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
MechelleOn 06.10.2008 at 11:46 am Said:
@Sandy
I’m a little confused by the links you posted?
Post one- ask a simple question - no hostility at all- and the last comment on the thread is
“urbankat,
You are not a troll,..Are you? Don’t be a troll.
In the story”3 Billy Goats Gruff”, Troll lived under the bridge.
On eBay troll lives on BBl.”
Where the H*** did this come from. Totally out of line, and irrelevant to the thread. Where exactly is it that you see her as being unreasonable?
Post Number 2
She is thanking everyone in the AC for their help- last post of the thread
“you leave neutrals for not getting positive feedback first just because you paid for an item. You should be ashamed. BBL for me. And you still haven’t learned.”
This is simply not true- I looked in her feedback to 2006, and I did not encounter any neutrals because she wasn’t left positive feedback immediately after payment.
Nor did she say she ever would- she said that she feels she should have hers first, and she may not leave it for the seller if she hasn’t received hers.
I am just at a loss to your point- really this makes you appear unreasonable- not her.
Look there is nothing more outrageous about a buyer wanting feedback first than a seller. This “transaction end” line is absurd. I have no problem stating straight up that I am looking for poor behavior, because I will not leave a positive for a deviant praising them the same as a positive members of the community. This does not change with the new policies- I will not help a deviant build their feedback score.
Another comment on the links you have provided
“If you receive an item and are pleased it and the
seller’s performance, there is no reason to withold
feedback and it’s considered bad etiquette to ask
or barter for feedback.”
Shouldn’t this be addressing all members? 90% of my purchases express that I will receive my feedback after I leave them theirs- if not a note in the package it is directly written in the listing. Frankly, I have always felt that it was extortive in tone and sentiment. I don’t need this type of communication as a buyer I leave FB when my item arrives regardless if I have received feedback from the seller.
@Kat
extortion is outrageous behavior regardless of which side of the transaction is extorting. I hope that buyer reported that seller- gave her all 1s and a negative- she deserves nothing less.
DakotaOn 06.10.2008 at 12:02 pm Said:
Mechelle,
While I am in disagreement with all of the off topic threads (about the AC) you should know:
>> Post Number 2
She is thanking everyone in the AC for their help- last post of the thread <<
That post was written sarcatically. All you have to do is go to the AC and pull the history of the OP and read for yourself how things have been handled there. There have been many threads started for the sold purpose of combat. That is not the purpose of the AC. The OP tries to appear to be a victim but a simple peek at their ME page (which they have edited once again) should give you a good idea of the attitude that has been used by them. Many of the OP’s posts do not contain a question and those that do were written for the sole purpose of baiting responders or calling them out due to the OP’s agenda.
Experience with an individual is very telling and many have learned that the best response to some OP’s is no response. Sometimes it is hard when the OP is trying to call you out (like the OP did me last night with a ridiculous remark) but giving them a simple truthful answer or just ignoring them may or may not work. Some OP’s just absolutely must have the last word, even if it is wrong, mean or whatever.
I really wish that this thread would get back on topic and that Richard would be able to find the questions so that he may answer them. It is important to me to get the answers.
SandiOn 06.10.2008 at 12:17 pm Said:
Mechelle,
The links were posted to provide reference to what was being said. Obviously there were many posts that were not attacking, that provided clear info. Those were left out here for discussion sake.
Even some of the stories being posted are incomplete, portions of information left out to slant the information to reflect one personal viewpoint.
Every board has inappropriate responses, every board have persons who simply want to make trouble. I have never said that was appropriate.
The statement was made “everyone” “all responders”, every attack to the ac to date as implied or clearly stated EVERYONE but “me”. That was not factual, the links simply showed the entire story, not just part of it.
I am still trying to figure out how the first link resulted in the about me page as it was used as the explanation to Dimes.
I do not think it is unreasonable to present ALL the information. The fact that the AC actually has over 20 different sections is never mentioned. The fact that hundreds of responses are given daily that help hundreds of people never is getting mentioned. That’s a disservice to the volunteers who spend countless of hours.
Are there some problems on the ac? Of course - on both sides. But overall the AC does provide a valuable service.
I know several years ago when I had a question, I stumbled the ac and got quality help.
I personally am tired to the continued use of “everyone” “all”, etc. Those terms are simply false.
And do you really find the statement below “reasonable”, especially given you are a seller?
“Sellers are pathetic. Whine about everything”.
BrendaOn 06.10.2008 at 12:21 pm Said:
DIMES first comment made alot of sense!!!!
