hello all,
Finally caught up!
I will now unlock the thread for new questions. Please do scan through the list of previous Q&A. From here on, I will not be responding to repeat questions.
I have responded below to the rest of the questions left prior to today. I've also made some changes to the process for this thread:
Once I have answered a group of questions, I will delete the original posts. This will keep the thread easy to scan. I will include the date and time of the original post but not the post number. Since I am deleting posts, they are no longer necessary for reference and they are actually not correct.
I will start a new thread for each month. I will keep the previous three month's threads locked and tacked. After three months, we will archive the threads in an accessible location (to be determined).
Our discussion platform is scheduled for an upgrade this year and the new platform may make it easier to conduct this ongoing Q&A with a different set of processes. For now, we will use these.
And Italics and Blue Font seem redundant. I will stick to blue font to differentiate responses from questions and drop the italics.
Let's begin....
Posted by mrid5386 on Jan-15-09 02:05 PST I was on the PayPal discussion board and for some odd reason only noticed this tonight.
Our intention in placing holds has never been to offer an escrow product, but to establish a transactional reserve to reduce risk associated with a transaction. This is actually quite common in the payments industry, as some community members familiar with merchant accounts have mentioned. In fact, PayPal has for a long time used reserves in other merchant services contexts outside of the eBay platform.
Reserves are fundamentally different from escrow in several ways. First, PayPal, not buyers, will decide which transactions to place holds on based on PayPal's risk evaluation (and holds will only be placed in a small percentage of transactions where PayPal decides that risk needs to be mitigated). Second, we will never even tell buyers which transactions will be subject to holds--unlike escrow, where the buyer is the party deciding to use an escrow and paying for the service. Third, PayPal will release the payment after 21 days regardless--just like when a bank clears an out of state check after a period of time. So, when thinking about holds, do not think of escrow--think of it just like the other risk-driven holds quite typical in the payments industry.
We are working very hard to make sure that this process will be a benefit to buyers and sellers.
Joseph Sullivan
Associate General Counsel, PayPal
Amanda
Why does eBay/PayPal want to hide the transaction holds from the person making the payment? How does hiding this information benefit either party in the transaction that eBay/PayPal has butted their nose into? I would think eBay/PayPal would want their due accolades for protecting the consumer by intercepting his/her payment and saving them from the naivety, ignorance, daftness..... ? Why is eBay/PayPal hiding behind the curtain rather than stepping into the lime light to accept credit for taking action?
These are not rhetorical questions I really am interested in an answer considering the whole picture of eBay's reasoning on the 21 day hold on the other side of the transaction.
And I am afraid I haven't any responses for these valid questions. I will have to ask and repost once and if I am able to obtain answers from the appropriate sources.
posted by megachinaseller on Jan-15-09 04:49 PST Griff,
You said:
"They aren't used for suspension. A seller with a DSR that drops below 4.1 could have their ability to list new items restricted".
You need to correct that statement, you get restricted for 4.3 and SUSPENDED for 4.1.
That is not correct. A seller is restricted, not suspended when one of their DSR 30 day averages drops below 4.1 (A 4.1 itself will not result in restriction. The average has to drop below 4.1). No sanctions are applied for a rating of 4.3. A sellers ranking in Best Match may be lowered, but the seller is neither restricted or suspended for a rating of 4.3 [I guess you will not answer the question as to WHY eBay feels it is OK to lie about 4.0 being reasonable/satisfactory to buyers when it is CLEARLY not reasonable/satisfactory to eBay?]
I have explained the rationale behind DSRs and the 4.1 threshold here and in other places. I have also admitted publicly that there is a justified disconnect regarding the rationale. I have also stated that the current system is not set in stone and that there are other options under consideration. No matter. A seller with an average lower than 4.1 will have a significant number of 3, 2 or 1 ratings. As far as being able to search for completed items it was 30 days not two weeks.
We may be confusing two separate search features. Completed Listing Search has been limited to the previous two weeks for several years. This is the search by keyword where you check the option box for "completed listings only." Searching by item number is a different search but that will also return an item for more than 30 days in the past (up to 60 days in fact.) Here is an example. Search for item 270303266369 using the search box on the top of any eBay page. As of today, January 16th, it still brings up the item page:
Link
You could even go to your feedbacks and click on an item number and still see the listing for LONGER then 30 days.
Yes, that is true. Item numbers are displayed and clickable in feedback comments for 60 days. But this is not Completed Listing Search, which has, for several years, been limited to the past two weeks, not 30 days. It was changed to two weeks very recently.
PayPal will let a buyer put in a claim for up to 45 days yet you the seller can only look at the listing for two weeks, it doesn't make sense.
And I am not understanding your claim. Items are still available for view 60 days after they have closed.
Posted by megachinaseller on Jan-15-09 06:26 PST Griff,
I have suggested to eBay, several times, that a BUYER should have the same thing as a blocked bidders list for sellers.
On a piece of paper I have a list of a little over a dozen sellers I would never buy from again for reasons such as they don't know how to pack an item.
[If ebay truly wants to protect buyers then why is there STILL no "blocked sellers list"?]
No, it is impractical to type them in every time I want to do a search.
Thanks for your suggestion. I will forward it on to the product team responsible for Finding for their consideration.
Posted by ricsboardid on Jan-15-09 06:45 PST 1) Why, when susp... I mean restrictions are imposed does eBay insist in cancelling all auctions, even those with bids?
When a seller is restricted, their current listings are not cancelled. They are in fact, allowed to run. Restricted sellers are not indicated as such on the site. However, when a seller is suspended (there is a huge difference btw), their listings are cancelled. They are indicated on the site as No Longer A Registered User. The listings are cancelled because it would inappropriate to allow listings to remain live for a seller who has been suspend. 2) Isn't eBay at all concerned about the fact some sellers have items with bids and that the auctions should be allowed to come to a natural close despite the restriction? This would stop buyers from having bid on items that are retracted and eliminate frustration.
When a seller is suspended, not restricted. When a seller is suspended and their listings are cancelled, all outstanding bids are also cancelled as well and an email is sent to each bidder informing them of the action. 3) As part of the feedback removal process, will DSR's be removed as well?
