Hello all,
Not surprisingly, there were many questions and comments posted about the initial revisions to the User Agreement, specifically, the rather onerous language regarding the buyer destroying an item deemed “not authentic” as a requirement for receiving a refund.
Since the posting of these questions and comments, the revision itself has been revised and the language regarding destroying items has been removed from the UA (eBay will not be requiring any buyer at any time to destroy an item in order to receive a refund).
What happened? In brief, the language was lifted from PayPal’s User Agreement as preparation for supporting the upcoming and new Resolutions program on eBay. After more deliberate consideration, augmented by the understandable outcry from many sellers concerned about the impact this policy could have on their businesses, the UA section in question was revised to fit the new program by dropping the language and amending the procedures eBay will use for adjudicating disputes regarding alleged counterfeit items.
And now, on to your most recent questions. Sorry for the delay in responding. This has been an unusually busy past week here in San Jose.
I am still awaiting information regarding some questions (Half.com listings display on Product Pages for example) and will post them once I have them.
In the meantime, the thread is now open for another 50 or so posts. Remember to read the posting guidelines at the very top of this particular thread.
Regards,
Griff
Jim Griffith
eBay Inc
PS. Instead of creating a new May thread, we'll continue to use April. Within the week, we will have a brand new area for posting Ask Griff threads. (No more multiple mug shots of yours truly hogging space on the top of Seller Central!)
Posted by ted_200 on May 8, 2009 7:58 PayPal and eBay User Agreement Questions Hi Griff,
I didn't see any answer to my question about the PayPal UA stating that it was prohibited to use PayPal for transactions that involve items considered potentially "high-fraud" by the government. We really need to know what these items are. That's a pretty ambiguous statement. Was it intended to be that way, or is there some list of these items that this policy is supposed to reference?
The policy statement in the PayPal UA is more about activity than items. The new policy is designed to address the various scams (i.e. illegal activities) that have popped up recently because of the economic climate like credit repair, loan modification/foreclosure rescue, stimulus grant scams, etc. Instead of creating individual policies to address these, PayPal created a general policy to address the ones they know about and the new ones that will surface in the coming months. PayPal regularly reviews publications from the FTC and other government agencies as a guide for this policy. Also, there are at least a dozen threads here discussion the new eBay UA. Many of these reference the provisions regarding items buyers allege are not authentic. It is pretty short, and seems pretty clear. Buyer claims item is fake, buyer is required to confirm they destroyed the item, buyer gets their money back. I don't think I need to write a novel to describe the worries this will cause sellers, so I'll keep it as short as possible.
Is there really no other evidence required than the buyers says they think it is not authentic? Is there really no opportunity for the seller to offer any evidence that it is authentic? Is the item really going to be destroyed without the seller or anyone else ever getting to see it and evaluate its authenticity? What constitutes the buyer confirming they actually destroyed it? Hopefully, this is just more than they check off a box that says "I confirm I destroyed it."!
Griff, no one in their right mind is going to sell anything worth more than ten bucks here if this is indeed going to be the policy. I'll leave it there, as I'm sure fifty more questions about this will be posted shortly.
See the special announcement response at the very top of this response post.
Posted by di25535 on May 8, 2009 8:37 Listing Format No Longer Included in EOA Email? Sometime in the last day or so, my eBay end of item emails have changed - and not for the better. I can no longer tell whether the item sold was from my store or from an auction or fixed price listing. What is the logic in hiding this information from me?
And yes, it matters.
First, It's important to me to know what type of listings are selling in real time - waiting 2-3 weeks for eBay sales reports is not useful. (And they aren't very accurate anyhow).
Second, I keep auction items physically separate from store & FP listings. Knowing what type of listing it was helps me locate the item without having to go to my database for each and every item.
Even clicking on the link to the item doesn't tell me what listing type it was - as least I can't see that info anywhere.
This sellers needs every bit of information I can get - please - can we have the old email format back???
I asked one of our product team members to provide some information. They informed me that the “listing format” variable was actually removed from the “Seller Successful” email in early 2008 when we converted our emails to our new V4 email infrastructure. However, up until recently some older versions will still going out. Nicole Birdsall of that team also added, “This is the first that I’ve heard of a need for the “listing format” variable…I will be happy to see if we can add the variable back in.”
Posted by hawgryders on May 8, 2009 8:50 “Authenticity” & New User Agreement Question Below is a very nice example of a valuable antique ring that has no documentation for age, authenticity of stones, or maker. What it appears to have is a family history ...
Current eBay Auction
2 questions ...
[Under the new eBay UA can a buyer claim this is a Fake, Destroy It, and get a full refund from the seller ?]
(See the special announcement response at the very top of this response post. ) The answer is, no. This is not a copyright or trademark protected item. The additional terms to the User Agreement are intended only for cases where a buyer has received a counterfeit of a copyright or trademark protected item. [If the seller provides a COA with the item will that be enough to prove authenticity ?]
In cases of a SNAD dispute? Yes, it would But in any case, if we rule against the seller, the buyer would still be required to return the item to the seller for a refund. In some cases, where “no fault” has been determined, we may allow the buyer to keep the item and we will refund the buyer out of our own pocket, with absolutely no negative consequences at all for the seller.
