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
DagnyOn 05.22.2008 at 5:44 am Said:
Richard, thank you for following-up on our questions, your efforts are appreciated.
Referencing this…
“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?
Brian’s answer…
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.”
Brian really did not address my main point which was … buyers can say whatever they like in feedback, be it truth or lies. It is an unverified opinion that eBay allows to have a profound and immediate affect on a sellers reputation and ability to do be successful on eBay.
By contrast, if a seller reports a buyer for extortion or non payment it has to be done privately and eBay feels that reports about buyers made by sellers are suspect and must be thoroughly review before they are accepted as fact. And…apparently a buyer can continue to behave badly until eBay can establish a pattern. There is no public or immediate accountability for buyers.
Buyers can scam sellers just as easily as sellers can scam buyers. EBay allows buyers to hold sellers immediately PUBLICLY accountable but does not allow sellers to hold buyers publicly accountable AT ALL and to make it worse, eBay will not hold buyers privately accountable without verifying the facts.
If eBay is going insist on private factual
accountability for buyers then there must be a review of the facts when buyers leave less than positive feedback. It can not be an unverified opinion.
Are there any plans to tighten up on what buyers are allowed to say in feedback? If a seller can prove a buyer is lying in feedback will eBay make it reportable and remove it?
Otherwise this situation is untenable for sellers…especially small sellers which eBay insists are “eBay’s most important competitive advantage.”
urbankatOn 05.22.2008 at 6:52 am Said:
Patricia1, Crunchy and Sandi,
Thank you for your honest opinions I do appreciate, I would be happy to view your items Crunchy on Amazon what do you sell? Patricia1 Do you want to share what you sell also please on your ohter site?
Sandi I undersand why you feel the way you do but I whole heartly disagree. I purchased a new item and after speaking with the seller they said they had taken it apart and made sure it was fine before shipping, yet in the same sentence they said they new the base has small chips on it, they DID NOT put that in the auction, they emailed back instantly, I think they just assumed I would follow their instructions.
The styrofoam is at least 6″x8″ none of the pieces were touching so no this did not happen in transit, yes I will spend my time and money traveling to the post office and when as I am sure they will same the thing, when they do I will be pretty angry I have seen things like this before.
We are all human and make mistakes, I asked if they felt their was room for error the answer was No, go to the post office, even if it were possible that it cracked I found No pieces (chips) those that were chipped so I do believe that it was intentional.
I will let you know what the post office says.
Thanks each of you for sharing I know you have other issues you are attending too, have a nice day if you can and Best Regards.
Kat
urbankatOn 05.22.2008 at 7:08 am Said:
Oh Patricia1,
I will have to go and look again truly I read several threads and they were each from sellers but as you they will be pushed further and further back so maybe I just did not read as far back as I should have, like you I am interested at what the buyers are saying since we know how all the sellers feel.
I do not blame the any seller for being really upset over this, that being said I can tell you that sellers on the FB board are ALWAYS telling buyers when they stop by with complaints and questions “You rae here to buy not get FB”, “stop worring about the FB and if you give a NEG. then you can expect to get”.
Telling people that who never had been to that forum before and offending them then most of them never say another word but they “lurk” and watch and of course what do they see but all the sellers yelling how unfair it is, these few who own that board attack buyers all the time and they are the voice of sellers because they are allowed to treat people that way.
Now the sellers those that I read last night are talking about how they worked so hard for their FB rating, so did I so did you, my point is that those sellers say what ever they feel at the moment whatever mood they are in, I think I saved some of their nasty comments about how thats the problem buyers are “only worried about FB” yet they feel the same way.
Ok I have to go I have to drive to the post office yippie!
Kat
Patricia1On 05.22.2008 at 8:51 am Said:
Kat - for the most part, buyers do NOT realize how this affects THEM! They are still all over the board with the old “chicken and egg” complaint. They paid for their item and they want feedback first - that’s all they see. In a way, its now laughable because none of them realize their feedback means nothing! All a seller can do is give buyers positive feedback - NO buyer stands out as a GOOD buyer anymore. If they are looking at numbers alone then ebay should just rubber stamp them a feedback when the item is paid and stop this nonsense! I must admit I rubbed that in a couple of times because they should understand that part of this change. I know many buyers were proud of their records just as sellers were - well ebay has effectively killed that pride and pitted buyers against sellers and they either don’t realize it or they just don’t care - or, even worse, its what they aimed to do. They want buyers coddled and sellers to walk on water….period! 
I don’t know whether they are doing this to really change the way ebay operates or not - as a seller I only know we are not seeing the promised buyers - not even the promised traffic. For most sellers I know sales are down, traffic is miserable. Personally, I went from 50 plus items sold each month down to only 14 last month. I’m adhereing to ebay policy but its wearing very very thin. If I can’t sell then you know what I’d tell them to do with their policies - that’s only human nature. Now they promise better search starting the first week of June…we’ll see but I foresee an even bigger problem coming out of all of this. Sellers are going to leave because there simply isn’t enough business to keep them.
horsemamaOn 05.22.2008 at 1:32 pm Said:
Ah, I see the latest Answer Center troll has moved over here now…
Good. We were getting bored with her over there.