Yes. 4)Why are Diamond sellers given special priviliges and exemptions with regard to DSR's?
They are not. I have repeated this numerous times. I will repeat it again now in bold type:
Diamond Level PowerSellers are held to the same DSR rules and standards as all other sellers. Diamond Power Sellers are NOT given special priviliges or exemptions from the rules regarding DSRs. Seems to me that Diamond Sellers are getting free listings and discounted FVF should be held to the same standards as small sellers that pay to list and pay higher FVF.
I repeat: Diamond Level PowerSellers are held to the same DSR rules and standards as all other sellers. Diamond Power Sellers are NOT given special priviliges or exemptions from the rules regarding DSRs. [SUGGESTION for the thread] Since you have Oz like powers when it comes to threads, i.e. tacking, deleting posts etc.. any way that this thread, (which will see huge traffic over a month) that the most recent posts would be viewed first and oldest last?
The great and powerful Oz thanks you for your input and will consider your suggestion. Pay no attention to that little bald fat man behind the curtain...
Posted by tomcarncu on Jan-15-09 06:50 PST Is ebay ever going to educate buyers about detailed seller ratings? Most buyers I have talked to locally and online don't take it seriously. People need to know they are not rating a movie on netflix, where 3 stars means they liked it. They need to know its just as bad as negative feedback.
We wouldn't go so far as to suggest which DSR's a buyer should leave but we could provide buyers with more information about DSRs and their purpose. And in fact we do. We alert international buyers when they attempt to leave feedback and ratings that the seller is located in another country and that they should take this into consideration when rating for shipping costs and times.
Not sure what your own experience is but as I have said earlier, the lions share of left DSRs are actually 5's. I have heard from some sellers anecdotes of buyers leaving all ones or twos and then explaining to the seller that they thought ones were like "seller is Number One!" Problem is, that when a buyer attempts to leave ones or twos and a positive feedback, they are prompted by eBay with an alert that they are about to leave low ratings for the seller and a positive feedback comment. They have to explain why they are doing this. So buyers who leave a positive and claim they "didn't know" that ones were bad, are not being honest.
Posted by exhausted123678 on Jan-15-09 06:51 PST Hi Griff,
This is my posting ID. Here’s yet another DSR situation and questions:
I am a US seller and 25% of my sales are to foreign Buyers. A Buyer in Belgium (where it’s a national sport to avoid import taxes) recently purchased an item from for $225 USD, plus shipping and handling costs (with insurance included) stated in the auction. The Buyer knew ahead of time he would be subject to import taxes from his home country.
AFTER WINNING THE ITEM, the Buyer emailed me through the eBay system and asked if I would declare the item as a gift with a lower value on the customs form to avoid import taxes.
I am going to email the Buyer back and say “No, I can not do this because it is illegal. AND if I declared it as a gift with a lower value and the item is lost or damaged I will not be covered by insurance.”
In informing the Buyer of this, I will now have a potentially disgruntled Buyer. This leaves me open for the Buyer to ding my DSR’s for my shipping and handling charges, and/or give me negative or neutral feedback (all without the buyer commenting in my feedback that I would not lie on the customs form). I have been dinged on my DSR’s for shipping and handling charges more than once because of this.
This is unfair and does not leave the DSR and feedback system to be transparent. Being as sellers are held accountable for their DSR ratings, this is very scary and frustrating.
Now the questions:
1. [What plans does eBay have to change the DSR and/or feedback system to prevent a Buyer from doing this?]
I assume you have read the recent announcement regarding negative feedback left for customs reasons?
Link
If a seller has an email from the buyer requesting, for example, that the seller declare the item as a gift, that email could be sufficient proof for ruling in favor of the seller in cases where the negative feedback left does not clearly indicate that the reason for the feedback was the seller not obliging their customs-related request. 2. [Does JD have the slightest idea that eBay’s shortsightedness in DSR and feedback policies are what destroys good sellers and./or drives them from eBay to other venues?]
John is aware that some sellers are not happy with the DSR feature however, there is no evidence that any good seller has been "destroyed" by either DSRs or the feedback policy.
Posted by acetremendous on Jan-15-09 06:58 PST Wow, Griff! Looks like you have your work cut out for you here - many long, smart, detailed questions.
I agree and I agree I have said some harsh things to and about you in the past, and I might again, but I am extremely impressed that you are attempting to begin opening dialogue. Ebay has been completely closed to dialogue for awhile now, and I for one did not expect any change to that. Your presence here is really positive, and I thank you.
You are welcome Many excellent questions, much on my mind, have been asked here already. If your answers are as thorough as they were on the other thread I will be well pleased.
I would like to add one specific question here:
Outside advertising has already been tested on auction listings. I've seen it on my listings and many others. No outside advertising is showing on auction pages currently, but it is obvious from the tests that it is coming soon. My question is 2 part: (1) WHEN will we have these ads plastered into the listings we've paid for,
There are no plans to add advertising to current listings. That isn't to say that it could not be a seller opt in in the future, perhaps for a reduction of fees or even free. I know that as a seller, I would agree in a heartbeat to ads on my current listings if it meant reduce or better, no fees. But, I have to make this clear, there are at the moment, no plans to do so. (2) Will sellers be allowed any control whatsover over these outside ads?
The fact is that the listing page currently says "Seller assumes all responsibility for listing this item." below the spot where this ad has been / would be placed. Clearly that's a lie if another vendor's wares are there. Please clarify this issue as best you can; I know that the few sellers that have spotted these ads on their listings have been quite angry about it. Thanks in advance for your attention.
Again, there are absolutely no plans at this moment, to add adverts to live listings. But you do bring up many good points about this topic and I will make sure that someone from the ad team sees them.
Posted by christmascruise on Jan-15-09 07:31 PST Griff, are other new sellers allowed to receive 2 negatives, out of their first 3 feedbacks and still be allowed to list, or is that only a privilege for "Diamond Sellers"? What happens to smaller sellers if they have those same ratings?