Posted by hightides_beach_shop on May 8, 2009 11:44 Tidying Up Ask Griff and Other Threads Absolutely. I will be doing just that in the coming weeks. Believe me, no one dislikes seeing all those Griff mugs taking up space on the top of the thread more than me. I am, to put it mildly, overexposed.
I just wanted to add, I personally like the picture with your mug in it but any more, and I expect that mug to move if I scroll down fast enough
My question now is, and someone else asked this before way back,what about the pinned topics that hardly have interest or posts on them that have been there for a year or longer?
Can you please take a look at them and determine if they are worth keeping up?
I will do so next week (It’s taking me some time to compile all the past threads into one thread and I’ll also take a look at which tacked threads have outlived their usefulness and tactfully, untack them.)
Posted by kittenkat22 on May 8, 2009 11:58 The “New” User Agreement Thanks for the reply so far. I am a sole business person and I cannot afford to hire another person, this place does not generate enough traffic for me to do so. I do have mail help but no store help and no lap top. If I go away I am not able to check on my store, and frankly- I need the rest from this place from time to time.
I wish I had a better solution to suggest for you but I cannot promise to you that keeping your Store open during your vacation without some contingency to communicate with potential buyers and fulfill orders made during your away time is going to be problem-free. It won’t. There will always be a risk that, even after posting alerts on your Store or eBay listing pages, a buyer will be unhappy with your service level and either file a dispute or leave a negative feedback and/or low ratings. So my only other possible suggestion would be to plan well in advance of a vacation (save up), and to close your Store completely while you are away. This reply below is contradictory as you state it is not about authenticity and then you state it is. You also do not really answer the question about a customer simply being able to distroy an item because they "deem" it not authentic. This only serves to furthur impune sellers as the new user agreement states that sellers cannot hold ebay or the buyer responsible for items that a buyer destroys. As far as providing a receipt or photocopy of one- NO WAY, why on earth would I give a heads up to buyers or my competition as to where I purchase my items and at what price? A receipt with the store header hidden is of no use either as that could be a fabricated receipt. I feel absolutely no safety in your response- and I am a trusted seller of more than a few name brand items.
Sometimes these name brand items are not hallmarked even though they are on authentic cards and are authentic items- this would present a problem.
The answer that you gave that ebay would require a customer to destroy the item with no explanation leads me to the conclusion that there is no good reason to sell ANY authentic item on this site. These are willy nilly "rules" and made up as they go along "on a per case basis"- they are absolute nonsense. These new rules go way too far in loss of seller rights and leave us wide open to buyer scams.
Please read my special announcement response at the very top of this response post.
Posted by kittenkat22 on May 9, 2009 12:05 Buyer Requirements Issue I have one more question:
There is a problem in the programming. Many of us have all the checks in place etc and have our listings set to sell only to certain countries. Buyers in countries we do not sell to are still able to buy. Furthurmore when they do buy, the invoice is blank as to shipping costs. There are many threads about this same complaint and about buyers putting in a low shipping price. I have contacted ebay about this but nothing has been done. I have had this happen more than once already.
I have checked numerous times -my selling preferences and in each sell your item form. This has been happening since the main selling page went to the beta version a few months back.
I along with many other sellers would appreciate you looking into this.
I would be happy to. I need the item numbers for specific transactions where this has occurred. If you would send me one or more item numbers for transactions where this has occurred, I can forward them to the appropriate people here for their attention. You can send them to griff@ebay.com using your regular email (no My Messages).
Posted by celtictwo on May 9, 2009 2:12 Buyer Feedback In reference to the "Why Buyer Feedback" question you stated:
I can name two: 1. Buyers are just as proud of their transaction history on eBay as sellers are proud of theirs. 2. Sellers, who are also buyers, benefit from the positives left by sellers on their feedback since all positives from both buying and selling count against a member’s positive percentage. Buying feedback can help mitigate the percentage effect of any left negatives.
1. I find this answer somewhat insulting. As a seller, I am proud of my 100% FB / 5.0 DSR's because I worked hard and most importantly, I earned it. How in the world can anyone (buyer or seller) take pride in something that was given to them and not earned? My buying account has almost as much feedback as my selling account and in the past I did take pride in my 100%, but now it has no meaning whatsoever. My 100% buying FB is no different than any other buyer which would include a percentage of scam artists, thieves, and other undesirables.
I regret that you were insulted by my response. I wasn’t offering my own personal opinion. It is actually a fact. Whether you believe they have no right or grounds to do so, buyers for the most part are just as proud of their feedback as sellers are or theirs. I also deeply regret that you apparently hold buyer’s and their opinions in such low disregard or that you believe a buyer’s pride in their own feedback somehow denigrates the value of your own feedback (it doesn’t).
Sellers are free of course to not give their buyers feedback (participation is voluntary) although why any seller would not do so (out of spite?) simply makes no business sense whatsoever. If a buyer is made happy with a left feedback, what’s to loose by giving it to them? Nothing. I can tell you what’s to loose by not obliging: a proven, happy paying customer whose business your competition would be more than happy to take from you.
Posted by celtictwo on May 9, 2009 2:19 Shipping Caps and Recent USPS Fee Increase Griff;
It was just announced by eBay that USPS rates will go up in a few days but I can see no indication that the forced S&H maximum in the Media category will be adjusted accordingly. Will this be done?
