Posted by celt13 on Apr 24, 2009 6:56 PM
Private Auctions Hi Griff,
You had just posted a reply to the-cash-man who complained about Private Auctions and who said how they would hit the back button whenever they saw one.
This person concerns about private auctions were:
“I get very skeptical of "private" auctions as I feel that they are a way to hide shill bidding. Their (sic) were legitimate sellers that were using these auctions to prevent fake second chance offers, and other spam from being sent to their bidders.
The purpose of Private Auctions was to protect the privacy of buyers who were buying in adult categories. It has recently been used by sellers to keep "Best Offer" prices from showing up on Feedback Pages.”
You replied to their post with: “Good point. I will forward to the appropriate team for their response.”
I strongly disagree with the poster‘s logic. Private auctions are not just to protect the privacy of buyers in the adult categories. Some people just don’t want others to know what they are purchasing, period. And sellers actually have legitimate uses for the private auction format.
I am one of those sellers that uses the private option for Buy It Now with Best Offer. Because I sell many repeat items, I use the private auction option so that any low ball offers I accept are NOT visible on mine or my Buyer’s feedback pages. This precludes other buyers from constantly giving me the lowest offer I had previously accepted. It makes good business sense.
My strategy is not against eBay policy, nor do I consider it immoral. Neither do my buyers. All buyers are free not to participate in a private listing if they so choose. Do you understand my rationale for utilizing the private option and would you please NOT forward the-cash-man's request “to the appropriate team for their response.” ?
Thank you.
Thanks for your input. I hadn’t thought of it from this angle. There are both adherents and opponents to this particular feature. I will forward your comment to the team as well.
Posted by ted_200 on Apr 24, 2009 8:27 PM
Temporary PayPal Echeck Issue Where did you see this announcement? I cannot find it. The only possible explanation I can think of is for folks who already have a credit card on file and are sending eChecks.
It was still there two days ago, but it is gone now. It said there was an issue with people paying with eCheck if their PayPal account did not have a current up to date credit card attached to it - they were unable to check out and pay for their items. It said to abandon the checkout process and proceed directly to PayPal and do one of three things. Update the expiration date of the card, enter a second card, or update the card to one that wasn't expired.
You are correct. After my first response, I was informed by PayPal that this was in fact, a bug and it was subsequently fixed. They also confirmed that they did post an announcement but removed it after the fix was in place
Posted by ted_200 on Apr 24, 2009 8:33 PM
Coin Categories and Replicas Your answer to vedave regarding replica coins and why they are not required to be listed in the "reproductions" categories within Coins and Paper Money was unsatisfactory. You replied:
"We can create a category for legal coin replicas and we can take reports of Miscategorized items and move them as appropriate but since we cannot rule on what is and isn’t a replica coin (we are not the experts, we don’t hire item experts and we don’t handle the merchandise so even if we did have item experts, they couldn’t rule on items they didn’t actually handle) we can only rely on reports from other members and even then, it can take 24 hours or longer to move items into the appropriate categories."
1. The categories already exist.
2. The current policies do not require these categories be used. So if someone lists a replica Morgan Dollar in the Morgan Dollar category, instead of the Dollars > Reproductions category, and it is reported, it will not be removed because it is a replica of a MORGAN DOLLAR.
3. What do you mean, "we cannot rule on what is and isn't a replica coin"? Here is eBay policy on replica coins:
I am obviously having a failure of communication here. These listings have been reported by the thousands over the years. They will not remove them or move them because there is no policy requiring they not be listed in the authentic coin categories. Unless the policy is modified as I suggested, there is no policy violation, and reporting the items is a pointless exercise wasting everyones time.
Again, when they added the "Reproductions" categories in C & PM, they DID NOT require the reproductions be listed there. They suggested this is where they belonged, but there is no requirement.
My apologies. I misunderstood your first post which I now understand to be a request to make this an enforceable poliy. I will forward this to the policy team in charge for their consideration.
Posted by robshelp on Apr 24, 2009 9:00 PM
iFrame Follow-up and Picture Manager Hi Griff,
Thank you for your help investigating the new View Item page implementation. I just want to correct one possible misunderstanding regarding iframes and javascript. You wrote:
"No need to detect an iframe that's not displaying because of JS being diabled, since we'll serve a non-iframe version."
Well, it is possible for iframes to be disabled in a web browser without javascript also being disabled. So a separate test for the presence of the iframe during the rendering of the View Item page would be necessary to insure a shopper sees the item description. There's no way to make the iframe appear, I'm only asking if there will be a note put on the page to inform the shopper the item description is not showing (similar to the message appearing in My eBay that appears when javascript is disabled). Sorry, I'm feeling as though I'm being a pest about that!
No worries! I haven’t received a response back regarding this most recent question but when I do, I will post it separately. Now, on a separate topic... Many sellers are confused about what they need to do to adapt to Picture Manager being retired. Because there are so many sellers effected and they may have been creative in their use of Picture Manager, some unusual questions arise like the following...
First, a little explanation: eBay stores up to 6 different sizes of each photo uploaded to Picture Manager: Original, Supersize (800 pixels), New Preview Size (500 pixels), Standard (400), Preview(200), and Thumbnail(96). And, it is possible for a seller to have used any of those sizes in body of their item descriptions. They may have either used the Picture Manager graphic icon on the Description editor toolbar, used the Copy Web Links button in Picture Manager (to get the necessary HTML), or have learned eBay's file naming conventions to construct their own HTML (for the 800 pixel or 500 pixel versions).
No doubt, some Picture Manager users have selected for eBay to display up to 12 different Picture Manager photos in the usual places, PLUS have used the methods above to display them in the body of their item descriptions. In other words, the same photos are appearing in both places, but, within the item description, potentially in one or more of the 6 sizes stored in Picture Manager.
If those sellers simply allow their active listing photos to migrate from Picture Manager to EPS, will those other versions of the same photos continue to display in their item descriptions?
Asked another way: If, at time of migration, any given photo is being used in the standard manner for an active listing, will all the size versions eBay has created and stored (including the original) for that photo also be migrated in a manner that does not change their URLs?