You should all take heed. This has been a masterful manipulation placed upon the entire community and unfortunately you have bought into it and continue to snipe at each other.
This plays right into the disruptive innovation.
BRAVO EVERYONE!!!
MechelleOn 06.10.2008 at 12:27 pm Said:
I frankly don’t even know what the purpose of this thread is any more- we have not received any answers or communication on this thread.
Regardless of whether or not that comment was sarcastic (and I don’t believe it was) those posts do not demonstrate that she is a nightmare buyer.
As for her me page I did read it and at first I was concerned about it, but in retrospect I would be a hypocrite if I didn’t consider her emotional distress concerning the feedback she received. When that crooked B**** left me a negative because I wouldn’t pay her taxes- I freaked out- I wrote what would have been a two page paper and posted it on my store front page, explaining what had happened and why I was no longer willing to sell to Canadian buyers. I removed it at the suggestion of my friend, but I was very upset that the little crook had done it and even more learning that eBay condones this behavior.
dimesOn 06.10.2008 at 12:28 pm Said:
I think any two-way communication system that
1. is voluntary
2. permits candor from only one party
3. is used to determine selling fees despite #’s 1 & 2
4. is used to determine ad visibility despite #’s 1 & 2
is a system engineered to fail.
To me, the question is why eBay has rolled a system designed to fail.
A reasonable person might deduce that it is because eBay intends for it to fail, at which time it can be abolished because of that failure (without taking responsibility for engineering a flawed system in the first place).
It’s taken less than three weeks - congratulations to eBay for such a spectacular success if that was indeed the intent.
Will we be seeing the ceremonial fork stuck in it at eBay Live?
DakotaOn 06.10.2008 at 12:36 pm Said:
I couldn’t agree more Sandi.
And check this statement out, if it doesn’t show a problem, I don’t know what does:
05-15 Feedback forum:
urbankat wrote:
I just emailed a “powerseller” with a question he/she messaged back that they do not have time to answer but hope to within 3 days, “This was NOT an automated answer”.
The auction is up in 1 hour they have more than 12,000 feedback in that FB they have 113 Neg’s in 12 months -
210 Neut’s in 12 months. and it goes on.
I will not purchase from this seller but the point is, The sellers here are only a few in the whole of Ebay, and the not so nice sellers are MANY. I have had 4 yes 4 NAD’s this month and that actually was in less than 2 weeks, I had 3 last month.
You who hit the hammer hard (not all of you) on so many buyers who come to this forum may just want to realize how few you are and how big Ebay is, “I am NOT saying All buyers are right, please do not go out on a tangent.
–
There were several responses but one seems to hit a nerve, here it is:
“You who hit the hammer hard (not all of you) on so many buyers who come to this forum may just want to realize how few you are and how big Ebay is…”
True enough, only a very small percentage of ebayers [sellers, buyers, those who do both] are aware that these boards exist.
That doesn’t mean they have opinions that differ from those who have found their way here for one reason or another. So actually, you have no idea how many there might be of [your term, not mine] “them”. Nor does anyone else.
You happened upon an auction roughly an hour before it is scheduled to end. You asked a question, and seller, for whatever reason, didn’t have time to address your question fully.
Would you have preferred it if he’d made something up out of thin air and lied to you?
So you missed the item, seller missed the sale. It happens. Perhaps the next time you’ll be able to find what you seek earlier, and/or choose a seller who is able to answer you in what you consider a timely manner.
But really, the anger in your post seems over the top.
–
Then a completely new thread is started in response to the above response:
urbankat wrote:
am surprised by your unkind statement, there was no malice or anger in anything I said, I made an observation and some of you did EXACTLY what I was talking about.
my point was NOT that the seller did not get back to me before the auction ended, it was “they took the TIME to send an email to tell me they did not have the TIME to tell me”.
It would have been just as easy to find out the answer and then email me, but I can see trying to make a valid point to stubborn people is futile.
I also noticed that NONE of you (who hit the hammer hard, and did) said one word about the 4 NAD’S I’ve had this month alone, nor the 3 that I mentioned from last month.
I always ask questions and I always save all emails just in case this happens, AND it Happens alot. My FB does not show the amount of money I spend on Ebay, you have no idea how much I buy but it does not even matter, for anyone to have that many NAD’S in that amount of time is ….
If sellers are so bogged down with work, that is NOT the buyers fault and everytime it is said it sounds laughable, you people bring things up about shopping at other stores and what they expect verses what buyers get so I ask “do they (stores) go around crying they are to over worked to give you the service you deserve/demand/expect?