Not at this time. On the same subject, wouldn't it be easier for eBay and the sellers if the forced S&H maximums were only applied the handling charge. It appears that this restriction is being applied only to the Media category and packaging should be fairly similar between all of the media sub-categories. By restricting just the handing charges, the periodic USPS rate hikes would be much easier to apply by eBay and easier listing editing by the sellers. Just a thought.
I will forward your suggestion to the shipping team for their consideration. (Standard disclosure applies).
Posted by enchantedhen on May 9, 2009 6:34 All Caps Shipping Address for Label Printing Hi Griff,
A suggestion re PayPal shipping labels:
Would it be possible for PayPal to convert the shipping name and address to all uppercase like the USPS Click N Ship site does?
Many of the customer shipping addresses that transfer over to the shipping label are all in lower case and (unless I go in and correct it) it looks sloppy. Since the labels are branded with the eBay and PayPal logos, it would to be to their advantage to have them appear as professional looking as possible.
I will also forward your suggestion to the shipping team for their consideration. (Standard disclosure applies).
Posted by mygift2u on May 9, 2009 7:56 Logo Not Appearing: Fixed! GRIFF
I am still waiting to hear from you on this issue that no one has documented. I can also forward you the email from tech support where they state it IS A KNOWN issue.
This one required a lot of digging deep into the code base to duplicate and uncover the source. Persistence paid off. One of our intrepid engineers found a little piece of code that was wiping the Stores logo from some (not all) seller outgoing email templates created in Selling Manager. (I followed up with you over the last week in emails). The last word was today: the fix is set to roll either today or over the weekend.
Uncle Griff
Once this is fixed, you will be getting some FREE soap!
thanks!!!!!!!!!!
It is finally fixed. (And thank you for the offer of the soap but I cannot except gifts for doing my job, so I bought some soap from you instead. Nice soap, btw!).
Posted by anastasiatx on May 9, 2009 8:14 Store Logo Not Displaying on New View Item Page When looking at the new auction page on a listing that I have revised at some time, my store logo is missing. I am not the only one seeing this as I have seen several threads about this problem on the SC board.
I called and spoke to an eBay rep and was told that it was probably just happening when using IE browser and that would only affect 2% of viewers.
That is not a satisfactory answer and I would appreciate it if you could look into this and see about getting it fixed.
I have forwarded your post to the New View Item team for their attention. They have informed me that this will be remedied. (Logos will display).
Posted by dvdguaranteed on May 9, 2009 8:19 PayPal Issues Griff, from a previous question I had -- not sure what month it was -- but basically my question was about PayPal and their lack of support for Quicken downloads. You mentioned they have no plans to support the QFX download (your words were that they had no plans to support Quicken 2009, but really it is they don't support anything past Quicken 2005, because Quicken 2005 and earlier versions are the only ones that support the QIF download which is what PayPal currently provides as a "Quicken Option") so, in order to keep track of things, I rely heavily on the running total which USED to be in the last column of the Account Overview and Account History screens -- it showed the current balance after each transaction in that far right column.
Now, that column is gone -- there is no running total, so I can no longer verify or check the totals after each transaction - I can only verify the actual balance.
Why the heck would they take that out? I sent a complaint via email to PayPal customer service, but I'm hoping that others are bothered by it as well and it's not just me.
Hope this makes sense.
It does. I saw the same thing in my own PayPal account. I sent this off to PayPal and they responded that May 13th that the column had been restored to the Account Overview page on May 11th.
As for the Quicken/Quickbooks issue, I am following up and as soon as I have a response, I will post it.
Posted by hawgryders on May 9, 2009 8:57 30 Day Fixed Price and Best Offer Limits One to forward ...
[Since the Fixed Price format includes 30 day durations shouldn't the Best Offer option be updated to remove the 48 hour time limit and shouldn't there be an unlimited number of counter-offers allowed ?]
I tried to think of a reason why we would include a 48 hour time limit for Best Offer for 30 Day FP listings and could not think of a single one. I did send this off to the policy team for their consideration.
Posted by buyalot! On May 9, 2009 9:20 Feedback Questions Sellers Boost Feedback By Buying
> "What is the purpose of buyer FB?"
> I can name two: 1. Buyers are just as proud of their transaction history on eBay as sellers are proud of theirs. 2. Sellers, who are also buyers, benefit from the positives left by sellers on their feedback since all positives from both buying and selling count against a member’s positive percentage. Buying feedback can help mitigate the percentage effect of any left negatives.
That begs the question. Doesn't that mean that a poor seller can use buying as a tool to manipulate feedback?
Not really. A “poor seller” cannot avoid low buyer ratings and their own possible negative feedback ratings. How is judging a seller's postive rating and percentage based on buying activity, which is positive-only, an indicator of the seller's performance? It was even a stretch when buyers could receive negs, but now it is unfathomable.
I agree with you on that one and this could change in the future, but for now, it is how the system works (legacy I suppose). I cannot pretend otherwise, so sellers can increase their positive percentage by adding buyer feedback for their purchases. I think sellers ought to be rated based on selling activity, not on how much money they spend buying junk on eBay.
Many eBay sellers are also buyers and many of them do not buy “junk.” Fees
As you are aware and point out on occasion, the last announcement release did not include a fee hike. However there are several new programs that eBay is monetizing like Bucks and Resolutions. Obviously the money has to come from somewhere and obviously to announce a fee hike at the same time would make the connection obvious to sellers and reduce support for those eBay programs.