If the seller’s photos where used in the slots for URLs that eBay provides (the standard manner), then the answer is “yes.” All sizes, including the original size, if the seller opted to create a copy of the original image, will still be available.
Posted by wearitsatvintage on Apr 24, 2009 9:10 PM
eBay Resolutions Questions Regarding the upcoming dispute process change from paypal to ebay:
I read that in cases of INR that ebay will determine based on sellers "promise" of shipping time (say 1-2 days) plus the post office delivery estimate (ebay says 3 days in most cases). It say that if the tracking shows that it will be delivered outside this timeframe that the seller would be held "accountable".
What exactly does this mean?
The CS reps that are facilitating Resolutions during this extended “test” phase of the project are being trained to use their judgment overall, but the template for the time required before a buyer can file a dispute reads like this:
Starting from the time and date of purchase, the time allowed for delivery = a seller’s stated handling time + a reasonable estimate of time to deliver based on the information provided by the carrier for the selected class of service + a 3 day buffer.
The buyer will not be able to file a claim with eBay until the above amount of time has passed. Once the buyer does file a claim, the seller has 5 days to address the issues on their own (during which time, a parcel that has been delayed past the amount of time allowed may arrive). For those instances where it is probable that the class of service and locations of the buyer and seller are responsible for a longer delivery time (i.e., Media Mail from a rural area to a distant delivery destination), the rep is allowed leeway to use their own judgment for a date on which the buyer can file the dispute. However, I should point out that this program is in a testing phase and during this phase, we are actively learning how to fine tune the program prior to a wider launch. So far, it is working well. I'm taking it to mean that ebay will refund the buyer and then go after the seller for the funds.
Not necessarily. If we can determine that a seller was not at fault, we may refund the buyer out of our own pocket with no consequences for the seller. And if this is the case and ebay refunds the buyer prior to the item arriving and goes after the sell for reimbursement of that refund. What happens with the item?, will and how would ebay force the buyer to return it?.
Or is their idea of "Holding the seller accountable" letting the buyer keep the item and ebay taking the money from the seller for the refund? So the seller is out the funds and the item?
There may be cases where eBay provides the refund and does not require the buyer to send the item back to the seller (where the item has been significantly damaged for example). It will depend on the particulars of the case but there are no plans to make any significant changes to the way SNAD cases are handled currently through PayPal which means that when a dispute and any subsequent appeals are decided in favor of the buyer, the buyer will, for the vast majority of cases, still be required to return the item to the seller before the seller (or eBay) issues a refund) Could you please clarify this for me.
If you haven’t done so already, please take a moment to read the FAQ points for eBay Resolutions. If you still have questions after reading the FAQ, feel free to post them here and I will do my best to provide answers.
Posted by efavorbags on Apr 24, 2009 9:55 PM
International Shipping Settings Not Applying Now I ask you:
Do you think I deserve a negative from these buyers?
Why does EBay want to force sellers to ship International against their will?
Why is Ebay not fixing the problem that is causing International buyers to buy items stated shipping within the USA only?
What else can I do to prevent International buyers from buying my items?
We do not want, wish or desire to ship International.
Then you need to set your Buyer Requirements.
Stating that you do not ship internationally does not alone prevent international buyers from bidding or buying. You must also use the Buyer Requirement for blocking buyers who are registered in countries to which you do not ship. (Click the link to read how.) ----------------
The above (in bold) is your response to ONLY one of my questions regarding International shipping posted April 19th
You have assumed that I am so stupid, thinking that just by stating in my listing that I do not ship international, it should prevent International buyers from bidding or buying!!!!
I know how to read and I have been around here for years
ALL associated preferences to sell within the USA only are and have been checked including:
Buyers in countries to which I don't ship
Block buyers who are registered in countries to which I don't ship.
Yet I am getting International buyers buying my items as detailed in my original post. Customer service are not responding to emails!!!!
So, I’ll ask you again based on the TWO specific cases I have stated in my original post (TWO buyers: UK and Latvia):
Do you think I deserve a negative from these buyers?
No and if you receive a negative from either buyer, it will be removed (I have verified this with Trust and Safety) And I apologize for not catching the “preferences” reference in your original post. I did not immediately infer it to mean Buyer Requirement. Why does EBay want to force sellers to ship International against their will?
We don’t. Apparently, this is a bug and is being addressed. (Trust and Safety should have emailed you by now. Let me know if they haven’t. Why is Ebay not fixing the problem that is causing International buyers to buy items stated shipping within the USA only?
We are working on it as we speak. (It is not widespread and thus, harder to nail down). What else can I do to prevent International buyers from buying my items?
Keep doing what you are doing now. If an international buyer bids on the item in spite of your settings, email me directly at griff@ebay.com using regular email (not My Messages) and I will forward to Trust and Safety for their attention.
Posted by crlrmr78 on Apr 25, 2009 5:12 AM
eBay DC Time Stamp Bug Hi Griff,
After reading posts and talking with my postal clerk regarding Delivery confirmation and how it's not actually a "tracking number", I no longer include that number in my email shipping notifications to my customers. Instead I refer them to the View Order Details page so they can see the status of their package.
I realized something after that.
I enter the DC# into the system the same day I ship. Let's say I shipped 4/20. When I go to the page it shows "Shipped 4/25" which is actually the CURRENT DATE , not the ship date. If the buyer doesn't know that's a link with more detail, they will think I shipped later than I did. We sellers need all the help we can get with shipping DSR's and this doesn't help.
I contacted Rich Matsuura (who heads up all things “Shipping” eBay) and one of his team members informs us that this is a bug and it is being addressed as we speak. The date that you are seeing is the last updated datePosted by notthe shipped date, however do to some formatting/layout issues on shipping status it appears as if the we are always reporting the item as shipped today. Needless to say this is a high priority issue, and our PD team is working to address it as soon as possible.
Posted by penguinsfan4life on Apr 25, 2009 2:37 PM
Half.com Support I'm reasking my question because you did not answer it the first time. In hindsight, maybe I did not explain the issue clearly.
