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 05.16.2008 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 05.16.2008 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 05.16.2008 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 05.16.2008 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 05.16.2008 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 05.16.2008 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 05.16.2008 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 05.16.2008 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 05.16.2008 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 05.16.2008 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 05.16.2008 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 05.16.2008 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 05.16.2008 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 05.16.2008 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”.
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.