up. The first users of eBay were computer-savvy, more intelligent, and innovative risk-takers.
Then eBay got so well known that everybody started using it. The less-savvy, less-intelligent, and people with low tolerance for risk-taking jumped in. And their expectations were unreasonable. They came in a little nervous. “I’m sending money to a stranger? They’d better get me my item in two days or I’m going to KNOW I’ve been scammed.”
Result? A whole lot of undeserved negs directed at sellers by buyers who didn’t know the difference between My Messages and the Feedback Forum. So what’s a seller to do? eBay made it IMPOSSIBLE for even a remorseful buyer to take back the hastily-given neg, “It’s been three days, where’s my item?” A seller’s only recourse was MFW. How do you get a buyer to withdraw feedback? You neg him back, then do the MFW.
Retaliatory feedback, yes. And totally justified.
So . . . because eBay let in a bunch of unsophisticated, uninformed, nervous buyers . . . it suddenly becomes the SELLER’s fault they aren’t happy here?
Sorry, eBay, but some buyers SHOULD leave eBay. They don’t understand how it works, their egos are way too invested in the process, they come here and wreak havoc with sellers’ livelihoods, and eBay would be better off without them.
And, conversely, some sellers should have been booted out of here years ago. The infamous bargainland was the worst seller in the place — thousands or millions of transactions and an 88% feedback percentage at one point. That ONE seller probably “dissatisfied” more buyers than ALL the non-powerseller sellers COMBINED.
But you wouldn’t boot them out because they were making you millions in fees.
Well, you finally fee’d them to death too and they left of their own accord. But why did you let it go on for so long? 12% of a million is a LOT of dissatisfied buyers. And there were a few other sellers with similar high-volume sales and pathetic feedback percentages.
So your solution is to screw ALL the SMALL sellers because a few HUGE sellers have made an unpleasant experience for hundreds of thousands of buyers?
All because you couldn’t be bothered investigating the REASONS for retaliatory feedback? Which was primarily because the neg the buyer gave was UNDESERVED and negging them back was the only way to get it withdrawn?
And you think your solution (eliminating ability of sellers to neg back and get a MFW) makes SENSE???
Aren’t some of you college graduates? How’d you ever get through high school with THAT kind of logic?
Every word out of eBay’s mouth only serves to further prove the complete LACK of intelligence, reason, common sense, and fairness in the current managers of eBay.
I am just shaking my head over this blog.
You still don’t get IT.
Patricia1On May 17, 2008 at 12:43 pm Said:
“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.
————–
Why does the cooling off period, given it is so short a timeframe, only apply to PS? Why not to those who have been on the site for years? Why not to everyone?
Right now only PowerSellers get the 7-day protection. This has replaced the 3-day block rule introduced back in January. Suspension types and frequencies of suspensions were analyzed and it was determined that PowerSellers were the safest population of users to single out for this protection. If safety issues arise we could restrict this beyond the 12-month, PowerSeller distinction and, conversely, if we see positive results and gain confidence in the 7-day protection model, we could expand to other sellers. I don’t see this happening in the next 6 months though.”
Again…more EBAY-SPEAK and no straight YES or NO answer…but a convoluted answer that you somehow understand as Yes – small sellers CAN be negged immediately. One wonders what political classes on rhetoric ebay management were required to take and these seem to be the top class members! Its so frustrating as to be just absolutely insane. IF YOU DON’T WANT SMALL SELLERS BE BIG ENOUGH TO COME OUT AND SAY IN A YEAR OR SO WE WON’T NEED YOU ANYMORE – SO WE CAN AT LEAST MAKE OTHER PLANS! Enough of this silliness and that’s how I see it…I’m a 10 year seller with a good record – with a FICO score of 817 – can you top that? The financial world would bend over backward to help me – but on ebay I’m not trusted!!!!…… because I’m not a powerseller? Give me a break! This goes against ALL logic.
TiffanyOn May 17, 2008 at 2:03 pm Said:
However, if the buyer states, “I refuse to pay via Western Union” or “I just sent payment” or “I paid” (NOTE, some sellers file false claims, those caught are suspended) or “I did a charge back because you refused to send me a refund for the damaged product” would result in negative or neutral Feedback remaining.
—————-
So all a buyer has to do is say “I paid,” and offer no proof of payment – such as a Paypal transaction number – and the seller is out of luck. WHY not require proof? Ebay is the one pushing Paypal – why not use the link between Ebay and Paypal for some good?
TonyOn May 17, 2008 at 2:42 pm Said:
In the UK we’re being told the sellers hub will be with us by the end of May. The sellers hub should have been here before the changes.
JJHOn May 17, 2008 at 4:58 pm Said:
“Again…more EBAY-SPEAK and no straight YES or NO answer…but a convoluted answer”
Amazing, isn’t it? Yes, that was the answer to my question, and it still wasn’t answered. So is it 3 days or 0 days? Oh, let me quote something: “I don’t see [your answer] happening in the next 6 months though.”