I wanted to contact a buyer of a book on half.com about an issue with their address. The buyer does not answer emails. I call half.com, they tell me they cannot help me, and that I must go through ebay.com to receive their contact information. I contact livehelp and they tell me they can't even find the transaction; when I provide the transaction number and member's name, they tell me they cannot provide their contact informaation. I emailed half.com, they continued to refer me to livehelp.
Why does no one from live help know ANYTHING about half.com rules? Why can no one from either site provide a buyer's contact information for me? Why, every time I go to live help they tell me their "half.com specialist" (ha!) is not there, but I should try back in a few hours. Translation-they just are trying to get rid of me. So, I ask again, why does live help not offer any support to paying members of the ebay community, when there is NO logical reasoning for it? Why doesn't livehelp know the rules of the sites they are providing customer support to? The total lack of customer support (sellers are ebay's customers) is why ebay is struggling.
Although eBay does integrate Half.com items into eBay (and feedback and user id’s are shared between the sites), the actual support infrastructures are kept separate. Not being an expert on Half.com support questions, I sent this to an eBay CS rep and they forwarded it to a Half.com specialist who informed us that at Half.com, unlike at eBay, they do not give out user phone numbers. This is why if a person enters a Half.com transaction number into the Request Contact Info box on Advanced Search, it returns an error.
All Half.com support is handled through email (Half doesn’t have Live Chat or phone support at this time)
Posted by austiners on Apr 25, 2009 2:53 PM
Final Value Fee Credit Needed Griff
I need some help in getting my Final Value Fees back after a successful UPI dispute. The amount involved is very small, but it is the principle that I am concerned about. When we have an unpaid item, eBay should not profit from that event, now matter how small the amount.
I filed an unpaid item dispute for item 150303220015 for a purchase made on March 30, 2009.. The dispute was closed with no response from the buyer on April 20, 2009. I was credited with .87¢ in Final Value Fees when the actual Final Value Fees were $1.08.
I used Live Chat on April 23rd and again on April 24th and spoke with two different representatives. Both said that they credited my account with the additional .21¢ that I am due, but that credit has not shown up.
What do I need to do to get the entire $1.08 credited instead the partial credit I received?
Posted by austiners on Apr 25, 2009 5:46 PM
Final Value Fee Credit: Resolved Well, 24 hours later I received email from one of the Live Help reps that a "technical glitch" had prevented issuing the .21¢ credit. This rep went below the ordinary and found another way to issue the credit and it is now showing up in my account.
I appreciate this extra effort that made me whole after the UPI incident, but it is a warning for everyone to watch any FVF credit they may be eligible to receive. It is not always credited to your account accurately.
Glad to hear it worked out!
Posted by the-cash-man on Apr 25, 2009 8:04 PM
Private Auctions and Best Offer Suggestions > Hi Griff,
>
> You had just posted a reply to the-cash-man who complained about Private Auctions and who said how they would hit the back button whenever they saw one.
>
> This person concerns about private auctions were:
> “I get very skeptical of "private" auctions as I feel that they are a way to hide shill bidding. Their (sic) were legitimate sellers that were using these auctions to prevent fake second chance offers, and other spam from being sent to their bidders.
>
> The purpose of Private Auctions was to protect the privacy of buyers who were buying in adult categories. It has recently been used by sellers to keep "Best Offer" prices from showing up on Feedback Pages.”
>
> You replied to their post with: “Good point. I will forward to the appropriate team for their response.”
>
> I strongly disagree with the poster‘s logic. Private auctions are not just to protect the privacy of buyers in the adult categories. Some people just don’t want others to know what they are purchasing, period. And sellers actually have legitimate uses for the private auction format.
>
> I am one of those sellers that uses the private option for Buy It Now with Best Offer. Because I sell many repeat items, I use the private auction option so that any low ball offers I accept are NOT visible on mine or my Buyer’s feedback pages. This precludes other buyers from constantly giving me the lowest offer I had previously accepted. It makes good business sense.
>
> My strategy is not against eBay policy, nor do I consider it immoral. Neither do my buyers. All buyers are free not to participate in a private listing if they so choose. Do you understand my rationale for utilizing the private option and would you please NOT forward the-cash-man's request “to the appropriate team for their response.” ?
>
> Thank you.
I know this is Griff's thread but I just want to clarify. I am all for private listings. I am not suggesting that private auctions should go away, I'm suggesting that they should include the masked bidding ID's on the bid history page for private auctions. Nobody is going to know what the user ID is anyway so why not include them? This may or may not deter shill bidding but it would restore trust. If they displayed the bidding alias that show up on all other auction pages I would be much more likely to bid on private auctions.
Furthermore I also think it would be a great thing if the prices for "Best Offers" didn't show up on feedback on regular auctions. If I am selling an HDMI cable for $9.95, somebody wins it for $8 with a best offer. I don't see what the harm would be in displaying the $9.95 instead of $8 on the sellers feedback page.
In the interest of full disclosure, eBay has never hidden the final amount of a transaction. Best Offers are transactions. We would not hide the amount of a Best Offer transaction. If an item sellers for $8 on a Best Offer, we couldn’t display $9.95 as the final sale price because that would not be the amount for which the item eventually sold.
Posted by buriedbybooks on Apr 25, 2009 9:48 PM
eBay Resolution Questions The competition eBay is so bent on copying has a firm limit of 5 LIFETIME claims. But the anecdotal evidence seen here shows us that certain buyers are allowed to abuse this process without any repercussions whatsoever.
That is not true. And in fact, if it is determined that a buyer actually defrauded a seller (“Rock in a Box “scenario), eBay will take action against the buyer. I did not mention fraud, Griff. I mentioned using the SNAD policy to overturn a seller's return policy. Also known as filing a false SNAD claim for items that are accurately described.
If a buyer’s makes SNAD claim citing a reason that is clearly in line with the seller’s description (for example, the seller states the item condition as “used”, and the buyer claims the item is not in “new” condition) the claim is not awarded to the buyer. If you have had a SNAD complaint filed against you for this reason and you believe the outcome was unfair and was not reversed on appeal, please feel free to email the details to me and I will work on your behalf to reopen the case for reconsideration. If you know of someone who has been or is currently in this situation, you can also refer the seller to me. However, I trust you will understand that I cannot assist on hypothetical cases. What is being done to rein in those buyers?