Yes, any seller would be allowed to continue listing under those circumstances. A 2 negs out of 3 would mean a score of -1. A seller is automatically suspended if their feedback score drops to -3.
Posted by christmascruise on Jan-15-09 08:06 PST Griff, could you please direct the pinks to leave the questions on this board alone? You would be the better judge of what questions would be appropriate for this thread.
What's the point of this thread, if the pinks continually delete the tough questions?
Will do.
Posted by christmascruise on Jan-15-09 08:36 PST Let me re-word the "Like New" issues for Griff to answer:
Some buyers search using the word "NEW" to find items that are both "New" and/or "Like new" ("Nearly New", "Almost New", etc.) for comparisons. Permitting those phrases in titles allows buyers searching with the word "New" the opportunity to see ALL of those available items without having to do very time-consuming, separate searches to include the words "Nearly", "Almost", "Like" and etc.
and the majority of buyers who search for "new" mean just that and only that: new. Not "like new," or "nearly new" or some other phrase that indicates the item is not new. "Like new" is not "new." It is a statement of item condition, not item status. An item that is new means it is unused. And item that is "like new" means the item is used.
The solve for this issue is to rely on item specifics to indicate condition and to continue to prohibit the use of "like new" to describe and item that is clearly, not new. Why is ebay deliberately limiting those buyers' choices and opportunities to comparison shop by searching the word "New", with results which do not include all of the possibilities?
See my response above. If "Like New" is so offensive to ebay, to ban it from titles, why would ebay then use that same term for THEIR acceptable item condition (supplied by ebay)?
Because as a statement of item condition, it is a valid descriptor. And the item condition field does have the same exposure to title search.
Posted by snappyauctions14 on Jan-15-09 08:44 PST Griff:
Thank you very much for taking your time to compile and post responses to our seller questions (on this and on the previous noteworthy thread).
We have a few follow up's pertaining to your responses please (our originals in italics, yours in bold):
(1) [...when specifically will eBay stop publicly portraying themselves as 'just a venue', and since they are clearly acting contrary to that, publicly announce such?]
We don't publicly portray eBay as "just a venue." We wouldn't publicly announce, "We are no longer just a venue." We are stewards of an ever evolving marketplace.
We note the following specific response template provided to another member's query:
"'I also sold an item last week to a woman who did not have the correct address on her pay pal and eBay accounts- another buy it now listing-and had i was afraid to refund her money, cause i sure don't need any more negative feedbacks. my listings clearly state the policies about private feedback or questionable feedback, and the fact that the address must be a confirmed eBay address. eBay will not back me up on either sale- their response is:
"Thank you for writing eBay in regard to your recent transaction. I understand your concern. Unfortunately, eBay is not involved in anyway with the transaction between buyers and sellers. We simply provide a marketplace for members to buy and sell items. As a result, we're unable to inspect or verify any item sellers list on eBay..."'"
So the original question pertains to the above published stance vs. the actual practice whereby eBay:
- dictates what can be sold when and how
- dictates seller TOS (for payment method, returns and time to pay)
- defines seller ability (to list) based on subjective and unsubstantiated buyer opinion.
- manipulates item placement in search results
- dictates shipping cost maximums and
- uses paid listing space to advertise competing items
- THEN (based on the above, as one example) adheres to a grievance process where they apply the excuse of being "simply a marketplace" to avoid the responsibility of providing a fair and thorough investigation.
Thus to follow up, while it is clear eBay has the right to do these things, this is more than stewardship, it is control over marketing of items that eBay does not own, while simultaneously acknowledging they do not own them. Buyers do not buy from eBay, they buy from eBay's sellers. When (will?) eBay acknowledge that?
I don't see an inconsistency or contradiction here. Stewards control and manage. That is what the word means. It also means we can require or execute the various line items on the list you supplied above. We can dictate what can and cannot be sold on eBay. We can require what is and isn't acceptable in a seller's TOS. We can alter a seller's status based on buyer ratings. We can rank items. We can set limits on shipping costs. We can use space on the site to display adverts. However, as stewards, we are not required to verify claims of authenticity. in fact, we cannot. We never handle the actual merchandise.
Here's how to view this issue: As stewards of this marketplace, we have the right and more importantly, the duty to regulate content and activity (behavior) on the site. Without management of content and actitivy, there would not be a safe and consistent and satsifactory environment for buyers or sellers. What we cannot do is verify or vouch for a seller's claims regarding an item's authenticity. We don't handle the merchandise. We can and we do act as a arbitrator in disputes brought by, in this case, a buyer regarding the seller's claims about the item. Buy we cannot send out teams of investigators to verify a seller's claims about an item. We cannot ask the seller to ship the item to us for examination by our staff of item experts.
So when it comes to the activity of buyers and sellers on the site and the content they provide, we are not and never have been, just a venue.
When it comes to claims made by a seller about their items, we are, in reality,"just a venue." 2[Assuming eBay will not return to the equitable rating system previously employed, what specific steps is eBay taking to vet and educate buyers,..]
The previous system was not equitable. And we don't vet buyers. We won't be vetting buyers in the future. Buyers aren't vetted as a condition of entrance into any store or marketplace. Sellers however, can require that their buyers be somewhat "vetted" by PayPal. Requiring that buyers have a PayPal account on condition of purchase or bidding, provides a level of buyer verfication since the buyer has to put verifiable contact and financial information on file in order to open a Paypal account. We don't "vet" buyers and we won't vet them in the future. NO marketplace "vets" their buyers. Can you imagine walking into a store and the proprietor demands proof of identity and a bank account balance in order to enter?
Yes we can. It's called eBay, and sellers are it's paying customers, and to be sellers, they are vetted in just that way - especially now that Pay Pal or an equivalent is a requirement.
And that is because the reality of the retail transaction places a larger amount of responsibility and trust on the seller than the buyer. And online, the responsibility is even larger. The buyer is sending their money to you in good faith and trusting that you will send them the item.
Any marketplace like eBay will require their sellers to provide more information in order to sell on their site. NO site with success in mind will every require buyers to provide information for vetting. Why? Because they won't have any buyers! When has an eBay buyer ever paid eBay a penny?