Neither eBay Bucks or Resolutions are by any stretch of the imagination, monetizing projects for eBay. They are rather large expenditures that we are making as an investment in your businesses (and they will only return anything to eBay Inc if they are successful, which is to say, if YOU are successful when buyers redeem coupons or eBay Bucks on your listings.
eBay Bucks, for example, is funded our of eBay’s pocket, period. It is not in any way, shape or form a fee hike nor are the funds used to provide eBay Bucks coming from any fee hike, overt or covert. We are giving your buyers money to spend on your items. I cannot think of a single reason why any business person would disparage this type of program.
As for Resolutions, in some cases, sellers will be required to refund buyers (in exchange for the returned item) but make no mistake, eBay is also refunding a large percentage of claims with no consequence (recoupment) from the seller. With that in mind, is eBay going to have a fee hike later this year?
There are no plans for fee increases. There are plans for continued fee reductions. Shipping Limits And Calculator
eBay's arbitrary shipping limits hurt sellers who use FedEx, because we can't use the shipping calculator to charge actual cost nor can we even use the UPS rates without labeling the rates as UPS. It's very anti-competitive in limiting the seller's latitude of shipping carrier selection.
When asked about this issue previously you and other eBay reps have said you're "working on it." Progress report please?
We continue to work on bringing more carrier options to the shipping calculator. If it were up to us, it would have been a done deal years ago. It is not only up to us. However, we continue to negotiate with all parties. When progress is made, we will of course announce it.
Posted by lurch-deeann on May 9, 2009 12:11 Seller Protection and Shipping Time OK - I'm not trying to badger you or beat a dead horse, but you don't seem to be answering the question.
This is an important point, at least to me - and it is not clear, and if anyone is going to have the clarification needed, it seems you're the only one who will.
Currently - a seller has to ship within 7 days to be covered by SPP. It has nothing to do with a stated handling time. Now, if a seller ships outside of their stated handling time *but still within 7 days* will they be covered by the SPP for an INR claim (which might actually be a lost or delayed item)?
That is, will this "policy," which includes a requirement for a seller to ship within their stated handling time, trump the Seller Protection Policy? If so, will the Seller Protection Policy be changing once it is ported over to eBay?
For your reference, this was your answer:
If a seller ships on the 4th day instead of the promised 3rd, we will take that into account (of course!) We aren’t out to harm a seller. We are building a process that will rely on the verifiable information we can obtain regarding when an item was shipped and unlike today, there will be a human being (a trained rep) who can make proactive decisions based on that information.
To hopefully even *further* clarify, this does not in any way address the specific issue of shipping within stated handling time vs. SPP's requirement to ship within 7 days, when the stated handling time is *less than* 7 days as far as seller protection in the case of an INR claim.
Does this make sense? If you don't know the answer, can you just state that (but also look into it more)?
I have not yet received an answer or clarification about PayPal Seller Protection and how it will work with eBay Resolutions. When I do, I will post it on a future thread. Also:
re: the potential looming eBay Certified/Approved/Whatever Sellers:
I said: I think this really needs to be scrapped.
You replied: And I trust you made your feelings clear in the survey? That is what surveys are for.
Yes. Yes I did. However, I am also conveying this to you - the Sellers Advocate. That is what a Seller's Advocate is for. In the future, I will be more clear and precisely spell it out so you can realize that I am providing info that I would like for you to take under consideration. I was under the improper impression you were doing that with everything submitted here, but I now realize that I am incorrect, since you thought I had some confusion of what surveys were for. But no, I didn't have said confusion. I wanted you, as the advocate, to understand my feelings on the issue. Because that is what a Seller's Advocate is for.
I do understand your feelings about the upcoming Certified Seller program. And you have made them known through the survey. I can also make them known in my summary to executive staff. But, it would be disingenuous of me set unreasonable expectations here. I can and do advocate for many things, including changes to features and policies based on seller input here, from visits to sellers, from my email and quite frankly, from my own experience selling. And I do so even if there is only the remotest possibility of effecting a change.
However, this is not the case with the Certified Seller program. No amount of advocacy on my part is going to “scrap” this program. The program is on schedule and it will launch.
I cannot make everyone happy. I don’t set out to do so (a fool’s mission if there ever was one). But, I have seen the emerging details of this program and I believe it will be a good thing for both sellers and for the marketplace overall as it promotes seller quality instead of seller volume. This will give an equal opportunity for small volume sellers in all categories to compete with larger sellers primarily on the basis of the customer service quality.
Posted by ozzie3 on May 9, 2009 12:14 Seller Protection Griff, just,exactly, what protection does SPP provide the seller! It only covers none authorized usage, and non delivery, doesn't it?
It covers transactions where payment was not authorized by the account holder or where the payment was made by an unauthorized method (eg, stolen credit card). It currently also covers non delivery however, I am fairly certain that eBay Resolutions will take over that aspect of Seller Protection. As I mentioned in a previous response above, I am awaiting clarification from PayPal and the Resolutions team before issuing a definitive statement. I really don't think sellers are worried too much about non-delivery, or un-authorized usage of account!