Each case is reviewed on its own merits. This includes the past filing history for both the buyer and the seller. A buyer who files an inordinate number of claims could face a more detailed inspection of their past history but if the buyer’s past history does not show a pattern of abuse (and filing claims alone is not evidence of abuse), there would be no consequences for that buyer. Claims made for transactions over a certain value (undisclosed) or by buyers who have made previous claims are first investigated by a rep. So a seller like myself who sells low ASP items will likely not have a rep look at any claims unless appealed, correct?
That is correct for the existing PayPal dispute process. However, when the process is ported from PayPal to eBay (eBay Resolutions), all SNAD claims will be reviewed by a rep. Why doesn't Paypal/eBay put a FIRM limit on the number of times a buyer can file a SNAD dispute?
We don’t use a number. We use a percentage. Using a number wouldn’t make sense. And yet, that's what the competition does. And I have seen articles where that other site has banned customers for excessive returns. We have no such media coverage of Paypal doing the same.
Non-eBay sites may have a completely different transaction model. We are not building a resolution process based on that of any one competitor. We are building one that fits what is uniquely eBay’s transaction model. If a seller currently appeals a SNAD/INR claim decided against them and WINS, they are often told that they should 'recoup' the money from the buyer. As if the buyer would willingly return the funds??
Is eBay going to be fixing that issue as well? Will sellers be compensated by Paypal/eBay when appeals are decided in favor of the seller?
Has that ever happened to you? (Appealed a SNAD dispute where the buyer had already been refunded and was told by PayPal to “recoup from the buyer?”)
All of the current information regarding the upcoming eBay Resolutions program can be found Link here.
Posted by buriedbybooks on Apr 25, 2009 10:11 PM
More eBay Resolution Questions I have further questions on the new "3 days then refund guarantee " for late orders eBay is adding to the INR dispute process once it migrates to eBay from Paypal.
I know where eBay got this extremely ridiculous idea. But eBay also cherry-picked details out of the alphabetical guarantee policy and failed to include the protections for sellers.
And it's not just that lifetime limit I'm referring to, Griff. I'm also talking about this beauty:
For example, a U.S. order sent using the standard shipping option would become eligible for a claim 21 calendar days after the ship date (14 business days + 3 calendar days).
that's 14 business days instead of the 9 currently provided on eBay to customers. YES, I'm aware that the 9 business days is a carrier estimate. I'm also aware that it is completely and totally NOT the average delivery time for Media Mail.
Standard U.S.: 4 to 14 business days after shipping (may take up to 21 business days)
Expedited U.S.: 2 to 6 business days after shipping
At least that other place helps set correct buyer expectations. Unlike eBay.
How is reinforcing unrealistic delivery expectations at all helpful to sellers--big or small??
As I stated above in another response, the current Resolutions process is in a testing (learning) phase and reps are given leeway to exercise judgment in deciding the particulars of each case. If during this phase of the program, it is determined that the estimate guideline (seller handling time + carrier estimate + 3 days buffer) is not sufficient, we will alter it. One last point:
Colin Rule posted this on the special announcement forum:
The vast majority of claims are filed by buyers who only file a single claim each year. If a buyer files two or more claims then they quickly merit greater scrutiny from eBay and PayPal.
How does that mesh with your 'percentage' idea/method? Seems like even Colin is aware that someone filing more than an occasional SNAD should warrant a second look.
I'd say that any buyer who claims a significant percentage of their items arrive SNAD is guilty of not reading descriptions or is window shopping online at the seller's expense.
There is a difference between “merit greater scrutiny” and the immediate ban that you have proposed (based on a preset lifetime limit) or my statement about looking at percentages (the number of claims filed against the number of transactions a buyer has had). Given the unique eBay transaction model, we simply are not going to set in stone a pre-determined limit to the number of dispute claims any one member can report to eBay in their lifetime. As I pointed out earlier, there is a difference between five filed reports by a buyer who buys once or twice a year and five filed reports from someone who buyer 500 items a year. They are not equal and using a “one-size-fits-all” limit on the number of disputes for both cases would be grossly unfair.
Posted by ozzie3 on Apr 25, 2009 11:35 PM
Terms Of Service that Contradict eBay Policy Gtiff, Your seller "smartbargains" say this in their term of usage:
" 9. Risk of Loss. The items purchased from our Store are shipped by a third party carrier pursuant to a shipment contract. As a result, risk of loss and title for such items pass to you upon our delivery to the carrier"
I thought you said that the seller had to deliver to the buyer at the buyer's location!
I did say that and it is correct (an eBay seller is responsible for delivering the item to the buyer’s location If I put that in my auctions will it override Paypal and eBay?
No it won’t. Or is that really what the user agreement says in reference to UCC 2401 (2) in the ebay user agreement? Which is it? PayPal's versions or eBay user agreement as shown by smartbargains statements in there agreement?
A seller’s stated Terms of Service do not trump the eBay User Agreement. The [eBay] User Agreement is pretty clear. It states sellers will not:
“…fail to deliver items purchased from you, unless the buyer fails to meet the posted terms, or you cannot authenticate the buyer's identity;”…
Further (my underline and highlight):
“… nothing in this agreement shall modify the governing provisions of California Commercial Code § 2401(2) and Uniform Commercial Code § 2-401(2), under which legal ownership of an item is transferred upon physical delivery of the item to the buyer by the seller. Unless the buyer and the seller agree otherwise, the buyer will become the item's lawful owner upon physical receipt of the item from the seller, in accordance with California Commercial Code § 2401(2) and Uniform Commercial Code § 2-401(2).”
It doesn’t state that the seller can pass the buck to the shipping carrier.
eBay will still hold the seller responsible unless they can prove physical delivery of the item.
We never support the seller’s terms - it is the seller’s responsibility to enforce their own terms. Currently, we don’t prohibit a seller from stating a TOS like this one. (That could change in the near future). However, we would not indemnify the seller just because they state in their listing that they transfer ownership once they deliver the item to the carrier. If a buyer filed an INR and the seller couldn’t prove deliver confirmation to the buyer’s address, the buyer would succeed in their INR claim.