I guess it comes down to this. My 10 year, 3000 feedback “track record” (all 100% positive) and 4.8 DSR average mean nothing, because my 12 month “track record” is only 90 feedback entries because I’ve stopped being a power seller, and become a small seller. Since I sell low volume now, I’m not trust worthy anymore. Ridiculous reasoning, isn’t it? Brian, are you reading this? I can still see the hand print on the side of my face, the redness still hasn’t gone away. Don’t tell me your company likes small sellers. That’s a Lie.
CrunchyPostingGoodnessOn May 17, 2008 at 5:01 pm Said:
@ Spinach
“eBay is shooting for Amazon-type respectability, and the only way that’s going to happen is if buyer satisfaction indicators (i.e. seller feedback) falls to more realistic numbers.”
eBay needs to do a lot more than make seller feedback numbers “more realistic” in order to be considered as respectable as Amazon. Ebay needs to eliminate scamming, fraudulent buyers and they also need to provide better customer service and support for sellers and buyers alike.
Until then, any of these changes are simply cosmetic hiding the real, deeper problems which remain unaddressed and unfixed.
ocdgirl2000On May 17, 2008 at 5:06 pm Said:
oh please, how stupid do these CEO’s think we are? Incentive to sell…yeah..right, I can’t wait to do some new listings so that I can give away my vintage jewelry and add the selling price refund along with it to the first available buyer who happens to also be a seller. Then I can get my deserved negative, all “0″’s DSR’s, a big flaming red sign on all my other auctions warning buyers that I make all my customers unhappy, then have whatever money I earned left in paypal to be frozen for 3 months.Yeah, and I will be so motivated to give positive feedback for that buyer, I will be hardly able to contain myself! After I shed a tear, and try to report the incident of scamming to ebay, they will call their vero department and invent a new reason to remove some more of my auction listings. I can’t wait to sell some more!!whooopeee!!
NOT.
I’m a Nurse. I’d rather handle more human drainage than try to sell here any more. Tis a setup designed specifically to eliminate non powersellers and non retailers.PERIOD.
CrunchyPostingGoodnessOn May 17, 2008 at 5:16 pm Said:
Just to come back to the comment made earlier by BrewsNews…..
Quoted from the Chatter blog:
“That said, maybe members of the eBay Community would like to be able to bring their disputes in front of a forum like AllRise, the People’s Court, or Judge Judy. Well, not Judge Judy, necessarily — but maybe Judge Griff? If both the buyer and seller agreed to resolve their dispute that way then I don’t see why eBay should prevent it. Maybe we could make it transparent and let others in the community come and review the processes as well, like this Judge Judy video.”
I can see several problems with this.
1. A judge need to be impartial. Griff is anything but! He is the truest definition of “a company man” and would only side with the party who’s eBay’s main focus now – the buyer.
2. The first thing Judge Judy would do is to “indulge her rage-a-holic tendencies by belittling and abusing” eBay’s ridiculous policies for allowing such situations to occur in the first place.
3. Such a system would only further prove that eBay is incapable of solving problems and preventing problems from occurring in the first place. Funny that Amazon doesn’t need to institute such a fiasco to police their site properly.
4. This concept basicaly turns the idea of selling on eBay into a joke. I thought eBay was trying to appear more professional and “retail”. When is the last time you took a professional retail business to a virtual court to decide on a matter the you were unsatisfied with as a buyer? Absolutely ridiculous!
These professional sellers and large corporations that eBay is trying to attract are not interested in having to waste time arguing over petty issues and concerns with their buyers. There comes a time when a venue becomes to high maintenance and requires to much hand-holding that any possible profit to be made becomes very insignificant. eBay is well on its way to becoming such a site.
Patricia1On May 17, 2008 at 8:01 pm Said:
Well….I have almost 400 unique feedbacks at 100 percent in the past 12 months….still not
“trustworthy”? LOL Funny…my buyers thing I am because they keep coming back! I can’t say what I’m thinking – Richard would throw me off here….but I’m sure ebay management is not this naive – they have an ulterior motive and its not the one they keep chanting. You can bet on that.
Patricia1On May 17, 2008 at 8:33 pm Said:
Well…far as I can see, ebay is no big draw for buyers. Last year I was selling 40 to 60 small paintings a month – the last 30 days….14! I wouldn’t cry very much if I left them completely – what am I gaining by staying? Ridiculous new policies designed to disillusion me and phase me out at ebay’s leisure, even more hoops to jump thru….and they think we can’t see that? If ebay was dead serious about keeping small sellers they would make darned sure we understand that they want to keep up – not just a lukewarm sentence in the midst of even more ridiculous policy!
They will NEVER become another Amazon. Why? There is no quality to ebay – ebay thinks of revenue first then…maybe…quality. They think like “only a venue” and they want to attempt hands on control like Amazon but they really don’t know how. They will look like Amazon but underneath it they will be only a cheap imitation and that’s something buyers can catch on to very very quickly. Of course, they’ll have to actually go thru this painful effort before they ever realize we were right all along…by then we’ll be doing other things or lising on an up and coming auction site. One that is very grateful for ebay’s giant error in judgement.
dimesOn May 17, 2008 at 9:41 pm Said:
As long as eBay has no merchandise of its own to sell, it will never be able to compete with Amazon.