MechelleOn 05.22.2008 at 4:45 pm Said:
no kidding - she’s in my BBL as well- OMG
I swapped BBLists with a few other sellers in my category. There should be a website where we can all by category put our BBLists so we can get rid of as many of these deviants as possible. eBay should host it considering we would be working to clean up the marketplace for them LOL.
I suggest people start reading those pre-purchase emails very carefully. I have always read for B**** and when I sense a problem I immediately block them and then respond. I have always done this to protect my feedback and a sell isn’t worth dealing with a B****. Also, if after a purchase I have even the slightest sense of a potential on going problem customer I block them too. I actually only have like 25 people in my BBL for 15 months which isn’t very many- just so you don’t think my BBL is filled to the brim.
implogOn 05.22.2008 at 4:58 pm Said:
Look at this shopper’s “excellent buying experience” (link below). He bought 48 items, paid for none then negged the less than “delighted” seller when the seller negged him for non-payment. That would make this, by definition (neg left after receiving a neg), retaliatory negative feedback.
http://feedback.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewFeedback2&userid=josh0755&ftab=FeedbackLeftForOthers
TheBrewsNewsOn 05.22.2008 at 5:09 pm Said:
Brian’s quote: ” Though we mentioned that we would include neutral Feedback in the Positive Feedback percentage calculation, it seems that most sellers didn’t realize this would impact their Feedback percentage.”
**************
1. Could you please point us to exactly where you mentionned this previously? And if it was mentionned prior to May 2007, could you please tell us where you mentionned that the neutrals would RETROACTIVELY impaact the feedback percentage? I read announcements and somehow I must have missed that one.
Perhaps this is where it was mentionned:
“Feedback percentage will be based on the last 12 months, although the total count remains lifetime. This means that any negative or neutral feedback left for you more than 12 months ago will no longer affect your percent positive.”
Yep, I was really clear about neutrals affecting my percentage after reading that statement (sarcasm).
2. If most sellers failed to realize that neutrals would impact their feedback percentage, does eBay not take responsibility for this? If an eBay seller is unclear in their item description so that MOST buyers claim “Item not as Described”, would eBay fault the buyer or the seller? Clearly if MOST sellers failed to realize then how about asking WHY most sellers failed to realize this?
Instead of trying now to explain why neutrals will score like negatives (which was the focus of Brian’s announcement), how about addressing WHY sellers failed to understand what was going to happen.
Will eBay give any thought to the possibility that they failed to communicate effectively with their sellers? It’s okay if you admit you did not communicate effectively this time. We’ll give you a 1 or 2 rating for Communication and we’ll go on… BUT we expect that you’ll get things fixed within the next 30 days so that your Communication ratings will improve (so that you won’t be placed on restriction).
Brian and Richard: You get very good marks from me for at least trying to address the issue. However, you failed the mission with the new Neutral scoring fiasco and that cannot be undone by an explanation of the policy AFTER the fact.
elskiminoOn 05.22.2008 at 6:15 pm Said:
I am a small seller, and I think the new rules are a disaster.
Recently, I sold an inexpensive item to a person who complained to me that the description was inaccurate (even though it was a new product, and the description was taken directly from the manufacturer’s literature). No big deal, I refunded the guy his money, took a total loss on the shipping, and chalked it up to one unreasonable/crazy buyer- better to just give the money back than to have an unhappy buyer, right? A few weeks later, without any further communication, the guy tags me with negative feedback, claiming my description was misleading. What do I do? Obviously, I hit him back with a negative, to warn other sellers. Now, this is regarded as ‘retaliatory’, and, if i understand the rules correctly, will be expunged from his feedback.
I doubt I will be selling anytime soon, unless the rules change.
TonyOn 05.22.2008 at 6:17 pm Said:
Bottom line is, if you’re only counting positive feedback left as positive feedback, then as a percentage of transactions you need to include, negatives, neutrals and feedback not left, or else you’re making a mockery of the claim that it is the amount of people who have left positive feedback per seller.
Picking and choosing which stats you include undermines any claim this stat is accurate. This is why the old system worked better, everyone knew how it worked, now, it’s a mess.
implogOn 05.22.2008 at 6:36 pm Said:
Another flurry of “excellent buying experiences” that unfortunately resulted in less than “delighted” sellers.
Mr. Burke, will buyers like this make eBay better or worse?
INGAOn 05.22.2008 at 7:08 pm Said:
Would love an explanation: A buyer has not paid nor contacted me for 4 weeks after sale. Hence, I left neg. FB and of course never sent the item. 6 weeks later, the buyer left negative feedback for me claiming the item was “old and yellow” - remember, she never received the item. Complained to ebay, however, received no results. In other words, a non-buyer can leave negative feedback for an item never received nor paid for. ?????
Furthermore, I would like to suggest that a buyer MUST contact the seller if dissatisfied. Only if the issue cannot be resolved, neg. FB is warranted. Since the new system went into effect, I received 2 neg’s, both could have been rectified. Certainly, ebay does not work in the Seller’s favor, yet without the Seller, where would ebay be u ???
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.