I wouldn’t make that assumption, especially with unauthorized account usage. In non qualifying transactions, the seller could be out the funds for an unauthorized payment. And every seller I know – including myself - worries about non-delivery of items, to the point where any smart seller will make sure they are always taking whatever steps necessary to shield them from liability in INR cases beyond their control. Even if you have delivery confirmation the buyer has the right to return, in which case the seller loses shipping costs, time, and materials…
Yes, this is a possibility, one that is best avoided by a complete list of details in the item description and as many photos as necessary to show all aspects of the item. …or the buyer files a SNAD where, apparently, 90% , or higher, of the time PayPal refunds the money, and may not even require return of the item.
and where currently a seller can also appeal a SNAD decision. (One of the reasons for moving the dispute process entirely into eBay is to give each dispute human eyeballs from start to finish) And the new user agreement offers no protection, as far as we readers can determine, for claims of fake merchandise.
Not true. See the special announcement response at the very top of this response post. In 10 years on ebay 3,500 shipments, I have never had an item not received claim against my shipments!
Congratulations! Your outstanding sales record is proof positive that the best insurance against disputes is to provide good descriptions, photos and customer service. So that is not a very big worry to me, as a seller. SPP is not much protection for sellers, but , as you will claim, there is a bit of protection that might help someone some day!
When it comes to unauthorized account usage, PayPal Seller Protection offers significant protection.
Posted by dvrbuyer on May 9, 2009 12:21 Suggestion For DSR Enhancement I have a recommendation for the Detailed Seller Ratings (Stars) system. Unlike with a Negative feedback rating there is no method for a buyer to write any comments to explain to the seller why they didn’t receive 5 stars in any of the 4 categories.
A new system could be created when a buyer clicks on a rating less than 5 stars a text window could appear which would allow the buyer to type in a short comment on what the seller could improve to achieve 5 stars. This still could be kept anonymous, like the DSRs, by having the comments delayed before being sent to the seller or multiple comments compiled and then sent to the seller. It’s not necessary for this information to be visible to anyone other than the Seller and eBay.
I think this improvement would lead to better transactions for both buyers and sellers since it will allow sellers to better understand the buyer’s perspective of the transaction and make adjustments to improve future transactions.
Thanks for your suggestion. It has been forwarded to the Feedback Policy team for their consideration.
Posted by ozzie3 on May 9, 2009 12:33 Shipping Cost Question A basic question!
Why is ebay so concerned over what the buyer agrees to pay for shipping?
Why would the eBay Co. care if the buyer wanted to pay $1, $10, or $100 for shipping?
It isn’t so much what is charged but whether or not the charge itself is unreasonable given the specific item. For example, many antiques are either bulky and/or heavy and require higher shipping costs than smaller items. In addition, very valuable items require special packing and insurance. Buyers in categories where the items usually require higher shipping costs are more understanding of the reason for those costs. The issue that most concerns buyers is unreasonable shipping, and for many items, the internet standard is moving more and more to free shipping. Like it or not, this is a fact and it is changing how and where buyers shop. Your company think that the buyers on eBay are incapable of making a rational decision about purchasing an item on eBay?
On the contrary, they are extremely capable of making rational choices about shipping costs when factoring them into a purchase decision. If that wasn’t the case, there would be no need to focus on shipping costs.
Posted by from-my-grannys-base on May 9, 2009 1:37 Private Feedback and Town Hall Transcripts I remember they announced, last year or the year before, that they were finally going to have buyers not have private feedback just like that had already done with sellers.
As sellers, when we receive an offer, sometimes we like to scope out what sort of customer we are dealing with by the feedback that leave others.
For example if a buyer leaves feedback that is negative or neutral or even a positive with a negative or neutral statement in then we as a seller do not want to enter into a transaction simply because they may be someone that just cannot be pleased. Yes there are a great number that find fault with every single transaction and I have seen one that gave every seller a negative if the item was packaged in a few different colored or types of packaging peanuts. Now as seller and bulk purchaser of packaging materials (we purchase a month 300 cubic feet of packaging peanuts and approximately 200 foot of bubble wrap and so many box sizes etc and we know that our supplier does supply some sacks of packaging peanuts that may have a blend of different types when the production run changes).
In the interests of 'transparency' shouldn't a retailer be able to attempt to limit interraction with this type of customer. If their feedback is private then it makes it impossible to give ourselves that little layer of protection.
We can no longer use their feedback percentage as a guide since the often claimed
"YOU CAN TRUST ME I HAVE 100% POSITIVE FEEDBACK"
if really more of a joke since they can not have anything other than 100% Positive Feedback.
All that sellers really want is the same transparency that buyers have had for at least 2 years now when it comes to viewing potential customers.
It is unfair that the reason given for sellers not being allowed to have private feedback is the same reason that I feel it is wrong that buyers have private feedback.
On another point when will ebay start issuing transcripts of the town hall meetings or updating the archives. Some of us cannot be around a PC to listen to the townhall meeting and we do not get a chance to either listen to it or read transcripts because the last available was september 2008.
Thank you again for you help and I hope this is not too late to be answered.
Thanks for the comments about Private Feedback. I have already forwarded them to the appropriate team for their consideration.
As for Town Hall transcripts and archives: we discontinued the transcripts because there adoption was not sufficient to justify the high cost. As for the archives, all Town Halls are archived by our producer, WSRadio. You can listen to any past Town Hall from January 2007 on by clicking this Link and then selecting “date” option.
Posted by di25535 on May 9, 2009 2:08 End Of Listings Complaint Hi griff; I'm back.
Once again, eBay is sending invoices (my customized invoices, not the stock EOA's) to my buyers with eBay@eBay.com as the sender.