When you make a sale to a buyer and then you pay your eBay fees. Look at it this way. The buck starts with buyers. Without them, you make no sales. Without buyers and without your no sales, we make nothing. This ongoing arguement about buyer vs sellers is regrettable and not based in real business. Without your buyers, you have nothing. If you have nothing, our marketplace ceases to exist. Of course, if this is 'a simple marketplace', the question is moot. If so, perhaps it can be better phrased so we may better judge our ability to expect receipt of payment in this new environment: What percentage of eBay members (buyers - especially new buyers) are suspended as Non-Paying bidders - say on a monthly or quarterly basis, say from 1/2006 to present?
We have never released that information. I don't know if we would. I will ask. What I can say is that UPIs are a problem for both sellers and eBay and that we are absolutely determined to eliminate the problem completely. -------
3[...and assure they are not allowed to simply return with new identities when found to be in violation of policy, and when specifically can we expect these actions to be in force?]
When our system detects a previously suspended member has reregistered, we suspend that new account.
Thank you. Shall we assume then that the numerous postings we've seen by other members claiming problems created by re-registered members previously NARU'd are false?
I cannot comment on claims without details or specifics. If you know of a PSU (Previously Suspended User) who has reregistered, email the details to me. If we can prove that the two accounts are linked by shared information, we can take action. Regardless, what criteria are used for this detection?
The software and system used for PSU detection is proprietary and we don't discuss the workings publicly, for obvious reasons. How long is this re-suspension process imposed - indefinitely?
Yes. The worst thing a member can do is reregister after receiving a previous suspension. There are no appeals for the resulting, "indefinite" suspension. Is it safe to assume then that once a member (buyer) is suspended for non-payment, we will never have to worry about them again (assuming criteria involves actual identity which we can acknowledge even eBay can't guard against change to)?
Pretty much. 4 What we need is for eBay to avoid instantly collecting FVF on a sale until payment is actually verified - ...]i>
We don't collect a FVF instantly. The FVF is entered into the seller's account invoice for that month right after the listing ends. The actual money for that FVF is not collected until the invoice has been sent. And an immediate payment option for all formats would provide the funds to the seller immediately.
Thank you for clarifying this would be a seller option. However, this is still an issue of semantics, unless you consider what is 'invoiced' to only be 'possibly due' and the payment of such to be 'optional' until the actual 'due date' arrives.
It is not semantics. It is fact. We don't collect your fees at the moment of a listing's end. It is black and white. We collect the fees for a listing in the subsequent month when your invoice for the past month is compiled and emailed to you with the date indicated when the amount will be deducted from your chosen preferred funding method. In the case of an item completing on day 17-30 of an invoice period, coupled with the fact the FVF can not be recouped given eBay's 15 day allowed payment period before closing a UPI as unpaid, this still leaves a 50% chance a given FVF will become 'due and payable' before payment is received for a given item does it not?
Possibly. It's not the same as the FVF funds collected at the moment of the listing's close. And even if the FVF is 'recouped' by UPI closure, it won't be 'credited' until the next invoice is then 'due', correct.
Correct. So, the context of the question still stands - but can be rephrased in two parts: Will eBay consider a wait period for FVF assessment relating to verifying receipt of payment?
It is extremely unlikely so I will crawl out on this sturdy limb and state, No. And in either case, when will the option to collect immediate payment for auctions be made available - as a seller option?
I said this in the original thread. It is way too early to provide even a rough estimate of a date for release. This feature is only in the discussion period at the moment and nothing has even been designed. Thanks again for your continuing advocacy...
My pleasure.
Posted by babybcpotherid on Jan-15-09 08:57 PST Griff, I just read your responses on the other thread. I saw that you addressed the 'negs for NPB question' and the 'Google CheckOut' question. Thank you very much!
I do have another question tho. In light of this insane CPSIA law that goes into effect next month - is ebay doing any active lobbying/letter writing/complaining to the powers that be?
Not exactly, at least not yet. We will if it becomes necessary. The problem is this all came out of left field so to speak. Our Government Relations team is aware of the issue and working on obtaining clarification intially before deciding which steps might be necessary after that. Also, if it does go into effect, as currently written, will ebay just start blocking and ending the listings of all items in the childrens categories until the sellers show proof that they have the certificates required?
There are no plans to do so. If this does happen, then my small biz will be gone (I make flannel burps cloths and other baby related items), along with my families grocery money...
Not to worry. I don't believe the intent of this regulation was to put small businesses like yours out of business...but stay informed...
Posted by **>mason** on Jan-15-09 09:03 PST Griff - I'm not going to ask you about the changes that have already occurred as I am, for the most part, pleased with the changes ebay has made. I had to make some slight changes but overall my business and income is doing way better than in past years.
I do have a question, and that is why hasn't ebay implemented a shopping cart feature for our stores?
It is in the works. I don't have any other news at this point however.
Posted by wizard85 on Jan-15-09 09:18 PST Hi Griff, on the other thread you said Any seller who provides great value and customer service can and does benefit on eBay by better placement in Best Match. but when best match was initiated my sell through rate went from 95%-98% to 30% with the items that did sell go for their initial bid with no or hardly any bidder activity??? are you saying I am a bad seller or have bad service or low value?
Absolutely not! I haven't taken a close look but I think it is safe to say you are a good seller with good service and are of great value to the marketplace, your customers and to eBay. When I searched the items i sell using best match I get nothing but a bunch of Chinese junk counterfeit parts or books from "BUY" rather than the parts a buyer I think would really want .. I know I am not alone on this,
What I might say - I would have to actually take a closer look - is that you might not be using the right blend of pricing and formats to take advantage of Best Match. Thank You for taking your time to read & answer these questions, You give us lowly small sellers a glimmer of hope that our voice may yet be heard ..
My pleasure. You are not lowly! If you would like some assistance towards some strategies to use for Best Match and your listings, email me.
Posted by oldcountrybarn on Jan-15-09 09:35 PST Could you please share some philosophy with us as to how stores fit into the mix in the current eBay?