This forum is not just for sellers even though that is how some of you treat buyers, just because sellers control (by shear mass) the boards does not alot and sellers are always saying “threatening” how you have this special power (oooooo) of blocking buyers, well what do you think buyers do when they see you acting this way?
Oh and for the record this is not mean/spiteful not solely directed to 1 person, I have the right to share and voice and am so doing, I asked before NOT to GO Out on a Tangent, thank you to those you truly saw that I was making an observation and a point to think about and not “hitting the hammer hard”.
–
The same responder replied:
Unkind?
I simply stated that it seemed to work out well in the end; seller responded to your query telling you he didn’t have the information you asked for at hand, and wouldn’t be able to get it to you for 3 days.
You did the prudent thing and opted not to bid.
Problem solved on both sides; chances are you avoided a bad situation, and the seller lost a possible sale, which goes on all the time.
I didn’t ask you about the question you posed to the seller; you didn’t volunteer it, but who knows, it could have been a question he was unable to answer, and needed to check with another source for.
I didn’t comment on the fact that you don’t seem to have the best luck with your transactions, whether through inattention going in, or simply bad luck.
I stated my opinion that your post seemed needlessly angry, and I’ll say it again. You seem angry.
I’m not. 
I don’t sweat the small stuff.
You lost nothing in that particular situation. This is a situation that could happen, and has happened, on ebay since the site began. It’s called life.
I don’t agree with your “us versus them” mentality. You don’t have to like that opinion any more than I care for yours.
—
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the responders remarks and there certainly was no reason to continue the thread. If it wasn’t to be combative, what was the reason?
There are more examples. Just research the feedback forum.
Now please, may we try to get answers to all of the unanswered questions and get beyond this silly, childish stuff?
DakotaOn 06.10.2008 at 12:52 pm Said:
I forgot to say, in the new thread that was started, the responders name was at the top before the rest of the comments. The OP called out that particular responder.
urbankatOn 06.10.2008 at 12:54 pm Said:
well is is my response to your first silliness.
Mechelle thank you for seeing the truth
I think its very funny that I am accused of being off topic and baiting and causing trouble, when that is done at me all the time, I will not waste more space by insulting anyones intelligence with links as I am sure you can look things up for yourselves if you a mind too.
I and many others have been called some very lovely things, troll is among the nicest things said to me, by you and your expert stay on topic, never cause trouble, always professional team mates.
If I were never out in the business world having to mediate words like stupid idiot, pond scum and profanity oh so cleverly hidden with first letter and some astriks would have had me gone from Ebay forever.
I love “hey how many ways are there to actually skin a kat” or I wish I could manage road kill over the internet” yes those were stay on topic useful words that benefitted the entire community.
If you only knew how many people truly read what is going on and how many have emailed to say how shocked they are by your and your team mates actions.
I have said “you are blinded by your own actions”
When people have sole control and go unchecked for so long you lose sight of what is honest and moral, and Professional.
How would you even have any Idea of time line regarding when I asked the seller a question get a clue “it was NOT an Auto response”
I was making a point but my oh my any different opinion LOL.
You keep saying about being off topic yet look at the space you waste, just like in the AC feedback.
YOU ARE BLINDED BY YOU OWN ACTIONs not yelling just want that to be clear.
Thank you because in all your time and energy of trying to defame me you to some proven what I have said.
I did not see anywhere in your waste of space showing that you happen to be one of the people I went out of my way to contact and apologize too for no other reason except to try and be reasonable.
DakotaOn 06.10.2008 at 1:05 pm Said:
The point is, we are here to share our concerns abot the new feedback policy with eBay and to get answers to our questions about the new policy.
We aren’t getting many answers but if I was Richard, I wouldn’t know how to find the questions… there are pages of posts that have no purpose, they are off topic and they are only placed for the sole purpose of getting jollies for upsetting others.
There must be a forum for those silly repeated rants but I don’t believe that this is it.
And furthermore, I take offense to the comments that sellers are whining when we are being hurt by what is happening.
Yet it is ok for you to go on and on for more than a year over some wrong that none of us had anything to do with.
And it, it does not belong here as there is nothing eBay can or will do about it since it was too long ago.
We are airing our concerns over recent changes in which keep changing.
You are hanging onto some king of vendetta which is not healthy and this is not the place for it.
Please, be courteous enough to allow this board to run smoothly and not bury all of the questions so Richard can not find them.
Those of us that are concerned about these new changes have the right to seek answers and that was what this board was meant for.
Now, I just hope for the patience to wait for the answers as it does seem that they are mighty scarce.
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.