This is a dead email address; any response to this email comes back as undeliverable. This is a horrible way to communicate with my buyers. If they reply to the invoice - say to ask about adding another item, or asking to send to a PO box, etc., the email is returned as undeliverable, and I never know that a customer tried - and failed - to reach me.
I tried to explain the problem to Customer Service - and they said this was not a problem until a buyer complained. HOW CAN A BUYER COMPLAIN if they can't reach me?????
And what about me - am I a total non entity? Does eBay view sellers as having no rights at all? This affects MY customers, and eBay saying that I can't expect any action until I get a complaint that they can see is ridiculous. Buyers who can't get through to sellers don't leave complaints - they leave NEGS and slam DSR's.
If I am sending an invoice, I expect MY EMAIL address to be on it. Not some dead-end email address.
Is this unreasonable? Why is eBay blocking communications between buyer and seller after the sale?
And why is my complaint invalid? Because I'm a seller? EBay says they'll take no action until a buyer complains - do I need to wait until I get negative - or slammed DSR's for communication?
Sometime eBay's arrogance is beyond belief.
,
The current End Of Listing email feature is set to be revamped in the next Seller Release (announced in July, launched in September). Until then, you may want to customize your EOA (or End of Listing) emails. Although you cannot currently change the Reply To email, you can customize the email to include your own text and your email address. (informing buyers to contact you or reply to that email address if they have questions).
Go to My eBay > Selling > Marketing Tools.
Under Logos and Branding, click the link for Customize End Of Auction Emails.
Click the Change link
Use the default text template or change it to something of your own. From the AutoText drop down menu, use the preformed auto text to insert personalized information in appropriate places in your EOA message. For example,
Thanks again for your business. If you have any questions, please send them to me at {S_EMAIL}.
regards,
{S_FULLNAME}
{SELLERUSERNAME}
Posted by blj1008 on May 9, 2009 2:45 Unpaid Items and Feedback Hi Griff
I do apologize if this has been covered before. There is so much reading to do to keep up with all the Q & A.
I have heard that there is a 7 day waiting period to leave negative feedback for a power seller. First of all, don't you think it should be this way for ALL sellers, and why not at least 14 days, or better yet 21?
I agree! I have proposed that the waiting period eligibility be extended to more sellers, if not all sellers. No news yet if this proposal will be considered. Anytime a buyer leaves negative feedback less than 7 days from the end of auction, it was likely either from a non-payer, left before the item was even received, or after the item was received with no attempt to contact the seller.
One of the biggest seller complaints is unfair negative feedback and so much of this unfair feedback is left in haste. Plus, a longer waiting period might also reduce the number of non-paying bidders that leave negative feedback simply because they can.
Being a computer programmer, I know that this would be a very simple change to implement, and if eBay truly values their small volume sellers, why would they not do this?
The current plan (I am out on the pre-announcing limb here and this isn’t yet set in stone) is that the next iteration of the UPI process, which will streamline and shorten it, will include a provision to prevent negative feedback for any filed UPI report, something for which I am a strong proponent.
Posted by silversands on May 9, 2009 4:50 Sellers Bulk Uploading Listings There is a large seller who is listing his/her multiple items for 24 hours and then has a computer generated relist program that automatically relists them. The seller is large enough that the relisting are probably at a dramatically reduced fee structure. What this does is always put his/her material as new. Which is their right as a seller. The problem is that these 100+ items a day overwhelm most of the other listings in a pretty narrow area. This seems to be a system that I hope other large sellers don't start doing as it takes the fun out of searching or browsing for new listings. Your thoughts? Many thanks.
The only possible advantage this might provide a seller is top place in a Newly Listed sort. It certainly would have no effect on any other sort (including Best Match). Since whatever method this seller is using to relist items is available to any seller in some shape or form, my thoughts would be that there is nothing inherently unfair in the activity.
Posted by trinah35 on May 10, 2009 7:31 New Seller’s Listings Removed Why are my listing being taken off? I joined Ebay yesterday. Setup a paypal account and verified my identity. I am trying to sell items that I purchased and so far 6 items were removed. I contacted customer service and they gave me a general form email about counterfeit products. I purchased each of the items at authentic stores and have detailed photos to show this. I am so confused??
In order to provide a safe marketplace, eBay will restrict sellers from selling certain brand name items if that seller has no previous track record of selling said items. The restrictions permit a very limited number of listings at first and, if there are no buyer complaints about the authenticity of the items, the restriction are raised or removed. If you have specific questions about this policy and how it relates to your situation, email me at griff@ebay.com using your regular email program (Not My Messages).
Posted by hawgryders on May 10, 2009 8:47 User Agreement Question As a seller this new UA scares me ... but as a buyer I am happy to see it. I now know I can buy anything from anybody who sells on eBay and do not have to worry about honesty, reputation, experience, or expertise
Now that eBay has declared that any buyer is an expert in authenticating everything I have a theoretical scenario I would like your response to
*************************
As a buyer I decide to purchase some perfume from a seller who has extensive expertise in the field.
