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 »

AmberOn 05.17.2008 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 05.17.2008 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 05.17.2008 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 05.17.2008 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 05.17.2008 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 05.17.2008 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?

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 05.17.2008 at 2:03 pm Said:

—————-

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 05.17.2008 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 05.17.2008 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 05.17.2008 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 05.17.2008 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 05.17.2008 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 05.17.2008 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 05.17.2008 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.