Posted by etown99 on Apr 26, 2009 10:20 AM
Featured Listings Featuring Less-Than-Stellar Sellers Another one....
I'm researching the price of an item. I look at active listings. There is one featured auction for this item.
The seller has 168 FB and is sitting at a cool 95.5% FB. He also has a 4.0 DSR. And naturally, he is placed at the Top of page one.
Question - How does putting a seller like this, with very poor business skills, and lousy customer service, above a ton of excellent sellers identical items (just because he spent the enhanced visibility bucks to Ebay) enhance the buyer experience?
It’s a good point. It’s why we are considering limiting Featured Listings to only sellers with high ratings and feedback. (some of us would like to eliminate featured listings altogether.) Any changes of this nature to Featured listings would come in the second half of this year at the earliest. So.... I go to toolhaus to view exactly what his Negs are...and I receive this message from Toolhaus...
Error: eBay has blocked access to feedback. Toolhaus is unable to obtain information which is available only to registered eBay users. We're not happy about this.
Question - What is this all about? Just because Ebay doesn't want unregistered users perusing FB, you penalize ALL Ebay registered users?
The site referenced above is not an eBay site. eBay has absolutely no obligation to provide data to a third party site or company. Question - Is Ebay going to replace or work with Toolhaus to enable Ebay registered users to view FB history?
No.
Posted by joyfull-one on Apr 26, 2009 10:34 AM
Negative Feedback Question I am a small time seller who because of health reasons needs to take time off from selling so the quanity of Ebay feedback is not very high. I have 100% right now, but have just completed a transaction with a lady who did not comply with my auction payment terms which are 'payment, or contact within 2 days of the auction ending. So after 2 days I sent her a nice reminder asking her to remit payment or to contact me. She did neither. So I sent another reminder asking her to remit payment, or contact me with her intentions. She did neither. Meanwhile, I could see by the feedback she was leaving that she was on Ebay during that time. I sent another reminder and again, no response.
So after the 7 days I filed a claim. The same day I got a message from her that " it was discraceful to file a claim 2 days after sending invoice." I messaged her back giving her the dates of all three invoices.
Well long story short, the next day she paid and include a message saying
"FOR FEEDBACK
Please include your Ebay name and a copy of the invoice so I can leave you feedback."
I don't have to be a rocket scientist to know what that means. Will Ebay allow neg. feedback to stand in these circumstances?
Barring any other circumstances? Yes, we will allow it to stand. Leaving negative feedback for a case like this is not grounds for removal of that feedback. And if so, how in the world can that possibly be fair? To me, or to other sellers who have no way of knowing how this woman conducts her affairs. Sure, she paid, but only because she didn't want a strike, and probably because she really wants to get back at me for filing a claim.
Feedback has never been prohibited or removed because it was judged “unfair.” Some may disagree with this but it doesn’t change the current feedback policy. (If a buyer eventually pays, they get to leave feedback).
Knowing this, and knowing that this feedback policy detail won’t change in the near term, sellers in this situation should follow a service strategy that helps to lessen the chance of receiving a negative feedback.
You didn’t reveal what your actual response was to her first email after the claim was filed but for what it’s worth, if I had been in your position, I would have sent polite email apology explaining that since I hadn’t received a response, (maybe the buyer’s email filters were moving my emails to a junk or spam folder) and that in order to relist the item, I had to file a UPI claim. I would also assure the buyer that her payment is appreciated, that I was relieved we were able to finally connect and that the claim was nothing personal. Maybe, I would phone the buyer. Would that work to help prevent a negative? Maybe. Maybe not. But I would definitely take the chance.
I have found that on eBay, as in most things, communication can solve most problems, including misunderstandings between online buyers and sellers.
Posted by buriedbybooks on Apr 26, 2009 11:16 AM
SNAD Claims from International Buyers Griff,
Regarding Paypal SNAD appeals, what does Paypal do in cases of International buyer fraud?
Police reports are often not obtainable in cases where the other party is out of the country.
(I am asking on behalf of a seller who was defrauded last year by an international buyer and was told by Paypal that due to the international location of the buyer, there was nothing they could do).
Although I don’t have the details of the case you reference for a transaction that happened last year, we (eBay and PayPal) actually follow the same process for international users that we do for US buyers and sellers on SNAD Appeals. We have received police reports from all over the world and we have had US sellers provide police incident reports for transactions where the buyer is located outside of the US. Since we are not asking the seller or the police to take any action against the buyer, but rather just document the incident, this shouldn’t prevent the incident report from being obtained. If the item is valued at less than $199, the seller can still file a PayPal-provided affidavit in lieu of a police report. PayPal will take the same action against a buyer outside of the US as we would for a US buyer in cases of confirmed buyer fraud.
Posted by acetremendous on Apr 26, 2009 11:51 AM
Thanks First of all, as you may know, I don't particularly approve of this thread and do not think that it is appropriate, or even acceptable, to have a special customer service person like you who can pull strings to do special favors for people who email him directly.
Because of this I have mostly refrained from posting here (though I do keep up reading it). People debate about your motives, but to me, how much of your "heart" is in it is irrelevant; I simply don't think a business should grant special favors on a personal basis.
I disagree of course. I don’t view my presence here or my efforts beyond this forum to be granting “special favors.” I try to provide resolution and assistance to all sellers (and buyers too) who find themselves in need. That could be helping resolve a dispute, revisit a Trust and Safety ruling, help with a seller’s listings and business strategy, help explain eBay policy and maybe provide a little insight into the “how” and “why” of eBay’s marketplace stewardship. And this is not a one-way process. I also take input and comments from sellers both here and from email and in person visits and bring it to the big table.
Anyone is free to email me. I offer this of my own volition. No one here at eBay, (And I mean no one) requires me to do this. It’s not part of my job description. I don’t work officially in customer support but I take my legacy as eBay’s first customer support rep very seriously and all of our customer support reps have my respect and appreciation for the job they do).