The examples I am looking at include this statement in the description
"This is a lot of 10 individual 4ml minis of Nombre Noir Eau de Parfum by Shiseido. These are a few of the infamous typos bottles (the bottles were printed with "Nombbe Noir" the stylized "b" bearing a close resemblence to the stylized "r.") The back label and boxes display the correct spelling of "nombre." They were most likely set aside at the factory because of the misprint and thus have survived to this day. I've tested one against a bigger bottle of Eau de Parfum in my possession and the juice is absolutely identical. These are guaranteed absolutely 100% authentic! They come in the original Shiseido stamped shipping cardboard box (see photos)"
As you can see from this description the seller has given me a 100% guarantee for authenticity which, given his background, is enough for me to spend $600 with confidence
Now after I get them I give them to my Mother who has worn Nombre Noir Eau de Parfum for years so I know she will love it.
She has? Does she have any old bottles of the stuff she wants to unload? If so, have her email me. (By the way, your Mother has very outre tastes in perfume. Nombre Noir is singular. Nothing smells like it. Big plummy rose note over a base of resinous woods. WAY ahead of its time, which explains its early demise. But I digress...) However, as soon as she opens the first one she tells me, in no uncertain terms, that this stuff IS NOT her beloved Nombre Noir Eau de Parfum
This of course, leaves me with a dilemma. The seller assured me the perfume was authentic, but Mom says it isn't. And although Mom's nose isn't what it once was I am not about to argue with her
Now under the existing UA I would simply return the bottles to the seller and get a refund (he has a 100% satisfaction guarantee) ... but under the NEW UA I AM REQUIRED TO DESTROY the perfume since I was told it was fake
Nope. See the special announcement at the top of this response post (and I am pretty sure you are already aware of the revisions to the UA changes) So putting yourself in the seller's shoes my question to you is ...
[How would you feel if your expertise was questioned, $600 worth of product was destroyed, and then you were forced to refund to me just because Mom can't smell anymore ?]
Your question was posited before the UA was revised to remove the “destroy” language but, for the sake of argument, given the vast (and recognized) experience and expertise of this seller (along with his long and exemplary history as an eBay buyer and seller), he would, as would any seller of his caliber, be afforded the benefit of the doubt in the new Resolutions program and the buyer would have been requested to return the items to that seller. The initial revisions to the UA regarding counterfeit goods did not state that in every case, the buyer would be required to destroy the items. It only stated that that eBay may require the buyer to do so. The mistake I think many sellers made in reading it was in assuming destroying the item was a blanket policy and procedure that would be employed for every single case of claimed inauthenticity. This was not the case. By the way ... although this scenario may seem ridiculous it is a very serious question pertaining to an equally serious subject and deserves an honest answer from you as an experienced seller
I can safely say that the seller of said items would never have viewed the question as ridiculous. Ironic perhaps, but definitely not ridiculous. And for the record, the seller can assure everyone that the buyer of the items discussed above was very pleased with the purchase and he, the seller, only wishes he could find more.
Posted by marsull_inla on May 10, 2009 11:25 Displaying Partial Refund Information Hello Griff,
Would it be possible for ebay to track partial refunds given to buyers through Paypal?
It seems like this would go a long way towards discovering which bidders are now getting partials by threatening to leave a negative
or some other form of intimidation (give low stars, will file SNAD, etc) on a regular basis.
I know of a seller this has happened to and her buyer (from feedback left for him) seems to do it often.
This buyer resells won items on ebay so its done to increase his profit.
For privacy reasons, it is extremely doubtful that we would ever provide the payment record or any information for that matter - even for partial refunds - to anyone outside of the transaction where the partial refund was made.
The best defense against the possibility of a buyer who is prone to filing SNAD claims is to provide complete, exhaustive descriptions of the item, including all condition issues, along with as many photos as necessary to provide visual “back up” for all condition statements. Many, not all, but many of the SNAD claims I have reviewed were for listings were there was insufficient description or only one, low quality photo.
Posted by carcie on May 10, 2009 1:25 Seller Protection for Netherland Sellers Griff hi, i'm carcie from the Netherlands with this question.
Sellers in the Netherlands currently do not enjoy SPP.
When will this be available to us as we clearly cannot sell higher value items on eBay without that option?
I inquired and was told there are no immediate plans at the moment to extend Seller Protection to the Netherlands. However, Seller Protection is obviously something we would like to provide to all eBay sellers everywhere and we will do so as we can. (many of the obstacles are due to the various banking and finance laws in individual countries).
Posted by ted_200 on May 10, 2009 9:10 Feedback Question Hi Griff,
I just sold an item, and the buyer left a neutral before I could even invoice them. Can you tell me again why someone can leave feedback without even paying for the item? Why they have to wait 7 days to leave bad f/b for Powersellers, but can do it IMMEDIATELY to anyone else?
The comment says "good". I haven't contacted the buyer yet. I assume this is a mistake (I've had absolutely no contact with this person), or they just don't have any idea how feedback works. Is this feedback eligible to be removed by eBay? If not, why not?
If not, I'm going to have to contact this buyer, and try to explain to them how the feedback system works without making them angry (eBay's job, not mine!) and delicately try to request a feedback revision out of them. And if they won't agree, then what? I'm stuck with this for no good reason? Why?
Sorry to hear of this. I agree that all buyers should be required to wait at least 7 days to leave negative feedback for all sellers. In the meantime, I assume you contacted the buyer and asked why they left feedback before they had even paid for the item? Let them know it is protocol for the buyer to leave feedback only after they have received the item or, in cases where a seller has not sent the item after the time stated by the seller in their listing.