Sure! Again, I don't sell multiple quantity items, so my situation may be different from others, but I'm beginning to wonder if there is any reason to keep my store open.
There is really little difference in the net fees between Core Fixed Price and Store items (both have gotten to be excessively burdensome), but Core has a huge advantage in search visibility.
I find myself putting things up for 30 day FP instead of putting them in my store. (These are often things that I've listed in other ways first, but just seem to take longer to find the right buyer.)
I like the storefront. I believe there are still search engine advantages to having one? I like the way it presents to buyers. But is that worth $16.95/month?
I guess I'm confused as to the future of stores. And, wondering if maybe it would make sense to make that formatting available to all sellers for a minimal fee? (Much more minimal than $17, lol)
Just some thoughts.... would appreciate yours.
I took a look at your Store and I do have some suggestions. But first, the definte benefits and advantages of using an eBay Store are many. As you pointed out, Search Engine Optimization, low cost listing format, etc. but there are others. Your own newsletter and marketing tools, a centralized, customizable eBay presence for your business, a inexpensive repository for your inventory, etc. Still, the benefits alone are not alway sufficient to justify the cost of a basic Store.
You need a pricing and format strategy to really make it work. For example, every eBay Store seller of the type of merchandise you offer, should always have at least a few auction format listings running. These are crucial to garnering potential bidders and buyers. I also always run a few quick test searches before deciding which format to use for a new listing. For example, if I have a hard to find item like an out of production cologne (I love fragrance) I will search for it first on eBay and see how many show up. If there are only a few other examples or best of all, no examples on eBay, I know I can list the item as a Store Inventory Format listing at a very low cost and know that searches will still show it. If however, there are many examples, then SIF won't be as ideal. So then I examine recently closed listings for prices and formats that were most successful and use that information to determine my pricing and format of choice. Recently, I started using a strategy that Lynn Dralle (the Queen of Auctions) uses. When an auction item closes with no bids, I immediately move it into SIF. I "inventory" it in my Store. I cannot tell you how many times this has actually resulted in a sale! Watchers who missed it the first time will revisit it and often purchase it out right from the Store!
Right now, you have no auctions running and your inventory is rather low. I would suggest moving one or two current items into the auction format and use those to drive attention to your Store.
As to the future of Stores on eBay.com: they are here for the long term. They may not be for every single seller but they are definitely worth at least a test drive. And, as I said earlier, they are only really effective if utilized properly, which for most sellers, means testing out a lot of different pricing and format combinations.
I am always available via email to assist or offer suggestions for any changes you might make to your current Store set up. Just email me!
Posted by hawgryders on Jan-15-09 09:35 PST Griff ... I have noticed that listing pages sometimes exceed the monitor width even when there are no large pictures
[Is this a known system problem or an individual user specific issue]
It is hard to say. It can be due to something the seller did when formatting the description. The Next Generation View Item page should take care of this issue for good. Also, the default color scheme for eBay (using pastels) is not good for those of us who are in open areas where there is a lot of ambient light ... the pages fade badly and are hard to see
[Are there plans to make this more user friendly such as the format option available on most Windows based applications]
That's tricky. You can change some of the colors on any web page (including eBay) using the Options section of your Web Browser (for example, in Internet Explorer, Go to Tool, Internet Options and click the Colors button on the General tab page.) But colors of graphics, they cannot be changed. There are no plans that I know of for changing the current color scheme of eBay graphics and pages.
Posted by screwadu on Jan-15-09 09:35 PST This is from the other thread:
QUESTION [983 of 1139]
When will a member be able to list free of being forced to promote competitive “related items” ?
YOUR ANSWER
Probably never. It could be an opt in feature in the future but I don't know this for sure and I am promising nothing on this front.
Yet earlier, someone asked:
QUESTION [925 of 1137]
Why is it then that eBay refuses to allow GC. G@@gle Chkout is a proven, safe payment service (just as much as Paypal). Why not allow it if for no other reason than that the eBay/Paypal empire would not benefit financially?
and you responded
ANSWER
There is some truth in that last statement. The reason we don't allow this service? Because said service is provided by an eBay competitor and would provide that competitor with access to eBay buyer data.
So you are saying that it is OK for Ebay to post links to OUR competitors on OUR paid-for listings, but NOT OK for US to post a link to EBAY'S competitor in regards to payment.
That is correct. Don't you think this is an admission that Ebay knows what its doing is pretty shady when they use our listings to advertise the competition?
Not at all. There is a very important distinction between the two issues. For one, we cannot share our member information with competitors. And, we haven't placed adverts on live listing pages. If it isn't shady, why don't you reciprocate?
Because it isn't 'shady' and it is not a reciprocation.
Posted by spoonheart on Jan-15-09 09:48 PST What is eBay's perception?
Does eBay believe the buyer is eBay's or do they believe they are the individual sellers?
eBay members are eBay's customers. eBay buyers are your customers as well. Sellers are also eBay customers. eBay buyers and sellers have very different needs, that, as our customers, we are obliged to meet. Providing for both the seller and buyer needs in a way that does not pit one against the other, can be a challenge. However it is one I am confident we can meet.
Posted by plumasgifts on Jan-15-09 10:35 PST Despite repeated assurances, buyers are not being held accountable in any way that matters. Fraud is on the rise, post-sale partial refund requests are sky-rocketing. Abusive buyers are not being dealt with by Ebay.
If you have seen this in your own individual selling experience (an increase in fraud, partial refund requests etc), send the individual cases to me and I will have someone take a closer look. The actual fact is that real fraud on the site has decreased, dramatically. And I strongly disagree with the last statement. Truly bad (abusive) buyers ARE being dealt with by eBay. Griff, I'm not talking about fraud stats with bad buying experiences included.
I'm not talking about eBay's narrow definition of feedback extortion.
I'm talking about the massive increases in partial refund requests due to "disappointment."
Have you experienced a "massive increase" in partial refund requests? If so, please remember that you are not obliged to provide partial refunds and negative feedback left because you did not oblige a request for a partial refund, is subject for removal. These are an increasing problem for sellers on ebay.