That’s why I am here. However, that said, you are the only source of communication between sellers and Ebay corporate, so I thought it couldn't hurt to post here to thank the company for a few good things. I want to encourage more good things no matter how small, and I believe in giving credit where it's due. I hope you can pass the following along to the appropriate people/departments:
First, thanks for the minor improvements that have been made to My Ebay. It's still a lot clunkier and more annoying to use than the old version, but the following changes have been helpful:
* Thanks for replacing the total # of bids to the Summary
* Thanks for fixing whatever it is that creates the title of each page in my browser History - at first, all the History pages just said "My Ebay", now they say "My Ebay - Sold", "My Ebay - Selling", etc. That really helps in juggling multiple tasks.
* Thanks for adding "Messages" to the My Ebay tab at the top of each page
*Thanks for adjusting the stuff on the left hand side of the page, it wasn't displaying correctly for the first week or two (and kept reverting to default).
* Thanks for adding the Buyer Satisfaction/DSR chart to the Dashboard, so we can see if and when we receive sub-3 DSRs.
Unlike a lot of sellers, I feel OK about the new item page. It looks OK, and the new large picture is a bit bigger than the old large picture. I was initially concerned because the early versions did not have as many available options for the seller, and sometimes it is inconvenient to go back to My Ebay to make a change, relist, or whatever.
* Thanks for putting Revise Your Item back - in early versions, it was not there.
* Thanks for fixing whatever was wrong with Sell Similar. (In early versions of the page, that link brought you to a nearly-blank SYI form.)
* Thanks for making sure that Relist Your Item is there. It seemed to disappear and reappear a few times on the early version.
And finally, on a less important note, thanks for restoring FULL user IDs here on the boards. The truncated IDs were ugly and silly.
Thanks in advance for any further fixes of functions that don't work, or only work erratically.
(In case anyone is wondering, nothing about this post is meant to be sarcastic.)
Thank you for your thanks! I will share them with the rest of my team (Seller Experience) and with exec staff as well.
Posted by hawgryders on Apr 26, 2009 12:40 PM
Why Not My Messages? Mr. Griffith
My question has to do with your insistence to only be contacted directly and not through the eBay message system
As a seller / buyer I am no longer given the opportunity to contact a trading partner in any way other than the eBay message system until after they pay, and then I am given the outside contact info by PayPal not eBay
So I was just wondering ...
[Why are we forced to use a message system that keeps the actual identities of other trading partners secret but you refuse to use this system ?]
I don’t refuse to use it… I use it everyday…as a buyer or seller. My Messages is intended for buyer-seller, and eBay-to-member communications. However, it was never intended for eBay-employees-to-eBay-member communications. It wasn’t built for that purpose. For example, I cannot forward My Message emails to another team member or department for assistance which means I cannot create or track topic threads. I cannot add screen shots or attachments. And finally, I cannot archive My Message emails in a format that works with the rest of my email (MS Exchange) So, in order to track, forward, add attachments and screen shots and archive email from eBay customers, I need it sent to me directly through our Exchange server via griff@ebay.com.
As for “keeping your trading partners identities secret” any buyer or seller in a completed transaction can request and receive the name and contact information (including phone numbers but excluding street addresses and numbers) through the Request Contact Information link on Advanced Search. In addition, a seller in a completed transaction receives the buyer’s complete name and address after the sale closes.
Posted by lurch-deeann on Apr 26, 2009 2:32 PM
Future eBay Seller Program Even though I'm still awaiting a response to my other question re. SPP and the coming INR/lost mail time calculations, I have another topic as well.
Last week I did a survey on a new seller status that eBay is looking at. Specifically, "eBay Approved Seller."
I have a number of issues with what I was presented throughout the course of the survey. First off, the definition currently under consideration would consist of 3 things a seller would have to do (this is a copy paste from the survey):
In order to be included in the new eBay Approved Seller category on eBay, a seller must meet ALL of the following criteria:
* Maintain a sales level of 100 items per year; AND
* Maintain an average of 4.6 or better (1 to 5 scale) on each Detailed Seller Rating (DSR): Item Description, Communications, Shipping Time and Shipping Charge; AND
* At least 99% of buyer ratings on each Detailed Seller Rating are 3 or higher (1 to 5 scale)
First of all, I find the label offensive. It could easily imply that those who are not "approved" by eBay (which could simply be because they don't sell enough items) could be viewed as "disapproved" by eBay. Oh - and I'm sure Best Match will be a part of this, too...
I am not familiar with the details of this survey. However, I can absolutely guarantee that the final program will not be called “approved sellers.” Secondly, I have a problem with the sales level. eBay would not "approve" someone simply because they sell 99 items? Or 77 items, even though they're perfect sellers?
The final sales volume qualifications have not been nailed down but they will most likely be 100 items per year. And yes, that means a seller with 99 sales a year won’t qualify. Solution? List and sell enough items to qualify. This comes out to 9 items a month or 2.5 items a week – well within the reach of a majority of small (consumer and hobby) sellers. Third, if one does sell 100 items, it would only take a rating of 2 or lower in either two categories of DSRs (by one buyer) or 2 people rating a 2 or lower in one category of DSRs for the entire year for the seller to suddenly be "disapproved" by eBay.
No, that is not necessarily correct. We are also reviewing how DSRs might factor into the final program. Given the fact that you state you always leave feedback for the buyer at payment, do you see the irony that it looks like you would not be an eBay Approved Seller if this went into place tomorrow? I counted 77 (plus or minus one, potentially) feedbacks you have left for buyers in the last 12 months. Your sales level would not be high enough (your listing level may be, but not sales level). Message to buyers: "Griff (on buyer/seller id) is a seller who is not approved by eBay."
Again, the program will not be called “approved sellers.” Second, any program of this nature will have eligibility requirements so I wouldn’t find it ironic or surprising. If I didn’t qualify and if I wanted to qualify for a program like this one, and my current annual sales volume is lower than the required amount of items necessary, I would simply list more items. So my question is: as seller advocate, will you commit to advocating either abandoning this idea, or at the very least, change the label to something less divisive and revisit the qualification levels? I don't see this ultimately being something which will be helpful or healthy to the community or the marketplace. And now is the time for someone to lobby/advocate, given it is currently being considered.