If the buyer doesn’t pay, file the UPI and if it closes in your favor, request that the feedback be removed. If the buyer does pay, ask him to consider feedback revision. If the buyer does not respond or refuses, your only course of action is to move on.
Posted by buriedbybooks on May 11, 2009 7:12 Payment on Pickup Questions Pay on Pickup questions...again
Sellers are required to offer at least one electronic payment option (approved payment method) when listing pick up only items.
Most sellers are uncomfortable taking any electronic payment method for pick up only items since there is a huge loophole in the INR process.
Some sellers are doing the following:
1) Offering Paypal and using the 'please contact me for payment methods for pay on pickup' blurb.
2) Refunding a buyer's Paypal payment and demanding cash only on pick up items
Is this allowed?
Yes, it is allowed. By stating, “Please contact me for payment methods for local pickup,” the seller is asking the buyer desiring to pick up the item to contact him or her before paying. If a local pickup buyer pre-empts the discussion by going to directly to PayPal, the seller is within his rights to refund the payment and email the buyer with instructions for cash on pickup. There seems to be some confusion about this, but to me it would violate this part of the accepted payments policy:
[sellers may not] Discourage buyers from using any payment method the seller specified in the listing
If this isn't allowed, what repercussions are there for sellers who do this?
,
None. See my answer above Also, can you please clarify (again) what sellers may and may not state re: payment methods for pay on pickup: ie: whether they can state CASH etc in their listing.
There still seems to be some confusion here on the boards.
Sellers cannot state “cash” for any listing in any category on eBay, regardless of delivery options. The Help page for the Accepted Payments policy states:
Sellers aren't allowed to make statements like:
• “Contact us for payment information.”
• “Contact us for other payment methods.”
• “Contact us for your preferred payment method.”
• “Buyers may request to pay by check or money order.”
There is only one exception: Sellers who offer payment upon pickup may include this statement in their listings: “Contact me for payment methods to pay on pickup.”
Posted by buriedbybooks on May 11, 2009 7:18 Shipping Caps Increase Given the annual price increases of the USPS, has eBay given any thought into increasing the shipping caps for categories affected by them?
Not at this time.
Posted by shopnowbuynow on May 11, 2009 8:43 Suggestion for Including Quantity in Search/Category List Pages Hey Griff,
I notice on my “watching” page, Fix Price items that have more then 1 (one) items have a “Quantity:” section place under the listing item. I only see this on the watch page, why does this not show on the active list page within search results, or have it in the custom option area? Can EBay add this to the active list page? This would help buyer see there is more then one available and make it easier for the seller when listing. As show on watch page:
10” Blue widget, mint condition……
Super Widgets Seller (94467) 99.9%
Quantity: 14
There is nothing more frustrating then going through listings to see a picture with 5 items of it, only to find out they are selling it per piece, or seeing a picture of 1 item to find out they have 5 of them available, but you would not know it by the pictures. Plus this would help get rid of miss leading titles, 10” Blue widget, mint condition (x5) or 5 - 10” Blue widget, mint condition…and so on.
By adding this small line within the active listing page it will give the buyer and seller a very clear idea what is being offered, making it a much better buying and selling experience to all.
I cannot think of any reason why not (that’s not to say there isn’t a good reason, only that I cannot think of it). I know that currently, for multi quantity items of a quantity available of more than ten, we indicate, “More than 10” on the item page. This was to prevent a buyer from assuming that there was no urgency to purchase since the seller has, say, 200 of the items. This may be the reason why actual quantity wouldn’t be made available to buyer on the search and category list pages. However, I have forwarded your suggestion to the appropriate team for their consideration.
Posted by bikerhal on May 11, 2009 9:08 Links Policy Redux Link Policy
“You may also link to a page in which information relating to your eBay or Half.com items is grouped in a picture gallery or similar format. As with the links to photos of your item, the page may contain discrete links to other pages that offer non-eBay items but may not describe or link directly to specific items on other sites.”
Griff: Above is the actual eBay statement on linking policy. I asked what does this mean? You responded to my question indicating it depends on the word “discrete,” but you replaced the word “discrete” with ‘discreet’.
Discrete – basically means separate
Discreet – basically means modest
I know. My apologies for the confusion. So much for relying on fast typing, no proofreader, and the mysteries of Spell Check. I meant to use the word “discrete” meaning “separate.” I can only assume that was the meaning intended when the policy was written. (I hope so at least). So, was your answer irrelevant or is the policy statement using the wrong word? Assuming it is supposed to mean – discreet, isn’t that a bit vague? Can we link or can we not?
Assuming it means –discrete, that to me seems to say we can link – how can a link not be discrete?
Frankly, I’m still confused.
I believe that this policy was meant to accommodate some photo hosting sites like Auctiva which displays photos on a separate page that can contain discrete (“separate”) and discreet (“modest,” or “not blatant”) links to other items. But rather than add to that confusion with more undocumented blather, I will defer to the policy team to whom I forwarded this email and from whom I have not yet heard back. In the meantime, my advice is to err on the safe side of caution. If you must link to a page of your own that contains photos of your item perhaps along with photos of other items that you are selling, don’t have any links on that page.
That nearly catches us up. Feel free to post new questions here. I will close the thread after approximately 50 posts have been made.
Griff
Jim Griffith
______________
eBay Inc
Must use Buy It Now and PayPal.