And you know this because... how? You're own experience? If so, see above. If not, then by the anecdotal evidence of other seller's posts? Here's the scenario for you:
Ok... Buyer receives the item and for whatever reason isn't 110% happy with it DESPITE the description being accurate.
Buyer contacts seller about disappointment and requests a partial refund (requests, hints).
Seller offers full refund upon return INCLUDING RETURN SHIPPING.
Buyer refuses, demanding to KEEP the item and receive a partial refund or they will leave negative feedback.
And that, is a classic case of buyer extortion and the negative feedback qualifies for removal. Now, in an increasing number of cases, the buyer isn't truly unhappy with the item. If they were, they'd return it. Instead, they are looking for a post-sale discount. This is clearly extortion (after all, we can't neg them back, can we?) yet to ebay, this is not fraud, it's not extortion, it's merely an unhappy buyer.
These cases are not being included in your "fraud stats."
How do you know that? But we in the selling community are seeing this particular issue crop up more and more frequently.
You are keeping records and data of these incidents? Personally, this does not happen to me because I no longer sell here in any kind of volume.
A ha. But sellers I know, long-time professional sellers in groups and on the boards are seeing this almost daily now.
And you are speaking for these other sellers? Why are they not speaking for themselves (that is, reporting the incidents to eBay?) I don't think this problem is being addressed by anyone at eBay.
It is, I assure you. It doesn't qualify for fb extortion because the request is AFTER the item is delivered.
That is not correct. It does qualify. WHEN will eBay DO something about this glaringly obvious trend?
We are doing something: When reported to us, we are removing negative feedback left by buyers who have attempted to extort services or funds (including partial refunds while keeping the items, or partial refunds in general)
Posted by dtmedin on Jan-15-09 10:42 PST You said:
The best way to entice any seller to enter or return to a marketplace is to provide them access
to good buyer traffic
top-line customer service <<<<<<<<<<
and selling economics that work
With this in mind, my questions are:
1. Is ebay management really aware of how bad their customer service is?
eBay, like any business, constantly monitors its customer satisfaction level with regards to the customer support is provides. We use a combination of our own and third party surveying and data (called NPS or Net Promoter Score. It's a fascination concept. Google it for more information). Although I am not at liberty to reveal figures, the trends in our own CS satisfaction have been trending upwards. Still, we are acutely aware of any areas where it needs improvement and we are working to improve it. Thanks, by the way for helping with my latest issue. When the escalation team looked at what had been done, I got a solid apology. Too bad my first two inquiries (and the problem itself) are all too typical of my interactions with ebay.
My pleasure. 2. Is this poor customer service having something done about it? Can you elaborate on what we might expect and when?
See above. And no, I cannot make promises about what you will see and when. 3. How will ebay assure that they too, are providing 5 star service in the future, and who gets incented to do so and how, if so?
See above again. The goal of any business is provide the best customer service possible. That is our goal. As far as "who is incented", everyone here is. In fact, I can share one interesting bit of information: The one goal that is shared by every single employee working for eBay marketplaces (eBay.com) for the 2008 performance plan is to increase the NPS (customer satisfaction) score we are given by our customers, by a significant percentage (which I won't reveal here). It's not increase revenue. It's not increase volume. It's increase customer satisfaction. Pretty dramatic I'd say. 4. Help me understand the selling economics. I've seen my per-item net fees go up over 50 percent in the last year, and don't see I've gotten anything for it, including increased buyer traffic. Am I missing something about the selling economics here? While I'm not losing money, the selling ecomonics worked great up until last year.
If the current economics are not working for you, then, as a business, you should re-examine your listing and pricing strategies and determine a few tests that might provide insight for better strategies. It could mean moving more inventory from one format into another. It always involves daily research into your category and your eBay competition. You might have to revisit your pricing strategy as well. That's what I meant in my original response.
Posted by dtmedin on Jan-15-09 10:49 PST When PITA, demanding, or potentially fraudulent buyer walks into a brick and mortar store, the clerks can usually tell either by observing behavior or by record, and may treat this customer differently, including working even harder to satisfy them, or being firm to cut losses usch as not taking a return without a receipt.
I used to have such a tool through honest buyer feedback, to examine a potential buyer's behavior so I could work with them accordingly, or extend payment deadlines, or maybe ship to an alternate address. This honest feedback formed a useful element of my risk mitigation and loss control, as well as a way to tailor individual handling. Since we don't have that tool anymore no matter how hard we plead:
How can a seller identify a difficult customer, or a customer who legitimately needs special handling?
Thanks.
Why do potentially difficult or demanding customers need indentifying? (We'll take care of truly fraudulent buyers) Why not simply assume that every potential customer is worthy of "special handling" (i.e., the best customer service you can provide) and treat them all equally? As your customer, I would be alarmed to learn that the only way I could obtain excellent service is by being demanding or difficult. This makes no business sense at all.
posted by hawgryders on Jan-15-09 10:57 PST Griff ... as most people dealing in Customer Service have learned a satisfied customer is much less likely to say anything about a transaction but an unhappy customer is very likely to complain, and eBay is no exception to this
Since the vast majority of feedback left by buyers for sellers is positive, we have proof that your assumption is not true. The majority of eBay buyers, who are happy, DO leave feedback. The number of newer customers using eBay are probably unaware of the history & importance of Feedback to the community as a whole, and we have all seen a dramatic drop-off of feedback being left as compared to the Good Old Days
On an individual basis perhaps (my own feedback for example) But, overall, we have not seen a drop in the rate or number of positive feedback left. So my question is ...
[Has eBay ever considered setting up an algorithm that would automatically insert 5 Star Feedback for the seller (after the time for the user to leave feedback has elapsed of course)]
No. The only caveat necessary to put in place is that the Seller would have to leave Feedback first (which they should all do anyway)
We would not "speak" for buyers by pre-empting a rating with an automatic rating. It wouldn't be a buyer rating then. We might eliminate or change a DSR but we would never prepopulate a rating.
