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

StumbleUpon

732 Responses on this post. Click to add yours.

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 … 49 »

Patricia1On 05.16.2008 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 05.16.2008 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 05.16.2008 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 05.16.2008 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 05.16.2008 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 05.17.2008 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 05.17.2008 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 05.17.2008 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 05.17.2008 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 05.17.2008 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 05.17.2008 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 05.17.2008 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 05.17.2008 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?