I did advocate for changing the name. The final name under consideration will be released later this year (it probably won’t please everyone but it won’t be as onerous as “approved seller” which is not what the program will be called) The final decision regarding qualification criteria will be made in the near future but it will include a transaction volume qualification and it will probably be 100 transactions annually.
I am 100% for a program of this nature. Why? Because it will recognize first-and-foremost, seller quality, instead of quantity (customer satisfaction v.s. sales volume). In fact, sales volume in dollars will not be a factor for membership. This new program will will be attainable by any seller, small or large, regardless of category, with a high quality of customer service, and it will provide solid, tangible benefits to those sellers (said benefits will be announced upon launch of the final program in the future).
Posted by lurch-deeann on Apr 26, 2009 2:56 PM
eBay Listings On Shopping.com Hmm - sorry about another issue, but this just came up. Prior to prepping some listings, I decided to look for tortilla warmers, preferably clay, something I've been meaning to get for awhile now. Only found one on eBay, so went to google. A search there served up this page at shopping.com (which I believe ebay owns):
Link
Right there on the page is a link to one on eBay (but not clay). I decided to check it out, and it takes me to:
Link
Now - a couple of things about this page (and I'm not familiar with the "itemlistings.ebay.com" level) - and this IS an active item:
1) I did not notice until *just* now when getting the tinyurl, that there is a link to "view full description" - not good;
2) It states: Shipping Cost: See Details - yet there are no details - you have to notice the "view full description" - so shipping cost is not displayed - just "buy now"
3) Rather than displaying the details, it shows other items from other sellers on eBay;
4) Below that, are off eBay links?!? Keep in mind, this is an active listing.
This can't be good for the seller of this item, and not displaying details OR shipping cost can't be good for buyers, either. In fact, I'm not sure *who* this is good for.
But if this seems as wonky to you as it does to me, can you forward it along to whoever should look into it? It really seems it should just give the active listing -- and in full -- when coming in from shopping.com
I also want to reiterate - I didn't see the "view full description" - I only initially found the details by clicking on their store, then searching for tortilla.
Thank you for you comments regarding the special Shopping.com eBay view item pages (available to any shopper who enters eBay through a Shopping.com search). I would be happy to forward them to the Shopping.com team.
I cannot promise that this will result in a change to either the current layout of this page or the format of the eBay items pages served up in Shopping.com searches. The page view you see when coming through Shopping.com is unique to this search path and only displays when someone clicks on an eBay listing in a Shopping.com search. The complete View Item page on eBay for a single eBay item on Shopping.com is accessible by clicking the “View Full Description” link.
Posted by 6141garyc on Apr 26, 2009 5:30 PM
Shipping an eBay Item to Someone Other Than The Buyer of Record. I sold a bike to a registered ebay member.they had me ship it to a nonregistered member.am I responsible if they puncture an inner tube and want me to replace it?
Without knowing more detail, it would be hard to provide a definitive answer but generally, shipping an item to someone other than the buyer of record does entail the assumption of risk on the part of the seller. If the transaction was completed with PayPal and the buyer subsequently complains that the item never arrived and the address to which you shipped the item is not one of the addresses in the buyer’s PayPal account, you could be held liable if the item is not delivered of the buyer files an Significantly Not As Described complaint.
Posted by zboo2 on Apr 26, 2009 10:28 PM
Change That Darn Avatar! Griff, this should be a pretty easy one to get done and get right.
If each month's AG thread is going to continue to be pinned to the top of SC, could you please come up with some different mug shots, something maybe to reflect time/season of the year?
I confess that I am not so sure any photo of this old mug will ever be palatable to all but we coincidentally, just had new corporate head shots taken of execs and high profile types. Once they are ready, I will replace the existing mug shot with one of them (they are not that bad actually. Amazing the imperfections a generous schmearing of Vaseline can fix.) Thanks
Posted by celtictwo on Apr 27, 2009 1:58 AM
PayPal Notifications Griff;
For almost a month I have had a PayPal problem. My notifications from PayPal (payment & shipping), have been arriving into my email up to 6 days after the transaction. I have had conversations with PayPal about this issue with the usual troubleshooting guidance - i.e my browser cache and cookies. I do not have this problem with other sites that send email notifications.
I think I can safely assume that if I'm having this problem, so are some others. So, my question is - What kind of intervention and/or support can I expect from eBay when a buyer dings my Communication or Shipping Time DSR's or leaves less than kind feedback. After all, concerning this issue, it is neither the seller's fault nor the buyer's fault. Blame rests squarely upon eBay!
Have your buyers complained that the notifications are delayed on their end? If so, let me know. Send me an email via griff@ebay.com using your regular email, not My Messages. I will have someone from PayPal take a closer look.
Posted by celtictwo on Apr 27, 2009 2:33 AM
A Search Question Griff,
This isn't a question, just something I thought might interest you.
My wife was looking for a DVD set of The Tudors, season one. She did her search and only one result showed up. The price on the DVD set was quite high and certainly not a bargain, but it was apparently the only one available and apparently scarce. Not believing that only one set showed up, together we re-checked her search criteria (i.e. keyword spelling, format, etc). Everything looked OK, so we did the BIN on the item. After the purchase was completed and paid for, we got the usual box of "You also might be interested in these items"! There were further sets of these DVDs available from other sellers (a total of 34)! Over half of these were less expensive than the one we just purchased. Needless to say, as buyers, we weren't very pleased.
Without screen shots, there is no way I can duplicate what you saw. I searched on “the tudors” in DVDs and found the following:
Link
at the time of the search, there are 88 items.
Are you absolutely certain you searched on the keywords “the tudors”?
Posted by buriedbybooks on Apr 27, 2009 6:51 AM
Article About Resolutions Griff, I have an article I'd like a response to.
It's from Ina (no groaning, please)
In particular is this quote:
"When going through the dispute process, both buyers said they explained the situation to an eBay representative by phone and were immediately refunded,
and the sellers suspended. "
The bolded part is particularly worrisome to me. Immediate refunds without contacting the seller AND immediate suspension of the seller.