It would have to purchase a company that does have inventory. Is buy.com for sale?
BrendaOn May 18, 2008 at 5:42 am Said:
[Sentence edited: See Comment policy]
There has been 3 disconnects on the 3 times that I called in on the varius radio shows. On one episode he referred listeners to a particular auction number because he felt that it was the funniest one he had ever seen. These events are examples of the types of things that teenagers do.
I failed to see any professionalism present at all.
Everybody needs to stop concerning themselves over Ebay. Stop allowing yourselves to be sucked into this endless, futile dialogue. They’re going to do what they’re going to do. The time that is spent supplying commentary to the never ending ” Let’s Talk ” could be utilized to explore other options in developing income streams for yourselves.
It’s all smoke and mirrors. Give Ebay enough rope …
… and see if the addage’s finish comes to pass.
permacrisisOn May 18, 2008 at 7:04 am Said:
“The fact is that 4 years ago, sellers would leave a negative after a buyer had left a negative twice as frequently than a buyer would and today it is eight times as frequently. That is a significant change in behavior and one that needed to be addressed.”
[Sentence edited. See Comment policy]
We were better off trading with one another– much less money for YOU but also many less headaches. This was a TRADING COMMUNITY (not that you ‘upstairs folks’ ever did a swap or trade in your lives besides stock options) and the architecture is all wrong for large-scale, commercial activity. No shopping cart???? No DMV license numbers? Pshawww…
[Sentence edited: see comment policy]
When we (the former trading partners on this site) invigorate a new site, you will no doubt attempt to buy it –or buy it OFF, as you did with Yahoo Auctions USA…(violate any Sherman Acts lately?).
When that fails, you will whip out your Merc Xchange patents and probably sue others out of existence, like you are doing with craigslist. That’s because your moves are so predictable… a three year old scheming to get into the jelly jar. You just cannot BEAR to see a dollar change hands on the internet without you somehow being involved, can you? Then earn it ebay… EARN IT!
If craigslist were to one day encourage shipping, and display items from all over the US with no boundaries, they would completely blow you away.
implogOn May 18, 2008 at 7:06 am Said:
Richard
Would you ask the Feedback team who defined “retaliatory feedback” if the neutrals being left by this UK buyer are retaliatory?
He states in the neutal feedback he left:
“Good description & quick delivery – disappointed I have to leave feedback first”
As he writes, he is retaliating for not receiving feedback first.
Keep in mind that feedback is voluntary.
He leaves a neutral feedback which we now know is the same as a neg. Since this is a UK transaction, his negative actions can only be rated as a positive.
Is this what eBay meant by an “excellent buyer experience”? Is this what we will see on the U.S. site starting tomorrow? Is there anything in the mystical “Sellers Hub” that protects us from buyers like this?
Kathy_the_green_fishOn May 18, 2008 at 7:10 am Said:
Misty
Yes, I read that elsewhere.
It is totally tongue in cheek…a joke
a joke in poor taste, that is so close to the truth.
Patricia1
as a small seller and not a powerseller you get no waiting period. Your buyer can neg you seconds after they hit the buy key. I didn’t want you to have to wait for the bad news.
I just took down my last store item and will wait until somebody, anybody comes to their senses.
CrunchyPostingGoodnessOn May 18, 2008 at 9:46 am Said:
@ Implog
Even though feedback is still voluntary, eBay has made it perfectly clear that they fully expect that seller’s should leave feedback for the buyer upon payment being made. Ebay believes that if a seller has a experience later on in the transaction, which they feel is negative, the seller should leave a follow up comment to the positive he/she already left for the buyer.
So in this instance, eBay would not feel that the buyer’s feedback is retaliatory. They would agree with the buyer that the transaction was fairly rated as neutral, since the seller didn’t leave feedback first.
So what is a seller to do?
Basically in the new eBay enviroment, a seller will need to start leaving feedback first, and leave a follow up to the original feedback, should anything bad happen later on. Exactly what eBay wants and expects.
The down side?
1. All buyers will have 100% and sellers will only know if a buyer is a scammer by going through pages and pages of feedback to read the follow up comments.
2. Sellers can cancel bids and block future sales to buyers they see with these follow up comments, but we all know the buyer can simply create a new id to get around these blocks.
3. Seller is wide open to now receive negs based on failed extortion attempts by the buyer, or give into the buyer’s extortion attempts to keep from getting a neg. All the while this buyer will continue on scamming sellers, since eBay doesn’t monitor follow-up feedback comments.
As I said before, the removal of the seller’s ability to leave negs for these type of buyers is simply a cosmetic fix. Unless eBay addresses and fixes the underlining CAUSE which create the EFFECT of sellers needing to leave negative feedback more often now than 4 years ago, the ACTUAL PROBLEM will continue to fester and become bigger.
When you go to the doctor, they first find out why you are not feeling well, and then prescribe a treatment which will address the particular infection or virus. Unfortunately, eBay is simply giving sellers a placebo for their problems, believing that simple wishful thinking will cure the situation. Not very logical, practical, or realistic idea.
We close the comments for posts after 30 days. If you would still like to comment on this post, please use our contact form.
732 Responses on this post. Click to add yours.