Posted by dannyjacksmom on Jan-15-09 11:05 PST Griff - I do appreciate your answering questions. Your position can not be a good one.
I was a great buyer. I tried selling but was horrible at it. During that time I found these boards and learned MANY things and am very grateful to the wonderful posters who give up their time to supply ebay with free customer service.
I stopped buying because of Bin Bandits and ebay's response to the problem.
Bin Bandits? What are they? I have never heard that term before. Will ebay EVER provide protection to sellers against Bin Bandits that does NOT provide ebay with a revenue source?
Again, I have no idea what Bin Bandit means, sorry. Right now the only protection is using IPR, which results in a revenue flow.
I confess... what is an IPR? Either way, ebay profits and I find that horribly unfair to sellers and refuse to use ebay until it is fixed.
And I would be happy to assist. I just need to know the details and understand exactly what you mean by the terms above.
Posted by dtmedin on Jan-15-09 11:20 PST
You said:
eBay is not eBay without small sellers who bring the variety and value of one of a kind, unusual, collectible merchandise to eBay. This was always true and will continue to be true. There is room and need on eBay for all types of sellers, big, small, inbetween. Our stragetry has never been to eliminate or drive away any seller. That will continue to be the strategy in the years to come. 1. Since there have been no incentives given to well-rated small sellers similar to potentially lesser-rated Diamond Powersellers who provide less personal support to buyers, let me ask: What active measures are being planned to retain small sellers?
There are many. I have discussed some of them previously (please make sure to scan the entire list of Q&A before posting a question.) But to repeat:
Increasing buyer traffic to all sellers, including small sellers.
More recognition of the best small sellers.
Better and more efficient tools, less complexity and opaqueness with regards to policy and communications.
Continued monitoring of all seller economics and where needed, adjusting those economics.
What possible benefit is there to eliminating small sellers?
Even smaller budgets and more cost-cutting and automation for ebay customer support versus Diamonds?
You are even more cynical than I might have guessed. Let me answer my own, admittedly rhetorical, question.
There is no benefit to "eliminating" small sellers. There is no plan to (let's not use that "e" word) push small sellers out of eBay. How many times do I have to repeat this (don't answer, it's rhetorical) We want to retain all good sellers, regardless of size. Big and small sellers are not mutually exclusive. Every good seller has a vital place here on eBay.
In the interest of brevity, I will repeat the answer, in bold type, one more time. It will be the last time I answer this question. Note that this answer if final:
We want all good sellers, regardless of size, to sell on eBay. That means ALL good sellers. Size or volume or merchandise doesn matter.
Thanks.
posted by deltamaster on Jan-15-09 11:34 PST The following are snips from the other thread. These are some answers to questions asked over there...
The comments in blue are the questions with Griff's answers. The comments in Black are my responses to those comments. My followup questions to those answers are in red.
..........................................................
The actual fact is that real fraud on the site has decreased, dramatically. And I strongly disagree with the last statement. Truly bad (abusive) buyers ARE being dealt with by eBay.
Maybe I am jaded by the increasing amount of complaints on SC about sellers who have been abused by buyers. If I am then many others are likely as well.
Are you at liberty to site examples?
No. Out of respect for privacy, we do not discuss the accounts of any single eBay members. Can you show any statistics that back up this claim?
Sorry, not at this time. (We are in a quiet period before earnings and I don't know exactly what we are at liberty to release Could those statistics be altered by the fact that many sellers are not filing against bad buyers because they are afraid the buyers will "reward" them with negative feedback and low DSRs?
I have no idea. Can you explain why so many sellers report that they have had to file more UIDs in the past several months than the total number they have had to file in total over the past several years?
No, I can't. I don't have their data. Anecdotal reports have some value. However, it would be a gross inaccuracy for anyone to use anecdotal stories to draw a conclusion about the entire marketplace. You hinted that there is a change in the works... Can you give us a little more information about that change or is that just another example of eBay's lack of transparency? (not your fault of course)
No, I can't. It is too early do discuss the project. Sorry. A buyer who asks for a discount after the sale? What's the problem? Just say no. Then risk negative feedback and low DSRs. Several sellers have reported that they have said "NO" and then the buyer retaliated with negative feedback or low DSRs.
Then those "several sellers" should have filed a dispute about the buyer. The dispute process does result in feedback removal. First of all, Buyers should ask for a discount BEFORE bidding and if they are not afforded one then they should not bid. Sometimes they bid anyway and then restate their request and then retaliate afterward.
and in that case, the seller can file a dispute report to have the negative feedback removed. BECAUSE eBay/Paypal's system slants toward the buyer sellers have )most noticeably over the past year) gradually become jaded to this fact and now are on the defensive every time a seller asks simple questions.
That is unfortunate for those sellers. Not all sellers react that way. If a buyer truly abuses a seller, we handle it. How can eBay(or you) blame the sellers for the atmosphere created as a result of all these changes and the resulting behaviors?
I am not blaming sellers for anything. What is eBay doing to achieve those goals for their "First Line" customers (sellers)? It has been reported several times and you field (by your own admittance) hundreds of complaints per day that should have been handled by paid eBay/Paypal CS staff.
When is eBay planning to improve their customer service, especially since they have released so many CS employees?
Please see my response to a similar question above. Thanks. Will eBay educate and empower their CS reps and live chat reps to correct these problems?
Yes. Please see my response to a similar question above. Thanks. When I have a buyer attempt to scam me can I have some assurances that eBay will not send me a "canned" email that does not address the problem?
If you receive a canned response that does not address your issue, email me. Can I have some assurances that matters will be handled in a timely manner instead of having to wait a week for that "canned" email that did not correct the problem?
If you question or case is not handled in a timely matter, email me. Can I direct a "Live Help" tech to a policy (IE the feedback extortion policy) with proof of the extortion and expect them to address/correct the problem for me?
No, not at this time. Live Help is not yet empowered to act as Trust & Safety. Since Paypal is a service that is for MANY OTHER on line payments is it possible that they could provide a discount to the eBay sellers since those sellers are already forking over money to the eBay/Paypal conglomerate?