This directly contradicts what we've been told will happen with this new dispute process. None of the early reports of this dispute process have shown ANY delay between the phone call and the refund. Meaning that the buyer kept the item (if shipped), the seller was not allowed to tell his or her side of the situation, and in some cases the sellers were suspended!
I'm hoping you can reassure us that sellers will not be immediately suspended based on disputes where they are not contacted at all. Because that sure appears to be what happened here.
Although I certainly cannot comment on a situation relayed third-hand lacking critical details like user ids, transaction numbers, etc., I can assure you that no seller would be immediately suspended as a consequence of one dispute in the upcoming eBay Resolution program without previous or mitigating circumstances such as a chronic history of high customer dissatisfaction reports/disputes or a seriously egregious violation of eBay policy.
And I should mention one other piece of the Resolutions program that will be significantly different than the current process: Resolution reps will able to take into account a seller's past history and good standing with eBay when deciding a case.
Finally, all details of the program, currently under testing and not finalized, will be completely disclosed upon launch in mid year. I would strongly recommend that all sellers look first to eBay for accurate information and details regarding this and any eBay program, feature, policy or change.
Posted by ticeland on Apr 27, 2009 9:01 AM
Resolutions Staff Training Hi Griff,
First, thank you for trying to help here.
This is a serious question, I am not being flippant here.
For years I answered questions on the AC. Time and again, we saw where live help gave marginal, irrelevant and out and out wrong answers. Email help is also famous for giving amazingly irrelevant answers. The idea that there aren't bots makes that even more amazing.
If ebay employees are going to be deciding a sellers fate when it comes to their disputes, is somebody going to give them actual intense training on policy? More training than is normally given. Or are they going to be given scripts, with black and white, no deviation flow charts and told to get to work?
I am very concerned about this change. and across two IDs I can count on one hand the number of disputes I have had since 1999. Why am i concerned? because as soon as people figure out that if the post office delays their package they can get it for free, I anticipate more disputes.
So I guess my question is how much training are these cs reps going to be provided and will we have an appeals process?
Resolutions will be staffed with fully-trained, highly qualified and monitored reps.
Posted by bikerhal on Apr 27, 2009 9:53 AM
Questions/Confusion about eBay Policy You sometimes see on Discussion Boards page after page of discussion about a certain policy with knowledgeable people disagreeing, one of the reasons being is that the eBay policy is ambiguous or conflicting. Yet, eBay seems to ignore these issues and keeps them ambiguous. Here are some examples – will you please provide some guidance?
Sure. To be clear, I asked Brian Burke to provide a response to questions 1 and 2. The others I will answer myself. 1) Seller states payment must be made in 2 days or item will be relisted. Is this allowed?
(From Brian Burke) Yes. Sellers can set any terms they want regarding payment due dates and relisting. The seller can relist the item immediately after the item ends if they choose. When discussing this issue, sellers tend to misinterpret the UPI policy that requires the seller to wait 7 days to file a UPI claim and another 7 days to close the UPI claim. They view the 7 days as a restriction - it is not.
These UPI timelines (about to be shortened by the way) are to encourage the seller to communicate with the buyer. They don’t preclude the seller from relisting their item before the 7 day period.
Note: Having the policy doesn’t protect the seller from receiving negative or neutral feedabc. So if a seller wishes to have a policy like this they should be crystal clear in the item description so that all buyers understand if they are late on the payment, the seller will relist and file unpaid item against the buyer. 2) Someone with zero feedback snipes auction. Seller’s TOS has requirement that feedback must be at least 10. Seller refuses to complete transaction. Is this allowed?
(From Brian Burke) Yes it is allowed, but it is probably the wrong attitude from the seller unless there is other information about the buyer, such as the buyer states they are underage, the buyer doesn’t respond to email/phone, their contact information isn’t accurate, etc. Not all zero feedback buyers present transaction problems. Keep in mind that all buyers start with zero feedback.
Even though the seller can refuse to sell to the buyer in this situation, the buyer can also leave the seller FB - the seller receives no protection from eBay regarding their terms. They must enforce them via the courts if they wish.
If the buyer paid and the seller doesn’t refund the buyer (or ship the item) it is seller fraud, regardless of what the terms state.
The User Agreement specifies that sellers must “…deliver the item to the buyer who purchased the item, unless the buyer fails to meet the posted terms…” So a seller with terms where they refuse to sell to a 0 FB buyer would enable them to avoid such a sale, but it is a bad buying experience and a seller who receives a N/N, low DSR or INR may have be limited from becoming a PowerSeller (min 4.5) or receiving other benefits. 3) Seller pays someone to ship books. Average handling cost per shipment is $2 making the total S&H cost more than the $4 maximum even for a small paperback. Is this permitted? Or seller charges for his own time to ship that increases the cost to over $4. Is this permitted?
No. If the seller is using a flat rate shipping option (standard flat rate), the item’s shipping cost must be in line with the shipping limits for that category. 4) eBay does not explicitly state the reason for restricting a seller or cancelling a listing. Why?
Trust and Safety informs a seller whose listing is ended or whose selling is restricted exactly why, or at least they should. If you find that this is not the case, feel free to email the details to me. However, for privacy, we don’t reveal the details of any account action to anyone but the person against whom the action was taken. 5) eBay does not allow “like new” in a title but using that exact term as a Condition option in the Sell Your Item form. Why?
Title Search and Keywod realities. When searching using the keyword, "new" items that have the phrase, “like new” in the title (which by definition, means "not new") will also show up. There is no way to prevent this. So, to prevent not new items from showing up a keyword search of "new," we prohibit the use of the keyword phrase "like new."
However, as a separate data piece like an item specific or tag or condition term, which is not a part of the item title, the phrase "like new" is allowed because an item marked as “like new” in this manner will not be returned in a title search of “new.”
There are two questions posted by fromus2u on Apr 26, 2009 9:29 AM and on Apr 26, 2009 9:18 AM for which I still do not have a verified responses. When I do receive the information necessary for crafting responses, I will post it here.
The thread is now open for the weekend.
Regards,
Griff
Jim Griffith
_____________
eBay Inc