Possibly. I cannot make that promise unilaterally of course. But anything is possible. Why can the listing not be given top billing at least within the last few hours of it's existence?
Because the listing isn't usually the only listing in the category or search result list. Not every listing will be at the #1 spot in said lists. It's a basic law of physics. If these accounts were allowed to be created and used would eBay stand behind the seller when Mom or Dad chews out a seller via private email and then slams the feedback and DSRs because the seller had the "NERVE" to require "Little Johnnie" to pay for stuff he committed to buy?
I would assume that adult supervision and responsibility would be an integral part of the program. But I know absolutely nothing about this program at this time. What is the percentage of overall 1s, 2,s 3s, 4s and 5s given over the past year per category?
I cannot say. We will provide this information to individual sellers with the next release of Seller Dashboard but there are no plans to give these metrics for the entire database of left ratings to the public.
Posted by deltamaster ont Jan-15-09 12:14 PST Griff,
Since this is supposed to be an open discussion can you make arrangements with the powers that be to ensure that questions asked and your answers to them are not removed unless they truly violate board policy?
Sure. What I mean is... in order to have open dialog we must be able to cite examples (as you have asked for),
Don't cite examples here. Email them to me. we must be able to ask honest questions (even if eBay does not like them) and we must be able to read your responses to the questions even if eBay does not like them.
Posted by o.c.d.collectibles on Jan-15-09 12:29 PST Is there ever going to be a place, where the seller (the real ebay customer) can give EBAY feedback and DSR's? I mean, how can ebay rate themselves as providers of service to their hosted sellers who provide them with INVENTORY that ebay does not have on it's own?
See my response to a previously submitted and answered question above.
Posted by tomcarncu on Jan-15-09 12:31 PST Would it be against ebay's policies to ask the buyer not to leave a detailed seller rating?
No.
Posted by screwadu on Jan-15-09 12:34 PST Just a suggestion, not a question.
Is there a way that after the question has been asked and answered here, it can be put in a separate locked and pinned "Seller Question and Answer" thread?
Yes. In fact, I will probably do just that. The reason I ask is because this is obviously going to wind up as a 1000-page thread and questions are going to be repeated because no one will be able to find where the answer is.
Just a question-with-answer type of thing, locked after its added to to prevent further confusion. I know that having a thread to answer a thread to answer a thread is pushing it, but I'd really like a resource with JUST the Qs and As available.
Thanks. Great suggestion. Stay tuned.
Posted by archwayvariety on Jan-15-09 15:17 PST When dealing with a SNAD complaint through paypal. The buyer can return anything (including a box of rocks or the wrong item) and still get their full refund through Paypal. Paypal does not verify that the correct item was returned in the condition it was sent.
This results in the seller being out the money and the item and the buyer has both. Buyer can also leave a neg at this point. This is not right.
Why does paypal allow this practice and how can we fight this?
How can you fight this? Has this actually happened to you? If so, email the details to me at griff@ebay.com .
Posted by spoonheart on Jan-15-09 15:19 PST
They (DSR's) are not "patently unfair" else they would not work for anyone and the truth is, they actually DO work for the majority of sellers. Do you know that most sellers I personally know do not believe that?
How many sellers do you know? Do you have any figures to back that blanket statement up?
Actually I do but I have to ask if we can talk about them. (again, this is the quiet period before earnings). I can say that over all, DSR scores are up across the entire range of sellers, shipping costs are down, dramatically and buyer surveys indicate an uptick in the quality and satisfaction of their experiences on eBay (a reduction of bad buyer experiences). It is too early to rest on this one though. There is still work to be done.
Posted by whataboutmoneyorders on Jan-15-09 15:36 PST Hi Griff- Regarding these comments here that I've copied and pasted from the other thread, I just wanted to let you know where there might be some confusion coming into this for some of us:
You said to someone today: I will repeat: No one sent me here. Please stop repeating that. No one at eBay asks me to come here and post. No one. This is my initiative completely. I don't have to be here. I am here because I want to. Not because someone at eBay said, "hey, go help our public image." If the consensus is my contributions here are of no value, I will stop.
But the other day you said:
I asked if I could write my own job description and the PTB agreed. I spent a week thinking about it and I came up with the title and the job description for Seller Advocacy (not "advocate." I don't want to be viewed as the only one. There a legions here). No one asked me to do it. I was not required to to it. I did it. As the longest running employee, who never really asks for anything, I asked for this. I also asked to report directly to the VP of Seller Experience, Dinesh Lathi, where I believeI could do the most good bringing the concerns of "small sellers" to the various decision making tables here at eBay.
And:
Dinesh wants all his direct reports to post more on discussion forums. That includes Dinesh himself.
[Do you want to take the opportunity to clarify this to maybe clear up some confusion?] When I read that last comment the other day I did get the impression that you could have been asked to post here.
Sure.
- I was not asked to post this thread.
- No one required I do so.
- Posting here was my idea.
- I don't have to post on these forums. I am not required to do so.
- I post here because I want to.
- Dinesh would like more of his staff to post here. I am training them in the coming weeks.
- I was not asked to start this thread or post to it.
- This was my idea. Period.
- I wrote my job description.
- I am a lucky, lucky guy.
Does that clear up this question?
For the record Griff, I think the vast majority of people here do want you to keep posting. I've personally been pretty upset about the changes here at eBay and how they've been implemented, but I still appreciate the time and effort you've been putting in to address the sellers here. It's quite a lot that you have taken on here.
Thanks! I actually enjoy this.
Posted by webpaper on Jan-15-09 15:39 PST Griff,
Tried this morning at 6 AM EST - thread was apparently locked. The question I have is whether or not I will be able to buy on Ebay again? I closed my Paypal account on 8/20 in response to your announcement that Paypal or equal would be required for all purchases. I have been in mail order since 1984, ebay member since June of 1997. No one tells me that my checks or money orders (always wrote checks - never had to buy a money order) are no good.
Must use Buy It Now and PayPal.
Why aren't they removable even when the buyer admits to mis-using them? 